It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
There's another topic about whether people prefer combat to be turn-based or real-time, but what about genres that generally aren't associated with combat? Some examples I can think of would include adventure games, puzzle games, simulation games, and the like.

In case there's doubt to whether a game is turn-based, here's a simple definition, which works for single-player games:
* A game is turn-based if the game does not progress without player input; a game is real-time if it does.

For multi-player games, it can be worth seeing if the game offers, or can offer, an asynchronous multi player mode (that is, a multi-player mode in which you don't need all players active at the same time; for example, the play by e-mail featture of some Civilization games is an asynchronous mode, as is hot seat (where players take turns being in the seat).

So, what do you prefer for these sorts of games? Turn-based or real-time?
avatar
dtgreene: There's another topic about whether people prefer combat to be turn-based or real-time, but what about genres that generally aren't associated with combat? Some examples I can think of would include adventure games, puzzle games, simulation games, and the like.
The answer is the same as on the other thread - it depends on the game / genre as different games will have different implementations that are done better / worse than others. I've played some simulation / 4X turn-based games that are great, and some others where it takes so long to do things that it feels artificially grindy / dragged out and a far less fluid & enjoyable experience overall than real-time games like Tropico or Stardew Valley.
avatar
dtgreene: A game is turn-based if the game does not progress without player input; a game is real-time if it does.
I think there's more to it than that. Eg, a "turn based" game to me is as it self-describes (one person takes a "turn" before it's handed over to the other side to take an equivalent turn, eg, a move in chess / an attack in an RPG / a "turn" in Civ is followed by an opposing move by the AI players). I wouldn't call 1-player point & click adventure games "turn based" simply because the game idles whilst waiting for you to click on something to trigger an animation / script as there's no equivalent AI "move" to that at all. Scripting delays aren't "turns" by themselves simply because they wait on something.
non combat for me would mean builders such as Simcity or cities, railroad company, puzzle games such as space chem racing games and.. uhm well that is about it. I really can't think of any that will playout in a turn based matter outside, maybe some detectives or virtual novelles if i follow the guideline for turn based games. If i include games such as Symmetry or the explorers guild game or many board based games btw i guess i end up with the same answer as i did with the combat question. I enjoy both though my fancy most of the time for any game is with the hybrid feature pausable real time.

Stellaris for example and Polaris Sector are both examples of civilization like games that really shown to me how dreadfull turn based games truly can be. on the other side a game as civ or with my most recent additions OtherCide, Dungeonmans, Field of Glory Empires happenend to be all turn based
avatar
dtgreene: A game is turn-based if the game does not progress without player input; a game is real-time if it does.
avatar
AB2012: I think there's more to it than that. Eg, a "turn based" game to me is as it self-describes (one person takes a "turn" before it's handed over to the other side to take an equivalent turn, eg, a move in chess / an attack in an RPG / a "turn" in Civ is followed by an opposing move by the AI players). I wouldn't call 1-player point & click adventure games "turn based" simply because the game idles whilst waiting for you to click on something to trigger an animation / script as there's no equivalent AI "move" to that at all. Scripting delays aren't "turns" by themselves simply because they wait on something.
What about games like Solitaire and Minesweeper? There's no other player or AI to take a turn, yet the game is still clearly turn based.

What about Civilization with no opponents? (I think it's possible to do this starting in Civilization 3; just remember to disable Conquest victory if you don't want the game to end before it's really started.)

In any case, the turn based versus real time notion can reasonably be applied to all games with at least 1 player. (0-player games don't really work so well, though there can still be a distinction between those that run fully autonomously (like Progress Quest) and those that wait for input (like a kinetic novel might, in order to give the player a chance to read the text before advancing to the next dialog box).
avatar
dtgreene: What about games like Solitaire and Minesweeper? There's no other player or AI to take a turn, yet the game is still clearly turn based.
No other player (human or computer) = not turn based
Post edited August 14, 2020 by teceem
avatar
dtgreene: What about games like Solitaire and Minesweeper? There's no other player or AI to take a turn, yet the game is still clearly turn based.

What about Civilization with no opponents? (I think it's possible to do this starting in Civilization 3; just remember to disable Conquest victory if you don't want the game to end before it's really started
So what's the difference between turn-based Solitaire vs real-time Solitaire if the mere process of laying a card down = a "turn" either way and it becomes virtually impossible for it to not be a turn-based game to compare? The context becomes meaningless to the question asked which wasn't "name any game where you take turns by yourself" in isolation but rather "name a game where the gameplay of you taking turns plays significantly differently vs similar games being made as real-time and explain your preference" which for video games naturally means you'll be playing vs the computer or someone else.

Most people reading the thread title know full well that "non-combat turn-based vs real-time" means far more "Civilization vs Rise of Nations with combat disabled. Discuss" rather than "Tropico vs Solitaire" for the same reason no-one ignores the obvious genre comparison context for combat games and give deliberately unhelpful answers like "OK, so you don't like real-time Diablo, and want a turn-based alternative. How about playing Mahjong by yourself? You take turns in that..." These threads always seem to end up the same way though... ;-)
Post edited August 14, 2020 by AB2012
avatar
AB2012: if the mere process of laying a card down = a "turn"
How is that a turn? Doesn't the meaning of the word imply "the other"?
avatar
teceem: How is that a turn? Doesn't the meaning of the word imply "the other"?
It does to most people. ;-) In reality, the whole argument ends up with pointless semantics over "laying a card = taking a 'turn' laying a card" (even when you're on your own). Personally I like to think people have enough common sense they can tell the difference between "Is there an RTS equivalent to Civ?" question vs "I'm thinking of a fruit, can you guess which? Wrong answer! It's 'cucumber'! Everyone knows cucumbers are botanically classified as fruits..." style threads over 'correct' game classifications of fringe counter-examples of the obvious recently that I'm fast losing interest in arguing over that stuff.
Post edited August 14, 2020 by AB2012
avatar
dtgreene: What about games like Solitaire and Minesweeper? There's no other player or AI to take a turn, yet the game is still clearly turn based.

What about Civilization with no opponents? (I think it's possible to do this starting in Civilization 3; just remember to disable Conquest victory if you don't want the game to end before it's really started
avatar
AB2012: So what's the difference between turn-based Solitaire vs real-time Solitaire if the mere process of laying a card down = a "turn" either way and it becomes virtually impossible for it to not be a turn-based game to compare? The context becomes meaningless to the question asked which wasn't "name any game where you take turns by yourself" in isolation but rather "name a game where the gameplay of you taking turns plays significantly differently vs similar games being made as real-time and explain your preference" which for video games naturally means you'll be playing vs the computer or someone else.

Most people reading the thread title know full well that "non-combat turn-based vs real-time" means far more "Civilization vs Rise of Nations with combat disabled. Discuss" rather than "Tropico vs Solitaire" for the same reason no-one ignores the obvious genre comparison context for combat games and give deliberately unhelpful answers like "OK, so you don't like real-time Diablo, and want a turn-based alternative. How about playing Mahjong by yourself? You take turns in that..." These threads always seem to end up the same way though... ;-)
Well, Solitaire is perhaps inherently turn based much the way that action games and idle clickers are inherently real time. (Don't forget idle clickers are games, even though they might not look the way you'd typically expect a game to look.)
pausable realtime is still realtime game
avatar
dtgreene: What about games like Solitaire and Minesweeper? There's no other player or AI to take a turn, yet the game is still clearly turn based.
Nope : even without any player input, the timer continues to tick, decreasing your score, so it's real time.

I'd say real time is usually preferable for non-combat games as it flows in a more natural way, unless you can be overwhelmed by the micro-management.
avatar
dtgreene: What about games like Solitaire and Minesweeper? There's no other player or AI to take a turn, yet the game is still clearly turn based.
avatar
Pouyou-pouyou: Nope : even without any player input, the timer continues to tick, decreasing your score, so it's real time.

I'd say real time is usually preferable for non-combat games as it flows in a more natural way, unless you can be overwhelmed by the micro-management.
That only matters if you're playing for score.

Furthermore, Windows Solitaire has modes that don't have time affect score: Vegas mode, for example.
noncombat and turn based? is there such a game?
real time games are way better , most turn based ones have this empty time where you only move your units repeatedly ,not good at all
Post edited August 15, 2020 by Orkhepaj
Heck, I wish more RPGs have a 'real-time' world i.e. the plot progress with or without your involvement. Spending too much time farming or decorating your house, and someone else will broker the civil war or end the dragon menace and be hailed as the hero.
These questions are awfully abstract - like AB2012 said, it all depends on the game. And the definition of a turn-based non-combat game doesn't seem to be clear either. Spontaneously I would have accepted Minesweeper and Solitaire as kind of turn-based games though, with or without timer, because you can count the moves that a player makes (or theoretically also undo the last "turn", in case the game in question allows it) and you could imagine to play these games in turn with another player as well. I guess it depends on whether you focus on how the game is structured or on whether you have all the time in the world for your move and an opponent to react to it.

Be that as it may, I don't usually like sims and stategy games, so if we're talking about puzzles and adventure games, all I can say more generally is that I usually prefer real time so that the game feels more alive and engaging to me. E.g. I have more fun with 3D puzzle platformers than static puzzle games, and adventure games that only ever react to each single action I make feel cheaper to me than those where life moves on around me. But I don't really enjoy timers and missed opportunities. So, let people in adventure games move and talk and do stuff on their own, but make it so that I can't miss out on anything, e.g. let them repeat it after a while. If there are time windows in which something has to be done, be more lenient than strict with the time during which they're open and make sure players can try again almost immediately if they miss it. And where conversations of the player with NPCs are concerned, I actually prefer to click in order to continue to the next line rather than having the text rush by.
Post edited August 15, 2020 by Leroux