Roshambo said:
It seems someone else has bought the RT&P Fallacy, which has been debunked a number of times. Besides, there's a difference between turn-based and real-time, distinctively. Unfortunately, I have no idea where to begin to cover the extent to your ignorance of the subject (mainly because your babble has no connection with game design nor reality), so I'll just say you're completely fucked up.
I'm the ignorant one and yet you're the one calling me names and on top of that people are messing with my account?
I don't see why my theory is so wrong. Take Baldur's Gate for example, it is NOT turn based in the strickest sense. HOWEVER all of the combat actions, the ability to hit the enemy, how much damage is done etc is all governed by turn based dice rolling. Right?
So whilst the game appears to be moving in real time the result of the combat adheres to a turn based system (eg. your turn, enemies turn, your turn, enemies turn).
It's not as simple as "click faster to win". Even if you attack someone and then quickly change your target to a different enemy the next attack will not occur until your turn roles around again.
the only difference is in movement, but even then it's possible to have a system whereby the distance you move is calculated into the next couple of automatic turns that occur simply as code and make it so that you're attack might not come until the enemy has attacked.
Part of my point was that even when a game is completely real time rather then turn based the pattern of decision making (the choices you're going to make) stays relatively the same.
Moving a team mate into a flanking position in real time is the same as moving a team mate into a flanking position in turn based because they BOTH achieve the ultimate goal of moving the team mate into a flanking position and isn't that what's important? If you think that you can't achieve the same amount of micromanagement in real time isn't that what pausing is for?
Anyway, I'm not going to argue anymore, I've said my piece.
But I do want to say that if you want to be seen as an intelligent person don't lambast someone just for not agreeing with you and definately don't mess around with their account, I don't appreciate it and it completely cheapens any arguments you might've wanted to make.
If we're both sensible people we should be able to discuss or argue things without resorting to personal attacks.
Roshambo said:
Then you had to try and use the "well...it doesn't matter if they deviate from the formula fans expect, in that it resembles a P&P RPG, all it needs is the story and setting". Try telling that to the number of other people chafed by the license-whoring of other titles...
So agreeing with everyone is what's important to you then is it? So what if no one agrees? There's a reason that expansion packs are made up mostly of new areas, quests, characters and storylines... because they're what makes up the substance of the game, not fights.
Sure most expansions have new monsters in them but never ONLY monsters. My points are just as valid and there are many people who care about PA games or the PA setting without having the whole thing have to be hinged on turn based fighting.
. It would be a nice thought though if Bethesda actually did contact Troika with questions about the setting and story ideas. I think I could go for that niceness.
