Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
They are turn based in the sense that everything has their own turn, even a box of chocolates has its turn. And when everything has a turn and you play at a reasonable speed it creates the illusion of real-time interatcion. As it doesn`t pop up a separete battle screen where the action takes place. I apologize if my oversimplification did it a disservice.
That is not only not what turn-based means, there are games that do that and are not in any way turn-based. See: the Tales series. And on the other hand, most board games take place entirely on one board and yet are very much turn-based.
Most roguelikes do not resemble real-time gameplay except when you're just walking around and not fighting stuff, because you tend to move quickly. If you're in a situation where thought or menu navigation is needed though, there's a pretty clear difference between turn-based and not.
In short:
Real-time is playing in actual time. Fighting games, FPS games, shmups, some RPGs and whatnot do this. The standard kind of time outside of RPGs and strategy games.
Turn-based is when time is abstracted and controlled to such a degree that each combatant's turn is sequenced into a round of combat, usually via something like a speed or agility stat. A lot of turn-based combat systems use menus for navigation, since turn-based combat and menus are ideal for when you need one abstract control mechanic in order to allow players to use a wide range of abilities and characters.
Then there's the shitty in-between where the game is theoretically real-time but based on a refreshing timer. I don't why anything but MMOs use this, and even MMOs are set to surpass the technological limitations that necessitated this kind of system. Lots of BioWare RPGs have been this, and, as mentioned, MMOs. Unfortunately, Ni No Kuni also did this, what the hell.
Roguelikes don't necessarily have permadeath.
Though as far as I know they do all at least have randomly generated areas.
Permadeath is one of the sources of tension in Roguelikes, though. So while they might not all have it, it's still pretty much a staple of the genre. If I was to get a random Roguelike, I'd definitely expect it to have permadeath in the same way I'd expect a FPS to have regenerating health.
Really, more in the same way I'd expect an FPS to have guns. Sure, they don't have to have it, and there are many examples that don't, but it's been in the genre since the start and is pretty much the first thing you think of when looking for a game of the genre.
A bit of a tangent, but an FPS without guns could be pretty interesting. In War of the Roses, you have to enter first-person perspective in order to fire a ranged weapon... which pretty much renders the game a FPS for however long you're doing that. And it's pretty cool; when you're moving while aiming, you can only go very slowly, and your rate of fire is so low that you have to ensure that every arrow or quarrel counts. There's a great deal of tension and calculation in the ranged combat in that game. Cool stuff, and gives an indication of how a FPS without actual guns might play.
There are a lot of FPS without guns. Portal, Antichamber, TES if you're playing an archer, Mount and Blade if you're playing an archer, etc.
I guess this is pedantic, but there's an argument against many of those having strong FPS elements. For instance, Portal has you in a first-person perspective and your "weapon" shoots projectiles, but it's ultimately a puzzle game that happens to use conventions from the FPS genre. Mount & Blade is primarily done from a third-person perspective (I did say "pedantic" before, remember), and the weapon slot balance means that you're probably packing some close combat pain in any case.
TES is pretty FPS-y when you're using a bow, though, and I haven't play Antichamber. But War of the Roses has enough intentional, effective and sensible limitations that its ranged combat is more interesting than any of the above examples.
Yeah.
I've always felt like "FPS" was kind of a stupid genre designation, since it's more of an interface than an actual, well, genre.