Why so much hate for Turn Based Games?

[GloatingSwine]

FF X-2 was as good as turn based combat is going to get

Lost Odyssey is better.

You might actually have to apply some strategy to Lost Odyssey (try and play it like a Final Fantasy game and you won't get past the first boss). Also, it has timed actions (the target ring system) to actually keep the player involved).

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Lost Odyssey is better.

You might actually have to apply some strategy to Lost Odyssey (try and play it like a Final Fantasy game and you won't get past the first boss). Also, it has timed actions (the target ring system) to actually keep the player involved).

I loved LO, but it is clearly designed for JRPG fans who wish that the New Generation of RPG's wasn't moving away so fast from things we never thought were broken (people like me). X-2's battles seem to me to be a bridging measure between action and turn based battle systems.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Lost Odyssey is as traditional as they come, yeah, but it does actually make use of the turn based nature of the combat. You have to think about attack order, delaying actions, how long your spells take to cast, things like that. It's almost like Grandia in that respect.

 

[weirdaljedifan2]

I don't really hate TBC, but the only good aspects are the very powerful attacks and how they are shown. Examples, Hyper Beam from Pokemon and Geno Flash from Super Mario RPG. I don't mind TBC as long as they have cool, god-like attacks in games that use them.

Geno Flash FTW.

 

[Crazyshak48]

I personally try not to rip either system as a whole, as I think there are good and bad examples of both. The Civilization series is a good example of well executed turn based combat, frankly since I don't think the game would be easily playable in real time, considering its scale. Sins of a Solar Empire made a concerted effort to make a real time empire building game, and while it is fun, I don't feel that it has nearly the depth of any good game of Civilization or Alpha Centauri. As for Final Fantasy X, I think the system works better earlier in the game when your characters are weaker, and you have to plan how to beat stronger enemies, especially bosses. However, later in the game, when your characters can instakill anything in a single hit, all the strategy washes out and it becomes a bit of an annoyance, unless this instakill attack is extremely flashy or otherwise awesome (like weirdal suggests).

And as stated earlier, there are plenty of bad real time combat games too. Take Gundam Seed: Never Ending Tomorrow, for instance. You really have to work at it to screw up the controls on a console giant robot simulator, but they certainly succeeded with that one (particularly after the success of similar titles such as Federation vs. Zeon or the Armored Core series). Also, Haze for the PS3. I rented that recently and was so disgusted with the awkward controls, bad graphics, and pathetic attempt at a story line that I returned it immediately and played four hours of CoD4 to purge myself of the memory (I really hope Yahtzee rips that game a new one).

I guess what I'm saying is that it depends on the game and the gamer. Some games just have turn based or real time combat as a signature. I think even Yahtzee would cry foul if the next Civilization was real-time, much like he probably would if they made the next God of War turn based. If the game executes it well, turn based combat is just as good as real time combat. Either can be executed poorly, and I think that a poorly executed turn based game gets more rap since you're stuck for more turns staring at its shittiness, rather than having the distraction of rapidly killing shit in a poorly executed real time game.

 

[KapnKerfuffle]

I would kill for a great turn-based D&D game. Like Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[TomNook]

I worship at the altar that is Fire Emblem every day.

 

[Seldon2639]

In the past, turn based games were made because it is easier to make and play a board-game that requires turns. To an extent, turns were a thing video-games picked up from board-games, wargames and pencil and paper RPGs. Early strategy and RPGs (Civilization and Fallout) used turn based games because it would be impractical to make, or play a game of that scale or model. As technology improved most games became real-time? Why? Because real-time is better, it is more impressive to play and watch and more immersive.

Notice how most of the games on your list aren't considered good because they are turn-based or because they are amazing beacons of gameplay.

Final Fantasy - Story, scale and the age and fame of the franchise.

The Total War Series - It's the real-time battles not the turn based secttion that is the real draw to the franchise, that the turn based section is well done is a bonus.

Fallout - The first two Fallout games are old, both come from a time when their combat system would have been unwieldy, indeed semi-unplayable if in real-time.

You make the claim that real-time combat is more impressive and immersing, but then make the point that the great turn-based games are great not because of turn-based combat, but irrespective of it. That seems contradictory. Both kinds of games have strengths and weaknesses, and it's largely up to personal preference.

I've played both, and find that both can work well. There's never really been a real-time RPG with random encounters, which I would like. The problem with FFXII was that if you run from a battle, the creatures still follow you, so you can't just stand there and recover, same thing in Mass Effect, Oblivion, and Kingdom Hearts. I like both for different reasons, and in different circumstances.

We should also draw a line between turn-based combat in a game like Total War or Civ, and a game like FFX. The former is turn-based in the macro "everything moves only in turns" set up. The latter is "once you're in combat, it's turn-based".

It largely comes down to whether you see the characters as being controlled by you entirely, or possessing their own limitations. In Kingdom Hearts, or in Mass Effect, if I'm good enough, even if the character isn't great, I can shoot before they see me, get head shots the entire time, never get hit, all of that. In FFX, no matter how good I am, my character is only so fast, is only able to dodge so often. I like the latter because it forces you to see the characters as entities unto themselves

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

It works with some genres, it doesn't with others (lol'd at the idea of a turn-based DMC). Call me old-school, but there have been several strategy games I've tried where real-time makes it impossible to effectively utilize any strategy besides mass spamming the basic units. Same thing would apply for strong franchises that are already thoroughly entrenched in turn-based combat and do it well, such as Fire Emblem, Disagea or Front Mission.

Now, though I tend to slide towards TB games nowadays due to atrophying reflexes, the frusturation with how much it can slow down a game's pacing is understandable, usually when it's paired with a battle-screen transition/victory sequence every single damn time you fight. Paper Mario got around this by giving you little timing games for something to do while combat animations played out. Others just let you press a button to skip it altogether. Every time I play something like X-Com however, I am mystified by how much a 'we-go' turn system could up the excitement level of a turn-based game. Having all commands occur at once in real-time adds unpredictability, something that some fans would argue against due to the fact that a large part of most TBS' is predicting the opponent's next move.

TBC is most scorned in the online scene due to it's giving players the ability to wait out an opponent into forfeiting, and giving the inactive player nothing to do but watch helplessly while his rival makes his moves for minutes at a time. Pausing for even a moment is often met with scorn- symptoms of the current online scene. But enough about that- the point is certain genres will always be better off turn-based unless they are dumbed down to the point where you will instantly know your next move within 5 seconds or so, in which case I doubt it will be very popular anyway.

 

[DEC_42]

While I do agree that Sins was a bit shallow, I thought the combat and tech trees made up for the relative lack of espionage and true colonization.

What I noticed with Civ (Civ4 in particular) is that, in a way, it did boil down to random button smashing. What happened was I was playing with the Revolutionary War mod, and the scale was absurdly off, making for a constant reformulation of my battle strategy after realizing the brits are MUCH closer than it seems.

Another thing is the combat element. It's either one sided, or it depends on luck. Sometimes evem the amount of soldiers you had. Take when I was trying to reclaim a British-held city. The lobsterbacks were holed up and garrisoned within the city, while I was out in the open with my Militia/whatever it was. I figured (being new to Civ), that if I brought up a cannon or two to fight *alongside* my men, I'd be able to easily take the city (or the rubble, it didn't really matter to me). The cannons turned out to be a bust, with the Brits destroying them in 2 turns and then go back to destroying my men. Maybe it was just the issues with linear warfare that iked me, but it seemed fairly pointless.

Another thing is, Chess and Stratego, and other traditional turn-based games, are 'dynamic'. With every move, strategies change and tactics are reformulated. Whereas in Civ, it was simply driving towards one goal after another, with no dynamism at all. It was immensely slow, too. The lack of speed is welcome when problems arise or tactics need to be changed. Civ was fairly boring.

Sins, however, kept the action flowing so we didn't have to wait 10 turns to get the scouts out of the known solar system. It makes up with proper scaling of travel time and the size of systems/planets/etc.

 

[VRaptorX]

Turn based allows for much more strategic battles. problem is, newer RPGs dumbed down the difficulty a lot so strategy isn't needed most of the time.


If someone were to create a tough RPG again where you had to do something different for each enemy or where there were many many options (outside of front row or back row) like the 16bit era, than turn based would work well. Thing is, outside of Baten Kaitos, no RPG has really tried to make it so you have to use different tactics for even normal enemies.

 

[privatehuff]

You're definitely right: at some point it became a fad to hate on turn-based games.

I actually got into an argument with someone back in the day because he said I was "cheating" by playing FF3(us) with the battle mode set to "passive" or whatever, as opposed to "active". (It's turn-based either way, but in "active" the enemies attack you on a timer instead of waiting for you to take your turn first, so if you pick your nose and forget to pause the monster will attack you again) I tried to explain that ?remember to press pause before considering your next move or picking your nose? is not a gameplay element I would voluntarily introduce into a game I rather enjoyed as it was, but he could not be convinced.

I like a lot of different types of games, and turn-based jrpg's are one of them. I like putting in the time to farm experience, lizard pelts, or gold crunchies or whatever and beef up my characters. Given a similar ?faster? game with epic real-time fustercluck battles, I would probably save and load (and reload) frequently to perfect the outcome. (read: I will take an ?exciting? game and make it ?boring? anyway,

Why? Two reasons: (1) Because you're usually playing such a game for the story, the style, and the world they immerse you in, rather than rewarding yourself for good reflexes with pleasing, colorful indicators of success. (Not that a bit of the latter can't enhance the former)

And, (2) if you're not playing the game in lieu of reading a book (most probably in the anime/scifi/fantasy genre), you're palying them because you're a METHODICAL GAMER who probably does like D&D, ?technically perfect play?, and then meticulous grinding stuff that everyone else seems to hate.


I don't think there are many people who used to love turn-based games but now hate them. I think there's just a large selection of high-quality real-time games for people to play today (as a product of advances in technology and the underlying hardware, as well as the gaming industry's efforts to target a wider demographic) so people who would have hated gaming in the turn-based golden age are now right at home.

 

[smithy_2045]

Turn Based games require significantly more strageical elements or they simply suck. No point having ages to think about everything if there is nothing to think about.

 

[klarax]

Things that need to change in RPG's:

A) Random battles are a big "NO", I'd rather see the enemy and have a choice if i want to fight or not.

B) When a foe is so weak that i could literally fart near it and it would die. Why bother having the encouter at all. (Still talking about random battles)

C) Most often, doing one type of attack with each character is enough to win the fight, they need to be made harder in that respect.

D) With option 'C' said, rpg's need to be more tactical.

D) Speed of fights needs to increase. FFXII was ok-ish, but still could have been faster to keep entertainment at a high.


I love the story's in rpg's tho, even the japanese ones.. They are usually epic, with end of the world sinarios. Also, i think i like the whole "magic" elements to them.

 

[MindBullets]

C) Most often, doing one type of attack with each character is enough to win the fight, they need to be made harder in that respect.

This is basically what's wrong with turn based gameplay in general. If you're going to give someone time to make a decision, you should make the decision require more thought. More variety of situations, choices and outcomes when deciding what to do.

The pokemon games basically boiled down to switching to a pokemon who's attack types were effective against the opponent's type, as far as I was concerned. Advance Wars, on the other hand, you've got an economy to manage, strategies to devise, many different unit types to work with. You have to consider the positioning, hit points, range of attack, etc of both you and your enemy. You have to slow down and take these things into consideration before you issue orders, which is the whole point of turn based gameplay. That's how you do it well. Forcing you to wait your turn before telling your guy to stab someone does not magically make a game more strategic.

 

[DEC_42]

Oh! I Almost forgot about Advance Wars. That was an excellent attempt at blending Common RTS strategies with good Turn-based gaming. It was like playing a good game of chess with a modern upgrade, unlike Civ, which falls with the other inadequate RPGs, where you could release a flatus in close proximity of an opponent and instantly kill it.

Sort of a... throw everything at the wall and see what sticks kind of game.

 

[Kovash86]

I like some turn based games, final fantasy tactics being the premier turn based RPG, IMO.

 

[vede]

I think turn-based combat isn't meant to be literally interpreted. The characters aren't just sitting and waiting. I think it is meant to be interpreted by the player. It's like a fast-paced kung fu fight, slowed down so you can see it, and simplified so you know what the hell's going on. So in Fallout, if your character punches a guy and knocks him out, and you decide to start punching him in the face, it isn't literally your character standing up and knocking him in the face with his foot or whatever. Your character could actually be straddling him and bashing his head in rage! Just because the animations don't show it, that doesn't mean it's not happening. It's like D&D, even though pretty much every attack is about the same, it doesn't mean it's just the same old slash or punch or whatever, it's up to the player to imagine what's happening and make it awesome.

After that, though, I think turn-based combat is best left to RPGs, and real-time left to fighting and FPS.

 

[blank0000]

becasue turn based games have one motive

level up

their is no strategy, no fun, nothing more, spend 8 hours killng the giant bear monster, adn get 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ex to beat the boss, so you can lv up and get ready to beat THE NEXT boss. No strategy, no calculation, just "grind grind grind" your way to suscess! and when I wanna have fun, I expect an engauging experience.

my opinon ya'll

 

[Laggard]

I wish there were MORE turn based strategy games. My problem with strategy games in general is the amount of micromanagement involved. When you play an RTS the amount of micro just gets compounded as your army gets bigger. At the end of the CIV games, each turn takes about an hour to complete. There would be no way you could manage every city if it was real time.

JRPGs are a different story... The Final Fantasy games aren't much for combat and I enjoy the story, the world and the pretty pictures more than the tactics.

I also never understood why there are sooo many spells in these games. I get buyer's remorse and stick with the same 2 or 3 spells that generally work instead of trying out new things. A stripped down spell list could add more creativity to the tactical portion of the game.

For the person who mentioned that at level 99 Sabin's pummel move is the best: When you have maxed out your character strategy is not top priority.

Good examples of hybrid versions:
The old bioware games (Baldur's gate etc)

Secret of Mana (SNES -- realtime, but after each attack you had a timer that would reset. You would have to wait until the time reached 100 to do maximum damage again. You couldn't just slash)

Chrono Trigger (SNES -- final fantasy gameplay without random encounters - bad guys are on screen to see)

Paper Mario -- Probably my favorite JRPG turn based gameplay mechanic. There is a little bit of timing involved in each attack to gain more power. Also, when you can totally beat the bad guys around your area, you can jump or pummel them without having to battle them. You won't gain any experience fighting low level creatures so you don't have to grind as much