This year my daughter has forced me to play a number of Pokémon games. Didn’t know much about the franchise before, but I do now I guess. The games are heavy on TB fighting. The first 4 games we played didn’t change my view in TB fighting: bland and boring. You just had to pick the right Pokémon with the right attack - fight won. Tactics and variation was no where to be found. Buffs where never used and old moves where replaced by more powerful attacks. Once you had the most powerful moves and reached the highest level the fighting became lost all interest.
The games tend to be like that, but the battle system itself is actually surprisingly deep. Competitive Pokemon in the first few gens often revolves around passing buffs to allies, exploiting passive damage, status effects, type coverage, and recovery. I only mess around with the older ones so I can't say what it's like now.
Just try to beat Pokemon Stadium 1 or 2 legitimately, or any of the fan hacks like Crystal Clear and you will know what I mean. A totally different universe compared to the vanilla games. Trying to power through it by having good moves simply won't work.
Competitive Pokemon and Shin Megami Tensei battles are examples of turn based done right in my opinion. It doesn't drag on, there are multiple approaches to a problem, sometimes you will be blindsided by a strategy you didn't expect.
I think its worth noting that TB in jrpgs and TB in crpgs is very different. Pokemon, for example, is just command selection. With crpg turn based, you have things to consider like movement, positioning, sometimes high ground, etc. And each character in combat moves one at a time.
I personally love jrpg turn based, its naturally a combat system that is quick to resolve, unless its intentionally slowed down.
My dislike of TB is specifically with the crpg variety, which takes FORVEVER to get though. Unless you can reach the enemies in your first turn, and still have points or actions to attack, and are strong enough to one-shot enemies, AND have enough accuracy that positioning or terrain doesn't matter, you're looking at 5 minutes for trash fights at a bare minimum, with 8-10 being common. Anything moderately challenging and you're looking at 15-25 minutes. Its such a slow slog.
I've never played a JRPG, but the TB systems in strategy games like Civilization, for example, or digital adaptations of board games and card games, are also fundamentally different from TB in cRPGs. And like you, I also have no problem with TB in those other video game genres where they totally make sense. It's just in cRPGs that TB combat just plain sucks.
I've never considered myself a patient person (I can't stand audio books for that reason, for example, because I'm a fast reader and hate when I can't really adjust the speed), but I really don't get the feeling that turn-based combat is too slow for me, at least in D:OS, which I'm currently playing, and which is my "First Contact" with turn-based games.
I'm not sure why that's the case. I'm beginning to think I actually prefer it. I love to get immersed in role-playing, but in combat that immersion makes it difficult to keep track of everything and everyone. I have frequently had the problem in games like BG and NWN that I lost track of someone's HP during a battle or didn't issue commands to everyone at the right moment, and ended up using auto pause a lot (I don't like to use party AI) . I'm also not that good at picking the right moments for every party member to drink a potion, move and attack without wasting actions or ending up without drinking the potion because of aura issues, because timing wasn't precise enough.
In turn-based mode in D:OS, I switch into a different mindset and like how I can carefully position everyone and decide on every action at the right moment without forgetting anyone or losing track of health and status effects.
I don't find combat too slow. But that's probably because every fight is somehow different and challenging in its own way. It becomes more like a puzzle that needs to be solved. I'm also in no hurry to finish the game. I don't have much time to play, so I'd rather enjoy it than rush through. So, while I was skeptical at first, TB actually seems to work better for me in some situations.
That said, I'll second what @Cahir said, that a good story with interesting interaction and a world to discover matters more than the mechanics. Game mechanics might make a difference about which parts of a game I enjoy more or what I struggle with, but they won't keep me from buying a game that looks interesting.
It becomes more like a puzzle that needs to be solved.
Yep, that's how I see it as well. I don't mind it if a game sacrifices realism in order to be more fun. Not that I dislike real time with pause, on the contrary, I think it's a great mechanic. But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy turn-based as well. What I like about TB is the intricacies of combat. It's the reason why I like tabletop D&D as well. Granted, sometimes it can get slow, but to me that doesn't necessarily mean that it's less fun. In a turn based CRPG, when I'm faced with a huge battle, with tons of different enemies, my immediate thought is "Alright... how the hell am I gonna solve this?". And I like that. My guess is, that at the end of the day, it's just a matter of personal tastes. There's no right or wrong here, it's all subjective.
It becomes more like a puzzle that needs to be solved. I'
That is EXACTLY what I din't liked about dos2. The game fells complete different than the old RPG's that fells like a immersive alternative world where the game mechanics are in line with game lore. Fells more like a puzzle solving game.
I an not saying that is bad, only that is not what I play RPG's for. RPG's always was good for "escapism" and a lot of 80s/90s satanic panic was only possible due the immersive nature of D&D 2e.
Is a little off topic but do you know that OwlCat is hiring for a new Turn BASED sci-fi RPG. Starfinder? Iron Gods AP?
Is not a new news but here is the source(in Russian). An translation made by a Russian speaker on RPG codex :
What @Arvia describes matches my original experience with the D:OS games as well. At first, I couldn't believe I would start enjoying TB RPGs, after T:ToN left a sour taste in my mouth (unfortunately).
When I asked myself, why did I enjoy that approach in D:OS? Probably, because it's not different from playing BGII:EE with SCS and with no/minimal reloads. Then every battle becomes a puzzle as well. Take Tolgerias with SCS, for example. If you don't know how to do it, you will 100% die in that encounter. Or the tavern lich. Or Ust-Natha.
I have no trouble separating the role-playing experience and playing tactical battles. Actually, this provides me with 2 different feelings I get from one game, which makes my playing experience richer.
And mind, not EVERY battle in D:OS and D:OS 2 is as difficult as Tolgerias or the tavern lich with SCS. You learn the basics, then you enjoy how you outsmart the enemies, inventing new and new strategies as you get new skills and get better at the game.
What @Arvia describes matches my original experience with the D:OS games as well. At first, I couldn't believe I would start enjoying TB RPGs, after T:ToN left a sour taste in my mouth (unfortunately).
When I asked myself, why did I enjoy that approach in D:OS? Probably, because it's not different from playing BGII:EE with SCS and with no/minimal reloads. Then every battle becomes a puzzle as well. Take Tolgerias with SCS, for example. If you don't know how to do it, you will 100% die in that encounter. Or the tavern lich. Or Ust-Natha.
I have no trouble separating the role-playing experience and playing tactical battles. Actually, this provides me with 2 different feelings I get from one game, which makes my playing experience richer.
And mind, not EVERY battle in D:OS and D:OS 2 is as difficult as Tolgerias or the tavern lich with SCS. You learn the basics, then you enjoy how you outsmart the enemies, inventing new and new strategies as you get new skills and get better at the game.
What T:ToN means?
SCS, I will try to solo it after I finish my current PFKM run. at moment, on lv 12 on Vanhold and enjoying TB mode. Will try solo SCS as a necromancer, like I soloed Legacy of Bhaal.
But I strongly disagree about "separating role playing and tactical battles or gameplay", IMO the game mechanics and lore should be as close as possible. Gothic is a game where being a mage is far harder and expensive than a warrior and in that universe makes sense. I don't care about balance.
I know that a lot of people here don't like ARPG's and prefer tactical RPG's, but the best example of ludonarrative consistency is Gothic.
The same is truth for mods. Took me about 14 hours to become a necromancer on my first returning 2.0 necromancer run(the mod is about 250 hours long). First you need to talk to Xardas and ask for apprenticeship, then he after some time will accept and now you are a novice of darkness, you need to do a lot of intellectual things like alchemy, reading books, learning new languages, to train your mind since no trainer can train you in INT, contrary to STR/DEX and pay heavily for magicians to train your spirit. Only after having high mana and high intellect, you can do the initiation into the circle of darkness which involves killing a sheep of Innos in a monastery full of powerful fire magicians that can cast powerful high level magic while you can't cast anything without scrolls. It is a harsh initiation which involves scouting, planning escape routes and expensive non the less. After it, you need to learn the first circle of darkness and the first basic spells, gather the reagents and make the spell. Black pearl which is required for arrow of darkness is not a cheap reagent.
And water mages have a much harder time and can only become one on chapter 2.
This is definitively not balanced. But is fun and makes sense non the less.
What @Arvia describes matches my original experience with the D:OS games as well. At first, I couldn't believe I would start enjoying TB RPGs, after T:ToN left a sour taste in my mouth (unfortunately).
When I asked myself, why did I enjoy that approach in D:OS? Probably, because it's not different from playing BGII:EE with SCS and with no/minimal reloads. Then every battle becomes a puzzle as well. Take Tolgerias with SCS, for example. If you don't know how to do it, you will 100% die in that encounter. Or the tavern lich. Or Ust-Natha.
I have no trouble separating the role-playing experience and playing tactical battles. Actually, this provides me with 2 different feelings I get from one game, which makes my playing experience richer.
And mind, not EVERY battle in D:OS and D:OS 2 is as difficult as Tolgerias or the tavern lich with SCS. You learn the basics, then you enjoy how you outsmart the enemies, inventing new and new strategies as you get new skills and get better at the game.
I on the other hand was enjoying TB RPGs long before RtwP was a thing, including the original Goldbox games. So I was open in principle to having it, though I would have preferred RtwP given that it is supposed to be a BG successor.
But the point for me is that I feel the TB combat firstly in D:OS is not fun. I am not saying it is correctly shallow and you can do some interesting "combat puzzles" in it. But for me it's just not a good depiction of how I envisage a fantasy world battle to be like. I have gone over it before, but basically the fact that you can do combos like rain/lightning without the enemy being able to interrupt you is annoying. And the elemental surfaces felt gimmicky to me - which does not mean you can't do interesting things with them.
I haven't formed a final verdict on BG 3 - but I tend to be a bit pessimistic. Ironically I feel that D&D 5th edition is streamlined to make P&P smooth and fast. And as someone who has played incredibly complex German RPG systems I consider this to be a good thing. But as a CRPG this is not required since the computer handles the numbers for you. As an easy example, in the old Goldbox games casting spells still had a delay during which you can be interrupted. It also seems like they are forcing the elemental surfaced gimmick into the system, which I don't think is a good idea but which hopefully may be toned down still.
Wasteland 3 had concurrent moves for enemies, so that sped things up a lot. I found Wasteland 3 and D:OS 2 did a good job with making the fights faster, things either go your way or South pretty quick. In WL3 for my second run, I used a character with the 2 Pump Chump quirk and abused the hell out of by just making most fights last less than 3 rounds.
If you know what you are doing, you can destroy any encounter in FF7 in seconds. So no, they aren't faster.
And FFVII is still slow in that regard compared to the Dragon Quest or Shin Megami Tensei PS2 games, Square were always a bit overly fond of needlessly long animations, even for basic attacks.
If you know what you are doing, you can destroy any encounter in FF7 in seconds. So no, they aren't faster.
Are we talking the original FF7 here? Or the Remake?
Both are extremely slow and booooring.
Dark Sun games are the best games in turn based combat.
I criticize Larian and Wizardry 8 devs by having slow animations but honestly they games are far more fast paced than any Square Enix games. Anyway, while most WRPG's started with guys like Richard Garriott, with concepts like the character being a player's Avatar and companies like Strategic Simulations games who made mostly simulation games and wanna use RPG elements to "simulate" a fictional world with focus on PC market and a target audience of young adults, JRPG's got popularized by anime companies with children and young teenagers as target audience and console focus, as another media to tell a story.
If you know what you are doing, you can destroy any encounter in FF7 in seconds. So no, they aren't faster.
Are we talking the original FF7 here? Or the Remake?
The original. The "remake" is more of a reboot or a stealth sequel. Depending on how you interpret the story.
From what I've seen so far it's more like a re-imagining of the story. It borrows not only from the original game, but also all the related FF7 material that's come since and given a "what if?" treatment. It's probably safe to say that whatever direction the Remake is going in, it's not going to be exactly the same as the original game. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is probably a personal matter.
@Zaxares "From what I've seen so far it's more like a re-imagining of the story. It borrows not only from the original game, but also all the related FF7 material that's come since and given a "what if?" treatment. It's probably safe to say that whatever direction the Remake is going in, it's not going to be exactly the same as the original game. "
You just defined "reboot" beutifully
Personally, I find it kind of a mixed bag. The character expansions are all utterly fantastic. It brings the classic characters to life in a new way AND stays true to their original characters, undoing the awful flanderization that spinoff materials caused. Seriously, Barret is now the best character. But on the flip side, the game is padded as all heck, with a 6 hour sequence from the original blown up to 30 hours. It really feels like a p[oy to milk it as much as possible. All of the main story additions are also aggressively stupid. Either muddying the narrative or killing all the buildup and pacing of the original. I honestly can't decide if I like the game or not at this point. I keep jumping the fence.
For me it seems to vary based on the presentation. If it's first-person (think Might and Magic) or over-the-shoulder third person (think Neverwinter Nights) I'll lean more towards RTwP since I'm already more immersed than usual in the gameplay, and pausing breaks the immersion.
For top-down (Gold Box) and Isometric (Infinity Engine, Pools of Radiance: RoMD), I prefer turn-based since that's how I was introduced to that perspective (and straight top-down doesn't really work in Real-Time). If anybody has a 100% Turn Based mod/total conversion for the IE games, I'm interested (autopause at end of round isn't quite what I'm after since the IE does synchronous action - all actions in the turn at once, delayed sub-turn based on speed factors - and I'm looking for the sequential action: one action presented at a time based on priority, which is inherent to Turn-Based instead)
Comments
Did you played Dark Sun CRPG's? ToEE? This games are far quicker in TB mode than for eg, FF7.
Also, many games has options like concurrent turns and speed up animations. Eg? Kingmaker
The games tend to be like that, but the battle system itself is actually surprisingly deep. Competitive Pokemon in the first few gens often revolves around passing buffs to allies, exploiting passive damage, status effects, type coverage, and recovery. I only mess around with the older ones so I can't say what it's like now.
Just try to beat Pokemon Stadium 1 or 2 legitimately, or any of the fan hacks like Crystal Clear and you will know what I mean. A totally different universe compared to the vanilla games. Trying to power through it by having good moves simply won't work.
Competitive Pokemon and Shin Megami Tensei battles are examples of turn based done right in my opinion. It doesn't drag on, there are multiple approaches to a problem, sometimes you will be blindsided by a strategy you didn't expect.
I'm not sure why that's the case. I'm beginning to think I actually prefer it. I love to get immersed in role-playing, but in combat that immersion makes it difficult to keep track of everything and everyone. I have frequently had the problem in games like BG and NWN that I lost track of someone's HP during a battle or didn't issue commands to everyone at the right moment, and ended up using auto pause a lot (I don't like to use party AI) . I'm also not that good at picking the right moments for every party member to drink a potion, move and attack without wasting actions or ending up without drinking the potion because of aura issues, because timing wasn't precise enough.
In turn-based mode in D:OS, I switch into a different mindset and like how I can carefully position everyone and decide on every action at the right moment without forgetting anyone or losing track of health and status effects.
I don't find combat too slow. But that's probably because every fight is somehow different and challenging in its own way. It becomes more like a puzzle that needs to be solved. I'm also in no hurry to finish the game. I don't have much time to play, so I'd rather enjoy it than rush through. So, while I was skeptical at first, TB actually seems to work better for me in some situations.
That said, I'll second what @Cahir said, that a good story with interesting interaction and a world to discover matters more than the mechanics. Game mechanics might make a difference about which parts of a game I enjoy more or what I struggle with, but they won't keep me from buying a game that looks interesting.
Yep, that's how I see it as well. I don't mind it if a game sacrifices realism in order to be more fun. Not that I dislike real time with pause, on the contrary, I think it's a great mechanic. But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy turn-based as well. What I like about TB is the intricacies of combat. It's the reason why I like tabletop D&D as well. Granted, sometimes it can get slow, but to me that doesn't necessarily mean that it's less fun. In a turn based CRPG, when I'm faced with a huge battle, with tons of different enemies, my immediate thought is "Alright... how the hell am I gonna solve this?". And I like that. My guess is, that at the end of the day, it's just a matter of personal tastes. There's no right or wrong here, it's all subjective.
That is EXACTLY what I din't liked about dos2. The game fells complete different than the old RPG's that fells like a immersive alternative world where the game mechanics are in line with game lore. Fells more like a puzzle solving game.
I an not saying that is bad, only that is not what I play RPG's for. RPG's always was good for "escapism" and a lot of 80s/90s satanic panic was only possible due the immersive nature of D&D 2e.
Is a little off topic but do you know that OwlCat is hiring for a new Turn BASED sci-fi RPG. Starfinder? Iron Gods AP?
Is not a new news but here is the source(in Russian). An translation made by a Russian speaker on RPG codex :
It will be a starfinder CRPG? A Iron Gods adventure paths? Some people in that thread even speculate about WH40K.
Between BG3,PF:WoTR and PoE, none of then are high technological.
I would honestly love to see technomancers in a CRPG.
When I asked myself, why did I enjoy that approach in D:OS? Probably, because it's not different from playing BGII:EE with SCS and with no/minimal reloads. Then every battle becomes a puzzle as well. Take Tolgerias with SCS, for example. If you don't know how to do it, you will 100% die in that encounter. Or the tavern lich. Or Ust-Natha.
I have no trouble separating the role-playing experience and playing tactical battles. Actually, this provides me with 2 different feelings I get from one game, which makes my playing experience richer.
And mind, not EVERY battle in D:OS and D:OS 2 is as difficult as Tolgerias or the tavern lich with SCS. You learn the basics, then you enjoy how you outsmart the enemies, inventing new and new strategies as you get new skills and get better at the game.
What T:ToN means?
SCS, I will try to solo it after I finish my current PFKM run. at moment, on lv 12 on Vanhold and enjoying TB mode. Will try solo SCS as a necromancer, like I soloed Legacy of Bhaal.
But I strongly disagree about "separating role playing and tactical battles or gameplay", IMO the game mechanics and lore should be as close as possible. Gothic is a game where being a mage is far harder and expensive than a warrior and in that universe makes sense. I don't care about balance.
I know that a lot of people here don't like ARPG's and prefer tactical RPG's, but the best example of ludonarrative consistency is Gothic.
The same is truth for mods. Took me about 14 hours to become a necromancer on my first returning 2.0 necromancer run(the mod is about 250 hours long). First you need to talk to Xardas and ask for apprenticeship, then he after some time will accept and now you are a novice of darkness, you need to do a lot of intellectual things like alchemy, reading books, learning new languages, to train your mind since no trainer can train you in INT, contrary to STR/DEX and pay heavily for magicians to train your spirit. Only after having high mana and high intellect, you can do the initiation into the circle of darkness which involves killing a sheep of Innos in a monastery full of powerful fire magicians that can cast powerful high level magic while you can't cast anything without scrolls. It is a harsh initiation which involves scouting, planning escape routes and expensive non the less. After it, you need to learn the first circle of darkness and the first basic spells, gather the reagents and make the spell. Black pearl which is required for arrow of darkness is not a cheap reagent.
And water mages have a much harder time and can only become one on chapter 2.
This is definitively not balanced. But is fun and makes sense non the less.
I on the other hand was enjoying TB RPGs long before RtwP was a thing, including the original Goldbox games. So I was open in principle to having it, though I would have preferred RtwP given that it is supposed to be a BG successor.
But the point for me is that I feel the TB combat firstly in D:OS is not fun. I am not saying it is correctly shallow and you can do some interesting "combat puzzles" in it. But for me it's just not a good depiction of how I envisage a fantasy world battle to be like. I have gone over it before, but basically the fact that you can do combos like rain/lightning without the enemy being able to interrupt you is annoying. And the elemental surfaces felt gimmicky to me - which does not mean you can't do interesting things with them.
I haven't formed a final verdict on BG 3 - but I tend to be a bit pessimistic. Ironically I feel that D&D 5th edition is streamlined to make P&P smooth and fast. And as someone who has played incredibly complex German RPG systems I consider this to be a good thing. But as a CRPG this is not required since the computer handles the numbers for you. As an easy example, in the old Goldbox games casting spells still had a delay during which you can be interrupted. It also seems like they are forcing the elemental surfaced gimmick into the system, which I don't think is a good idea but which hopefully may be toned down still.
I believe that's Torment: Tides of Numenera.
If you know what you are doing, you can destroy any encounter in FF7 in seconds. So no, they aren't faster.
And FFVII is still slow in that regard compared to the Dragon Quest or Shin Megami Tensei PS2 games, Square were always a bit overly fond of needlessly long animations, even for basic attacks.
Are we talking the original FF7 here? Or the Remake?
Both are extremely slow and booooring.
Dark Sun games are the best games in turn based combat.
I criticize Larian and Wizardry 8 devs by having slow animations but honestly they games are far more fast paced than any Square Enix games. Anyway, while most WRPG's started with guys like Richard Garriott, with concepts like the character being a player's Avatar and companies like Strategic Simulations games who made mostly simulation games and wanna use RPG elements to "simulate" a fictional world with focus on PC market and a target audience of young adults, JRPG's got popularized by anime companies with children and young teenagers as target audience and console focus, as another media to tell a story.
The original. The "remake" is more of a reboot or a stealth sequel. Depending on how you interpret the story.
From what I've seen so far it's more like a re-imagining of the story. It borrows not only from the original game, but also all the related FF7 material that's come since and given a "what if?" treatment. It's probably safe to say that whatever direction the Remake is going in, it's not going to be exactly the same as the original game. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is probably a personal matter.
You just defined "reboot" beutifully
Personally, I find it kind of a mixed bag. The character expansions are all utterly fantastic. It brings the classic characters to life in a new way AND stays true to their original characters, undoing the awful flanderization that spinoff materials caused. Seriously, Barret is now the best character. But on the flip side, the game is padded as all heck, with a 6 hour sequence from the original blown up to 30 hours. It really feels like a p[oy to milk it as much as possible. All of the main story additions are also aggressively stupid. Either muddying the narrative or killing all the buildup and pacing of the original. I honestly can't decide if I like the game or not at this point. I keep jumping the fence.
For me it seems to vary based on the presentation. If it's first-person (think Might and Magic) or over-the-shoulder third person (think Neverwinter Nights) I'll lean more towards RTwP since I'm already more immersed than usual in the gameplay, and pausing breaks the immersion.
For top-down (Gold Box) and Isometric (Infinity Engine, Pools of Radiance: RoMD), I prefer turn-based since that's how I was introduced to that perspective (and straight top-down doesn't really work in Real-Time). If anybody has a 100% Turn Based mod/total conversion for the IE games, I'm interested (autopause at end of round isn't quite what I'm after since the IE does synchronous action - all actions in the turn at once, delayed sub-turn based on speed factors - and I'm looking for the sequential action: one action presented at a time based on priority, which is inherent to Turn-Based instead)