Is turn-based combat really dead?

What does system wars consider as turn-based? Most final fantasy games work on an Action Timed Battle gauge, and each character acts independently based on their speed. Even Divinity works like this, enemies can attack between allies.... I dont really consider this turn based.

The last true turn based game I can think of is Fire Emblem.

The thing about turn based combat is...

It is a different style and allows for a different ruleset and different mechanics. A lot of the skills in Pokemon would NEVER work in a real time environment. And the inherent differences between TB and RT is one of the many reasons why the IE games never had particulary good combat mechanics and had to put in a lot of house rules. Because a turn based set of mechanics and spells never translate well into real time. It was awkward, horribly balanced and just not a lot of fun. Turn based games like Temple of Elemental Evil, Pool of Radiance and Knights of the Chalice had far superior combat mechanics than any IE game.

Overall, I greatly prefer TB over RTwP or Action. But that mainly comes down to a disappointment of current implementations of ARPGs and RTwPs. ARPGs has almost always felt like a poor man's action game trying to use the RPG bit to excuse shoddy combat. RTwP games have been too busy either trying to emulate mmorpgs (Dragon Age: Origins)

Of course, the current mediocre state of these games does not mean they are to dismissed. RTwP rpgs have a ton of unused potential. And we have seen massive improvement in the ARPG section as of late. Going from Oblivion to Dragon's Dogma.

I was wrong, this post is even more ignorant and stupid.

Turn based combat in an RPG that is simulating a real fight between two people face to face is stupid and any person that defends it in this day and age are as well. The only excuse to use turn based combat is incompetency by devs and to reduce costs. Oh and there is another abysmal thing called ATB which I'm still trying to figure out how can even be called a game mechanic.

Play Fire Emblem, XCOM, Pokemon (or any one of those for that matter). And I mean REALLY play them, don't just read about them or watch videos. Once you do, you'll realize how stupid and unenlightened you sound.

My rule for turn based is that if you leave the game on for 8 hours in the middle of battle without doing anything and you still have not gotten a game over, the game is turn based.

Or better but, the only timekeeping is done through turns. This can be done by a turn order like FF10 or Divinity or it can be phase based like Jagged Alliance or Fire Emblem.

You say that as a negative... in a genre filled to the brim with abstractions, where 'Hit Points' is a thing.

Turn Based is an abstraction, along with the vast majority of mechanics we take for granted in the genre.

XCOM don't actually fit your criteria but even in that game I'm not really a big fan of turn based gameplay. And yes, I did played Valkriya Chronicles which was while fun still feel stupid that I have to take turns to shoot people and such. It's just stupid. And then I tried this abomination of game called FFXIII and I could not stand its combat for more than 2 mins. Hell I have to search google if this ATB is actually a game mechanic or some weired stupid stuff Japanese games usually had and may be I'll get an actual gameplay later.

Yup, I stand by my statement that turn based in RPG makes no sense at all. If you want to put turn based mechanic in a game do it like Total War/Rise of Nations kind of way.

What??? There have been tons of turn based rpgs lately. Didnt play Wasteland 2? Divinity original Sin? I guess? Both fantastic turned based rpgs, then u have pillars of eternity which is a mix of turnbased and real time )that you can customize how you want in the pause menu section).

Turnbased rpgs are the best they have been in years imo. Then you have xcom 2 dropping soon, you guys need to look harder for tun based rpgs, wasteland 2 and divinity original sin are fantastic, although maybe to hard for some.

Correction: we took it for granted in this genre because of the limitations posed by the technology of that time. Just like we take 'Hit Points' for granted because we haven't found a better way to represent health in a game yet.

We can design good and competent realtime combat systems now. Yes, there are many cheap QTE fest combat systems like GoW but there are some awesome as well like DMC3, 4, Souls, Bayonetta, PoP:WW. And no turn based doesn't make the gameplay more challenging. Can say it easily after beating Valkriya Chronicles and playing 5 mins of that turd FFXIII.

Edit: I never said that I'm opposed to turn based combat or won't give a game any chance. I simply find big AAA games backed by big publishers that retail for $60 in this day and age to be lazy and incompetent just like I will find bad graphics, broken controls and no voice acting in a big AAA game.

And I stand by my statement that you're stupid and ignorant.

We have found a better system, or at least, more realistic systems, Dwarf Fortress comes to mind. And are you sure about Turn Based not being difficult. Especially considering Valkyria Chronicles is an easy game. If you want to see a hard TB game then,

Play Fire Emblem: Thracia 776

Once you have beaten that, play Wizardry 4. A game so difficult most cant even survive the first room, let alone the first floor.

And how about Jagged Alliance 2 1.13. Which everyone recommends you beat the base game first before installing.

And dont underestimate ATB either, those too, can be very difficult.

And RTwP (like what Rise of Nations and Total War uses) is not better. Its different. It is less organised, and involves a lot more pausing and a much more easily exploitable AI. It has some strengths, especially over killing trash, just like Turn Based has its strengths.

These games are all way harder than any of the games you listed. And quite frankly, getting past their harder encounters is a lot more satisfying too.

That is a real good distinction, and excludes most FF games except 10. But it includes other games I been playing that I never realized were turn based, like Pit: Sword of the Stars, even the classic Fallouts.

And by this definition, all tactical rpgs games are turn-based... and therefore definitely not dying or dead.

I like turned-based, just as much as I like action-based (or whatever its called). I don't understand this turn-based hate.

All that dude seems to like are the Souls games. lol, talk about boring and repetitive...

Honestly I am fine with the Souls games combat system in being fully real time.. I think both full real time and turnbased are great systems.. It's the abomination known as realtime with pause that I find incredibly awful. I still don't get the praise from that system.. Looking at even ones like Baldur's Gate 2, the combat system was awful with incredibly broken classes and abilities.. Not to mention incredibly dumbed down fights compared to the table top which were turn based affairs..

Same here, I love real time so much. But turn based combat surprised me, even though it's more difficult/challenging than Souls' (or most games), it's still more satisfying, if you fail and keep repeating that plan you'll keep failing, AI already know your moves but if you maybe change it one bit you could win the battle, it does feel like a true battle maybe I'm a noob as (like I said before) I spent sometimes an hour in a battle figuring out how to win. Skills are fantastic I love Witchcraft, that reviving spell at lvl16 or consuming an enemy's health, I need to play enhanced edition as I feel I played the game wrong could've been more varied with my battles not to mention there's a full voice acting!
(Irrelevent to topic) But...there are some annoyances for me like some puzzles required me to find a very tiny switch I had to look for it everywhere. Reading so much, not reading in general, sometimes my eyes hurt well, they fixed this for me by doing a voice acting. Sidequests while fun, felt like a filler/time consuming to me, I mean I felt that I was asked to do so much at same time, where ever I went, more quests kinda like Skyrim or Fallout 3 or even Witcher 1 or DAI for me, not like Witcher 3, maybe because I preferred W3's or I'm biased. Also, I felt that most of the game was battle encounters, yes, each felt different to another but that's what I felt. I need more companions. Anyways I need to finish it again or at least try EE, but in the end I love the game and it's a 10/10 for me, story, rock/paper/scissors, leveling system, traits, equipment, character creation, classes all are also nice.

Not surprised most of the people saying turn based games are outdated are lems.

Yeah me too. I have no problem with different ways to play games. The problem with real time is you often have to dumb down things to account for twitch reactions with limited options, where turn based allows for deeper strategy that isn't just one second ahead of the moment.

@Bigboi500: I like XCOM and Paper Mario. With that said, Dark Souls is infinitely better than any turn based game, EASILY.

Agreed. The ignorance and egocentrism in these posts are hardly bearable.

I'm SO glad that this guy has nothing, really nothing to say or decide in any company that is involved in the development of video games. It's just impossible to even discuss anything here anymore.

THIS is why we can't have good games.

RTwP and turn-based systems are actually pretty similar. RTwP is nothing else than a game that follow the rules of turn-based systems but without the forced breaks between each turn in order to enable a visually better "flow". That's about it. If you would just pause after each background turn you would have almost the same experience as if was "fully" turn-based. BG2 would have played very similar if the system was all turn-based.

You can't compare that to table top gaming. That's an entirely different thing. That systems were changed for the video game had actually very little to do with RTwP (but a lot with how much you could do in video games at that time).

XCOM or DOS EE are easily better and more enjoyable than Dark Souls IMO.

Opinions, opinions...

Well think faster. Its not our fault your slow.

I kid though. Slow paced, more tactical decision making isn't a problem. In fact i welcome some turn based games when every single game out there has become so action heavy. FF was one of my getaways from unreal tournament. A good turn based game can be extremely enjoyable and more relaxing while keeping some semblance of challenge.

With turn based games your playing more with probabilities than anything. Skyrim is hot garbage when it comes to tactics... its basically back peddle while swingning. There is more coordiation/skill in that type of game tactics become more reactionary, the tactics come more from building your character so you can survive a back peddle or circumvent it, but those decisions are made prior to combat. Good turn based games allow you to plan out ahead during combat. Darkest dungeon is a good example of a really well done turn based game and I think it would be really hard to represent equally in real time.

This. Its still there. Just a different method of gameplay is all.

Dude. Its a game. What are you, 12?

I think it's a good decision if a big studio takes a step back from big mindless explosions to make more focused experienced for fans of the specific genre or combat system. The problem with jRPGs isn't turn based combat. It's their art style and poorly written script that puts off most people. Now their price tag is another topic.

I don't mind if the game is not fully voice acted. In DOS, most of the NPCs repeat same dialogues, so it requires less reading once you've read some dialogues in the beginning of the game. Main characters on other hand, keep everything short and brief and you are not bombarded with walls of text. Trust me, I'm not a huge fan of reading but even I didn't have problem with it. As for quests, I liked the idea of being lost. Sometimes I killed the guy by accident, who was important for the completion of my task. Then I read some hints online to see the alternate way to complete the quest.

Turns out I can't do that either because of my "wrong" approach. I though the game is bugged now and there is no way this quest can be completed. But still I found my own way to do it. That's the thing that I like about that game. It offers so much freedom that a lot of people think that it's full of bugs, while the fact is, it gives you freedom to come up with creative ways to complete your objectives, but people expect hand holding in every game these days.

I think games are at their best when they make you feel uncomfortable, when you have no idea what to do next, or when you are completely lost in sandbox levels. It simulates the fear of being in that area in real life. It simulates that without showing you cutscene or copying film industry. As for combat, yes DOS was combat heavy RPG. Some RPGs are story driven while others are combat driven and DOS was the latter. Now with much better writing team on board and all the feedback that they've taken, I expect DOS 2 to be a complete package and one helluva game.

That's where you're wrong about Chess. Chess isn't just turn-based on a strategic level, but it's turn-based on both a strategic and tactical level. Both the tactical fights between individual units and the long-term strategies play out in a turn-based fashion. On a tactical level, Chess isn't too different from the tactical turn-based combat we see in games like Fire Emblem, X-COM, Tactics Ogre, etc.

Turn-based combat will never become "old-fashioned" no matter how much you wish. Chess has been using tactical turn-based combat for thousands of years, and it's still one of the most widely played games in the world to this day, as are plenty of other turn-based board & card games.

If you don't like turn-based games, then you don't need to play them. Every game doesn't need to be homogenous and always play the same as every other game. Variety is a good thing.

The ignorance levels in this thread are too high, can't believe people are actually stupid enough to feel about turn based the way they do. I have no problems with opinion, but when they're baseless and false, I draw the line.

Fire Emblem and Dragon Quest are boring? Pokemon and XCOM's battle systems aren't good? Give me a fucking break. Guy needs to get off whatever he's on.

@Maroxad said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

@Maroxad said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

Turn based combat in an RPG that is simulating a real fight between two people face to face is stupid and any person that defends it in this day and age are as well. The only excuse to use turn based combat is incompetency by devs and to reduce costs. Oh and there is another abysmal thing called ATB which I'm still trying to figure out how can even be called a game mechanic.

You say that as a negative... in a genre filled to the brim with abstractions, where 'Hit Points' is a thing.

Turn Based is an abstraction, along with the vast majority of mechanics we take for granted in the genre.

Correction: we took it for granted in this genre because of the limitations posed by the technology of that time. Just like we take 'Hit Points' for granted because we haven't found a better way to represent health in a game yet.

We can design good and competent realtime combat systems now. Yes, there are many cheap QTE fest combat systems like GoW but there are some awesome as well like DMC3, 4, Souls, Bayonetta, PoP:WW. And no turn based doesn't make the gameplay more challenging. Can say it easily after beating Valkriya Chronicles and playing 5 mins of that turd FFXIII.

Edit: I never said that I'm opposed to turn based combat or won't give a game any chance. I simply find big AAA games backed by big publishers that retail for $60 in this day and age to be lazy and incompetent just like I will find bad graphics, broken controls and no voice acting in a big AAA game.

We have found a better system, or at least, more realistic systems, Dwarf Fortress comes to mind. And are you sure about Turn Based not being difficult. Especially considering Valkyria Chronicles is an easy game. If you want to see a hard TB game then,

Play Fire Emblem: Thracia 776

Once you have beaten that, play Wizardry 4. A game so difficult most cant even survive the first room, let alone the first floor.

And how about Jagged Alliance 2 1.13. Which everyone recommends you beat the base game first before installing.

And dont underestimate ATB either, those too, can be very difficult.

And RTwP (like what Rise of Nations and Total War uses) is not better. Its different. It is less organised, and involves a lot more pausing and a much more easily exploitable AI. It has some strengths, especially over killing trash, just like Turn Based has its strengths.

These games are all way harder than any of the games you listed. And quite frankly, getting past their harder encounters is a lot more satisfying too.

The point still stands that turn based is archaic combat system and have no place in modern gaming. All your examples speak for themselves that it was only because of the limitation of technology available at that time that turn based was used. In any modern game using turn based is simple being lazy. Not to say that it simply makes no sense at all in the context of RPG's no matter how you put it.

I'm someone who greatly enjoys both JRPGs and WRPGs, real time combat and turn based combat. Both Mass Effect and Fire Emblem are included in my all time favourites lists. I love games like Skyrim (terrible combat, btw), and I love games like Persona. Witcher and Pokemon. What I am is someone who isn't ridiculously ethnocentric and astoundingly ignorant like you are. I have played- REALLY played- both types of games, having put countless hundred hours into both, and I can see the faults and the advantages of both those systems, and I can tell you that saying stuff like "devs only use turn based when they have no money" and "turn based has no depth" makes you sound like- and this is big praise- the stupidest person on this forum (keep in mind this forum houses some of the stupidest people any forum has ever seen). It's absolutely untrue. And saying stuff like "yeah I played Valkyria Chronicles" when I'm talking about Fire Emblem or XCOM only compounds that.

So here's an idea- either grow some fucking brains or at least have the decency to not inflict the rest of us with your goddamned imbecility, because seriously, it's more than I and many others have the patience to tolerate.

Nope, all I'm saying is turn based gameplay by big studios backed by big publishers in this day and age are simple being lazy and incompetent. It's fun to see the same people that trash TLOU for Ellie's stupid AI (myself included) and enemy AI in MGS 5 for being unrealistic because it can't see Snake while being crouched. You all rip apart games for having unrealisic AI, graphics, Physics etc but have no problem with turn based games by big fucking AAA studios that makes a game simulating a fight between two people to be turn based. Yeah, it's so realistic and perfectly okay for video games in this day and age to have turn based combat, like in Valkriya Chronicles where you can't even move two soldiers together in a same turn; give me a break.

All of you people defending turn based in AAA games that retail for $60, please tell me that you would have no problem buying Undertale even if it was priced at the same $60. It's fucking hypocrisy by all of you.

You and I both know that to be true. It takes more resources to develop a competent and good real-time combat system than putting a turn based system. It's not even debatable. No wonder only JRPGs are the genre that is still stuck using that, since we alll know how incompetent Japanese devs usually are with regards to modern technology and control systems. No wonder they are still stuck in the 1980's and refuse to evolve. Hey what else can you expect from Japanese devs that don't even know hot to program Mouse and Keyboard.

Deal with it, turn based is an archaic system, whose only excuse to be used in video games is because of the limitation posed by the technology of that time. Video games usually have mechanics that try to simulate real life at best as it can within the bounds of current technology and still being fun. Turn based is fucking stupid in the context of modern day RPGs.

You remember how they tried making XCOM real time? That game was horrible. Glad they dumped that pos and made XCOM 2 turn based again.

Are you for real here?

Larian showcased far greater talent with their battle system in Original Sin than Obsidian did with Pillars of Eternity. While Turn Based RPGs, may be the easiest to program Pathfinding and AI for (and thus, still has the best pathfinding to date). They also have by far the highest demand on good encounter design.

And JRPGs only using Turn Based Combat, have you even been paying attention to wRPGs... like at all?!? Have you even noticed how many wRPGs that have come out as of late that use Turn Based Combat?

@jbc7343: I doubt Civilization series is finish and there is good turn base combat into that.

Yes, but there is a difference between $60 worth of game published by major AAA studio packed by a big publisher and small independent developer like Larian.

The only RPGs where action-based combat works better than turn-based are games where you only control 1 character, and those games are very rarely any good.

How do you even come to the weird conclusion that the gameplay has ANYTHING to do with the price tag of the game or is even its decisive factor? I can tell you one thing: Divinity Original Sin has bigger production values, more content, depth and complexity than a lot of the so called AAA games that came out recently. But of course it doesn't feature almost photo-realistic graphics and that's why it isn't seen as a AAA game by almost everybody. Making extremely good graphics is the biggest cost driver in video games, not gameplay. Almost every big AAA game has to offer the newest graphics and/or a chunkload of whatever content. The gameplay itself has no influence whatsoever on the price tag. And even IF there was such an influence, there was still no connection between what the mainstream expects and what is good and functional gameplay. No games has to be for everyone (even if some pubs really try to do so with well, kind of sad results mostly...).

And you know, the ultimate goal of video games is NOT to recreate reality but to offer fun and entertainment. And even if you personally only want experiences that try to recreate (a form) of reality that doesn't make anything else outdated. And well, the point about reality or better believability in games is that your game has to be CONSISTENT. That means if you want to make a realistic, believable game all systems should cater to that design goal, creating a consistent experience. That's why that stuff in TLOU and MGS are criticized, because it diminishes the overall design goal of making a game that offers a kind of consistent reality within the boundaries of the game. Turn-based games are usually a lot more abstract. Their overall design goal is usually not visual(!) reality or believability but a trade-off between strategic and tactical gamePLAY and a story. Often - like in most CRPGs - turn-based games also offer a much more abstract (and less audio-visual) way of telling a story, e.g. by written text instead of voice overs and cutscenes. I know that you think that this is outdated as well but the simple reality is that it isn't outdated like movies don't render books useless. It's just a different kind of experience that caters to different people, different tastes or just different needs in specific situations.

The simple truth is that you and only you are limited to one specific way to play games (action games that try to be kind of realistic) and I honestly pity you for that self-limitation. How about just staying humble and letting have others fun with turn-based games (that are about offering a fun gameplay to PLAY with) and accepting that these games just aren't for you instead of trying to push your opinion - and a lot worse - you personal, limited choice on everybody? It's really sad, bro, that you hate both variety and the tastes and opinions of other people that much...

Well, I guess according to his "philosophy" every party-based game/RPG is outdated as well. Action RPGs with only one character are of course the natural evolution of basically every other kind of gameplay or game design that was there before... :P

Doesnt change the fact that despite their inferior funding, they showed considerably more talent and capability than these AAA devs did with their battle systems. Just imagine how badly they would have schooled them with more funding.

>Summon's Esper

@Lulu_Lulu

hey bud a thread 4 u. go get em.

This is the only sensible thing you said in this thread. Everything else is facepalm material.

I'm sorry, I don't know that to be true. I feel like a broken record here, but the likes of Fire Emblem and Pokemon prove that turn based combat is anything but shallow. The amount of depth and complexity those games have in their battle systems themselves is ridiculous, you can write entire essays on them. I won't deny that turn based combat can be shallow, but so can real time combat. Play Dragon Age II. That's an RPG that has real time combat, and it's the shittiest combat system of all time, it's just button mashing. Depth and complexity have nothing to do with what kind of a battle system the game has, both turn based and real time combat systems can be incredibly complex and stupidly shallow.

And you're taking issue with the fact that turn based battles against massive dragons aren't realistic? Oh, and real time battles against massive dragons are? When was the last time you saw a dragon? That is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever read. RPGs aren't simulators. Simulators are simulators. Games aren't about being incredibly realistic and simulating lifelike situations. Games are about being fun and engaging, and turn based combat excels in that department when it's done right, and it's done right a lot.

Turn based is very relevant. I don't know how to get this into your muddled, simplistic mind, but I'm gonna try anyway, because it pains me to see someone as ignorant and stupid as you. Your arguments are fallacious and baseless. The likes of Pokemon and Persona are very relevant in the modern RPG context, and they employ excellent turn based systems, and the likes of Fire Emblem and Pokemon have actual, real depth to their combat, more so than most real time action RPGs.

Also, do you seriously think JRPGs are the only games that use turn based system? Really now? And these "incompetent Japanese devs" you seem to have such a problem with have given this industry some of the best RPGs ever in the past few years themselves, you lamebrained ethnocentric prick.

I would have agreed with what you said.

Until I played Labyrinth of Touhou. That game has the only good implementation of ATB I have seen so far.

I'm sorry but that is just a stupid argument, the whole point of tactics is that they require a strategy, a strategy takes time to conceive. Turn based is as tactical as the depth of the game allows, while being the main skill required from the player (no, not all turn based games are JRPG's that allow you to grind).

Hmm,maybe I´ll check it out at some point,though the artstyle isn´t exactly my cup of tea. The concept looks pretty neat though.
Is the translation any good?

No, but mainstream games have moved on from it.

I would of thought Xcom showed how much the genre is still thriving and it sold so well they are making another one.

The translation is pretty complete, the writing isnt very good though but still. But it really isnt a particulary dialogue heavy game. As for artstyle, Labyrinth of Touhou 2 has a much more consisntant artstyle.

Anywyas, the reason it works is because,

• Unlike FF, the ATB doesnt freakin move when you are selecting an action, resulting in a less stressful experience and actually encouraging you to do more than just default attacks.
• Unlike FF, the ATB has a lot more ways it can be manipulated by the agents in the game. Whereas in FF it was just haste and slow, there are a lot more tools to manipulate the ATB in LoT.
• In a way, partially due to being able to see the enemy's ATB. You are much more capable of planning the ATB, switching out to let someone else take a big hit for instance.

So, whose at fault here? Again, that brings me back to the same conclusion that it's incompetency and laziness by devs that they don't design good realtime combat system an instead go for the cheap and easy turn based combat.

That makes turn based games from big AAA studios even more questionable. If a smaller dev team can do these things with less resources what excuse in the world do they idiots have for not designing a competent realtime combat when they blow millions upon millions on advertising.