turn based or real time

chumpz · 01-14-2018, 05:44 PM #1

what do you think is the better fighting strategy

**ExtremeDude2** · 01-14-2018, 05:55 PM #2

I like turn based better.

Admentus · (This post was last modified: 01-14-2018, 07:22 PM by Admentus.)

Real-Time Strategy, since I can not be bothered with waiting for another's turn. Even waiting for an AI is just wasting my time, waiting for a real opponent... I just need to be active all the time as I can't stand it to wait and sit still. So yeah, real-time. Waiting takes forever and ever and ever...

Turn-based RPG's through are one of my favorites genres through, which I might prefer over Real-Time Action-based RPG's... Hmm weird. Great examples of turn-based RPG's for me would be the Trails in the Sky and Trails of Cold Steel (the second entry in the series should hopefully be arriving on PC soon!) series, the first two Paper Mario games, the Mario & Luigi RPG series and Chrono Trigger. I never was much of a Final Fantasy fan.

chumpz · 01-14-2018, 09:05 PM #4

aveyond is a great turn based rpg game

***Shonumi*** · 01-15-2018, 01:39 AM #5

Doesn't matter to me as long as it's a good game. RTS games, I don't care for them. Never got into Starcraft or Warcraft. I don't like rushing to do things before your opponent does, and failing to do that results in losing.

But traditional JRPGs (turned based) and Action RPGs, both are my favorite genres. There aren't a lot of ARPGs out in comparison to turn based JRPGs. Star Ocean, Tales of, Phantasy Star Online, and Xenoblade come to mind, but it's hard to find other examples in my collection (Solatorobo, and I guess Knights in the Nightmare counts too). As long as the combat is good and entertaining, I'm all for it.

SRPGs (Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea) are right up my alley too. I used to suck at them when I was a kid because I couldn't plan very well Tongue

Admentus · (This post was last modified: 01-15-2018, 03:53 AM by Admentus.)

Ohh yeah, The Fire Emblem games are pretty cool too. Mostly played the more recent ones of the series. I do have a few older ones in my library, but somehow I never got the time to get into those.

I was always more fond of the campaign mode of WarCraft III. Online matches always demanded to get the most optimal setup ready as fast a possible. I kinda hate the micro-managing of strategy games, like manually buffing units and keep tracking of where each unit should exactly stand. If you watch those replays, it is just insane the amount of mouse clicks that are executed each minute. Somehow it just turns into a game where it all matters about how fast you can click and how much shortcuts you can bind to your mouse, which causes the strategy factor to be diminished. So yeah, Age of Empires is more aligned with more. Age of Mythology was exceptional, it is just sad the genre is practically dead.

I don't know if it counts as strategy too, but simulation-based games such as Banished are awesome too. Your population is a resource too, should they all die and not be able to reproduce anymore and it is game over. I also liked the original Stronghold and Stronghold Crusader. Firefly Studios never managed to make a great game again after the those two originals.

Ohh, and the Anno series. Anno 1404 (also known as Dawn of Discovery) is definitely the best in the series before it started going downhill from there. Anno 2205 just sucks.

**AnyOldName3** · 01-15-2018, 06:18 AM #7

RTS can also suffer from the problem where you spend most of a game sitting around waiting for resources to accumulate or for units to be built or an enemy to fall into a trap. When you can spend half an hour doing something really basic or even just sitting there and then have whether you win or lose rest entirely on how well you play the last two minutes it can be a pain.