Which do you like better and why? And what would you suggest for a game that has the option of using squads and tactics for taking out enemies in built up places like warehouses?
Printable View
Which do you like better and why? And what would you suggest for a game that has the option of using squads and tactics for taking out enemies in built up places like warehouses?
Turn based if it's done well. Action RPGs make it almost impossible to control a party and generally imply you'll only control 1 character. Controlling a party is better for fitting in with a story, in my view. If you've come to value them as a valuable fighter, I think it does add to your connection with them as a character. Which is why I always loved Yuna and Celes but didn't care when Aeris died.
They both have their advantages, but I like turn based better because there are plenty of other genres that can make an action game that much better. I like to be all strategic and stuff. Makes me feel all smart and stuff. Oreos have white stuff.
^ definitely. Having a party is endemic to RPGs for me, one of the things it borrows from its tabletop roots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy
The WRPG action RPG I really get behind is The Elder Scrolls but the game is more about discovery than its RPG elements. Hence why it didn't get nearly as much flak as it should have for eliminating so many of its RPG elements.
I did like Deus Ex Human Revolution though and thought it worked pretty well for a shooter.
At some point I made the switch to action-RPG. It just happened. I think I was born with it. I told my friends and family. Some disowned me.
Depends on the definition of action RPG being used here.
If you mean as in Diablo, then hell yes, that's one of the greatest genres ever.
If you mean as in TES/Deus Ex, then I have no preference really. (TES and Deus Ex are two of my favorite series of all time but it's because of the lore, not the game genre.)
Probably of greater importance to me overall is whether or not the main character is a "blank slate" that I can mold and shape to my liking. I tend to prefer those types of characters over ones with pre-set personalities.
As much as I like a good turn-based RPG, I do prefer aRPGs. They're so much fun!
Turn Based ones tend to be a lot more methodical, I think would be a good term to use here. I tend to prefer that over the more action oriented. I do love both though.
KH, Diablo and Bioware games like KotOR and Mass Effect are my favourites, so action RPG it is I guess. I also think games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age let you control a party just fine, and the combat is still more exciting than a turn based system imo.
See, I'm sort of on the opposite side here. KotOR and Dragon Age had combat so abysmal that I had to cheat in order to get through it and enjoy the storyline. Dragon Age II improved on the combat quite a bit, but it still wasn't good, and Inquisition has gone right back to being a genuinely awful combat experience. BioWare did have fun gameplay with the Mass Effect franchise, though. I'll give them that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pheesh
Diablo can be fun in short bursts, but it gets pretty mind-numbing if you go at it too long (not to mention flat-out unplayable when Blizzard decides to make melee classes worthless every new patch).
I definitely prefer turn based or ATB.
I prefer turn based because I like having time to devise my next move and some relative predictability of when my action and the enemy's action will occur.
I also like complexity in the battles and that is more easily accomplished in a turn-based system. When things happen in real time then there is either a) less stuff available for you to do, or b) too much that it is so complicated that you get frustrated and give up only to keep mashing the attack button.
I have always liked action RPG games, role playing shooters and real-time RPGs.
I like the extra challenge that comes with "thinking on your toes" and with managing your squad (if you have one) in real time. Mass Effect 1-3 and RTS games like Command & Conquer have made me a stategist and a damn good one too. I don't fret when my real-time attack plans go south, I always have a back-up plan and think every encounter through.
Turn based, but only if it's something along the lines of FFXII because I hate random encounters with a passion.
Turn based usually, but it depends
Turn-Based is my favorite, I actually don't care much for Action-RPG style battle systems.
I would love to say Turn-Based as it was always my bread and butter growing up. A quick look at my favorite RPGs includes FF6/7, Xenogears, Persona 4, Bravely Default. Some fairly great quality turn based experiences. But rarely was combat a big component of my enjoyment of those types of games. It was just something tacked on that I was okay with, while enjoying the story, world, and characters
When I look at the flipside, where people have mentioned KotOR, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, even Xenoblade, and The Last Story. We start to get into games where I legitimately enjoy the combat as a bonus to the story, world, and characters. These kinds of games have the strategy you'd have in a turn-based game, but with the addition of having to think on your toes, and micromanage a squad if necessary. Though most instances had the squad fairly competent in most situations, but the option was nice. I know Mass Effect got frustrating once in a while, but nothing generally game-breaking in my experience. Though I accept that these types of games don't jive with some people, I would argue its more of a preference in gameplay, rather than them being abysmally designed or anything. If its not your thing, its not your thing. But I much prefer this active tactical type of thing over things like Elder Scrolls, which is just passable action stuff more akin to regular action games like God of War and stuff. Just shoe-horned into an RPG environment. Fable had the same thing going for it
Though as far as the tactical action set-up, you can follow that train of thought to the extreme and get into active battle with pause found in Baldur's Gate and other infinity engine games, and now in Pillars. That gets a little intense, and is generally really difficult. It frustrates me more frequently, but at least it's not as dry and boring as the generic Final Fantasy set-up
It's not really one of the options, but I will say I also adore active strategy style games that take tactical role playing to the next level when you get into things like the new Shadowrun games, Wasteland 2, XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within, or Divinity: Original Sin (which did it fantastically by also incorporating the environment and mixing of elements into the strategy)
I'm not fast. Turn-based fo lief
For me this is a more detailed question. Well, not that detailed, but...
It really depends with me. As someone who grew up playing both console/pc games like Dragon Warrior, Might and Magic, Betrayal at Krondor, etc. I have different tastes. If it's a party based game, I almost always want a fully turn based game. The exceptions to this would be MM6-MM9 (don't kill me for playing MM9). I felt the real time and turn based were great. For games like Divinnity: Original Sin or MMX, I want a fully turn based system.
If the game is more hack and slash like Diablo, I don't mind the live action game. For Final Fantasy, FFX and Tactics were godsends for me, though I didn't mind the ATB system of VII.
One of the things I hated about things like Baldur's Gate and NVN was having to pause the game and arrange things. It felt weird. It felt like micromanaging was even more difficult despite the pausing, since you had to backlog and see whatever happened between pauses. TES games I think are fine, as those would just be plain silly to have as turn based.
I guess it's all about the game and your preference, really. If I had to pick between the two, I would take the turn based rpg's in a minute. I really miss the days of things like Betrayal at Krondor and Ultima, but sadly those days are long gone except for the indie companies who keep my niche market alive. :)
Action RPG is the best if it's focused mainly on one hero, like The Witcher.
Turn-based RPG is the best when you control the entire team, like Final Fantasy.
That's my opinion, deal with it! :3
So I just had a long discussion with a friend about this topic and discovered we are very much in opposition on this topic. What made this discussion interesting was discussing more of the longevity of the two systems. Is the current trend of Action-RPG battle systems simply a trend or a long term evolution of the genre?
What I mean by this, is whether you feel that Action based battle systems are basically what the genre has been moving towards all along and that while turn-based will never fully go away, this trend of one making up the majority of the genre's gameplay is here to stay, or is this simply a trend based on other gaming trends and this may all end up mellowing out in the next decade or two?
Another point I would ask is whether the combat system determines whether you would buy a game or not? Not necessarily in that its a deal breaker but would learning that your favorite RPG series next entry would utilize the opposing gameplay system make you less excited for it or would it even matter?
I like both pretty equally now that I think about it. :shobon: Just depends on the kind of mood I'm in.
So what side of the argument were you? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Yes it would matter particularly if it is a great departure from the traditional combat of the series. FFXV is somewhat of an example of this although the FF series has evolved its combat over time. However, if they made a Fire Emblem game that was not a grid tactical combat system or a Pokemon game that wasn't turn-based, then I would definitely pass on those. However, if there was a turn-based Kingdom Hearts game (like that Olympia mini game in 3D) I wouldn't automatically be opposed to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
My answer is a bit complicated but my friend never heard it because he debates like Bill O Reilly and simply talks over in a louder voice to make his point when dealing with dissidents. As usual, I play gaming gadfly to to his discussion which just got him riled up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fynn
Did he say you'd do it live?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoMy answer is a bit complicated but my friend never heard it because he debates like Bill O Reilly and simply talks over in a louder voice to make his point when dealing with dissidents. As usual, I play gaming gadfly to to his discussion which just got him riled up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fynn
I don't quite get what you mean? If you if we had this debate in a public format, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by AyenDid he say you'd do it live?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoMy answer is a bit complicated but my friend never heard it because he debates like Bill O Reilly and simply talks over in a louder voice to make his point when dealing with dissidents. As usual, I play gaming gadfly to to his discussion which just got him riled up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fynn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy-Y3HJNU_sQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoI don't quite get what you mean? If you if we had this debate in a public format, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by AyenDid he say you'd do it live?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf KannoMy answer is a bit complicated but my friend never heard it because he debates like Bill O Reilly and simply talks over in a louder voice to make his point when dealing with dissidents. As usual, I play gaming gadfly to to his discussion which just got him riled up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fynn
Always and forever turn-based. I'm just not good at certain types of Action RPGs. I played some Kingdom Hearts and Lightning Returns and had to bail out of both of them because I sucked and I didn't foresee myself having any fun.
I'm not going to say turn-based requires more strategy or try to argue it's superiority, I just prefer it. It's what I grew up with.