Turn based vs rts

#1 I think many people do consider turn-based to be old fashioned, yes. I see this first hand in people's reactions, since the game I'm making is turn-based. However, turn-based games allow a level of detail and control that's not possible real-time. What I hate about RTS games is that they're in many ways a test of your ability to click the mouse around the map fastest; they don't really involve much strategy at all. It's certainly a matter of taste.. but turn-based games appear to attract a more strategy-loving audience who like oldschool wargaming and boardgames.

The concept of pausing can work well single-player of course, but in multi-player contexts I think it has to be either realtime or turn-based.

MMOTBS.. this is an acronym/genre I just learned.. apparently that's what I'm making.. ;-)

#2 Thanks for the input, what I meant by pausing is take for example once again Dungeon Siege 2 where you have a party of characters, you can issue your commands to them real time or pause the game, issue the same commands, unpause, repeat, etc. Of course this would be a single player environment, not a multiplayer one.

#3 I think the combination of the 2 works the best, like in NWN and KOTOR. Both of those however are based on the popular and relativly simple D&D rules, an RPG with a more involved rule set would probably have to be turn based otherwise players don't have time to think.

#4 I find that there are problems with both, with is why there are such contrasts in taste. Often times it depends on the game at hand. i.e., Final Fantasy vs Command & Conquer

As mentioned, RTS can become a battle of clicks, as the person who has memorized keyboard shortcuts and commands, and has an itchy mouse finger, can overwhelm opponents simply by mass force or speed. While this does become an element of strategy [You learn quickly to build defenses from the start, you can't take the time to smoke a bold while building your attack force] it often devolves into who can move the most units in less time.

However, TB games aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. You are able to sit around and debate and plot and plan to your heart's content. Sure, now you can strategize, but it can get boring for players and spectators alike. I don't have a grand experience on how many games have PvP [Player vs Player, as opposed to Player vs Computer] that use TB, but if there were I could see one of the players falling asleep while the other makes their decision. Besides, in "real" combat [a touchy term when it comes to video game ethics debates..] you don't get to plot out your next move for several hours.

In the end, to use the oh-so-used metaphor, it's like a game of chess. You should have time to plot and strategize, so there is an element of skill and wit, but everything in moderation. I know that in Chess tournaments, players gets a specific time limit to plan their next move. So maybe integrating that into the game? You have a certain amount of time, either for your entire turn or for specific actions, so that you can combine tactics with think-on-your feet dynamics.

#5 Turn-Based games are awful for any type of online multi-player. It's just not very exciting.

So when online multi-player became the feature du jour, turn based games fell off the map for a while.

Still, there are some good single player games released with turn based gameplay, especially on consoles where networking is still new. Think: Final Fantasy Tactics or Gladius

I personally prefer turn-based strategy games. I like to think. Though I also HATE online Multi-player games. I've always said that the worst thing about MMORPGs is the other players. So you might say that I'm a minority in that sense.