Thinking outloud about the direction of FF combat

[Glongpre]

.

Except you cannot control a party in an action rpg, and this is a huge difference. The combat is just too fast, so take your Diablo. You could never play this game with a party.

Dark Souls, no way in hell you could play this controlling more than one person.

This is the difference, turn based games allow you to control a whole party of characters comfortably.

Every action rpg that tries to have parties like Dragon Age, requires the AI to control the other characters to some degree.
I want to be able to pick each action, within my own time. And turn based allows me to do this the best.

Chess would not be better if both players could move at the same time.

 

[09philj]

furious snip

Man you are so invested in this! Did a turn based game run over your hamster or something? It's okay, you can tell me and I'll understand

Nope, Turned Based Combat just became obsolete the minute Action RPGs entered the scene. Just like CDs came along and thoroughly trounced VHS and Cassette tapes in every way Action RPGs came along and did the same to Turned Based Combat. I don't have to hold some sort of grudge against Turned Based Combat to be able to simply recognize that it's the worse of the two systems by an absolutely incredible margin. I grew up with Turned Based Combat, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to actually being able to identify quality when I see it.

Well, clearly not, since you don't appreciate that nuance of turn based combat. I mean really, who the hell thinks Two Worlds has better combat than Bravely Default?

 

[immortalfrieza]

Uhuh okay have fun over there with your action games. I'll go back to replaying Persona 3 now and having a blast. Or maybe I should play some more XCOM, that game is fantastic...

Hey, I can enjoy Turned Based Combat games just fine, it's simply that Action RPGs are superior to them in every conceivable way. I will never putting in the former over the latter because it's superior as some people seem to think based on the simple fact that it isn't and it's ridiculous that I should've even have to state why, much less defend that position, just like it would be equally ridiculous that I would ever have to state and defend the fact that water is wet, in both cases it should be considered demonstratively obvious to anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever.

Except you cannot control a party in an action rpg, and this is a huge difference. The combat is just too fast, so take your Diablo. You could never play this game with a party.

Dark Souls, no way in hell you could play this controlling more than one person.

This is the difference, turn based games allow you to control a whole party of characters comfortably.

That would be a valid thing to say except for the fact that there are plenty of Action RPGs that allow the player to do EXACTLY THAT. Take the Tales series for instance, you can switch control over party members and dive through menus direct their exact actions at any given time without a problem. That, and the fact that there's also plenty of Action RPGs that let you do control what the Party A.I. is doing at any given moment like again, the Tales series, and all that does is free the player up from having to waste time and concentration diving through menus to direct the party to do the same thing over and over and over again, and on top of that without having to deal with the tediousness of waiting for a freaking self-refilling line to reach a certain point in order to actually perform an action at all. Those Action RPGs where you can't do that almost always have good enough party A.I. and even those that do make it so that actually controlling the whole party of characters comfortably is entirely redundant.

Every action rpg that tries to have parties like Dragon Age, requires the AI to control the other characters to some degree.

It's odd that you call to Dragon Age as an Action RPG, considering it's not. Just like KOTOR the Dragon Age series is a Turned Based RPG that tries to make itself look like a Action RPG by hiding it's Turned Based mechanics under the hood, particularly in the case of Origins. Even if this wasn't true, all the Dragon Age series would do is demonstrate the exact series of games specifically designed to pause and select the actions of each party member in all but the easiest of battles.

I want to be able to pick each action, within my own time. And turn based allows me to do this the best.

Again, false, plenty of Action RPGs allow you to do exactly that, and those few that don't allow you to control your party directly the A.I. controlling your party is competent enough that you shouldn't have any reason to care to do that in the first place. Turn Based Combat allows you to do what you described the "best"? No, they force you to do exactly that even when you don't care to, and even an autobattle function doesn't alleviate this very much. Most Action RPGs allow you to control each action on your own time of your entire party while also permitting you to not have to and actually do well either way, it gives you a CHOICE rather than an obligation.

Well, clearly not, since you don't appreciate that nuance of turn based combat. I mean really, who the hell thinks Two Worlds has better combat than Bravely Default?

Me, and every other remotely objective person on the planet that has actually played both genres. Two Worlds can do EVERYTHING Bravely Default's combat system can do and far more, I don't understand why I would even have to explain that.

 

[09philj]

Uhuh okay have fun over there with your action games. I'll go back to replaying Persona 3 now and having a blast. Or maybe I should play some more XCOM, that game is fantastic...

Hey, I can enjoy Turned Based Combat games just fine, it's simply that Action RPGs are superior to them in every conceivable way. I will never putting in the former over the latter because it's superior as some people seem to think based on the simple fact that it isn't and it's ridiculous that I should've even have to state why, much less defend that position, just like it would be equally ridiculous that I would ever have to state and defend the fact that water is wet, in both cases it should be considered demonstratively obvious to anyone with any cognitive ability whatsoever.

Except you cannot control a party in an action rpg, and this is a huge difference. The combat is just too fast, so take your Diablo. You could never play this game with a party.

Dark Souls, no way in hell you could play this controlling more than one person.

This is the difference, turn based games allow you to control a whole party of characters comfortably.

That would be a valid thing to say except for the fact that there are plenty of Action RPGs that allow the player to do EXACTLY THAT. Take the Tales series for instance, you can switch control over party members and dive through menus direct their exact actions at any given time without a problem. That, and the fact that there's also plenty of Action RPGs that let you do control what the Party A.I. is doing at any given moment like again, the Tales series, and all that does is free the player up from having to waste time and concentration diving through menus to direct the party to do the same thing over and over and over again, and on top of that without having to deal with the tediousness of waiting for a freaking self-refilling line to reach a certain point in order to actually perform an action at all. Those Action RPGs where you can't do that almost always have good enough party A.I. and even those that do make it so that actually controlling the whole party of characters comfortably is entirely redundant.

Every action rpg that tries to have parties like Dragon Age, requires the AI to control the other characters to some degree.

It's odd that you call to Dragon Age as an Action RPG, considering it's not. Just like KOTOR the Dragon Age series is a Turned Based RPG that tries to make itself look like a Action RPG by hiding it's Turned Based mechanics under the hood, particularly in the case of Origins. Even if this wasn't true, all the Dragon Age series would do is demonstrate the exact series of games specifically designed to pause and select the actions of each party member in all but the easiest of battles.

I want to be able to pick each action, within my own time. And turn based allows me to do this the best.

Again, false, plenty of Action RPGs allow you to do exactly that, and those few that don't allow you to control your party directly the A.I. controlling your party is competent enough that you shouldn't have any reason to care to do that in the first place. Turn Based Combat allows you to do what you described the "best"? No, they force you to do exactly that even when you don't care to, and even an autobattle function doesn't alleviate this very much. Most Action RPGs allow you to control each action on your own time of your entire party while also permitting you to not have to and actually do well either way, it gives you a CHOICE rather than an obligation.

Well, clearly not, since you don't appreciate that nuance of turn based combat. I mean really, who the hell thinks Two Worlds has better combat than Bravely Default?

Me, and every other remotely objective person on the planet that has actually played both genres. Two Worlds can do EVERYTHING Bravely Default's combat system can do and far more, I don't understand why I would even have to explain that.

So you're saying you like this:

over this:

Welp. I have no adequate response to that statement.

 

[The White Hunter]

Final fantasy changes it up every game. I mean sure the first 10 were turn based, but the nuances between skills, spell and how you learn them ( and sometimes how the work) all change. Pff the top of my head, we've had, buying them, learning them through levels, learning them through equiped espers, materia, draw, weapons, sphere grid, whatever system 13 had. The gameplay and combat all changed from one game to another. Elements return but fundamentally they are differet. Not to mention the spinoffs. I never feel like you are playing the same game, so i never get bored of it. For better or worst they are inovating combat in ever game.

So much this.

Final Fantasy has almost always been an experimenter and has always changed things up with each installment.

The first game had a rudimentary turn based system with classes and speed values determining action order, I'll keep this brief though:

2 had a weird ass system of developing by doing things, like getting hurt = more HP.

3 introduced the job system and made combat and strategies much more interesting (for example, you can kill Bahamut in one hit with a JL99 Dragoon armed with Gungnir and the Holy Lance due to Jump multiplier, and weaknesses to piercing, lightning and wind).

4 introduced the ATB system and revolutionised JRPG's; it is the father of the genre as we know it and helped popularise the genre.

5 never really played, nor 6 though 6 is well regarded.

7's materia system heightened character customisation to new levels and also took the franchise to a new and interesting setting.

8 had drawing and terrible characters. Triple Triad is rad though!

9 is a last hurrah for the old style with fabulous characters and story, though I personally find it hard to play for technical reasons; load times, ATB is slow AF even on the highest settings, etc

X had a very interesting by-character turn system that was very manipulable and intricate beyond it's appearance. X-2 had ATB, but paired it with a fabulous job system, of all the things wrong with X-2 gameplay really isn't one. Apart from Sphere Break: Fuck Sphere Break, fuck Shinra the cheating Al Bhed shit.

XII was Dragon Age before Dragon Age. I personally fucking adore this one. A big change for the series, the world became much more seamless and dynamic with a lot of depth and lore, beyond that the story was more political and driven as much by the world as it's leading men and women.

XIII for what it's worth does have an alrigth combat system after 40 hours when it lets you actually use it to it's fullest, was refined in XIII-2.

XV looks to do something fascinating, melding a believable world with fantasy elements with hefty combat; can't comment yet really but it looks promising.

In brief, the series has always been changing and re-inventing itself, it's just been more noticable since X, as they changed up combat more than the supporting systems.

If you want a classic version Bravely Default is pretty sweet.

 

[immortalfrieza]

So you're saying you like this:

over this:

Welp. I have no adequate response to that statement.

If you can't see just how much more Two Worlds combat is capable of doing than Bravely Default's that's your problem, not mine. Besides, just like most people that try to defend Turned Based Combat you're just cherrypicking from among the worst of Action RPG Combat and pitting it against some of the best Turn Based Combat in a blatant attempt to dismiss the clearly greater value Action RPGs as a whole have, and given the inherent inferiority and countless limitations that Turned Based Combat has when compared to Action RPG Combat that tactic doesn't even succeed at "proving" that Turned Based Combat is superior no matter HOW bad the Action RPG you pit against the best Turned Based Combat game, all it proves is that the developers didn't use Action RPG Combat to it's fullest.

 

[09philj]

So you're saying you like this:

over this:

Welp. I have no adequate response to that statement.

If you can't see just how much more Two Worlds combat is capable of doing than Bravely Default's that's your problem, not mine. Besides, just like most people that try to defend Turned Based Combat you're just cherrypicking from among the worst of Action RPG Combat and pitting it against some of the best Turn Based Combat in a blatant attempt to dismiss the clearly greater value Action RPGs as a whole have, and given the inherent inferiority and countless limitations that Turned Based Combat has when compared to Action RPG Combat that tactic doesn't even succeed at "proving" that Turned Based Combat is superior no matter HOW bad the Action RPG you pit against the best Turned Based Combat game, all it proves is that the developers didn't use Action RPG Combat to it's fullest.[/quote]

I like action RPGs. I really like Dark Souls and Deus Ex. But I also like turn based combat. They are both valid gameplay mechanics that have their own particular strengths. Turn based games offer more tactical depth, but action games can give a faster paced, more skill based experience, and generally have deep character building to compensate for the lack of tactics in the actual combat. To merely dismiss turn based combat out of hand is just plain ignorant. It's fine to say you don't like a style of game, but to try and claim it's inherently inferior is ridiculous.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Dude, you EXPLICITLY said that even the worst action games are better than turn based games.

That's not cherrypicking, that's taking you to your word.

They are better and I didn't say anything contradicting that, I'm just pointing out that he's trying to undersell Action RPGs in general by cherrypicking the worst examples simply to falsely try to prove his point, and I also said that even if my claim that even the worst of Action RPGs are better than even the best Turned Based RPGs wasn't true all it actually proves in the end is that the developers of that particular game didn't make good use of the genre their using, not that Action RPGs are inferior to Turn Based Combat in any way. He's doing the equivalent of trying to prove it's better to eat food raw rather than cooking it by handing someone a salad and then handing them a chicken that's been burned to practically charcoal, it doesn't actually prove the point at all.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

So you're saying you like this:

over this:

Welp. I have no adequate response to that statement.

If you can't see just how much more Two Worlds combat is capable of doing than Bravely Default's that's your problem, not mine. Besides, just like most people that try to defend Turned Based Combat you're just cherrypicking from among the worst of Action RPG Combat and pitting it against some of the best Turn Based Combat in a blatant attempt to dismiss the clearly greater value Action RPGs as a whole have, and given the inherent inferiority and countless limitations that Turned Based Combat has when compared to Action RPG Combat that tactic doesn't even succeed at "proving" that Turned Based Combat is superior no matter HOW bad the Action RPG you pit against the best Turned Based Combat game, all it proves is that the developers didn't use Action RPG Combat to it's fullest.

Dude, you EXPLICITLY said that even the worst action games are better than turn based games.

That's not cherrypicking, that's taking you to your word.

I was about to make the exact same comment .

And to be real, Action RPG and Turn Based Combat do DIFFERENT things. One is not superior to the other, they challenge different skills to a different degree. Action RPG Combat can't do anything that Turn Based Combat does, because they require different skills from the player. Turn Based Combat is more methodical and experimental, Action RPG Combat is more reflex-based and bigger on improvisation. IF Action RPG Combat COULD do everything that Turn Based Combat does, it would be objectivily better, but it can't. They are somewhat similar in their roots, but the emphasis lies on very different things with both systems, which makes them, again, different, not superior. So far he neglected to give any examples of things Turn Based Combat do that Action RPG Combat can do as well or better. Just saying one of these very different systems can do the exact same things as the other is not like writing down a false answer on a test. It is writing down a false answer on a DIFFERENT test that takes place three rooms away.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I was about to make the exact same comment .

And to be real, Action RPG and Turn Based Combat do DIFFERENT things. One is not superior to the other, they challenge different skills to a different degree. Action RPG Combat can't do anything that Turn Based Combat does, because they require different skills from the player. Turn Based Combat is more methodical and experimental, Action RPG Combat is more reflex-based and bigger on improvisation. IF Action RPG Combat COULD do everything that Turn Based Combat does, it would be objectivily better, but it can't. They are somewhat similar in their roots, but the emphasis lies on very different things with both systems, which makes them, again, different, not superior. So far he neglected to give any examples of things Turn Based Combat do that Action RPG Combat can do as well or better. Just saying one of these very different systems can do the exact same things as the other is not writing down a false anwswer on a test. It is writing down a false answer on a DIFFERENT test that takes place three rooms away.

Action RPGs CAN do everything Turned Based Combat can, plus far more, I can't believe I even have to state that much less actually defend that statement, it's like having to stick someone's hand into a fire to prove fire is hot, it's something that's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't require stating as such to anyone much less actually having to prove it. Do Action RPGs always do literally everything Turned Based Combat can do? No, but that's entirely irrelevant, the fact is they can and have, and even if they don't there's still far more they are inherently capable of than Turned Based Combat, thus objectively are better even in the cases that they don't do that. Anyone who says otherwise has never actually played an Action RPG before.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Dude, you EXPLICITLY said that even the worst action games are better than turn based games.

That's not cherrypicking, that's taking you to your word.

They are better and I didn't say anything contradicting that, I'm just pointing out that he's trying to undersell Action RPGs in general by cherrypicking the worst examples simply to falsely try to prove his point, and I also said that even if my claim that even the worst of Action RPGs are better than even the best Turned Based RPGs wasn't true all it actually proves in the end is that the developers of that particular game didn't make good use of the genre their using, not that Action RPGs are inferior to Turn Based Combat in any way. He's doing the equivalent of trying to prove it's better to eat food raw rather than cooking it by handing someone a salad and then handing them a chicken that's been burned to practically charcoal, it doesn't actually prove the point at all.

Again, to stay with this metapher the one who implied that even the worst burnt cooked food is better than perfect raw food was YOU, he was just calling you out on it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Dude, you EXPLICITLY said that even the worst action games are better than turn based games.

That's not cherrypicking, that's taking you to your word.

They are better and I didn't say anything contradicting that, I'm just pointing out that he's trying to undersell Action RPGs in general by cherrypicking the worst examples simply to falsely try to prove his point, and I also said that even if my claim that even the worst of Action RPGs are better than even the best Turned Based RPGs wasn't true all it actually proves in the end is that the developers of that particular game didn't make good use of the genre their using, not that Action RPGs are inferior to Turn Based Combat in any way. He's doing the equivalent of trying to prove it's better to eat food raw rather than cooking it by handing someone a salad and then handing them a chicken that's been burned to practically charcoal, it doesn't actually prove the point at all.

Again, to stay with this metapher the one who implied that even the worst burnt cooked food is better than perfect raw food was YOU, he was just calling you out on it.

Not even close, to continue that metaphor he's claiming that I said the worst burnt cooked food is better than even the perfect raw food when I said nothing of the sort, and ignoring what I actually said to avoid admitting that I'm correct, nothing more.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I was about to make the exact same comment .

And to be real, Action RPG and Turn Based Combat do DIFFERENT things. One is not superior to the other, they challenge different skills to a different degree. Action RPG Combat can't do anything that Turn Based Combat does, because they require different skills from the player. Turn Based Combat is more methodical and experimental, Action RPG Combat is more reflex-based and bigger on improvisation. IF Action RPG Combat COULD do everything that Turn Based Combat does, it would be objectivily better, but it can't. They are somewhat similar in their roots, but the emphasis lies on very different things with both systems, which makes them, again, different, not superior. So far he neglected to give any examples of things Turn Based Combat do that Action RPG Combat can do as well or better. Just saying one of these very different systems can do the exact same things as the other is not writing down a false anwswer on a test. It is writing down a false answer on a DIFFERENT test that takes place three rooms away.

Action RPGs CAN do everything Turned Based Combat can, plus far more, I can't believe I even have to state that much less actually defend that statement, it's like having to stick someone's hand into a fire to prove fire is hot, it's something that's so blatantly obvious that it shouldn't require stating as such to anyone much less actually having to prove it.

Ok, prove it. It is your statement, so now please prove it to me. Explain in simple terms that fire is hot. Just consider me an especially stupid cavemen. I still haven't heard a single solid claim to your thesis that Action RPG combat can do everything that Turn Based Combat can.

Do Action RPGs always do literally everything Turned Based Combat can do? No, but that's entirely irrelevant, the fact is they can and have, and even if they don't there's still far more they are inherently capable of than Turned Based Combat, thus objectively are better. Anyone who says otherwise has never actually played an Action RPG before.

I don't care if Action RPGs can do more, that still doesn't make it better if I want something different than Action RPGs can provide me with. You can do a lot more with a swiss army knife then say, a pizza, but try asking a starving person which one is better.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Dude, you EXPLICITLY said that even the worst action games are better than turn based games.

That's not cherrypicking, that's taking you to your word.

They are better and I didn't say anything contradicting that, I'm just pointing out that he's trying to undersell Action RPGs in general by cherrypicking the worst examples simply to falsely try to prove his point, and I also said that even if my claim that even the worst of Action RPGs are better than even the best Turned Based RPGs wasn't true all it actually proves in the end is that the developers of that particular game didn't make good use of the genre their using, not that Action RPGs are inferior to Turn Based Combat in any way. He's doing the equivalent of trying to prove it's better to eat food raw rather than cooking it by handing someone a salad and then handing them a chicken that's been burned to practically charcoal, it doesn't actually prove the point at all.

Again, to stay with this metapher the one who implied that even the worst burnt cooked food is better than perfect raw food was YOU, he was just calling you out on it.

Not even close, to continue that metaphor he's claiming that I said the worst burnt cooked food is better than even the perfect raw food when I said nothing of the sort, and ignoring what I actually said to avoid admitting that I'm correct, nothing more.

I wrote you IMPLIED it, not said. What you actually said was:

Dude, you EXPLICITLY said that even the worst action games are better than turn based games.

That's not cherrypicking, that's taking you to your word.

I also said that even if my claim that even the worst of Action RPGs are better than even the best Turned Based RPGs wasn't true

So you claimed that even the worst of Action RPGs are better than even the best Turned Based RPGs. That was your claim. Forget implied, staying with the metapher you absolutely said that burnt chicken is better than salad.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Ok, prove it. It is your statement, so now please prove it to me. Explain in simple terms that fire is hot. Just consider me an especially stupid cavemen. I still haven't heard a single solid claim to your thesis that Action RPG combat can do everything that Turn Based Combat can.

You've heard plenty, you just ignore it because it goes against your position, not because you don't know it's correct. This is me having to stick your hand in the fire again, unless you're actually willing to pick up any of the Kingdom Hearts games, the Tales games, Two Worlds, Oblivion, or any other Action RPG, and actually play their combat for any amount of time whatsoever I could throw all the statements, metaphors, and videos in the world at you and you won't admit that Action RPGs are able to do everything Turned Based RPGs can do plus far more. Name something Turned Based RPGs can do, Action RPGs have done it either across individual games or most of them in a single game, thus proving that Action RPGs can even if they don't always do so.

Individual control of party members actions? Tales series. Elemental rock paper scissors? Tales series again, any Action RPGs with elements at all on some level in fact, temporary disabling of enemies and allies to the point they can't even fight at all most of the time if you take advantage of those weaknesses and failures? Kingdom Hearts and Tales series AGAIN (also FYI, Tales series has a LOT of what Turned Based Combat can do if not all of them at some point or another so it's going to come up a lot here.) Guarding against attacks? Most of them. Party member switching in battle? Tales again. Competent Party A.I.? Tales series got you covered yet again. Saving your turns and/or reducing enemy turns to use later? (i.e. Persona's Press Turn System, Bravely Default Defaulting) That's just guarding to stagger the enemy and/or alongside the ability to disable the enemy. Tales series again. Custom Player Character and/or Party Members? Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many others.

And that's just off the top of my head, I can do this until my fingers fall off but I won't bother. If that's not enough to convince you or anyone else with the same position I'm not going to put any more effort into this because you obviously have no more intention to actually listen to me than if I tried to do the same to a wall.

I don't care if Action RPGs can do more, that still doesn't make it better if I want something different than Action RPGs can provide me with. You can do a lot more with a swiss army knife then say, a pizza, but try asking a starving person which one is better.

Now you are the one here ignoring your own statements. You said, and I quote:

IF Action RPG Combat COULD do everything that Turn Based Combat does, it would be objectively better,

And it can, again, it's something I shouldn't ever have had to explain to anyone that has actually played them in their lives. If you want something different than what Action RPGs can provide you with you aren't going to find it in games with Turned Based Combat either.

Enough, all that I have said on this thread should have been far more than enough to convince people like you if you had any desire to be reasonable. It's become clear that you and people like you have no intention of actually being convinced of anything and never did. You just want to shout your already obviously wrong position from the rooftops no matter how much more obvious it becomes that position is wrong.

 

[09philj]

Ok, prove it. It is your statement, so now please prove it to me. Explain in simple terms that fire is hot. Just consider me an especially stupid cavemen. I still haven't heard a single solid claim to your thesis that Action RPG combat can do everything that Turn Based Combat can.

You've heard plenty, you just ignore it because it goes against your position, not because you don't know it's correct. This is me having to stick your hand in the fire again, unless you're actually willing to pick up any of the Kingdom Hearts games, the Tales games, Two Worlds, Oblivion, or any other Action RPG, and actually play their combat for any amount of time whatsoever I could throw all the statements, metaphors, and videos in the world at you and you won't admit that Action RPGs are able to do everything Turned Based RPGs can do plus far more. Name something Turned Based RPGs can do, Action RPGs have done it either across individual games or most of them in a single game, thus proving that Action RPGs can even if they don't always do so.

Individual control of party members actions? Tales series. Elemental rock paper scissors? Tales series again, any Action RPGs with elements at all on some level in fact, temporary disabling of enemies and allies to the point they can't even fight at all most of the time if you take advantage of those weaknesses and failures? Kingdom Hearts and Tales series AGAIN (also FYI, Tales series has a LOT of what Turned Based Combat can do if not all of them at some point or another so it's going to come up a lot here.) Guarding against attacks? Most of them. Party member switching in battle? Tales again. Competent Party A.I.? Tales series got you covered yet again. Saving your turns and/or reducing enemy turns to use later? (i.e. Persona's Press Turn System, Bravely Default Defaulting) That's just guarding to stagger the enemy and/or alongside the ability to disable the enemy. Tales series again. Custom Player Character and/or Party Members? Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and many others.

And that's just off the top of my head, I can do this until my fingers fall off but I won't bother. If that's not enough to convince you or anyone else with the same position I'm not going to put any more effort into this because you obviously have no more intention to actually listen to me than if I tried to do the same to a wall.

I don't care if Action RPGs can do more, that still doesn't make it better if I want something different than Action RPGs can provide me with. You can do a lot more with a swiss army knife then say, a pizza, but try asking a starving person which one is better.

Now you are the one here ignoring your own statements. You said, and I quote:

IF Action RPG Combat COULD do everything that Turn Based Combat does, it would be objectively better,

And it can, again, it's something I shouldn't ever have had to explain to anyone that has actually played them in their lives. If you want something different than what Action RPGs can provide you with you aren't going to find it in games with Turned Based Combat either.

Enough, all that I have said on this thread should have been far more than enough to convince people like you if you had any desire to be reasonable. It's become clear that you and people like you have no intention of actually being convinced of anything and never did. You just want to shout your already obviously wrong position from the rooftops no matter how much more obvious it becomes that position is wrong.

It's simple. You are the one who is wrong. We have tried to explain why, but you're to arrogant to admit it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

It's simple. You are the one who is wrong. We have tried to explain why, but you're to arrogant to admit it.

Wow, how blind to the any position outside of your own do you have to be to not recognize the utter hypocrisy of that statement? Between you, people like you, and I the only one here who has the justification to make such a statement as the one you just did is me, and the only way you wouldn't admit that was the case is because you never intended to actually listen to a single word I said.

I'm going to leave this thread now before I start insulting people and getting banned because doing so is the only discourse I have at this point since simply stating what is blatantly obviously correct and hoping you and people like you actually listen obviously is never going to work. I don't know why I bothered anyway, my very first post should have been more than enough to convince anyone that wasn't just sticking their fingers in their ears that I was correct in the first place.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Snip

Projecting, thy name is...

Ok, regarding the "ignoring my own words thing", I said OBJECTIVLEY better, that still means they can be SUBJECTIVELY better for some personal tastes, and that was what the swiss army knive - pizza comparison was about. That is one point I am trying to convey here, that apart from you completely false premise you fail to take subjectivity into account, which is very important when dealing with abstract concepts like fun. Your insistance that everyone who played an Action RPG has to agree with you shows this. (By the way, it matters jack to the discussion, but I beat Sephiroth on both main Kingdom Hearts games on hard.)

And fun is what it is always about with games. A game is "good" when it provides fun, ultimately (Keeping in mind that states like "good" and "fun" are deeply subjective). So a game system should provide players with means to attain said fun. And every player has a different way to attain it. The main reason why two different systems can't be measured in terms of better and worse is because they provide different ways to play the game and with that having fun. Maybe someone likes the fact that the battle doesn't progress until he makes a decision, and finds it relaxing. Some bossfights in Turn Based RPGS are very puzzle-like, where you have to ponder the solutions. Most bossfights in Action RPGs are more tests of your control skills than critical thinking, and a lot of people like that as well. I see no reason to elevate one above the other.

And you do realize that by simply juxtaposing elements of Turn Based Combat and Action RPG combat, you only prove that they are equal, not that one is superior? You haven't stated relevant features only Action RPGs have. But I know of course that for example, you can evade attacks by running around in an Action RPG, that is not relevant. Your points are only simliarites, and often not even that. Defaulting in Bravely Default is not like guarding/staggering at all. You can't decide when to stagger an enemy with a shield, you have to block an incoming attack, it is a reaction. Braving and press Turns are actions you decide when to perfom. Fundamental difference.

But again, not relevant. Both systems place different emphasis on different things, even when they do have stuff in common. I like sitting back, approach a boss carefully and try different methods in peace and quiet, with time to think between actions.
I also like reacting to stuff and think quick on my feet. Different approaches, different game systems. It is not only about different mechanics and possibilites, but different emphasis and feel in systems. To put it simply, Turn based games are slower and methodical, and Action RPGs are more fast and reflexive. Both share the same roots, but place almost opposing emphasis on things. An Action RPG can't do anything a Turn based one can because even if you have similiar actions, the feel of the game is very different, and an Action RPG simply can't create the same feel as an Turn based one because of that.