Support NeoGAF

[shark sandwich]

Admittedly doing stuff like Earthbound helps with some of your complaints. You can see the enemies on the map and if you're strong enough(IE not worth fighting) they run away from you so you can explore. If you walk into them at this point to trigger the fight the game actually just skips the fight and gives you the win without even loading the battle screen. (A quick popup with how much money and experience you got.) I'm always surprised that so few other games stole this design since it's far better than the standard JRPG fight system.

I too have wondered why more JRPGs haven’t done this.

How much better would turn-based JRPGs be if:
A) when you significantly outlevel your opponent, you instant win without ever entering the battle screen
B) you had some kind auto-battle with a gambit-like system, and it can be toggled on and off at any time

THE fundamental problem with JRPGs (especially turn-based) is it’s damn near impossible to design a battle system that still feels fun when it’s iterated ~1000 times.

 

[Shifty]

Final Fantasy 8 is meant to be played by fighting as little as possible. Your characters strengths lie in drawing magic (or crafting it), making cards from enemies to get ability points for your GF's and junctioning your stats. The enemies leveling with you is not supposed to be an issue since you should be killing as few of them as possible.

Does the game actually give you any indication of that though? It sounds like a novel premise, but from what little I remember of 8 it more or less throws you in the deep end and leaves you to puzzle out the systems yourself.

 

[shark sandwich]

Does the game actually give you any indication of that though? It sounds like a novel premise, but from what little I remember of 8 it more or less throws you in the deep end and leaves you to puzzle out the systems yourself.

AFAIK they never really explained it in depth.

Kind of lame because if you played it like just about any other JRPG (e.g. participating in lots of battles to power yourself up) you end up pathetically underpowered. You miss out on all the level up bonuses some of the later GFs give you, and enemies actually seem to scale faster than you do.

That’s what I did on my first play through. I ended up with a save on that optional dungeon where you get Bahamut and I couldn’t progress any further. Had to use Gameshark.

My second play through I fought only minimal # of battles until I could get 4 junction slots with level up stat bonuses, then leveled my party up. Ended up wiping the floor with with everybody after that.

 

[generaldane]

I hate this thread with the passion of a thousand burning suns. I love me some action games but the action combat in rpgs specifically those made by square are so ridiculously inferior to their turnbased effort I am not sure why they keep trying, not only that with action combat you tend to lose control of all your other party members but the main guy and have to resort to canned commands taken over by shit ai more often than not.

 

[Danjin44]

I too have wondered why more JRPGs haven’t done this.

How much better would turn-based JRPGs be if:
A) when you significantly outlevel your opponent, you instant win without ever entering the battle screen
B) you had some kind auto-battle with a gambit-like system, and it can be toggled on and off at any time

THE fundamental problem with JRPGs (especially turn-based) is it’s damn near impossible to design a battle system that still feels fun when it’s iterated ~1000 times.

Persona 5 has something similar. If you increase the Ryuji's Confidant to level 7, it gives you the ability to instantly kill lower level enemy if you ambush it succefully and also get the persona.

 

[e0n]

What JRPG is considered the forefront of turn-based combat? Is it still Persona or FF? To me, those games have lots of issues completely unrelated to its combat system.

 

[AngeloB]

It seems like many long-time JRPG fans have such nostalgia for the turn-based games of old.

Personally I’m glad to see them go. My problem with turn-based battles is that sure, they might feel really interesting and strategic...the first few battles. Then you are just going through the same motions and solving the same puzzle over and over. You might fight 20-30 battles in a dungeon which consist of the same 3-4 enemy configurations. And usually they pose no real threat to you anyway.

It sucks so bad being pulled out of exploration so your party can stand there in a line waiting for your commands, all so that you can defeat the same level 3 slimes you have wiped the floor with so many times before.

I’m convinced that many JRPGamers are just playing for the little dopamine hits that come from seeing your EXP and damage numbers go up over time, not for the sheer thrill and strategy of the battle. Nobody would play these games if they weren’t constantly leveling up. Just look how many gamers were outraged that you don’t gain AP for the first 3 chapters of FF XIII.

“BUT I like being in control of my whole party!!!” IMO this is bullshit. In most JRPGs you are making only the most brain dead simple decisions anyway. Heal if HP low, otherwise gang up on one enemy at a time until they all die. No other tactics needed unless it’s a boss fight.


Bottom line, I’m glad that the genre has mostly moved past this style of gameplay. And the few titles that stuck with it (e.g. Persona) at least have enough challenge and strategic depth to justify it, even if they’re not my cup of tea.

Still better than the boring button mashing or press and hold real time combat of more recent jRPGs.

 

[camelCase]

Good riddance. I played all of persona 5 with that auto battle feature on because battles are so ducking boring. Even then it was a tedium.

 

[shark sandwich]

Good riddance. I played all of persona 5 with that auto battle feature on because battles are so ducking boring. Even then it was a tedium.

Yeah I don’t get the hyperbole surrounding this game. “Pick the type of attack your enemy is weak against” is not really all that deep, and is certainly not enough to keep battles feeling fresh for over 100 hours.

 

[Danjin44]

Yeah I don’t get the hyperbole surrounding this game. “Pick the type of attack your enemy is weak against” is not really all that deep, and is certainly not enough to keep battles feeling fresh for over 100 hours.

Then later you come cross this guy and just see how attacking the weakness works out for you.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Yeah I don’t get the hyperbole surrounding this game. “Pick the type of attack your enemy is weak against” is not really all that deep, and is certainly not enough to keep battles feeling fresh for over 100 hours.

Haven't gotten far in Persona 5 yet, but in Persona 4 it was more complicated than that as you had to find out what the enemy's weakness was and some could change type in the middle of battle. You also had a lot of character building through Fusions to get you through the harder parts of the game. A worse offender in regards to this would be FFX, where "use character X against Y enemy type" was a general rule for normal combat for a long part of the game.

 

[Blackie]

I wish every JRPG had just run with the Chrono Trigger model...

 

[synchronicity]

My favorite jrpg ever is Nocturne, and that has the best combat I've ever experienced. So, I'll have to disagree.

I think other approaches to combat can be good too, obviously. It's more about execution than concept, as is so often the case.

 

[Silent Viper]

Turn combat is the reason Iam not able to play so many JRPGs. Just give me simple hack b slash like Dark Souls or DmC.

 

[cireza]

I wish every JRPG had just run with the Chrono Trigger model...

Chrono Trigger battles are not that great and they take too long. They are still among the better battles in the genre.

Grandia II has a good system, but the battles are way too long. Skies of Arcadia battles take ages to complete...

I'd rather have Phantasy Star IV battles. You don't have a lot of strategies in turn-based JRPGs most of the time, this is a true statement. I played quite a lot of JRPGs, and the choices remain pretty simple most of the time. So at least make the battles go very fast. This is the case of PS IV.

Persona 3 and 4 (did not play 5) have one of the weakest battle system. Extremely poor strategy and incredibly repetitive. I suspect Persona 5 to be more of the same.

Tokyo Mirage Sessions is one of the best turn-based battle system I played, as well as all character growth mechanics etc... Very well executed.
Lost Odyssey one of the most interesting and unforgiving battle system. Very good strategy here, they managed to get a good balance overall. The game does not have too many battles, and the grinding is absent as the game is balanced to have your characters gain experience like crazy until you reach a set level in each new area.

 

[HeresJohnny]

I've always been fond of turn-based combat, but I won't deny nostalgia plays a part in it. I got hooked on turn-based combat all the way back playing Phantasy Star on the Master System and Phantasy Star II on the Genesis. What HAS gotten really old is the frequency with which battles pop up in turn-based games. I've tried going back to play games like Skies of Arcadia, Phantasy Star, and so on and it's not the combat but how often it turns up, which is what drew me to games like Oblivion and Skyrim. In those games the very necessary need to explore is rarely interrupted by combat (it can be avoided in most cases entirely, in fact). Still, there's something about leveling up your dude and making him nearly indestructible and JRPGs do that very well. I just wish they rationed the combat to exploration ratio at, like, 1:1 or at the very most 2:1

 

[Zannegan]

I have mixed feelings about this. For starters, OP, I don't think you should reduce fans' preference for turn-based combat as purely nostalgia-based or whatever. You're not really in a position to judge their motives, dismissing their preferences as this or that is only going to put them on the defensive, and why they like those kinds of games isn't really relevant anyway.

On the other hand, I agree with a lot of your criticisms of the genre. I don't like most modern turn-based games. Partly this is down to my own, totally idiosyncratic dislike for games with realistic graphics that use the traditional turn-based combat trappings (i.e. party stands in a row, numbers float above heads, attacks don't actually connect, etc. etc.). It's just jarring to see, something so realistically modeled and lovingly rendered behave in such a stiff and unrealistic way. Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with sprite-based characters acting this way. I think it's because I see sprites as symbolic rather than representative, so it's okay that their attacks are also symbolic, whereas I expect realistic character odels to engage in realistic-looking combat. That or I'm just used to the one and not the other. *shrug*

That said, I think cheering for the death of turn-based combat is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'd like to see turn-based combat to evolve as much as game visuals have in the past two decades, rather than just die off. I'd love to see a developer try a game without (visible) numbers in combat: no health bars, no attack/defense stat, and any blow can be fatal. To make this work, you'd have to create a visual language to give players indicators of when characters and enemies are safe versus when they are open to attack and how much more abuse their equipment can take. You'd also need a combat system that relies heavily on context, though it could still be accomplished with a drop-down menu. Basically, take a fencing match that's over in 30 seconds and break it down into every individual choice that players make. This would give you a weird visual dynamic where attacks take place at normal speed, then time freezes until the player makes the next choice. Films often use this mix of fast and slow for action sequences though, so I don't think it would be too jarring or hard to understand. The goal of battles would then become working enemies into a position or situation where they will be open to one fatal blow rather than whittling down a health bar. It would get complicated enough in 1v1 battles, but push that out into a 3v3 conflict with characters that can move in any direction and serve different combat functions (ranged attacks, magic, armored, etc.), and you've got the makings of a very complex but, I think, manageable turn-based battle system where the victory relies much more heavily on moment-to-moment strategy than stats.

I guess I'm asking some studio to take a chance on a dynamically turn-based, 3D, party-oriented, Hotline Miami... or maybe just multicharacter, 3rd-person, Superhot plus drop-down menus. Lol.

I dunno. Maybe that approach would be so radically different that fans of traditional turn-based combat wouldn't care for it anymore, but there has to be some kind of middle ground that can please old fans while also bringing in new blood. I think that formula would make for a really turn-based RPG though, something in which the combat would match the visual fidelity of modern games in depth and complexity. It would take a fairly large studio though, and we all know how interested in taking risks the AAA publishers are.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

If the interactive elements are getting in the way of your enjoyment, why not read a book /watch a movie or series instead?

I love the interactive features of games. I just don’t like complicated or “active” battle systems in JRPGs, so I prefer them simple and turn-based. I want the battles over quickly and with minimal effort, except for maybe boss battles. I’m just not that into tactics or strategy. Now if I’m playing an ARPG like a Fable or Diablo, that’s perfectly fine with me since it’s mostly about reflexes and you’re only responsible for one character.

 

[Ka-Kui]

Good riddance. I played all of persona 5 with that auto battle feature on because battles are so ducking boring. Even then it was a tedium.

Turn combat is the reason Iam not able to play so many JRPGs. Just give me simple hack b slash like Dark Souls or DmC.

Yeesh, why do you guys keep playing things that you don't like? I am honestly confused.

I don't like FPSs, I know they're not my thing, I don't force myself to play them nor do I expect them to change into TPSs.

But this is exactly what's going on here, there's an audience for turn based combat who, like myself, actually like what many people may perceive to be its warts.

A lot of you are speaking as though there's something inherently wrong with turn based combat. When in reality you just don't like it, which is fine.

Like any genre it's filled with mediocrity, goodness knows how many trash FPS games there were last gen, and no game is perfect. So why generalise the entire style of gameplay as problematic?

 

[Zog]

I wish every JRPG had just run with the Chrono Trigger model...

I am Setsuna did and that game was dull. It makes me realize that the Chrono Trigger combat wasn't really what made it a success.

 

[Blackie]

Chrono Trigger battles are not that great and they take too long. They are still among the better battles in the genre.

You are probably right, the game's so great in general I may have elevated it. Cosmic Star Heroine battles might be better?

I am Setsuna did and that game was dull. It makes me realize that the Chrono Trigger combat wasn't really what made it a success.

True. Damn my rose-tinted nostalgia

 

[JimboJones]

Does the game actually give you any indication of that though? It sounds like a novel premise, but from what little I remember of 8 it more or less throws you in the deep end and leaves you to puzzle out the systems yourself.

Doesn't flat out tell you but I guess it does hint at it with how much magic is tied to your stats and the fact a GF in the game give you the ability to disable encounters altogether.

 

[TannerDemoz]

Lost Odyssey did a right. I think it's just getting the mix of turn-based and bits of action that would mean it's still viable and attractive to players today. I miss it.

 

[JimboJones]

Bravely Default was another lovely turn based game, some of the bosses really made you think about which jobs and abilities you should be using. The brave default system was alot of fun too. The battle system was actually what kept me playing that game, the story was a bit meh.
Must get around to playing the sequel.

 

[Green Card]

Being too easy is a problem with RPGs in general not just turn based. Moving forward and mashing x isn't my idea of a good time. Valkyrie Profile, FFXII, etc are great. On the other hand Jade Cocoon 2, Wild arms 2, etc are garbage. The only action rpg I ever liked was Demons Souls. I've yet to play another I liked because the gameplay was too easy/ bad or too fast (I don't enjoy games like Devil May Cry).

 

[Y2H]

I like turn-based combat. It felt good knowing that I wasn't being rushed to make a decision in the middle of a battle. Later on in these types of games when your strong enough you can pretty much mash attack against most enemies anyway. The only thing I disliked about turn-based combat was having to watch long attack animations repeatedly. Extreme example below:

 

[Shifty]

Bravely Default was another lovely turn based game, some of the bosses really made you think about which jobs and abilities you should be using. The brave default system was alot of fun too. The battle system was actually what kept me playing that game, the story was a bit meh.
Must get around to playing the sequel.

Fuck Chaugmar though. Absolutely hateful boss fight.

 

[cireza]

Extreme example below:

Hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.

 

[TannerDemoz]

I honestly think South Park Fractured But Whole came close to nailing it but the fights were so long and drawn out that I just gave up on the game. Great idea though if it had moved faster and there was more depth to the battles.

 

[Y2H]

Hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.

It was fun seeing that attack animation the first time. The next fifteen or so weren't as much fun.

I honestly think South Park Fractured But Whole came close to nailing it but the fights were so long and drawn out that I just gave up on the game. Great idea though if it had moved faster and there was more depth to the battles.

I haven't played the Fractured but Whole yet but I felt The Stick of Truth did an excellent job with it's combat system. It was turn-based but used a timing system on many actions that did an excellent job of keeping the player engaged in every battle. It wasn't deep but didn't feel too simple at the same time.

 

[bufkus]

What JRPG is considered the forefront of turn-based combat? Is it still Persona or FF? To me, those games have lots of issues completely unrelated to its combat system.

Persona. FF hasn't been the forefront of anything since the 90s.

If we are just talking strictly combat, I think the SMT series is generally hailed as the best (in terms of combat depth and strategy).

 

[cireza]

It was fun seeing that attack animation the first time. The next fifteen or so weren't as much fun.

I guess so. I have been playing JRPGs for many many years, but on Sega console essentially. And I always hated how "over the top" the Square RPGs were on SNES and PS1.

Because an animation is long does not mean that it is good. I largely prefer a high quality, very well animated spell that lasts only for a few seconds. Phantasy Star IV was like that. Short spells, but incredibly well animated. Still my absolute reference in terms of classical JRPG design.

Shining Force III on Saturn also had pretty fast animations, and extremely well done, for its time. A real pleasure to see your character launch a 4 hit combo attack. Because 4 hits are enough. 400 hits won't make it better. Good taste.

 

[TannerDemoz]

I haven't played the Fractured but Whole yet but I felt The Stick of Truth did an excellent job with it's combat system. It was turn-based but used a timing system on many actions that did an excellent job of keeping the player engaged in every battle. It wasn't deep but didn't feel too simple at the same time.

They expanded it so it turned into a grid-based movement system where attacks only work in certain directions etc. Was cool but it doubled the length of all the battles - standard enemy encounters take like 4-5 minutes which is just wayyyy to long imo.

 

[Y2H]

They expanded it so it turned into a grid-based movement system where attacks only work in certain directions etc. Was cool but it doubled the length of all the battles - standard enemy encounters take like 4-5 minutes which is just wayyyy to long imo.

Sounds like they went one step forward and two steps back. As a South Park fan I'll probably finish the game anyway even if the combat becomes tedious.

 

[bowlofBran]

Maybe more devs should add something spicy to the combat like the timed hits of Super Mario RPG/Paper Mario/Mario & Luigi, the combinations of Chrono Trigger, or the rock paper scissors type effectiveness of Pokemon.

If I remember there was a PS2 RPG that had like a radial, clock-like timer for it's timed hits. It was pretty awesome at the time. Shadow Hearts I think? Don't remember the story at all.

 

[V2Tommy]

I am Setsuna did and that game was dull. It makes me realize that the Chrono Trigger combat wasn't really what made it a success.

Brilliant observation. I Am Setsuna is a colossal failure despite every single element being a "best of" from different games.

 

[sotojuan]

Brilliant observation. I Am Setsuna is a colossal failure despite every single element being a "best of" from different games.

They don't call it RPG Factory for no reason - Setsuna and Lost Sphear feel like they were made by a machine in factory, with a low budget for the UI.

 

[levyjl1988]

I got bored with Pokemon for utilizing this model. Since the first game and ad nauseum, I repeated the same move to get victorious. An active stance towards this game would be much more interesting.

 

[generaldane]

I got bored with Pokemon for utilizing this model. Since the first game and ad nauseum, I repeated the same move to get victorious. An active stance towards this game would be much more interesting.

I mean if you only play single player I can see that, but playing Pokémon against other people made me realize how complex the battle system was

 

[TheShadowLord]

I mean if you only play single player I can see that, but playing Pokémon against other people made me realize how complex the battle system was

either they need to improve on the single player to make it fun or make it optional so it doesn't get in of the way for those who want to play competitively. I want both but I don't think gamefreak could offer both at the same time. They can't even bring over every gameplay features from previous games when they are developing a new game.

 

[StuOhQ]

The last traditional JRPG I played was Lost Odyssey. A very good story but damn, it was very tiresome.

That was an excellent game! I actually enjoyed the pacing and found the long text "cinematics" to be some of the most poignant parts of the game. I can certainly understand how it's structure could wear on someone, though.