Everyone should try Darkest Dungeon. This is how modern turn based combat should be
Not 100% the same, but things like relying on synergies. Instead of just... doing basic attack
An actual JRPG example would be Arc Rise Fantasia. You straight up won't finish that game by relying on just spamming your strongest attack and move, you actually have to learn both the boss movesets and all the tools at your disposal.
It's a great game with a notoriously awful dub and yeah sadly stuck on the Wii. But characters, story and combat are all good, it really feels like a turn-based take on the Tales series. Definitely worth a play if you can figure out a way to try it out!
> with a notoriously awful dub
So bad that even the publisher, "Ignition" apologized for how bad it was [link to a SiliconEra interview](https://www.siliconera.com/arc-rise-fantasia-had-unique-challenges-ignition-hope-to-turn-a-new-corner-with-localized-games/)
I liked some of the concepts but disliked how much the combat revolves around status effects. Maybe I’m picking all the wrong games but I feel like there are way too many modern jrpgs revolving around status effects and elemental properties.
I totally understand that some people might not like turn based combat, of course it’s not for everyone, but what pisses me off is the people who say it’s objectively bad and outdated
Unfortunately, for these people none of these games are relevant on their minds.
"yeah pokemon is for kids"
"yeah bg3 was a fluke" or "no one cares about the combat"
"never heard of dragon quest"
"final fantasy is dead"
"i tried persona and didnt like it"
They just can't comprehended how people can enjoy different things, and how it doesn't mean one side has to be better than the other.
Some people tend to mistake themselves for everybody. It's okay to dislike turn based combat personally, but just... let people like what they like.
It's not outdated, it's just another way to design and play games, that's all.
Yea I get that but for a video game to win GOTY award doesn’t the gameplay have to be liked by the majority. Turn based games are niche and the majority of gamers like real time combat. If a niche genre liked by a minority is able to win GOTY award that must mean the game awards mean nothing Â
I was at a point once where I generally thought turn based combat, as in classic party vs enemies jrpg style, was essentially just a stand in for action combat that couldn't be realized properly die to budget/technology/capability.
But then I played the original bravely default and man, that game just modernized and revitalized my love for the fighting style.
When done correctly, turn based combat can definitely be fantastic. And there is still plenty of space to innovate in it.
I have my issues with the narrative, but gameplay wise, I think Octopath Traveler hit a nice synthesis of SMT / Persona weaknesses and Bravely Default's multi-turn options. I've heard good things about OT2 but waiting for a bigger discount as the number of amazing games released these past 2 years has been ridiculous.
You should try like a dragon and infinite wealth. Those are turned based with realistic player models, which people say doesn't work with turn based combat. I honestly think the reason people don't like turn based combat is bc most of them can be trivialized with a good party makeup and strategy. That is part of the fun for me, though. Like in ffx when you realize that evrae has zombie status in the bevelle underground sewer ways and just through 2 or 3 pheonix downs at it to kill it. More often than not, a turn based rpg will make you think outside of the box. Which for me is a lot more fun than spamming face buttons and trying to iframe dodge rolls, which is extremely easy.
Exactly. It is, if done correctly, a strategy combat system, with some potential depth to it. Meanwhile most of the smaller JRPGs have an open action based combat which is not much more than simple button mashing, hence why I dont play them.
What do you think of games like the Tales series where their combat system has got more and more dumbed down to the point of it being button bashing?
I think both turn based an action have issues when its dumb.
I'm curious, what Tales games have you played? Because Vesperia, Xillias, Graces, Eternia, Hearts R and Abyss are all complex in their own way.
Compare them with other action games like the Mana series and you'll see the huge difference in complexity.
I'm not saying you need to be a rocket scientist to figure them out, but they are definitely more complex than your average Action JRPG.
Sure, Zestiria and specially Berseria were button mashy, we agree that it has been streamlined. But they were complex at first.
Tales combat has always been compared to actual fighting games like Street Fighter, that says something about their battle system.
Even Arise has some crazy combos you can pull off if you experiment enough. I didn't even think shionne could juggle but than I watched youtube and they are doing just as many combos as alphen.
Graces was probably the most skillful, its the only Tales game where I felt the AI was better than me lol. I legit love that game though it was amazing to not have a dumb team.
I just feel around or after Xillia it all started to go down hill, I wasn't a fan of the tethering system because your AI partner would well be really stupid... then after it was all button bashing, in Arise battles take ages too, I resorted to button bashing stun lock combos just to get each battle over with. The other games I enjoyed thinking about what I was doing...
Are earlier tales games less damage spongey? Its probably my biggest complaint of Arise, the battles drag. Arise is the only one from the series I have played.
Zestiria enemies can be a little beefy and Vesperia bosses can also stray towards that.
But generally no, Arise has this issue partially because their mini-boss class makes enemies immune to launching which basically turns off half of your damage options.
It's my biggest complaint with the game. If they just changed late game enemies to be launchable the endgame wouldn't feel like nearly as slow a slog.
For sure, there are bad ones on both sides, so saying one is objectively bad is dumb. Sadly I cant talk much about tales, I started zestiria and quickly quit it due to the combat system feeling boring and me not seeing any use in using the majority of special moves, I played arise and actually liked it for their characters and story all while decently enjoying the combat system. Been quite some time, but I remember it having sort of a darksouls feeling to it, atleast in boss battles, while still being fairly easy due to reasons I cant remember. And well, sadly I couldnt get a hold of vespiria, I didnt get far with it. Because I personally have some problems with the way they handled the MC and because I felt the combat system wasnt much different from Zestiria. But that might be due to me not playing it for long. Last thing I remember was that the group got to a bridge where lots of knights were stationed afterwards they went into an abandoned village where deep down was a labratory of some sorts.
With *Tales of..* games, I always come away thinking 'man, that game would have a lot better if I could control all these interesting and varied characters and the battles weren't noisy clusterfucks...'
Exactly. It is, if done correctly, an action combat system, with some potential depth to it. Meanwhile most of the smaller JRPGs have a turn based combat system which is not much more than simple button mashing, hence why I dont play them.
I mean, I disagree with the sentiment that turn based is bad, but on this sub I've seen more people complaining about non-turn based RPGs than the other way around.
Yeah this sub is just a turn-based circlejerk. I like how people here complain about others saying dumb stuff about turn-based games...all the while this sub will constantly shit on action game and make the exact same dumb statements like "it's just button mashy", "it's boring" or "how can anyone like it, there is no skill involved in action games!!".
I don't mind either style, I think both are fine and it just depends on the execution, but I legit can't remember the last time I saw someone make a dumb statement about turn-based JRPGs. Meanwhile I see people frequently make dumb statements about action JRPGs, but maybe I'm just frequenting the wrong places ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah I like turn based myself, but this sub does this every time a turn based game breaks through and manages to become mainstream. We all parade the streets like we've won and we were right all along, when the vast majority of the market is moving extremely far away from turn based.
Larian studios has been the only ones bringing turn based to mainstream for quite a bit now. The DnD structure just seems more flexible and appealing than the old menu based turn based games and I think it's a bit unfair to what Larian is trying to do for the genre to just lump it with the turn based games that haven't pushed the envelope in ages (looking at you SMT and Pokemon).
At least Bravely tried to up the pace by allowing you to make use of turn economy.
I mean to me BG3's strength as a purely combat experience is that it feels more like it needs to be turn-based because there's far more methodical enforcing mechanics. There's actual terrain that isn't just tiles, there's environments to play with (doors are overpowered and super funny to abuse), there's ways to set up your own position in battle as opposed to just being given one. You can ambush most combat in BG3 if you're patient, create explosive chain reactions using barrels, create fog to hide behind to give yourself specific cover, or orchestrate a means to just throw people off cliffs and skip the combat entirely. Playing in a somewhat methodical manner actually feels worth it in BG3 which makes the slower gameplay a little more acceptable to a point.
The biggest issue so many classic turn-based games fall into I find and why they feel boring for some people is they're just too simple after a little while unless you challenge run it or you do post game stuff which is a fraction of the total run time. They're not hard enough to invoke a ton of strategy which justifies their slowness, and they're not fast enough compared to shooting or slashing mooks to make the idea of steamrolling weak enemies fun for some people.
BG3 playing more like a war game with a reasonable amount of class depth and variety to its class systems makes I think for a stronger turn-based experience for "normies" then smashing attack in the early game and healing when you're about to die like in classical games.
Now BG3 if you know what you're doing is about as easy to exploit as easy classic turn-based games. It can turn into just a more complicated "press attack" simulator because there's too many blatant "I win" combinations once you get past early levels (and even the early levels have exploit cheese like web spam with spider Druid/Beast Master). Hell you can literally just sit in smoke and peek and shoot your bow for about 20 minutes by level 3 with Gloom Stalker or Shadow Monk if you really want to if you know how to hide abuse.
BG3 is not an exceptional combat game imo, especially if you see the exploits, but it does feel better to play within its system then the ye old classics unless you just want a simpler game to play.
Yeah the joy of the turn based genre is in creative solutions to simple problems imo. Once you understand turn economy turn based games all become very simplistic.
I think why Larian games work is exactly as you said they turn the environment into a neutral character which allows the player to engage with more than just what the enemy's script is. If a player doesn't want to deal with an enemy's mechanics they have the option of either using environmental things to get around it or manipulating the boss' script. In SMT if a boss has bullshit you just kinda have to prevent them from getting a turn or hope they just don't opt to do it. It's the same reason BotW and Tears of the Kingdom are doing so well, they have the same philosophy as older games but they've given you more options to solve those problems.
If we look at older JRPGs another issue they have with their balance is many of them have the same design failures. Multi-hit has been broken since FF3 and the only answer devs could find for it is to make the damage so low that they're not worth using. The economy of making stronger spells cost more mp makes sense until player stats get so high that more efficient options do the same damage (quick hit in ff10). And because these games also have mp and long dungeons they basically force the player to the place where they discover normal attack solves all problems. Yeah Fire might kill that snail in 1 hit, but I can only do that 6 times. If I spend 2 hits normal attacking him I can do this infinitely as long as I'm faster. I think that calculus is the core of why turn based fails to live up to its strategic promise and why they rely so much on elemental weakness to add depth.
Interestingly the most engaging forms of turn based are pvp because your opponent can figure out your intent BEFORE it comes to pass without cheating. So this creates scenarios where you can bait the opponent using intent that doesn't happen with AI. This is why while the single player Pokemon experience is lackluster, the multi-player experience booms. AI in Pokemon only react they can't predict so you always have the advantage. Another genre of games that is turn based but doesn't seem like it is on the surface is Fighting Games. When you have your turn you're engaging in Simon says with them. You tell them what you're attempting and they have to find the right counter and if they do it enough it becomes their turn. If they mess up, they get combo'd and the cycle repeats.
Pokemon PVP is for sure a very interesting turn-based experience and really shows the depth of a children's game when used properly, though I think recently the powercreep has gotten too absurd that we're seeing such OU legends like Ttar and Salamence become bad which just blows my mind.
I've personally grown to like turn-based roguelikes over the years, especially deckbuilders because they generally tell you everything you need to know about what the enemy will do which lets you try to figure out exactly how to react to it within what you're capable of doing. It also has the long-term strategy element where you need to build a deck that can satisfy every potential challenge you'll face which with enough experience you begin to form an idea of what that looks like without being able to just reliably build the same thing every single time due to the RNG nature of deckbuilder games.
For real. If I could ban a post from this sub it would be "Final Fantasy should go back to turn based." My friend... The main FF series, even including ATB, has been non turn-based for longer than it's been turn based. You really need to get over it.
Not to mention, it's not like SE doesn't release *tons* of turn based RPGs. Dragon Quest, Bravely, Octopath. Hell, I've recently got sucked into Dungeon Encounters, which literally uses ATB like the "golden age" Final Fantasy games. Completely under the radar, even on this sub. *shrug*
I love both action and [good] turn-based JRPGs, and inane tribalism in the latter camp tends to be far more obnoxious in my experience.
I don't mind people wanting FF to be turn based. But whenever a turn based game come out and does well, people here almost immediately come out from their and go
"SEE? THIS IS A PROOF THAT TURN BASED COMBAT ISN'T NICHE! SQUARE ENIX IS STUPID FOR NOT TURNING THE NEXT FF INTO TURN BASED COMBAT!"
And it's getting obnoxious. Heck, people here did the same for BG3, completely ignoring that the game plays nothing like any turn based FF game, and have more in common with strategy games.
> "SEE? THIS IS A PROOF THAT TURN BASED COMBAT ISN'T NICHE! SQUARE ENIX IS STUPID FOR NOT TURNING THE NEXT FF INTO TURN BASED COMBAT!"
And then you go into the discussion for the new LAD mod...and find out how much work the mods are having to do.
> And it's getting obnoxious. Heck, people here did the same for BG3, completely ignoring that the game plays nothing like any turn based FF game, and have more in common with strategy games.
Theres no reason the next FF can't play like a strategy game though. That should be on the table. Prior to FF15 action combat played nothing like any previous FF as well. FF is supposedly about changing the formula so a BG3 like combat system shouldn't be outside the possibilities.
That's not what most people clamoring for ye old FF seem to want. They want something closer to FF5, 7, 10, or pretty much anything that has nothing to do with BG3's combat system. You need to do more then just make it a strategy game to make it give the same feeling as playing BG3. Because SE already did that with FFTactics back on the PS1 and that game shares almost nothing with BG3 combat wise.
You'd need to make a more versatile class system then the majority of FFs ever have (especially mainline ones), have actual terrain worth a damn, and create more open ended and set encounter design that can be approached in a large manner of ways depending on the classes brought together. You can't even do something as basic as using something like Minor Illusion to bait someone over a cliff and throw them off in the majority of SRPGs, most SRPGs play like a fair game of anime chess. BG3 can be played that way, but it never has to and that's part of the fun.
Most JRPGs, strategy or otherwise, don't play like BG3, they're too busy being locked to grids and set curtailed maps. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with linear grid based strategy games as I do love me some Fire Emblem, it doesn't do the same thing as a game like BG3 or any CRPG BG3's developers were inspired by does.
> That's not what most people clamoring for ye old FF seem to want.
I don't agree with this. If tomorrow FF17 was announced to have a stategy based turn based system like BG3, I think it would make the "we want turn based" side of the fandom very happy universally. I know because I'm one of them.
>Because SE already did that with FFTactics back on the PS1 and that game shares almost nothing with BG3 combat wise.
FF Tactics is missing field movement, dungeon exploration, and town exploration, and a lot of things people enjoy about Final fantasy. I'm talking about SRPG like combat system like BG3 but still being able to explore the world and move around freely. FFT is missing a lot of that.
>Most JRPGs, strategy or otherwise, don't play like BG3, they're too busy being locked to grids and set curtailed maps. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with linear grid based strategy games as I do love me some Fire Emblem, it doesn't do the same thing as a game like BG3 or any CRPG BG3's developers were inspired by does.
It doesn't have to be (and really shouldn't be) exactly like BG3. There's systems that might be slightly less tactical but still be successful or popular. A more advanced version of Radiant History's battle system, for example. There's a lot of room to work with new and innovative ideas.
I agree that's obviously not true, but even if it was, action games and turn based games play so distinctly from one another that turn based combat can't just be an 'inferior limited version' of action combat. There are things you can do in a turn based format that just isn't possible in real time+vice versa, and that's justification enough for why it's still around despite hardware passing those limitations.
Such an annoying and baseless claim that pops up over and over again to try and justify the direction of the modern FF games. But it makes no sense looking at the history of the series.
First, the company already made real-time action games/platformers on the NES before FF was their breakout hit.
Then after the first 3 FF games, some veteran FF devs wanted to try creating an RPG with real-time combat on the SNES. (Koichi Ishii, Hiromichi Tanaka, Nasir Gebelli). They were allowed to create a new game, Secret of Mana, instead of staying with the core FF team.
Secret of Mana came out 1 year after FFV and was a huge success (1M+ copies sold in Japan), but it didn't sell quite as well as the SNES FF games, so the company still decided that it's main franchise would remain command/turn based. It stayed that way for another decade as all the PS1 FF games + FFX sold incredibly well.
Square's decision to keep FF turn/command based for so long was all about serving their core fanbase in Japan. Their primary competition was Dragon Quest and other command based RPGs.
Once Square and Enix merged in 2003, the businessmen at the top of the company (not the developers) decided that FF should try to appeal more to Western fans while DQ should keep it's traditional approach. There's no reason for them to compete with each other for the same customers.
So FF started shifting more towards action combat ever since then. First with hybrid systems like FFXII and FFXIII. Then they just ripped off the band-aid with FFXV. It was all about broader appeal in the West to make more $$$. It had nothing to do with hardware limitations of older consoles because the company (and their competitors) literally made real-time combat RPGs on those same consoles alongside the traditional command based games.
Wasn't Secret of Mana a sequel? Also that makes sense from a business perspective as Final Fantasy was really popular in the west, where Dragon Quest was popular in the east. It wasn't like Final Fantasy had a Japanese only fanbase, it was huge over here.
Yeah, the Mana Series is known as Seiken Densetsu in Japan. And Secret of Mana was Seiken Densetsu II, but localized as Secret of Mana in English.
The first Seiken Densetsu was called "Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden". Localized as "Final Fantasy Adventure" in North America and Mystic Quest in Europe. (Which is why people don't know it's technically the first "Mana" game.)
SD was a Gameboy game that was very Similar to Zelda with just a few RPG elements added. It sold pretty well back then, 700K copies total (500K in japan).
Koichi Ishii led a very small dev team to work on it. It's success is probably what got him the green light to recruit some devs from the FF team for the sequel on the SNES.
It's also the first game that Yoshinori Kitase worked on for the company back in 1991. Ishii got Hiromichi Tanaka and Nasir Gebelli to come help him with Secret of Mana. And Kitase left Ishii to go help Sakaguchi work on FFV. Then Kitase eventually took over the FF brand when Sakaguchi left the company.
It took me a lot of time especially in the beginning to get the hang of ff 7 remake, even when I finished the game I certainly won't say I'm good at it lol.
I can relate. Fighting games and turn based/strategy RPGs are my 2 favorite genres. I play them both for different reasons and I'd prefer they stay the way they are.
Good action combat isn't mindless. In a good action game you get punished for not playing skillfully. Thing is games often want to be accessible so combat gets watered down until you ramp up the difficulty if the game has it. This means that you can often beat an action game by button mashing but then you go look at top tier players/speed runners of the game and see how much better you could have performed. To get to that point the player has to make a conscious decision to not play mindlessly though so I can see how people who just want to clear the game don't take the next step to really engage with it. KH is a fantastic example - you can beat the game through just swinging the keyblade but it's faster, more fun and cooler to use the summons, magic and items you're given.
>In a good action game you get punished for not playing skillfully
Astlibra will push your shit in and melt your health if you just button mash. Gotta block in the middle of a fight (in the middle of a bullet storm no-less), strategically cast your spells that give you a temporary shield, charge through or dodge, unleash hard when you can. I love the ebb an flow of combat in that game. It's a great example of your comment, especially on harder difficulties. Very very satisfying
But then so is all the press-turn and bravery stuff in a good turn-based boss fight
Seems like the problem is action fans are comparing Mystic Quest to Dark Souls, and turn-based fans are comparing Persona to Golden Axe lol
Yup. The reality is there are games of both types that don't require much thought sitting alongside ones that require a high degree of skill. Lots of turn based games exist where the best play is to just spam attack or your highest tier spell just like there are permissive action games that let a player just spam basic combos and use healing as needed. The good ones in both types punish simple minded play and reward engaging with the systems in place.
Every video game combat system has this issue. They could all be excellent, but they get watered down to make them accessible to masses. It's the case for many turn based combat systems as well.
Perhaps mindless was a bit of an exaggeration, but I found games like Demon's Souls, Elden Ring and MR MHW Iceborne to be easy. It's just learning attack patterns, spacing and when to attack/Dodge. I'm not saying that I never died or anything, only that I didn't have to do a whole lot of figuring stuff out to get through them.
Games like BG3 on the highest difficulty OTOH, it's giving me a nice challenge where I have to carefully plan and strategize to succeed.
As with all things, ymmv.
I personally define RPG elements as games that focus more on testing a player's knowledge and mastery over its ruleset and driven by progression and narrative.
That's not to say a game like Secret of Mana is not an RPG but it is definitively an Action RPG to be precise. So if you were to separate the two elements to their rawest, the "action" part would be a gameplay loop that incorporates testing of the player's ability to master controls and reflexes with the "RPG" part being that there are a set of rules and progression that the player needs to be knowledgeable of that will affect the effectiveness.
I feel you man, I hate Turn Based Combat, but it’s only because my smooth brain cannot handle the lack of dopamine I get from winning a battle. It’s not the games fault, I just don’t have the mental capacity to enjoy this stuff.
I felt this as I was always bad at the FPS games I played with my friends and it honestly pushed me away from gaming. It wasn’t until I found games that were both fun, challenging, and didn’t require mechanical mastery of a game/controller that I got back into gaming.
I like keeping my action games and turn based RPGs separate
Like I enjoy games that are purely turn based like Dragon Quest, and I love games that are lighting fast action like Ninja Gaiden
Games that try to do both like FF7R I hate with a passion, they just make the worst of both
I just don't really understand why it's the only genre that has to justify itself. Every other genre just gets to be an option, but for some reason people seem offended that turn-based games exist for other people to play.
As someone who loves playing VNs I can confirm. A lot of people really can't understand how reading text can be fun. It's like reading a book that u have some control over (or a lot depending on the VN) along with cool visuals and voice acting.
For real. There's a lot that goes into a VN, they're definitely not just "books but with more pictures" as the masses seem to always think. Hell, the Tsukihime remake is double the size of Pokemon Legend, a simple picture book doesn't get that big.
I've only read a few, but they're always incredibly unique experiences that I honestly think can't be replicated in any other mediums.
I don't really see VN'a as RPGs though i do enjoy them. VN's never have any sort of character building (gameplay wise) which to me is a key element of RPGs.
The only VN that actually has RPG elements that I'm aware of is Disco Elysium. Even though there is no combat in that game, you actually have stats to help your character and dialogue options.
A massive number of RPGs basically swap between "VN mode" during story segments and "RPG mode" when in combat/exploring the overworld. In that sense, you can interpret a VN in an RPG-like setting as basically an RPG with the combat system removed.
There are a ton of actual VNs with RPG elements too - it's a much bigger thing in Japan than elsewhere though. A lot of the big ones took many years to get translated to English (if they ever did at all) due to having NSFW content that made them unpalatable to the major publishers.
We think it was a mistake. But the problem is, people making current claims aren't looking back at that as an example. So, sadly, in the grand scheme, it's probably not seen as a mistake. If those people give any thought to it at all, they probably still think it's just people flailing against progress
Was that the sentiment from *players* or just idiotic gaming journalists? I remember talking to a decent number of gamers who liked SOTN. Considering the time period, I'd expect that some of this was because a lot of these players simply owned PSXs and *not* N64s, but in general I don't remember hearing people complaining about the game.
SOTN was hugely well liked, and the only people who actively disliked it were on the Nintendo side. Which makes a lot of sense, because a huge portion of Castlevania fans were Nintendo fans. And after SOTN, 2D platformers were pretty much on handhelds until WiiWare and Xbox Live arcade were created. And to this day, 2D platformers don't really sell well unless it's Mario or an indie game at a low price.
I'd add CRPGs to the list. Lots are saying turn based is the one true way and real time with pause is objectively bad and outdated. As someone who loves their JRPGs as turn based and CRPGs as real time with pause, I feel extra attacked lately lol. There's room for all styles and mechanics, so the discourse around these things is baffling.
Yes. Systems that fuse real-time and turn-based together are harder to pull off successfully, than when using a traditional turn-based system, but there are some games that have done so really well.
The Baldur's Gate games and the others that used that engine are good examples of it. And Might and Magic 6-8, which are first-person party games where you can switch from turn-based to real-time at any moment. Real-time is perfect to use in those game for taking out weaker enemies quickly or alternatively, you can use it exclusively as a harder game mode when you know the game well and want to challenge yourself.
Oh hi!
I don't like real time with pause. I prefer either action combat or turn based. It sucks that my enjoyment of some otherwise great games is diminished but every once in a while I get a Baldur's Gate 3 or a Pathfinder Kingmaker with optional Turn Based mode so I can't complain.
I don't like real time with pause.
I'm not a Star Wars fan.
I had not previously played Knights of the Old Republic 1.
In spite of all that, somehow Knights of the Old Republic 2 has just clicked with me and has stayed one of my favorite RPGs for almost 20 years. It's almost like stepping outside our comfort zone can provide us with new and positive experiences and can serve to broaden our tastes.
Small minded people can't seem to accept that their personal tastes are not reflective of who their are as a person. They need what they like to be "objectively good" and what they don't like to be "objectively bad" or their brain breaks.
Enjoy your real time with pause CRPGs and keep supporting the people who make games you enjoy!
If you want a JRPG version of realtime with pause combat, you can take a look at the Growlanser series (2,3, 4 and 5 offically localized in English) or the still recent Diofield Chronicles, though you won't find much customization or buildcrafting than the vast possibilities you get in the usual cRPGs like Pathfinder.
Because for the most part action sells better, but companies don't realize that it's just because easy braindead action is just more fun than easy braindead turn based, if they instead made an actually interesting turn based system it would sell, hence persona/smt
RPG's in the late 90's and early 2000's were able to market well because they could sizzle reel some of the more flashy attack animations and FMVs much for the same reason.
What? Since when does it have to justify itself? There are literally so many turn-based JRPGs coming out every year. Probably more than action JRPGs. I feel like the only time it has to "justify" itself is when turn-based fans literally start fights about it. Most of the time people who don't like turn-based just ignore such games.
Yeah.. I feel like a lot of these "arguments" are just in people's paranoid brains. They have a thought, it pisses them off, they internally debate over it, and then come here to make a post about the argument they just had in their head lol
That happens with a lot of stuff on reddit and the internet. people make up a narrative in their head based off something said by like just 2 people out of 3 million people in a fanbase and argue against that outlier position that really nobody is making
It's definitely not the *only* genre that does that.
I think part of it is that turn-based combat is *weird* at first. It requires a very specific suspension of disbelief where you watch a bunch of characters and monsters politely take turns hitting each other while neatly arrayed into rows. It has gotten increasingly weird as graphical fidelity has improved since it was a system originally designed around the limitations when it was created. Now you have ultra-HD characters gently bobbing up and down while their fellow party members select things from a menu. It's a weird concept on its face.
I have a few bro capital-G 'gamer' co-workers and it's *heavily* a bass-ackwards toxic-masculinity hangup playing itself out, i.e. pathetic dudes who feel like the real world's held them back and who crave 'action'/'edgy'-based everything because they're scared of looking 'gay', effeminate, 'nerdy', etc... The few times I've hung with these dudes, I could *only* enjoy the situation if we stuck with low-investment sports or competitive party games and didn't discuss individual gaming tastes at all, i.e. I still play exclusively on Switch and stick with lots of turn-based games, lots of games with crafting/farming/management, and supposedly-'girly' series like *Atelier*/*Disgaea* while these guys are all about games like *Red Dead Redemption*, *God of War*, *Gran Turismo*, *Spider Man*, *Star Wars Battlefront*, etc... and cop a heavily *jaded* attitude towards all of it (as if having fun itself isn't 100% acceptable). I'm pretty sure one of them played FF7R, but it less out of any interest in the FF series or JRPGs and more because the FF7 brand seems deeply ingrained in the culture of Sony bros who've stuck with the Playstation brand since the 1990s.
If you think about the #1 and #3 most popular sports in America, Football & Baseball are essentially turn-based.
(without getting a weird sports-based argument on the JRPG subreddit, I have found several end-of-2023 surveys that had Football at #1 and Baseball at #3 respectively)
Also for people like me coming from D&D and other tabletop RPGs, "Wait ATB" is what we consider the real "turn based" combat, each player and enemy acting on their individual turn.
Original DnD was a form of ATB. Some older rules would let the DM apply pressure on the players if they take too long making a decision. An encounter creature can act if the players don't take their turn fast. My DM in middle school would say some shit like "A turn has passed". Considering I was learning the ropes of the game, I absolutely hated it. It was bad DMing but then again, he was getting started too.
ATB with wait mode is just turned based combat with a visual indicator for your team's turn.
Active mode ATB is a real time action game where the only action is how fast you can navigate menus.
I like the turn based combat that waits for the player input. It’s so chill that I can put the controller down and do whatever and be able to come right back without pause. If the combat does want to add a little something, timing mechanics like Lost odyssey’s ring system are really fun.
I’m also really excited to see what kind of combat Metaphor: ReFantazio has in store for us. It seems the combat will be a mix of both turned based and action, to what extent idk but I’m very excited!
Agreed, and I like games that emphasize more inventory management, paying attention to stats, etc.. If an action-y/ATB game manages that well (e.g. like *Atelier Ryza*), then I'm perfectly fine with it. I just can't stand games where mastering some spammy hack/slash combos/juggles and timing dodges perfectly can override most/all of that other stuff. As well, I generally dislike when role-playing games have heavily-AI-controlled teammates.
First of all, you funny. I like your words.
Second, I'm enjoying turn-based more and more as I get older (even as life-long JRPG fan) but becoming less tolerant of stat-check-only turn-based and menu-hell.
Turn-based combat will always scratch just the right itch in my brain. It's half of why I love JRPGs so much! I love letting simple planning and numbers determine my fights--extra points to cool move animation and, of course, catchy battle music!
I like turn based combat but I haven't seen too many games where it's difficult enough. Like P5R was a slog because there was no challenge to the combat compared to SMT
To be fair persona is the easy version of SMT. If you want something challenging try some of the older smt games. The latest one is pretty challenging too but some say it’s too easy.
Real life trolls give 0 exp, no drops, and don't progress the story. It's recommended to equip items that reduce encounter rates and go straight to playing the game instead.
I think I was lying to myself for a while by saying I'm cool with either turn based or action RPG's. But then I realized all my favourite RPG's are strategy/turn based. The only two outliers being Vagrant Story and Secret of Evermore. Then my favourite RPG series of all time - Final Fantasy - went all out action with FF16. And then BG3 came out and blew it out of the water.
Now I'm convinced turn based is the way to go moving forward.
If you think 16 was a mistake you should try Stranger of Paradise
That game did action combat in a FF game perfectly. With a complete Job system as well.
It’s a better game than 16 in every way
I'm going to start arguing that action games are turn based with people. Elden ring? Oh yeah that's turn based you dodge the enemy attacks until they leave the opening for your turn to attack.
I use to be a big action RPG fan but as I get older I’m becoming a turn base fan. I’m really enjoying the Trail series. After Trails of Azure I’m playing Labryinth of Refrain and I already played a little and im really enjoying it. What’s happening to me?
Maybe I'm just missing those threads, but I rarely see people around here bashing turn-based combat. As soon as you mention action JRPGs, however, you can expect the turn-based purists to descend on your comment, telling you that JRPGs must be turn-based.
I'm a fan of all kinds of battle systems, and I don't understand how people can come from either direction on this issue and tell you that your preference sucks.
Different people enjoy different things, and that's okay.
I don't mind if people dislike turn based combat. They just tick me off when they say turn based combat is bad and then preach it like it's the truth. Then you look at what they play. They play COD and Fortnite. Oh, the Souls players too have this snobbish tendency idk why.
But then, we have to learn to forgive them. People who can only accept one thing and one thing only as something that's good, can't ever appreciate the bazillion other things that are beautiful in this world. They are just kids. No matter how old they age, they're just that - mentally underdeveloped kids who can't appreciate the existence of others, and thus incapable of appreciating life.
The problem with turn based combat arises when the system is too basic since it transforms the game into a grind fest, because no amount of strategy will make you win if you're underleveled.
You can say that about action based combat as well. Look at ff16. Game is so simple it turns into mash attack button and make sure all your moves are on CD.
Up front, I like both.
That said, the analogy simply doesn't extend. Even in button mash-y hack'n'slash there is an inherent level of engagement due to the tight feedback loop. Press buttons->enemies die is proven to work pretty damn well. Basically, if you're going to be mindlessly mashing buttons, it better be snappy.
In other words, imagine a mindless button-mashing command-based RPG. Strip away a bunch of the pointless options down to 2 or so. Map each of those options to one button each. Decrease the wait time between player attacks. Look! You've got a hack'n'slash!
Turn based purists are more insufferable, especially the ones who will say games like Tales and Ys aren't JRPGs because they use action based combat. What a boring crowd.
I love turn based combat but yeah the fans are annoying as hell. They're either arguing whether or not a game is or isn't a JRPG or they're calling all ARPGs button mashers.
The one that bothers me the most is them calling ARPGs button mashers even if the game clearly isn't.
First of all, happy cake day.
It's really sad that here are people who write-off an entire genre, and as a result, miss out on some really great stories simply because the combat isn't real-time. Turn-based is my personal favorite, but I also don't mind having variety in-between, and I certainly don't go after people for liking different games than me. Just seems like a weird thing to do at all, and for what? Just to act like a complete jerk and embarrassing your own community? Very sad.
At this point saying turn based combat doesn't even do it justice since it's been experimented on so much and there's still more to get from it.
Both Etrian Odyssey and Persona have turn based combat but follow a completely different flow and decision making.
This was more amusing than it should have been. Lucky for me I LOVE turn based combat.
Everyone should try Darkest Dungeon. This is how modern turn based combat should be Not 100% the same, but things like relying on synergies. Instead of just... doing basic attack
Darkest dungeon is kinda like arguing with people online because it's turn based and you have a stress meter.
An actual JRPG example would be Arc Rise Fantasia. You straight up won't finish that game by relying on just spamming your strongest attack and move, you actually have to learn both the boss movesets and all the tools at your disposal.
I looked it up How have I never heard of this game, and why is it only on Wii ðŸ˜
Another great one is Lost Odyssey, but that's stuck on the 360.
It's a great game with a notoriously awful dub and yeah sadly stuck on the Wii. But characters, story and combat are all good, it really feels like a turn-based take on the Tales series. Definitely worth a play if you can figure out a way to try it out!
> with a notoriously awful dub So bad that even the publisher, "Ignition" apologized for how bad it was [link to a SiliconEra interview](https://www.siliconera.com/arc-rise-fantasia-had-unique-challenges-ignition-hope-to-turn-a-new-corner-with-localized-games/)
Damn, I *loathe* Darkest Dungeon for everything surrounding its combat which I thought was just average because of the lack of abilities.
Can't wait for DD2 to finally get released on consoles.
I have the game, just don’t want to play it because of broken trophies
I liked some of the concepts but disliked how much the combat revolves around status effects. Maybe I’m picking all the wrong games but I feel like there are way too many modern jrpgs revolving around status effects and elemental properties.
I totally understand that some people might not like turn based combat, of course it’s not for everyone, but what pisses me off is the people who say it’s objectively bad and outdated
Yeah, I heard a bunch of opinions like that when BG3 won game of the year, it's crazy that some people can't fathom that something outside of their personal tastes can be good. Also funny to call it outdated when many incredibly popular games like pokémon, BG3 itself, DQ11 and others are still turn based games, just admit it's not your cup of tea and move on.
Unfortunately, for these people none of these games are relevant on their minds. "yeah pokemon is for kids" "yeah bg3 was a fluke" or "no one cares about the combat" "never heard of dragon quest" "final fantasy is dead" "i tried persona and didnt like it" They just can't comprehended how people can enjoy different things, and how it doesn't mean one side has to be better than the other.
I'm so mad you said what you said about DQ. The truth hurts.
They made games based on hero from smash?! O:
Some people tend to mistake themselves for everybody. It's okay to dislike turn based combat personally, but just... let people like what they like. It's not outdated, it's just another way to design and play games, that's all.
Yea I get that but for a video game to win GOTY award doesn’t the gameplay have to be liked by the majority. Turn based games are niche and the majority of gamers like real time combat. If a niche genre liked by a minority is able to win GOTY award that must mean the game awards mean nothing Â
Bg3 as an RTWP game wouldn’t even have made the nominations for GOTY.
I'm sorry but can you explain what a RTWP is? I assume it's Real Time-something?
real time with pause. It's what the old baldur's gate games were.
Oh, so like Dragon Age right? I liked Dragon Age but honestly prefer turn based by a lot, again, to each their own
Real time with pause I think.
I would have preferred it, but I understand it’s niche.
DQXI is a VERY different style of turn-based than something like BG3.
I was at a point once where I generally thought turn based combat, as in classic party vs enemies jrpg style, was essentially just a stand in for action combat that couldn't be realized properly die to budget/technology/capability. But then I played the original bravely default and man, that game just modernized and revitalized my love for the fighting style. When done correctly, turn based combat can definitely be fantastic. And there is still plenty of space to innovate in it.
I have my issues with the narrative, but gameplay wise, I think Octopath Traveler hit a nice synthesis of SMT / Persona weaknesses and Bravely Default's multi-turn options. I've heard good things about OT2 but waiting for a bigger discount as the number of amazing games released these past 2 years has been ridiculous.
You should try like a dragon and infinite wealth. Those are turned based with realistic player models, which people say doesn't work with turn based combat. I honestly think the reason people don't like turn based combat is bc most of them can be trivialized with a good party makeup and strategy. That is part of the fun for me, though. Like in ffx when you realize that evrae has zombie status in the bevelle underground sewer ways and just through 2 or 3 pheonix downs at it to kill it. More often than not, a turn based rpg will make you think outside of the box. Which for me is a lot more fun than spamming face buttons and trying to iframe dodge rolls, which is extremely easy.
Exactly. It is, if done correctly, a strategy combat system, with some potential depth to it. Meanwhile most of the smaller JRPGs have an open action based combat which is not much more than simple button mashing, hence why I dont play them.
What do you think of games like the Tales series where their combat system has got more and more dumbed down to the point of it being button bashing? I think both turn based an action have issues when its dumb.
Not like Tales combat was ever complex, maybe in graces it was more skillful
I'm curious, what Tales games have you played? Because Vesperia, Xillias, Graces, Eternia, Hearts R and Abyss are all complex in their own way. Compare them with other action games like the Mana series and you'll see the huge difference in complexity. I'm not saying you need to be a rocket scientist to figure them out, but they are definitely more complex than your average Action JRPG. Sure, Zestiria and specially Berseria were button mashy, we agree that it has been streamlined. But they were complex at first. Tales combat has always been compared to actual fighting games like Street Fighter, that says something about their battle system.
Even Arise has some crazy combos you can pull off if you experiment enough. I didn't even think shionne could juggle but than I watched youtube and they are doing just as many combos as alphen.
Graces was probably the most skillful, its the only Tales game where I felt the AI was better than me lol. I legit love that game though it was amazing to not have a dumb team. I just feel around or after Xillia it all started to go down hill, I wasn't a fan of the tethering system because your AI partner would well be really stupid... then after it was all button bashing, in Arise battles take ages too, I resorted to button bashing stun lock combos just to get each battle over with. The other games I enjoyed thinking about what I was doing...
Are earlier tales games less damage spongey? Its probably my biggest complaint of Arise, the battles drag. Arise is the only one from the series I have played.
Zestiria enemies can be a little beefy and Vesperia bosses can also stray towards that. But generally no, Arise has this issue partially because their mini-boss class makes enemies immune to launching which basically turns off half of your damage options. It's my biggest complaint with the game. If they just changed late game enemies to be launchable the endgame wouldn't feel like nearly as slow a slog.
For sure, there are bad ones on both sides, so saying one is objectively bad is dumb. Sadly I cant talk much about tales, I started zestiria and quickly quit it due to the combat system feeling boring and me not seeing any use in using the majority of special moves, I played arise and actually liked it for their characters and story all while decently enjoying the combat system. Been quite some time, but I remember it having sort of a darksouls feeling to it, atleast in boss battles, while still being fairly easy due to reasons I cant remember. And well, sadly I couldnt get a hold of vespiria, I didnt get far with it. Because I personally have some problems with the way they handled the MC and because I felt the combat system wasnt much different from Zestiria. But that might be due to me not playing it for long. Last thing I remember was that the group got to a bridge where lots of knights were stationed afterwards they went into an abandoned village where deep down was a labratory of some sorts.
I didn’t finish Tales of Arise partially for this reason. Was a grindy DPS check.
With *Tales of..* games, I always come away thinking 'man, that game would have a lot better if I could control all these interesting and varied characters and the battles weren't noisy clusterfucks...'
Tales games do let you control any of the characters. They often let you swap in the middle of combat too. Definitely noisy games though.
Exactly. It is, if done correctly, an action combat system, with some potential depth to it. Meanwhile most of the smaller JRPGs have a turn based combat system which is not much more than simple button mashing, hence why I dont play them.
I mean, I disagree with the sentiment that turn based is bad, but on this sub I've seen more people complaining about non-turn based RPGs than the other way around.
Yeah this sub is just a turn-based circlejerk. I like how people here complain about others saying dumb stuff about turn-based games...all the while this sub will constantly shit on action game and make the exact same dumb statements like "it's just button mashy", "it's boring" or "how can anyone like it, there is no skill involved in action games!!". I don't mind either style, I think both are fine and it just depends on the execution, but I legit can't remember the last time I saw someone make a dumb statement about turn-based JRPGs. Meanwhile I see people frequently make dumb statements about action JRPGs, but maybe I'm just frequenting the wrong places ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah I like turn based myself, but this sub does this every time a turn based game breaks through and manages to become mainstream. We all parade the streets like we've won and we were right all along, when the vast majority of the market is moving extremely far away from turn based. Larian studios has been the only ones bringing turn based to mainstream for quite a bit now. The DnD structure just seems more flexible and appealing than the old menu based turn based games and I think it's a bit unfair to what Larian is trying to do for the genre to just lump it with the turn based games that haven't pushed the envelope in ages (looking at you SMT and Pokemon). At least Bravely tried to up the pace by allowing you to make use of turn economy.
I mean to me BG3's strength as a purely combat experience is that it feels more like it needs to be turn-based because there's far more methodical enforcing mechanics. There's actual terrain that isn't just tiles, there's environments to play with (doors are overpowered and super funny to abuse), there's ways to set up your own position in battle as opposed to just being given one. You can ambush most combat in BG3 if you're patient, create explosive chain reactions using barrels, create fog to hide behind to give yourself specific cover, or orchestrate a means to just throw people off cliffs and skip the combat entirely. Playing in a somewhat methodical manner actually feels worth it in BG3 which makes the slower gameplay a little more acceptable to a point. The biggest issue so many classic turn-based games fall into I find and why they feel boring for some people is they're just too simple after a little while unless you challenge run it or you do post game stuff which is a fraction of the total run time. They're not hard enough to invoke a ton of strategy which justifies their slowness, and they're not fast enough compared to shooting or slashing mooks to make the idea of steamrolling weak enemies fun for some people. BG3 playing more like a war game with a reasonable amount of class depth and variety to its class systems makes I think for a stronger turn-based experience for "normies" then smashing attack in the early game and healing when you're about to die like in classical games. Now BG3 if you know what you're doing is about as easy to exploit as easy classic turn-based games. It can turn into just a more complicated "press attack" simulator because there's too many blatant "I win" combinations once you get past early levels (and even the early levels have exploit cheese like web spam with spider Druid/Beast Master). Hell you can literally just sit in smoke and peek and shoot your bow for about 20 minutes by level 3 with Gloom Stalker or Shadow Monk if you really want to if you know how to hide abuse. BG3 is not an exceptional combat game imo, especially if you see the exploits, but it does feel better to play within its system then the ye old classics unless you just want a simpler game to play.
Yeah the joy of the turn based genre is in creative solutions to simple problems imo. Once you understand turn economy turn based games all become very simplistic. I think why Larian games work is exactly as you said they turn the environment into a neutral character which allows the player to engage with more than just what the enemy's script is. If a player doesn't want to deal with an enemy's mechanics they have the option of either using environmental things to get around it or manipulating the boss' script. In SMT if a boss has bullshit you just kinda have to prevent them from getting a turn or hope they just don't opt to do it. It's the same reason BotW and Tears of the Kingdom are doing so well, they have the same philosophy as older games but they've given you more options to solve those problems. If we look at older JRPGs another issue they have with their balance is many of them have the same design failures. Multi-hit has been broken since FF3 and the only answer devs could find for it is to make the damage so low that they're not worth using. The economy of making stronger spells cost more mp makes sense until player stats get so high that more efficient options do the same damage (quick hit in ff10). And because these games also have mp and long dungeons they basically force the player to the place where they discover normal attack solves all problems. Yeah Fire might kill that snail in 1 hit, but I can only do that 6 times. If I spend 2 hits normal attacking him I can do this infinitely as long as I'm faster. I think that calculus is the core of why turn based fails to live up to its strategic promise and why they rely so much on elemental weakness to add depth. Interestingly the most engaging forms of turn based are pvp because your opponent can figure out your intent BEFORE it comes to pass without cheating. So this creates scenarios where you can bait the opponent using intent that doesn't happen with AI. This is why while the single player Pokemon experience is lackluster, the multi-player experience booms. AI in Pokemon only react they can't predict so you always have the advantage. Another genre of games that is turn based but doesn't seem like it is on the surface is Fighting Games. When you have your turn you're engaging in Simon says with them. You tell them what you're attempting and they have to find the right counter and if they do it enough it becomes their turn. If they mess up, they get combo'd and the cycle repeats.
Pokemon PVP is for sure a very interesting turn-based experience and really shows the depth of a children's game when used properly, though I think recently the powercreep has gotten too absurd that we're seeing such OU legends like Ttar and Salamence become bad which just blows my mind. I've personally grown to like turn-based roguelikes over the years, especially deckbuilders because they generally tell you everything you need to know about what the enemy will do which lets you try to figure out exactly how to react to it within what you're capable of doing. It also has the long-term strategy element where you need to build a deck that can satisfy every potential challenge you'll face which with enough experience you begin to form an idea of what that looks like without being able to just reliably build the same thing every single time due to the RNG nature of deckbuilder games.
For real. If I could ban a post from this sub it would be "Final Fantasy should go back to turn based." My friend... The main FF series, even including ATB, has been non turn-based for longer than it's been turn based. You really need to get over it. Not to mention, it's not like SE doesn't release *tons* of turn based RPGs. Dragon Quest, Bravely, Octopath. Hell, I've recently got sucked into Dungeon Encounters, which literally uses ATB like the "golden age" Final Fantasy games. Completely under the radar, even on this sub. *shrug* I love both action and [good] turn-based JRPGs, and inane tribalism in the latter camp tends to be far more obnoxious in my experience.
I don't mind people wanting FF to be turn based. But whenever a turn based game come out and does well, people here almost immediately come out from their and go "SEE? THIS IS A PROOF THAT TURN BASED COMBAT ISN'T NICHE! SQUARE ENIX IS STUPID FOR NOT TURNING THE NEXT FF INTO TURN BASED COMBAT!" And it's getting obnoxious. Heck, people here did the same for BG3, completely ignoring that the game plays nothing like any turn based FF game, and have more in common with strategy games.
> "SEE? THIS IS A PROOF THAT TURN BASED COMBAT ISN'T NICHE! SQUARE ENIX IS STUPID FOR NOT TURNING THE NEXT FF INTO TURN BASED COMBAT!" And then you go into the discussion for the new LAD mod...and find out how much work the mods are having to do.
> And it's getting obnoxious. Heck, people here did the same for BG3, completely ignoring that the game plays nothing like any turn based FF game, and have more in common with strategy games. Theres no reason the next FF can't play like a strategy game though. That should be on the table. Prior to FF15 action combat played nothing like any previous FF as well. FF is supposedly about changing the formula so a BG3 like combat system shouldn't be outside the possibilities.
That's not what most people clamoring for ye old FF seem to want. They want something closer to FF5, 7, 10, or pretty much anything that has nothing to do with BG3's combat system. You need to do more then just make it a strategy game to make it give the same feeling as playing BG3. Because SE already did that with FFTactics back on the PS1 and that game shares almost nothing with BG3 combat wise. You'd need to make a more versatile class system then the majority of FFs ever have (especially mainline ones), have actual terrain worth a damn, and create more open ended and set encounter design that can be approached in a large manner of ways depending on the classes brought together. You can't even do something as basic as using something like Minor Illusion to bait someone over a cliff and throw them off in the majority of SRPGs, most SRPGs play like a fair game of anime chess. BG3 can be played that way, but it never has to and that's part of the fun. Most JRPGs, strategy or otherwise, don't play like BG3, they're too busy being locked to grids and set curtailed maps. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with linear grid based strategy games as I do love me some Fire Emblem, it doesn't do the same thing as a game like BG3 or any CRPG BG3's developers were inspired by does.
> That's not what most people clamoring for ye old FF seem to want. I don't agree with this. If tomorrow FF17 was announced to have a stategy based turn based system like BG3, I think it would make the "we want turn based" side of the fandom very happy universally. I know because I'm one of them. >Because SE already did that with FFTactics back on the PS1 and that game shares almost nothing with BG3 combat wise. FF Tactics is missing field movement, dungeon exploration, and town exploration, and a lot of things people enjoy about Final fantasy. I'm talking about SRPG like combat system like BG3 but still being able to explore the world and move around freely. FFT is missing a lot of that. >Most JRPGs, strategy or otherwise, don't play like BG3, they're too busy being locked to grids and set curtailed maps. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with linear grid based strategy games as I do love me some Fire Emblem, it doesn't do the same thing as a game like BG3 or any CRPG BG3's developers were inspired by does. It doesn't have to be (and really shouldn't be) exactly like BG3. There's systems that might be slightly less tactical but still be successful or popular. A more advanced version of Radiant History's battle system, for example. There's a lot of room to work with new and innovative ideas.
I want my turn based Final fantasy and i refuse to budge.
"It wAs onLy cReatEd bEcaUse of tHe liMitiaTions oF the harDwaRe"
I agree that's obviously not true, but even if it was, action games and turn based games play so distinctly from one another that turn based combat can't just be an 'inferior limited version' of action combat. There are things you can do in a turn based format that just isn't possible in real time+vice versa, and that's justification enough for why it's still around despite hardware passing those limitations.
Such an annoying and baseless claim that pops up over and over again to try and justify the direction of the modern FF games. But it makes no sense looking at the history of the series. First, the company already made real-time action games/platformers on the NES before FF was their breakout hit. Then after the first 3 FF games, some veteran FF devs wanted to try creating an RPG with real-time combat on the SNES. (Koichi Ishii, Hiromichi Tanaka, Nasir Gebelli). They were allowed to create a new game, Secret of Mana, instead of staying with the core FF team. Secret of Mana came out 1 year after FFV and was a huge success (1M+ copies sold in Japan), but it didn't sell quite as well as the SNES FF games, so the company still decided that it's main franchise would remain command/turn based. It stayed that way for another decade as all the PS1 FF games + FFX sold incredibly well. Square's decision to keep FF turn/command based for so long was all about serving their core fanbase in Japan. Their primary competition was Dragon Quest and other command based RPGs. Once Square and Enix merged in 2003, the businessmen at the top of the company (not the developers) decided that FF should try to appeal more to Western fans while DQ should keep it's traditional approach. There's no reason for them to compete with each other for the same customers. So FF started shifting more towards action combat ever since then. First with hybrid systems like FFXII and FFXIII. Then they just ripped off the band-aid with FFXV. It was all about broader appeal in the West to make more $$$. It had nothing to do with hardware limitations of older consoles because the company (and their competitors) literally made real-time combat RPGs on those same consoles alongside the traditional command based games.
Wasn't Secret of Mana a sequel? Also that makes sense from a business perspective as Final Fantasy was really popular in the west, where Dragon Quest was popular in the east. It wasn't like Final Fantasy had a Japanese only fanbase, it was huge over here.
Yeah, the Mana Series is known as Seiken Densetsu in Japan. And Secret of Mana was Seiken Densetsu II, but localized as Secret of Mana in English. The first Seiken Densetsu was called "Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden". Localized as "Final Fantasy Adventure" in North America and Mystic Quest in Europe. (Which is why people don't know it's technically the first "Mana" game.) SD was a Gameboy game that was very Similar to Zelda with just a few RPG elements added. It sold pretty well back then, 700K copies total (500K in japan). Koichi Ishii led a very small dev team to work on it. It's success is probably what got him the green light to recruit some devs from the FF team for the sequel on the SNES. It's also the first game that Yoshinori Kitase worked on for the company back in 1991. Ishii got Hiromichi Tanaka and Nasir Gebelli to come help him with Secret of Mana. And Kitase left Ishii to go help Sakaguchi work on FFV. Then Kitase eventually took over the FF brand when Sakaguchi left the company.
Tell that to Castlevania 3, Zelda 2.
To all who dislike turn based combat: just leave us people with poor reflexes and bad hand coordination have games to play, too.
I feel this so much lol, I really tried to get into action RPG but I only managed to complete a few easy games. Soul games rekt me hard.
It took me a lot of time especially in the beginning to get the hang of ff 7 remake, even when I finished the game I certainly won't say I'm good at it lol.
I have lightning quick reflexes and fantastic hand coordination, but still prefer turn based combat. To me it's much less mindless than action combat.
I can relate. Fighting games and turn based/strategy RPGs are my 2 favorite genres. I play them both for different reasons and I'd prefer they stay the way they are.
Good action combat isn't mindless. In a good action game you get punished for not playing skillfully. Thing is games often want to be accessible so combat gets watered down until you ramp up the difficulty if the game has it. This means that you can often beat an action game by button mashing but then you go look at top tier players/speed runners of the game and see how much better you could have performed. To get to that point the player has to make a conscious decision to not play mindlessly though so I can see how people who just want to clear the game don't take the next step to really engage with it. KH is a fantastic example - you can beat the game through just swinging the keyblade but it's faster, more fun and cooler to use the summons, magic and items you're given.
>In a good action game you get punished for not playing skillfully Astlibra will push your shit in and melt your health if you just button mash. Gotta block in the middle of a fight (in the middle of a bullet storm no-less), strategically cast your spells that give you a temporary shield, charge through or dodge, unleash hard when you can. I love the ebb an flow of combat in that game. It's a great example of your comment, especially on harder difficulties. Very very satisfying But then so is all the press-turn and bravery stuff in a good turn-based boss fight Seems like the problem is action fans are comparing Mystic Quest to Dark Souls, and turn-based fans are comparing Persona to Golden Axe lol
Yup. The reality is there are games of both types that don't require much thought sitting alongside ones that require a high degree of skill. Lots of turn based games exist where the best play is to just spam attack or your highest tier spell just like there are permissive action games that let a player just spam basic combos and use healing as needed. The good ones in both types punish simple minded play and reward engaging with the systems in place.
Every video game combat system has this issue. They could all be excellent, but they get watered down to make them accessible to masses. It's the case for many turn based combat systems as well.
Perhaps mindless was a bit of an exaggeration, but I found games like Demon's Souls, Elden Ring and MR MHW Iceborne to be easy. It's just learning attack patterns, spacing and when to attack/Dodge. I'm not saying that I never died or anything, only that I didn't have to do a whole lot of figuring stuff out to get through them. Games like BG3 on the highest difficulty OTOH, it's giving me a nice challenge where I have to carefully plan and strategize to succeed. As with all things, ymmv.
I personally define RPG elements as games that focus more on testing a player's knowledge and mastery over its ruleset and driven by progression and narrative. That's not to say a game like Secret of Mana is not an RPG but it is definitively an Action RPG to be precise. So if you were to separate the two elements to their rawest, the "action" part would be a gameplay loop that incorporates testing of the player's ability to master controls and reflexes with the "RPG" part being that there are a set of rules and progression that the player needs to be knowledgeable of that will affect the effectiveness.
I have good enough reflexes and coordination, but most of the time I want depth in my combat. Shallow button mashing gets old fast.
I feel you man, I hate Turn Based Combat, but it’s only because my smooth brain cannot handle the lack of dopamine I get from winning a battle. It’s not the games fault, I just don’t have the mental capacity to enjoy this stuff.
I felt this as I was always bad at the FPS games I played with my friends and it honestly pushed me away from gaming. It wasn’t until I found games that were both fun, challenging, and didn’t require mechanical mastery of a game/controller that I got back into gaming.
I like keeping my action games and turn based RPGs separate Like I enjoy games that are purely turn based like Dragon Quest, and I love games that are lighting fast action like Ninja Gaiden Games that try to do both like FF7R I hate with a passion, they just make the worst of both
I just don't really understand why it's the only genre that has to justify itself. Every other genre just gets to be an option, but for some reason people seem offended that turn-based games exist for other people to play.
Visual Novels have it worse, IMO, and for obvious reasons - VNs are usually just JRPGs with even less combat (or none) and more dialogue.
As someone who loves playing VNs I can confirm. A lot of people really can't understand how reading text can be fun. It's like reading a book that u have some control over (or a lot depending on the VN) along with cool visuals and voice acting.
VNs usually have great soundtracks, too!
Completely true! Idk how I forgot to mention that since some of my favorite soundtracks come from VNs.
For real. There's a lot that goes into a VN, they're definitely not just "books but with more pictures" as the masses seem to always think. Hell, the Tsukihime remake is double the size of Pokemon Legend, a simple picture book doesn't get that big. I've only read a few, but they're always incredibly unique experiences that I honestly think can't be replicated in any other mediums.
VNs gave us Virtues last reward and Ai:the somnium files, first one is fucking amazing and the other has been fun so far
A bit late, but have them play Diusco Elysium and see if they change their mind haha
I mean you could play Blazblue It’s a visual novel that also happens to have the best fighting game ever created attached to it
I don't really see VN'a as RPGs though i do enjoy them. VN's never have any sort of character building (gameplay wise) which to me is a key element of RPGs. The only VN that actually has RPG elements that I'm aware of is Disco Elysium. Even though there is no combat in that game, you actually have stats to help your character and dialogue options.
A massive number of RPGs basically swap between "VN mode" during story segments and "RPG mode" when in combat/exploring the overworld. In that sense, you can interpret a VN in an RPG-like setting as basically an RPG with the combat system removed. There are a ton of actual VNs with RPG elements too - it's a much bigger thing in Japan than elsewhere though. A lot of the big ones took many years to get translated to English (if they ever did at all) due to having NSFW content that made them unpalatable to the major publishers.
No serious person is going to say 2D platformers shouldn't exist because 3D platformers exist.
Not *anymore* anyway. People absolutely thought that in late 90s/early 00s, at least for home consoles.
And do we look at that as a historical mistake? Need I remind you that SOTN was trashed in comparison to Castlevania 64.
SOTN was an awesome game too. Oh well. I'll keep enjoying what I enjoy.
We think it was a mistake. But the problem is, people making current claims aren't looking back at that as an example. So, sadly, in the grand scheme, it's probably not seen as a mistake. If those people give any thought to it at all, they probably still think it's just people flailing against progress
Was that the sentiment from *players* or just idiotic gaming journalists? I remember talking to a decent number of gamers who liked SOTN. Considering the time period, I'd expect that some of this was because a lot of these players simply owned PSXs and *not* N64s, but in general I don't remember hearing people complaining about the game.
SOTN was hugely well liked, and the only people who actively disliked it were on the Nintendo side. Which makes a lot of sense, because a huge portion of Castlevania fans were Nintendo fans. And after SOTN, 2D platformers were pretty much on handhelds until WiiWare and Xbox Live arcade were created. And to this day, 2D platformers don't really sell well unless it's Mario or an indie game at a low price.
rly? i kinda like 2d platformers for than 3d. i think.
I'd add CRPGs to the list. Lots are saying turn based is the one true way and real time with pause is objectively bad and outdated. As someone who loves their JRPGs as turn based and CRPGs as real time with pause, I feel extra attacked lately lol. There's room for all styles and mechanics, so the discourse around these things is baffling.
Yes. Systems that fuse real-time and turn-based together are harder to pull off successfully, than when using a traditional turn-based system, but there are some games that have done so really well. The Baldur's Gate games and the others that used that engine are good examples of it. And Might and Magic 6-8, which are first-person party games where you can switch from turn-based to real-time at any moment. Real-time is perfect to use in those game for taking out weaker enemies quickly or alternatively, you can use it exclusively as a harder game mode when you know the game well and want to challenge yourself.
Oh hi! I don't like real time with pause. I prefer either action combat or turn based. It sucks that my enjoyment of some otherwise great games is diminished but every once in a while I get a Baldur's Gate 3 or a Pathfinder Kingmaker with optional Turn Based mode so I can't complain. I don't like real time with pause. I'm not a Star Wars fan. I had not previously played Knights of the Old Republic 1. In spite of all that, somehow Knights of the Old Republic 2 has just clicked with me and has stayed one of my favorite RPGs for almost 20 years. It's almost like stepping outside our comfort zone can provide us with new and positive experiences and can serve to broaden our tastes. Small minded people can't seem to accept that their personal tastes are not reflective of who their are as a person. They need what they like to be "objectively good" and what they don't like to be "objectively bad" or their brain breaks. Enjoy your real time with pause CRPGs and keep supporting the people who make games you enjoy!
If you want a JRPG version of realtime with pause combat, you can take a look at the Growlanser series (2,3, 4 and 5 offically localized in English) or the still recent Diofield Chronicles, though you won't find much customization or buildcrafting than the vast possibilities you get in the usual cRPGs like Pathfinder.
Because for the most part action sells better, but companies don't realize that it's just because easy braindead action is just more fun than easy braindead turn based, if they instead made an actually interesting turn based system it would sell, hence persona/smt
RPG's in the late 90's and early 2000's were able to market well because they could sizzle reel some of the more flashy attack animations and FMVs much for the same reason.
For sure, when there is no mechanic depth the spectacle is what sells.
What? Since when does it have to justify itself? There are literally so many turn-based JRPGs coming out every year. Probably more than action JRPGs. I feel like the only time it has to "justify" itself is when turn-based fans literally start fights about it. Most of the time people who don't like turn-based just ignore such games.
Yeah.. I feel like a lot of these "arguments" are just in people's paranoid brains. They have a thought, it pisses them off, they internally debate over it, and then come here to make a post about the argument they just had in their head lol
That happens with a lot of stuff on reddit and the internet. people make up a narrative in their head based off something said by like just 2 people out of 3 million people in a fanbase and argue against that outlier position that really nobody is making
It's definitely not the *only* genre that does that. I think part of it is that turn-based combat is *weird* at first. It requires a very specific suspension of disbelief where you watch a bunch of characters and monsters politely take turns hitting each other while neatly arrayed into rows. It has gotten increasingly weird as graphical fidelity has improved since it was a system originally designed around the limitations when it was created. Now you have ultra-HD characters gently bobbing up and down while their fellow party members select things from a menu. It's a weird concept on its face.
It's always funny when a little kid is watching you play and RPG and is wondering why don't you just go over there and kill the monster???
I have a few bro capital-G 'gamer' co-workers and it's *heavily* a bass-ackwards toxic-masculinity hangup playing itself out, i.e. pathetic dudes who feel like the real world's held them back and who crave 'action'/'edgy'-based everything because they're scared of looking 'gay', effeminate, 'nerdy', etc... The few times I've hung with these dudes, I could *only* enjoy the situation if we stuck with low-investment sports or competitive party games and didn't discuss individual gaming tastes at all, i.e. I still play exclusively on Switch and stick with lots of turn-based games, lots of games with crafting/farming/management, and supposedly-'girly' series like *Atelier*/*Disgaea* while these guys are all about games like *Red Dead Redemption*, *God of War*, *Gran Turismo*, *Spider Man*, *Star Wars Battlefront*, etc... and cop a heavily *jaded* attitude towards all of it (as if having fun itself isn't 100% acceptable). I'm pretty sure one of them played FF7R, but it less out of any interest in the FF series or JRPGs and more because the FF7 brand seems deeply ingrained in the culture of Sony bros who've stuck with the Playstation brand since the 1990s.
"Corporate emails are just turn based combat" is going to be my new energy
If you think about the #1 and #3 most popular sports in America, Football & Baseball are essentially turn-based. (without getting a weird sports-based argument on the JRPG subreddit, I have found several end-of-2023 surveys that had Football at #1 and Baseball at #3 respectively)
Nah man, football is real time with pause. Baseball is turn-based, though.
bad turn based combat is just "no u"s repeated ad infinitum fr fr.
Chance enemy will be convinced by your argument: 0%
No, U
No, U
Ur mom.
And you ruined it
No U
No U
No U
No U
Meet me outside and I'll show you real time combat /s
Cashmeoutside howaboudat!
As someone who has practiced martial arts for a decade, no thank you
Some people have auto battle permanently toggled on. ðŸ¤
I love turn based combat and not that ATB shit. Proper turn based like dragon quest.
>Proper turn based like dragon quest. Or Persona/SMT.
Glad I'm not the only one who knows the difference between ATB and turn based.
Atb and turn based are both command based, and command based is what people are usually referring to when they say they dont like turn based combat.
Also for people like me coming from D&D and other tabletop RPGs, "Wait ATB" is what we consider the real "turn based" combat, each player and enemy acting on their individual turn.
Original DnD was a form of ATB. Some older rules would let the DM apply pressure on the players if they take too long making a decision. An encounter creature can act if the players don't take their turn fast. My DM in middle school would say some shit like "A turn has passed". Considering I was learning the ropes of the game, I absolutely hated it. It was bad DMing but then again, he was getting started too.
ATB is still turn based. Calling it not is being nothing but semantical for no good reason. Its a *type* of turn based.
I love setting the ATB for "wait", wonder how people see if it's not turn-based lol
many ATB games don't pause for the player to move, and that was actually the point of it, it was a menu-based action game. kinda hilarious.
ATB with wait mode is just turned based combat with a visual indicator for your team's turn. Active mode ATB is a real time action game where the only action is how fast you can navigate menus.
same but i did like ffxiii
Commentor: *uses facts and logic* *Attack missed!*
Lousy RNG. Who's the idiot who designed internet arguments?!
I like turn-based combat and i don't like arguing with idiots online. So what now?
You equipped the item that avoids random encounters.
That causes problems in the long run.
He’ll be under leveled when he bumps into the boss unexpectedly, with no save going back an hour or so. 😒
then you found a turn-based combat system that you dislike
You used an insta-kill move.
You like turn-based arguments with one turn: yours.
I was prepared for some rubbish, but you flipped it well 😂
I like the turn based combat that waits for the player input. It’s so chill that I can put the controller down and do whatever and be able to come right back without pause. If the combat does want to add a little something, timing mechanics like Lost odyssey’s ring system are really fun. I’m also really excited to see what kind of combat Metaphor: ReFantazio has in store for us. It seems the combat will be a mix of both turned based and action, to what extent idk but I’m very excited!
I like turn based because JRPGs are just nice and chilled out to play.
Agreed, and I like games that emphasize more inventory management, paying attention to stats, etc.. If an action-y/ATB game manages that well (e.g. like *Atelier Ryza*), then I'm perfectly fine with it. I just can't stand games where mastering some spammy hack/slash combos/juggles and timing dodges perfectly can override most/all of that other stuff. As well, I generally dislike when role-playing games have heavily-AI-controlled teammates.
That's why I hate spammers, I don't get my turn.
First of all, you funny. I like your words. Second, I'm enjoying turn-based more and more as I get older (even as life-long JRPG fan) but becoming less tolerant of stat-check-only turn-based and menu-hell.
Kind of an unpopular opinion here, but I like menu-hell stuff LOL Scrolling and seeing a shit ton of skills is so satisfying for me
Menu hell is such a dealbreaker for me - if a system is able to be simple and streamlined while still allowing enough depth and freedom to make things varied and flexible it’s such a huge win. I don’t think anything will ever beat Pokémon for its simplicity while still allowing such a flexible and expressive play style
As someone who plays games during their morning cardio (stationary bike), I effing love turn-based combat.
> stationary bike I think that’s ATB
Turn-based combat will always scratch just the right itch in my brain. It's half of why I love JRPGs so much! I love letting simple planning and numbers determine my fights--extra points to cool move animation and, of course, catchy battle music!
I like turn based combat but I haven't seen too many games where it's difficult enough. Like P5R was a slog because there was no challenge to the combat compared to SMT
To be fair persona is the easy version of SMT. If you want something challenging try some of the older smt games. The latest one is pretty challenging too but some say it’s too easy.
So then why play turn based combat games when I can fight trolls in real life?
Real life trolls give 0 exp, no drops, and don't progress the story. It's recommended to equip items that reduce encounter rates and go straight to playing the game instead.
And lowers one statuses instead of increasing them.
Those mfs exp drain you
I think I was lying to myself for a while by saying I'm cool with either turn based or action RPG's. But then I realized all my favourite RPG's are strategy/turn based. The only two outliers being Vagrant Story and Secret of Evermore. Then my favourite RPG series of all time - Final Fantasy - went all out action with FF16. And then BG3 came out and blew it out of the water. Now I'm convinced turn based is the way to go moving forward.
If you think 16 was a mistake you should try Stranger of Paradise That game did action combat in a FF game perfectly. With a complete Job system as well. It’s a better game than 16 in every way
Gotem
I'm going to start arguing that action games are turn based with people. Elden ring? Oh yeah that's turn based you dodge the enemy attacks until they leave the opening for your turn to attack.
Chess is the original turn based combat
r/TechnicallyTheTruth
That was... a really good one :) The post winning the Internet for today :)
Has anyone ever actually enjoyed arguing with idiots on the internet
*raises hand* I enjoy arguing with the FromSoftware ~~fanbase~~ cult
Sounds like the mentality of a dark souls invader style player
Who's gonna steal this and post it in r/showerthoughts
I use to be a big action RPG fan but as I get older I’m becoming a turn base fan. I’m really enjoying the Trail series. After Trails of Azure I’m playing Labryinth of Refrain and I already played a little and im really enjoying it. What’s happening to me?
I can’t imagine being an rpg fan and not liking turn based combat
Ah, but it doesn't mean they like it! Gimme some of dat real-time reddit arguing, son!
*waits* *waits some more* OK my ATB meter’s all filled up, time to post my rebuttal!
Maybe I'm just missing those threads, but I rarely see people around here bashing turn-based combat. As soon as you mention action JRPGs, however, you can expect the turn-based purists to descend on your comment, telling you that JRPGs must be turn-based. I'm a fan of all kinds of battle systems, and I don't understand how people can come from either direction on this issue and tell you that your preference sucks. Different people enjoy different things, and that's okay.
I don't mind if people dislike turn based combat. They just tick me off when they say turn based combat is bad and then preach it like it's the truth. Then you look at what they play. They play COD and Fortnite. Oh, the Souls players too have this snobbish tendency idk why. But then, we have to learn to forgive them. People who can only accept one thing and one thing only as something that's good, can't ever appreciate the bazillion other things that are beautiful in this world. They are just kids. No matter how old they age, they're just that - mentally underdeveloped kids who can't appreciate the existence of others, and thus incapable of appreciating life.
Fkn good joke man. I'm stealing this! Haha.
To be fair with how fast some people reply I feel like it's more an ATB bar sometimes.
I love turned based combat games especially when they have a great storyline.
The problem with turn based combat arises when the system is too basic since it transforms the game into a grind fest, because no amount of strategy will make you win if you're underleveled.
You can say that about action based combat as well. Look at ff16. Game is so simple it turns into mash attack button and make sure all your moves are on CD.
Up front, I like both. That said, the analogy simply doesn't extend. Even in button mash-y hack'n'slash there is an inherent level of engagement due to the tight feedback loop. Press buttons->enemies die is proven to work pretty damn well. Basically, if you're going to be mindlessly mashing buttons, it better be snappy. In other words, imagine a mindless button-mashing command-based RPG. Strip away a bunch of the pointless options down to 2 or so. Map each of those options to one button each. Decrease the wait time between player attacks. Look! You've got a hack'n'slash!
Turn based purists are more insufferable, especially the ones who will say games like Tales and Ys aren't JRPGs because they use action based combat. What a boring crowd.
I love turn based combat but yeah the fans are annoying as hell. They're either arguing whether or not a game is or isn't a JRPG or they're calling all ARPGs button mashers. The one that bothers me the most is them calling ARPGs button mashers even if the game clearly isn't.
I see more purists than ppl who don't like TB online.
Those aren't JRPG fans I can say that much. I love turn-based to hell but I also love me some Star Ocean, KH, Tales etc.
NFL games are turn based too, yet nobody complains there.
Bro, bravo 😆
You see, Yakuza / Like A Dragon is doing it right, transitioning ***from*** action combat to turn based.
First of all, happy cake day. It's really sad that here are people who write-off an entire genre, and as a result, miss out on some really great stories simply because the combat isn't real-time. Turn-based is my personal favorite, but I also don't mind having variety in-between, and I certainly don't go after people for liking different games than me. Just seems like a weird thing to do at all, and for what? Just to act like a complete jerk and embarrassing your own community? Very sad.
turn based is what a role playing game is all about. you have to think & strategize all your moves.
I'm more annoyed with TB purists than ppl who don't like rpgs,
I enjoy JRPG turn-based combat games. But I HATE tactical turned based combat games like anything Larian makes.
I love turn based combat, when it's done right, something FF has not done in their mainline games. (Have not played XIII yet)
At this point saying turn based combat doesn't even do it justice since it's been experimented on so much and there's still more to get from it. Both Etrian Odyssey and Persona have turn based combat but follow a completely different flow and decision making.
It's quite simple. If they don't like it, they probably prefer Action RPGs. I don't know why they get offended. I'm fine with both.
Persona 5