Turn Based Combat

[NickCaligo42]

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

First, "immersion" in the terms you put it in, is a load of pure crap. It's an idea invented by enthusiasts and game developers to justify points of laziness or personal preference in terms that exploit gaming's current struggle for artistic legitimacy. Games don't have to exactly mirror the behavior of real life, because they're games, and a good set of rules is a good set of rules. The goal should be more to capture the essence of an experience, not the entirety of it, and abstract mechanics (IE turn-based combat) offer a lot of useful devices for doing that, particularly if you want to put players in a leadership or "thinking" role as opposed to the stereotypical action-adventure type of experience.

Take X-COM: UFO Defense. You manage the budget, the layout, facilities, and staffing of your bases (up to six worldwide), research alien technology to develop new weapons, equipment, and facilities, and you send troops on missions to recover alien vessels and stave off alien terror attacks. It is nothing less than the complete experience of commanding the entire world's UFO defense grid, with a splash of turn-based combat simulation added in to spice things up--and you had better bet that players get really, really invested.


Watch this guy. Watch him cry out for the demise of Awesome Possum and Wesker, ripped down by the alien menace before their time. Look at the sheer tension of this fight. That's what turn-based mechanics are about--not think-on-your-feet kinetic action, but suspense.

 

[1000000]

Okay this is ridiculous. I mean come on. I guess I should say I am disappointed but not surprised...

Where do I even start? First of all there seems to be some confusion over what immersion means and how it works. Put simply, a game is immersive as long as you feel involved with the game. A game only loses its immersion factor for a player who begins to metagame; that is when his or her thought processes concerning the game stray to things beyond what the game has presented.

I know that immersion is often generically described as "feeling like you're in the game," and to be fair that is a good rough definition, however it can be a little misleading. It carries the connotation that immersion is linked with reality, the real world, and realism, but these ideas aren't actually present in a more accurate definition of immersion. Immersion is just the feeling of being involved with a game in terms of the game.

Confused? Wondering what this has to do with turn based combat? I'm getting there, just setting the foundation first. As I said, immersion is that feeling of involvement with the game as it is presented. Realism has nothing to do with immersion, and ascribing lifelike or realistic qualities to a game will not inherently make it more immersive. So what does make a game more immersive? What breaks immersion? The fact is, I can't answer those questions for anyone else any more than they can answer them for me. Immersion is highly subjective, it's a simple as that.

Now you may be wondering: "how can you claim all these things when so many people seem to agree that realism improves a game's immersion quality? Hasn't realism always been the direction games are headed?" Well, that's a tricky question. Some aspects of games have been trending toward realism, most notably graphics. However, that's not to say all games are becoming more realistic visually. Artistic stylism is a good example of this. But what I mean is as technology advances, potential for realism increases. And as potential for realism increases, so too do expectations for it. Again, that's not to say that all players want to seek out more lifelike games, but given the choice between two similar games, most players would choose the technologically superior one, all else being equal.

It should come as no surprise that different players have different gaming preferences. I hope that we can all be open minded enough to accept that. I myself am an avid final fantasy fan, and I would be hard pressed to find another series that certain people hate with such fervor. And it should be obvious that with different preferences come different technological expectations. Aside from a small subsection of people who specifically like retro style games and such, most gamers have certain expectations for technological improvements over time. The caveat here is that they expect those improvements in different areas depending on their preferences for the types of games that they enjoy. I guarantee you that nobody expects the next Final Fantasy to incorporate real-time motion sensory input, the next Street Fighter to feature advanced dynamic dialogue options, or the next Bejewled to run on a state of the art physics engine.

Let's recap, and then bring it all together. First, immersion is involvement with a game in terms of the game, it does not necessarily require an element of realism. Next, immersion is highly subjective. It depends on both the player's expectations and the game's delivery of them. Third, as technology improves, so do most player's expectations. Fourth, players have different gaming preferences, and no type of game can be held as objectively superior to another. And finally, a player's expectations depend on his or her preferences. If you're paying close attention you might notice how these five things are linked. Just in case you don't, I'll put it all together. A given player has unique preferences, which determine his or her priorities for raised expectations based on improvements in technology, and these heightened expectations translate directly to expectations for a game's presentation and delivery. This effectively sets a threshold, beyond which a game will exceed the individual player's expectations for a given prioritized feature. So long as a player's technical expectations are met or exceeded, he or she can no longer be subject to broken immersion. At that point, the player's enjoyment of the game is bounded only by the quality of the game itself, and not his or her perception of the game.

At last we can analyze the original question under the lens of this concept. Suppose for example a player plays a turn based game, say FFX. If that player is predisposed to enjoy (or at least not dislike) the turn based combat abstraction, the game will have met that particular technical expectation for this player, he or she will not consider it beyond what the game requires, and consequently there will be no detrimental impact on immersion attributable to the nature of the turn based system. On the other hand if the player is not inclined to enjoy (or especially outright dislikes) turn based combat, perhaps favoring the more realistic approach of real time combat, then the game will not have reached the player's technical expectations in that area. As a result, the player will be reminded of the shortcoming during every combat engagement, forcing them to consider the game as an entity beyond its own terms, thereby removing that element of involvement with the game, and negatively affecting the player's immersion.

So you see, broken immersion does not follow directly from lack of realism unless the player finds it undesirable. The same holds true not only for realism, but for any aspect of any mechanical feature of a game.


tl;dr

As long as a player finds turn based combat in a particular game acceptable, it cannot break that player's immersion. This is ENTIRELY subjective.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

That's true, but it's still a fairly large enough distance away from CL turn based gaming and Final Fantasy that I had fun with it and found it more immersive.

very true, they take it and illusion/speed it up enough that it doesn't feel that way at all.

still, i always enjoy turning on the numbers and rolls just to make myself feel more at home =]

 

[Duskflamer]

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.

No, actually, the combat's just shown quickly enough that it seems as though that's the case (much like an actual round of DnD would look like, given that everyone is supposedly taking their move in the same 6 seconds of space). If you look in the combat log, it boils down to:

Ally A Rolled (whatever) And hit Enemy A for 6 damage
Enemy A Rolled (whatever) and missed Ally B
Ally B Rolled (whatever) and hit Enemy A for 8 damage, killing him.
Etc.

If you look closely, you can sometimes even tell where the division is between the rounds (particularly if everyone's using blasters, it's easy to see the .5 seconds of people aiming while the rolls take place in the background before they play out what happened).

I know how the game times the delays, to be a little bit more like turns, but the actual movement (not attacks, abilities or skills) doesn't go in turns at all.
Chess is turn-based. You cannot move your all pieces when it's not your turn, even if the target squares is unoccupied.

But if you move during a turn you don't get to participate in that round of combat.

 

[Fightgarr]

Is real-time combat always more immersive? I found Oblivion's combat to be incredibly jarring. It never changed regardless of the enemies. Every enemy would run directly up to you and every enemy would attack in the same way. Similarly, regardless of your mage/warrior/rogue strategy, you would go about defeating every enemy in the exact same way. That tended to break the immersion for me, particularly when a high-defense or high-constitution enemy would come by and I'd sit their spamming the attack button for extensive periods, causing my character to clumsily slash their sword back and forth repeatedly in the same motion. That does not strike me as immersive. It strikes me as being just as dull and repetitive as poorly done turn-based combat.

You also may be confusing a sense of immersion with a sense of being your character, and in many cases, of course you aren't actually your character. If you're controlling several people simultaneously, it makes perfect sense to lighten the mental strain by having each character act in turn. It's very possible to make turn-based combat highly strategic, and many games have done just that. Many games have fucked it up hard, but I fail to see how it's impossible to immerse yourself in a world with turn-based combat. If the world is well-built enough, and the things in play in combat cater to the aesthetics and bounds of that world, it's perfectly capable of immersing you in that world. Remember that immersion can mean as much that you feel invested and involved with the goings on of a fictional world as much as it can mean you feel that you and your character are one in the same. In that sense, turn-based combat shouldn't necessarily break immersion, if done right.

 

[Lunar Templar]

depends on the game and if its like say, final fantasy, or Valkyrie Profile: Lenneth.

your basic (as of 10, which is the last one i saw through to the end) FF is line up, hit them with 'bits of stick' or spamming 'that one spell' that obliterates everything, or some cheap spell combo (vanish + doom in FF6). not bad per say, but fairly shallow

and while a game like VP:L tries to spice it up a bit, mages, while still glass cannons aren't able to spam their beastly spells, and with their 'cool' down time becomes an issue of how to spend their 'turn' and on what, while the melee characters can get weapons that allow multiple attacks per turn, which actually can effect weather your part member's miss or not, as you can have all 4 people attack at the same time(same time meaning, same real time second), further spice is in the finishers, which can be use much more frequently then other turn based RPG counterparts, and give how hard some of the bosses are (>.> looking at you Blood Bane) it gets really involving really quickly.

in strategy games, mostly troop management, honestly, here i see little use for it, unless its a console, due to a lack of mouse, but even then, most devs, GOOD devs have added game play mechanics to spice game play up and make it interesting beyond the typical RTS model of 'build base, raise army, march from one side of the map to the other an hope the important thing dies along the way'

as a side note, i'd like to point out, game play mechanics, do not, equal immersion, INTEREST in the games world creates immersion.

 

[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.

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.

Modifiers don't come into it. Movement is distance through time and in KOTOR this happens in realtime. That precludes turn-based.
KOTOR is RTWP.

 

[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.

No, actually, the combat's just shown quickly enough that it seems as though that's the case (much like an actual round of DnD would look like, given that everyone is supposedly taking their move in the same 6 seconds of space). If you look in the combat log, it boils down to:

Ally A Rolled (whatever) And hit Enemy A for 6 damage
Enemy A Rolled (whatever) and missed Ally B
Ally B Rolled (whatever) and hit Enemy A for 8 damage, killing him.
Etc.

If you look closely, you can sometimes even tell where the division is between the rounds (particularly if everyone's using blasters, it's easy to see the .5 seconds of people aiming while the rolls take place in the background before they play out what happened).

I know how the game times the delays, to be a little bit more like turns, but the actual movement (not attacks, abilities or skills) doesn't go in turns at all.
Chess is turn-based. You cannot move your all pieces when it's not your turn, even if the target squares is unoccupied.

But if you move during a turn you don't get to participate in that round of combat.

It has it's uses.
In a similar RTWP game like NWN or Baldur's Gate, real time movement let's you dodge area attacks such as fireballs aimed at the ground, or when the area attack is homing in on you, you can damage the mage with by running up to it.
RTWP has it's realtime exploits, unlike a proper turn-based game like the tabletop D&D.

 

[MightyRabbit]

I don't think it is a system that lends itself to immersion or blending with the story, but that doesn't make it a bad system. The sort of people who're looking for the strategic challenge such systems offer aren't looking for immersion.

Games will always have some disconnect from reality, and I don't think we need to try and force everything to strive towards immersion because it's not always necessary. Games like Civilisation or Pokemon haven't got such popular turn based systems that get obsessed over because they're immersive, but because people get to think about tactics and strategy that they don't get with more immersive and action-focused games.

 

[Yopaz]

Turn based combat that doesn't break the immersion?

Most Super Mario RPG games. Take Paper Mario for GameCube. You chose your attack and let's say you chose the power bounce attack. You had to press A at the correct time in order to get another jump, each time the timing got harder to perfect.
The enemy attacks and you get to block it by either punching the enemy or guarding by pressing A and reduce the damage caused.

Just because you generally don't like turn based games it doesn't mean that it's not possible to make one that's good.

 

[SeniorDingDong]

I love turn based combat in "grand scale" strategy games. They are kind of abstract enough to be emersive with and complex enough to actually make you wish to have turn based combat.

 

[dimensional]

Okay this is ridiculous. I mean come on. I guess I should say I am disappointed but not surprised...

Where do I even start? *big snip*

Good post I completely agree with you

Not sure what the problem with turn based combat is if the game is built around it to work with the system it can be very good i.e lots of rpgs from Baldurs gate (and every other old d&d rule based rpg to FF(any number you like I suppose) advance wars Disgaea etc. TBC generally allows you to focus on the bigger picture and control multiple units effectively and it is certainly not inherently bad sure sometimes you may just be selecting some default button but that happens in RTC as well.

As for RTC well that is awesome as well look at bayonetta and every good fighting game ever released just for a few examples, no system is going to fit all games you will select the best one or if none exist make your own like Valkyria Chronicles mainly being Turn based combat but also brilliantly fitting real time in there as well.

 

[searanox]

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if a turn-based system is fast to the point of being nearly indistinguishable from a real-time one... it becomes very difficult to in good faith call it turn-based anymore. Then it's just real-time gameplay with shitty controls, and the way you approach it is still basically the same as an action game.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I thought it worked well in KotOR..

I thought that too, but then I tried JK 2...
Haven't finished KotOR after it, because JK 2 made me hate KotOR for its gameplay.

ill assume your talking about jedi knights 2 jedi academy?

if so, they are two completely different types of games/genres/styles for a reason, and while the action/combat felt nice in jedi academy, it was still sketchy as fuck on some of the hit detection/movements.

no doubt it is great still, and that more games to mimic that combat, kotor is on a whole different level for the type of gameplay, so the two aren't really comparable.

 

[Torrasque]

Having immersion with turn based combat is almost impossible unless it's something you are meant to have turns in (Yu-Gi-Oh). But it can work well into story such as Fire Emblem, where you are playing a tactician trying to make it so your army will win the war. It's a fairly light version of role playing, but I still count it in!

This times infinity.
Also, Advance Wars has an engaging story, and it is turn based combat.

Whether turn-based combat works or not, just depends on the kind of game.

 

[shasjas]

i definitely think that turn based isnt immersive.
that is not to say turn based games arent good. kotor was great (i consider it to be turn based), but i never felt like i was the character i felt like i was directing the character.
turn based combat can be more tactical and intellectual, but it never makes me feel like i actually am the character.

 

[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.

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.

Okay, it's been a while since I played KOTOR, but I think it was more or less one move at a time. Just done really really fast. And even if everyone acts at the same exact time, and honestly I don't think it was like that, that is still turn based combat. The combat is still broken up into various turns.

First, I love the ignorant twitching, ADD, sugar popping retards who bundle turn-based up as "Lining up and taking turns whacking each other". I could do the same thing for FPS if you like. Watch:
"I'm glad to see how many people hate the 'point your gun at stuff and pull the trigger until it stops moving' gameplay." I could do more, but I digress.

Good turn-based is immersive if done engagingly. FFX and the Lunar series had my favorite turn based, but more so FFX. The layout of turns coming let you plan moves accordingly and planning felt necessary often enough to be interesting, but not so dire that every fight was a chess game.
FF13 actually felt the least immersive because I only felt like I was suggesting what my char did half the time, and was only suggesting what both other members do the entire time. It felt like I was shouting from the sidelines while way too much happened without my say-so.

I second this post.

I really enjoy a good turn based game. I would love for the next Final Fantasy to borrow a page from FFX and use that battle system again. Also, the Lunar system was interesting, but did you ever play Suikoden or Suikoden II (after that the games starting changing a lot about the combat)? You had 6 characters in two rows, that could attack, defend, or use magic. Certain characters could even work together to preform Unite attacks with various effects. Added a nice element of strategy even when you select your party members.

And, yeah, after a while I got annoyed with the FFXIII battle system. (see my earlier post)

 

[The GEL]

Ah! THIS old chestnut!

No, turn-based combat will never be "immersive". Get over it. Immersion is overrated and people need to stop obsessing over it as it IS getting to the point where it is ruining gaming. Just make a good game and the rest takes care of itself.

Now that said, I am sick of hearing that action battle systems should replace turn-based combat. I LIKE action battle systems but there is DEFINATELY a place for turn-based combat! The problem is that far too many "popular" RPGs with turn-based combat have shockingly shitty combat. Games where you just spam the "Fight" command are retarded and the Active-Time Battle System of Final Fantasy was actually a TERRIBLE idea and makes combat go slower instead of faster! A GOOD turn-based combat system works like a bite-sized game of chess. There has to be thought and strategy to it, thus justifying it's turn-based nature.

Here's a few examples:
#1) Enchanted Arms
Called the "Speed Tactics Battle System", every character has a number of different attacks with different areas of effect. On your turn you arrange your characters, pick their attacks, and then click "Go!" and watch the combat play out. The computer then IMMEDIATELY takes it's turn with no waiting and it is once again your turn to arrange your characters and line-up their attacks. Sadly this battle system was widely overlooked by reviewers due to the existence of an "Auto Battle" option...that didn't work.

#2) Final Fantasy Legend 1-3 (SaGa)
In this series you can equip multiple weapons on a character and on their turn you get to pick which weapon to use. Each weapon has different effects: Some hit one enemy, some hit a "row" of enemies, some hit a "column" of enemies, some do damage based of SPD while others are based of STR, and so on. Furthermore each weapon has a limited number of uses so you want to conserve your "good stuff" for bosses.

#3) Rivera: The Promised Land
Basically the exact same battle system as Final Fantasy Legend except with super moves worked in.

#4) Radiant Historia
In this one you once again arrange all your characters and attacks before choosing "Fight". This time though different attacks push enemies around, allowing you to clump them together and hit multiple foes at the same time.

#5) Pokemon
Yes. Pokemon. Each Pokemon has different strengths and weaknesses based on Types and can have a maximum of 4 moves of different types, effects, and with a limited number of uses. There is no "Normal Attack" except for something like Tackle (which would be a waste) and serious thought goes into planning your Pokemon's moveset and picking the right moves in combat.

...and that's how turn-based combat SHOULD be! There NEEDS to be some THINKING and STRATEGY to justify their turn-based nature but the combat should still be over relatively quickly and not require TOO MUCH thinking. Just enough to make you stop and think and know that making the right choices will net you greater rewards.

 

[F4LL3N]

OP: I kinda disagree. Although Oblivion's battle system is one of my favorite, I think turn based combat is generally a lot more solid 'at it's core'. Some games that have perfected it off the top of my head: Pokemon, most Final Fantasy's (that I've played), Dragon Quest IX, and several GBA games I've forgotten the name of (some of which are my favorite games).

Turn based focuses more on tactics than faced paced action. IMO, Oblivion is one of the few who have actually gotten real time combat right. Most combat system are very poorly designed.

EDIT:

Here's a few examples:
#1) Enchanted Arms
Called the "Speed Tactics Battle System", every character has a number of different attacks with different areas of effect. On your turn you arrange your characters, pick their attacks, and then click "Go!" and watch the combat play out. The computer then IMMEDIATELY takes it's turn with no waiting and it is once again your turn to arrange your characters and line-up their attacks. Sadly this battle system was widely overlooked by reviewers due to the existence of an "Auto Battle" option...that didn't work.

Woah. You're the first person I've seen ever mention Enchanted Arms in one of their posts. That game was amazing once you get into it. It had one of the best battle system's, imo.

 

[pablogonzalez]

in many RPG's you generally see a turn based combat system
some take place in turns
some (most) final fantasy games have that arbitary recharge time system (unsure what the name is)
now consider the gameplay of say Oblivion, as it is an action system it creates a sort of realtime feeling and in general ends up becoming a very immersive expierience, however turn based combat is so broken up so arbitary so slow so....well its not AS good as an real time system.

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

I have to disagree with some of the assumptions made in your post. Why do you assume turn based battle system are not immersive? Honestly Haveing grown up with ATB (active time battles) and turn based combat in general i find Games like Oblivion not only unimmersive but a little on the hard to get into side. It has always been my opinion that immersion pretty much relies solely on the Quality of writing and has very little to do with the game play. I prefer turn based combat in rpgs.

ok Oblivion is a bad example try sometihng like Fable of the Witcher, in combat you dont just stand there thinking of the best strategy to defeat a monster, because by the time you have thoguht of one they have probably killed you. Immersion requires more player involvement, in these BETTER examples, you need to respond quikly, either dodge block counter attack, whatever you can do, not waiting and deciding.

i personally haven't seen an extremeley immersive turn based system, and even though most of these games have some of the best stories ive rarely seen one work in sync with the story as things such as random encounters comletley break any sense of flow and coherent connection to the characters, take FFXIII's Hope. In the cutscenes he is a complete wimp even afraid of his own teamates but in combat he is suddenly courageos and willing to fight. Im not saying that they are completley unimmersive i say it because alot of these ssystems are designed out of sync with the story they often fall flat, maybe they could of made Hope like reluctant to attack or when he did he would oftne miss or his attacks would be the weakest, although this might cause some balance issues, it could of made the battle system more immersive.