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

[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.

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.

[Fynn]

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?

[Pumpkin]

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.

[Mirage]

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

[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.

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.

[Skyblade]

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.

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.

I responded to you the first time.

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

[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.

[Shaibana]

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

[Skyblade]

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.

[Mirage]

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 . 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.

[black orb]

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

[Mirage]

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.