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

[Skyblade]

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.

It was as turn based as any ATB game is, just with shorter ATB cycles and the ability to stack several turns.

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.

[Del Murder]

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

[Mirage]

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

[Skyblade]

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.

It was as turn based as any ATB game is, just with shorter ATB cycles and the ability to stack several turns.

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.

[Mercen-X]

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.

[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".

[Jiro]

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.

[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.
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.

[Skyblade]

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.

[Mirage]

And that's the main problem!

[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.

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.

[jlenoconel]

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.

[jlenoconel]

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.

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.

[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?

[Vyk]

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