Turn Based Combat

[searanox]

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if a turn-based system is fast to the point of being nearly indistinguishable from a real-time one... it becomes very difficult to in good faith call it turn-based anymore. Then it's just real-time gameplay with shitty controls, and the way you approach it is still basically the same as an action game.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I thought it worked well in KotOR..

I thought that too, but then I tried JK 2...
Haven't finished KotOR after it, because JK 2 made me hate KotOR for its gameplay.

ill assume your talking about jedi knights 2 jedi academy?

if so, they are two completely different types of games/genres/styles for a reason, and while the action/combat felt nice in jedi academy, it was still sketchy as fuck on some of the hit detection/movements.

no doubt it is great still, and that more games to mimic that combat, kotor is on a whole different level for the type of gameplay, so the two aren't really comparable.

 

[Torrasque]

Having immersion with turn based combat is almost impossible unless it's something you are meant to have turns in (Yu-Gi-Oh). But it can work well into story such as Fire Emblem, where you are playing a tactician trying to make it so your army will win the war. It's a fairly light version of role playing, but I still count it in!

This times infinity.
Also, Advance Wars has an engaging story, and it is turn based combat.

Whether turn-based combat works or not, just depends on the kind of game.

 

[shasjas]

i definitely think that turn based isnt immersive.
that is not to say turn based games arent good. kotor was great (i consider it to be turn based), but i never felt like i was the character i felt like i was directing the character.
turn based combat can be more tactical and intellectual, but it never makes me feel like i actually am the character.

 

[Saltyk]

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.

Okay, it's been a while since I played KOTOR, but I think it was more or less one move at a time. Just done really really fast. And even if everyone acts at the same exact time, and honestly I don't think it was like that, that is still turn based combat. The combat is still broken up into various turns.

First, I love the ignorant twitching, ADD, sugar popping retards who bundle turn-based up as "Lining up and taking turns whacking each other". I could do the same thing for FPS if you like. Watch:
"I'm glad to see how many people hate the 'point your gun at stuff and pull the trigger until it stops moving' gameplay." I could do more, but I digress.

Good turn-based is immersive if done engagingly. FFX and the Lunar series had my favorite turn based, but more so FFX. The layout of turns coming let you plan moves accordingly and planning felt necessary often enough to be interesting, but not so dire that every fight was a chess game.
FF13 actually felt the least immersive because I only felt like I was suggesting what my char did half the time, and was only suggesting what both other members do the entire time. It felt like I was shouting from the sidelines while way too much happened without my say-so.

I second this post.

I really enjoy a good turn based game. I would love for the next Final Fantasy to borrow a page from FFX and use that battle system again. Also, the Lunar system was interesting, but did you ever play Suikoden or Suikoden II (after that the games starting changing a lot about the combat)? You had 6 characters in two rows, that could attack, defend, or use magic. Certain characters could even work together to preform Unite attacks with various effects. Added a nice element of strategy even when you select your party members.

And, yeah, after a while I got annoyed with the FFXIII battle system. (see my earlier post)

 

[The GEL]

Ah! THIS old chestnut!

No, turn-based combat will never be "immersive". Get over it. Immersion is overrated and people need to stop obsessing over it as it IS getting to the point where it is ruining gaming. Just make a good game and the rest takes care of itself.

Now that said, I am sick of hearing that action battle systems should replace turn-based combat. I LIKE action battle systems but there is DEFINATELY a place for turn-based combat! The problem is that far too many "popular" RPGs with turn-based combat have shockingly shitty combat. Games where you just spam the "Fight" command are retarded and the Active-Time Battle System of Final Fantasy was actually a TERRIBLE idea and makes combat go slower instead of faster! A GOOD turn-based combat system works like a bite-sized game of chess. There has to be thought and strategy to it, thus justifying it's turn-based nature.

Here's a few examples:
#1) Enchanted Arms
Called the "Speed Tactics Battle System", every character has a number of different attacks with different areas of effect. On your turn you arrange your characters, pick their attacks, and then click "Go!" and watch the combat play out. The computer then IMMEDIATELY takes it's turn with no waiting and it is once again your turn to arrange your characters and line-up their attacks. Sadly this battle system was widely overlooked by reviewers due to the existence of an "Auto Battle" option...that didn't work.

#2) Final Fantasy Legend 1-3 (SaGa)
In this series you can equip multiple weapons on a character and on their turn you get to pick which weapon to use. Each weapon has different effects: Some hit one enemy, some hit a "row" of enemies, some hit a "column" of enemies, some do damage based of SPD while others are based of STR, and so on. Furthermore each weapon has a limited number of uses so you want to conserve your "good stuff" for bosses.

#3) Rivera: The Promised Land
Basically the exact same battle system as Final Fantasy Legend except with super moves worked in.

#4) Radiant Historia
In this one you once again arrange all your characters and attacks before choosing "Fight". This time though different attacks push enemies around, allowing you to clump them together and hit multiple foes at the same time.

#5) Pokemon
Yes. Pokemon. Each Pokemon has different strengths and weaknesses based on Types and can have a maximum of 4 moves of different types, effects, and with a limited number of uses. There is no "Normal Attack" except for something like Tackle (which would be a waste) and serious thought goes into planning your Pokemon's moveset and picking the right moves in combat.

...and that's how turn-based combat SHOULD be! There NEEDS to be some THINKING and STRATEGY to justify their turn-based nature but the combat should still be over relatively quickly and not require TOO MUCH thinking. Just enough to make you stop and think and know that making the right choices will net you greater rewards.

 

[F4LL3N]

OP: I kinda disagree. Although Oblivion's battle system is one of my favorite, I think turn based combat is generally a lot more solid 'at it's core'. Some games that have perfected it off the top of my head: Pokemon, most Final Fantasy's (that I've played), Dragon Quest IX, and several GBA games I've forgotten the name of (some of which are my favorite games).

Turn based focuses more on tactics than faced paced action. IMO, Oblivion is one of the few who have actually gotten real time combat right. Most combat system are very poorly designed.

EDIT:

Here's a few examples:
#1) Enchanted Arms
Called the "Speed Tactics Battle System", every character has a number of different attacks with different areas of effect. On your turn you arrange your characters, pick their attacks, and then click "Go!" and watch the combat play out. The computer then IMMEDIATELY takes it's turn with no waiting and it is once again your turn to arrange your characters and line-up their attacks. Sadly this battle system was widely overlooked by reviewers due to the existence of an "Auto Battle" option...that didn't work.

Woah. You're the first person I've seen ever mention Enchanted Arms in one of their posts. That game was amazing once you get into it. It had one of the best battle system's, imo.

 

[pablogonzalez]

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?

I have to disagree with some of the assumptions made in your post. Why do you assume turn based battle system are not immersive? Honestly Haveing grown up with ATB (active time battles) and turn based combat in general i find Games like Oblivion not only unimmersive but a little on the hard to get into side. It has always been my opinion that immersion pretty much relies solely on the Quality of writing and has very little to do with the game play. I prefer turn based combat in rpgs.

ok Oblivion is a bad example try sometihng like Fable of the Witcher, in combat you dont just stand there thinking of the best strategy to defeat a monster, because by the time you have thoguht of one they have probably killed you. Immersion requires more player involvement, in these BETTER examples, you need to respond quikly, either dodge block counter attack, whatever you can do, not waiting and deciding.

i personally haven't seen an extremeley immersive turn based system, and even though most of these games have some of the best stories ive rarely seen one work in sync with the story as things such as random encounters comletley break any sense of flow and coherent connection to the characters, take FFXIII's Hope. In the cutscenes he is a complete wimp even afraid of his own teamates but in combat he is suddenly courageos and willing to fight. Im not saying that they are completley unimmersive i say it because alot of these ssystems are designed out of sync with the story they often fall flat, maybe they could of made Hope like reluctant to attack or when he did he would oftne miss or his attacks would be the weakest, although this might cause some balance issues, it could of made the battle system more immersive.

 

[Joccaren]

Any game that has combat probably has turn based combat. Shooters? The number of bullets coming out of your gun per second, how far you can move each second, the effects crouching proning and jumping has on your movement per second all add up to a turn based system, with turns being time measurements as opposed to Pause combat. Make Move. Restart Combat to show move. Pause Combat. Make Move. ect.

In genres with melee weapons it becomes easily far more noticeable, simply because your not firing 12 bullets each second, your slashing forward, which can take multiple seconds, and its painfully obvious that the game has disabled you from slashing again until your animation has finished, otherwise enemies would be insta-killed by mass slashes of weapons and animations would get completely F***ed.

To make turn based combat immersive, keep it real time yet turn based. You have no control over the flow of turns, so you can't sit back and think 'Hrrm. Should I attack, use this, use this, or use this?' but instead have to do it on the fly. Sure, a lot of the time its still painfully obvious its turn based, but welcome to computer games.

 

[ChupathingyX]

ok Oblivion is a bad example try sometihng like Fable of the Witcher, in combat you dont just stand there thinking of the best strategy to defeat a monster, because by the time you have thoguht of one they have probably killed you. Immersion requires more player involvement, in these BETTER examples, you need to respond quikly, either dodge block counter attack, whatever you can do, not waiting and deciding.

i personally haven't seen an extremeley immersive turn based system, and even though most of these games have some of the best stories ive rarely seen one work in sync with the story as things such as random encounters comletley break any sense of flow and coherent connection to the characters, take FFXIII's Hope. In the cutscenes he is a complete wimp even afraid of his own teamates but in combat he is suddenly courageos and willing to fight. Im not saying that they are completley unimmersive i say it because alot of these ssystems are designed out of sync with the story they often fall flat, maybe they could of made Hope like reluctant to attack or when he did he would oftne miss or his attacks would be the weakest, although this might cause some balance issues, it could of made the battle system more immersive.

You seem to have a strange definition of immersion.

Immersion is when you become mentally involved and focused on the current events and/or actions. In a more tactical/strategical turn-based game you need to make decisions, manage your resources, think of where you're going to send your characters, what are they going to do, survey the area, think of consequences that could stem from your decisisons et cetera.

So keeping that in mind, yes, turn-based games are immersive, at least the more strategical ones like the old cRPG games and alot of other PC games from the 90s.

A lot of people seem to believe immerson is when the game starts to become real and you feel like you, yourself, are in the game, but this mostly wrong as immersion defines the feeling (in the case of video games) of being involved in the video games mechanics and features.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Turn-based combat is one many things that needs to make a comeback, seriously. I never found the take turns RPG's ala Japanese style to be very immersive, but that's just me. I find games like X-Com, Jagged Alliance and Fallout Tactics to be extremely immersive, especially games where you only go into turn-based combat when enemies appear, so it doesn't break up the pace too much.

Positioning your very invested characters into places to play on their strengths and weaknesses, making decisions, and totally pwning the AI when you have got it just right is extremely rewarding. Placing a sniper on a roof, a quick moving character in the hallways, an accurate and auto-fire weapon expert at a window to interrupt enemies who might try to make a beeline for your characters, I mean you pretty much orchestrate your own firefight, and every little element of every character. What could be more immersive than that? I find these more involving than most action RPG's to be honest, especially the latest ones like Dungeon Siege 3 and Dragon Age 2.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

ill assume your talking about jedi knights 2 jedi academy?

if so, they are two completely different types of games/genres/styles for a reason, and while the action/combat felt nice in jedi academy, it was still sketchy as fuck on some of the hit detection/movements.

no doubt it is great still, and that more games to mimic that combat, kotor is on a whole different level for the type of gameplay, so the two aren't really comparable.

Jedi Academy is acutally Jedi Knight 3. Jedi Knight 2 is Jedi Outcast.
I know that those two games can't really be compared. However, I said that playing JK 2 made me realize how much the combat in KotOR sucks (IMO) when compared to it. Combat in KotOR was like standing next to two fighters that are retarted. They attack once then ask you what to do next. Combat in JK 2 was EPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC! <- Example: A tense bossfight. The enemy attacks me, but I avoid being hit with a side-flip, counter the attack by throwing my lightsaber in mid-air, while using a force-power to deal additional damage.
Winning those fights give you a feeling of accomplishment, while KotOR tended to get repetitive over time. This is just my opinion on this.

ah woops you are correct, i haven't played them in a long time so forgot the numbering.

and fair enough, i've played kotor 50+ times and it still isn't old to me to this day (just got done with another kotor II playthrough about a week ago.) while the JK games i played only a handful of times all together. so guess we are in agreement just on polar opposites of the spectrum.

 

[Thaius]

Eh, I disagree with your premise. Immersion isn't just a matter of feeling like you're "in the game." I mean it's great when the controller seems to disappear, when you're no longer experiencing a game through that physical medium but simply having that direct contact, but it's far from the only way to immerse someone in an interactive experience.

Turn-based combat does not achieve the aforementioned direct experience, but it doesn't try to. Final Fantasy games, for instance, immerse the player in a complex world and mythology with interesting characters that make you want to understand it all. For that, more immersive combat is simply not required.

The other thing to keep in mind is that turn-based combat is not some uber-unrealistic thing that fails at simulating combat. We must remember that video games always, always, always attempt to emulate the experience, not clone it, because the latter simply is not possible. Even Call of Duty does that. Why? Because real life is not a game. Games need to construct themselves based on what makes for good, balanced mechanics before basing themselves on realism; that's why it's quicker to pull out a pistol, an entirely separate gun, than it is to reload a weapon, for instance, and that's in a game that strives for realism even to a fault. Heck, even Chess is a battle simulator, just governed by rules that may not be realistic, but are certainly balanced. Turn-based systems are simply gamified representations of combat, no less so than that of Battlefield 3, if a bit less realistic in some ways.

I think that is incredibly important to understand. Heck, no one complained about Puzzle Quest's combat being unrealistic, because it was freakin' brilliant, but as soon as the same type of game happens with actual characters fighting onscreen, it's unrealistic? We need to come to terms with the fact that video games are representations of real life, and are not intended to be carbon-copies of it, but to make balanced, well-designed systems out of it. And turn-based combat unquestionably accomplishes that goal.

 

[Thaius]

EDIT: Double post. Ignore. Stupid college internet...

 

[pablogonzalez]

ok Oblivion is a bad example try sometihng like Fable of the Witcher, in combat you dont just stand there thinking of the best strategy to defeat a monster, because by the time you have thoguht of one they have probably killed you. Immersion requires more player involvement, in these BETTER examples, you need to respond quikly, either dodge block counter attack, whatever you can do, not waiting and deciding.

i personally haven't seen an extremeley immersive turn based system, and even though most of these games have some of the best stories ive rarely seen one work in sync with the story as things such as random encounters comletley break any sense of flow and coherent connection to the characters, take FFXIII's Hope. In the cutscenes he is a complete wimp even afraid of his own teamates but in combat he is suddenly courageos and willing to fight. Im not saying that they are completley unimmersive i say it because alot of these ssystems are designed out of sync with the story they often fall flat, maybe they could of made Hope like reluctant to attack or when he did he would oftne miss or his attacks would be the weakest, although this might cause some balance issues, it could of made the battle system more immersive.

You seem to have a strange definition of immersion.

Immersion is when you become mentally involved and focused on the current events and/or actions. In a more tactical/strategical turn-based game you need to make decisions, manage your resources, think of where you're going to send your characters, what are they going to do, survey the area, think of consequences that could stem from your decisisons et cetera.

So keeping that in mind, yes, turn-based games are immersive, at least the more strategical ones like the old cRPG games and alot of other PC games from the 90s.

A lot of people seem to believe immerson is when the game starts to become real and you feel like you, yourself, are in the game, but this mostly wrong as immersion defines the feeling (in the case of video games) of being involved in the video games mechanics and features.

in a real time system ou are mentally involved there is a necessity for the player to respond quikly and efficiently instead of standing there deciding which of your several spells is effective against an enemy

see there is a far more realistic metal involvment provided

 

[ChupathingyX]

SNIP

See, you're saying that to be immersive a game has to be realistc, see that is wrong.

Immersive =/= realistic.

Or at least, it doesn't have to be realistic. The definition of immersion(that is relevant to this discussion) is being mentally involved in what you are doing or the world you are in. Doesn't matter how fast you are thinking, whether or not the game has a gritty, realistic design or a cel-shaded, cartoony look, if the player has become mentally involved and fixated in the game world or the combat, they have become immersed.

Immersion isn't even strictly related to the gameplay, if the player is interested in the story or the characters and want to learn more and continue, they have become immersed, regardless of what the gameplay is, the gameplay will either improve or downgrade the experience. However, if the game in question is turn-based, that doe snot make it inheriently unimmersive, not at all.

The only times when immersion is really ruined is when a player starts meta-gaming, exploiting the mechanics or the structure of the game or just dicking around for no good reason or maybe even when a bad glitch occurs.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Do you mean "immersive" as in "enthralling, keeping you glued to your seat, or the more widely used definition, "brown heavy first person shooter?"

Because with the former, turn-based combat kept me glued to my seat in many of the pre-X final Fantasy games.

 

[veloper]

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.

Okay, it's been a while since I played KOTOR, but I think it was more or less one move at a time.

Play it again then. Every jedi, droid and twilek can MOVE at the same time.
Attacks and abilities do have variable delays, depending on initiative (lower values may be delayed until the higher ones have gone first), but in practice this makes no difference for the outcome of a battle in KOTOR.
NWN is a better example of RTWP. In mage battles, having the higher initiative can make all the difference, because the spells have big effects and can even win the fight immediately (example: firing off Time Stop before your opponent does).
At the same time, realtime movement let's you exploit AOEs like fireball in RT.