Over the years I've heard many arguments for and against turn based gameplay. As a mechanic it is widely seen as a hallmark that was birthed due technological constraints in the early years of gaming. That it has no place in modern video games is what I would like to dispute.

A majority of the complaints I have heard relate to how turn based gameplay is unrealistic. Comparisons are raised, such as how real wars are not fought in turns, soldiers do not stop after taking an action to allow the opposition to counteract. If reality was like this we could also presume that we would have access to a save game feature, reset buttons, inventory screens that dwarf encyclopedias. Reality does not have any of these, especially not any war I have read about.

Real wars are simply not fun.

The distinction between video games and reality has to be drawn when dissecting a game mechanic in order to judge it properly. Why is it in the game? Can something else be used instead? Is it hampering the game experience? Can a game that does not use it have it implemented successfully?

I will use System Shock 2 as an example.

System Shock 2, (for those that are unfamiliar with it) is an fps/rpg hybrid for PC released in 1999. I highly recommend anyone who has not played it to play it.

As in: right now.

Wikipedia entry: [link]

Gameplay in SS2 involves exploring a seemingly abandoned spaceship and piecing together scattered clues to figure out what is going on. The reason I am using SS2 as an example is the way the player can interact with the spaceship environment.

The player is given a choice of progressions at the beginning of the game to start their character off. These progressions can be summarised as "weapons guy" "psychic guy" and "hacker guy". Primarily a wide consensus is that a pure psychic player will be expected to die a lot more than the other two. As the player progresses through the game they are given cyber-modules to "upgrade" their character (level up) any way they wish.

This allows the player to choose to upgrade their strengths, or eliminate their weaknesses. More often than not a psychic player will need to sink more points into other skills in order to eliminate their weaknesses, such as their lack of physical hardiness just in order to survive. You'll see why I am singling out the psychic later.

What I am initially proposing to put forward however, is this question; "Would System Shock 2 be the quality game it is if the fps/action mechanic was replaced with a turn based mechanic?"

I would have to wager that no, no it would not. The atmosphere of twisted monsters wandering the hallways of a near-derelict spacecraft, stalking your every movement would be diminished. This change would sap a large portion of what makes System Shock 2 what it is.

I would now like to ask "But would it make a quality game in it's own right?"

Well, maybe.

Slapping on turn based interactions in place of an action orientated interaction is not enough. Turn based interactions give the player control over their movements on a per/second time scale, possibly even faster. Sure, in an action game an advanced player can control their skills at an incredible pace, but we all cannot be top-tier gamers. Even SS2 does not require you to have the psychotic twitch reflexes of a Korean Starcraft player.

I'm really not sure if there was a zing in the. Really, top tier Starcraft players are good at what they do!

Anyway, my point is that the player now has new opportunities to interact with the enemy. No longer is there a frantic struggle to figure out where the enemy has come from, what it is and why for the love of god it makes horrid noises and screams like a small child that had their voice box replaced with a metal can filled with compressed horror.

The horror has been replaced with strategy. Your chances of survival are still the same. It's quite likely if you let your guard down that you will die, but the way you survive is different. The player can now actively choose what is the best course of action at a leisurely pace. Take into account the skills and psychic powers already present in SS2 and you've given the player a powerful way to destroy their foes.

Changing the interaction will change the way players play the game. To better interact with the world around them I can see players choosing more psychic based skills in order to navigate the ship.

But wait, didn't I say earlier that the psychic player will likely end up dying a lot more? Well assuming that all 3 characters retain their original skills in the turn based system the psychic player has a wider range of options when it comes to interacting with the environment. This provides more wider scope in experience to the player while lowering the risk of deaths that occur due to mistakes.

Coming back to the proposition: "Would a turn based SS2 be a quality game in it's own right?"

I still say maybe.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 both use turn-based gameplay but the player is not hampered when interacting with the environment. Final Fantasy 12 conversely strips the player's control in favour of customisable routines that the other characters follow (though you still have the option of pausing the game and choosing specific actions).

So it all comes down to control. How you wish to have the player to control your character.

With the likes of tactical rpgs such as the Disgaea series and action rpgs such as Knights of the Old Republic, I doubt anyone can mark turn based games as unpopular or even dying.

Even chess is still relevant and playable today. Nothing says that it is any less playable now than it was 10 or even 50 years ago. So why do we need to stop the production of turn based video games?

We do not. It still works and there's nothing that can make it stop working.

After all, developers choose how the player interacts with their characters, but the players get to choose their favourite ways of interacting with the games they play.

It's a polite way of saying "If you don't like it, don't play it".

Thank your for reading my thoughts, I hope they have opened your minds to the possibilities of the future of interactive entertainment.

- Alexander