Real Time vs Turn Based Combat

Am I the only one who thinks that real time is inherently superior to turn based? Turn based might have a tactical advantage, but real time lets you to see and control more of your character's actions instead of abstracting them into annoying percentage of probability. Plus, pausing the game gives you as much time for decision making as turn based games, so I don't think that turn based is much more tactical. Turn based system is only superior when you have multiple characters in a party, but if I had multiple heads and sets of hands, I'd rather play it in real time.

Attached: mlord.png (596x599, 647.11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_chess
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

active time turn based combat exist you know.

That picture hurts to look at.

I like both. Turn based for strategic gameplay where you constantly have to think 2 moves ahead to get anything done. Then there's real time combat where you can pull off crazy combos that look flashy. In that sense, I like both the Tales series (highly depends on the game) and turn based combat RPGs like Labyrinth of Touhou 2.

For some reason though, people still think it's mandatory to grind to beat turn based combat RPGs. They refuse to strategist and learn the mechanics. I blame Final Fantasy for giving players so many safety nets to the point where most games in the series are painfully easy.

Attached: 49943759_p0.jpg (850x1190, 415.97K)

The combat system being good or bad is not a function of it being turn-based or real-time. There is real-time games with percentage based dodge and stupid damage formulas too.

Morrowind and Dragon's Dogma come to mind. The way defense works in DD makes it so that you'll do abysmal damage if your damage doesn't reach a certain threshold. And there are many times in the game where your equipment and/or level will be too low to what you're fighting. So even if you're very skilled, it's so large of an uphill battle that it's not even worth fighting that enemy.

Real time with pause is dumb because it's much more difficult to keep track of everything that's going on. I can barely do it in 7.62mm and that game doesn't even have magic spells. Even Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights get around this problem by using the round system of D&D, so you know that only certain actions can be performed in a round. And once you've embraced rounds, there is no point to doing real time combat – in fact it makes the game slower when you're low level. There's just no point in forcing the player to perform that extra overhead in their tactical thinking.

It's not a very good system imo because it doesn't have as much flow and controlability as real time combat, and neither as much time for decision making as pure turn based games.

Jap combos are gay as fuck weeb user. It reduces actual hand-eye coordination into button memorizing and/or mashing.

It's mandatory because devs are too retarded to implement feasible methods for gaining experience other than combat. Such as trainers in Elder Scrolls, how many games have that.

I know. Bethesda games, Borderlands, and such are really stupid. I think video game directors in general aren't aware of this problem.

Real talk for a moment, trainers are probably the best thing in Morrowind. I don't get why there exist so many autists that insist on training their sneak by walking into a wall or whatever when you can just, you know, actually play the game and earn money, then use that money to train sneak. Sure it might technically be slower, but you'd be having fun with the game instead of doing nothing.

You know how devs make real time combat and then realize they can't balance it and just add a move with invincibility frames, where even if your model is touched you don't receive damage?
This is lazy shortcut to not spend too much effort balancing difficulty, fairness and technical depth of combat.

When it comes to turn-based games the similar issue rises with RNG-based hit/miss chances. Instead of making combat tactical where every move counts devs just add RNG instead of coding enemy AI to be fun and challenging and fair all at the same time.

So when it comes to combat, in most cases both are shit and lazy.

I'm not really sure why they made it so you could do that so easily when the game clearly wants you to grind out those summons and extend your special move bar.

still thinking about that user who changed my mind on quick time events

Attached: 3f2a17619f32a866928df8c64049f98c04c8a436_hq.gif (400x240 92.22 KB, 1.48M)

You're never going to get a concensus.
You can list pros and cons of each system, but ultimately people will put different weight on different points.

I consider RT with pause (or with pauses in fixed intervals - best example I can think of Birth of the Federation) to be the best. My biggest gripe with turn-based is that it allows many scenarios and exploits that are just silly.

Git gub, pleb.

Attached: bromeme.jpg (500x281, 32.28K)

Real time only gives you more control over your character's actions if the combat system is sufficiently complex, which 99% of real time combat games aren't. A game with real time combat with only a few different attacks and specials is functionally identical to a turn based system, you just have to waste time getting your character close enough to hit with the real time one.

You'd suck his nipples, don't lie.

yes and?

those are not RPG's user.

Are these supposed to look fun? The animations are good, I guess, but it feels nothing like the real thing. I mean you're not even moving the character.

It's because some people are stupid I think. When it comes to controlling multiple PC's, turn based or RT with pauses definitely work the best, it gives a clearer image of a scenario and more time to think than real time gameplay. But for single character games, real time is better for reasons I've wrote.

Then you blame the devs, not the system.

I agree with different attacks, but different special have more place in turn based games. If you're doing a sword combat real time rpg for example, giving it 1-2 buttons for 8-direction attacks is necessary, but more than 2 buttons would give it unnecessary complexity. In short, real time combat system performs every action the character does, but at the same time reduces decision making into a split second moment. Having more than 2 attack buttons won't be effective.

Isn't it more impressive to be able to do something complex within time constraints, rather than without?
I'd say that's a larger point in real-time's favor, but I guess it depends what game you're thinking of.
In something like Divinity, pausing in the middle of a fight is pretty reasonable, but definitely would be cheesing to pause in the middle of DmC or Nier or most other games in order to plan out your next move.
Although it'd still be impressive to play Divinity well without pausing at all, perhaps more so because it's balanced around the idea that players will pause a lot, so you're effectively handicapping yourself.

Attached: thinking.jpg (640x775, 103.64K)

That's retarded, they have different strengths and weaknesses and are suited for different genres of games. You're making a sweeping generalization because you haven't actually played that many games. Apply yourself and stop making bad threads.

Attached: 85c.gif (256x256, 458.18K)

I'm the pleb, but you're the one who likes RTwP. Sure. Even if you like juggling the status effects and action economies of a dozen or more actors in real time, you could do it with two dozen in turn based. Or more. Why limit yourself?

People legitimately liked QTEs when they were few and far between and when only Japanese devs did them.

But it isn't fun. That's like saying it's impressive to be not allowed to replay the game once you die.

I've acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses tho. What are you talking about.

Am I supposed to play vidya 24/7?

Those aren't QTEs you cancerous fags, those are just timing challenges. You press a predictable button at a predictable rate. Nobody liked the QTEs in RE4 when it came out, I remember that was the big trendsetter for that shit.

Bull shit try your revisionist history elsewhere.
RE4 did nothing wrong.

You aren't fun.

You don't belong on this board.

Attached: report submitted.jpg (489x218, 41.62K)

Sure, just pretend that those QTEs weren't the most divisive part about that game. Aside from the fact that it was no longer a survival horror game and instead a TPS with weird controls of course.

...

...

As if this thread wasn't bad enough.

It's kinda hard to appreciate the explosions in real time especially when you're controlling multiple units.

You're right, if people had 16 hands chess should be played in real-time.

You do realize that turn-based is slower when it comes to game flow?
In RT I can move all of my troops at once.

Attached: certifiedporn1.png (400x396, 147.56K)

Attached: 09edb0fda10940964191dd85eee53fbb24045cd8cd874dcdfb74db7d05e9e7dc.png (596x599, 520.86K)

Sorry, I didn't play adventure games when I was younger. Also I remember the flaming around RE4 specifically a lot more seeing as it was much more popular. The days when the Internet was still the wild west.

But it's just as exploitable in RTwP you silly goose. All you have to do is pause the game. Hell, it's even more "exploitable" in D&D games like NWN which has Quicken Spell. Why do you think that performing actions in the right order is an "exploit?" Is this what you tell yourself to make you feel better about being bad at the one turn based game you played?

Grinding isn't caused by turn based, it is caused by any level system, especially one that doesn't offer the ability to downgrade your level and an incentive to do so. Leveling up is trash.

Of course real-time gameplay is superior. It tests the players' ability to react far better than having them take turns.
Mind, that's not to say turn-based games aren't fun. Of course a lot of them are.

Attached: Mario Bros.png (229x300, 116.17K)

Why is reaction time the only thing worth challenging in a video game?

It isn't, but real-time games can challenge everything.

Real Time gameplay is actually fun. Turn based is deterministic like chess and is only for autists.

That's true picrelated barely has any actual gameplay outside of them. As usual people turned on the game mechanic when it went mainstream. Exactly the same thing happened with Bamham's combat system.

Attached: shenmue.jpg (318x313, 25.66K)

Real-time and turn-based do different things better than the other, which is why fun games in both formats exist.
Prove me wrong.
you can’t

Turn based is boring and all games that have it ultimately play the same. You pick an option and watch your character and/or teammate do the thing. I appreciate the tactical advantages and approach to combat via turn based, but tactics can only carry a combat system so far, it has to actually be fun to play.

I can't.

FF15 was worse than KH combat. Even KH2 had way more tactical options than 15, which had stab, hide and grenade.

wrong

It isn't deterministic when you have RNG.

I did grind in SMT Nocturne not because I didn't want to strategise but because I couldn't get the team comp I wanted exactly and I spent too much time experimenting with different demon combinations

There's a time and place for both. Kind of silly to argue which one is superior.

I asked for what games and you give a vague answer. I don't think you've even played the games you're talking about. Especially comparing them to FPS that is nothing like Action RPGs in general. Hell what Action RPGs have both simple controls and the complexity lying in hand-eye coordination?

It's a design choice. I don't know why people think RPGs that have turn based combat were made only because of technical limitations. We've had Action RPGs since the NES and SNES. The point is for the character to have control in the builds, actions, and decisions the party makes. However, he doesn't have full control as their stats influence many things. That would be like saying D&D gameplay is outdated because you role die to determine certain things.

Depends on whether the game allows you to skip animations which is a major problem in the sub-genre. Most of these games don't allow you to fast forward, skip, or remove animations making playing PS1 turn based RPGs a pain in the ass at times.

There are definitely some games that don't need leveling systems. Some of the Ys games would be just fine with no leveling system. Don't kill enough enemies and you're doing so little damage it takes twice as long to kill enemies while taking 2x damage. Equipping accessories could have the same effect while enemies dropping money/materials for equipment would be your incentive to kill them.

Attached: Martian.jpg (386x343, 43.85K)

No. Of course you're not the only dumbass on Holla Forums.

Real time has advantage of better fluidity and immersion. But it has natural disadvantages such as
1. Problems with compressing time therefore poor compatibility with actions that take more than minutes. This mean poor compatibility with strategic games that have close to real size warfare.
2. Performance in real time games is very often dependents on the players twitch performance. That means that real time "action RPGs" are not really RPGs.

Go is superior to chess as usual the Japanese managed to make a better game that's also simpler.

Nope. Because there is no order of action.
Want an example. Consider a following situation:

E

|
——-|
A

B

Your guy B run around at the end of enemy range which causes him to spend reaction fire points. Then your guy A round around the corner, casually walks up to him and stabs him in the face.

In RT (with or without pause) that cannot happen, since you can't "drain" the enemy of AP or abuse action order. The second guy A rounds the corner, the enemy can switch target.

This is just one example, but there are many way one can exploit a TB system in a way that makes little logical sense or the AI can't deal with.

It still faster to select an entire squad and move them all out in a group, than it is to cycle trough all 20+ soldiers and give each of them individual orders.
Also, don't forget that skipping animations can bit you in the ass if reaction fire happens.

the gookclicker community

My nigger.

Attached: 1432146378182.png (400x400, 41.73K)

except in early ASSFAGGOTS you could, although it required teamwork

real time combat has its limitations that turn based combat can account for. Something like bravely default has excellent combat encounters where you're planning moves several turns in advance and have to react with full awareness on what your next move will do for everything. It at times becomes a game about calculating how to best effect the outcome of battle in 5 turns rather than dealing with something coming right away. It's a very different appeal and something I greatly enjoy.

Something like destroying the antenna or guns in SD Snatcher is possible in a real time game, but it's not something you'll easily observe. Rarely will you be able to have that generate the same impact on your game play as it would in something where you can act in real time. This is the kinda combat that turn based excels at.

Oh, I understand what you mean now. This is actually a huge issue in Battletech. In that game it's actually preferable to go second, because it is always preferable to react after your enemy moves forward (and hopefully exposes himself) than to go first because you almost certainly won't be able to establish a clean shot on the enemy in the first turn. It's like playing chess except you can't see your own pieces; admittedly this is kinda shit and not really to my taste either.

However, it's not completely eliminated in RTwP, namely in the D&D games I mentioned before. Say you are a mage and you want to cast magic missile. The cast animation plays and takes up the round. If the person you're casting on is a player and they are a fighter or rogue, they can just run around a corner before your spell completes and it will fizzle because you lost line of sight. In actual D&D this problem is solved with the "prepare" action, which allows you to specify a criteria for doing something and you will do it out of initiative order if the criteria is met. Likewise, Knockdown was a very annoying move in that game because you remain unable to do anything for a round, and assuming the guy hitting you has base attack bonus 6 or higher (meaning they get 2 attacks per round), it is quite likely that you wouldn't be able to do anything at all if you are a mage.

RTwP works well if it is an actual "real time" system, i.e. it does not use rounds as a crutch to organize action economy. I'd like to see this done in a fantasy RPG but so far I have only seen it done in military SRPGs. Silent Storm had a great turn based system with interrupts that eliminated almost all of the issues that Battletech has.

I meant your opponent's pieces, fuck.

In Fallout Tactics you can switch between turn based and real time.

I prefer turn based, but most people prefer real time.
Keep in mind most people are faggots.

Chess is turn based strategy. Good luck topping that.

Chess is fucking stupid

it sick

Attached: Pissening.png (800x480, 257.08K)

Learning high level strategies in JRPGs always feels more like cheesing than actually gittin guuder.

Replayed RE4 probably some 20 times. QTEs suck.

Boo.
Ehh…

Attached: valkyria-chronicles-4-03-20-18-4.jpg (1920x1080, 289.64K)

Chess is a game of pattern recognition and memorization, not a strategy game like most people think.

Strategy games do not exist, they're all pattern recognition and memorization games.

Strategy in real life does not exist, all millitaries throughout history just employ omniscient gods who are really good at pattern recognition and memorization

The boulders, knife fight etc. sudden bullshit during cutscenes when you'd just put down the contoller for a sec, it was complete bullshit.

The point is that a good strategic mind, probably even a genius level one, will still lose a game of chess to someone who has memorized the different techniques and patterns and the best way to respond to them.

What I'm trying to say is that strategy is mostly pattern recognition and memorization.

The problem is that strategy is not only about picking the most logical option but also about the psychology of the opponent, because humans are not completely creatures prone to emotion and making mistakes. Even then, that still goes to pattern recognition even if it's recognizing the patters in the opponent's psychology.

I get what you're saying but the point is that somebody who is well read on chess techniques and can follow them well, in addition to identifying the specific patterns their opponents are using will beat someone who is far more intelligent, better at planning, better at analyzing his opponent, etc. While those abilities are helpful in chess, them alone can't beat someone who has read a few books on chess. It's like a skilled fighter who loses to a vastly inferior opponent because his opponent knows the rules better than he does. So yeah his opponent may be better at that game, but overall he still isn't as good.

I dunno, I was just disappointed when I learned chess wasn't so much the realm of geniuses and strategic masterminds so much as it is the realm of people who are good at memorizing shit and copying it. Still a useful skill, just not quite what I'd hoped for.

What isn't pattern recognition and memorization? I mean, if you knew the way every atom in the universe moves, you could predict earthquakes, people's thoughts and such.

Play Kriegsspiel if you want a real strategy game. I mean, generals where trained with it.

White pieces are not only overpowered, they're culturally insensitive in 2018. They need a nerf.

Like another user said ATBs are a thing, but I like planning moves and building cool builds in RPGs.

Attached: suhgao.png (125x125, 33.61K)

Fuck off you materialist scum.

Do you wear a fedora on a daily basis?

Attached: 2233145656.jpg (764x551, 263.49K)

Real strategy games have fog of war. End of discussion.

So like Advanced Wars 2?

I'll check that out, thanks.

Fog of war adds a lot of depth to any kind of strategy game. AW is kind of a good game, I myself prefer Days of Ruin over 2. This reminded me that there is a kind of chess with fog of war in it. It's called Dark Chess: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_chess

But that's the case with strategy in the real world as well. You might be a fucking genius who is perfect at reading other people but you still probably won't beat someone who was trained as a strategist even if he is less intelligent than you. The point is, he knows how to use his troops, deal with environment, supplies, and already has viable tactics, that have been checked by years of warfare already, under his sleeve. No matter how intelligent you are, there is no way that you would just deduce all the details you need for achieving your victory on your own. In the end, there are still "rules" that you have to learn and someone that has more knowledge about strategy will beat a more talented novice unless certain circumstances are set in play.

I think it's not the problem of chess being not-strategic, rather the problem is that strategy doesn't exactly look like you think it did.

Most of those tactical games aren't tactical and only random level based shit.

Attached: kain.jpg (517x359, 103.26K)

Adding fog of war to chess would be kinda shit, because it is so deterministic the entire game would revolve around delicately moving your pieces so your opponent doesn't see you. See my post below.

Attached: fast janoy.gif (470x360, 897.75K)

Maybe. It just always seemed to me that chess was a pure contest of intelligence between two people, but it's not. Just some disappointing childhood expectation, I guess.

Hit a sore spot didn't he?

Attached: Do it.mp4 (400x300, 414.37K)

Have (2) :^)

I just think that developers shouldn't attempt real time combat if they don't plan to do it well. And if they're planning on making another diablo clone, they should neck themselves.

Attached: thisthreadsucks.gif (500x394, 907.1K)

Intelligence although not only, is mostly the ability of recognizing patterns user

14515081
All animals engage in play, only humans have evolved to take turns.

Attached: mem.jpg (1920x1050, 220.19K)

Reminder that RTwP is pure cancer as are those who enjoy it

Attached: 1513034634084.jpg (641x960, 71.18K)

Attached: bcXXuTR.jpg (711x669, 38.81K)

Real time has the advantage of being faster.

Compare something like Battle Brothers to Mount and Blade for example.

Why aren't there any turn-based mmo's?

Because normalfags would never buy into it.

Just go play fighting games you absolute nigger.

Well shit I am sorry.

Wakfu

No, I agree. Obviously there are some types of games where turn-based is the only viable option, but in general I prefer real-time in almost every case.

You'd be wrong. There is no superior option here, only preference. This is the kind of stupid shit my casual friend used to say all the time to justify his horrible tastes when he saw me playing turn based shit.

Attached: sad_amaterasu.jpg (250x300, 16.22K)

If you think KH combat = FF15 you need to kill yourself.

Go is better.

Real time is the best, the last FF finally got it right. Turn based is such a bore and completely immersion breaking.

That doesn't make any sense, in a combat situation, you don't take turns, it's kill or be killed

People with IQs between 110 and 130 really need to be liquidated. 90 to 100 idiots are fine because their stupidity keeps them harmless, but it's those in the danger zone where they're just clever enough to fuck things up, but not smart enough to fix anything that are the real threat to humanity.

The reality of the situation as evidenced by studies on this topic, as opposed to the hazy speculation you consider to be thoughts, and what anyone who isn't a corrosive element to the species would think to either search for or conduct themselves before having the audacity to even put their position forward, is that if you have an IQ over around 125, i.e. gifted and beyond, performance at a strategic task (chess was specifically studied) is most correlated to your performance last season and how much time you spent playing this season. Under 125, IQ is the most correlated factor to performance.

This threshold and dynamic exists in many areas of performance. People below it seem to be animals wearing human costumes for the most part, but they shouldn't be resented unless they use their near-sapience to cause chaos as discussed above. The only true humans have high verbal/mathematical/spatial IQ and high creativity, while not being socially or emotionally crippled. Everyone else is some shard or shadow of a person.

I agree with this, but since both of us more than likely fall under that threshold, it doesn't mean much

...

Go > chess > miles of shit > checkers

No, you aren't the only person here who isn't braindead.

Wrong.

Attached: cheeki_breeki6.gif (395x750, 59.01K)

Fucking nu-Holla Forums I swear to god.

Now*

They're all shit.

Strategy's most important feat is pattern recognition and memorization. Being creative about a solution to a certain memorized pattern is the other part of it.

Clausewitz made it clear there were two aspects of making a great strategist: the proper 'knowledge' of shit, with all of the technical scales entailed there; and then the ability to accurately judge a situation - a combination of both luck and ability to minimize the effect of luck.

In this regard, a game which is strategy based, in order to properly emulate strategy, must have two factors: the ability to make decisions, some of which are better than others, along with an RNG factor, which can be minimized through decisions. Even a "perfect" plan should have a chance of failing against another good plan, even if it might curbstomp a poor one. Information needs to be important, and some information needs to be missing - You can't have everything given right up front.

Checkers is great for taking down scrubs.

Real life doesn't have RNG

wizard 101

Nah life is fucking bullshit.

Fucking nu-Holla Forums I swear to god

Read the next post nigger.

Yes, absolutely none of those things are RNG
The closest thing in life to computer number generation is which sperm impregnates an egg, and possibly some of the deeper processes in the brain, but all that shit you listed is more or less predetermined as far as you're concerned

Is this bait? As long as other people can make different decisions and you have absolutely no control over them, there is no way to know in which timeline you're gonna end up regards to the decisions that they take until it's too late. And that's just one example.

Every single thing in that list is not RNG, period
The only thing on it that even deals with shit that happens during your life is car accidents, which are always partially the victim's fault, do a degree where it is at least preventable

That's one thing off the list if you want to be picky.
If you look at your position from the point of view of a dumb babby, the second you're born is the second that, from a number of infinite possibilities, you're now born in the country X, as a race X and by parents X. And before you say anything, you can't possibly predict what kind of country this will be or even it's name, you're just a dumb babby that doesn't even know how to speak yet. So the world is like Schrodinger's cat and you're the dumb observer babby that can't speak or think properly, only see.
Your parents are the ones that put you to a school. Your region, parents, country etc etc are RNG since the future is always one from the number of possible outcomes. You're a dumb kid so it's almost always RNG.
If someone acts dumb in a dangerous situation, they risk getting shit for it. There is always a risk of getting in a dangerous situation in our daily lives. That's just common sense.

If life is a simulation that uses fucking numbers to determine outcome based on some factor external to simulation then it's RNG exactly. Otherwise, there's a lot we don't know. You might even say it's RNG whether random chance is RNG in this world or not, if the universe that simulates us is getting simulated in turn under specific circumstances. The point is dead in it's tracks, however, if the simulation hypothesis is outright false or if it uses some other means of storing/manipulating information, which is likely to be honest. In this case, it would be prudent to call random chance RNG, however since the term stuck from the pseudo-random generation already you can just refer to RNG as random chance in specific circumstances instead. I shall leave it to you in that case, which instances of RNG are random chance and which are simply RNG.

To add to that, please look forward to my next mini-lecture/shitpost.

...

Normalfag*

Fuck off leddit

You don't have to predict it, because it was never something that was up in the air
You are you, you never could have been someone else
The only RNG involved in childbirth is from the parents perspective
Sure, I guess you could say whether you were born or not in the first place could be RNG to you, but back then you were a sperm, and from the perspective of a sperm it's a game of skill, the only things decided beforehand being your dad's position and mom's condition at the time of conception
Just because you don't decide something yourself doesn't mean it's RNG, the choice is very easily foreseeable, you're just too retarded to check

Look up solipsism. You're own existence is the only thing that you can be sure of at all times. You're saying that from the POV of some somewhat-rational observer in country X, if a childbirth occurs and babby Y is retrieved in country X, it's not up in the air. From position of babby's, however, you don't know shit and thus can't infer anything. Thus your country is from a list infinite possibilities. That's what I meant.
You're shaped by your decisions in life. Your decisions are a product of outside world rubbing off on you. If your life has lots of variance event-wise and if events are different enough, then you may end up that much different.
DNA and stuff, yes.
Depends on when you consider the question. If you still don't know in what fucking country you're gonna get birthed in, it's natural that what school you'll be in is RNG as well. There are a number of factors that can make the choice different afterwards, but I agree that the choice is easily forseeable in this case. It's about variance. Being a dumb babby must be infuriating, you don't even have any knowledge about what species you are or if you're gonna get aborted or not.

Everything that was said about this up until now can be said by any dumb fuck. I'm sure there are several things wrong with those lines of thought, so please reply with where you think this is wrong.

Think of it like drawing a name out of a hat, but all the names are the same
There's only one option, and it's always going to come up the same no matter which one you pick, no matter when you pick it. You could try repeating the choice again and again and no matter what it would always be the same because the factors are immutable and unchanging and the choice is just an illusion

You could argue all day about whether that's random to the baby or not but honestly this entire chain of thought is retarded to begin with because babies aren't sentient, incapable of rational thought, so problems like this can only ever be thought of from far in the future, from the perspective of fully formed, thinking humans

I suppose to use a more relevant comparison, when you play peek-a-boo, the baby thinks you've disappeared, from its perspective your position is totally random, whether you're behind those hands or somewhere else entirely, because the baby's fucking retarded

Except that's not true at all, from the perspective of the baby still in the womb, assuming it can differentiate between locations somehow. It can end up fucking anywhere because outside world is like Schrodinger's cat, again. As long as it can't observe - and it can't - EVERYTHING outside is undetermined. Once it gets out and matures though, then it becomes predictable.

From the perspective of the baby in the womb, it can't end up anywhere, because there's nowhere to go, everything is the same to a baby
Whether it's born into a clean, nice place, or deep into water that starts drowning it, it's just what happened, and a baby has no conception of why, it can't think something is random

We can't exactly comprehend what infinite possibilities contain, either. Maybe predict some of them, not all - it doesn't make a difference if it's not all of them exactly. As for what you might be getting at, that's why I've mentioned solipsism in the first place - from one's own POV, only existence of yourself is certain, no matter if you can comprehend it yet or not.

What I'm getting at is that to a baby, there isn't "possibility", let alone infinite possibilities. There is only the present
We, from our perspective in this discussion, shouldn't decide what is or isn't based on the rudimentary thoughts of a lesser being

They're 100% RNG.

I smell a subtle Holla Forums attempt here.

No that's called not being born a nigger like you.

So RNG.

>>>Holla Forums