Makoto Yuki
Banned
However, after going through my library the past few months and replaying old jrpg classics like those listed before, I've realized I do not care for the battle systems at all. In my opinion, these battle systems heavily relied on high agility, powerful attacks, offensive spells, and the occasional "heal all" item/spell, with little room for strategic planning and character buffs/debuffs outside a boss fight or two. They created an illusion of fast battles when in reality they simply fixed your movement speed. On top of it all, it become flat out frustrating to pick the right move under the pressure of being "Supernova-ed" by a tough boss. It was then when I came to the conclusion the more traditional turn-based battle systems like those found in Final Fantasy X, Xenosaga III, the Shin Megami Tensei series, and the Dragon Quest series are more engaging and satisfying.
Am I in the minority? Is the ATB system a viable gameplay mechanic? Is there something I'm just not understanding? What are your thoughts GAF?
Side note: Yes, I know Square Enix still use it in heavily modified ways as seen in Final Fantasy XII, the Final Fantasy XIII series, and Type-0. However, these incarnations share only the most basic functions of the games in the past (the gauge itself in most cases) and could almost be considered entirely different beasts.
You can boil most JRPGs to who can drain the other opponents HP down the fastest. Buffs and Debuffs don't really play any part in regular battles outside of harder bosses. The appeal of the ATB system has always been that you have some pressure during combat, but the WAIT mode is there in FF games if you want that. The cool thing about the some SMT games was the Press-Turn which gave you more turns if you played strategically. Dragon Quest, the few I have played have always been straight forward.
FFXIII used a slightly modified ATB, FFXII used the ADB, Active Dimension Battle, not the ATB. Type-0 was an action game.
You're probably right on that. However, this doesn't fix my issue with the actual battle speed and how it's locked to how fast the gauge moves. For example, the first few fights in Final Fantasy VII are the most painful due how slow the ATB gauge fills, and your often just sitting there waiting to make an obvious move. Meanwhile, in a game like Dragon Quest V, the speed of the battle mostly depends on how fast you can actually select your move (putting aside the length of attack/spell animations as those vary game-to-game). The break in-between turns can be as long or as short as you so please.
Edit: Granted, it may just be that I have not played enough ATB games to come to this conclusion. I'm definitely picking up I Am Setsuna this year, so there's time for me to re-evaluate my stance.
You can up the speed battle speed in the options menu, also the PS4 version can triple the speed. Trying to compare ATB with regular battle systems is a bit of a stretch, when you are comparing speeds. Some ATBs are way faster than some turn based games. Honestly the only uber slow ATB in my opinion was FFIX because of all the damn animations.
Honestly, I find the ATB gauge is more engaging than the passive nature of most turn based combat. You can make an argument that there is an element of timing with ATB games. FFX-2 in particular allowed you to chain attacks for more damage if you played it properly.
They've aged extraordinarily poorly and are a main reason why "turn-based" battles often get disparaged in RPG discussions. ATB combat is slow and almost never requires any interesting tactical choices or thought.
I disagree, I think they have aged just fine. I don't see how they are the main reason why "turn-based" battles are disparaged in discussions. Sure it can be slow at times, but most games let you increase the speed in the menus. The sad thing is some of the best uses of the ATB are in the most maligned FF games. FFXIII trilogy, and FFX-2 used the ATB system in great ways, albeit slightly modified.
Most JRPGs don't require much tactical choice or thought really.