Is ATB Dead?

[Slothy]

But the ATB held back FF12's battle system. As I mention, Dragon Age did what FF12 did far better.

I haven't played Dragon Age so explain to me how ATB held back FFXII's battle system. This is what I'm getting at: so far you haven't made a legitimate argument for why ATB is flawed or outdated. The best you've come up with is that it's slow and you wait for a bar to fill up, only the latter is strictly true as the former is an issue of balance, not an inherent design flaw. ATB can just as easily be very quick as was seen in FFXIII. So where is you're argument here?

If you think FF12's battle system was "one of the deeper, more complex, and legitimately challenging" battle systems, then I want to know what you shallow, simple, and easy.

You aren't even making an argument here, let alone one against ATB. Again, explain how ATB detracts from a game like FFXII. I can't ery well do any more to respond to your arguments if you aren't even making any. For the record, I would consider a shallow, simple and easy battle system one where you can spam one attack every time your turn comes up in almost any fight in the game and win. I wouldn't say that description fits with FFXII considering even many of the regular enemies could conceivably kill you if you weren't on the ball, and the harder fights outright required a lot more choices than simply spamming attack to win.

ATB is an entirely outdated mechanic, and it should be dead.

How is it outdated? You still haven't explained this. The closest you've come is to say that it was a result of compensating for limitations, but you didn't even explain in what way. And you seem to be completely neglecting the fact that full turn based systems essentially evolved out of the same sort of limitations. You couldn't easily have multiple players acting at the same time in a pen & paper RPG without things getting confusing so people used turn based systems. If ATB is so reprehensible because of how it evolved out of turn based systems as an intermediate step between turn based and real time, then turn based systems should be just as reprehensible by your standards. Yet you praise FFX which is itself essentially a turn based version of an ATB system on wait mode (since you can manipulate character speed, and by extension, turn order without the time pressure from an ATB system).

You've yet to make any case whatsoever for it's necessity or usefulness, beyond clinging to nostalgia.

I've already explained the usefulness of ATB. It introduces some of the time based pressure of a real time system to force a player not to spend too long considering every action, while also introducing the strategic possibilities that accompany a system which allows you to manipulate character speeds and turn order. You've yet to address these points, let alone refute them. You simply keep repeating that the system is dated and dying and that nostalgia is the only reason anyone likes it. The latter is the closest thing to an actual argument but I can assure you is not the case with me, and still doesn't refute the points I've made or do anything to explain how ATB detracts from games.

If you can't come up with any actual examples of games where combat was ruined by ATB and explain how it's because of a problem inherent in the ATB system and not simply an issue of poor balance, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[felfenix]

So where is you're argument here?

You're arguing that FF13 is an example of how modern ATB can work. That implies that FF13's battle system is considered a success. People like the OP seem to dislike FF13's battle system to the point of not considering it ATB.

What battle system would you advocate? FF13's battle system? FF12's? FF4's? You seem to jump around and try to classify anything and everything as ATB, and an example of why ATB works, but you have to explain howso.

If the discussion is ATB in the current realm of RPGs, and you're ignorant of current RPGs, then it's like trying to have a discussion about a book with someone who's never read one.

The flaw in the design is that what defines ATB is entirely irrelevant. Even a game like Fallout 3 allows for real time or more turn-based hybrid.

How is it outdated? You still haven't explained this. The closest you've come is to say that it was a result of compensating for limitations, but you didn't even explain in what way. And you seem to be completely neglecting the fact that full turn based systems essentially evolved out of the same sort of limitations. You couldn't easily have multiple players acting at the same time in a pen & paper RPG without things getting confusing so people used turn based systems. If ATB is so reprehensible because of how it evolved out of turn based systems as an intermediate step between turn based and real time, then turn based systems should be just as reprehensible by your standards. Yet you praise FFX which is itself essentially a turn based version of an ATB system on wait mode (since you can manipulate character speed, and by extension, turn order without the time pressure from an ATB system).

You seem to stretch anything to be considered "ATB", from FF12 to even FF10, which is entirely turn-based. What isn't ATB to you? Would you consider WoW ATB, because the Rogue class is dependent on it's ATB-looking energy bar filling up, or Diablo and Elder Scrolls to be ATB because of their stamina bars?

What DO you consider ATB? The OP, and the topic of the thread, considers ATB to be battle systems like FF4. You control all party members, there's no AI, there is a battle screen, there's no movement, you select commands from a menu, and all actions are dependent on waiting for a bar to fill up.

There's no reason to wait for a bar to fill up. All it does is draw out the time for actions to take effect, and delay when you can make a decision.

FFX, a full turn based game, allows for immediately decisions and infinite deliberation. You don't wait for a bar to fill up before each turn, then wait for a bar to fill up before the action you chose takes effect. No matter how fast the bar may be, you've yet to say any point for having it. To allow for pressure?

Dragon Age allows for full control of a party without the use of the AI (it's actually preferred you turn all AIs off, on the max difficult, and manually control everything). There's movement, which increases tactical play. There's no battle screen, allowing for a smoother and more consistent game. You can play either via menus or hotkeys. All of this without any sort of ATB.

NWN works on D&D rules. Completely turn-based rules. However, it can be played and adjusted to be a full real-time game, like an action game, or played just like D&D, fully turn-based. You can essentially choose to play D&D speed chess style, if you please.

I've already explained the usefulness of ATB. It introduces some of the time based pressure of a real time system to force a player not to spend too long considering every action, while also introducing the strategic possibilities that accompany a system which allows you to manipulate character speeds and turn order.

How does it introduce any strategic elements? What does ATB offer in strategy that alternatives don't already offer or excel better at?

As for pure "party-based turn-based real-time hybrids", there's battle systems like NWN, KOTOR, and Dragon Age, which allow you to adjust the system to a point where it feels like a full turn based game with full control over every party member and action, or an action game where you only control the main character.

By no means though does ATB inherently offer any strategy or tactical play. Why should ATB be used over any other combat system? What makes it superior? That it's the only thing you know about? That's simply arguing it's the best because you're ignorant of anything else.

Even if ATB were the only real-time/turn-based hybrid, does it's merits still justify it being used over a full turn-based system or a full action-based system?

In ATB, when you slow down the bars, you're simply adding wait time for no reason whatsoever. If you speed the bars up to their max speed, you still have turns determined by waiting on a bar to fill up - why even bother having the bars? If you want pressure on menu based combat, play Kingdom Hearts. ATB is half-assed on both the turn based and real time fronts.

You tediously wait on bars, just to navigate or ignore clunky menus, with few options. It's a terrible substitute for a strategy based system as it lacks depth without breaking (people complaining it's too hard, or the gameplay needing to be dumbed down to compensate for player reaction time being lower than a computer's) or needing to automated.

It's a poor substitute for action games, as it has poor control and options. It lacks depth on both fronts, and adds in elements, like a separate battle screen and waiting for bars to fill up, which are entirely unnecessary for what it's trying to do. ATB has an incredibly limited appeal in comparison to alternatives.

You aren't even making an argument here, let alone one against ATB. Again, explain how ATB detracts from a game like FFXII. I can't ery well do any more to respond to your arguments if you aren't even making any.

If you can't come up with any actual examples of games where combat was ruined by ATB and explain how it's because of a problem inherent in the ATB system and not simply an issue of poor balance, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

I don't have the intent to argue, like you apparently do. I wonder why you'd try to engage in discussion on the merits of something if you're emotionally tied to a subject that you can't actual discuss it without getting overly defensive. Maybe you should calm down.

You're obviously quite attached to ATB, to the point of not being able to discuss any flaws or comprehend why we aren't still playing games like FF4. Then again, I'm sure you'd "argue" that 8-bit graphics aren't out of date with just as much venom and vitriol.

I'm simply offering commentary that there are systems already out there which achieve the same benefits you claim exist with ATB. The discussion is on the merits of ATB in modern Triple A gaming. ATB is obsolete, though IMO it was never even adequate compared to competition at the time. Even SE has realized it's inadequate now especially.

[Fynn]

Man, why the crusade at ATB? It's a mechanic that is different from real time and turn-based systems. It sometimes works, sometimes it doesn't. But just cause it's different and you don't like it doesn't mean it deserves to be murdered, yeesh! I think each mechanic has its own merits and should all be appreciated for what they do best, not try to all be the same, cause apparently "pure" mechanics are the only right answer (getting kinda a fascist vibe there... j/k. Please don't kill me...). It's like the whole rant (that I'm tired of) that jRPGs should be more like WRPGS, because they're inherently flawed, too wordy and suck. Guys, diversity is the most beautiful thing in this world! Just because you think the genre or mechanic is superior, doesn't mean the other deserves to be hanged. People are different and like different stuff! Deal with it and stop being so serious! Video games are fun! (this makes me think of all the ideological rants about video games that I cringe at, but I guess that's off topic...)

[Bolivar]

You've yet to make any case whatsoever for it's necessity or usefulness, beyond clinging to nostalgia.

Are you sure about that?

I'm not sure why you're so angry about this battle system. Del, Velo, Vivi, ShinGundam and I have all pointed out a lot of cool things about ATB, but I think at the end of the day, all of us have just had a lot of fun playing awesome games with this system. Why should it "die"?

[Slothy]

You're arguing that FF13 is an example of how modern ATB can work.

I never said that. Learn to read things more carefully. I actually hate FFXIII's battle system because it's a terrible system. But it isn't terrible because of ATB.

You major complaint against ATB was the wait time. I refuted this repeatedly by pointing out that how long you wait (or if you wait at all) is decided by the battle speed, and used the fairly fast pace of FFXIII as an example of that. You've yet to address this point and seem intent on not responding to it so I can only assume you have no argument.

What battle system would you advocate? FF13's battle system? FF12's? FF4's? You seem to jump around and try to classify anything and everything as ATB, and an example of why ATB works, but you have to explain howso.

I've already made my case for why ATB allows for different strategic decisions due to player ability to manipulate time and ATB speed within a game. Again, you haven't addressed this. You ask for me to explain why I think ATB works instead as though I hadn't made an argument, but ignoring my arguments doesn't prove your point. It only makes your position look weak and poorly thought out.

As to me trying to "jump around and try to classify anything and everything as ATB," that's not the case at all. I pointed out early on in this discussion that ATB is nothing but a system for determining turn order in FF games. And it's one that's been used by every FF since FFIV with the exception of FFX (not sure about FFXI as I haven't played it).

If the discussion is ATB in the current realm of RPGs, and you're ignorant of current RPGs, then it's like trying to have a discussion about a book with someone who's never read one.

I'm a pretty smart guy, and I spend a lot of time thinking about game design and deconstructing game mechanics, so I'm fine with you explaining the mechanics in Dragon Age to me and why you think they were better than ATB. I think I'd be able to understand well enough without having to go rent it.

The flaw in the design is that what defines ATB is entirely irrelevant.

You still haven't explained why ATB is flawed, and how it makes it irrelevant. Nor have you offered evidence that any such flaw is inherent in the system. Simply saying it's flawed doesn't make it true. You need to back up your claim. Instead you dance around it without ever really saying anything, just as you never really address the strengths ATB has as listed by myself and other posters.

You seem to stretch anything to be considered "ATB", from FF12 to even FF10, which is entirely turn-based. What isn't ATB to you?

This isn't the case at all, simply because FFXII actually does use ATB, and I never said FFX uses an ATB system. What I did say with regard to FFX though is that the turn based system it uses is functionally no different from ATB on wait mode, since you can still manipulate turn order. The only difference is that there's no real time element and therefore no time pressure (a lot like an ATB system on wait mode)

Would you consider WoW ATB, because the Rogue class is dependent on it's ATB-looking energy bar filling up, or Diablo and Elder Scrolls to be ATB because of their stamina bars?

I haven't played Diablo or WoW, but the Elder scrolls is most definitely a real time game. Yes there's a stamina bar, but it determines how effective your attacks are and how long you can sprint, it does not determine when you or your enemy can attack since you could attack even when it's practically empty.

What DO you consider ATB?

I've already answered this. Repeatedly in fact. I even answered it in this post if you were paying attention.

There's no reason to wait for a bar to fill up. All it does is draw out the time for actions to take effect, and delay when you can make a decision.

Again, if battle speed is set properly then this ceases to be an issue.

FFX, a full turn based game, allows for immediately decisions and infinite deliberation. You don't wait for a bar to fill up before each turn, then wait for a bar to fill up before the action you chose takes effect. No matter how fast the bar may be, you've yet to say any point for having it. To allow for pressure?

To allow for pressure and the manipulation of turn order. Yes, the latter can be done with a turn based system, but you've yet to state why that makes ATB outdated, especially when a pure turn based system can't pressure the player like ATB. Also, I find it funny that you still maintain I haven't said what the point is in having ATB, yet you go back to restate part of my argument in the next sentence. Is my point really not getting through to you?

Dragon Age allows for full control of a party without the use of the AI (it's actually preferred you turn all AIs off, on the max difficult, and manually control everything). There's movement, which increases tactical play. There's no battle screen, allowing for a smoother and more consistent game. You can play either via menus or hotkeys. All of this without any sort of ATB.

NWN works on D&D rules. Completely turn-based rules. However, it can be played and adjusted to be a full real-time game, like an action game, or played just like D&D, fully turn-based. You can essentially choose to play D&D speed chess style, if you please.

So explain why these are inherently and objectively better than ATB. Because I'm not even arguing that ATb is better than anything (that would be subjective and by extension fairly silly). I'm arguing that ATB offers a different play style that is different from the other two, has strategic potential, and is no less valid as a result.

How does it introduce any strategic elements? What does ATB offer in strategy that alternatives don't already offer or excel better at?

I never said there aren't alternatives, but you've yet to explain why they're inherently better. ATB results in a completely different style of gameplay, and feel than pure turn based or real time systems. For that alone I don't think it's outdated or useless.

By no means though does ATB inherently offer any strategy or tactical play. Why should ATB be used over any other combat system? What makes it superior?

I never said it's superior. I said it's an alternative, and it does offer strategic potential within a battle system, and a different feel than alternatives. Don't put words in my mouth.

That it's the only thing you know about? That's simply arguing it's the best because you're ignorant of anything else.

Don't assume that because I haven't played Dragon Age that I'm unfamiliar with anything else. It's more than a little insulting, and is a weak attempt to try and undermine my argument without ever having to address it and back up your position.

Even if ATB were the only real-time/turn-based hybrid, does it's merits still justify it being used over a full turn-based system or a full action-based system?

If a developer wants to create a turn based system that offers some of the time pressure you get in a real time system, and the strategic possibilities of being able to manipulate turn order then it is an option, yes. Again, you seem stuck on the idea that I'm saying ATB is better than alternatives. I'm not. Nor is it worse. It is a tool, and one which can be used to help create the gameplay style a developer wants for their game.

In ATB, when you slow down the bars, you're simply adding wait time for no reason whatsoever.

It's not for no reason if a player is new to RPG's, or isn't as fast as you or me at navigating menus.

If you speed the bars up to their max speed, you still have turns determined by waiting on a bar to fill up - why even bother having the bars? If you want pressure on menu based combat, play Kingdom Hearts.

Kingdom Hearts plays nothing like any game which uses ATB. Why would the developer use the Kingdom Hearts system if they want the sort of feel and pacing ATB can offer?

It's a terrible substitute for a strategy based system as it lacks depth without breaking (people complaining it's too hard, or the gameplay needing to be dumbed down to compensate for player reaction time being lower than a computer's) or needing to automated.

You've yet to explain how it lacks depth.

It's a poor substitute for action games, as it has poor control and options.

Again, I don't know why you bother replying if you're not going to back up your arguments. How is control in a game using ATB objectively worse than in a turn based system? What are these poor options you're talking about? I would like to have an actual discussion with you about this topic, but it's difficult when you don't actually back up your claims.

ATB has an incredibly limited appeal in comparison to alternatives.

This comment is meaningless. There's no way you can actually back it up with evidence. It's nothing but your subjective opinion based on your dislike of ATB.

I don't have the intent to argue, like you apparently do. I wonder why you'd try to engage in discussion on the merits of something if you're emotionally tied to a subject that you can't actual discuss it without getting overly defensive. Maybe you should calm down.

You're obviously quite attached to ATB, to the point of not being able to discuss any flaws or comprehend why we aren't still playing games like FF4. Then again, I'm sure you'd "argue" that 8-bit graphics aren't out of date with just as much venom and vitriol.

I can assure you I'm perfectly calm. I'm also not getting defensive, or emotionally tied to the subject and any venom and vitriol is imagined on your part. Here's the funny thing in all of this: I've played enough games with ATB over the years that I'm quite sick of it at this point. I don't hold any sort of attachment to it, and have been enjoying games using other systems more over the last several years, but that doesn't mean that it's flawed. It means I played a lot of games using the same system and needed a change from it. Of course I also played a lot of other styles of games over the last 20 years of my playing games, which explains why I also got tired of purely turn based systems, and a lot of other game styles.

But just because I played so many games using a particular mechanic that I got tired of it, doesn't mean I don't recognize the value of said mechanic in the right situations, or when the developer has a particular goal in mind. Nor does it mean that the mechanic is inherently flawed. Which is why when I see someone such as yourself arguing that a mechanic which I do perceive to have value in the right circumstances arguing that it's dead and outdated, I like to engage that person in a discussion about it. I've laid out my side of the discussion, including what I define ATB to be. I've also used examples to demonstrate it. But you've refused to actually engage in the discussion by directly addressing the points I've made.

If you don't want to have an actual in depth discussion on this subject then so be it. But just realize that when you are having an actual thought out, reasoned discussion on something, at some point you have to actually address the other person's points. And them asking you to do that, or to defend your claims is not someone getting defensive. If you can't do those things then you can't have a legitimate discussion. All you end up with is at least one person doing the equivalent of saying they're right and the other person is wrong, simply because they say so.

[felfenix]

Your "point" that ATB is useful because it's a system that allows for pressure and manipulation of turn order is about as good as saying ATB is a necessity for having menus. There are alternatives that do the same, better, because they allow for more flexibility and variety of play without needing to be dumbed down to compensate for players getting overwhelmed. As I mentioned, you're clearly ignorant that it's possible in other battle systems as well.

If you don't understand because you have no idea what you're talking about beyond your experience with Square Enix games, then it's like arguing with a wall. ATB is an outdated, repetitive, and clunky mechanic, with limited gameplay options and versatility in comparison to the competition, and unnecessary steps in between.

It's like I'm trying to talk with someone who keeps saying "But how are 8-bit graphics outdated!?" and has never played anything but Nintendo. Though it's pretty clear this is pointless as you'll drone on repetitively (even if you dont know anything about other games mentioned in the conversation).

Again, as for the topic: Is ATB dead? Yes. Will we see future Triple A main titles that work like FF7, with no NPCs, no movement, menu based combat, battle screens, and turns determined by bars? Probably not. Then again, I don't think the FF franchises will last much longer, as it hasn't been taken seriously in a long time either, beyond being a marketing title slapped on to sell games based on nostalgia.

[Fynn]

You know what? I'm with Vivi. Even though I have no sentiment for the ATB, you're just hating it for the hell of it, it seems. You really once again failed to give any sort of argument for why it should die, just comparing it to 8-bit graphics (while actually, you should be comparing turn-based systems with that). Why all the hate? It's like your not liking alone is enough for it to die. This discussion is pointless since you just decided to cover your ears and not give any credible evidence from your point of view to support the fact that ATB is dead.

[VeloZer0]

There are alternatives that do the same, better, because they allow for more flexibility and variety of play without needing to be dumbed down to compensate for players getting overwhelmed. As I mentioned, you're clearly ignorant that it's possible in other battle systems as well....

...If you don't understand because you have no idea what you're talking about beyond your experience with Square Enix games,...

This would have been a good time to outline in detail systems that confer the all of the advantages of ATB without the drawbacks you have listed. If you consider someone ignorant in an area it is usually more effective to try and educate them than to try and chastise them for being ignorant. I, like Vivi, have no idea what other systems you are referencing other than real time and turn based. Should you elaborate in detail perhaps we could have a constructive debate about game systems rater than our impression of each others mindset.

Other than that I fail to see how either of us can have any constructive posts from this point on.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Does anyone else think this guy is being a dick? I think he's being a dick.

[Del Murder]

My favorite part of this debate was when they were arguing about which battle system constitutes as simply pressing buttons. Um, this is a video game, the whole thing is pressing buttons!

[NorthernChaosGod]

Yeah, that was particularly lol-worthy. Especially since you can get away with just button mashing in almost of these games in most of the battles.

[VeloZer0]

My favorite part of this debate was when they were arguing about which battle system constitutes as simply pressing buttons. Um, this is a video game, the whole thing is pressing buttons!

This is obviously why Kinect is the future.

[Del Murder]

I prefer the Power Glove.

[Wolf Kanno]

I'm just surprised to see page long posts and neither Iceglow or myself are involved. :nibbles:

[VeloZer0]

Usually you just beat everyone else too it.

I'm not going to lie, I was disappointed when I saw you had the latest post in this thread and it turned out to only be a line long.