Turn Based Combat

[LostAlone]

Some of my favourite games of all time are turn based and with that in mind I think its impossible to say that turn-based in general is a bad thing it just needs to be used properly.

To start with, to make turn based games good, you need to have a decent number of units to control, each with a decent amount of abilities. That's what lets you build strategy. Assuming you have that, turn based games are just as immersive and interesting as real time games, but they generally play differently and don't necessarily appeal to the same people.

TBS games are all about making decisions and managing resources. You have a finite number of guys and numbers of special attacks to beat out a finite but larger number of enemies and their special attacks.

Its fun because its about coordinating forces and the logical challenge of beating more guys.

Real time games are more about enjoying the minutiae of combat, mainly with regenerating resources. The fun is from beating each individual guy, not on defeating the overall puzzlke of the scenario.

Both can be excellent types of games, but seldom will people who love one even like the other.

 

[poleboy]

Oblivion combat immersive? Really?

I happened to play Oblivion yesterday. Here's an outtake of a fight I had: I swing my sword at a goblin. Goblin takes damage. Goblin swings at me, I can't dodge it because it charges me at the same time. I get knocked back because my agility is not one of my main stats, so I spend the next 3 seconds stumbling around with no control over my character. I then get stuck in a little rock lying on the floor, and the goblin and his friends pound the shit out of me, because I can't dodge or move.

Another fight? Okay. 3 necromancers attack me. One of them is right next to me, so I manage to hack her into pieces before the others get there. The two others spam lightning bolt like crazy, sucking away all my health, so I run. I stand in a small hole near a cliff where they can't see me. One guy charges right past me and over the cliff, landing on the sand. He then proceeds to swim away from me into Lake Rumare for no apparent reason. I take out the third guy and drop down to the beach to finish off mr. easily distracted.

That's not immersive, it's just silly... and the AI is horrible.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I think turn based combat works if between attacks there is time stop. Like select action, do it, enemy counters, time freezes till you decide your next action. This way the combat is "active" as a in-game time line.

 

[Saltyk]

There's no problem with turn based combat. Plenty of games do it very well. I actually prefer it in certain games. But it really comes down to a case by case scenario. It wouldn't work in Call of Duty, but for games like Final Fantasy X, Legend of Legaia, or Suikoden II it works perfectly.

Incidentally, I think that was the biggest complaint about FFXIII's combat. It was too fast paced. Combat was moving at such a hectic rate that you couldn't select your actions fast enough. Especially when you had 6 or so slots and 20 different spells. As a result, you largely end up just selecting "auto-attack" to let the game select the most effective attacks itself. And at that point, you're not really playing your own game anymore. If you think turn based combat is boring, letting the game play itself is even more boring.

I thought it worked well in KotOR..

That wasn't really turn-based, though.

You just had the option to pause the game. It didn't really force you to.

OT: Yeah, I don't like turn-based games. I just don't enjoy them.

Um. I hate to break it to you, but KOTOR was a turn based combat system. I believe it works out that 2 seconds is one turn. If you're in combat and you don't select an action, your character just automatically chooses to use a basic attack. You could que up to three actions ahead of time. It was fast paced, yes. But it was fast paced turn based combat. And nothing you or anyone else say will change that. I think Bioware even described it as turn based combat.

Oh, and it actually plays like Dungeons and Dragons, you just don't see the "dice rolls" unless you check your combat log.

 

[Sa|ntExploited]

I'm not a big fan of controlling only one character and having a turnbased combatsystem, but in games such as Heroes of Might and Magic (up to the third installment and it's expansions, all the ones after that are rubbish..) I love it. It adds a whole new level of depth to the combat, especially with other limitations such as how far an unit can move per round.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

The combat system does not affect the story in any game I can think of. As for turn based combat, in my opinion it liken to chess. It is slower paced than say Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, but the slower pace allows you to take your time and think through your strategy, to start a fight and alter your tactics as the situation changes. It wouldn't fit a game where you have control over only one character throughout the game, but it does work well when you have to control a group and chain attacks together to deal increased damage.

P.S. I also found the Active Battle System pointless in the games it was used in. It was the only thing I didn't like about Chrono Trigger.

Edit: Someone said "why can't I attack three time instead of just one attack thrown back and forth." The turn based combat in FFX actually allowed to increase a character's speed letting you increase the amount of attacks you got in a turn. Not to fun when the boss can do the same thing though. Fucking Seymore.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Oblivion combat immersive? Really?

And that's not even an "ideal" Oblivion fight.
Those devolve into the following:

"Lunge, Block, Counter, Lunge, Block, Counter...Heavy Attack, find next target"
You guard to stagger them, and then launch into your own attack when they can't do anything. The only possible counter to this is an unblockable spell, at which point you just sidestep the spell and close the gap when they're helpless.

I beat that whole fucking game using a Silver Shortsword (mace would work better, ironically) and that strategy.

OT:
Turn-based gameplay is simply an abstraction of some event; nothing more. The degree in which it "breaks immersion" is directly proportional to how unable/unwilling someone is to think in the abstract.

That's my silly "scientific take" of the matter, here's my "practical" opinion:

For the most part, turn-based gaming is dying not because technical inferiority (to claim such is absurd), but because it's just not popular with today's average gamer. I can imagine how most players prefer action over challenge and depth, and that's how it's always been.
(part of the reason to abstract something with turn-based gameplay is to force the player to use a different set of skills instead of twitch reflexes; but people prefer things that look flashy than "puzzles" you essentially solve once and move on from).

 

[Baby Tea]

the basic question is: How can a turn based combat system be immersive or work in sync with story?

Well I HATE the way JRPGs do it (For the most part).
Standing in a line and attacking in turns is extremely boring.

However, turn-based games like X-Com, or Fallout 1 and 2, serve as an excellent reminder of how turn-based can be a lot of fun. It's not just 'waiting for my turn to click the attack button', it's about working your way around the battlefield, getting in better positions, getting in range, using the right weapon, knowing when to back off. It's immersive because, while you don't have the sense of immediacy of real-time combat, you DO have a greater 'tense' atmosphere where you know one wrong step, or action, can put you at the losing end.

As a fan of both real-time, AND turn based combat (When done right), both are great, both both aren't right for every game. Fallout 1 and 2 wouldn't be nearly as engaging if it was real-time. And a first-person turn-based Oblivion would also be pretty ass (Though 'Lands of Lore' would tell you that first person turn-based CAN work).

 

[thehorror2]

For my money, turn-based games are typically more about strategy than tactical superiority. Someone can learn the ins and outs of a turn-based game's engine, and eventually get good enough to take on challenges above their level. That kind of thing can't really happen in real-time games, at least not to the same degree. No matter how much they practice, they will be inherently limited by their own reflexes. Someone whose reaction times are shot to hell will NEVER beat someone with decent hand-eye coordination, even if they've practiced for hours. Since I don't have the dexterity needed to really be competitive in real-time, I prefer turn-based games. Call me lame, if you will, but I prefer getting by on my smarts, anyway. ^.^

 

[veloper]

Full party control: turn based tactics
Single character: fast paced action

That's how I prefer it.

RTS controls in an RPG is okay, but it often degenerates into kiting and spamming abilities, instead of challenging the player with fast action or real tactics.

 

[Urgh76]

Well, I recall that there have been some Yu-gi-oh games in the past...

Huh.... I think you just won.

So yes, games like this where when you act it out, things actually HAPPEN in turns it would fit.

I draw a card and end my post

 

[veloper]

There's no problem with turn based combat. Plenty of games do it very well. I actually prefer it in certain games. But it really comes down to a case by case scenario. It wouldn't work in Call of Duty, but for games like Final Fantasy X, Legend of Legaia, or Suikoden II it works perfectly.

Incidentally, I think that was the biggest complaint about FFXIII's combat. It was too fast paced. Combat was moving at such a hectic rate that you couldn't select your actions fast enough. Especially when you had 6 or so slots and 20 different spells. As a result, you largely end up just selecting "auto-attack" to let the game select the most effective attacks itself. And at that point, you're not really playing your own game anymore. If you think turn based combat is boring, letting the game play itself is even more boring.

I thought it worked well in KotOR..

That wasn't really turn-based, though.

You just had the option to pause the game. It didn't really force you to.

OT: Yeah, I don't like turn-based games. I just don't enjoy them.

Um. I hate to break it to you, but KOTOR was a turn based combat system. I believe it works out that 2 seconds is one turn. If you're in combat and you don't select an action, your character just automatically chooses to use a basic attack. You could que up to three actions ahead of time. It was fast paced, yes. But it was fast paced turn based combat. And nothing you or anyone else say will change that. I think Bioware even described it as turn based combat.

Oh, and it actually plays like Dungeons and Dragons, you just don't see the "dice rolls" unless you check your combat log.

The combat abilities may have time delays, but all units can MOVE at the same time, which disqualifies KOTOR from boing turn-based = 1 move at a time.

 

[Vibhor]

Turn based combat allows many things that real time cannot even dream of.
First and foremost, it promotes tactical thinking and gives a player some breathing space.
Second, it makes the game much more based on your intellectual ability rather than your physical ability
Third, the turn based combat in final fantasy series is shit and a joke. If you would like to see some real turn based combat then play Frozen Synapse, Jagged Alliance or X-Com.
Calling some mechanic broken after only seeing the most horrible implementation of it is what ignorant people do.
What if I call the FPS genre shitty as whole after playing Daikatana?

Oh and turn based combat also makes it easier to manage units, cumbersome but easier

 

[Belaam]

Turn based is fantastic if you have more possible moves or more possible units than you could possibly play in the allotted timeframe.

Imagine playing a Civilization game wherein you had say 2 minutes a turn.

 

[randomsix]

Turn based is about resource management. Typically with more resources than the average mind can manage in realtime.

Realtime combat is about dexterity.

Each has its place in certain kinds of stories and gameplay.

 

[KingHodor]

My go-to example for RPGs is "Arcanum," and the difference between real time and turn based was huge. When playing in real time mages and other classes that casted "spells" never had much of a chance because by the time you were able to point and click to hit two spells the combat was practically over. But of course it wasn't Final Fantasy style. I thought in that way the combat worked pretty well with the story.

Waitwaitwait... there's someone bringing up Arcanum as a *positive* example? Arcanum had literally the most broken, non-balanced (as in not just "poorly balanced", but "the developers didn't even *try* to balance the combat) turn-based combat system I've ever had to endure - the fact that real-time was so frantic and chaotic that it was pretty much unplayable doesn't automatically make its turn-based system any less horrible.
Not that I didn't enjoy the game for its interesting setting and myriad character development options, but the combat system was so broken that I had a hard time believing that this came from the guys that made Fallout.

As for Oblivion's system - it was a *huge* step up from Morrowind. Then again, that isn't saying much, considering how utterly horrible Morrowind's combat system was. For the record, I'm currently replaying Morrowind and while I'd consider it a better game than Oblivion overall, I constantly find myself wondering why I have no control over when to block, or why I'm only slicing the air when an enemy is right in front of me because my Long Blades skill is too low.

 

[pablogonzalez]

Oblivion combat immersive? Really?

I happened to play Oblivion yesterday. Here's an outtake of a fight I had: I swing my sword at a goblin. Goblin takes damage. Goblin swings at me, I can't dodge it because it charges me at the same time. I get knocked back because my agility is not one of my main stats, so I spend the next 3 seconds stumbling around with no control over my character. I then get stuck in a little rock lying on the floor, and the goblin and his friends pound the shit out of me, because I can't dodge or move.

Another fight? Okay. 3 necromancers attack me. One of them is right next to me, so I manage to hack her into pieces before the others get there. The two others spam lightning bolt like crazy, sucking away all my health, so I run. I stand in a small hole near a cliff where they can't see me. One guy charges right past me and over the cliff, landing on the sand. He then proceeds to swim away from me into Lake Rumare for no apparent reason. I take out the third guy and drop down to the beach to finish off mr. easily distracted.

That's not immersive, it's just silly... and the AI is horrible.

if ANYTHING real time is more immersive than turn based......Oblivion just happens to be real time doesnt it

 

[Zach of Fables]

My go-to example for RPGs is "Arcanum," and the difference between real time and turn based was huge. When playing in real time mages and other classes that casted "spells" never had much of a chance because by the time you were able to point and click to hit two spells the combat was practically over. But of course it wasn't Final Fantasy style. I thought in that way the combat worked pretty well with the story.

Waitwaitwait... there's someone bringing up Arcanum as a *positive* example? Arcanum had literally the most broken, non-balanced (as in not just "poorly balanced", but "the developers didn't even *try* to balance the combat) turn-based combat system I've ever had to endure - the fact that real-time was so frantic and chaotic that it was pretty much unplayable doesn't automatically make its turn-based system any less horrible.
Not that I didn't enjoy the game for its interesting setting and myriad character development options, but the combat system was so broken that I had a hard time believing that this came from the guys that made Fallout.

I don't play a lot of video games so I can't really judge quality. All I know is that I liked the game, and didn't find the combat system to be too much of a pain. Other sections of the game, yes.

 

[Vault101]

the only Turn based game Ive ever been able to play is Pokemon stadium

and I think because, from my perspective its a "sport" you know? a match of skill and wits, it just feels right in context, and I supose thats the only way I could see turn based

because normal combat, I dont wait to turns to stab somone with a knife *shrug*

 

[Archangel768]

I HATED the combat in Oblivion and found the game hardly immersive at all.

On the other hand I found Final Fantasy VIII and X to be the most immersive games I've ever played. And Xs combat system to be my favourite in any game to date. The recharge thing you're referring to is the Active Time Battle (ATB) system which Final Fantasy VIII used various others. X on the other hand used the Conditional Turn Based System (pure turn based, no bar loading times etc).

Oblivions combat was slow and sloppy. Overall it was a complete mess and I quit the game fairly early on because of how bad it was. Didn't like much about the game in general either.

So yeah, I have no idea how you have it in your head that turn based combat systems are worse and that real time systems are more immersive.

EDIT: now It's time to go to bed so you probably won't get a reply from me for another half a day or more considering that I have work early in the morning (well 'this' morning)