Turn Based Combat

[Vault101]

the only Turn based game Ive ever been able to play is Pokemon stadium

and I think because, from my perspective its a "sport" you know? a match of skill and wits, it just feels right in context, and I supose thats the only way I could see turn based

because normal combat, I dont wait to turns to stab somone with a knife *shrug*

 

[Archangel768]

I HATED the combat in Oblivion and found the game hardly immersive at all.

On the other hand I found Final Fantasy VIII and X to be the most immersive games I've ever played. And Xs combat system to be my favourite in any game to date. The recharge thing you're referring to is the Active Time Battle (ATB) system which Final Fantasy VIII used various others. X on the other hand used the Conditional Turn Based System (pure turn based, no bar loading times etc).

Oblivions combat was slow and sloppy. Overall it was a complete mess and I quit the game fairly early on because of how bad it was. Didn't like much about the game in general either.

So yeah, I have no idea how you have it in your head that turn based combat systems are worse and that real time systems are more immersive.

EDIT: now It's time to go to bed so you probably won't get a reply from me for another half a day or more considering that I have work early in the morning (well 'this' morning)

 

[bennyboy05]

It doesn't really spoil immersion for me. Turn based combat allows the player to come up with a strategy to defeat the enemy based on the type of enemy being faced, my own party's strengths/weaknesses, my party's equipment, and my inventory and I've always found that rather enjoyable.

 

[XT inc]

Oblivions combat was terrible, because it was like a stat based rpg in real life, where you hit or miss, while actively just hitting a target, which never mattered because I had a set of items that made me chameleon up to 80 percent and then I just cast a long lasting low % chameleon spell on myself and the ai never knew I was there.

TBC is awesome in games, that at least let you speed it up if you want to. Some of the best games I have ever played are, FF tactics series, Front mission 3-4. Disgaea 1,2, Phantom Brave, resonance of fate, grah damn near any SRPG.

And 9/10 real time is broken because the enemies never have time to think and go totally easy on you, even on hard mode.

 

[direkiller]

in many RPG's you generally see a turn based combat system
some take place in turns
some (most) final fantasy games have that arbitary recharge time system (unsure what the name is)
now consider the gameplay of say Oblivion, as it is an action system it creates a sort of realtime feeling and in general ends up becoming a very immersive expierience, however turn based combat is so broken up so arbitary so slow so....well its not AS good as an real time system.

the basic question is: How can a turn based combat system be immersive or work in sync with story?

KOTOR,KOTOR II had a turn based systems and there consided some of the best games out there in terms of immersion

 

[Bostur]

You just need to get used to it.

Someone who never played a turn based game would find it unimmersive and clunky. But in the same way someone who never played a real time game would probably find it confusing, uncontrollable and yes unimmersive. Our minds needs to get used to work around the limitations of the game and focus on the strong points.


I find that real time works poorly for tactical and strategic games. They end up feeling like action games for the most part. The Starcraft series being a notable exception. But in the same way I wouldn't want an action game to be turn-based.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I like it in strategy games like "Sid Meier's: Alpha Centauri", but in general I hate it and its becoming outdated. Games have since become more for the ability to pause and set up combat before executing it in real time. (Knights of the Old Republic and Fallout 3 just to name a few)

Its much smoother and as you said above isn't slow and broken.

 

[pablogonzalez]

I HATED the combat in Oblivion and found the game hardly immersive at all.

On the other hand I found Final Fantasy VIII and X to be the most immersive games I've ever played. And Xs combat system to be my favourite in any game to date. The recharge thing you're referring to is the Active Time Battle (ATB) system which Final Fantasy VIII used various others. X on the other hand used the Conditional Turn Based System (pure turn based, no bar loading times etc).

Oblivions combat was slow and sloppy. Overall it was a complete mess and I quit the game fairly early on because of how bad it was. Didn't like much about the game in general either.

So yeah, I have no idea how you have it in your head that turn based combat systems are worse and that real time systems are more immersive.

EDIT: now It's time to go to bed so you probably won't get a reply from me for another half a day or more considering that I have work early in the morning (well 'this' morning)

well i hope your work went well....really im not being sarcastic

but thankyou active time battle ill remeber it but combining real time into it really ruins the whole "turn" aspect, which is probably why FFX is my favourite of the series

my point is that turn base breaks up all sense of flow

random encounters

sudden flashy transistion

your surroundings expand to reveal these monsters that clearly werent there before. (FFXIII kinda deals with it but lets stay on topic)

having what seems to be giant monstorous creatures that look like they could destroy a city wait on you because "its your turn"....

kinda loses the realism

besides a fight where you take turns to hit each other is something that is rarely seen in real life...

take this as no hatred to turn based combat as i said i like FFX, and sure turn based RPG's they have great stories and characters, its just a large sense of the immersion is lost through such a systematic combat system, and if they require a strategic approach then Active time battle's just kinda muck that up a bit.


ok it was just a use of a real time combat but i agree Oblivion wasnt the best example try fable or the witcher ( 1& 2 ), and other Action RPG's. you see an enemy come up to you preparing to attack you, you can respond immediantly, maybe block maybe counter attack dodge...that's how real time is more immersive, more through the abilities you can peform, it needs the fast thinking "realistic" response.

thats how i find an action system more immersive.

it doesnt have any major strategic thinking as it could happen at any time it requires a faster response from the player themself.

though the turn based is still fun at times, its systematic ordering and strategic approaches compared to the freedom and flow and fast thinking of a real time combat system leaves it less immersive.

besides I know this goes against ff tradition but final fantasy would be so awesome if you could fight real time
like all the spells and awesome techniques instead of just selecting them and watching it happen...

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I like turn based combat in RPGs.

However, I DO prefer the more streamlined "pick everyone's moves and then all moves execute one after another" version.

Turn based is good, IMO, because you can stop and carefully think about what you want to do, and you don't have to rely on instinct all the time.

kinda loses the realism

>_> Not all games need to be realistic or make all that much sense, you know.

Also, in the version that I like (the pick all moves, then all moves happen version), it's kind of like both sides are staring each other down, planning a move and carefully waiting for their moment to strike, then one guy makes his move, causing all of them to go at it.

I hope that made sense...

 

[Okysho]

I thought it worked well in KotOR..

That wasn't really turn-based, though.

You just had the option to pause the game. It didn't really force you to.

OT: Yeah, I don't like turn-based games. I just don't enjoy them.

KOTOR is completely turn based. It's based on the D20 system and is essentially dungeons and dragons in the star wars universe. It uses turn based combat, just that the animations were done so well it looks a lot like it's not. If you look closely at your close combat animations in the game, you'll notice that you and the enemy both actually take turns whacking each other.

 

[Mordekaien]

Turn based combat? Toribash anyone? The greatest turn based combat ever created

 

[pablogonzalez]

I like turn based combat in RPGs.

However, I DO prefer the more streamlined "pick everyone's moves and then all moves execute one after another" version.

Turn based is good, IMO, because you can stop and carefully think about what you want to do, and you don't have to rely on instinct all the time.

kinda loses the realism

>_> Not all games need to be realistic or make all that much sense, you know.

Also, in the version that I like (the pick all moves, then all moves happen version), it's kind of like both sides are staring each other down, planning a move and carefully waiting for their moment to strike, then one guy makes his move, causing all of them to go at it.

I hope that made sense...

yes i understand not all games need to be realistic

games about nuclear apocalypses ALiens invading
magical Nazi's (wolfenstein) games where people take turns to hit each other ( )

but heavy and immediate involvement and quick thinking from the player like in real time combat almost always being more immersive than people standing opposite each other "taking it in turns to slap each other in the face"

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'm not really a fan of turn based combat, though it can work. I've played "Lord of the Rings: The Third Age" which was turn based and I enjoyed it, but have tried others and disliked them. The main problem with turn based games is this:

The game stops being about player skill and becomes effectively a game of strategy. But more than that, it actually becomes a puzzle. With player and non-player characters moving in pre-determined amounts (eg. 2 squares), utilising a set number of skills (eg. ranged attack for heavy damage, uses a point of stamina) and so on, the combat is a puzzle that the player simply needs to calculate.

For example, 3 monsters, one with a ranged attack. They hit first. First character quoffs a healing potion and moves two squares. The next range attacks their ranged attacker. The tank moves toward melee range and can't act further. The combat then plays out in applying a particular ability against a particular foe and the only variation is in which monster combination a player faces for any given round of combat, then changing the order in which they apply abilities accordingly.

Though I've not played them, I understand that the above applies to almost every JRPG and pokemon game ever made. It's just that it's not as interesting as when the player is directly in the midst of the action, when wrong decisions can be made in an instant but saved at the last moment by a stroke of luck.

Saying the above, I like the turn based approach taken in older BioWare games. The "dice rolls" and turns are hidden and combat can played out in relative real-time. But there is the option of pausing, assigning orders which adds tactics not available otherwise. Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights and KotOR might appear dated, but they're among the best RPGs ever made, and a large part of that is the pseudo-realtime combat (though the exciting stories, immersive worlds and cool characters help too!)

 

[meece]

Works well in The Last Remnant. Instead of controlling a normal jrpg party of 4 characters you have up to 18 in up to 5 parties. Combat also sometimes throws up quicktime events, a defensive one very rarely when a party member gets hit doing anything from stunning that creature to a counter attack which 1HKOs everything except bosses (and still does tons of damage to them).

Successful offensive ones give 100% hit chance and starts a chain of them for each successive party member you complete them for cumulating in a potentially MASSIVE critical attack from the last one to attack. Overall it certainly makes combat one hell of a lot more interesting since you have to keep yourself ready for them once you're input your commands.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

I find that combat is not necessarily attached to story and immersiveness. TUrn based rpgs draw me in as well as real time stategy or shooters.

 

[Bostur]

>_> Not all games need to be realistic or make all that much sense, you know.

Also, in the version that I like (the pick all moves, then all moves happen version), it's kind of like both sides are staring each other down, planning a move and carefully waiting for their moment to strike, then one guy makes his move, causing all of them to go at it.

I hope that made sense...

Something like this?


Thats not realistic at all, but it makes for some damn good storytelling.


Immersion and realism isn't the same thing for me. Something can be unrealistic and immersive at the same time.

Playing a game like Frozen Synapse makes me feel a bit like that scene. 10 minutes of careful planning and then everything goes down in a few seconds.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Please stop generalizing Final Fantasy "stand in a line and take turns whacking each other" combat as "turn based combat". It taints AMAZING turn based games like X-Com and Jagged Alliance by association. Oblivion more immersive than X-Com? GTFO.

And I LOVE Oblivion.

 

[Dastardly]

in many RPG's you generally see a turn based combat system
some take place in turns
some (most) final fantasy games have that arbitary recharge time system (unsure what the name is)
now consider the gameplay of say Oblivion, as it is an action system it creates a sort of realtime feeling and in general ends up becoming a very immersive expierience, however turn based combat is so broken up so arbitary so slow so....well its not AS good as an real time system.

the basic question is: How can a turn based combat system be immersive or work in sync with story?

It can be quite immersive already. Turn-based combat allows you more strategic options, and it gives you the time to use them. Rather than a race to see who can make who's health bar drop the fastest, there's a more urgent need for you to consider your opponent's moves and adjust for them. You can't just "play past" your opponent.

Think of turn-based combat like chess -- you move, your opponent moves, you move... but your plan may have just changed based on what your opponent has done. Too often, real-time combat is more like two people playing solitaire next to each other. It's about who gets the game finished first, and you're really not having to change your plan much based on your opponent's decisions.

In a lot of FPS games, for instance, your "adjustment" usually amounts to "Dodge incoming fire." Maybe it's "switch to different ammo, because he has different shielding." You're not really being forced to consider each move your opponent makes. This is very realistic, though. That's why, for instance, most real fights (especially with weapons) look very boring and are over very quickly. Watch some martial arts practitioners fighting -- it's mostly basic punches, kicks, and grabs. You don't see any of the "fun stuff" that they spend years perfecting (the fancy jump kicks and spins, etc.)

Movie combat, though. Man, we love us some movie combat. Swordfights that go on for twenty minutes. Tightly-choreographed kung fu sequences. We eat that stuff up. Here's the problem: there's nothing realistic about it. This intricate dance of attack-counterattack has to be planned in advance, practiced for hours, and then executed in real-time. It has to be practiced until it's nothing but reflex.

Well... games would be boring if you had to train for years on the mechanics to be able to pull off the fancy stuff in real-time. And even then, if the fight changes, you've got a whole new sequence to practice (over and over and over). But not having all the fun fancy stuff? Well, that's not a solution, either. So we have turn-based combat, that gives us a bit more time to consider our options and use them (without having to train for years until it's all reflex).

One of the best implementations of this that I've seen is in the Mass Effect series. Combat is mostly real-time, but you can occasionally pause the action to issue complex chains of commands to your squad. Basically, the "solution" to integrating turn-based combat into real-time combat is our old friend "bullet time."

But that only works for single player, really.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Frankly, I'm a fan of turned based combat, primarily because of two reasons:
1.) Strategy that goes into playing smarter and not harder (especially when you have limited provisions), and
2.) Challenging boss fights.

I know I might get some flames for this, but if you want a good example of great turn-based combat, check out FFX (or any FF game in general, I just like FFX). The boss fights are all unique in one way or another and if you are not properly prepared (especially towards the end of the game), you will be slaughtered by the boss in a few turns.

The reason why the battles are so great is because it requires you to learn the boss's moves and how to effectively counter (if anything else, survive) them. You could have the best weapon, armor, spells, health items, overdrives, etc. up to that encounter, but unless you're equipment can protect you from certain ailments, you're going to flat out die. This makes the boss fights more about strategy than brute strength, which is what turn-based combat should be about.

Lately there has been a push towards making turn-based combat take place in real time, which is no biggie, but many times people would just go into a fight, swords blazing, and just take on the enemy with sheer force. This isn't bad, but it leads to bad combat skills, as when you are forced to fight an enemy who is immune to physical harm, or requires to be weakened by some ailment, you might have a hard time, and you will get upset that the enemy fights don't go down as smoothly as you want it to.

 

[Duskflamer]

There's no problem with turn based combat. Plenty of games do it very well. I actually prefer it in certain games. But it really comes down to a case by case scenario. It wouldn't work in Call of Duty, but for games like Final Fantasy X, Legend of Legaia, or Suikoden II it works perfectly.

Incidentally, I think that was the biggest complaint about FFXIII's combat. It was too fast paced. Combat was moving at such a hectic rate that you couldn't select your actions fast enough. Especially when you had 6 or so slots and 20 different spells. As a result, you largely end up just selecting "auto-attack" to let the game select the most effective attacks itself. And at that point, you're not really playing your own game anymore. If you think turn based combat is boring, letting the game play itself is even more boring.

I thought it worked well in KotOR..

That wasn't really turn-based, though.

You just had the option to pause the game. It didn't really force you to.

OT: Yeah, I don't like turn-based games. I just don't enjoy them.

Um. I hate to break it to you, but KOTOR was a turn based combat system. I believe it works out that 2 seconds is one turn. If you're in combat and you don't select an action, your character just automatically chooses to use a basic attack. You could que up to three actions ahead of time. It was fast paced, yes. But it was fast paced turn based combat. And nothing you or anyone else say will change that. I think Bioware even described it as turn based combat.

Oh, and it actually plays like Dungeons and Dragons, you just don't see the "dice rolls" unless you check your combat log.

The combat abilities may have time delays, but all units can MOVE at the same time, which disqualifies KOTOR from boing turn-based = 1 move at a time.

No, actually, the combat's just shown quickly enough that it seems as though that's the case (much like an actual round of DnD would look like, given that everyone is supposedly taking their move in the same 6 seconds of space). If you look in the combat log, it boils down to:

Ally A Rolled (whatever) And hit Enemy A for 6 damage
Enemy A Rolled (whatever) and missed Ally B
Ally B Rolled (whatever) and hit Enemy A for 8 damage, killing him.
Etc.

If you look closely, you can sometimes even tell where the division is between the rounds (particularly if everyone's using blasters, it's easy to see the .5 seconds of people aiming while the rolls take place in the background before they play out what happened).