Thinking outloud about the direction of FF combat

[Glongpre]

I was on the crapper and I began thinking about how the new direction Final Fantasy is going in terms of the combat system. It is a very divisive subject among gamers, with many oldschool nostalgic ones favouring the standard turn based (myself included, FFX was my favourite system).

However, it makes sense that they are trying to innovate and improve, and I can respect that. But I want to voice my own thoughts on what system I was thinking about, because I can!

My thoughts also were on one review on the Escapist for Legend of Dragoon, and how I thought the addition system was really interesting and that it should have been expanded upon by other games.

So FF wants to make the combat more actiony, and I think the third person view and keeping it actiony can still be achieved while keeping the game closer to it's roots.
My idea is to combine many different RPG systems into one.

The systems and ideas are:
Chrono Trigger - The way you stumble upon enemies, as to make it more organic than just random battles.

FFX - Having a clear indication of turn order, and how you can effect it. No active time.

Legend of Dragoon - Having an addition system.

Grandia - Your characters will change positions upon the battlefield after some actions that are taken, to make it more organic instead of running back to where they took the action from etc.

It would play the same as the standard turn based game, but be in a third person view as each character takes his/her action. The camera would swap to each character as the turns go.

As per a discussion, has anyone else thought about this, or had ideas about how to improve the combat while keeping the traditional turn based system that many love?

Also, who else thinks the Legend of Dragoon addition system was a cool design and wants to see it again or reinvented? (or Legend of Dragoon Sequel/Remake!)

 

[Lightspeaker]

Sounds a hell of a lot like Hyperdimension Neptunia Rebirth already did to be honest.

You get into battles by running into distinct enemy characters on the field, its not just random. Battles are turn based but completely free 3D movement in the battle area when its your turn within a limited distance of your starting point. Attacks are based on an area of effect (aside from specific one-enemy-only abilities), so greatswords have a big sweeping AoE which is clearly shown so you can see what you'll be hitting. To escape from a battle you have to actually run to the edge of of the battle area and use the retreat option there (unless you have an upgrade to retreat from anywhere in the 'arena').

The new "actiony" direction of FF is junk anyway. It started with that absolute abomination of a game, FF XII and its only gotten worse since then, especially after they appointed Nomura to major roles. I think its the poisonous influence of Kingdom Hearts on the franchise via Nomura that keeps making it worse and worse. If I want to play Kingdom Hearts I'll play Kingdom Hearts, not Final Fantasy.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Final fantasy changes it up every game. I mean sure the first 10 were turn based, but the nuances between skills, spell and how you learn them ( and sometimes how the work) all change. Pff the top of my head, we've had, buying them, learning them through levels, learning them through equiped espers, materia, draw, weapons, sphere grid, whatever system 13 had. The gameplay and combat all changed from one game to another. Elements return but fundamentally they are differet. Not to mention the spinoffs. I never feel like you are playing the same game, so i never get bored of it. For better or worst they are inovating combat in ever game.

 

[Glongpre]

Sounds a hell of a lot like Hyperdimension Neptunia Rebirth already did to be honest.

You get into battles by running into distinct enemy characters on the field, its not just random. Battles are turn based but completely free 3D movement in the battle area when its your turn within a limited distance of your starting point. Attacks are based on an area of effect (aside from specific one-enemy-only abilities), so greatswords have a big sweeping AoE which is clearly shown so you can see what you'll be hitting. To escape from a battle you have to actually run to the edge of of the battle area and use the retreat option there (unless you have an upgrade to retreat from anywhere in the 'arena').

Wow, yea that sounds pretty close to what I was thinking. But I was thinking that there wouldn't be free movement, you would start with the party in typical line formation, but as you decide which action to take, your characters will move accordingly. So using a spell, the character won't move (depending on the spell), but someone using an addition would run up, attack, then maybe angle off to the side or whatever and stay there till their next turn.

It is just adding more movement to the static turn based screen that earlier FF have used. Also trying to combine the best, most interesting concepts other similar RPGs have come up with.

Final fantasy changes it up every game. I mean sure the first 10 were turn based, but the nuances between skills, spell and how you learn them ( and sometimes how the work) all change. Pff the top of my head, we've had, buying them, learning them through levels, learning them through equiped espers, materia, draw, weapons, sphere grid, whatever system 13 had. The gameplay and combat all changed from one game to another. Elements return but fundamentally they are differet. Not to mention the spinoffs. I never feel like you are playing the same game, so i never get bored of it. For better or worst they are inovating combat in ever game.

They do add different flavours between each iteration, but they stayed to the basic foundation.

Spoiler: FF changes the combat system between games??

The first 10 used the same type of battle system. Square wants to make it more actiony, but I believe they can do that without using a system that does not follow the turn based style that everyone remembers FF for.

When I play a new FF I expect to be able to understand how the battles unfold. If I play through FF1 to FF10, I am immediately comfortable with each because they are using the same systems, more or less. When I played FF12, I had to familiarize myself with the system because it was much different than the previous.

I rather enjoyed FF12, more so for the scale and ambition it showed, than for the combat which was rather boring and tedious. FF has annoying random battles, but boss battles were always fun to fight. Not so much with FF12, where I felt the boss battles were tedious because you have to pause and select specific actions for each character individually. The battles felt more like busy work, rather than planning what to do with my upcoming character turn.

The only way to play FF12 comfortably is to set your allies to autopilot, and for most of the time, just control one person.
However, I want to be able to control all of them comfortably, and it looks like FF15 is going more toward the use only one character angle, which is expected when you try and make a game more action/combo oriented.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Wow, yea that sounds pretty close to what I was thinking. But I was thinking that there wouldn't be free movement, you would start with the party in typical line formation, but as you decide which action to take, your characters will move accordingly. So using a spell, the character won't move (depending on the spell), but someone using an addition would run up, attack, then maybe angle off to the side or whatever and stay there till their next turn.

Omega Quintet (yet another Idea Factory/Compile Heart game) is another that messes about with the formula. Its more traditional 'line of allies vs line of enemies' format but abilities and attacks do different amounts of damage and are more effective at specific distances which is based both upon which 'line' your enemy is standing in their formation and which 'line' your allies are standing on in theirs.

Just because FF went completely off the wall and tried to turn itself into Kingdom Hearts doesn't mean other developers aren't innovating in new, proper turn-based systems. Although admittedly for Compile Heart stuff you have to either like or have a very high tolerance for cutesy anime tropes because its wall to wall. X-D


I can't think of a system that's specifically what you're describing though; I guess FF13 is a bit like that and I seem to remember X-2 being a lot more 'fluid' in battlefield positioning (though its been years since I played).

 

[Ikasury]

Also, who else thinks the Legend of Dragoon addition system was a cool design and wants to see it again or reinvented? (or Legend of Dragoon Sequel/Remake!)

THANK YOU!! I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A LOD SEQUAL/PREQUAL WHATEVER!!

ot: i really wish they'd just stick with the older system, i like turn based, i can stop in the middle of battle and get food and come back and pick it up and my peeps won't be dead because the AI is dumb... and too much and i just get a headache with this super action...

 

[09philj]

I like turn based combat, but I've disliked the combat in every FF I've played. They keep adding real time elements, which I feel don't work, and they've generally felt fairly shallow compared to other games. Heck, Dragon Quest IX, which has combat which is as vanilla as vanilla gets, had more fun combat.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

The dilemma that FF (and most other RPGs) have faced regarding combat as time progresses is that a growing number of people find turn-based to be slow-paced or boring, especially when combined with lengthy screen transitions and lengthy special attacks (which admittedly have done well to cut back on lately). However, if you make a real-time battle system like the Tales games the player can only reliably control one character at a time, leaving other members to an AI (FFXII) which, even if the AI is good, takes away a lot of agency from the player.

My personal favourite was FFX but I would love it if there were a way to up the system's pace without taking control away from the player, some way to remove screen transitions without making it active-time.

My main concept for such a thing would be a fully real-time one without transitions that gives all characters AND enemies a visible ATB bar, but different actions consume different lengths of bar depending on their strength. Also if your bar is more than half full you're granted some form of passive defence, or possibly a buff, and depleting it entirely cuts your defence by half or more. More powerful actions leave you vulnerable for a while, but you can take direct control of that character and dodge attacks with them until they're back up to speed. That's another thing I feel needs to be allowed in future games- dodging or actively guarding attacks instead of just healing up and hoping you can survive the next hit. It has always made healing the most important aspect of any party- without a healer or a ton of potions, you usually won't survive long against strong enemies because you have no choice but to tank what they dish out.

 

[Wary Wolf]

Hey, that's why I always soloed FF XII

It does depend on preference though. I prefer fluidity in the game, and I'll actually suggest that XII and X-2 had the advantage that the random battles more or less were able to be mopped up quickly, where as earlier FFs you wasted time having the screen swirl, then camera pan over you foes and once you win, a pelvic thrust into the camera every bloody time. I found that more tedious...

Despite this, I did not like XIII combat, again due to what has already been suggested along the lines of agency. Given that XII more or less started the loss of agency and XIII only took it further, I am unsure if the combat is going to be better or worse. (Oh and check The Last Remnant, that gave players even LESS agency again.)

But I think the main question I will have is: Is the story any good? Because that killed XIII more than the combat for me. Again though, the pacing of the game needs to be good. If you have turn based combat, make sure it's quick and efficient so you can enjoy the story if you so choose.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I know turned based combat is something we all grew up with and thus a lot of us are wearing nostalgia goggles for, but it doesn't matter in the least what people "associate" a particular series with, but which is actually better, and the fact is that even the best Turned Based Combat is VASTLY inferior to even the worst of Action RPGs in every way two different combat systems possibly could be. Even the most nuanced turned based combat is slower, more ponderous, far less strategic, and quite simply can't do even 1/10th of what an Action RPG can do. Most the so called nuance, spectacle, and illusion of fast paced combat put into Turned Based Combat is simply an attempt to mimic what Action RPGs can do by default anyway, and what little things Turned Based Combat has that Action RPGs currently don't (for instance, such as Persona series press turns system) can be added to Action RPGs pretty easily. Turned based combat only existed in the first place because of technological limitations that made Action RPGs unfeasible for a good amount of gaming history, and even back then Action RPGs still existed but were pretty uncommon. In this day and age where Action RPGs are now something even indie developers can now make not to mention AAA developers, Turned Based Combat only continues to exist because of trying to exploit nostalgia and because it's just an easier combat system to make, not because it's actually superior in any way.

Something people love to bring up to justify the love of turned based combat is "Player Agency", or the lack thereof that Action RPGs cause. First of all, this is false, the vast majority of Action RPGs allow the player to directly control their party members in addition to the leader whenever they want to, so it is not a problem, and second, it wouldn't be particularly relevant if that wasn't the case as long as the party A.I. given is halfway competent and/or can be effectively customized to one's liking as again the vast majority of Action RPGs have all it's really doing is doing the same things any remotely competent player would have done anyway without needing to waste time diving through menus (and besides, most everyone in every Turned Based RPG does nothing aside from simply choosing attack outside of boss battles anyway).

In short, Turn Based Combat works, it's just that Action RPG Combat is much much better than it.

I for one applaud SquareEnix (something I haven't had much cause to say for a long time) for finally making the transition to to a far superior combat system with their games, and if they had done the same with Final Fantasy 12 instead of being something that was Turned Based but tried to look like it was an Action RPG the combat wouldn't be so terrible at the very least and thus would have been at least a mediocre game. If Kingdom Hearts was the game that eventually jumpstarted this trend that's a very very good thing.

 

[09philj]

I know turned based combat is something we all grew up with and thus a lot of us are wearing nostalgia goggles for, but it doesn't matter in the least what people "associate" a particular series with, but which is actually better, and the fact is that even the best Turned Based Combat is VASTLY inferior to even the worst of Action RPGs in every way two different combat systems possibly could be. Even the most nuanced turned based combat is slower, more ponderous, far less strategic, and quite simply can't do even 1/10th of what an Action RPG can do. Most the so called nuance, spectacle, and illusion of fast paced combat put into Turned Based Combat is simply an attempt to mimic what Action RPGs can do by default anyway, and what little things Turned Based Combat has that Action RPGs currently don't (for instance, such as Persona series press turns system) can be added to Action RPGs pretty easily. Turned based combat only existed in the first place because of technological limitations that made Action RPGs unfeasible for a good amount of gaming history, and even back then Action RPGs still existed but were pretty uncommon. In this day and age where Action RPGs are now something even indie developers can now make not to mention AAA developers, Turned Based Combat only continues to exist because of trying to exploit nostalgia and because it's just an easier combat system to make, not because it's actually superior in any way.

Something people love to bring up to justify the love of turned based combat is "Player Agency", or the lack thereof that Action RPGs cause. First of all, this is false, the vast majority of Action RPGs allow the player to directly control their party members in addition to the leader whenever they want to, so it is not a problem, and second, it wouldn't be particularly relevant if that wasn't the case as long as the party A.I. given is halfway competent and/or can be effectively customized to one's liking as again the vast majority of Action RPGs have all it's really doing is doing the same things any remotely competent player would have done anyway without needing to waste time diving through menus (and besides, most everyone in every Turned Based RPG does nothing aside from simply choosing attack outside of boss battles anyway).

In short, Turn Based Combat works, it's just that Action RPG Combat is much much better than it.

I for one applaud SquareEnix (something I haven't had much cause to say for a long time) for finally making the transition to to a far superior combat system with their games, and if they had done the same with Final Fantasy 12 instead of being something that was Turned Based but tried to look like it was an Action RPG the combat wouldn't be so terrible at the very least and thus would have been at least a mediocre game. If Kingdom Hearts was the game that eventually jumpstarted this trend that's a very very good thing.

Rubbish. It's action RPGs that lack depth, because inevitably things get cut to compensate for the increased speed of combat. It's really much harder to make a good action RPG, and the best ones are those that lean towards straight hack and slash or shooter in their combat, toning down the RPG elements, or else end up an obtuse mess of stats and mechanics like System Shock 2.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Are you saying that Diablo and Divinity 2 have more tactical depth than XCOM or Divinity: Original Sin?

I'm gonna have to call total bullshit on that.

Too bad, because it's correct. There is literally nothing Turned Based Combat can do that Action RPGs cannot also do, do better, and more besides. An Action RPG requires genuine skill to get better at and ensures that constant challenge is possible regardless of stats, it's not simply mindless statistics that in the vast majority of cases override any need for any actual strategy and tactics whatsoever as with Turned Based Combat. If anyone doesn't see the far greater tactical depth in Action RPGs they haven't been bothering to play them tactically in the first place.

In fact, since you bring up XCOM it has very very little in the way of actual RPG mechanics and thus shouldn't be brought into consideration as an RPG. I weep for the fact that The Bureau got so many terrible design choices thrown on it aside from it's combat because a tactical squad based shooter is an obvious next step for the franchise to take and mechanically it was pretty damned good, yet now it's highly unlikely that Firaxis will ever touch squad based shooters again because of the lukewarm reception The Bureau got for reasons that had nothing to do with it's mechanics.

It's incredible just how much better Action RPGs are compared to Turned Based Combat yet how ridiculous it is that people still defend the latter in ANY form as better when objectively that's clearly not the case. The only time any game with Turned Based Combat has EVER been better than any game with Action RPG Combat is due to everything EXCEPT it's combat.

Rubbish. It's action RPGs that lack depth, because inevitably things get cut to compensate for the increased speed of combat. It's really much harder to make a good action RPG, and the best ones are those that lean towards straight hack and slash or shooter in their combat, toning down the RPG elements, or else end up an obtuse mess of stats and mechanics like System Shock 2.

That's the true rubbish. Action RPGs have more depth by default than Turned Based Combat could EVER have just by it's very nature, and anyone that says otherwise either has never actually played the former or just treated it as a mindless hack and slash or shooter whichever the case may be and thus did horribly. Action RPGs are FAR more tactical, they're always about defense, blocking, avoiding, or dodging attacks while waiting for and trying to exploit the times that the player can attack back without getting hit themselves, and then most Action RPGs have things like elemental affinity, guard and dodge timing effects, knocking down or otherwise incapacitating opponents and so on JUST LIKE TURNED BASED COMBAT HAS. Thus, Action RPGs can have as much depth as anything Turned Based Combat has had plus more and usually do whereas with any remotely competent player any battle in a Turned Based Combat game was decided long before the fight ever started and often as in the vast majority of cases simply power leveling can make even the incompetent player effective, and the only times when this isn't the case is when the game developers go out of their way to make power leveling impossible, either by lowering EXP output as levels increase or outright restricting the amount of combat possible in the game. Power leveling DOES NOT work with an Action RPG, one has to be overleveled to an EXTREME for a player's skill to not make a difference in an Action RPG, and even then if the enemies have highly damaging attacks that largely ignore stats that may not even be enough.

Cutting out RPG features from some Action RPGs (which decent ones do not, BTW) has absolutely nothing to do with compensating for the increased speed of combat and everything to do with simply tacking on vaguely RPG mechanics into the game so they can sell it as an RPG. Even then, those lackluster Action RPGs are still better than anything Turned Based Combat could ever achieve by a pretty wide margin.

 

[09philj]

Are you saying that Diablo and Divinity 2 have more tactical depth than XCOM or Divinity: Original Sin?

I'm gonna have to call total bullshit on that.

Too bad, because it's correct. There is literally nothing Turned Based Combat can do that Action RPGs cannot also do, do better, and more besides. An Action RPG requires genuine skill to get better at and ensures that constant challenge is possible regardless of stats, it's not simply mindless statistics that in the vast majority of cases override any need for any actual strategy and tactics whatsoever as with Turned Based Combat. If anyone doesn't see the far greater tactical depth in Action RPGs they haven't been bothering to play them tactically in the first place.

In fact, since you bring up XCOM it has very very little in the way of actual RPG mechanics and thus shouldn't be brought into consideration as an RPG. I weep for the fact that The Bureau got so many terrible design choices thrown on it aside from it's combat because a tactical squad based shooter is an obvious next step for the franchise to take and mechanically it was pretty damned good, yet now it's highly unlikely that Firaxis will ever touch squad based shooters again because of the lukewarm reception The Bureau got for reasons that had nothing to do with it's mechanics.

It's incredible just how much better Action RPGs are compared to Turned Based Combat yet how ridiculous it is that people still defend the latter in ANY form as better when objectively that's clearly not the case. The only time any game with Turned Based Combat has EVER been better than any game with Action RPG Combat is due to everything EXCEPT it's combat.

Rubbish. It's action RPGs that lack depth, because inevitably things get cut to compensate for the increased speed of combat. It's really much harder to make a good action RPG, and the best ones are those that lean towards straight hack and slash or shooter in their combat, toning down the RPG elements, or else end up an obtuse mess of stats and mechanics like System Shock 2.

That's the true rubbish. Action RPGs have more depth by default than Turned Based Combat could EVER have just by it's very nature, and anyone that says otherwise either has never actually played the former or just treated it as a mindless hack and slash or shooter whichever the case may be and thus did horribly. Action RPGs are FAR more tactical, they're always about defense, blocking, avoiding, or dodging attacks while waiting for and trying to exploit the times that the player can attack back without getting hit themselves, and then most Action RPGs have things like elemental affinity, guard and dodge timing effects, knocking down or otherwise incapacitating opponents and so on JUST LIKE TURNED BASED COMBAT HAS. Thus, Action RPGs can have as much depth as anything Turned Based Combat has had plus more and usually do whereas with any remotely competent player any battle in a Turned Based Combat game was decided long before the fight ever started and often as in the vast majority of cases simply power leveling can make even the incompetent player effective, and the only times when this isn't the case is when the game developers go out of their way to make power leveling impossible, either by lowering EXP output as levels increase or outright restricting the amount of combat possible in the game. Power leveling DOES NOT work with an Action RPG, one has to be overleveled to an EXTREME for a player's skill to not make a difference in an Action RPG, and even then if the enemies have highly damaging attacks that largely ignore stats that may not even be enough.

Cutting out RPG features from some Action RPGs (which decent ones do not, BTW) has absolutely nothing to do with compensating for the increased speed of combat and everything to do with simply tacking on vaguely RPG mechanics into the game so they can sell it as an RPG. Even then, those lackluster Action RPGs are still better than anything Turned Based Combat could ever achieve by a pretty wide margin.

Let's look at some examples of the best action RPGs in existence, shall we?
1) Diablo. The effect of the combat is that it's essentially turn based, speeded up, since all the abilities are on cooldowns. Positioning only helps for ranged classes, and even then not so much.
2) Dark Souls. It's a hack and slash. All the RPG stuff is in the character building.
3) Fallout: New Vegas. Combat is dictated heavily by stats, and is fairly clunky and slow as a result.
4) The Witcher 3: See Dark Souls.
5) Deus Ex: It's a shooter. Otherwise, see Dark Souls.
6) System Shock 2: It's a shooter which is impossible if you don't optimise your character build.
7) Elder Scrolls IV: See Dark Souls.
8) Mass Effect: See Deus Ex.

The point is, all of the action RPGs with good combat keep the RPG elements out of the combat and simply use them to force a player to specialise in an area (Except Diablo).

 

[elvor0]

In fact, since you bring up XCOM it has very very little in the way of actual RPG mechanics and thus shouldn't be brought into consideration as an RPG. a tactical squad based shooter is an obvious next step for the franchise to take and mechanically it was pretty damned good, yet now it's highly unlikely that Firaxis will ever touch squad based shooters again because of the lukewarm reception The Bureau got for reasons that had nothing to do with it's mechanics.

It's incredible just how much better Action RPGs are compared to Turned Based Combat yet how ridiculous it is that people still defend the latter in ANY form as better when objectively that's clearly not the case. The only time any game with Turned Based Combat has EVER been better than any game with Action RPG Combat is due to everything EXCEPT it's combat.

You know why people don't want XCOM to become a squad based action shooter? They ENJOY turn based games. Because they find them fun. Remember that one. Fun. Fun isn't objective.

That last paragraph is highly subjective, yet you state it as fact and state x genre is objectively better than Y genre. Which is frankly, bollocks. You can't put objectivity on what people have fun doing. if you want to go play action games, go play them, noones stopping you. But stop trying to ram the idea that turn based is "objectively worse" just because you personally don't enjoy it.

 

[Drummodino]

supersnip

I like action based combat (eg Dark Souls, DMC). I like turn based combat (Persona 3&4, XCOM:EU). I like hybrids of the two (FF XIII). There's room in this world for both and sometimes I would prefer to play a game where I can sit back and plan my strategy one step at a time. You can't do that in an action game.

 

[immortalfrieza]

You know why people don't want XCOM to become a squad based action shooter? They ENJOY turn based games. Because they find them fun. Remember that one. Fun. Fun isn't objective.

That last paragraph is highly subjective, yet you state it as fact and state x genre is objectively better than Y genre. Which is frankly, bollocks. You can't put objectivity on what people have fun doing. if you want to go play action games, go play them, noones stopping you. But stop trying to ram the idea that turn based is "objectively worse" just because you personally don't enjoy it.

Pal, you and anybody else can dismiss what I said as subjective if you want to, but the reality is that it is an objective fact that Action RPGs can do far far more than Turned Based Combat could ever do plus literally everything Turned Based Combat can do and thus BY DEFINITION is superior. Someone can say that the NES is more powerful and mechanically capable console than the Wii U but that doesn't make it true, and just the same someone saying that Turned Based Combat can do more and is mechanically better than Action RPGs doesn't make it true. You can argue that former has been and usually is used by game developers more effectively than the latter and/or that the latter hasn't always been used to it's utmost potential, but you cannot in either case honestly state that the latter is inferior to the former.

I like action based combat (eg Dark Souls, DMC). I like turn based combat (Persona 3&4, XCOM:EU). I like hybrids of the two (FF XIII). There's room in this world for both and sometimes I would prefer to play a game where I can sit back and plan my strategy one step at a time. You can't do that in an action game.

Actually you can, it's a simple matter of pressing the pause button and planning out your strategy, and vast majority have menus and such to allow the player to directly control the actions of your party anyway. There is no such thing as a Turned Based/Action RPG hybrid, there's is ones like FF12, FF13, KOTOR, and so forth that are actually Turned Based Combat that tries to make itself look like an Action RPG but in reality it's actually the former dressed up to make it less obvious but an actual hybrid cannot exist by the very nature of the two combat systems. People can enjoy both Turned Based Combat and Action RPG Combat at the same time all they want to, but they cannot act like a game having the latter put in instead of the former is somehow worse off just because it has the latter instead of the former.

 

[Drummodino]

furious snip

Man you are so invested in this! Did a turn based game run over your hamster or something? It's okay, you can tell me and I'll understand

Also you can't pause every action game. Dark Souls and Final Fantasy XIV are two of my favourite action titles (FFXIV is an action MMO), and you absolutely can't pause those.

 

[immortalfrieza]

furious snip

Man you are so invested in this! Did a turn based game run over your hamster or something? It's okay, you can tell me and I'll understand

Nope, Turned Based Combat just became obsolete the minute Action RPGs entered the scene. Just like CDs came along and thoroughly trounced VHS and Cassette tapes in every way Action RPGs came along and did the same to Turned Based Combat. I don't have to hold some sort of grudge against Turned Based Combat to be able to simply recognize that it's the worse of the two systems by an absolutely incredible margin. I grew up with Turned Based Combat, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to actually being able to identify quality when I see it.

 

[Drummodino]

furious snip

Man you are so invested in this! Did a turn based game run over your hamster or something? It's okay, you can tell me and I'll understand

Nope, Turned Based Combat just became obsolete the minute Action RPGs entered the scene. Just like CDs came along and thoroughly trounced VHS and Cassette tapes in every way Action RPGs came along and did the same to Turned Based Combat. I don't have to hold some sort of grudge against Turned Based Combat to be able to simply recognize that it's the worse of the two systems by an absolutely incredible margin. I grew up with Turned Based Combat, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to actually being able to identify quality when I see it.

Uhuh okay have fun over there with your action games. I'll go back to replaying Persona 3 now and having a blast. Or maybe I should play some more XCOM, that game is fantastic...