Turn-based is my preferred approach to a lot of gaming, too. I particularly like turn-based wargames like Steel Panthers.
Most turn-based games take the conventions of board games, hide much of the die-rolling and THAC0 calculating and whatnot, and give you a graphical representation. So, for a generation that grew up with table-top/board games and then transitioned to computers, turn-based gaming is wonderful.
For the younger set, though, it's a throwback. I get that. Like, why bother with turns at all? Turns existed originally to provide structure to a fight and allow for a way to resolve how the fight ends in a fair manner (rather than "I hit you!" "Nuh uh! You missed!"). When a computer can do that on the fly, what's the point of a "turn" then? Most of the time, I appreciate it because it lets me really consider my options instead of simply twitching. However, I recognize that, as more of the stat-crunching goes on "behind the scenes", there's really no reason for that level of abstraction.
This is why I don't mind RPGs like Mass Efect 1 (haven't played the others). I think the trend is to move towards an ever more abstraction-free experience, to where, if you can figure out how to do it yourself, you can do it in the game, rather than tying ability to stats for your avatar. In this sense, RPGs will eventually cease to be based on "Levels & Loot" and be more about actually adopting a role and playing it out in a game world that realistically responds to you.
I mean, let's face it. It doesn't make a ton of sense to abstract your ability to point your avatar's gun towards someone and click your mouse button, does it? Why would your avatar "miss" at 5m under those circumstances, right? Just because you haven't "increased your small weapons proficiency above 50%?"
). I tried the older games, and I just couldn't get into them. I think Bethesda improved on the older Fallout titles in every way, but that's just my opinion.
