Turn Based Combat

[Ramsus]

Of all the turn-based console RPG battle systems I've played, I personally like FF X's the best. The gameplay was a bit simple at times, but it had a good pace and rhythm to it that made it more fun than a lot of real-time combat systems, even without the addition of timed triggers and other gimicks to add an "action" feel.

[Kilfer]

Agreed, FFX's combat was a good compromise of real time combat, using a paced turn based mechanic. Definitely liked it.

[placidchap]

majorly unsuccessful

Examples of those majorly unsuccessful games?  I can't remember them (not sarcastic).

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

Which concurs with my sentiment regarding "most gamers".

Any game should be creative and innovative, not just turn-based ones.  Seeing the piles of crap that is put out these days, I would say "most gamers" do not particularly care if it is creative.

"BOOOOM!....HEAD SHOT!"

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Seeing that I'm playing through FFX as we speak, I can speak on behalf of Tidus and company when I say that the battle mechanics were delish.  They were old school turn-based but with some new mechanics and flair!  Papa like!

[Thought]

Hmm... FFX. Despite the fact that I fell asleep the first time I played it, it is one of my favorite FF games. Can I be analytical towards it for a minute (and by minute I probably mean more like 5 or 10)?

One of the great benefits of FFX was that until the last part of the game, every single character had a unique role in combat and switching them in and out as necessary was easy. All of those things could have happened in real time, just not as easily or as effectively (okay, to be honest, it would have been craptacular). Tidus was the man if you needed speed, Wakka if you wanted someone who could hit some of those dodgy baddies, Lulu for physical resistant baddies, Auron against heavy defenses, Yuna for healing (and for the best Summon system I've ever seen in a game to date), Rikku as a sort of situational specialist (her role, unfortunately, felt the weakest to me), and Kimari to play as support for whatever area the individual player felt was needed. Beautiful; the game is worthwhile to play for the system alone.

Lord of the Rings: The Third Age tried to imitate the system, unfortunately it did so rather imperfectly, a result of the skill system used in that game, actually (if I am remembering right, one has to use a skill type to gain new abilities in that skill group). This resulted in players really needing to focus on a few characters, and a few skill types, to really level those skills up and get amazing attacks. I think this reveals the flaw with The Third Age and the beauty of FFX: their skills systems in comparison to their combat method (that is, in comparison to being Turn Based RPGs).

In FFX, the Sphere Grid works wonderfully; sure, it limits a character's advancement to one or two very specific lines of progression until late in the game (when the sphere grid can be largely unlocked and characters warped around it, so that Auron becomes as fast as Tidus, as accurate as Waka, and as supportive as Yuna), but for the majority of the game the grid's restriction forces characters to stay in unique roles; there is little fear that Tidus can replace Auron early on, which forces players to use all characters fairly regularly. Add to that the fact that the sphere grid offers a lot of advancement, players get rewarded after almost every battle (small rewards, usually, but the sphere grid spaces larger rewards well enough that a player gets a larger reward fairly often). If we took these non-turn-based elements away from FFX, I think it would be much less interesting to play and I doubt many of us would be holding it up as a wonderful example of the style.

The Third Age, on the other hand, had levels that resulted in stat points to allocate and skills that developed by use. At level up, players could make all the characters equally as physically powerful, accurate, or whatever. But because of the characters skills and basic nature leaning towards a particular direction and role, the freedom to develop character stats as desired was largely illusionary. In the end, it was slightly more flexible than the Sphere Grid, but by removing skills from the equation (that larger rewards mentiond above), it made leveling less interesting and reduced each character's uniqueness in combat (thereby reducing the amount of time one character would be switched out for another, which in turn reduces the dynamic nature that the turn based combat was complementing, and at the end making that turn based combat less fun than it could have been). Because skill types could only improve with use, it forces players to fall into ruts. Characters are then chosen for combat not based on their actual immediate use but on their long term development. Though there was greater complexity and more player choice opportunities than the Sphere Grid presented, it ultimately actually led to less variety and complexity in combat (and if there is less variety and complexity, one can more easily get away with Real Time combat as opposed to Turn Based).

Thus, for FFX, turn based combat complemented (and was complemented by) a beautiful character progression system. If there hadn't been that synthesis, then the result would have been much less spectacular.

[V_Translanka]

The one thing I hated about the Sphere Grid (can you say TANGENT, Thought?) were empty nodes...Each time I passed an empty node, I'm pretty sure a part of me died inside. It was like I was going through battles & leveling up only my stats weren't changing...V_V

[Thought]

The one thing I hated about the Sphere Grid (can you say TANGENT, Thought?) were empty nodes...Each time I passed an empty node, I'm pretty sure a part of me died inside. It was like I was going through battles & leveling up only my stats weren't changing...V_V

Tang...ent? Is that when Tree Sheperds dance? Sorry, you've totally lost me. But is it really a tangent if with it the turn based combat in FFX if wonderful and without it the same sort of turn based combat is much less enthralling?

Aye, empty levels are a bane on all RPGs. Since I am a geek, I can tell you that such was one of the largest design complaints of 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons (and in turn one of the things that 4th edition tried to address).

[Kilfer]

For the record, I was stupid thinking x=12, not 10 :-p

Gotta rush this post and head out, party! Be back tonight.

[MeshGearFox]

Turn based or real time -- either is fine. For me, it's all how they're implemented that matters.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Whoa whoa whoa!  In FFX...

Rikku can immediately defeat most machina enemies just by using the "Steal" command.

But to paraphrase...

Tidus versus agile creatures.
Wakka versus flying creatures.
Auron versus shelled (high defense) creatures.
Lulu versus Elements (elemental, high defense) creatures.
Yuna all around White Mage and Summoner.
Kimahri as the Blue Mage and whatever else you want him to be (seeing as how his central portion of the Sphere Grid is small, and he soon has the ability to cross over into any other characters portion of the Grid).

[redwing605]

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.

Okay for one "most gamers" are playing crap games like GTA so I don't want to hear that crap, two MOST RPGs don't do extremely well in America thats why we get screwed out of a lot of them(dragon quest 4-6 for example).  The only RPGs that sell good are the FF games that's it.

[Kilfer]

The fact that you just called GTA a crap game, is why most gamers are stereotyped as people who never see light and have no real "social" intelligence, and why I can disregard your post entirely. Lemme guess, Call of Duty 4 was a bad game? Along with the Metal Gear Solid series? And any other game series for that matter that nearly lacks any RPG elements? That's my problem, far too many gamers close themselves to one genre, and are NOT open or flexible about other games.



Oh and about the majorly unsuccessful, I wanna clarify that I don't mean that they were horribly disasters for making money, just that as a WHOLE, turn based fighting games aren't, all that popular. Examples, Eternal Sonata, Lost Oddyssey(don't tell me it was good, it was average, nothing more, nothing less). I could oh, IGN, Gamespot, or google others, but it's not worth the effort. Simply go to a reviewers website of your choice, slide to the RPG's section, and find the average games, and the above average. Most of the average or below, likely consists of turn based combat games.

[redwing605]

The fact that you just called GTA a crap game, is why most gamers are stereotyped as people who never see light and have no real "social" intelligence, and why I can disregard your post entirely. Lemme guess, Call of Duty 4 was a bad game? Along with the Metal Gear Solid series? And any other game series for that matter that nearly lacks any RPG elements? That's my problem, far too many gamers close themselves to one genre, and are NOT open or flexible about other games.



Oh and about the majorly unsuccessful, I wanna clarify that I don't mean that they were horribly disasters for making money, just that as a WHOLE, turn based fighting games aren't, all that popular. Examples, Eternal Sonata, Lost Oddyssey(don't tell me it was good, it was average, nothing more, nothing less). I could oh, IGN, Gamespot, or google others, but it's not worth the effort. Simply go to a reviewers website of your choice, slide to the RPG's section, and find the average games, and the above average. Most of the average or below, likely consists of turn based combat games.

No I loved the MGS games in fact it is my fav. game series MGS4 was a masterpiece, Call of Duty 4 is a really good game too.  Most of my collection is FPS and why because RPGs suck too much right now to give me a decent story.  Do not judge me because I think GTA is stupid the game it only shows how far our society has fallen to the point where we like to pick up hookers and kill them after words for enjoyment. 

Now Lost Odyssey that game sold decent for an RPG in America over 200,000 copes in the first month alone.  Now about how good the game well it is divided depending on the reviewer Game Informer loved the game battle system included, Game Spot praised Lost Odyssey's fascinating cast, and character development, and also called the combat system solid, you notice what it didn't say it didn't say they hated it, and 1UP liked it because of the time button press.  IGN is the only one who totally dismissed the combat but they still recommended it to everyone.  Scores aren't everything if people actually listened to those then most Wii games wouldn't sell(I have a Wii and love it to death, so I am not bashing the system).

Eternal Sonata IGN gave the game an 8.3 claiming that it had some of the best visuals on the 360 and had great combat.  If you ever actually played the game you would know that it doesn't have traditional combat, it only starts out sorta turn based like Star Ocean then moves into a faster action styled turn based combat.  Most people who enjoy RPGs don't mind if it is turn based even the ones who really tired of it like IGN.

[V_Translanka]

And though the series is changing (i think?), you can always point out the Dragon Quest series...the IV-VI remakes on DS are of course, doing great in Japan already...*shrugs*

[Kilfer]

Do not judge me because I think GTA is stupid the game it only shows how far our society has fallen to the point where we like to pick up hookers and kill them after words for enjoyment.
Well . . . now killing them . . . I mean that depends on your preference . . . Pimp's gotta get his money back SOMEHOW 

Now Lost Odyssey that game sold decent for an RPG in America over 200,000 copes in the first month alone.  Now about how good the game well it is divided depending on the reviewer Game Informer loved the game battle system included, Game Spot praised Lost Odyssey's fascinating cast, and character development, and also called the combat system solid, you notice what it didn't say it didn't say they hated it, and 1UP liked it because of the time button press.  IGN is the only one who totally dismissed the combat but they still recommended it to everyone.  Scores aren't everything if people actually listened to those then most Wii games wouldn't sell(I have a Wii and love it to death, so I am not bashing the system).
Note I said majorly unsuccesful meant, not selling well. I personally played through, AND finished Eternal Sonata, and like FF12, it's combat was turn based, yet unique. ES however, did not sell well (though seriously, sometimes, the cutscenes are like freakin japanese animes translated horribly to english).

If you ever actually played the game you would know that it doesn't have traditional combat
Played it, was average. The artistry and graphics of the game were good, as well as the combat being interesting. I will say however, again, there's a reason it didn't sell pretty fast.