Poll: Will we ever see turn-based WRPG's again?

[BonsaiK]

Remember a time when computer RPG's were just emulating the mechanics of a classic Pen and Paper one? Remember when RPG's relied more on character skill and not player skill? When a bumbling, clumsy oaf could be an agile thief? What ever happened to those days? Why do you think that turn-based combat has disappeared in almost all modern WRPG's? Would you ever like to see it back?

Your poll lacks a "turn-based combat is both awesome and alive and well" option.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Remember when RPG's relied more on character skill and not player skill?

It is not skill based. Every single turn-based game I've played boils down to whther you're a high enough level and whether or not you're carrying enough healing items.

Lol what.

You must have been playing some shitty RPGs. While some turn-based RPGs might not require player skill and rely more on grinding, the same could be said of many real-time RPGs.

Most of the turn-based RPGs I've played did require player skill. It's just less of a twitch-based skill and more of a strategy skill. Some games make building a character damn near into a science, and most good turn-based RPGs requires stuff like planning your moves, properly positioning your characters, prioritizing targets, etc. They take a lot more strategy than the hack&slash fest that is your average real-time RPG.

Some of my all-time favorite games are turn-based RPGs. Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm, Temple of Elemental Evil... even the relatively simple 'stand and shoot' Fallout games (especially Fallout Tactics, hence the name) If you're trying to tell those take less skill than, say, Dragon Age: Origins, then I'm strongly gonna disagree with you. Even more popular games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura were little more than turn-based games covered with a pseudo real-time interface.

That's exactly what WRPGs have over most JRPGs, and where turn-based games often have an edge over real-time ones: Planning, positioning, strategy... All those aspects require some measure of skill from the player which many modern games don't, or at least in a simplified form. Today's twitch generation is more about hand-eye coordination, reaction time, and other 'fast skills', which is part of why turn-based games aren't very popular. But if you say turn-based games don't take skill, you're dead wrong (or just playing every game on too low a difficulty setting).

 

[Miumaru]

But my point is, turn based RPGs are not all exact. You dont always do 10 damage or whatever, and aside from heavily one sided fights, luck plays a large part. Only luck in chess is if your opponent gets dirt in his eye and doesnt see you're a move away from check mate.

By that argument, TF2 is luck-based, since it has crits (at least by default unless the server admin disables them). Of course, calling TF2 luck-based is patently ridiculous, and so is saying that about turn-based RPGs in general as a sub-genre is.

As much as I like my twitchy action games, sometimes I just want to sit down and play a game that has zero dependence on quick reflexes and lets me take my time to think about and plan out what I'm doing. Sometimes the constant action keeping you on your toes is fun for the adrenaline rush of it, but sometimes I'd rather have a slower, more cerebral experience (which may have something to do why I've been alternating between Burnout Paradise and MTGotP for the past week, which are pretty much opposite extremes in that sense, although neither one is an RPG).

It also doesn't help that the action/combat in many action RPGs is frequently less polished and/or deep as in a non-RPG action game (see: Mass Effect, for example).

Well, luck affects most things, but the rigidness and absoluteness of chess removes any luck aside from the luck of what kind of player you play. Sure, you could "get lucky" and beat a far better player because they overlooked something, but what you do and do not see and understand is more your own ability and fault. But otherwise, pawns always move one space foward besides their first turn, the castles always move up down left or right across the board, etc., and when your piece takes theirs, it just removes it. No health bars, no critical hits, no resistances or vulnerabilities.
I would also point out, I stopped arguing metaphor awhile ago, now Im just talking chess compaired to turn based RPGs.

 

[Miumaru]

no, and if were lucky, to won't come back.

remember how people hated the combat system in ff13?

that's pretty much turn based in disguise.

In disguise? What disguise? A plastic mustache with a fake cigar?

no, the timer bar so you can't spam commands.

Someone doesn't understand sarcasm. :/

FF13 was CLEARLY turn based. There was no disguise. People should've known it'd be turn based from the get go since it was an attempt to rectify the horrible mistake of a game Final Fantasy XII was.

it's a bit hard to READ sarcasm.

I disagree. I'm sure many people got it right away.

Actually, alot of people really do not get sarcasm too well at all, even spoken. But Id think what I said was clear to sarcasm regulars.

 

[BonsaiK]

Frankly I don't like any form of turn-based combat in video-games, so good riddance to it I say!

Exactly. Player skill is what should matter, as a game shouldn't help the really bad.

Yes it should.

Most players are really bad and it's not fair to exclude them and have gaming as just an elitist club of skilled players. It's also not financially viable. Small snobby elitist enclaves don't pay the bills.

Plenty of turn-based combat still exists in gaming and it will never go away. Look at Mafia Wars, that's far more popular than any action game you could name.

No, it shouldn't. There should a tutorial, but if the game holds your hand the whole time, it's a bad game. Plus, did you just use a Facebook game to support your argument? Really? Look, there's a reason FB games are hated.

FB games are the most popular games in the world, right now. They are only hated by a tiny minority of the "old guard" who are bitter that the future of gaming has literally passed them by while they were busy building their ivory towers of "leet skillz".

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I would also point out, I stopped arguing metaphor awhile ago, now Im just talking chess compaired to turn based RPGs.

Why doesn't anyone let me know stuff like that before I write out a reply instead of after? I blame just having woken up and only half paying attention to what's going on. That's my excuse. Heh.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Frankly I don't like any form of turn-based combat in video-games, so good riddance to it I say!

Exactly. Player skill is what should matter, as a game shouldn't help the really bad.

Yes it should.

Most players are really bad and it's not fair to exclude them and have gaming as just an elitist club of skilled players. It's also not financially viable. Small snobby elitist enclaves don't pay the bills.

Plenty of turn-based combat still exists in gaming and it will never go away. Look at Mafia Wars, that's far more popular than any action game you could name.

No, it shouldn't. There should a tutorial, but if the game holds your hand the whole time, it's a bad game. Plus, did you just use a Facebook game to support your argument? Really? Look, there's a reason FB games are hated.

FB games are the most popular games in the world, right now. They are only hated by a tiny minority of the "old guard" who are bitter that the future of gaming has literally passed them by while they were busy building their ivory towers of "leet skillz".

No, they aren't. Facebook games are popular, yes, but most people hate them. Do a poll.

How can something that's popular be "mostly hated"?

 

[Miumaru]

I would also point out, I stopped arguing metaphor awhile ago, now Im just talking chess compaired to turn based RPGs.

Why doesn't anyone let me know stuff like that before I write out a reply instead of after? I blame just having woken up and only half paying attention to what's going on. That's my excuse. Heh.

I realized just then people may be misunderstanding me, as I tend to make that happen. Better now though than us getting dirty.

 

[geddydisciple]

i have only seen turn based combat done well twice. In Pokemon and the golden sun games. So i suppose my answer is i would like it to come back if it is done well.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

But my point is, turn based RPGs are not all exact. You dont always do 10 damage or whatever, and aside from heavily one sided fights, luck plays a large part. Only luck in chess is if your opponent gets dirt in his eye and doesnt see you're a move away from check mate.

By that argument, TF2 is luck-based, since it has crits (at least by default unless the server admin disables them). Of course, calling TF2 luck-based is patently ridiculous, and so is saying that about turn-based RPGs in general as a sub-genre is.

As much as I like my twitchy action games, sometimes I just want to sit down and play a game that has zero dependence on quick reflexes and lets me take my time to think about and plan out what I'm doing. Sometimes the constant action keeping you on your toes is fun for the adrenaline rush of it, but sometimes I'd rather have a slower, more cerebral experience (which may have something to do why I've been alternating between Burnout Paradise and MTGotP for the past week, which are pretty much opposite extremes in that sense, although neither one is an RPG).

It also doesn't help that the action/combat in many action RPGs is frequently less polished and/or deep as in a non-RPG action game (see: Mass Effect, for example).

Well, luck affects most things, but the rigidness and absoluteness of chess removes any luck aside from the luck of what kind of player you play. Sure, you could "get lucky" and beat a far better player because they overlooked something, but what you do and do not see and understand is more your own ability and fault. But otherwise, pawns always move one space foward besides their first turn, the castles always move up down left or right across the board, etc., and when your piece takes theirs, it just removes it. No health bars, no critical hits, no resistances or vulnerabilities.
I would also point out, I stopped arguing metaphor awhile ago, now Im just talking chess compaired to turn based RPGs.

While you're basically correct, a certain degree of randomness does not necessarily make a game 'luck-based' or anything like that. I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but I hope you're not implying that games with random occurrences take less skill.

Take a game that has seemingly enormous 'luck levels', like poker. It would seem that, since the hand you're dealt is incredibly important and completely random, that anyone could win. But in reality, you'll often see the same select group of people winning tournaments, and it almost never happens that an unknown player walks up and walks away with the tournament prize. Even when it does, it always turns out that that player won because he simply had a ton of experience playing the game outside of the tournament environment (for example: the incline of 'internet-taught' players), not because he 'got lucky'. That's as clear an indication as any that a game takes some serious skill to win.

The same goes for any good turn-based RPG. Sure, a random miss chance or critical chance might make things a bit harder to predict, but it doesn't make the game itself random. Chances can be calculated even vaguely and intuitively, and unexpected events can (and should) be calculated into the planning. One complaint I often get from my crushed Blood Bowl opponents is that they didn't have any luck, or that I had more luck than them. Even in the cases that was true, they failed because they didn't plan for their bad luck, not because they rolled a few bad numbers on on the RNG. I've won games that statistically I should've lost by a wide margin, simply because I made sure a few bad throws of the dice wouldn't ruin my game. That's a whole level of planning that doesn't play a role in chess. It's still strategy and planning, just accounting for far more kinds of outcomes than you can have in a game of chess.

If you're just pointing out an inherent difference then feel free to ignore this bit of text since I agree with you. If you're implying that a luck factor makes a game less strategic, you're wrong.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Frankly I don't like any form of turn-based combat in video-games, so good riddance to it I say!

Exactly. Player skill is what should matter, as a game shouldn't help the really bad.

Yes it should.

Most players are really bad and it's not fair to exclude them and have gaming as just an elitist club of skilled players. It's also not financially viable. Small snobby elitist enclaves don't pay the bills.

Plenty of turn-based combat still exists in gaming and it will never go away. Look at Mafia Wars, that's far more popular than any action game you could name.

No, it shouldn't. There should a tutorial, but if the game holds your hand the whole time, it's a bad game. Plus, did you just use a Facebook game to support your argument? Really? Look, there's a reason FB games are hated.

FB games are the most popular games in the world, right now. They are only hated by a tiny minority of the "old guard" who are bitter that the future of gaming has literally passed them by while they were busy building their ivory towers of "leet skillz".

No, they aren't. Facebook games are popular, yes, but most people hate them. Do a poll.

How can something that's popular be "mostly hated"?

It's popular with a large amount of non-games, but it's hated by 99% of gamers.

But if they're gamers, and it's the most popular game, most gamers like that game.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

It's popular with a large amount of non-games, but it's hated by 99% of gamers.

People who play games... are "non-gamers"?

The mind, she boggles.

 

[BonsaiK]

Frankly I don't like any form of turn-based combat in video-games, so good riddance to it I say!

Exactly. Player skill is what should matter, as a game shouldn't help the really bad.

Yes it should.

Most players are really bad and it's not fair to exclude them and have gaming as just an elitist club of skilled players. It's also not financially viable. Small snobby elitist enclaves don't pay the bills.

Plenty of turn-based combat still exists in gaming and it will never go away. Look at Mafia Wars, that's far more popular than any action game you could name.

No, it shouldn't. There should a tutorial, but if the game holds your hand the whole time, it's a bad game. Plus, did you just use a Facebook game to support your argument? Really? Look, there's a reason FB games are hated.

FB games are the most popular games in the world, right now. They are only hated by a tiny minority of the "old guard" who are bitter that the future of gaming has literally passed them by while they were busy building their ivory towers of "leet skillz".

No, they aren't. Facebook games are popular, yes, but most people hate them. Do a poll.

Doing a poll here would give a very biased, very small sample. Most people who read this forum are into hardcore gaming, or they probably wouldn't have signed up to be members here, so of course many will say that they hate FB games. That doesn't prove anything.

The fact is, turn-based gaming is huge. Doesn't matter if you like it or not. In the grand scheme of things, the opinions of a few hardcore gamers don't matter compared to the millions of happy FB gamers. Turn-based gaming is as popular now as it was 100 years ago when people were playing chess with those funny wooden things.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

i have only seen turn based combat done well twice. In Pokemon and the golden sun games. So i suppose my answer is i would like it to come back if it is done well.

Those are both JRPGs though, not WRPGs which the OP is referring to.

 

[Carlston]

Turn based RPG need to come back.

Turns loses immersion? Not really you control a entire party. Know what f'ing loses Immersion. A Shitty real time game, where you control 6 people and because it's not turned base if any thing happens, a slip of a button ect your dumbass party leader gets gutted by a troll and the other 5 jerk offs stand there watching...yeah that's realistic.

Well in Dragon Age you can pause and give orders.
YOU CAN, AND YOU CAN GIVE PEOPLE ORDERS IN TURN SO IT'S STILL TURNED BASED!

Simple, people who didn't like KOTOR cause you had to wait for a turn. RPGs take turns cause the fighting is based on stats and your character build, not how fast you Hadoken uppercut to beat every person you meet. RPG... MW2.... RPG... God of War. Not the same style of games. Don't like a rpg, don't play a rpg.

You like a fishing game, don't ***** cause there is no car racing...

Well unless it's a Wii game then it by law has to have a fishing minigame.

Now if Pro Bass fishing had a rpg mini game...


BTW don't do a poll if they are basicly just two of your views and kinda insulting to something others enjoy. How bout "God yes they need to make more, look at the crap we have now." comes to mind as a good choice.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

There seems to be something wrong with your statement.
It may be that you said people who play games aren't gamers.