What's the appeal of turn based combat?

[Steppin Razor]

Yep! Though wasn't the FF3 on the DS a remake?

Hmmm, I dunno about 3, haven't gotten around to playing it yet. FF4 has some pretty good CG cutscenes put in and voice acting for some of the scenes, but they mostly stick with what the original games were. Case in point - Cecil is fucking massive on the environment. I guess you'd say that they're mostly updates of the originals.

 

[NeutralDrow]

True...that video was exactly what I was thinking when I said I didn't like turn-based combat.

To each their own. I might eventually get into it. I really want it since I love a good story in a game.

So...when you said you didn't like turn-based combat, you were thinking of real-time?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Ya, what you are seeing is it being stunned or sometimes getting basically beaten into a corner...and from what I can tell..those enemies in the Tales series are usually really slow, but extremely powerful.

Maybe this is a better example of Tales gameplay??

vid

Shoot. That's one of the two Abyss videos I use specifically for these threads. It didn't occur to me that the sword dancer being rather slow-moving would give the wrong impression. And having the mage be the player-controlled character probably didn't help either.

I also use this one, but avoided it because it's technically two players, and it's lower animation quality...

 

[CmdrGoob]

I see plenty of people claiming it's more strategic. I honestly have no idea how they could back this up.

Even the humble FPS is more strategically interesting - the difference between shotguns/SMGs/assault rifles/sniper rifles/grenades creates more real tactical variety than all the samey fire/lightning/attack/whatever options (which are all basically the same except for the animation and the arbitrary weakness it targets) in turn based JRPGs.

If tactical variety is choosing between using a rifle or a shotgun, then changing your weapon to a bow instead of a sword against flying enemies in a JRPG is also tactical variety. Adding more variety on top of weapon choice is the specific attack you're going to use. FPS games typically have aim and shoot, that's it. JRPGs have attack, defend, double/triple/quad/you get the picture -strike, elemental strikes, instant death attacks with low chance of working, critical attacks with low chance of hitting, super fast strikes, incredibly slow and powerful attacks, area of effect attacks, attacks that hit all enemies, status affecting attacks, attacks that cost HP or MP/SP to use, the list goes on.

You claiming that they're all basically the same except for the animation and weaknesses they target shows a complete lack of knowledge of JRPGs at all.

Edit: Note that I haven't even gone into the use of Magic yet. That much variety without even resorting to the use of thunderbolts and fireballs.

Then compound that with all the considerations of terrain, cover, range, movement, positioning, flanking, suprise and stealth and it's totally clear to me that even your average shooter is more strategic than turn based combat.

Movement and positioning are covered heavily in Fire Emblem and Disgaea. Fucking it up in those games will put you at a huge disadvantage. Taking enemies by surprise has been included in a number of JRPGs, the most recent of which is FFXIII. It is also a virtual non-issue as sneaking around is almost exclusively an FPS concept.

Range falls entirely into the realms of player choice as someone that likes sniping will always fire from long range whereas an smg/shotgun user will try and charge in as close as possible. Terrain only really factors into the FPS argument when you're talking about cover and sneaking, other than that it has almost no effect at all. Dirt, move at full speed. Grass, move at full speed. Sandy beach, move a little slower still move at full speed. Knee deep water, move a little slower STILL moving at full speed.

And yet many of those different skills have little to no inherent tactical significance; at best they only equal the strategic elements found in an FPS. You bring up the difference between a sword and a bow but laughably enough in many turn based systems (eg. FF) that choice has absolutely no difference at all. Is double strike or single strike is actually tactically different from each other? Hell no; one is strictly better and that's it. Or eg elemental strikes/spells - matching the appropriate element to the appropriate weakness ain't no fricken chess strategy. It doesn't require much thinking. You list a lot of things, but there are only a few things in there that are really strategically interesting beyond simply picking your strongest attack. I mean what are you actually going to do differently when you pick "double strike" instead of "attack" and how does it compare to what you are actually going to do differently if you pick an SMG over an assault rifle?

Being successful in an FPS easily has just as many strategic elements in how select your weapons, how you use the map and move around to gain advantageous positions, how you anticipate where your opponents will be and how they will be armed, how you work as a team, how you use your supply of grenades, etc.

I mean just look at picking a weapon - if you picked an SMG over a sniper rifle, you didn't pick it because its attacks do more damage than everything else. You didn't pick it because scanning your enemy says "weak to SMG". You picked it because it suits the current strategy you think will be best in the current situation. That's real strategy.

It's not that there's no strategy in turn based combat, but as far as I can see, real time can easily be just as strategic. And yet real time is better paced and more immersive.

 

[SpireOfFire]

it requires a much more tactical approach than any other gameplay style IMO.

 

[MintsMan]

Well, i'm a fan of FF myself... but i can't stand the turn based combat either. it just seems to me like the creators spent ALL their time and money thinking of and creating emo teenagers wielding HUGE swords if they're guys, or wearing almost no clothes if they're girls. to make a good game all they would have to do is make it RTS combat. So in short, if they make it turn based because they think people like it, then they are making the biggest mistake since bloody Pearl harbour. (If you have been living under a rock for the last lifetime and haven't heard of the movie, or are American, research it).

 

[Cyenwulf]

it requires a much more tactical approach than any other gameplay style IMO.

RTS's say hai. Or try watching some competitive FPS games.

Nearly everything is spelt out in JRPGs - either throught the menu text or trial and error. You are not a strategic genius for deciding to heal your character on low HP, or deciding to cast water blast on the fire elemental.

 

[SenisterDenister]

Silent Storm. Play it.

 

[Lavi]

Tales of Symphonia has a brilliant combat system that is not turn-based. You will be pissed off about all the story because it is time when you aren't fighting something. The difficulty also actually changes when you alter the setting. Insane mode will make you wanna rape babies. The battles can be slow if the bosses are particularly if it's four on one. Four on three and you have a clusterfuck of wonderful battleness.

EDIT: For actual turn-based games, if they require actual strategy, then I don't mind. Final Fantasy requires no strategy at all though and you can breeze through the battles (was I supposed to die facing Sephiroth at a really low level? Because that totally did not happen). Baten Kaitos did screw me over a few times, but playing it again the difficulty was mostly gone.

 

[Dendio]

Ill never forget that final fantasy 8 or 9 demo that came to me in the mail one day.

I was thrown into combat without the slightest clue how to do anything.

So as im fumbling with controls and trying to figure out whats does what, the enemies keep beating on me...not fun.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Only turn based RPG I liked was the Kotor series, I liked the 3 second "rounds" and you could almost play it like a hack and slash or 3PS once you had upgraded characters.

 

[Steppin Razor]

I typed up a response but my computer died so fuck that I'll just respond to this:

It's not that there's no strategy in turn based combat, but as far as I can see, real time can easily be just as strategic. And yet real time is better paced and more immersive.

We're agreed then that they can both require as much strategy as the other. The only place we differ is that you don't like the turn-based system and I do.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

turn-based combat opens up your options, it also allows you top assess the available option and those options can have more variance

put it this way, in FF6 each character can learn roughly 50-70 magic spells, you can have 4 characters in a team at once... imagine trying to battle with action-based controls, you would be forced to limit your options

also, I find it funny when people say "if i wanted to play with menus I'd use the windows toolbar" which completely misses the point, its not the menus themselves that are appealing but the options that you have... it would just be like saying "if I wanted an open-word game I'd just move my mouse around the desktop screen"

 

[Liberaliter]

When done well they can be fun and tactical, most the time they are boring IMO though.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Is double strike or single strike is actually tactically different from each other? Hell no; one is strictly better and that's it. Or eg elemental strikes/spells - matching the appropriate element to the appropriate weakness ain't no fricken chess strategy. It doesn't require much thinking. You list a lot of things, but there are only a few things in there that are really strategically interesting beyond simply picking your strongest attack. I mean what are you actually going to do differently when you pick "double strike" instead of "attack" and how does it compare to what you are actually going to do differently if you pick an SMG over an assault rifle?

on the surface, but RPGs dont just give you all your abilities you have to choose you're own development methods, getting different abilities at different times based off your decisions. Is double attack ever a worse option than single attack? depends, MP cost? recovery time? damage distribution? enemy counter effects? weapon degredation?

ok, so if you're fighting an ice monster and you are suppose to use fire spells on it... what about MP cost? multi-targeting? spell charges? what level of fire magic do you use? how do you make sure you've got a fire spell at this point? who do you give the fire spell to? would the time and effort have been spent elsewhere? who uses the fire spells?

there's more to it than just "what works best for right now" you have to think long term

 

[tzimize]

Turn based combat is not strictly a JRPG thing. Heroes of might and magic for example use turn based combat, and it works like a charm.

Heroes 3 is one of my all time favorite games.

 

[veloper]

why I should get into JRPGs.

You shouldn't.

The main appeal of JRPGs is the turn-based combat and TB is for gamers who like to use their minds instead of their reflexes.

 

[erbkaiser]

Turn Based Combat is about applying strategy, carefully weighing your options against your opponent's. Whoever has the best strategy wins.
Real Time Combat is twitchy gameplay, quickly doing something to take down your opponent or block his attack. Whoever reacts fastest wins.

I'll take the former any time.


Of course not all TBC is equal, when done badly it can just be annoying. Likewise some RTC can be deeply strategic and have excellent depth.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

Turn Based Combat is about applying strategy, carefully weighing your options against your opponent's. Whoever has the best strategy wins.
Real Time Combat is twitchy gameplay, quickly doing something to take down your opponent or block his attack. Whoever reacts fastest wins.

I'll take the former any time.


Of course not all TBC is equal, when done badly it can just be annoying. Likewise some RTC can be deeply strategic and have excellent depth.

Even though i prefer turn based, they both have thier own advantages, I just wish people would see that

 

[Julianking93]

I like it because it adds a bit of strategy to an otherwise button mashing game.

Makes me feel smarter