This generation has killed turn-based gaming

I don't know if it's this generation of consoles, or this generation of gamers, but one or the other is about to ring the death knell on turn-based RPGs, and I couldn't be more disappointed.

It seems like even self-proclaimed RPG lovers are pushing for more action-oriented gameplay, and it sickens me. Supposedly, turn-based combat is "out of date," or "doesn't work with current levels of graphics," and I find these ideas completely mind-boggling.

Turn-based combat is supposed to be slower, but with a deeply strategic edge that you can't find in twitch gameplay. That's not to say that a lot of companies haven't just glossed over the whole "deeply strategic" part, and made combat as easy as mashing the X button, but its strength lays in its potential, not the lazy, over-simplified schlock some developers are willing to put out.

*Sighs* I don't know... I just feel like I'm an ever-dwindling minority, and it makes me feel like I'm going to lose that niche in gaming that I've carefully carved out for myself.

For the record, this rant was instigated by this article: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/final-fantasy-xv-could-be-action-rpg

I thought FF 12 handled battles really well. I don't even care about all that, I just want a good rpg. There hasn't been a single rpg on the ps3 this gen save for Eternal Sonata. I'm still waiting on Tales of Vesperia.

Seriously, not a single great RPG. It's goddamn depressing. The Wii doesn't have one either. Though I haven't kept up to date on all this Operation Pandora thingy. If it's even a thing anymore. God knows gamers don't have enough sense to get companies to release games. It's... ugh I get a headache just thinking about it.

Valkyria Chronicles is a game that's critically well received and a lot of people like it and I'm glad that they enjoy playing it.

However it's just not my kind of game. Hell you were talking about turn based games in your post, but VC isn't even that :P . It's a strategy rpg/third person shooter hybrid of sorts. Not to sound picky or anything hehe.

Valkyria Chronicles is a game that's critically well received and a lot of people like it and I'm glad that they enjoy playing it.

However it's just not my kind of game. Hell you were talking about turn based games in your post, but VC isn't even that :P . It's a strategy rpg/third person shooter hybrid of sorts. Not to sound picky or anything hehe.

thattotally

I only mentioned it, because you were complaining about the lack of RPGs on the PS3, and I figured I'd bring it up. Anyway, it's more a turn-based strategy RPG with real-time elements, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the original point of the thread lol

This is why I can't wait for the FFX HD re-releaseMrBlobz

It'll be interesting, but re-releases don't keep an entire genre or playstyle afloat. We need new IPs or franchise installments to maintain that integrity.

I think it's natural for videogames to generally go in that direction. Table top games are very good at letting players take turns, because... You play it with friends, sit in a circle and and interact. But videogames are intrinsically dynamic. Doing something in real time is something that simply other forms of gaming cannot do as well. Turn based gaming can be explored through traditional means, but real-time events that integrate physics, dynamic, non- player controlled conditions and rapid changes? Those are unique to videogames. There will always be enthusiasts for tradition, so you might have to look a little harder (as a fan of graphic adventure games, I can attest), but it will still be out there. Just not as prominently.Oilers99

[QUOTE="Oilers99"]I think it's natural for videogames to generally go in that direction. Table top games are very good at letting players take turns, because... You play it with friends, sit in a circle and and interact. But videogames are intrinsically dynamic. Doing something in real time is something that simply other forms of gaming cannot do as well. Turn based gaming can be explored through traditional means, but real-time events that integrate physics, dynamic, non- player controlled conditions and rapid changes? Those are unique to videogames. There will always be enthusiasts for tradition, so you might have to look a little harder (as a fan of graphic adventure games, I can attest), but it will still be out there. Just not as prominently.Greyfeld

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"][QUOTE="Oilers99"]I think it's natural for videogames to generally go in that direction. Table top games are very good at letting players take turns, because... You play it with friends, sit in a circle and and interact. But videogames are intrinsically dynamic. Doing something in real time is something that simply other forms of gaming cannot do as well. Turn based gaming can be explored through traditional means, but real-time events that integrate physics, dynamic, non- player controlled conditions and rapid changes? Those are unique to videogames. There will always be enthusiasts for tradition, so you might have to look a little harder (as a fan of graphic adventure games, I can attest), but it will still be out there. Just not as prominently.Oilers99

I suppose that's true, but Final Fantasy XIII didn't necessarily have a lot of freedom, especially in its linearity. Of course, every JRPG or WRPG is linear from point A to point B in terms of story, but FFXIII didn't offer much in the way of extra distractions or sidequests. You just keep on going through...

[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="Greyfeld"] The thing that bothers me is, if Square Enix wanted to explore action RPGs with a new IP, I'd be like "hell yeah, go for it, let's see how it turns out." But no, they want to take the bankability of their Final Fantasy franchise and exploit it to make sure that any garbage they turn out makes money. It's the exact same thing they're doing with Dragon Quest.Metamania

I suppose that's true, but Final Fantasy XIII didn't necessarily have a lot of freedom, especially in its linearity. Of course, every JRPG or WRPG is linear from point A to point B in terms of story, but FFXIII didn't offer much in the way of extra distractions or sidequests. You just keep on going through...

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"][QUOTE="Oilers99"]I think it's natural for videogames to generally go in that direction. Table top games are very good at letting players take turns, because... You play it with friends, sit in a circle and and interact. But videogames are intrinsically dynamic. Doing something in real time is something that simply other forms of gaming cannot do as well. Turn based gaming can be explored through traditional means, but real-time events that integrate physics, dynamic, non- player controlled conditions and rapid changes? Those are unique to videogames. There will always be enthusiasts for tradition, so you might have to look a little harder (as a fan of graphic adventure games, I can attest), but it will still be out there. Just not as prominently.Oilers99

Maybe, but they've always maintained a turn-based or ATB battle system. I'd argue that the series has always been at its best when it's been turn-based (FFX being my favorite installment, with FF9 and FF6 bringing up a close second and third place), but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, even when the FF series has tried to do things differently, it's always held onto certain structures. ATB, party-based combat, character customization, etc etc. If they take the combat in the direction of action-based combat, half of what makes a game truly Final Fantasy will be completely gone.

As it is, I'm already unhappy with the fantastic job they did of completely taking combat out of the hands of the player in the last two installments.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="Greyfeld"] The thing that bothers me is, if Square Enix wanted to explore action RPGs with a new IP, I'd be like "hell yeah, go for it, let's see how it turns out." But no, they want to take the bankability of their Final Fantasy franchise and exploit it to make sure that any garbage they turn out makes money. It's the exact same thing they're doing with Dragon Quest.Greyfeld

Maybe, but they've always maintained a turn-based or ATB battle system. I'd argue that the series has always been at its best when it's been turn-based (FFX being my favorite installment, with FF9 and FF6 bringing up a close second and third place), but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, even when the FF series has tried to do things differently, it's always held onto certain structures. ATB, party-based combat, character customization, etc etc. If they take the combat in the direction of action-based combat, half of what makes a game truly Final Fantasy will be completely gone.

As it is, I'm already unhappy with the fantastic job they did of completely taking combat out of the hands of the player in the last two installments.

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] Dragon Quest is the last series I would worry about changing. But Final Fantasy games have always been about change; they are not supposed to be anything but JRPGs... Beyond that they have always exercised complete freedom.Oilers99

Maybe, but they've always maintained a turn-based or ATB battle system. I'd argue that the series has always been at its best when it's been turn-based (FFX being my favorite installment, with FF9 and FF6 bringing up a close second and third place), but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, even when the FF series has tried to do things differently, it's always held onto certain structures. ATB, party-based combat, character customization, etc etc. If they take the combat in the direction of action-based combat, half of what makes a game truly Final Fantasy will be completely gone.

As it is, I'm already unhappy with the fantastic job they did of completely taking combat out of the hands of the player in the last two installments.

I'm not going to argue about FF12, for various reasons, but they definitely took control away in FF13. Two of the characters in your party are completely automated, there are almost no situations in which mashing "auto" doesn't kill everything, you can only choose your own team during the last 1/3 of the game or so, and if the center character dies you get a game-over. The combat LOOKED impressive, but it's laughable to believe that the game didn't take control away from the player.

I notice you have a PSP and a DS. Yet you're still wanting for turn-based rpgs?

I notice you have a PSP and a DS. Yet you're still wanting for turn-based rpgs?

NEStorianPriest

I would like to see them on consoles, instead of just handhelds. Turn-based and bad graphics don't have to go hand-in-hand.

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

I notice you have a PSP and a DS. Yet you're still wanting for turn-based rpgs?

Greyfeld

I would like to see them on consoles, instead of just handhelds. Turn-based and bad graphics don't have to go hand-in-hand.

For someone who still goes back to the PS1 rpgs I played in the 90s, I don't have a problem with the graphics. Probably because I'm primarily interested in story, scenario and combat/spell system mechanics.

I gotta agree which is the very reason why I bought a PSP this year. I have no problem whatsoever with graphics as I really don't consider it bad at all. What games on PSP do you consider 'bad'?

I don't know if it's this generation of consoles, or this generation of gamers, but one or the other is about to ring the death knell on turn-based RPGs, and I couldn't be more disappointed.

It seems like even self-proclaimed RPG lovers are pushing for more action-oriented gameplay, and it sickens me. Supposedly, turn-based combat is "out of date," or "doesn't work with current levels of graphics," and I find these ideas completely mind-boggling.

Turn-based combat is supposed to be slower, but with a deeply strategic edge that you can't find in twitch gameplay. That's not to say that a lot of companies haven't just glossed over the whole "deeply strategic" part, and made combat as easy as mashing the X button, but its strength lays in its potential, not the lazy, over-simplified schlock some developers are willing to put out.

*Sighs* I don't know... I just feel like I'm an ever-dwindling minority, and it makes me feel like I'm going to lose that niche in gaming that I've carefully carved out for myself.

For the record, this rant was instigated by this article: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/final-fantasy-xv-could-be-action-rpg

Greyfeld

the only turn based strategy i like is pokemon and FF 1+2. i just hate turn based RPGs because it isnt fun to me when i am exploring and i'm like this is so awes- *random encounter!* god d***nit!" it just kills the exploration factor for me when i am stopped frequently to battle then continue, when in games like zelda and elder scrolls, i can fight and win(hopefully) and continue with no pause or anything

[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

Maybe, but they've always maintained a turn-based or ATB battle system. I'd argue that the series has always been at its best when it's been turn-based (FFX being my favorite installment, with FF9 and FF6 bringing up a close second and third place), but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, even when the FF series has tried to do things differently, it's always held onto certain structures. ATB, party-based combat, character customization, etc etc. If they take the combat in the direction of action-based combat, half of what makes a game truly Final Fantasy will be completely gone.

As it is, I'm already unhappy with the fantastic job they did of completely taking combat out of the hands of the player in the last two installments.

Greyfeld

I'm not going to argue about FF12, for various reasons, but they definitely took control away in FF13. Two of the characters in your party are completely automated, there are almost no situations in which mashing "auto" doesn't kill everything, you can only choose your own team during the last 1/3 of the game or so, and if the center character dies you get a game-over. The combat LOOKED impressive, but it's laughable to believe that the game didn't take control away from the player.

It didn't. You sound like a guy who is complaining that something is dead just because it has gone in a direction you don't like. Speaking as a guy who spending most of his time nowadays playing the excellent Disgaea 4 (I've already put in north of 150 hours) checked into this thread to disagree with your notion that turn based games are dead. They aren't as popular as they once were, but there are still great games out there for those who want to play them.

Its also nice that lots of older games are popping up via download (it possible but highly unlikely that during the height of turn based game's popularity, anyone had the time to play all the good ones).

I think it's natural for videogames to generally go in that direction. Table top games are very good at letting players take turns, because... You play it with friends, sit in a circle and and interact. But videogames are intrinsically dynamic. Doing something in real time is something that simply other forms of gaming cannot do as well. Turn based gaming can be explored through traditional means, but real-time events that integrate physics, dynamic, non- player controlled conditions and rapid changes? Those are unique to videogames. There will always be enthusiasts for tradition, so you might have to look a little harder (as a fan of graphic adventure games, I can attest), but it will still be out there. Just not as prominently.Oilers99

I'd say it's this generation of gamers that causing the turn-based RPG to die. These kids who play nothing but Call of Duty and Halo are too simple minded to enjoy a strategic RPG. They have short attention spans and hate having to wait their turn.

Persona 3 + 4, Final Fantasy X and Dragon Quest VIII are some of the best games of all time, and all of them are turn-based RPGs. I love those games, and my friend asked me why I like those kind of games. He tells me they're boring and he'd rather play Call of Duty because it's "realistic."

[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

Maybe, but they've always maintained a turn-based or ATB battle system. I'd argue that the series has always been at its best when it's been turn-based (FFX being my favorite installment, with FF9 and FF6 bringing up a close second and third place), but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, even when the FF series has tried to do things differently, it's always held onto certain structures. ATB, party-based combat, character customization, etc etc. If they take the combat in the direction of action-based combat, half of what makes a game truly Final Fantasy will be completely gone.

As it is, I'm already unhappy with the fantastic job they did of completely taking combat out of the hands of the player in the last two installments.

Greyfeld

I'm not going to argue about FF12, for various reasons, but they definitely took control away in FF13. Two of the characters in your party are completely automated, there are almost no situations in which mashing "auto" doesn't kill everything, you can only choose your own team during the last 1/3 of the game or so, and if the center character dies you get a game-over. The combat LOOKED impressive, but it's laughable to believe that the game didn't take control away from the player.

[QUOTE="Oilers99"]I think it's natural for videogames to generally go in that direction. Table top games are very good at letting players take turns, because... You play it with friends, sit in a circle and and interact. But videogames are intrinsically dynamic. Doing something in real time is something that simply other forms of gaming cannot do as well. Turn based gaming can be explored through traditional means, but real-time events that integrate physics, dynamic, non- player controlled conditions and rapid changes? Those are unique to videogames. There will always be enthusiasts for tradition, so you might have to look a little harder (as a fan of graphic adventure games, I can attest), but it will still be out there. Just not as prominently.gameguy6700

Good. Turn based combat is ****ing archaic.

Good. Turn based combat is ****ing archaic.

YoungSinatra25

Frozen Synapse.

/Thread

I am surprised to see that no-one has mentioned Lost Odyssey. I know it was a bit of a sleeper hit but I played it and generally quite enjoyed it. The combat had a lot of breadth and depth, which added to the strategic nature of its turn-based combat. The only thing that let it down was the slow pacing of the story and the narrative sub-stories. I also acknowledge that it did not feature on the PS3 (being an Xbox exclusive) but just thought I'd mention.

Did anyone play DQ IX? It uses the same tried and tested formula as the previous DQ games but that is one of the most charming and replayable turn-based RPGgames on the DS.

Resonance of Fate was also a decent game. I didn't get too far on it, I needed to get on with life at that point, but I enjoyed it. The only reason I haven't picked it up again is because, as everyone knows, once you stop playing a game for one day, that's when the rot sets in and it's like "Meh" every day after that.

The less said about Blue Dragon the better though.

However, having said that, you only need to look at Bioware and you wonder why they changed everything that was so great about Dragon Age: Origins and replaced it with Dragon Age 2 to realise that perhaps turn-based gaming is slowly dying out. Not that Dragon Age 2 was necessarily a bad game, just not on the same level as Dragon Age: Origins.

Ya. I miss turned based rpg's. Iv'e been wanting another breath of fire.

This is why I can't wait for the FFX HD re-releaseMrBlobz

JRPGs are pretty terrible at real-time combat and, at best, play like single-player MMOs. gameguy6700

[QUOTE="smerlus"]Turn based combat was necessary for table top RPGs as everyone rolling dice at once to imitate real time would be chaotic. CPU's are able to "roll" the required dice and crunch the numbers as fast as a player can press a button. The word "strategy" seems to always get attached to TB combat but i've seriously never seen a single RPGs that requires even an ounce of as much strategy as chess. the "strategy usually amounts to nothing more than rock/paper/scissors (fire beats ice, electricity beats water...) I think real time is the natural revolution of combat in RPG's but unfortunately developers really don't put nearly as much effort in making it challenging and well balanced.Oilers99