Why are action games harder to get right than other kinds?

What is it that makes action so volatile compared to, say, a turn-based combat game? Is it the lack of formulas? It's almost like action is just this huge gray area and number-based games are easier to balance.

I notice that most people struggle with action, but also that a lot of people try for it. If it's too fast or too slow... too hard or too easy... nobody is happy.

Yet games with a less action-oriented approach seem to do just as well as action games, if not better, criticially and commercially.

What do you think... about all that?

 

I think it comes down to timing. Turn based all actions happen simultaneously in a set order, real time is the same but it is rare to have things happen at exactly the same time so part of the balancing gets down to trying to balance for the average player reaction time.

 

Um... I'm not sure if I concur that turn-based combat games are less "volatile" than "action games" (probably the most meaningless two words in the English language, anyway). Pokémon is a turn-based combat game, and it is FULL of exploits, balancing issues, and whatnot. I've more-or-less solo'ed every game in the series without excessive grinding, and Game Freak have been fairly clear that you're NOT supposed to be able to do that from Generation I. Valkyria Chronicles has some of the least fun gameplay I've ever seen (well, kind of subjective), because its turn structure is just annoying, the controls are wonky at best and you pretty much have to guess the one exploit the devs put in if you want a shot at getting a good grade for any level. Final Fantasy XIII could be played by a woodpecker for the first ten hours of the game.

In contrast, even the worst gameplay I've had in action games (must be AssCreed 2) was merely boring, not completely and utterly game-breaking.

Or maybe I'm just playing the wrong games.

 

Action is a good two thirds feel. Not being able to get animation right is pretty much a death sentence.

The other third is engagement, i.e. how do you make interesting decisions. There needs to be a lot more than a ground combo and an aerial combo to make combat interesting.

 

If you present something as fact you need to justify it.

Btw, they are not.

 

You just said that turn-based games that you have played for hours are terrible... and you still played them. And this is your argument why turn-based games are harder to get right than action games.

And your example of a bad action game is... Assassin's Creed...

So compare AAA next-gen glory to... games I've never heard of...

Honestly, I have lost your point.

 

*sees no justification*
*deduces based on the preceding statement that this is not intended to be taken as a statement of fact*

A self-defusing argument... never seen one of those before.

 

Google irony.

 

More than action games I think the problem is with real time vs turn based.

I think is because the first needs more polishing, "juice" and more responsive controls than turn based games. Those things are highly iterative to fix so you can get them wrong and never have time enough to improve them because is hard to pinpoint the problem... for example, gamers will say vague things like "improve the controls" or "the guns don't feel right".

Of course, my experience is limited because I only have one real time game (and I'm barely starting with a turn based prototype) but I also feel that is harder to get real time games better than turn based ones.

 

And they do it every time, too...

 

*bleep* I have said that some turn-based games I like have major flaws and problems, and there are some turn-based games I really, really don't like but I still played them for hours because that is how long it takes to evaluate if a game is for me or not, or because studying games from a designer's perspective can still be educational if you don't actually like the game.

If I like a game, I usually don't throw it in a corner ten hours in. But I did just that with Valkyria's Chronicles and with FFXIIIl. But hell, don't just ask me! Jump into your time machine, go back to 48 hours after Civilization V's release (or Civ After Earth's release, if you prefer) and ask the fans what they think of the game. Disclaimer: If you end up stabbed in a dark alley by somebody who's foaming from their mouth, I will disavow any responsibility. Point is, Civ V garnered A LOT of criticism when it first came out, and it is a turn-based game that was made by arguably the best devs in the industry.

Point is, you can screw up with turn-based games and it has happened. I consider your claim that they are somehow easier to get right than action games fully refuted until you deliver with some solid data points.

(By the way, I also claimed AssCreed 2's game design was horrible, and I still played it. And Brotherhood. And Revelations. And half of AssCreed 3.)