Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Right i`ll leave the link to the other guy then, sorry
Surprise - a talk with Leon!
- Thread starter Odin
- Start date
Lived Through the Heat Death
That pic has nice graphics indeed, but I dont like art itself. I'm no mecha hater but robot looks silly to me. Human is ok but again weapon is strange. I assume it's that halabard/rifle thing we've seen in other pic posted sometime ago.
I like idea of having influence on terrain but I'd like to see it more like a way of achiving something like making a path through rocks or making hole in wall to have good shooting place rather than just smashing things to see cool animations ( which doesn't sound that bad idea though )
And I agree to some who posted it before. I'd more like to see one combat system perfected and additional resources spend on improving game itself and not wasted to add another combat system for sake of adding it.
Hmm, that article Briosafreak gave is nice read, but it's not too helpfull. I mean info there is nicely put but indepth look's conclusions only show writers likes and rather one sided poit of view. I mean he judges tb versus rt with pause by interface and access to actions and character developement. All points stated there are only matter of game itself and not matter of real diffenence betwen these two aproaches to maitaining combat. Good example is game called evil islands. It's rt with pause. Still it has some mor esophisticated options while fighting like ability to aim in particular body parts or taking different stances. No big problem apparently. There is no thing as leves of experience, rather experience points. It's not something boring but nice and fun watching character gathering experience and constantly increase life and vigor ( mana ) as something new and oposite to experience level ups so valued by articles author.
Unfortunetly there is no such thing as using terrain cover to players advantage. But it's so aparent in many rt games, especialy fps games. In fps games you use walls, holes etc to cover either frm bullets or to avoid being seen. If game will lag it will be paused so you can teoreticaly think what to do next before lag is over. Now how about changing first person to third person perspective and give player option to lag everytime he wants ? So it's just using terrain in rt with pause game with third person perspective look.
And last thing ..... argument what if two things happen in the same time ( like example of moving 2 pawns on the same field on the same time ). Well, it's only up to rules. If it's rpg game there is something like statistics of particular character ( like initiative for derermining who will perform some action first etc etc ) which can handle similar situations even better.
So unless I overlooked something that article is just stating about ease of use particular combat system and presenting things in some personal point of view including likes and dislikes.
I'm not saying it's bad article. I liked it. But it's not bringing anything new unfortunetly.
I like idea of having influence on terrain but I'd like to see it more like a way of achiving something like making a path through rocks or making hole in wall to have good shooting place rather than just smashing things to see cool animations ( which doesn't sound that bad idea though )
And I agree to some who posted it before. I'd more like to see one combat system perfected and additional resources spend on improving game itself and not wasted to add another combat system for sake of adding it.
Hmm, that article Briosafreak gave is nice read, but it's not too helpfull. I mean info there is nicely put but indepth look's conclusions only show writers likes and rather one sided poit of view. I mean he judges tb versus rt with pause by interface and access to actions and character developement. All points stated there are only matter of game itself and not matter of real diffenence betwen these two aproaches to maitaining combat. Good example is game called evil islands. It's rt with pause. Still it has some mor esophisticated options while fighting like ability to aim in particular body parts or taking different stances. No big problem apparently. There is no thing as leves of experience, rather experience points. It's not something boring but nice and fun watching character gathering experience and constantly increase life and vigor ( mana ) as something new and oposite to experience level ups so valued by articles author.
Unfortunetly there is no such thing as using terrain cover to players advantage. But it's so aparent in many rt games, especialy fps games. In fps games you use walls, holes etc to cover either frm bullets or to avoid being seen. If game will lag it will be paused so you can teoreticaly think what to do next before lag is over. Now how about changing first person to third person perspective and give player option to lag everytime he wants ? So it's just using terrain in rt with pause game with third person perspective look.
And last thing ..... argument what if two things happen in the same time ( like example of moving 2 pawns on the same field on the same time ). Well, it's only up to rules. If it's rpg game there is something like statistics of particular character ( like initiative for derermining who will perform some action first etc etc ) which can handle similar situations even better.
So unless I overlooked something that article is just stating about ease of use particular combat system and presenting things in some personal point of view including likes and dislikes.
I'm not saying it's bad article. I liked it. But it's not bringing anything new unfortunetly.
Frog, don't take this the wrong way, but that made little sense at all. I thought the article was fairly straightforward in explaining the systems. You also need to look into synching animations, unless you want to go by the narcolepcy-inducing spree of watching Baldur's Gate animations repeat ad nauseum until hits come from nowhere.
Yes, because you're not just ignorant despite most intelligent people being capable of comprehending such concepts, you think your ignorance has some basis in the discussion. That technically makes you a "fuckwit".
Right now, most people wonder where your idiocy regarding dice has any bearing upon the distinctions of combat systems. Your pitiful mind is has jumped onto the assumption that "any action = my turn". To break the illusion, so does every other RT game, generally when you mash a button.
That is NOT what defines turn-based. Wonder why developers use the distinction of terms? Maybe before you do something so asinine as offer your uninformed opinion, you should educate yourself first.
I could almost understand Bruno and the appeal towards mindless console games, as you seem to be of the target audience.
Just because you assume to know a couple of words mean, that still doesn't mean you have the grasp of the subject.
Hooray for Dungeon Siege...
No, it doesn't, moron. The strategy of it usually goes out the window because of other aspects of the combat system. Also, to those who know, TB also allows for far greater AI than RT, but I know you'll never understand why, because you fail to understand the basic concepts of turn-based gameplay.
That piece of idiocy should be framed somewhere.
But I do want to say that if you want to be seen as an intelligent person don't post ignorant shit just for any reason, I don't appreciate it and it completely cheapens any arguments you might've wanted to make.
We usually try to make it through a discussion without a complete idiot interjecting their two uneducated cents into the discussion, but we weren't so lucky either. By the way, those aren't personal attacks, those are just expressions of disgust for the blatherings of some moron and the idiocy that gave cause to them.
You didn't bother reading a single thing I said, did you? You wonder why, whine, and complain about being treated ill, and then you make stupid arrguments, fail to read what is written to you as a reply, and then keep going with your original garbage.
I would like to note that your reasoning, if applied to FOT, makes sense for a little bit. Until you get where the sequel was cancelled and the game wasn't liked because it was crap and wasn't what people wanted. In addition, RT broke a number of aspects of the Fallout combat system, but you've never let aspects such as those bother your manner of thinking, mainly since you can seem to try calling an RT system TB because there were dice rolls..
I had also pointed out that the fans, seeing as Fallout was styled into a P&P RPG system, would generally expect the same. But that's fine for the prime example of the "mindless console demographic" (you) that publishers assume will but everything labeled a certain way, from Fallout to RPG.
So...why should we care about your ignorant fumblings? Exactly.
The Nay-Sayer said:
Yes, because you're not just ignorant despite most intelligent people being capable of comprehending such concepts, you think your ignorance has some basis in the discussion. That technically makes you a "fuckwit".
Right now, most people wonder where your idiocy regarding dice has any bearing upon the distinctions of combat systems. Your pitiful mind is has jumped onto the assumption that "any action = my turn". To break the illusion, so does every other RT game, generally when you mash a button.
That is NOT what defines turn-based. Wonder why developers use the distinction of terms? Maybe before you do something so asinine as offer your uninformed opinion, you should educate yourself first.
I could almost understand Bruno and the appeal towards mindless console games, as you seem to be of the target audience.
Just because you assume to know a couple of words mean, that still doesn't mean you have the grasp of the subject.
Hooray for Dungeon Siege...
No, it doesn't, moron. The strategy of it usually goes out the window because of other aspects of the combat system. Also, to those who know, TB also allows for far greater AI than RT, but I know you'll never understand why, because you fail to understand the basic concepts of turn-based gameplay.
That piece of idiocy should be framed somewhere.
But I do want to say that if you want to be seen as an intelligent person don't post ignorant shit just for any reason, I don't appreciate it and it completely cheapens any arguments you might've wanted to make.
We usually try to make it through a discussion without a complete idiot interjecting their two uneducated cents into the discussion, but we weren't so lucky either. By the way, those aren't personal attacks, those are just expressions of disgust for the blatherings of some moron and the idiocy that gave cause to them.
You didn't bother reading a single thing I said, did you? You wonder why, whine, and complain about being treated ill, and then you make stupid arrguments, fail to read what is written to you as a reply, and then keep going with your original garbage.
I would like to note that your reasoning, if applied to FOT, makes sense for a little bit. Until you get where the sequel was cancelled and the game wasn't liked because it was crap and wasn't what people wanted. In addition, RT broke a number of aspects of the Fallout combat system, but you've never let aspects such as those bother your manner of thinking, mainly since you can seem to try calling an RT system TB because there were dice rolls..
I had also pointed out that the fans, seeing as Fallout was styled into a P&P RPG system, would generally expect the same. But that's fine for the prime example of the "mindless console demographic" (you) that publishers assume will but everything labeled a certain way, from Fallout to RPG.
So...why should we care about your ignorant fumblings? Exactly.
Roshambo said:
Ah, it's mix of my bad english and late hour
I fixed my post a little.
Basicaly I ment that it's more listing specific advantages and disadvantages that would have influence on how easy would it to make game ( like tb -> easy, less ruels and calculations, rt *with possible pause* -> more calculations and rules ) that has little meaning to gameplay if we are talking about good planned game that has all items well integrated. It's also more about how easy would it be to play ( rt -> toe to toe, tb -> any style ) which again is more about interface than combat approach.
I read it carefuly and I couldn't find real diferences in experiencing game in different combat systems ( like rt with pause vs tb .... rt vs tb has obvious differences of course ) and I thought it's what would be the most important to us here.
In other words I do see a point there with basic explanations but it could be put in 4 or 5 phrases and I disagree with many conclusions that don't follow arguments but are put out of nowhere as a sign of personal likes of writer.
Heh, if this wont make my previus post any more clear then forget it. Topic is not about that article anyways.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
I`m lost Frog 
well my english is a bit confusing sometimes too, so no biggie.
well my english is a bit confusing sometimes too, so no biggie.There was also an article written by Saint explaining the differences. I didn't really look through that, though I know he has the mechanics in detail.
Understanding the basics of a time system is something that should be obvious through observation, rather than just feeling clever with semantics.
Understanding the basics of a time system is something that should be obvious through observation, rather than just feeling clever with semantics.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
I can`t find it Rosh, not even a backup i made of it on notepad. I`ll try again to find it tomorrow.
Roshambo, ust an observation, I'm not disagreeing with the general purpose of the post, TB and RTwP are really worlds apart, and RTwP has much less to do with TB then with pure real time, but this:
Isn't really a problem when dealing with traditional crpgs these days. The set of variables the AI has to work with in these kinds of games is way to small to make a difference. Unless you are involved in combat with lots of characters, then any half decent processor won't have any problem dealing with the AI in real time.Roshambo said:
Try explaining that to most who try using methods tailored to RT gameplay. There still cannot be RT AI to the depth possible in TB, mainly because the TB design allows for data to be processed without being hindered by other concerns. It, in this method, would tend to eliminate stutter.
As far as AI or response resolution is concerned, it will forever be evolving in complexity as there is need for it. We're not in the days where heuristics are a dream and only four directions were possible resolutions of the pathfinding algorithm.
Frankly, I'm tired of having to deal with someone's failed attempt to make a pathfinding or AI routine more "streamlined" or "lightweight" in order to fit into an RT system without noticeable stutter. BioWare's programming is poor enough to serve as an example.
Then I could also point out that by intrinsic design, RT has (and to use Exponential Boy's excuse in a proper context) exponentially more difficulty in staying in synch, especially when you get into larger amounts of units while keeping a complex system. This usually results in a skullfucked system a la BioWare.
By nature, you cannot have RT be complex and hope to calculate complex without it being unplayable or take place in a quantum physics discussion. RTwP only gives the illusion of having some sense of control, but those who use such systems usually rely on a timing system. Usually you're left there staring as the combat goes through what piss-poor scripting is supposed to pass off for a set of responses. Some responses not possible outside of TB, such as people sliding back in FOT's combat.
As far as AI or response resolution is concerned, it will forever be evolving in complexity as there is need for it. We're not in the days where heuristics are a dream and only four directions were possible resolutions of the pathfinding algorithm.
Frankly, I'm tired of having to deal with someone's failed attempt to make a pathfinding or AI routine more "streamlined" or "lightweight" in order to fit into an RT system without noticeable stutter. BioWare's programming is poor enough to serve as an example.
Then I could also point out that by intrinsic design, RT has (and to use Exponential Boy's excuse in a proper context) exponentially more difficulty in staying in synch, especially when you get into larger amounts of units while keeping a complex system. This usually results in a skullfucked system a la BioWare.
By nature, you cannot have RT be complex and hope to calculate complex without it being unplayable or take place in a quantum physics discussion. RTwP only gives the illusion of having some sense of control, but those who use such systems usually rely on a timing system. Usually you're left there staring as the combat goes through what piss-poor scripting is supposed to pass off for a set of responses. Some responses not possible outside of TB, such as people sliding back in FOT's combat.
Lost Metal
Olde Skull
I would really like the game to be turn-based but I'm a sucker for Troika (mostly the guys who run it), and I'll probably buy the game the second it comes out.
Maybe Troika could try to guilt-trip Bethesda into publishing a turn-based PA RPG, since they flatout stole Fallout from them.
Maybe Troika could try to guilt-trip Bethesda into publishing a turn-based PA RPG, since they flatout stole Fallout from them.
Well Rosh, i'm not talking about the competency of the programming involved. Bioware tends to have some pretty sucky AI (not as bad as battlefield's for example, but just look at the complexity of what a bot in battlefield has to deal with and what a character in BG had to.) but what i spoke remains true, with some half decent programming, how hard comparatively do you think writing a pathfinding algorithm for a game taking place over a simple bidimensional with clearly defined passable/non-passable terrain is?
Oviously, it's easier to write AI for an TB game, and let it take as much time is necessay, but these days it is possible, with some half decent programming, to write an AI that works as well in real time as it does in a turn based environment, specially if the game offers as few options for a bot as a traditional crpg does.
Oviously, it's easier to write AI for an TB game, and let it take as much time is necessay, but these days it is possible, with some half decent programming, to write an AI that works as well in real time as it does in a turn based environment, specially if the game offers as few options for a bot as a traditional crpg does.
Macaco said:
No, it isn't. I don't know what you base that assumption on, but as any AI programmer would tell you that when you do not have to worry about framerate limitations or synching the effects of actions from multiple opposing characters at the same time, your work in programming such algorithms into the rest of the game routines is MUCH easier.
In chunks of time devoted to calculating danger areas, possible actions, and then pathfinding, with each phase sending its output to the next, it is neatly ordered and is not only easier to program, but easier to troubleshoot. Which is another fun aspect of RT, bugs arising from improper synchronization and timing of events/effects. Most of it is too minute to notice, but sometimes someone doesn't bother to clean up where it does.
After all, nobody used to the combat system really thinks twice if the game pauses for a half second, full second, or maybe even three or four as it cranks out through phases the algorithms needed for action consideration/pathfinding/etc., yet the crackheads buy that RTwP in the staged manner of the Infinity Engine is faster. No, it just has brightly moving parts while it recycled through the same rounds, which appeals to their ADD.
Yet the RT AI routines are run constantly, throughout most of the routines, on a constantly changing scope of data. Nothing stays constant in a battle for long, so computations and the changed as a result of the last cycle are now fed into that beast AGAIN. And again. And hopefully it runs fast and light enough to not cause a problem with the remaining functions of the program. We're not just talking about basic AI, we're discussing heuristics and having to recompile every movement and action consideration for every actor involved, ALL at the same time.
Programming competence is not as much of an issue for some, though they still will need to cut back on some algorithm because it runs too promiscuously and interrupts not only the flow of the routine, but the entire game. In other words, bad for presentation, and therefore you still need to keep AI resource consumption down to a reasonable level to take advantage of the market. Not everyone is able to afford top of the line equipment.
Then, of course, I also pointed out that AI is constantly developing. Yes, the runtime of an RT routine of ten years ago would be negligible on today's computer (unless you're BioWare). That still doesn't mean it's anywhere near the capability of TB design possibility.
Before you continue to make such uneducated assumptions about AI programming, try talking to some people who have programmed in such. Wait a moment...you just did. To further the point, I'd suggest that you take a look into serious heuristic recursion. Especially the part about anticipation and how TB also tends to allow for more heuristic integrity and retention because you again don't have to skimp on them for cycling the whole system again. With the right routine filters, you can keep heuristics about a certain resolution based upon the activity of another actor or location, which is far easier than trying to synch such recursions back into everything else and new data at the same time in a system that is likely going to be lobotomized in some manner for sake of avoiding the game stuttering over itself.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how well technology gets, programming will tend to keep up and stretch for more depending upon the application. We're not even into individual actors possessing artificial neural nets and you're trying to say that AI routine construction has hit a ceiling.
I find that disappointing, really.
God bless you Roshambo. You say what I think but can never articulate. TB is the only option for tactical combat in a crpg, and the only option for a true roleplaying experience. If my personal reflexes, mouse clicking ability, and hand-eye coordination have an impact on comvat (ala IE games and Gothic, etc.) then the role I am playing is me, not the character who I am supposedly playing. My character that I am playing is the swordsman/gunman, not me.
Realms of Arkania, Fallout 1 and 2, and ToEE will always be the games I go back to because the are the best (combat wise, ToEE was a little on the story).
RT w/ Pause is gay, RT is gay, and Gothic is not an RPG. It is a great action game, but it is not an rpg.
TB is the only way.
Realms of Arkania, Fallout 1 and 2, and ToEE will always be the games I go back to because the are the best (combat wise, ToEE was a little on the story).
RT w/ Pause is gay, RT is gay, and Gothic is not an RPG. It is a great action game, but it is not an rpg.
TB is the only way.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Damn, I get here with an opinion and Rosh done beat me to it. Done drop kicked a few people too.
Anyways I agree. Any RT action will always inevitably end up something akin to the old "Total Carnage or Smash TV" system. The AI simply could not handle the complexities of adapting to the PCs tactics while formulating intricate ones of their own in a continually changing environment. So pretty much the AI goes the way of FPOS.
Also using guns had always sucked in real time. By the time you can fire a few rounds, the enemy is up in your face clubbing you to death. Also, don't forget that the computer is constantly moving and zigzagging. This tends to force the player to also adapt a similar tactic if they wish to use guns while avoiding pinata status. All in all, this type of "John Woo" style run and gun ends up giving the Fallout fans a game that feels and acts way too un-believable and provides enough over the top action to make anyone sick. Yeah, I step out, take a few aimed shots, and fall back into cover = realistic combat. Running full speed to avoid monsters, without cover while more badguys blast you with guns, while blazing away with a machine gun that miraculously has a extremely high hit ratio without the need to even aim = the type of hollywood crap being pushed out as of late.
PS: Why the hell do these type of topics always pop up? How hard is it to realise that any RT or pseudo RT crap put into a Fallout game is going to make it practically suck like FPOS. Damn, just wish people would give the Fallout fans what they want.
Anyways I agree. Any RT action will always inevitably end up something akin to the old "Total Carnage or Smash TV" system. The AI simply could not handle the complexities of adapting to the PCs tactics while formulating intricate ones of their own in a continually changing environment. So pretty much the AI goes the way of FPOS.
Also using guns had always sucked in real time. By the time you can fire a few rounds, the enemy is up in your face clubbing you to death. Also, don't forget that the computer is constantly moving and zigzagging. This tends to force the player to also adapt a similar tactic if they wish to use guns while avoiding pinata status. All in all, this type of "John Woo" style run and gun ends up giving the Fallout fans a game that feels and acts way too un-believable and provides enough over the top action to make anyone sick. Yeah, I step out, take a few aimed shots, and fall back into cover = realistic combat. Running full speed to avoid monsters, without cover while more badguys blast you with guns, while blazing away with a machine gun that miraculously has a extremely high hit ratio without the need to even aim = the type of hollywood crap being pushed out as of late.
PS: Why the hell do these type of topics always pop up? How hard is it to realise that any RT or pseudo RT crap put into a Fallout game is going to make it practically suck like FPOS. Damn, just wish people would give the Fallout fans what they want.
I feel your pain, but sometimes pain is alleviated by a little amusement.
A little ION birdie whispered in my ear.
Okay, I lie. It laughed itself sick.
A little ION birdie whispered in my ear.
Okay, I lie. It laughed itself sick.
Johnny Toxxic
First time out of the vault
Roshambo said:
That is good stuff!
I don't agree with "pinata" aproach of DarkCorp. You think in fallout way of making damage when it's possible to take few rockets on chest being naked and just laugh on enemy. If game would have "1 well aimed shoot - kill, any shoot hurts as hell and criples" damage effects and ai would follow it there would be rare occasions when gun armer player is chasing by mob with clubs. Well, there could be some wild animals that just charge but then you back to what I said about damage. Of course if it's possible to die in 1 shoot it would have impact on fun factor, but it's entirely different thing here. This would force characters to seek cover and use it more like in real world.
Going futher, with bullet speed I guess test if fired bullet hit or not would be made in time of firing and it would deliver damage in exact time so no zigzacking would be usefull to avoid being hit ( of course there could be some rules that state that character in move is less likely to be hit thus have advantage in hit test ) ... I'm not counting sniping with quite long delay between fire and hit ... but that's more exception than a rule here.
If it was full rt zigzacking would help because it's harder to point with mouse ( though there are many ways to prevent it ..... for example something like battle window in game called tibia ) and in rt with pause it would be no factor.
Sure it's harder to implement such things in game with rt but I think you guys confuse nature of rt with nature of lazy game makers who make crappy ai and very limited game options.
I'm no entusiast of rt nor defender of tb though.
Btw Roshambo, do you search all net looking for nicks of people from nma to have some fun of their posts in other forums ?
Going futher, with bullet speed I guess test if fired bullet hit or not would be made in time of firing and it would deliver damage in exact time so no zigzacking would be usefull to avoid being hit ( of course there could be some rules that state that character in move is less likely to be hit thus have advantage in hit test ) ... I'm not counting sniping with quite long delay between fire and hit ... but that's more exception than a rule here.
If it was full rt zigzacking would help because it's harder to point with mouse ( though there are many ways to prevent it ..... for example something like battle window in game called tibia ) and in rt with pause it would be no factor.
Sure it's harder to implement such things in game with rt but I think you guys confuse nature of rt with nature of lazy game makers who make crappy ai and very limited game options.
I'm no entusiast of rt nor defender of tb though.
Btw Roshambo, do you search all net looking for nicks of people from nma to have some fun of their posts in other forums ?
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Whats up with this real time with pause crap anyways? Instead of giving us the illusion of something being turn based, just give us friggin turn based.
If a game takes into the account of actual bullet speed, then yes it is would be possible that you can pause, shoot/kill, pause again and shoot/kill. This way you eliminate the problems of adjusting constantly to a moving target. But this is the exact reason why we want turn based in the first place.
Also such a combat system works both ways.
Turn based has one side acting first, then the other which encourages tactics and a actually gives someone the incentive to surprise the enemy with an early rocket attack. Real time on the other hand has both sides taking actions "at the same time". So when you fire at your opponent, your opponent is firing at you.
Since the game is in real time, the enemy most likely will employ squad style techniques and the chances of the PC character being "pinned down" will most likely be a constant. If we then add in realistic weapons damage, then this only compounds the problem. Also imagine the serious horrors of urban combat in real time where the AI constantly retreats and finds new positions from which to ambush the PC.
Ever wonder why realtime has always been in the realm of strategy games and first person shooters?
If a game takes into the account of actual bullet speed, then yes it is would be possible that you can pause, shoot/kill, pause again and shoot/kill. This way you eliminate the problems of adjusting constantly to a moving target. But this is the exact reason why we want turn based in the first place.
Also such a combat system works both ways.
Turn based has one side acting first, then the other which encourages tactics and a actually gives someone the incentive to surprise the enemy with an early rocket attack. Real time on the other hand has both sides taking actions "at the same time". So when you fire at your opponent, your opponent is firing at you.
Since the game is in real time, the enemy most likely will employ squad style techniques and the chances of the PC character being "pinned down" will most likely be a constant. If we then add in realistic weapons damage, then this only compounds the problem. Also imagine the serious horrors of urban combat in real time where the AI constantly retreats and finds new positions from which to ambush the PC.
Ever wonder why realtime has always been in the realm of strategy games and first person shooters?
DarkCorp said:
Usually weak strategy games. RT makes for some good action games, and to those with lacking attention spans, but the mechanics are NOT really inductive to the strategy genre. Hence why RTS games are defined in such a way because it allows easy handling of many units, and most modern dungeon crawlers fall under the strategy genre. RT is the realm of Action-Adventure and the Shooter genres, plus a few off to the side, but is generally poor for most other game types.
It all revolves around sequence, which is something some people don't think of when addressing the issue. Sequence with AI versus clusterfuck scripting, as RT AI has and usually is compromised in some manner - in order to handle a certain degree of reflective response from the player else the game is unplayable. JA2 wouldn't really work as a RT game.
Frog, I think I gave enough of a hint as to whom told me about the post.