computer games forum

fabulaparva wrote:I greatly dislike most of what is called "real"-time.... unless we're talking about online fighting against other players and even then I often prefer turn-based games. I can work with anything turn-based, so I don't really have a preference there. I'm a Civilization-level-strategy-game-type-of-player, not first-person-shooter-type.

Real time games can have a lot of strategic value to them too, Pillars Of Eternity would be a great example.

I agree, though the problem is that when it's real time is harder to understand what you did.
Did you won the battle because your warrior did a lot of damage? because the healer healed fast? or the mage paralyzed that enemy ranger at the right moment?
You can check the battle log of course, but it's all a bit lost in the chaos of the battle I think

The main difference between turn-based and real time is the latter puts the player are under pressure to act faster and constantly. Whether or not they offer in the way of strategy depends on the individual games.

I think in general real-time works best with RPG having a single main character (maybe some henchmen, but not a whole party) while turn based works better with a party

Except turn based works better with everything.

Interestingly enough, since I haven't played the Pillars of Eternity, I googled a bit and found this advise for the game posted on the Steam community forum:

"Pillars of Eternity: Basic Combat Guide
By Caelinus
Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pause Button.
1: Forget that Pillars of Eternity is a real time game. Do not play it in real time."


It just seems that once you go past the strategies you can alter while thinking on your feet, (aka FPS, or one person RPG), the pause button emerges. Same thing with Europa Universalis 2, complex strategy/historic campaign game that is supposed to be real time and that I always ended up playing by endless pause button maneuvering. And this is just my opinion, but I think that turn-based mechanics just work naturally better with really complex strategies (hence the 'Civilization-level'), without any artificial additions... like a pause button...which kinda makes it not..real..time.

Anyways, I'll agree with the three above posts and exit outta here.

jack1974 wrote:Same for me, though sadly that basically means having a map who knows maybe one day I'll make one. For sure it cannot involve a big variety of enemies or party members (doing isometric animated sprites is super time-money consuming). Something like Banner Saga in which there is very little variety of enemy/party members could be possible though

I do prefer animated sprites, but it isn't absolutely necessary, or least not something particularly fancy. Banner Saga had beautiful presentation. But it also had a $700k budget and took longer than anticipated to complete, even with the limited units and small maps. Something as simple units as sliding across the ground for movement and special effects for attacking might be more reasonable.

Yes I love the "XX General" series. One of the games I wanted to make years ago, before I went into manga and VNs, was a Fantasy General style game Or even Heroes of Might & Magic, the early titles are 2d and sprites seen from left to right, so even with animation is much less frames needed than a full isometric game.
I need to find someone to code me an hex-map with pathfinding though, since I have no clue how to do that

A hex grid is aesthetically pleasing, but it may not be needed depending on how you design your combat. A square grid can work just fine.

True, I think Fire Emblem has square grid?