Quote Originally Posted by jlenoconel View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Skyblade View Post
Quote Originally Posted by jlenoconel View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Skyblade View Post
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?