Talk:Turns, rounds and time-keeping systems in games
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turns, rounds and time-keeping systems in games article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2008 November 9. The result of the discussion was keep.|
Article is one-sided
Is it just me, or is this page seem entirly one sided, and doesn't contain enough information? Not only that, is it an entirly necesary page to have?
- Well, I couldn't find a whole lot of sources on the subject (I'm currently looking for more, reliable articles—besides just forum/usenet posts—that support the fact that the debate exists). The article treats the sources pretty fairly. There was one more point in the Firing Squad article (e.g., turn-based games are hard; real-time games appeal to gamers' laziness), but I thought it was flame bait, so I didn't add it. Here is another article that covers most of the main points in this article, but it doesn't add anything new. I also found a couple of books on game design (, ) that discuss the topic, but I don't have access to those. There's also a Gamasutra () article which discusses the issue of latency in multiplayer real-time games, comparing them to turn-based games, but I didn't consider that an aspect of "gameplay" (here is another reference). As for the article's necessity, the article was originally part of turn-based strategy and real-time strategy, but I felt it better to split the content into a new article instead of duplicating the text in two different articles. The article is also pertinant to role-playing video games, and other genres descended from wargames, as well as turn-based game and real-time game (should the article ever exist, which is quite likely). In summation, I thought the article's scope was large enough to warrant its own article, rather than keeping it in any one article with lesser scope. Finally, the article is no (or not much) less substantial than other articles in Category:Video game gameplay, and probably more notable (and better sourced). SharkD 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
lol, well, last time i looked at this page there wasn't as much information, and now theres arguments for both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo6556 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Execution vs decision making
This article is inappropriately constructed and I intend it of being split
The article is of its nature an uncyclopedical topic and the article inherently is judgmental. What should be done in my opinion is split this article into one turn-based and one real time article and separably explain the different concepts. If no response has been done before 1st September, id est a month from now, I will be bold and split the article. Lord Metroid (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree with you more. This isn't encyclopedic AT ALL. You should definitely split it.--Megaman en m (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article doesn't take a stance on the issue. It merely states a dispute exists, and outlines some of the points raised by the different sides. It also lists some of the steps developers have taken to address gamers' grievances. The sources reflect the NPOV nature. SharkD (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Than maybe a title change will suffice to make it more appropriate for what the article brings up and makes it easier to find what one looks for when searching. It is not that it is POVed that is the problem in my opinion and as I say above, the article easily becomes judgmental instead of a having a descriptive encyclopedic form. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm here because of the 3O post. I think rewriting this article using WP:SS will likely satisfy the objections, while better allowing for compare/contrast than a mere disambiguation article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. As I understand it, WP:SS means splitting sub-topics from articles into new pages, thereby reducing the length and complexity of articles in general. This exactly describes the purposes of this article. The article was originally a section of turn-based strategy, real-time strategy and turn-based game, but was split in order to keep the number of revisions down to a minimum. SharkD (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the above comments also focus on the article's content. Could you provide some feedback on this aspect as well? SharkD (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. So, if this article was split out from all those games, why do you propose to split it out into two additional articles? 3 articles reference one sub article, which in turn references two sub-articles? I'm confused here. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- What what? Turn based and Real time already exist seperately? Then why do we even have this article?? It's like making a big messy article of PS3 vs Xbox360 vs Wii. It's just one big fanboy war!--Megaman en m (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I really dont see an exact point in this article. The fact of what a real time and turn based game is seems to be a given. And the article is VERY bias, such as when someone stated that turn based games are boring. I get that this part was to discuss the pros of each side, but does that really belong in an encyclopedia? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Simple answer is: NO IT DOESN'T. I'm going to put up this article for deletion.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As was already stated on this talk page, this article will get incorporated into a larger article dealing with time keeping systems in video games in general. As a standalone article, it is missing an element of context that could be added by expanding the article scope in such a way. I think the article is pretty well sourced, and deletion is not necessary. SharkD (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I declined the deletion request; however, you don't have forever to incorporate it, remember? :P P.S. twitch gaming with turn-based elements wins (Mass Effect = ideal). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I checked out several books from the library, so I'll probably begin expanding the article sometime soon. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I extended the scope of the article and redirected Turn-based game and Real-time game so that they lead here. The opening sections are a bit undeveloped and require sourcing, but I don't have the resources to do this at this time. SharkD (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
'Rounds' in real-time games
Some real-time games, such as the Baldur's Gate series, feature a system of 'Rounds' that operates on top of the base real-time system. I'm not sure how to handle this, as I'm not familiar of the inner workings of how this system works. SharkD (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The rounds in Baldur's Gate are “personal rounds” which are not synchronized between different entities, and can be interrupted or cancelled at any time. In other words, practically identical to how something like Diablo works (I.E.: In Diablo parlance a given weapon wielded by a given character takes X seconds to swing, during which an animation plays, which must be completed in order to do damage with the weapon. In BG parlance, a given weapon wielded by a given character can be swung X times during each round/once every X rounds, which lasts Y seconds.) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know it's not much different than animation length in other games, even games in other genres such as real-time strategy. And it's a touchy subject with a lot of people too. 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
ATB subcategory needs to be rewritten
Removing mention of turns as the ATB system is not a turn based one.
It's contradictory and provides no classification of information. Saying someone "misses their turn" when they don't take an action is by definition not turn based gameplay. This is akin to defining a conversation between one person. Either it's a tautology because the exceptions you create to include it include all levels of information above it (real time and turn based) or it's just an unjustified subcategorical claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F581:400:64E7:92E8:73F1:7EB3 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel compelled to point out that both Diablo 2 and 3, in fact, have "pausable real-time" when you play solo. I would think that was in Diablo 1 as well but I don't know that for a fact. My point is, Diablo is a horrible example of a game without pausable real-time. I know there's citations where people compare "what it's like to play Diablo" to "whatever else" but the sources are, technically, just flat wrong. Just hit the ESC key when you play solo and you'll see the game pause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)