Poll: Turn-based RPG; thing of the past or still relevant?

[FakeSympathy]

When Final Fantasy first came out for the NES, it was met with many praises. Back then, gamers haven't seen anything like it, as most RPG consisted of the sprite of the enemy, with a text box describing everything that was happening. With FF however, players saw the monsters, the heroes they were playing with, and the actions that the heroes and the monsters each performed.

Because of how successful it was, Square decided to keep its format for their rest of their games in the series, with twists to the job system, enemy weakness and resistance, and many more.

But practically every JRPG and even some western RPGs tried to implement this system. Golden Sun, Chrono Trigger, Baulder's Gate, KOTOR, etc. The turn-based system has become such a staple in the gaming world, people began to find it boring, especially for the later FF games. So then came the action rpgs, which people began to favor more. Monster Hunter, all the fallout games after 3, Elder Scrolls series, Mass Effect trilogy, and more

Recent RPGs, however, have begun to go back to turn-based RPG once again. Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original sin 1 & 2, Undertale, all of which have gotten a lot of praises just like the older FF games did.

So do you think turn-based RPG is thing of the past, or do you think it's still relevant and more games should be turn-based RPG?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Persona 5 is all you really need to look at how relevant turn based is. It's just another form of gameplay with its unique traits and fans of it.

 

[McMarbles]

It's a perfectly valid way to play a game.

It's like saying platformers are obsolete because endless runners exist.

 

[Saelune]

DnD is never going away, and that is a turn-based RPG. And most of those games you mentioned being turn based are inspired by DnD.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

In my opinion, "classic" JRPG combat has always sucked, I stopped playing FFVI growing up because of the horrid combat system. Then, I tried FFX two generations later and the gameplay literally didn't change at all. When you remove positioning as key strategic factor, turn-based combat loses most of its reason for being (raison d'etre). When a few if-then-else statements can make the game play itself, then what's the purpose of the player constantly inputting the same commands over and over again?

FFXII is actually the "proof" that shows how unstrategic classic FF/JRPG combat was. Under-the-hood FFXII's combat system was the same as FFX or just about any other FF (except for Tactics), all FFXII let the player do was completely cut down on common sense commands that the player had to constantly input over and over again by allowing for a few if-then-else statements (aka Gambits) to be set like 'heal character if character is under 25% health' or 'attack if everything is fine (when none of the higher priority Gambits triggered)'. You could actually play turn-by-turn in FFXII just like any prior FF, but you'd just be wasting time by doing that. You can't set up any "proper" turn-based game with a few if-then-else statements like you can't have XCOM or Divinity Original Sin or just plain Chess play themselves with a few "Gambits". Proper turn-based combat isn't even hard to execute, you can just literally copy DnD combat like XCOM basically does, you have a move action and an attack action (or double move) and that's it.

The whole point of turn-based combat is that it's turn-based because you need more time to think out each move while setting up future moves as well. It's not supposed to be fast and exciting, which is something many JRPGs tried to do and failed because it's just not what turn-based combat is supposed to be. If your combat system requires such a limited amount of strategy that it can be done in real-time, then do it in real-time like FFXII and stop wasting the player's time. I even think JRPG fans like bad turn-based combat because I remember Xenosaga II's combat system was hated for being too slow (then Xenosaga III went back to boring "classic" JRPG combat) but it was the only combat system in the entire series that actually merited its turn-based nature because you had to set stuff up and it couldn't have been done in real-time.

TL;DR
Classic JRPG turn-based combat (heroes & enemies standing across from each other trading blows) sucks and always has. Proper turn-based combat that requires positioning and actual strategy is always welcome. I probably play more hours of board games a week than video games at this point and, of course, turn-based systems (like Sentinels of the Multiverse) can offer amazing gameplay when implemented well.

 

[sXeth]

The "Everybody line up and take turns" method is probably mostly obsolete. You can put enough depth in there eventually, but its not often done well. For an odd bit of trivia, there was both thee JRPG version, where you had side-viewed sprites, and the western variation, which was traditionally 4 characters along the bottom (and portraits more often the full sprites).

As mentioned above, turn based comes more heavily into good use when its applied to a battlefield with complex positioning, and to add to that, a significant number of units, more then the 2-6 that is usually favored in the line-up style. There are examples of that going the whole back to Ultimas or SSI D&D games (though they also used the western line up style for Eye of the Beholder and some others).

It ends up being a bit of a noose, because if you start going all in on fleshing out the turn based combat, you're more likely to end up being more of a strategy game then an RPG.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Its just another way to do combat and like real time or a mixture of both it can be done well and poorly. I think it would be silly to throw turn based combat out just pick what is best for the game you are creating.

 

[Abomination]

I've been replaying Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny in anticipation for the upcoming Pillars of Eternity II and I must say that the HYBRID of both systems, the real time pause, is the best kind of strategic play.

It allows for the benefits of all systems without the jarring disconnect of "line up and take your turn" but also allows for planned tactical maneuvers - it also feels less "gamey" than D&D which suffers from some rules that make NO practical sense (disengagement attacks of opportunity, what, how does moving AWAY from someone make it easier to hit them?).

 

[Ironman126]

It's a perfectly valid way to play a game.

It's like saying platformers are obsolete because endless runners exist.

This.

DnD is never going away, and that is a turn-based RPG. And most of those games you mentioned being turn based are inspired by DnD.

Also this.

Turn-based games exist in more than one genre. The issue is whether the mechanics are any good, not if they're turn-based.

Fallout 3/New Vegas both have real-time, shooter gameplay that generally sucks. Divinity Original Sin is tactical and turn-based, yet quite fun. The issue - as always - is execution, not the broad classification.

EDIT: There's also the matter of who is making the games. AAA games tend to gravitate towards real-time shooters to try and cash in on FPS syndrome (see Fallout 3). Smaller developers tend to be less restricted and can make niche games.

 

[Ironman126]

I've been replaying Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny in anticipation for the upcoming Pillars of Eternity II and I must say that the HYBRID of both systems, the real time pause, is the best kind of strategic play.

It allows for the benefits of all systems without the jarring disconnect of "line up and take your turn" but also allows for planned tactical maneuvers - it also feels less "gamey" than D&D which suffers from some rules that make NO practical sense (disengagement attacks of opportunity, what, how does moving AWAY from someone make it easier to hit them?).

I grant that D&D definitely has its share of nonsensical, gamey mechanics, but Pillars has terrible gameplay. Specifically, it has a appallingly bad interface strapped onto D&D 3.5 mechanics, plus the deranged weapon speed rules from AD&D. Give me D&D 4 or 5E over Pillars any day.

 

[Abomination]

I've been replaying Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny in anticipation for the upcoming Pillars of Eternity II and I must say that the HYBRID of both systems, the real time pause, is the best kind of strategic play.

It allows for the benefits of all systems without the jarring disconnect of "line up and take your turn" but also allows for planned tactical maneuvers - it also feels less "gamey" than D&D which suffers from some rules that make NO practical sense (disengagement attacks of opportunity, what, how does moving AWAY from someone make it easier to hit them?).

I grant that D&D definitely has its share of nonsensical, gamey mechanics, but Pillars has terrible gameplay. Specifically, it has a appallingly bad interface strapped onto D&D 3.5 mechanics, plus the deranged weapon speed rules from AD&D. Give me D&D 4 or 5E over Pillars any day.

You're right about the speed in Pillars, there are areas of significant improvement and they were worked on with Tyranny. The feedback you get in both systems is very good though, just a shame about how they stuffed up MIGHT in Pillars (one stat dictated all damage, melee, ranged and caster).

I just find Real Time Pause to be the best system out there from a command and feedback perspective. Even though Fallout: Tactics was a flop its overwatch system was spot on.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Forgot to actually put a poll on the thread OP.

I wouldn't say turned based RPGs are a thing of the past yet, but they're definitely on the way out and they should be, and this is coming from someone who grew up playing them and loved them. You can put timing and strategy and positioning and all that into a turned based RPG but in the end turned based RPGs are still only capable of doing a tiny fraction of what an action RPG can do. Really, all those bells and whistles are just something to try and inject some new life into a combat system that got old and was far surpassed a long time ago. Action RPGs are able to do everything turned based RPGs can do plus far far more, limitlessly more even, they can even allow the player to switch the game to a turned based RPG with the addition of the option, something being obsolete doesn't get more clear than that.

There are two reasons turned based RPGs still exist, one would be playing on nostalgia and the other is that turned based RPGs are still easier for developers to make. As turned based RPGs become more rare over the years and Action RPGs become easier and easier to make we'll eventually see turned based RPGs all but completely phased out. Then it will be relegated to the same realm as the games made these days with the same sort of design as retro video games, games made specifically to call back to games from the bygone age.

 

[Ironman126]

I grant that D&D definitely has its share of nonsensical, gamey mechanics, but Pillars has terrible gameplay. Specifically, it has a appallingly bad interface strapped onto D&D 3.5 mechanics, plus the deranged weapon speed rules from AD&D. Give me D&D 4 or 5E over Pillars any day.

You're right about the speed in Pillars, there are areas of significant improvement and they were worked on with Tyranny. The feedback you get in both systems is very good though, just a shame about how they stuffed up MIGHT in Pillars (one stat dictated all damage, melee, ranged and caster).

I just find Real Time Pause to be the best system out there from a command and feedback perspective. Even though Fallout: Tactics was a flop its overwatch system was spot on.

I understand why they tried the speed mechanic, but between the lackluster tutorial and the, frankly, barely legible interface, it felt like it came out of nowhere when you finally get a couple party members.

Real Time Pause systems are definitely the easiest to use, when they're done right, but I don't think that Pillars managed the execution properly.

 

[Cold Shiny]

Persona 5 is one of the best current examples of a modernized turn-based system.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Chess is a turn based game and its still very relevant. I see no reason why turn based systems shouldn't continue to be a valid element of game design, and there are plenty of examples in current games - X-Com 2, Persona 5, Divinity Original Sin 2, etc. That said, it's definitely a design niche that is less appealing to the mainstream than real time gameplay, but I think it's popular enough, and useful enough as a design model that it will continue to be used in the future.

 

[Erttheking]

Persona 5 is all you really need to look at how relevant turn based is. It's just another form of gameplay with its unique traits and fans of it.

OP, I think you got an adequate answer to your question in the first reply.

 

[Warhound]

I don't think people really got tired of it so much as game developers told people that they were tired of it. See also: Survival Horror games.

Developers (Or more likely publishers) chase whatever they think is trendy, and turn based games weren't as trendy as real time stuff, so thats what they swarmed over.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I wouldn't say turned based RPGs are a thing of the past yet, but they're definitely on the way out and they should be, and this is coming from someone who grew up playing them and loved them. You can put timing and strategy and positioning and all that into a turned based RPG but in the end turned based RPGs are still only capable of doing a tiny fraction of what an action RPG can do. Really, all those bells and whistles are just something to try and inject some new life into a combat system that got old and was far surpassed a long time ago. Action RPGs are able to do everything turned based RPGs can do plus far far more, limitlessly more even, they can even allow the player to switch the game to a turned based RPG with the addition of the option, something being obsolete doesn't get more clear than that.

There's TONS of things action RPGs can't do. Action RPGs have combat systems that are usually just a poor man's hack and slash combat. Sure, you can do classic JRPG combat in real-time like FFXII did but that's because the core combat system is so simplistic that it can be done in real-time, they should've never been turn-based to begin with. Any proper turn-based combat can't be done in real-time. Look how much programming of AI it took for a computer to play chess vs the 5 or so if-then-else statements (Gambits) it takes to have FFXII play itself.

 

[Kyrian007]

The way I look at it; say the option to have a action or hybrid system was available then. Think back to some of the iconic turn based rpgs of the past. Would having an action or hybrid combat system have added anything to those games... nope. Would it have quite easily ruined those games... of course it could have. That pretty much proves turn-based is still as relevant as ever and that isn't going to change.

The important thing is this, what combat system is going to best serve the game as a whole? Would have adding a real-time turret railshooting minigame to space combat in Masters of Orion 2 made it better than its turn based combat? No, the turn based combat served the game as a whole better than any other system could have. All you have to do is look at MoO 3 to see how badly "adding" to the combat system can really screw up a game.

Or look at the relative popularity of Final Fantasy games. Dominating the top of most lists; 7, 9, 10, 6, 8... the turn based entries.

So turn-based combat is going to continue to be relavent as long as it can still best serve a game overall as a mechanic. And that is going to be... nope, that's not going to change ever. It will always be possible for turn based combat to best serve a game... as long as there are games.