Why so much hate for Turn Based Games?

[PedroSteckecilo]

Are we all so ADD these days that we cannot handle a little bit of slower pacing and careful deliberation? Am I the only one who misses carefully considering your actions and then making your move ala Pen/Paper Roleplaying, Chess or other RL games?

I mean I understand the boredom aspect, but certain games (Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door, Shadow Hearts, Grandia, Final Fantasy X, Eternal Sonata, The Total War Series, Civilization Series, Fallout) do Turn Based gameplay in an interesting and compelling manner, and certain other games (The Bioware DND Games, KOTOR) allow an excellent comprimise.

Can a non-ADD-actionjunky-FPSfanboy explain this EXTREME aversion to me?

 

[Bling Cat]

well, i dont hate it, its just that a) a lot of the time it defies logic, and b) it isnt as exciting (at least for me) as real time combat. ive played games with turn based combat and enjoyed them (golden sun) but a lot of the time turn based games dont do it very well, and earn a lot of stick from the community for that.

 

[Southy]

I've played old Final Fantasy games and find them quite boring. There isn't much skill needed in choosing the best move against certain opponents as it's quite obvious in parts of the game.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

In response to both of you...

Bling Cat: The "I don't find it fun" makes sense, but it doesn't explain the trend, it used to be perfectly acceptable but now its not, and Real Time RPG Combat hasn't changed THAT MUCH in general feel since the PS1 era.

Southy: I don't find there's that much skill needed in Real Time RPG's to button mash over and over again and then enter convoluted combo that basically to me seems like a more complicated means to simply select an attack.

 

[Asehujiko]

I think people are starting to realize that 2 groups of people standing infront of eachother in the middle of nowhere patiently waiting for whowhoever is doing something to finish is just stupid. I still like the Total War series because they are showing what your army has been up to in the last 6 months and actualy uses realtime combat when appropriete.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

So your saying the hate is entirely... superficial?

I find that very shallow and kind of silly "Oh Gameplay isn't important, what's important is that the people don't MOVE all the time, my puny little brain cannot handle stillness without collapsing."

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The problem comes when Turn based are used when Real Time would be more appropriate. You couldn't play Chess real time (Well, there's Blitz, but it's rubbish) but turn based DMC would be rubbish...Oh.

The thing about Turn Based Games is that it allows you to look at some of the strategies you could use (Civ) without forcing you to multi-task, which some of us find extremely tough.

 

[Shiloa]

I've played old Final Fantasy games and find them quite boring. There isn't much skill needed in choosing the best move against certain opponents as it's quite obvious in parts of the game.

There's not much skill involved in most games if you put it like that; FPS = Aim and shoot, platformer = run n' jump, racer = hold down accelerate and turn etc.

turn based DMC would be rubbish...Oh.

Turn based DMC would not be DMC any longer. It wouldn't necessarily be rubbish.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

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.

 

[Sparrowsabre7]

I think the important thing is gamers want to be more involved in the gameplay experience, see interactive cutscenes etc. So turn based combat essentially amounts to clicking an option and waiting stuff to happen, whereas real-time, though it can arguably just as undemanding at least "feels" like you're actively participating.

With some turn based combat games its just using the same move over and over so much so that you can just keep hitting "A" (or "X" for Sony-ites) until the battle is over without paying any attention. Real time requires a ad more thought about how to approach a situation even if it too ultimately comes down to "Hit A/X till dead."

 

[blank0000]

reasons why I dislike them:

They are a dated form of gameplay that has grow stale to me

they are a shortcut for lazy designers

they do not engage me at all

its generic

 

[tiredinnuendo]

The problem I have with most turn based gameplay is that there's often no reason for it. The most common turn based games tend to be fairly simple once you understand the systems that are in place, and often there is a move that each character does that is the "best" thing for them to do.

For instance, in Final Fantasy 6, once Sabin hit level 99, Pummel (his most basic attack) did max damage. There was no reason for him to ever use any other one. Same with most of the characters. You could have them do their "good" move, or have them take time out of their normal rotation to heal. There was no strategy required beyond this. I understand why it was turn based, don't get me wrong. Sorting through a list of a hundred spells would get cumbersome if you also had to keep moving, but really you only used about 7 of those spells by the end of the game anyway.

I get that a game like chess requires more strategy than games like FF, but JRPGs tend to be what I think of when I think of "turn based". It's not a thinking man's battle, it's just slow.

- J

 

[TheNix]

Most of the complaints people have here can easily be applied to RTRPGs or any other type of game really. In real time you just mash the same button or find 1 stratagy the works against everyone. All of them are about the same. It's as engaging, it takes just about as much thought a stratagy.

 

[Southy]

There's not much skill involved in most games if you put it like that; FPS = Aim and shoot, platformer = run n' jump, racer = hold down accelerate and turn etc.

Yes, but the difference between the two is that one keeps you active and alert to the changes and the other leaves you waiting while the attack finishes.

I'd also feel better about pulling off a combo, rather than the computer doing the move for me.

 

[burko]

I like turn-based games and I wish there were more of them. I enjoy a measured, tactical pace. It's not for everyone, particularly as advances in technology open up more and more options for real-time. Western gamers in particular seem to prefer real-time. S'why we still get oodles of Dynasty Warriors releases over here, but no Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Best bet for turn-based games is the PC, but even there they're getting more scarce.

.

 

[fix-the-spade]

As a long term fps addict the problem I have with turn based fighting is very simple. It removes control.

Once in a turn based fight, you have to stand there in front of your opponent and exchange hits one at a time. The only way to win is to stand there and duke it out, you can't change your position and its all very slow paced.
You can run away in most games but you can't run away AND fight in any turn based game I've ever seen. Plus a lot of turn based games feature random encounters, thereby removing control altogether. Dodging/avoiding an opponent always seems to hinge around luck as well.
Also playing turn based against humans often boils down to highest level wins. Which is fine but I don't have a billion hours to spend grinding up to level 99.

Compared to an fps like Battlefield, where I can watch a tank trundle down a valley through my rifle scope. I saw it a good 300 metres away and it can't see me because I'm hiding. If I wanted to I could engage it myself, but I've already got on the teamspeak and called in the nearest helicopter. Which duly turns up and blasts the tank. I get up and run to the next tree line, where my attention is focused on the five infantry and one apc coming to follow up the tank.
I've just faught a battle, but without the enemy ever seeing me or firing a shot. Plus the whole scenario took about 30 seconds, required genuine teamwork and let me survive the mismatched scenario of Sniper vs. Tank. I've also been instantly pitched into the next one, but can choose whether to fight directly or just holler and wait for back up.

It gives me the feeling of being in control and of having outsmarted someone. Even if the Tank driver had seen me, then blown my little sniper to next tuesday, it would have been because I was stupid and picked the wrong hiding place. Not because he's in a tank

Having said that there are plenty of turn based games that are plenty of fun because they allow control in the extreme, games like Chess and Draughts. But since they exist outside of computers, I don't count them as turn based video games.

 

[RoThgar]

Turn based can be very good...*looks towards the sky*... i remember a game once. Incubation was its name, and it was possibly one of the best turn based strategic combat games ever.

Having a squad of soldiers, you were given missions to help you escape from a mutant alien infested city. action points determined how far you could move or shoot, but it was the enemies that determined your strategy, you could put your guys on guard to kill bad guys when they stopped in view. Some enemies had impenetrable front armour so flank and bait was the only way to kill them, you could run out of ammo, your men had different front and back armour so facing was something to think about, even if they didn't die they could still go into panic if they took too many attacks, they then can't do anything until they have rested one turn. Your weapons could overheat, or jam, and possibly blow up your man if you pushed them too much.

I remember a time when turn-based strategy had more depth than a couple of moves ahead.

 

[Manta173]

You guys comparing the complaints of turn based to those of real time aren't considering that the real time games just aren't that good when you are comparing... now I understand wanting to sit and contemplate your moves and I do as well occasionally, but seriously.... thinking is never as exciting as doing. When the computer does you combo for you, you might as well not be there... but when you have to time the "button mashing" it gives a greater sense of accomplishment. (to me at least) Take a look at Witcher for example... you can probably kill most of the lesser creatures by button mashing, but anything big or any boss requires good timing and good strategy... when do I use spell a to help with my attack or spell b to defend as well as what potions do I need to help myself live as well as do damage. All of these considerations are in your average turn based fighting, but these things are done in real time in this game which mean you have to think on your feet... which in my opinion adds a level of difficulty... if you sit there to think about it it gets too tedious and makes for a less enjoyable experience.

 

[SimpleReally]

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