5 ms·
> I think almost every board game is essentially a turn-based strategy game The distinction between "turn-based" and "real-time" is largely perceptual rather t
by saraid216 14y ago
> I think almost every board game is essentially a turn-based strategy game
The distinction between "turn-based" and "real-time" is largely perceptual rather than actual. "Real-time" simply does two things: it slices the turns down to an extremely fine grain (such that they're more "frames" than "turns"), and it forcibly makes "do nothing" or "continue previous action" the default action.
Thus, the real distinction for a designer is, "How much time do you want your player to have to make a given decision?" The more time you're willing to give, the more likely you should make it turn-based, and vice versa. This is how chess starts to resemble an RTS when you add a clock. If you pared the "time to move" down to, say, 10 seconds... it becomes hard (but not impossible, since you're still right) to argue that chess is really turn-based.
- jacques_chester 14y agoTurn based games let you block other players from taking actions while you decide what to do. Realtime games do not. That's the distinction, IMO, not turn length.
- saraid216 14y agoYou're not really disagreeing with me. You get to block other players for the length of your turn; if that length is infinitesimally small, that's still true. It just becomes meaningless; that's the entire point of blitzkrieg chess.
- jacques_chester 14y agoBy which logic timesharing and batch computing are the same. What matters is the player experience, not the implementation.