RE: FO3(Turnbased vs Realtime I reckon was the original topi
I am sure this guy will never see my wonderful reply, but I have
to agree, that real-time just doesn't do it for me either. I like turn based, anyone else remeber the Dark Ages of RPG's pen paper dice? You spent more time blathering at each other and making a fun story than you did fighting mass battles and figuring "to-hit" rolls and "reaction modifiers" etc... It WAS about the story, the mission, trying to find the tricks and traps. Don't get me wrong, I am not lamenting the advent of the computer, but it just seems that with the advent of it (specific to RPG's anyhow) that the story part, the creative free-formity of it (to bastardize the language a bit) has suffered. It seems that we have lost the characters and gained a giant list of ITEMS. Less is sometimes more. The computer has freed us from the monotony of dice rolling and all that, but it seems that now that we don't have to keep track of the HP's and to-hits etc that we are suddenly addicted to the battles. It's fun to fight sure, but the story element is suffering... it's almost like a book right? Who wants to read a book where all that EVER happens is fight, fight, fight, kill more baddies.... You need mysteries to solve, and neat people to talk to. I guess I am getting away from my turn-based arguement, but coming from the old pen and paper days, it gave you a bit more time to think, and ROLE-PLAY.
If your main character is about to die in real time, you have to do what you know you have to to keep him/her alive, that pause between turns is vital to a RPG I think. Real-time takes to much away from that.
Anyhow, I am sure no one will read this as this discussion seems to have turned into a comic insider laugh fest. I got my fair share of chuckles out of it I must admit. Why do I waste my time?
--pate