Turn Based Combat
- Thread starter pablogonzalez
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This long and no mention of Chrono Trigger?
Easily one of the most interesting iterations of turn-based combat I've ever seen, especially on the DS version where UI doesn't clutter up the screen.
I'd also like to hold up Final Fantasy IV as an example of engaging turn-based combat (V and VI work as well, but neither were as brutal as IV). If you didn't have quick reflexes (or if you set the ATB gauge to "wait"... sissy. heh.), that game's turn-based combat could obliterate you before you even made a move.
Easily one of the most interesting iterations of turn-based combat I've ever seen, especially on the DS version where UI doesn't clutter up the screen.
I'd also like to hold up Final Fantasy IV as an example of engaging turn-based combat (V and VI work as well, but neither were as brutal as IV). If you didn't have quick reflexes (or if you set the ATB gauge to "wait"... sissy. heh.), that game's turn-based combat could obliterate you before you even made a move.
I have played some RPG-s with turn based combat system, mostly old ones that I didn't give a crap about but when I played Fallout and Fallout 2 it really killed the immersion and aggrivated me on so many levels, because if you try to shoota radscorpion and you have like 20 something bullets and very few health items and it it gives you 70 % + chance to hit it and you shoot it 5 times and evry singel hot misses then fuck you.
I don't mind turn based combat, actually, but I vastly prefer the combat system from a game like Tales of the Abyss or Symphonia since it flows better and I have more control over my characters' actions and it's, overall, a lot more intuitive and easier to use than turn based combat. I don't mind it, but it's not something I particularly like.
Active Time Battle is the term you are looking for.pablogonzalez said:
Turn based games are not supposed to have immersive combat. Thats not the point. They may try to have decent stories tacked on, but the nature of the game is to appeal to strategists and meta-gamers.
"Turn based" refers to games like Sid Meyer's Civilization and Final Fantasy Tactics. There is not real time battle in those games. They distinctly move from one character or player to the next, each taking their turns in a specific order. Games like KOTOR are played in real time. The attacks may go back and forth, but that is just the timing. It is not based on turns or an initiative order.Rabish Bini said:
I'm pretty sure turn based combat originated from MUDs/command-line RPGs where the action was done in a very step-by-step, linear way. And there are various reasons for that, but the point being I suppose it stuck around.
I don't find it very immersive either and, to me, it's fairly outdated. I find (as you pointed out OP) games such as Oblivion, Dark Messiah Of Might and Magic, and Dragon Age much more immersive and involving. They feel very visceral (especially Oblivion and Dark Messiah) because of the direct control over characters and their attacks.
The reason it is still around? Perhaps it may be because it's easy to manage, easy to code, more involving for the more "mathematical" gamers, and effectively progresses the game.
I don't find it very immersive either and, to me, it's fairly outdated. I find (as you pointed out OP) games such as Oblivion, Dark Messiah Of Might and Magic, and Dragon Age much more immersive and involving. They feel very visceral (especially Oblivion and Dark Messiah) because of the direct control over characters and their attacks.
The reason it is still around? Perhaps it may be because it's easy to manage, easy to code, more involving for the more "mathematical" gamers, and effectively progresses the game.
There's these really niche games that you probably won't of heard of where you fight against a large criminal conspiracy that completely controls the population of several towns in a world embittered against them. All the while however your character faces the problems of growing into a man of his own free from his family, finding fame and fortune, and coping with a rival who is both annoying and seemingly one step ahead of him.
It uses this really clever turn-based system where you fight with a team of animals that you train to battle, and can be quite strategic at time. This same system is used both to fight the antagonists and random creatures along the way, and is really well implemented.
You should check it out, it's called Poke-something? Poketon? Pokeron? Ah yeah, Pokemon.
It uses this really clever turn-based system where you fight with a team of animals that you train to battle, and can be quite strategic at time. This same system is used both to fight the antagonists and random creatures along the way, and is really well implemented.
You should check it out, it's called Poke-something? Poketon? Pokeron? Ah yeah, Pokemon.
i actually prefer turn based immensily, especially when having more than one person in my group (such as dragon age/kotor/etc...), and it becomes much more based on intellectual/tactics rather than on "LUL TWITCH KILL TWITCH" like quake or unreal (not to say i don't enjoy those games, i have had many good times with friends on those).
preferences, man. we all got em.
although there are some ways TBS can be done badly, some JRPG's are awful at it while some are better than others, and i prefer the hybridish version of it myself (like kotor) where you can pause and it is still turn based, but you display the actions and battles in a semi real time format.
preferences, man. we all got em.
although there are some ways TBS can be done badly, some JRPG's are awful at it while some are better than others, and i prefer the hybridish version of it myself (like kotor) where you can pause and it is still turn based, but you display the actions and battles in a semi real time format.
dragon age is not real time...it is still turn based, just a faster illusion to give it a real time look to it. same with kotor.Shraggler said:
that is still turn based at it's core, let me ask, when you both attack, in kotor, do you both hit each other at the same time, or do you take turns? i've battled in that game, hundreds, actually probably thousands of times, and i'll target an enemy from a distance, run towards them, and they have to wait for me to make my first attack because of me targeting them and they had to wait their turn to fire "teh lazerz"Gamblerjoe said:
it is real time in the actions, real time in the sense that if you purposely don't select anything, the enemy can keep attacking you, but at it's core it's turn based combat.
I love a good chance to plan, to coordinate a group, to ponder and react.
If I am pondering and trying to solve problems, I am immersed in a game.
If I am pondering and trying to solve problems, I am immersed in a game.
I don't know though... I still get goosebumps when I one-shot a guy in the head and watch his body fall over a balcony; or when I swing a warhammer and have it crunch satisfyingly upon the temple of a bandit and send him plummeting 10 yards through the air. That's all pretty immersive for me. Yet, peppering enemies with 50+ arrows on a constant retreat does get tedious.poleboy said:
Whilst there are those who argue Morrowind was by far superior (plot wise, ambience wise, environment wise, etc), I have to say the combat in Oblivion was a huge upgrade and from the videos I've seen of Skyrim, I have to say I'm pretty excited.
OT, I'm a big fan of both systems, turn based and live action, I dusted-off Baldur's Gate 2 the other month and found myself adding 'auto-pauses' for various parts of a battle; thus enabling me to enjoy the best of both.
I rather enjoyed the turn-based battles in FF 7,8 and 10 especially when they deliver dialogue through a battle... these days I'm playing Dead Island and loving the immersion that it's combat system offers.
There have been some good ATS/ABS system games in the past, Chrono Trigger was one and it could be enabled or disabled; not the best example but the only one I could remember the name of. The DreamCast had a near perfect one but for the life of me I can't remember the name at all.
It was turned based but the next characters order in the fight was based on that specific characters speed checked against all the other characters speed, with bonuses or subtractions based on the move previously used in the fight. In hard boss fights you could hammer the boss with weak attacks that lower his turn order and 'keep them busy'.
It wasn't very 'immersive' but it's as close as I think you can get while actively managing the moves of a party of individuals. To forgo that requires an AI that usually ends up being a hindrance at best and suicidal at worst.
It was turned based but the next characters order in the fight was based on that specific characters speed checked against all the other characters speed, with bonuses or subtractions based on the move previously used in the fight. In hard boss fights you could hammer the boss with weak attacks that lower his turn order and 'keep them busy'.
It wasn't very 'immersive' but it's as close as I think you can get while actively managing the moves of a party of individuals. To forgo that requires an AI that usually ends up being a hindrance at best and suicidal at worst.
Turn-based combat is generally superior in games which rely upon heavy statistics and precise tactics, particularly wherein long-term planning is necessary over short-term reflexes and response. While it's possible to do this in a real-time situation, it is far more difficult, and almost always, the player's action skills take priority over strategic considerations. As a result, most action games tend to feature very simple combat by comparison - you can sometimes pull it off (see something like ArmA for shooters, Mount & Blade or Dark Souls for swordplay, etc.), but even then it rarely matches the depth possible when you aren't chained to your own twitch skills.
Additionally, unless you have great AI, chances are managing a party without a turn-based system is an extreme hassle; one reason I firmly believe later BioWare games are limited to smaller parties is precisely because the real-time nature of them would make any more than three or four very difficult to manage. Compare that to Icewind Dale, with parties of six custom-created characters, or Arcanum, with sometimes as many as eight, and you'll find that turn-based is basically the only way to go to ensure proper tactics and battlefield control. The word "battlefield" is key, by the way - the scale in a turn-based system (especially with an isometric perspective) is also generally going to be far greater than in real-time games.
It's also worth pointing out that it is way harder to simulate the nuances of combat in a real-time situation. How many of those games feature large battles with dozens of people or monsters involved simultaneously? What about different weapon types with their own distinct advantages and disadvantages, i.e. spears, halberds, staves, clubs and maces, long and short firearms, cavalry, cannons, and other stuff that tends to be "trimmed out" to save on budget and to make games more accessible? Sure, you can pull it off in a real-time context, but when you combine that with the need for modern-day graphical fidelity and accuracy as far as animation, physics, controls etc. goes, it becomes extremely expensive to try and build real-time combat around more than a single type of weapon. Imagine making a separate set of mechanics every bit as demanding as, say, the shooting in Gears of War, the melee combat in Ninja Gaiden, etc., and I think you'll realise that it just isn't very feasible without serious compromises that, frankly, most fans of real-time games would scoff at.
I also don't buy the argument that turn-based combat is less immersive. I get immersed into a game not so much due to great visuals and sound, but when I'm involved in a set of complex game mechanics which captivate and engage me. Good graphics and fluid controls and all that are important, but ultimately it's gameplay that keeps me coming back and gets me to say "just a few more minutes!", not how many hairs have been meticulously rendered on Commander Shepard's ass, or how much blood fountains up from a decapitated neck, or how much of a badass I'm made to feel like by a designer who thinks I need to compensate for something. Great turn-based combat is frequently far, far more engaging, exciting, demanding, and entertaining than hack-and-slash or shooty-shooty real-time combat can ever hope to be, because it's got the depth, nuance and challenge that so many of those other games lack.
That's not to say all real-time games are like that of course - I don't want to confuse the form itself with poor examples of it, and on that note, it's also worth mentioning that yes, shitty turn-based combat exists as well. Just keep in mind the distinction between the fundamental mechanics and the games themselves.
On a side note, I also just want to say that I almost always prefer grid-based turn-based combat over games that don't use grids. It can work, certainly, but not having that precise knowledge about whether a character is say, blocking a door, or not being 100% sure how far you can move in a turn always bugs me. That's why I tend to stay away from Infinity Engine combat - even though it's turn-based, it's still fairly imprecise and sketchy as to whether something will actually work or not, and it comes down to the interface and game design, not my skill as a player.
The fact is that all game mechanics are abstractions. We tend to hold up things that resemble real life as being more accurate and better, but I don't think this is a particularly healthy perspective to have. Games that simulate real life perfectly are very rarely fun (though this depends on the game and the individual), and we accept tons and tons of concessions in the name of entertainment. Why, then, hold one form of abstraction over another? It's like saying jazz is "better music" than classical - you can't directly compare them on any objective level and say one comes out on top. I can understand a person liking one and disliking another, but that's a matter of taste, not objective quality.
Additionally, unless you have great AI, chances are managing a party without a turn-based system is an extreme hassle; one reason I firmly believe later BioWare games are limited to smaller parties is precisely because the real-time nature of them would make any more than three or four very difficult to manage. Compare that to Icewind Dale, with parties of six custom-created characters, or Arcanum, with sometimes as many as eight, and you'll find that turn-based is basically the only way to go to ensure proper tactics and battlefield control. The word "battlefield" is key, by the way - the scale in a turn-based system (especially with an isometric perspective) is also generally going to be far greater than in real-time games.
It's also worth pointing out that it is way harder to simulate the nuances of combat in a real-time situation. How many of those games feature large battles with dozens of people or monsters involved simultaneously? What about different weapon types with their own distinct advantages and disadvantages, i.e. spears, halberds, staves, clubs and maces, long and short firearms, cavalry, cannons, and other stuff that tends to be "trimmed out" to save on budget and to make games more accessible? Sure, you can pull it off in a real-time context, but when you combine that with the need for modern-day graphical fidelity and accuracy as far as animation, physics, controls etc. goes, it becomes extremely expensive to try and build real-time combat around more than a single type of weapon. Imagine making a separate set of mechanics every bit as demanding as, say, the shooting in Gears of War, the melee combat in Ninja Gaiden, etc., and I think you'll realise that it just isn't very feasible without serious compromises that, frankly, most fans of real-time games would scoff at.
I also don't buy the argument that turn-based combat is less immersive. I get immersed into a game not so much due to great visuals and sound, but when I'm involved in a set of complex game mechanics which captivate and engage me. Good graphics and fluid controls and all that are important, but ultimately it's gameplay that keeps me coming back and gets me to say "just a few more minutes!", not how many hairs have been meticulously rendered on Commander Shepard's ass, or how much blood fountains up from a decapitated neck, or how much of a badass I'm made to feel like by a designer who thinks I need to compensate for something. Great turn-based combat is frequently far, far more engaging, exciting, demanding, and entertaining than hack-and-slash or shooty-shooty real-time combat can ever hope to be, because it's got the depth, nuance and challenge that so many of those other games lack.
That's not to say all real-time games are like that of course - I don't want to confuse the form itself with poor examples of it, and on that note, it's also worth mentioning that yes, shitty turn-based combat exists as well. Just keep in mind the distinction between the fundamental mechanics and the games themselves.
On a side note, I also just want to say that I almost always prefer grid-based turn-based combat over games that don't use grids. It can work, certainly, but not having that precise knowledge about whether a character is say, blocking a door, or not being 100% sure how far you can move in a turn always bugs me. That's why I tend to stay away from Infinity Engine combat - even though it's turn-based, it's still fairly imprecise and sketchy as to whether something will actually work or not, and it comes down to the interface and game design, not my skill as a player.
The fact is that all game mechanics are abstractions. We tend to hold up things that resemble real life as being more accurate and better, but I don't think this is a particularly healthy perspective to have. Games that simulate real life perfectly are very rarely fun (though this depends on the game and the individual), and we accept tons and tons of concessions in the name of entertainment. Why, then, hold one form of abstraction over another? It's like saying jazz is "better music" than classical - you can't directly compare them on any objective level and say one comes out on top. I can understand a person liking one and disliking another, but that's a matter of taste, not objective quality.
Some games do make it feel slow and boring but when it's done well turn based really allows the tactics of the player to shine and not rely on just instinct and reflex for 80% of the combat.
Some games that do it well IMO Golden Sun series, The Last Remnant and FF13 did the charging bar style really nicely.
Some games that do it well IMO Golden Sun series, The Last Remnant and FF13 did the charging bar style really nicely.
Still incorrect. Turn based does not preclude simaltanous turns or movement. Everything in KOTOR (and indeed a lot of MMOs, other RPGs etc)still technically happens on a turn basedcombat, just things like modifiers for movement etc are abstarcted so far that it may not apear this way. Just because you don't seee them and the rules don't conform directly to a particular set of turn based rules does not prevent the turn based nature of the game. KOTOR is a case in point, there were pleanty of actions that the game forced you to remain stationary for.veloper said:
It should always be real-time for one character, and it should always be turn-based for multiple characters.
Then again, I prefer turn-based to real time, mostly because "forgetting that you're playing a game" sounds ludicrous to me in the first place.
Then again, I prefer turn-based to real time, mostly because "forgetting that you're playing a game" sounds ludicrous to me in the first place.