Turn Based Combat

[redwing605]

I have been going around different forums and everywhere I am reading how people hate turn based combat, what is wrong with turn based combat?  All the best RPGs have turn based combat, most of the time a persons fav. RPG has turn based combat yet everyone talks about how much they hate it or how "out dated" it is, why does every RPG have to be action styled for people to enjoy it?

[Kebrel]

I don't see anything wrong if fact I prefer many turn based games to action hack'n'slash. I think for most people its too slow, but in a world were buy off on scams like ADHD its to be expected.

[Lakonthegreat]

I like both, personally.

I like the strategy and foresight involved in turn based combat, but I also enjoy the fast-paced action involved in a real-time dungeon crawler like Diablo.

[nightmare975]

It was turn based combat that made me love Final Fantasy!

I could sit back and plan.

I hated XII for getting rid of that.

[redwing605]

I like both as well, but I don't want all of my RPGs to be action and as sad as it is, it's turning out that way.  Even the new final fantasy is going to be action with turn based elements.  I can't stand to read any review by IGN when it involves RPGs, they dub any game that wants tranditional game play as "out dated" but then turn around and praise games like ff7, its very irritating.

[V_Translanka]

I don't mind either as long as their respective systems are GOOD. It can be difficult to successfully include things like Magic in an action-oriented battle system. Really, they both have good & bad points. Turn based easily allows for intricate planning & strategy. Action-oriented can really keep you in the moment & on your toes...but, I think Active Time Battle systems can accomplish that well enough.

There are no good action-oriented SRPGs that I know of...that's more of an RTS thing, usually, so I'll pretty much always side on turn based.

[Katie Skyye]

I like turn-based because it tends to be easier than normal 'action' battle styles, in that, it you're losing, all you'd have to do is go level up some more. Action-type fighting...usually requires more skill.

Not that turn-based requires no skill! Don't take that the wrong way! It's just...a skill that's easier to master.

When my action games become too difficult, I usually relax to FFIII or CT.

[Kilfer]

This is an interesting argument.

I have to say that while turn-based combat has it's place in the hall of old-school gaming, I will generally conclude that indeed, it has run it's course. I WON'T deny that there are probably far more innovative and creative ways to use turn-based combat, I think there's more efficient ways to handle combat.

You'll see that a lot of run-n-gun games either used a camera pulled back pretty far (third person) or Doom-style (first person). Both styles are unique (first person, is still used often today, and offers quite a personal gaming experience), but you'll find that since Resident Evil 4, many gun-toting games, offer the "over the shoulder camera", which compromises nicely. This view offers the limited view of first person, while still leaving enough room and flexibility for the player to experience the enviroment, and (most of the time ), defend themselves accordingly.


Personally I believe that if we're still using turn-based combat today, it'd better be pretty damn innovative . . .

[placidchap]

I have to say that while turn-based combat has it's place in the hall of old-school gaming, I will generally conclude that indeed, it has run it's course. I WON'T deny that there are probably far more innovative and creative ways to use turn-based combat, I think there's more efficient ways to handle combat.

Turn-based combat has its place, period.  It is not in the halls of old-school gaming, it is in the halls of certain games that are best played as such.  It does not have a place in run and gun games, considering the genre is not called "wait for your turn and gun".
There are many other games with combat that are not suited for run and gun, which are made with the gamers out there who prefer not to run and gun, myself included. 

It is not about efficiency, it is about the type of game made for a type of player.  I have no trouble with turn based combat evolving, but being replaced by the trigger happy run and gun methods...not my cup of tea. 

[V_Translanka]

Yeah, like I mentioned, where would SRPGs even be w/o turn-based battles...?? >_>

[placidchap]

They would be non-existant.  Instead, they would be real time, button mashing, battle royals. so RTBRRPG then, I suppose.

[Thought]

Curious, Nightmare. To my memory, the Final Fantasy series hasn't really required planning since FFI, when characters would beat on a corpses if it was defeated before their turn came up. Much less planning is needed for the rest of the series (though I love FFX because, early on, the planning was much more important than in, say, FFVII).

However, turn based combat allows for a totally different atmosphere than real-time, so I would have to agree that it has its very valuable uses. Case in point: X-Com

The first two games in the series are entirely turn based and the feel is amazing. When a squad is raiding an alien base or fighting survivors of an Etheral crash in the artic at night, I feel the adrenaline start to flow. Shots firing out of the darkness, scrambling to find out where they came from, and of course avoiding Chryssalids are wonderful experiences.

Then there was X-Com: Apocalypse, which offered both Turn Based combat and real time. Because of brain suckers, the game was basically impossible on Turn Based, so Real Time was necessary. Unfortunately, while still a fun game, it seldom had the same creepy feel as the first two.

Games are like books and the combat system is just a particular plot device, as it were. It gives certain feels to games if used right. Just because one system isn't well suited to all stories doesn't mean each is lacking its own worth.

[Kilfer]

Sorry Placid but I'm inclined to disagree. I wasn't saying turn based combat has been REPLACED by run-n-gun games, that combat will most likely stay real-time.

There's a reason that ipods get larger and easier to use. A reason we look for more fuel-efficient cars, faster computers at a reasonable price, ect ect ect.

Turn based combat, player 1 attacks, player 2 attacks, enemy 1 heals, enemy 2 attacks, rinse wash repeat. This method, was used until about, the N64/PS age . . . ever since then, most of the gaming industry has realized there are more effective, fun, interesting ways to handle combat. Admittably There have been a few games in the past that have tried venturing into the past by using turn based combat, but these games were majorly unsuccessful, there's a reason, they're trying to use some classic methods, in a boring way.

Like I said, if a game uses turn based combat, it had better be creative, cause it won't sell most gamers.

[Kebrel]

Thought earns yet another awesome point for having played X-com.

[Molotov]

Turn-based stuff is the best thing since sliced bread, if you ask me. Even if it isn't doesn't have any extra tricks to it, I'm still happy with it. That isn't to say that I don't appreciate some neat tricks to spice things up once in a while, but I have seen said tricks screw up the gameplay on more than one occasion. Good examples of this are found in Langrisser III, IV, and V. They hurt the potential of those games by screwing with the tried and true formula of "move unit, attack enemy, end turn, and repeat."