RPG Combat, what do you want?

[God'sFist]

So something I frequently see when it comes to RPGs is people saying how the combat is not very good or it's not challenging enough or some other complaint that I can't think of. I am one of those people who likes to explore in games and so the combat usually takes a secondary roll in my enjoyment of a game but even then I still don't find problems with most combat systems when it comes to RPGs.

So to end my rambling what kind of combat would you prefer in RPGs?

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Turn based. I want action points, hit chance, movement allowance, cover, the whole works. Old school turn based combat is the only proper way to play an RPG (I might be a little biased).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Whatever suits the theme, mood and pacing of the game. I've enjoyed Fallout's turn-based combat, I've enjoyed Baldur's Gate's real-time turn based, I've enjoyed Gothics and Mount & Blade's tactical, third person combat, I've enjoyed Skyrim's lighter first-person hack'n'slashing.

If the game intends to be a serious test of the player's abilities, then a hardcore turn-based system with dozens upon dozens of variables makes sense. If the game intends for the combat to be fast-paced filler content, then a first person hack'n'slash system makes sense. The important part is that the developer understands what purpose the combat serves in the broader game and tailors it to that purpose.

 

[Athennesi]

They're still a lot better at turned based/strategy combat ( Temple of EE is still king, DOS II is shaping up nicely), but slowly catching up as action games. Last Mass Effect improved a lot as third person shooter (especially Multiplayer...beats Division by a mile), Witcher III a pretty good hack&slasher and even Bethesda stepped up a bit with Fallout IV.
As long as they don't try to do both...which usually ends up with poor results( like with Inquisition, in my opinion).

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I always prefer turn based to action based combat as the action based combat often revolves around a dumbed down version of a game like dmc or bayonetta with less flash, freedom, combos, moves, in general less fun. If I wanna play dmc, I'll play dmc. The only style of game where it fit was Dragon's Dogma, which basically felt like an action game and was made by capcom who know how to do action games.


Turn based on the other hand is the only thing outside of a qte focused system like Ashura's Wrath that surpasses the dmc formula when it comes to flash, at least in some cases. It also has the added elements of being more strategical and more around micromanaging stats and gear, placing less focus on reflexes with which one can undo bad choices in gear or stats or party composition.


Basically, I wans my rpgs to be rpgs, stats and gear are everything, my godly skillz ought not let the lvl 1 knight beat the dragon god overlord. Hence, games like the Bravely, SMT and Legend of Heroes series are ideal.

 

[madwarper]

It depends... There is no one right answer.

Sometimes, I'm in the mood for turn-based Combat; ie. Etrian Odyssey
Sometimes, I'm in the mood for strategy-based Combat; ie. Fire Emblem
Sometimes, I'm in the mood for real-time Combat; ie. Skyrim
Sometimes, I'm in the mood for some hybrid Combat; ie. Most MMO's

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Generally prefer turn-based. If it's real-time then I appreciate that the game at least pauses for menu-surfing.

 

[Saelune]

I'm fine with Elder Scrolls combat...mostly because I like first-person real time. Maybe add some parrying and such, but I really don't care for Devil May Cry style of overdoing it.

I don't really care for turn-based combat. Hell, I don't care much for combat at all. I like role-playing more than roll-playing.

 

[The Madman]

More like Temple of Elemental Evil please. I've yet to have played any other rpg with such good feeling tactical combat. Meanwhile for third person games something akin to a more refined and more visually impressive Mount & Blade would be my ideal.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It depends on the game and pacing I guess. I know what I don't like and that's about it and that's first-person dungeon crawling. Other than that I've played RPGs where the turn-based combat was great and games where the action-based, button-tappy combat was great. I guess what I want is for the combat to actually be quick so I can get back to adventuring and building up character affinity and finding landmarks and whatnot. Final Fantasy VI is great because even summon spells last fewer than 10 seconds. Earthbound is great because you can skip combat (and get rewarded for it) once you reach a high enough level. Scrolls games are great because you can run the Hell away from combat until you've lead a conga line of monsters and thieves to the nearest major town.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Depends on the game, but I have a hard time going wrong with something flashy. I know that sounds kinda childish, making me seem excited by loads of colours and stuff. But I am a little bit. Crazy large effects, flashes of colours and such, it makes combat feel powerful and explosive, and I love it. Turn based combat is good too. It can be pretty basic stuff too, as long as the skills are good and encounters are generally fun, then you can get away with some of the simpler kinds of turn based combat.

One thing that's extremely important for me in RPG combat is good battle music. I've bought games based on their battle themes. The songs made me wanna experience the rest of the game. A prime example of a battle theme being too slow for me is Trails in the Sky. It's just too... Gentle for me. An excellent example of a high energy battle theme is Bravely Default's. Still my #1 choice, right behind Suikoden 2's battle theme~

 

[EyeReaper]

my personal favorite is the Mario RPG "timed hits" system (did they come up with that? or are they just the guys who made it popular?)

All the wonderfulness of turn based combat, none of the "Why would you just stand there when it's not your turn" real-world logic problems.

Although, on the other hand, Tabletop RPG's combat is the best. Obviously. Because anything goes with that shit, as long as the DM allows. What? you never said video games only.

 

[God'sFist]

Sounds like everyone here likes turn based combat in RPGs. Huh, neat. So, follow up question should a game like the elder scrolls adopt a turn based combat system or maybe Dark Souls? Would that make combat in those games more enjoyable for you?

EyeReaper was correct I did not specify I meant video games (though I'm sure he knew what I meant) so to him I ask how would you implement that into video games?

 

[deadish]

Decisions.

I played Skyrim recently, bought it during Steam sales, it's combat is kind of boring. You just spam your attack until the mob dies. If there is more to this, they have done a poor job of conveying it.

On the other hand, there are games like Bloodborne - granted it doesn't do a very good job at conveying its mechanics either. However its mechanics do allow for choice. At any moment in the fight, the player constantly balances attack, damage avoidance and health recovery - all which are mutually exclusive actions. Getting too greedy with offense will often get you killed. Dodging unnecessary means never getting a hit off due to lack of stamina. Healing at inopportune moments will get you killed.

It works that way in all games with good combat.

In MMOs like WoW and FFXIV, it's frequently a matter of resource and cooldown management - using up all your resources / using a cooldown ability at inopportune moments will disadvantage yourself in the future getting you and your friends killed.

This of course obviously applies to turn-based combat as well with turns, MP/TP, and items being the resources you must manage.

 

[DementedSheep]

The problem with the term "RPG" is that it doesn't really describe combat to me aside from having different builds/playstyles and a leveling system.
I would like some more tactical party based RPGs (especially since bioware has been droping the ball with that) but I don't want only party based rpgs (either real time with pause or turn based). I like my action rpgs as well and that action can be done in many ways. So long as works well and I like how it plays they can do what they like with it. It's not a one size fits all thing.

And I certainly would not want DS or ES to be turn based.

 

[Mister K]

I preffer either fully turn-based or fully action combat.

I generally don't like attempts to mix them (Dragon Age Origins) but I agree that it can be done well (Knights of the Old Republic).

 

[infohippie]

Less "actiony", more tactical. If that means turn-based then so be it. Basically the exact opposite of what Bioware did in Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age Origins had excellent combat where you could get a decent tactical view of the battle, pause to give orders at any time, and positioning mattered a great deal. The last thing I want is button mashing console-style combat.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As others have said, there is no one right answer.

Although I think the obsession with control interfaces is counterproductive. The point is not really about whether you have to press a button each time you want to attack or not, or stuff like that, but rather what feeling the game is designed to produce when you're playing it.

I like Souls game style combat because it feels weighty, it relies heavily on learned skills and knowledge, which I appreciate (although as a scrub, I also appreciate that there are noob-friendly strategies built into that as well) and its unforgiving nature ties into the game experience and creates a fun (for me) feeling of anxiety.

I like the combat in games like Dragon Age Inquisition or Kingdoms of Amalur because while both are fairly simple and forgiving they're also quite relaxing. I play those kinds of games when I'm stressed and need to calm down by just aimlessly roaming some fantasy wildness and just get into the groove of finding and hitting things and getting that skinner box feeling of progression which RPGs do so well.

Skyrim is a weird one because, as you say, you're not really playing Skyrim for the combat. In fact, Skyrim doesn't do a lot of things particularly well.. but it does a lot of things. The appeal of Skyrim is that you can do pretty much whatever you want within the fairly extensive mechanics of the game. You can fight monsters or you can sneak past them and never get in a fight, or you can charm them and make them fight each other for your amusement. Again, Skyrim is one of those relaxing games, although I wouldn't say the combat specifically ever hits the "flow" of the games above.. the relaxation comes from the exploration itself.

I can't actually think of any really good turn based tactical RPGs at the moment. I wouldn't say the old fallout games, for example, actually had good combat.. It was sort of passable for RPGs at the time but basically came down to trading HP until one of you fell over. Generally, I'd say the same of most modern Fallout-likes as well. However, if you had a turn based tactical RPG which actually felt tactical and had interesting mechanics, I'd be down with that too.

I initially wrote here that the only concept I think has aged rather poorly is the whole isometric real time thing.. and then I suddenly realized.. Dragon Age: Origins kind of used that system and while the balance in that game was janky as hell I loved it there even without nostalgia. So it's not true I guess, those can be cool too.

I do think the infinity engine RPGs are a bit overrated though, and while I would still place Planescape Torment or Baldurs Gate 2 very highly in my "best RPGs of all time" list it's.. uh.. it's not for the combat. The infinity engine seems to be having a bit of a revival at the moment though, so I might be in the minority there.

 

[SweetShark]

I wish for a RPG who combine the gameplay mechanics from Indivisible and Septerra Core: Legacy of the Creator.
Turn-base and having a gauge to fill it to use them for a move.
Sadly MikeZ won't have this kind of oprion for the game, which is understandable. However it will have the option to slow down the action.

 

[FalloutJack]

I do like turn-based, but I'm not against the combat system of a modern Fallout game.