Why Turn-Based Video Gaming?

[Zharkov]

While I like the idea of the upcoming Phoenix Point, I cannot help but wonder why turn-based is still so popular, since more modern solutions are available. It's like virtual card games. Or like rolling virtual six-sided dice as in Tharsis. Why bring the disadvantages of analog gaming to video games?

[pmprog]

Just because you're playing it on a computer doesn't mean it has to be fast.

Think about how chess on a computer has expanded the game so you can literally play somebody across the world. Does that mean chess should be realtime?

[Meridian]

You cannot make such detailed instructions to individual units in real time mode.

That's IMO the biggest difference... granularity of control over the situation.
- turn-based (moving each soldier step by step, carefully considering all options along, one turn potentially taking several minutes)
- real-time (select a bunch of units and tell them to attack a unit or area, all within a second or few seconds)

[Solarius Scorch]

You cannot make such detailed instructions to individual units in real time mode.

That's IMO the biggest difference... granularity of control over the situation.
- turn-based (moving each soldier step by step, carefully considering all options along, one turn potentially taking several minutes)
- real-time (select a bunch of units and tell them to attack a unit or area, all within a second or few seconds)

That was true in the classical age of 1990s, but nowadays there are many examples of real time games with similar level of action details - of course these games have an active pause and a planning system. Whether it's the same level or only similar is an open question.

Nevertheless, this still makes a different game with a different feel. It's not a straight upgrade from turn based games, it  another genre.

[Meridian]

Well, yes.

But for me a game with "pause" can't be called real time anymore.
Just terminology I guess.

[Solarius Scorch]

Well, yes.

But for me a game with "pause" can't be called real time anymore.
Just terminology I guess.

Good point.

ZZharkov, I guess it would be helpful if you specify what exactly you consider better mechanics than turn based...

[Zharkov]

That was true in the classical age of 1990s, but nowadays there are many examples of real time games with similar level of action details - of course these games have an active pause and a planning system. Whether it's the same level or only similar is an open question.

Nevertheless, this still makes a different game with a different feel. It's not a straight upgrade from turn based games, it  another genre.

I was more thinking about the lines of pause and planning, as for me, this seems to enable both deep and detailed planning in complex environments and letting it go, if your input is not required to reach the outcome you wish for. However, there are few examples where this promise is fulfilled. But since playing Baldur's Gate a long time ago, I wonder why designers chose things like "modern turn-based" as for example the Shadowrun games by Harebrained. All mechanics there could have been realized in pause-and-plan perfectly. And - citing Meridian "select a bunch of units and tell them to attack a unit or area, all within a second or few seconds" would also be possible. I would say, Baldur's Gate is something really modern turn-based, as you have continuous turns taken until a decision by the player becomes necessary. So you could have the best of both approaches.

[Starving Poet]

I don't know, I wouldn't put pausable real time games in the same category - just taking Apocalypse for example - two wildly different games depending on if you played real time or turn based combat.   The modern Jagged Alliance games are the same, or the UFO series, or even comparing Sword of the Stars to Master of Orion.   You lose a level of tactical control, no matter how often you pause.

In real time you give a basic set of instructions - sit here, fire if anything comes into range, wait - then you let the game do its thing.  They're just not comparable outside of a general strategy paradigm.

[Stoddard]

The modern Jagged Alliance games are the same,  [...]

 You lose a level of tactical control, no matter how often you pause.

I think it's the slide into simulation from and/or as opposed to a more abstract game. From a simulation POV, this level of control should have never belonged to the player.

In real time you give a basic set of instructions - sit here, fire if anything comes into range, wait - then you let the game do its thing.  They're just not comparable outside of a general strategy paradigm.

Yup. Different genre. Although nothing requires the 'basic set of instructions' to be basic, it can be arbitrarily complex. Becomes programming at the other side of the spectrum. Like the fully automated industry and defenses in Dwarf Fortress.

[Starving Poet]

Yup. Different genre. Although nothing requires the 'basic set of instructions' to be basic, it can be arbitrarily complex. Becomes programming at the other side of the spectrum. Like the fully automated industry and defenses in Dwarf Fortress.

I almost put in DF as a caveat,  but DF is a genre into itself.

[Stoddard]

I almost put in DF as a caveat,  but DF is a genre into itself.

Well, yes, it is a bit higher-level, so to say . Still illustrates the divide between simulation and tabletop-derived.

There was an interview with Jake Solomon about when the first Firaxis X-COM was released, where he confessed to scrapping the what have been at that point a "moar original xcom" approach (what oxce+ is, in fact) and instead modelling the tactical game as a tabletop one, dropping stuff left and right, almost devolving into an MtG of sorts. His choice, ofc, but I'm not playing a trading card game with an x-com skin.

I think the original x-com was in the sweet spot  - for some it's enough of a simulation, for others, enough of the opposite.

[yrizoud]

The turn based system leads to a kind of problem-solving game, especially if you get to choose the order of playing your units.

I think Jagged Alliance 2 has the best system for unit-level firefight : turn-based mostly, you decide what you want to do during interruptions (it's often more profitable to stay hidden), and the whole simulation is automatically real-time when the opposing sides can't see each other. The latter is invaluable to slowly creep toward an enemy position, or when combing the area for the last enemy.
 

[Stoddard]

The turn based system leads to a kind of problem-solving game, especially if you get to choose the order of playing your units.

Here I must disagree. Both approaches are about problem-solving. There is pause, it's not something like Running with Rifles, or Cannon Fodder at all, the time to think is one  keypress away.

I think Jagged Alliance 2 has the best system for unit-level firefight : turn-based mostly, you decide what you want to do during interruptions (it's often more profitable to stay hidden), and the whole simulation is automatically real-time when the opposing sides can't see each other. The latter is invaluable to slowly creep toward an enemy position, or when combing the area for the last enemy.

While  JA and JA2 are on par with UFO:EU in the pantheon of PC games, let's not forget that the all-out pause-mode simulation grew in part out of frustration with the  lack of fine-grained control in JA realtime mode. Brigade E5 and later 7.62 were designed and written by a group of hardcore JA2 fans after all. Execution was abysmal, polygonal maps were crap, indestructible, small and full of bugs, and you could control every sneeze of your units and every cartridge in their magazines, which was at times a pain, but the idea was sound.

Still, JA/JA2 are loved at least as much for the detailed character design as for the tactical gameplay. Heh, I've ripped out the JA2 speech pack to serve as a alert/ringtone collection.

[robin]

in real time you always have to "battle" with the interface to a certain degree. in turn based games you don't, because you have all the time you want to input your commands.
this makes turn based games "pure".

(at least this is what gollop said )

[Stoddard]

in real time you always have to "battle" with the interface to a certain degree. in turn based games you don't, because you have all the time you want to input your commands.
this makes turn based games "pure".

(at least this is what gollop said )

He did? Maybe he meant the hard-realtime-without-a-pause. There it of course devolves into "sports", like the Starcraft.