Turn based Final Fantasy (or any other modern RPGs). Should we do away with it?

OK, so I have been playing Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, and think its a brilliant game. I love the battle system, story, gameplay etc etc. I feel like this game really gets back into the roots of what makes a great RPG, something that other Final Fantasy games were becoming lost at. I think part of the reason Final Fantasy XIII was poor was because it was trying to sell itself too much on a cinematic type storyline and not enough on gameplay, which A Realm Reborn rectifies. I also really enjoy the change in battle system in XIV. Its a subtle enough change from the typical turn based combat to make the game more fun, but also keep the familiarity of it being an RPG.

I see that Lightening Returns has gone back to the turn based system of its predecessors, which I don't know whether its a bad or good thing. I am sort of burnt out on turn based games now, and I feel like RPGs, in general, are moving away from turn based combat. I am aware the XV will be action based, but again, don't know how the actual battle system will play out.

Anyway, my main point is, does anyone else feel like JRPGs should be moving away from turn based combat? I, myself, say yes, JRPGs need to move away from turn based combat, in particular with games that are coming out for more technologically advanced consoles like the PS4 and Xbox One. I believe that turn based combat was more appropriate during the SNES/PS1/PS2 eras, rather than these last and current generations. So yeah, it would be cool to hear how other Final Fantasy fans feel about this.

I miss turn based. I think X-2 did it really well. I would consider that the ideal. VIII did a good job also, the battles didn't drag on. IX is my favorite but I admit that the turn based system wasn't the greatest. The battles, especially early on, were quite slow and sluggish.

Anyways, I think if its done properly I love the turn based and I would like to see more games with that style.

Moved this thread to General Gaming for you.

And personally? I enjoy turn-based, and I enjoy the newer "fast paced" systems. It's all just mashing buttons in the end. x}

Almost no modern console JRPGs are turn-based. I wish they were.

Bravely Default did turn-based expertly. It's a terrific game :) I've experienced burn-out in both turn-based and action-based RPGs personally, so I think there's a place for both in the gaming world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

I miss turn based. I think X-2 did it really well. I would consider that the ideal. VIII did a good job also, the battles didn't drag on. IX is my favorite but I admit that the turn based system wasn't the greatest. The battles, especially early on, were quite slow and sluggish.

Anyways, I think if its done properly I love the turn based and I would like to see more games with that style.

---

Yes, turned-based combat was done really well in FFX-2. It blended tactics and decision making with fast-paced action. XIII wasn't turned based at all, though it tried to pretend it was. It was more of a 'combat flow' management system than a turn-based system.

I miss turned-based games on consoles and I'd love to see a major release in the future. However, there have been plenty of great turned-based games released for handhelds over the last several years. I can't wait to play Bravely Default as I hear it's a great return to turned-based combat. :ffvisexy:

...but just get the feeling that more modern games should have more modern battle systems. I feel like in smaller systems, handheld primarily, that turn based battle is probably better. I got Project X Zone for Christmas and love the turn based combat of this game, and I also love turn based combat in older RPGs. I love the freedom you have with A Realm Reborn, that you aren't locked into battle. Having the an open world and the ability to make choices without being locked into a specific mission or battle makes this game the perfect Final Fantasy for me. I don't know how much this game has sold, but I would definitely recommend this game to most people, and this is coming from someone who didn't like the game the first couple of days I played it. I hope we get more Final Fantasy games as innovative as A Realm Reborn. I am excited about XV and think Lightening Returns looks good.

I see that the battle system in XV will sort of be a little bit more like Kingdom Hearts, which I don't know if this will be a bad thing or a good thing. We will have to see.

One more point I wanted to make about A Realm Reborn. I appreciate that SE did away with the cyber punk futuristic setting for once. Its sort of played out in my opinion. Most RPGs seem to be more about a medieval setting anyway, so perhaps Final Fantasy should go more towards this kind of setting.

While I understand the aspect of getting burned out on certain games, I don't think calling a turn based system out-dated is fair.

I personally really like turn-based when it is done correctly. FF x-2 has been pointed out by a few people. The fighting system is what made me want to play the game.

I like it when RPGs try innovative things, and I am open to different combat systems. That doesn't mean that turn-based should be shelved, relegated to only hand held systems, or viewed as too old. A well refined, smooth TBS easily feels as slick and modern as anything else Ive seen in an RPG.

Some of these newer combat systems that try to more closely mimic combat in WoW or other MMORPGs actually come across as shallow or stale, in my opinion, because it doesn't seem like they've managed to port it over to RPGs in a convincing manner.

I feel like the game is on auto-pilot too much, and that I'm not as involved. When you combine that issue with character progression and development that is very linear and limited, like FF13, the entire experience starts to feel way less inspired, modern, and involving.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that you mention how several more modern FF games have used a modern or futuristic setting (cyber punk) for the world. story, and characters, and you feel it's played out. I find it interesting because that indicates you feel that it's an old idea, but then suggest that Squeenix should consider going back to a medievil theme because that's what most RPGs do. So you're suggesting that Squeenix fix something that you feel has become stale by rehashing a theme that is even more common, has been used in RPGs even longer, and has therefore seen even more saturation issues?

I don't mind an RPG with an old school feel, I just find it interesting that you would complain of a combat system being too old, and then want to see a more modern RPG theme replaced with one that has been done to death.

My point isn't that you're wrong, it's only your opinion, which can't be wrong. My point is that there's certain aspects of games you'll either like or won't. You may even like them in one game because you feel they were done better than in another. That doesn't seem like enough reason to say "This idea should be done away with or only reserved for hand-held systems." By that logic, all RPGs should be MMORPGs, with a more modern, sci-fi feel, etc. etc. etc. because the rest of the ideas are too old. Those are more modern.

Part of the reason I tire of the whole cyber punk thing is because its been done to death since Final Fantasy VII. I think XIII proved that the futuristic design idea has now grown stale. I think its sad that Final Fantasy has gone down the road of aiming to fit a certain mold, but perhaps many people feel that if FF went with a more medieval setting than that will be trying to chase trends too. I wouldn't actually mind Final Fantasy doing the idea that VII was originally supposed to be, with the detective and everything. Would be an interesting change.

Final Fantasy XIV was more interesting for me because it is the first Final Fantasy game to go back to Final Fantasy's roots since the first half of the series. I think the series has gotten stuck in a rut of relying too much on storyline rather than gameplay, thus FFXIII falling short like it did. Games shouldn't rely so heavily on storyline in my opinion, or at least not rely on storyline at the expense of gameplay. Final Fantasy is definitely guilty of doing this, particularly with XIII and some of the other games in the series. So yeah, I'd personally prefer Final Fantasy to go more into the direction that XIV has. Would be cool to have different scenarios that lead to bigger storylines/plots in future games. The linear, story driven gameplay is out of dare now, in my opinion.

I think turn-based can exist side-by-side with other RPG battle systems. Sort of like how there are both turn-based and real-time strategy and tactics games.

Sometimes I just want to play something nice and oldschool and grindy and turn-based.

They offer variety, so no. We shouldn't do away with them.

Sadly, many people complain about certain mechanics being "outdated", which I think is BS when it comes to games. If everything follows the same trends, it all becomes uniform. Games need variety, so there's no room for a concept of being outdated.

Also, XII was more fantasy than sci-fi and relied more on gameplay than story.

I am also sick to death of people considering handheld games "lesser", especially considering that's where JRPGs flourish nowadays.

I find it hilarious that you use XIII as your argument against turn-based combat.

XIII's problems weren't centered over a lack of gameplay in exchange for story. They were centered around crippling problems with both gameplay and story.

Had XIII properly delivered on the cinematic story, 95% of the fans would not have cared about the gameplay one way or another. The biggest complaints about it were about how badly its story botched.

The biggest complaints about the battle system, on the other hand, were about how restrictive it was. The artificial cap to your "levels" in the Crystarium was complained about far more than the gameplay itself. The biggest complaint about the combat mechanics was the overall lack of interactivity with the system outside of the Paradigms (which is only made worse by the restrictions on how little there is to do before the real options unlock). In fact, the semi-real time nature of the combat hurt this game's systems overall, because it meant that the combat progressed far to quickly to make choosing commands in battle worthwhile. You essentially auto-battle every fight, because choosing commands real-time would result in you taking nearly twice as long to perform each action, and therefore you would find things a lot harder.

Heck, I'd argue that XIII's system wasn't even turn-based. But having a turn-based system had nothing to do with how well the game was received.


Personally, I prefer turn-based by far over real time, because too many real time combat systems boil everything down to reaction time. Turn based lets you relax, breathe, and make decisions. Real time is a reflex test, and if your reflexes aren't good enough, you fail. And then people laugh at you for sucking at games.

Don't make me go on a rant about how many games that build themselves up as being "skill based" are really just reflex based, there are so many examples out there I could point out.

Also, note that turn-based systems are generally well received when they are well executed. There are still tons of fantastic turn based games out there, or more coming out. Bravely Default is using turn based, and is apparently fantastic (I'll be playing the demo later). XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Fire Emblem Awakening make good use of turn-based systems, and Awakening is definitely an RPG. Persona 4 Golden and Shin Megami Tensei IV both used turn-based systems, and have been received incredibly well. And these are just high-profile titles released over the last year.

Torment: Tides Of Numenera, the spiritual successor to the beloved CRPG Planescape: Torment, recently had a poll if players would prefer a real time combat system or turn-based. It was close, but turn-based won out, despite the original game being real time with pause. Not only does turn-based combat clearly still have a place, I think this scenario shows that gamers who care about authenticity in RPGs want it to have a bigger presence.

To me, a game isn't exactly an RPG without turn-based combat. Not saying the action sub genre is less legitimate, but it gets away from the spirit of what Role Playing Games fundamentally are and rarely works well for a party of characters. The only real time system with a party I appreciated was FFXII, because I still have complete control over everything my party does while still being in real time. Every other game destroys the ability to have an adventuring party, leaving you with, at best, sub-optimal AI (although I hear Xenoblade pulled it off and White Knight Chronicles was decent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

I miss turn based. I think X-2 did it really well. I would consider that the ideal. VIII did a good job also, the battles didn't drag on. IX is my favorite but I admit that the turn based system wasn't the greatest. The battles, especially early on, were quite slow and sluggish.

Anyways, I think if its done properly I love the turn based and I would like to see more games with that style.

---

Yes, turned-based combat was done really well in FFX-2. It blended tactics and decision making with fast-paced action. XIII wasn't turned based at all, though it tried to pretend it was. It was more of a 'combat flow' management system than a turn-based system.

I miss turned-based games on consoles and I'd love to see a major release in the future. However, there have been plenty of great turned-based games released for handhelds over the last several years. I can't wait to play Bravely Default as I hear it's a great return to turned-based combat. :ffvisexy:

---

It was as turn based as any ATB game is, just with shorter ATB cycles and the ability to stack several turns. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...plecolbert.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

I miss turn based. I think X-2 did it really well. I would consider that the ideal. VIII did a good job also, the battles didn't drag on. IX is my favorite but I admit that the turn based system wasn't the greatest. The battles, especially early on, were quite slow and sluggish.

Anyways, I think if its done properly I love the turn based and I would like to see more games with that style.

---

Yes, turned-based combat was done really well in FFX-2. It blended tactics and decision making with fast-paced action. XIII wasn't turned based at all, though it tried to pretend it was. It was more of a 'combat flow' management system than a turn-based system.

I miss turned-based games on consoles and I'd love to see a major release in the future. However, there have been plenty of great turned-based games released for handhelds over the last several years. I can't wait to play Bravely Default as I hear it's a great return to turned-based combat. :ffvisexy:

---

It was as turn based as any ATB game is, just with shorter ATB cycles and the ability to stack several turns. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...plecolbert.png

---

The shorter ATB cycle really ruined XIII's combat. It made it more visually impressive, and made it move faster, but it also meant that manually selecting abilities was useless, removing everything but auto-battle, except in very rare cases of spamming a single ability (like Poison). Presentation was put over the actual quality of the content. XIII in a nutshell.

Agreed with Skyblade. It may have been turned-based technically, but not in practice. :zombert:

You could just turn down the battle speed

It was a bigger problem that the game almost always picked the best options automatically, so there was no need to think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

I miss turn based. I think X-2 did it really well. I would consider that the ideal. VIII did a good job also, the battles didn't drag on. IX is my favorite but I admit that the turn based system wasn't the greatest. The battles, especially early on, were quite slow and sluggish.

Anyways, I think if its done properly I love the turn based and I would like to see more games with that style.

---

Yes, turned-based combat was done really well in FFX-2. It blended tactics and decision making with fast-paced action. XIII wasn't turned based at all, though it tried to pretend it was. It was more of a 'combat flow' management system than a turn-based system.

I miss turned-based games on consoles and I'd love to see a major release in the future. However, there have been plenty of great turned-based games released for handhelds over the last several years. I can't wait to play Bravely Default as I hear it's a great return to turned-based combat. :ffvisexy:

---

It was as turn based as any ATB game is, just with shorter ATB cycles and the ability to stack several turns. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...plecolbert.png

---

I'd also like to make a follow-up argument that there are almost no real time game systems, using your rules. Every game is an ATB game.

To make this argument, I will be using the following games: Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X-2, Persona 4 Arena, Metroid Prime, World of Warcraft, and Final Fantasy XIII. But you can apply it to any game.

What qualifies a game as an ATB game? The game has a timer that counts down before you can take the next combat action. Congratulations, we just described every game I've ever played.

Think about it. Take Metroid Prime. The Power Beam fires incredibly quickly (easily the fastest beam in the game). Yet there is still a delay between each shot, even when using computer features which can send alternating ones and zeros to indicate button presses more times a second than I can count. In short, this time period (or the rate of fire period of any gun) is an ATB. It's an arbitrary bar that must be filled before the next combat action can be taken. The global cooldown in an MMO such as World of Warcraft is another absolutely concrete example of this, an arbitrary, game determined system that dictates how often you can take combat actions.

Of course, you don't have to take the combat action right then, but of course you don't in an "official" ATB game either. FFVII and Chrono Trigger both featured the option to hold off on a move until the time you chose, allowing you to execute it at will. And Chrono Trigger actually rewarded this delay by letting you use Dual and Triple Techs if you waited.

Ok, well what about fighting games? I mean, sure, each move may have a set attack and follow through time, but many also feature combo breakers and other things that take action instantly, right? So do the ATB games. In FFVII, getting a Limit Break immediately fills the ATB, and executing a Limit Break causes it to be the next action executed, breaking the standard flow of combat.

Well, in real time games, you can adjust the rate at which the ATB cycles, such as by selecting a different weapon in Metroid Prime? Also true in pure ATB games, with moves like Haste, or again, Limit Breaks, adjusting the charge time of the ATB (without even considering Final Fantasy X-2, where every move has a different effect on the follow up ATB charge).

Well, what about movement? Many of these real-time games allow you to maneuver and adjust your character's position mid-combat, avoiding attacks or setting up better positioning, right? Well, Final Fantasy XIII, an ATB game by your own account, also features exactly this feature, allowing you to maneuver to avoid AOE effects and certain attacks entirely while waiting for the ATB gauge to charge.


So, now that we've shown that essentially every game ever made, menu-based or not, falls under the category of "ATB game", let's try to define what makes a game "real time" in practical application or consideration.

A game is largely considered "real time" when the ATB length becomes short to the point that player input in that facet of the mechanics is negligible. Take Metroid Prime. You fire as quickly as possible, but you don't notice the ATB, because it is so short that your input into the firing process is minimal. During each ATB "cycle", you simply perform the same action, firing the Beam, and all thought and input is focused on different areas of combat.

Now compare this to Final Fantasy XIII. Again, your input to each round of the ATB is negligible. You perform auto-attack each and every turn (or, again, just spam a single ability like Poison), and otherwise focus on the other areas of combat, such as team health and your current paradigm setup.

In contrast, games considered "turn based" or "ATB" have an overall longer ATB charge time. Several, in fact, have an indefinite one by allowing you to select the "Wait" option in a game like Final Fantasy VII (and how I wish that Final Fantasy XIII had a "Wait" option). Or a game like Final Fantasy X, in which you have a strict turn system. This is where the system changes. In every true "ATB" game, you have the time to consider your input into the system, and make meaningful choices in that action of input. You don't simply have to spam "Attack" without thought every turn in a game like Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy VII. You can (especially when you're overpowered and a little bored with fighting), but you have the time to make clear and meaningful distinct choices in that area of the system.

This is, unfortunately, a rather difficult thing to truly define, since reflexes, reaction time, and input time differ from individual to individual. But that's the basis of it.

It does also depend on the game, and how easy it is to make new decisions. If the system doesn't allow you to make a number of distinct choices easily, even having extra time to make the choice can be meaningless.

It also depends on how well the game uses the time it gives you. For example, FFX-2 rewarded you for continuous attacking, in the form of the Chain Bonus and keeping opponents off-balance. It was, however, rarely the most effective way to play, nor was it the most fun. There were plenty of other combat options that would be worth delaying a turn by a second or two valid, and the Chain Bonus was honestly not impressive enough to dictate combat pacing all on its own. FFXIII, on the other hand, punishes you a lot for not keeping the combat flowing. The Star Ratings may be one thing, but the entire Stagger mechanic is such a huge part of the game that it is clear how important taking every turn as soon as you can is.

So, despite having the appearance and trappings of an ATB game, Final Fantasy XIII pushes itself firmly into the "real time" category in my mind by running the ATB it has so quickly that it prevents you from making meaningful input to the main combat system. You select auto-attack every turn, and your combat is limited to just adjusting paradigms. Just like in Metroid Prime, I'm constantly attacking, and my input is just where do I move and how do I avoid the next attack.


EDIT: Actually, a secondary note should be made for fighting games. Fighting games do actually allow you to choose and select meaningful actions, usually in quite a bit of time. The "ATB" nature of each move's attack and follow through does limit how quickly you can execute a series of moves, but you do have time to select and activate a number of meaningful moves in a short period of time. The problem is that the controls are complex enough that timing becomes critical on both sides. You have time to decide on your moves, but an extremely limited window in which to activate them. It still isn't real time, or any faster paced than most other systems, it simply requires precise timing both in when and how quickly you activate the commands.

I prefer the way the Coded handled the battle system. I don't mean isolating turn-based to a single world, but coded is the first game I can think of that possessed both action-RPG battle mechanics and a turn-based battle system in the same game and I think it even combined those aspects with the card play function from CoM. While I look forward to XV because I've never seen Final Fantasy as an action-RPG, I think it isn't impossible to combine turn-based and action-rpg elements. Did they do that with the XIII games? I think I read something about that. That isn't what I mean when I suggest it though.

How cute of you to assume that I haven't thought the exact same thing years ago already, skyblade <3

While the lines are certainly blurred, FF13 is still far from "real time".

Turn based systems seem to be prospering, or at least doing okay, on handhelds and I think that's fine. It would be nice to still see them on consoles but having a big budget etc doesn't necessarily make a game good; I have faith in smaller productions as well.

Hmm, the most recent turn-based rpgs on consoles like the PS3 and XBox 360 I remember playing were Lost Odyssey and Resonance of Fate.
But yes, they're definitely still going quite well on the 3ds. I heard Child of Light was going to be Turn-Based, so I'm looking forward to that...

Personally I hope turn-based never dies out. That would be sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

How cute of you to assume that I haven't thought the exact same thing years ago already, skyblade <3

While the lines are certainly blurred, FF13 is still far from "real time".

---

"She thinks I'm cute! She thinks I'm cute !" [/Rudolph]

That is the last time I am ever going to quote that miserable piece of animation.


As I said, in the grey area, it depends largely on who plays it, and how they are capable of handling the speed and systems.

Although for XIII it doesn't really matter because, as previously stated, even if you did have time to make choices in combat, it doesn't matter when the choices are simple enough that the AI can make them just as effectively on its own.

And that's the main problem!

FF battle systems up through FF7/8/99 were generally not fun. On a recent playthrough of FF6, I almost went into a coma.

One simple way to make turn-based battles fun is make the game more difficult. A big reason battles in FF games aren't fun is because they're too easy. If you can tape the A button down and win all the battles, it's not a good system.

Case in point, Etrian Odyssey. You have to pay attention to the battles or you'll die. New monsters and FOEs can charge into a battle if you take too long. Elemental weaknesses actually matter because some enemies are very hard to kill otherwise. Enemies applying conditions to you actually matters because they will kill you. Lack of save points means you actually care if you survive the battles because you might lose an hour of progress if you die. Lack of resources (MP, healing items) means you actually care about each battle, because being inefficient will screw you over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Magic Shopkeeper

Hmm, the most recent turn-based rpgs on consoles like the PS3 and XBox 360 I remember playing were Lost Odyssey and Resonance of Fate.

---

Lost Odyssey's timed-hit system was good enough to keep me awake. Even that little added feature made the battles pretty fun. It doesn't take much.

Resonance of Fate's system was fun because it was so unique and complicated, and because the character animations were ridiculous and glorious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I find it hilarious that you use XIII as your argument against turn-based combat.

XIII's problems weren't centered over a lack of gameplay in exchange for story. They were centered around crippling problems with both gameplay and story.

Had XIII properly delivered on the cinematic story, 95% of the fans would not have cared about the gameplay one way or another. The biggest complaints about it were about how badly its story botched.

The biggest complaints about the battle system, on the other hand, were about how restrictive it was. The artificial cap to your "levels" in the Crystarium was complained about far more than the gameplay itself. The biggest complaint about the combat mechanics was the overall lack of interactivity with the system outside of the Paradigms (which is only made worse by the restrictions on how little there is to do before the real options unlock). In fact, the semi-real time nature of the combat hurt this game's systems overall, because it meant that the combat progressed far to quickly to make choosing commands in battle worthwhile. You essentially auto-battle every fight, because choosing commands real-time would result in you taking nearly twice as long to perform each action, and therefore you would find things a lot harder.

Heck, I'd argue that XIII's system wasn't even turn-based. But having a turn-based system had nothing to do with how well the game was received.


Personally, I prefer turn-based by far over real time, because too many real time combat systems boil everything down to reaction time. Turn based lets you relax, breathe, and make decisions. Real time is a reflex test, and if your reflexes aren't good enough, you fail. And then people laugh at you for sucking at games.

Don't make me go on a rant about how many games that build themselves up as being "skill based" are really just reflex based, there are so many examples out there I could point out.

Also, note that turn-based systems are generally well received when they are well executed. There are still tons of fantastic turn based games out there, or more coming out. Bravely Default is using turn based, and is apparently fantastic (I'll be playing the demo later). XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Fire Emblem Awakening make good use of turn-based systems, and Awakening is definitely an RPG. Persona 4 Golden and Shin Megami Tensei IV both used turn-based systems, and have been received incredibly well. And these are just high-profile titles released over the last year.

---

Your comment is far too long. There is too much focus on storyline in Final Fantasy, in my opinion. Gameplay was put on the back burner to attempt to make this huge cinematic game, but it obviously wan't pulled off very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

FF battle systems up through FF7/8/99 were generally not fun. On a recent playthrough of FF6, I almost went into a coma.

One simple way to make turn-based battles fun is make the game more difficult. A big reason battles in FF games aren't fun is because they're too easy. If you can tape the A button down and win all the battles, it's not a good system.

Case in point, Etrian Odyssey. You have to pay attention to the battles or you'll die. New monsters and FOEs can charge into a battle if you take too long. Elemental weaknesses actually matter because some enemies are very hard to kill otherwise. Enemies applying conditions to you actually matters because they will kill you. Lack of save points means you actually care if you survive the battles because you might lose an hour of progress if you die. Lack of resources (MP, healing items) means you actually care about each battle, because being inefficient will screw you over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Magic Shopkeeper

Hmm, the most recent turn-based rpgs on consoles like the PS3 and XBox 360 I remember playing were Lost Odyssey and Resonance of Fate.

---

Lost Odyssey's timed-hit system was good enough to keep me awake. Even that little added feature made the battles pretty fun. It doesn't take much.

Resonance of Fate's system was fun because it was so unique and complicated, and because the character animations were ridiculous and glorious.

---

I preferred the battle systems in the older games. FFXIII is OK, but looks dated on a PS3 game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlenoconel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I find it hilarious that you use XIII as your argument against turn-based combat.

XIII's problems weren't centered over a lack of gameplay in exchange for story. They were centered around crippling problems with both gameplay and story.

Had XIII properly delivered on the cinematic story, 95% of the fans would not have cared about the gameplay one way or another. The biggest complaints about it were about how badly its story botched.

The biggest complaints about the battle system, on the other hand, were about how restrictive it was. The artificial cap to your "levels" in the Crystarium was complained about far more than the gameplay itself. The biggest complaint about the combat mechanics was the overall lack of interactivity with the system outside of the Paradigms (which is only made worse by the restrictions on how little there is to do before the real options unlock). In fact, the semi-real time nature of the combat hurt this game's systems overall, because it meant that the combat progressed far to quickly to make choosing commands in battle worthwhile. You essentially auto-battle every fight, because choosing commands real-time would result in you taking nearly twice as long to perform each action, and therefore you would find things a lot harder.

Heck, I'd argue that XIII's system wasn't even turn-based. But having a turn-based system had nothing to do with how well the game was received.


Personally, I prefer turn-based by far over real time, because too many real time combat systems boil everything down to reaction time. Turn based lets you relax, breathe, and make decisions. Real time is a reflex test, and if your reflexes aren't good enough, you fail. And then people laugh at you for sucking at games.

Don't make me go on a rant about how many games that build themselves up as being "skill based" are really just reflex based, there are so many examples out there I could point out.

Also, note that turn-based systems are generally well received when they are well executed. There are still tons of fantastic turn based games out there, or more coming out. Bravely Default is using turn based, and is apparently fantastic (I'll be playing the demo later). XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Fire Emblem Awakening make good use of turn-based systems, and Awakening is definitely an RPG. Persona 4 Golden and Shin Megami Tensei IV both used turn-based systems, and have been received incredibly well. And these are just high-profile titles released over the last year.

---

Your comment is far too long. There is too much focus on storyline in Final Fantasy, in my opinion. Gameplay was put on the back burner to attempt to make this huge cinematic game, but it obviously wan't pulled off very well.

---

FFXIII was poorly received because its story sucked and it's overworld allowed no freedom, not because the combat was turn based.

Short enough?

You can't make a thread ridiculing a style of JRPG and not expect to receive essays in the form of replies from people like Wolf, Bolivar, Skyblade, and Neocracker (to name a few). It comes with the territory. And with good reason. There's more to the likes and dislikes and the ins and outs of a system than most people realize, and we have some lovely dedicated members willing to dissect everything and break it down for us and then debate about it at length. It makes for some of the more interesting (if wordy) topical reads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlenoconel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I find it hilarious that you use XIII as your argument against turn-based combat.

XIII's problems weren't centered over a lack of gameplay in exchange for story. They were centered around crippling problems with both gameplay and story.

Had XIII properly delivered on the cinematic story, 95% of the fans would not have cared about the gameplay one way or another. The biggest complaints about it were about how badly its story botched.

The biggest complaints about the battle system, on the other hand, were about how restrictive it was. The artificial cap to your "levels" in the Crystarium was complained about far more than the gameplay itself. The biggest complaint about the combat mechanics was the overall lack of interactivity with the system outside of the Paradigms (which is only made worse by the restrictions on how little there is to do before the real options unlock). In fact, the semi-real time nature of the combat hurt this game's systems overall, because it meant that the combat progressed far to quickly to make choosing commands in battle worthwhile. You essentially auto-battle every fight, because choosing commands real-time would result in you taking nearly twice as long to perform each action, and therefore you would find things a lot harder.

Heck, I'd argue that XIII's system wasn't even turn-based. But having a turn-based system had nothing to do with how well the game was received.


Personally, I prefer turn-based by far over real time, because too many real time combat systems boil everything down to reaction time. Turn based lets you relax, breathe, and make decisions. Real time is a reflex test, and if your reflexes aren't good enough, you fail. And then people laugh at you for sucking at games.

Don't make me go on a rant about how many games that build themselves up as being "skill based" are really just reflex based, there are so many examples out there I could point out.

Also, note that turn-based systems are generally well received when they are well executed. There are still tons of fantastic turn based games out there, or more coming out. Bravely Default is using turn based, and is apparently fantastic (I'll be playing the demo later). XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Fire Emblem Awakening make good use of turn-based systems, and Awakening is definitely an RPG. Persona 4 Golden and Shin Megami Tensei IV both used turn-based systems, and have been received incredibly well. And these are just high-profile titles released over the last year.

---

Your comment is far too long. There is too much focus on storyline in Final Fantasy, in my opinion. Gameplay was put on the back burner to attempt to make this huge cinematic game, but it obviously wan't pulled off very well.

---

FFXIII was poorly received because its story sucked and it's overworld allowed no freedom, not because the combat was turn based.

Short enough?

---

I responded to you the first time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlenoconel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlenoconel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I find it hilarious that you use XIII as your argument against turn-based combat.

XIII's problems weren't centered over a lack of gameplay in exchange for story. They were centered around crippling problems with both gameplay and story.

Had XIII properly delivered on the cinematic story, 95% of the fans would not have cared about the gameplay one way or another. The biggest complaints about it were about how badly its story botched.

The biggest complaints about the battle system, on the other hand, were about how restrictive it was. The artificial cap to your "levels" in the Crystarium was complained about far more than the gameplay itself. The biggest complaint about the combat mechanics was the overall lack of interactivity with the system outside of the Paradigms (which is only made worse by the restrictions on how little there is to do before the real options unlock). In fact, the semi-real time nature of the combat hurt this game's systems overall, because it meant that the combat progressed far to quickly to make choosing commands in battle worthwhile. You essentially auto-battle every fight, because choosing commands real-time would result in you taking nearly twice as long to perform each action, and therefore you would find things a lot harder.

Heck, I'd argue that XIII's system wasn't even turn-based. But having a turn-based system had nothing to do with how well the game was received.


Personally, I prefer turn-based by far over real time, because too many real time combat systems boil everything down to reaction time. Turn based lets you relax, breathe, and make decisions. Real time is a reflex test, and if your reflexes aren't good enough, you fail. And then people laugh at you for sucking at games.

Don't make me go on a rant about how many games that build themselves up as being "skill based" are really just reflex based, there are so many examples out there I could point out.

Also, note that turn-based systems are generally well received when they are well executed. There are still tons of fantastic turn based games out there, or more coming out. Bravely Default is using turn based, and is apparently fantastic (I'll be playing the demo later). XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Fire Emblem Awakening make good use of turn-based systems, and Awakening is definitely an RPG. Persona 4 Golden and Shin Megami Tensei IV both used turn-based systems, and have been received incredibly well. And these are just high-profile titles released over the last year.

---

Your comment is far too long. There is too much focus on storyline in Final Fantasy, in my opinion. Gameplay was put on the back burner to attempt to make this huge cinematic game, but it obviously wan't pulled off very well.

---

FFXIII was poorly received because its story sucked and it's overworld allowed no freedom, not because the combat was turn based.

Short enough?

---

I responded to you the first time.

---

That's amazingly disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write a long, in-depth reply and the you just disregard what the person said instead of engaging in a discussion, that is just plain rude.

From what I've heard, XIII's story was really poorly put together and plenty of people took issue with that. As Skyblade said, people are willing to put up with a linear world if the story is engaging enough. Two examples of games acclaimed both by critics and fans, despite being linear, turn-based RPGs with a way larger proportion of story to gameplay: Final Fantasy X and Xenosaga. Though I'm not a fan of the former, both games offer limited freedom, more cutscenes that actual gameplay, and a turn-based battle system, and yet both have cohesive, engaging stories. They were both really praised.

In case you don't find this reply too long, I would gladly take part in a discussion on how that works. Perhaps you have a different idea of why that worked for those games?

I agree with FFX and Xenosaga. Both games were pretty linear, but neither of them felt linear, because there was a lot more to it. Both offered laid back periods where it wasn't fight after fight after fight for example. Both stories were interesting and engaging.

FFXIII, in my opinion, is FFX if you take all of the negatives the game had and amplify them. There are some positives from XIII, don't get me wrong, but in all honesty, I'm playing the game now for the forum Let's Play and it feels like a chore. I feel so limited in everything I do. And heck, for most of the game there's a level cap so I can't even grind my characters like I enjoy doing. Even leveling is limited! It feels so confined and restricted.

My point is, it has nothing to do with a turn-based system or not. Most of my favorite games are turn based. I greatly enjoy a turn based system when it is done right.

Some of the comments in this thread are far too short. I don't really read too short comments.

I'm a little lost. I thought this thread was about turn-based battles, and now we're talking about whether games are overly battle-oriented or story-oriented and how linear the game is. Anyhow as to me, I prefer a balanced mix. I don't like games that are so linear that there's nothing to break up the monotony of pushing forward. I think Unlimited Saga was like that. At the same time, I'm not an overly huge fan of games that have almost no story and instead are just a sandbox game. Anyone with an ounce of intellect would realize that there's actually nothing really worthwhile to do in such an environment. Anything and everything just starts to blend together. I'm casting a cocked eye at Dead Rising here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn

That's amazingly disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write a long, in-depth reply and the you just disregard what the person said instead of engaging in a discussion, that is just plain rude.

---

Not really trying to defend j, but people ignore my lengthy posts almost all the time and I hardly ever poke at anyone about it. Some people find walls of text difficult to sift through. It's easier when they shake things up. Bold face a line here. Change the font there. Text size. Text color. Anything to draw attention to a specific point you're trying to make. My personal methods have been [quote]s and spoilers. One makes the post longer while the other shortens it. But that's all still more opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

I'm a little lost. I thought this thread was about turn-based battles, and now we're talking about whether games are overly battle-oriented or story-oriented and how linear the game is. Anyhow as to me, I prefer a balanced mix. I don't like games that are so linear that there's nothing to break up the monotony of pushing forward. I think Unlimited Saga was like that. At the same time, I'm not an overly huge fan of games that have almost no story and instead are just a sandbox game. Anyone with an ounce of intellect would realize that there's actually nothing really worthwhile to do in such an environment. Anything and everything just starts to blend together. I'm casting a cocked eye at Dead Rising here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn

That's amazingly disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write a long, in-depth reply and the you just disregard what the person said instead of engaging in a discussion, that is just plain rude.

---

Not really trying to defend j, but people ignore my lengthy posts almost all the time and I hardly ever poke at anyone about it. Some people find walls of text difficult to sift through. It's easier when they shake things up. Bold face a line here. Change the font there. Text size. Text color. Anything to draw attention to a specific point you're trying to make. My personal methods have been quotes and spoilers. One makes the post longer while the other shortens it. But that's all still more opinion.

---

I ignore your walls of text because they leave little to say. You are extremely thorough in most of them, and you don't leave a lot open for discussion (and I can't remember ever seeing you being argumentative). Sure, I could spam the forum with "Yep, that's right", but that's really the only sort of response I can usually think of for your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlenoconel

I responded to you the first time.

---

Responding to me is not the same thing as responding to my argument.

I actually miss the turn-based combat. Not sure if it is just for nostalgic reasons or if it is something that i prefer mechanic wise. I understand there is strategy to live combat in RPGs, I feel most of it boils down to button mashing. Where as, in turn-based if the enemy did something unexpected you were forced to counter with a move of your own. I think turn-based invites more thought into the combat and strategy.

i think turn-based is one of the things that devines and RPG
i do miss it at XIII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MustangCobraSVT

I actually miss the turn-based combat. Not sure if it is just for nostalgic reasons or if it is something that i prefer mechanic wise. I understand there is strategy to live combat in RPGs, I feel most of it boils down to button mashing. Where as, in turn-based if the enemy did something unexpected you were forced to counter with a move of your own. I think turn-based invites more thought into the combat and strategy.

---

Turn based does allow for far more strategy than real time.

If you need evidence of this, look to any grand strategy game, such as Civilization. They're turn-based. Why? Because it is the only format they can take. Imagine how much simpler the game would have to be in order to run in real time. How many features would have to be either reduced to bare bones, or eliminated completely, in order to accommodate such a change? The larger your empire, the worse off you are, since smaller players have less to focus on and greater control over their units and territories. Diplomacy would have to be abandoned completely, lest two players spend time talking things out while a third goes and slaughters them both.

Now look at real time strategy games, like StarCraft. There is a far smaller scope, to narrow your focus, and far fewer options available. Even then, button mashing dominates player tiers far more than strategy, and everyone knows it, even Blizzard. That's why StarCraft II can track your commands per minute, and why "Hard" difficulty's biggest factor is the fact that the game is locked to the fastest play speed. By reducing the time you have to make and execute decisions, the game is made harder. There is certainly strategy in the game, but the player who can "button mash" fast enough to get units out of trouble, or run the closest to ideal economy, is generally going to win. Admittedly, there is skill and strategy in knowing how to set up said economy, or when to grab a unit to get it out of trouble, but the ability to execute that strategy is far more important than conceptualizing it, and implementation is ruled by the speed.



Now take League of Legends. Gameplay here is entirely real-time, and each Champion has a very limited number of activities that they can perform. A handful of abilities, a few places to move to, and which enemy to attack. That's about it. Does that mean that there is no strategy? The planning and strategies in this game play out on a larger scale than the basic gameplay. Which lane goes to which hero, when to make a push, when you need to fall back and defend, which items you upgrade, and when to go back to upgrade them. There is a great deal of thought and planning to the game, it is just paced to take place over a far larger scale, to give you time to think these things over and choose which you want to do, and plan them out.

Most First Person Shooters operate on a similar system, with actual tactics taking place over a larger scale, while the combat itself is dominated almost completely by twitch reflexes and aiming talent.


Turn based gives you the option to have strategies on multiple levels of the game, because you do not run into the time troubles. Compare Final Fantasy X to Final Fantasy XIII. Both share the strategic level of raising your characters, equipping them, and setting up your team for ideal combat. Both have the strategic layer of changing the team layout mid-combat to best suit the situation at hand. But Final Fantasy XIII, due to its fast paced nature, and corresponding lack of reasonable choices, lacks strategy in the individual turns, and boils everything down to Auto-Attack, while you can make a number of very important strategic decisions during your turns in Final Fantasy X.

What strategies can be implemented, what actions can be taken, are directly tied to how much information you can process, and what actions you can execute. Turn based systems allow you much more time to process more information, and more time to successfully execute commands that you have planned. Thus, turn based games have a greater depth of available strategy. Which is not to say that a turn-based game will be more strategic, since there are tons of really poorly designed turn-based games that don't use thought or strategy at all, just that they have greater strategic potential, by the nature of their format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaibana

i think turn-based is one of the things that devines and RPG
i do miss it at XIII

---

Perhaps it's one of the things that define final fantasy, but far from something that defines RPGs in general. That is an extremely wide range of games, some of which are decades old series that have never had a turn based installment.

Actually, Skyblade, I think a civilization-like game could have been realtime if the flow of time wasn't sped extremely much. If a civilization year took a week (or even just 24 hours) to play out in realtime when you were nearing the final few decades, it could have been manageable :p. A third player attacking while two were doing things through diplomacy wouldn't necessarily be a big problem, considering they might need a real life hour to get their troops even close to the border of the country it wanted to attack, not to mention that the third player wouldn't necessarily know exactly when the two others were talking together anyway.

Smaller countries being easier to control would also be a bit realistic. It does take a lot of work to manage a large country in real life too, after all, and you'd probably have to divide your country into smaller and more manageable territories, just like in real life. It could also bring in an element of balance to the game. Yes, you have overwhelming military and economic power, but the smaller countries who have less would be able to use what they have more efficiently, making up for a bit of their lower brute force.

Personally, after having spent most of my RPG-playtime with "Tales of" games, star ocean, and other fast paced RPGS the last few years, I can't say I really miss strict turn based combat systems. I like having to make decisions under pressure, and without such pressure, I just kind of get a bit bored, or feel that the gameplay isn't very engaging. I found FFX' combat to be in the range from boring to "sort of ok". I still enjoyed the game, but gameplay-wise, the actual combat wasn't what I looked forwards to, but rather the preparation for combat. FFX-2 on the other hand was consistently fun almost all the time, both in the preparation and execution stage, and star ocean 3 was somewhere in between awesome and smurfing incredible at all times.

>>> Most of strategy rpgs (if not all), are turn based.. and those games are most fun and addictive of all..:luca:

SRPGs aren't as bad even if they are turn based because the battlefield is much more complex, and you control a lot more chararacters, while also having to keep track of a lot more enemies. In FFX, you had a mere three party members and rarely more than 4-5 enemies on a very static and passive battle arena where you couldn't move.