Support NeoGAF

[More_Badass]

Turn-based gameplay makes me feel more like a spectator than an actual participant in the action. It's completely antithetical to why I play video games. I still remember the first time I played Super Mario Bros as a kid... not once did I think to myself, boy, I wish this was more like a board game! Nor has that thought ever crossed my mind during any video game ever.

That is such a weird analogy to make. It's like saying you played Burnout and thought how it wouldn't work as a JRPG. Like yeah, it's a completely different genre with different standards and intent

If you can understand the appeal of chess, you understand the appeal of turn-based gameplay

 

[RedSwirl]

The only system I like that tries to mix turned-based and real-time elements is the system in Grandia. It at least figured out a cool, unique way to time and sequence actions. I guess you could count real-time-with-pause as such a system, but I prefer that as a compromise simply because it puts players in control of the flow of gameplay.

Otherwise, I only like games that are completely turn-based (like turn-based strategy games) or completely real-time. I basically just want games to feel consistent and cohesive in whatever they do. I think what frustrates a lot of people about JRPGs is they can be very disjointed in how they deliver their experiences.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Its fine when its limited because it drag games to a halt otherwise. When you fight low-level enemies in real-time combat, its not that big of a deal because you can dispatch of them quickly. In turn-based games, you have to go through the whole process of transitions, animations, and whatnot. It gets repetitive really quickly.

 

[Neoleo2143]

I will say that I'm less accepting of large item pools of 99 healing items nowadays in Turn based games because it's far too easy to turn everything into a game of attrition which isn't terribly interesting I find.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Yeah I know other people that have this issue as well but they are fine with Pokemon. In that game you don't really expect it to have real time combat because you just order your monsters to attack and such. Look at the Pokemon anime, the fights are basically turn based. They take turns at naming moves. Now other games aren't as easy to get into when you got a bunch of perfectly functional action games that use a similar setting. Like, why should I bother dealing with FF's turn based combat when in say, Zelda, I can just swing my sword and defeat enemies instead of getting transported in another screen by bumping on them. Even the RPGs' progression systems are a hard sell because for a lot of people, they aren't worth it due to how slow the overall game is, plus a bunch of other genres have successfully integrated either stats or character progression(new skills/items).

Well, I mean, if the structure is going to be Link as the lone protagonist fighting evil in Hyrule you wouldn't make it turn-based. But what if I want to play a party based Zelda game? A party of Link, Zelda, Impa, a Goron, etc. all teaming up together to challenge the forces of Ganon? Mind you, you don't have to go turn based. The other party members could be controlled by AI. They could be mainly AI controlled with pause interrupts to issue direct commands. But suddenly turn-based as a consideration makes much more sense.

 

[silva1991]

I can tell you why I hate it:

Character gets killed ---> Revive ---> Character gets killed again...

I don't have 100% control over the battle. That's why I don't like it.

?? that happens in countless action games.

That can easily apply to action RPGs, too.

Yup, like everyone's favorite Dragon Dogma.

 

[RayearthRob]

Active mode on Chrono Trigger.

Best turn base mode.

 

[More_Badass]

So could the common criticisms of turn-based gameplay be listed as that:

it's too slow
it's too repetitive and can feel grindy
it takes you out of the action/pacing
it relies too much chance
it's too much of an abstraction and takes away control from the player
it feels archaic and outdated
it can be overwhelming

 

[elshoelace]

I love turn based because of the strategy involved especially with a good battle system like the press turn system in SMT.

 

[Lister]

Real time With Pause 4 life suckers!!

::flashes RTWP gang signs::

 

[dragonfart28]

I'm fine with turn based strategy.


JRPGs, I normally hate except for this one:

 

[RRockman]

Active mode on Chrono Trigger.

Best turn base mode.

So the same system from FF 4-9? Trigger's active mode is not what made its battle system special.

 

[CaptNink]

Always been a fan of board games and I'm a big chess player, so turn-based games are great for me.

I can see how the slow pace of these games would turn a lot of people off.

 

[djtiesto]

I really hate threads like this, I do know why. So many just plain wrong opinions masquerading as facts in this thread.

I prefer turn based combat to action based b/c you can take your time thinking of your actions, you don't have to continuously be engaged, they can be quite relaxing (though occasionally pretty stressful, like a tough encounter after a 45 minute dungeon trek, where every move may be your last). And you can control your whole party without being a victim of AI.

I tend to prefer more traditional turn based games over strategy RPGs or games where positioning is super important. They just seem to go a lot faster and are more 'rhythmic' in a way. I was playing Sakura Taisen for instance and holy shit is that game slow as hell...

Also, I like grinding. I like how I can have a 'way out' if I can't be arsed to strategize.

 

[2+2=5]

I don't get it, something about it really puts me off, I was never able to get into any game that has turn based combat except for Pokemon as a kid. Why do you like turn based combat, or if there are people who share this opinion why do you hate it?

Ask yourself why you liked pokemon battle system and you will have the answer.

 

[Tarextherex]

Well, I mean, if the structure is going to be Link as the lone protagonist fighting evil in Hyrule you wouldn't make it turn-based. But what if I want to play a party based Zelda game? A party of Link, Zelda, Impa, a Goron, etc. all teaming up together to challenge the forces of Ganon? Mind you, you don't have to go real time. The other party members could be controlled by AI. They could be mainly AI controlled with pause interrupts to issue direct commands. But suddenly turn-based as a consideration makes much more sense.

Sure it does but even a party-based game is a hard sell when other games can have you play as different characters with different abilities. Even Zelda kind of scratches that itch with the sheer variety of items which is basically personified in the games that have Link transform. A lot of the intricaties behind turn based games simply don't matter much to more casual players that have more limited experience with videogames. They tend to enjoy faster gameplay, to them real-time is basically the standard. If such a game would be announced, even as a spinoff, you would have a bunch of people who would disregard it like they do for the multiplayer ones while the people buying it would be Zelda fans that like JRPGs/Paper Mario

I'm not saying there is no way to make people like turn based at all, it's better for anyone to appreciate as many kinds of games as possible. It's just that their reason of doing so is perfectly explainable. For games to be "gateway games", they need to do much more than merely adopt the genre's usual conventions(attack/defend/magic, party, equipment), no matter how well executed they are. Pokemon is an easy one for the reasons I listed in my previous post. Mario RPGs are good because they bring a lot of context to a series that is usually light on narrative, plus they have simple systems(not much time is spent on menus) and active elements in battles. You don't feel like "I would rather just play a platformer" when you play a Mario RPG because no Mario platformers offer a similar level of interactions with other characters and such. That's why such games that differ from the bunch make for good gateway games, they show the genre's merits in a flashier, more convincing way

 

[xuchu]

 

[mokeyjoe]

I find it very boring in strategy and tactical games. Like XCOM for example, tried it out on the recommendations of many friends, but couldn't get into it. I'm more okay with it in an RPG setting though.

I'm the opposite. I'm fine with strategy stuff, Xcom or Advance Wars or Civ. I like having time to think strategically - RTS is fine , but a different beast. Turn based RPGs dont do anything for me, i can tolerate it but don't enjoy it, it often seems like just out-levelling an opponent. But then I'm not a huge fan of RPGs anyway....

 

[Onivulk]

Sometimes I like to react. Sometimes I like to plan.

 

[Fishook]

I love strategic squad turn based games, such as Xoom and in RPG's in a similar vain . I caint get my head around JRPG'a or to a certain instent hard core hex based games.

I prefer range based turn based combat rather than melee but that's just me

 

[Syril]

Well, I mean, if the structure is going to be Link as the lone protagonist fighting evil in Hyrule you wouldn't make it turn-based. But what if I want to play a party based Zelda game? A party of Link, Zelda, Impa, a Goron, etc. all teaming up together to challenge the forces of Ganon? Mind you, you don't have to go real time. The other party members could be controlled by AI. They could be mainly AI controlled with pause interrupts to issue direct commands. But suddenly turn-based as a consideration makes much more sense.

Honestly I think tag-team systems are way too underutilized for realtime RPGs. I've seen a few action RPGs use them, but it's usually offset by making the tag have a long cooldown. I think the way it's done in Capcom's Versus series with tagging leaving you vulnerable and assist moves, etc, would work really well for a party-based RPG.

 

[InsaneFandom]

I quite like it, it's always a bit more chill than real-time since you have plenty of time to decide on you're next move. It also allows for more a bit more strategy and makes it easier to manage multiple party members.
It does make battles less exciting though imo & gets annoying for those really easy battles or battles where there's loads of enemies. I mean LOVE Divinity Original Sin but there were a couple occassions where during a battle I could get up, go to the toilet, grab some food, make & drink a cup of tea before it was one of my characters turn in combat again.

Overall the 'best' kind of battle system to me is real time but where you can pause time and que up actions (like Dragon Age Inquisition's tactical camera). If it's done well you get the best of both. Not many games have that though afaik (at least on console)

 

[RedSwirl]

I will say I prefer turn-based games when dealing with handhelds and portable devices. The relaxed nature suits non-committal, on-the-go operation. Still, even in those cases I prefer turn-based games that don't have any real-time exploration or other real-time elements. On handhelds I usually just end up playing strategy games or strategy RPGs. If I'm just occasionally making a decision in the game while doing something else, it's disruptive to have to then turn my full attention towards the game to move around and stuff until the next battle happens.

It's just another reason why I prefer my games to be either 100% real-time or 100% turn-based, and not mix turn-based combat with real-time exploration.

 

[Crankshaft]

You take turns playing board games as a kid. Never had an issue with turn based combat.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

Not a huge fan of it, either. I think every time I've tried to play Disgaea 5 Complete on Switch I've fallen asleep an hour later.

You may find this useful later in life.

 

[TGO]

I like and prefer it, my brother hates it and don't understand it and when I say he don't understand it I mean he thinks FFXV and the FF NT beta are shitty turnbase still even after watching them.
Ignorance if ya ask me

 

[inpHilltr8r]

"Tell me why you like the thing I don't like."

"help me to understand a perspective I don't possess"

thread is laudable

 

[Sir Vilhelm]

So could the common criticisms of turn-based gameplay be listed as that:

it's too slow
it's too repetitive and can feel grindy
it takes you out of the action/pacing
it relies too much chance
it's too much of an abstraction and takes away control from the player
it feels archaic and outdated
it can be overwhelming

These two for sure, at least for me.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

You take turns playing board games as a kid. Never had an issue with turn based combat.

Boardgames also suck.

I dislike games with turn based combat, but it's more part of a dislike for abstracted systems. I dislike games with turn based combat, tactics games, card games, strategy games both turn-based and real-time, empire builders, 4X games, etc. I dislike games where you control units, but don't actually directly assume control but give orders or commands which they then do.
I much prefer games where you do the thing, and not tell someone else where you do the thing; Xenoblade Chronicles X disappointed me because it was a game with lasers and mecha and yet your character auto-attacked and you weren't the one shooting. I don't think I even finished the Front Mission 3 tutorial for similar reasons; on the other hand I've played though the Armored Core games I have and love them.

One odd exception I have is city builders. I don't mind those, but that's because they scratch a different kind of itch.

 

[More_Badass]

Boardgames also suck.

I dislike games with turn based combat, but it's more part of a dislike for abstracted systems. I dislike games with turn based combat, tactics games, card games, strategy games both turn-based and real-time, empire builders, 4X games, etc. I dislike games where you control units, but don't actually directly assume control but give orders or commands which they then do.
I much prefer games where you do the thing, and not tell someone else where you do the thing

Have you played Crusader Kings 2? You might be surprised

The best thing about abstracted systems is that they can allow for more depth and complexity than any real time game could ever offer. They can offer a macro and more nuanced view of concepts and scenarios that you can't get by only directly controlling a single unit.

And in a lot of those genres, you are doing the thing. You're the general or commander or president or dictator or manager or king or whatnot, and you're doing actions from that perspective.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

Have you played Crusader Kings 2? You might be surprised

The best thing about abstracted systems is that they can allow for more depth and complexity than any real time game could ever offer. They can offer a macro and more nuanced view of concepts and scenarios that you can't get by only directly controlling a single unit.

That's one of those grand strategy games, isn't it? I'll pass. I bought Medieval Total War 2; I tried the main campaign but got bored maybe halfway through the starter campaign. It didn't help that I have no strategic/tactical smarts at all, so I'd have to let the computer do the only cool part for me (the battles). The only real fun I got from that game was setting up completely one sided battles where my side had like a hundred Mongol rocket launchers.

I'm not really interested much in nuance or complexity, unless it's maybe mechanical (as in, physical) complexity. I like Sims, things where controls are very granular; one of my favourite games in this vein is Receiver, the FPS where each separate action on a gun is a manual action. I'll be honest: I'm not very smart so I'm not good with games that require a lot of thinking, I like games about movement and doing.

And in a lot of those genres, you are doing the thing. You're the general or commander or president or dictator or manager or king or whatnot, and you're doing actions from that perspective.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that you're doing the boring thing; you're not shooting the gun or swinging the sword, you're writing the bill that raises tariffs on wheat.

 

[curiouscharles]

i LOVE the KOTOR approach to "turn-based" combat, but generally i fucking hate it.

as someone who grew up in the early 90s playing classic PC RPG's, i could never get into the classic Square / FF games because of the fucking weird ass turn based combat.

Have you played Crusader Kings 2? You might be surprised

The best thing about abstracted systems is that they can allow for more depth and complexity than any real time game could ever offer. They can offer a macro and more nuanced view of concepts and scenarios that you can't get by only directly controlling a single unit.

And in a lot of those genres, you are doing the thing. You're the general or commander or president or dictator or manager or king or whatnot, and you're doing actions from that perspective.

wise words, very true.

 

[More_Badass]

That's one of those grand strategy games, isn't it? I'll pass. I bought Medieval Total War 2; I tried the main campaign but got bored maybe halfway through the starter campaign. It didn't help that I have no strategic/tactical smarts at all, so I'd have to let the computer do the only cool part for me (the battles). The only real fun I got from that game was setting up completely one sided battles where my side had like a hundred Mongol rocket launchers.

I'm not really interested much in nuance or complexity, unless it's maybe mechanical (as in, physical) complexity. I like Sims, things where controls are very granular; one of my favourite games in this vein is Receiver, the FPS where each separate action on a gun is a manual action. I'll be honest: I'm not very smart so I'm not good with games that require a lot of thinking, I like games about movement and doing.

Crusader Kings 2 is grand strategy where you essentially role-play as a single person. It's the closest thing to a Game of Thrones-style back-stabbing and shadowy machinations simulator you can find. (Or literally, with the Game of Thrones mod). Playing the sly spymaster to the king and engineering a domino effect of coups and wars through assassinations and favors, or allying with your king's enemies to usurp him and become ruler thus setting a generations-long feud that results in your great-grandson being murdered by the king's son 50 years later, is stuff you can't do in any other game. It's basically RPG meets grand strategy, complete with perks and traits and stats and all that

Your other point seems a tad reductive, reducing the entire notion of abstraction and macro perspective to boring bill writing

 

[Fou-Lu]

The reductive arguments against turn based games in this thread are painful to read. I can totally understand someone preferring to be in control of a singular character and to be in the action. Actually 'hating' or calling turn based games BAD because of that preference though? Especially when factually untrue statements about the difficulty, RNG, lack of strategy, etc. are being tossed about to support this hatred.

 

[karnage10]

That's one of those grand strategy games, isn't it? I'll pass. I bought Medieval Total War 2; I tried the main campaign but got bored maybe halfway through the starter campaign. It didn't help that I have no strategic/tactical smarts at all, so I'd have to let the computer do the only cool part for me (the battles). The only real fun I got from that game was setting up completely one sided battles where my side had like a hundred Mongol rocket launchers.

I'm not really interested much in nuance or complexity, unless it's maybe mechanical (as in, physical) complexity. I like Sims, things where controls are very granular; one of my favourite games in this vein is Receiver, the FPS where each separate action on a gun is a manual action. I'll be honest: I'm not very smart so I'm not good with games that require a lot of thinking, I like games about movement and doing.



Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that you're doing the boring thing; you're not shooting the gun or swinging the sword, you're writing the bill that raises tariffs on wheat.

If you ever want to learn medieval 2 feel free to PM or add me on steam. I doubt you are "dumb" enough to not be capable to learn that game; It would probably take you less then 10h to learn medieval 2; that game has simple campaign and simple battles however the mechanics are very rough due to the age:
For example:
- diplomacy has a lot of things hidden from the player making almost impossible to have allies/vassals
- path finding in battle is almost broken making it extremely hard to give precise orders
- AI does not react to most of the players actions so you can easily "exploit" weakness it enemy formation; in other words in almost every battle there will be an opportunity to breakthrough the enemy formation and hit their most vulnerable units

I really really don't believe that " I have no strategic/tactical smarts at all, " because most of the strategic thinking is easily done by slowly thinking about your possible actions. The hard part is wining "impossible" odds when you make a mistake.

 

[RedSwirl]

The reductive arguments against turn based games in this thread are painful to read. I can totally understand someone preferring to be in control of a singular character and to be in the action. Actually 'hating' or calling turn based games BAD because of that preference though? Especially when factually untrue statements about the difficulty, RNG, lack of strategy, etc. are being tossed about to support this hatred.

For many people, controlling a single character in real time is the entire reason console games exist. I personally think this was established because in western territories at least, the games that made the NES were pretty much all single-unit action games -- Mario, Castlevania, Punch-Out, Contra, etc. For decades action games and sports games have been the main core of the western console market, and I think it's why a lot of people struggle to imagine video games without that style of action in them.

When you think about it, JRPGs are sort of a weird aberration when looked at from the western console market perspective. Most of them aren't action games, and you control multiple people. They're more similar to elements of strategy games and adventure games, which have always been better accommodated in the Japanese console market, the global PC gaming market, and more recently mobile games. These kinds of games are diametrically opposed to the action games at the heart of western console gaming -- they're slow and put abstraction between the player and what's happening. And when you look at sales in the grand scheme of things, JRPGs that aren't Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Pokemon (KH is real-time) have always been niche in the west, never really growing since the SNES era (and moving to handhelds during the PS3/360 era). Meanwhile the RPGs that are blowing up on consoles now are all action RPGs.

The other weird compromise has been sports. There the one subject out of which mainstream consumers don't care if you make an abstracted strategy game. I guess it's the same as the Fantasy Football/D&D dichotomy.

 

[TheDanger]

Very interesting replies, honestly expected more of a backlash, I am glad quite a lot of people here agree with my opinion. The "it makes the game feel like a board game argument" is why I don't like it I think. Of course I can also understand people appreciating the tactical side of things in turn based combat, that seemed like the most common reason (or the only one) why people like it.

Ask yourself why you liked pokemon battle system and you will have the answer.

pokemon yellow is the only one I ever played and that was when I was 8 years old or so, I didnt like the sequels and I am not sure if I would like yellow now, maybe for nostalgia only.

Anything else turn based I hated, now I wont even try games anymore with turn based combat.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

Crusader Kings 2 is grand strategy where you essentially role-play as a single person. It's the closest thing to a Game of Thrones-style back-stabbing and shadowy machinations simulator you can find. (Or literally, with the Game of Thrones mod). Playing the sly spymaster to the king and engineering a domino effect of coups and wars through assassinations and favors, or allying with your king's enemies to usurp him and become ruler thus setting a generations-long feud that results in your great-grandson being murdered by the king's son 50 years later, is stuff you can't do in any other game. It's basically RPG meets grand strategy, complete with perks and traits and stats and all that

Your other point seems a tad reductive, reducing the entire notion of abstraction and macro perspective to boring bill writing

I guess I'm just not interested in political machinations, or don't have the wherewithal to carry it out. If I wanted something like Game of Thrones I'd play a game like Mount & Blade instead.

If you ever want to learn medieval 2 feel free to PM or add me on steam. I doubt you are "dumb" enough to not be capable to learn that game; It would probably take you less then 10h to learn medieval 2; that game has simple campaign and simple battles however the mechanics are very rough due to the age:
For example:
- diplomacy has a lot of things hidden from the player making almost impossible to have allies/vassals
- path finding in battle is almost broken making it extremely hard to give precise orders
- AI does not react to most of the players actions so you can easily "exploit" weakness it enemy formation; in other words in almost every battle there will be an opportunity to breakthrough the enemy formation and hit their most vulnerable units

I really really don't believe that " I have no strategic/tactical smarts at all, " because most of the strategic thinking is easily done by slowly thinking about your possible actions. The hard part is wining "impossible" odds when you make a mistake.

I don't play games on PC any more otherwise I might have taken you up on your offer just so you could see for yourself. I'm not lying though, even after a long time of trying to get to grips with battles and reading about stuff like the rock papers scissors with pikes and archers and horses I'd still get thoroughly trashed by even the easy AI, unless I gave myself a supreme advantage.
I'm not good about thinking about my options in anything longer-scale than the next couple of seconds. I'm not even that good at flight combat sims, because air combat requires you to be able to plan a couple of maneuvers ahead which I cannot do. In terms of chess, I can think 0 moves ahead. (this is true for real life as well, I have zero long term planning ability)

That's why I like action games and shooters, because thinking ahead more than a couple of seconds isn't really needed. At the very most you need a game plan, but that can be ignored.

 

[More_Badass]

pokemon yellow is the only one I ever played and that was when I was 8 years old or so, I didnt like the sequels and I am not sure if I would like yellow now, maybe for nostalgia only.

Anything else turn based I hated, now I wont even try games anymore with turn based combat.

What was the last turn based game you played?

Personally I hated turn based games until I played the XCOM reboot. That was my gateway game that made me appreciate the nature of turn based gameplay.

 

[Fou-Lu]

Over this thread I have thought really hard about what makes me love turn based so much and have found insight in the posts of others. These are the reasons I have settled on:
-Control over more than one character
-Strategy and tactics
-Implementation of actions that could never be accomplished in real time
-A more relaxed pace
-The possibility of more depth and complexity without making gameplay a mess
-No need for physical dexterity

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The reductive arguments against turn based games in this thread are painful to read. I can totally understand someone preferring to be in control of a singular character and to be in the action. Actually 'hating' or calling turn based games BAD because of that preference though? Especially when factually untrue statements about the difficulty, RNG, lack of strategy, etc. are being tossed about to support this hatred.

My favorite is the "all you do is mash X" posts vs the "you gotta grind and shit" posts.

Now just where would the Goldilocks between them be!?! ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Syril]

My favorite is the "all you do is mash X" posts vs the "you gotta grind and shit" posts.

Now just where would the Goldilocks between them be!?! ¯_(&#12484_/¯

Games that aren't full of trash encounters?

 

[More_Badass]

Games that aren't full of trash encounters?

What games are you talking about? Stuff like Banner Saga, Age of Decadence, and similar games tend to have battles dictated by narrative or consequences.

Or are you just talking about stuff like Pokémon and Suikoden, with random encounters?

 

[Syrus]

Xcom 2 is perfect trpg
Child of light was great

Banner saga 1 and 2 are some of the best games ive played.

 

[Nicolada]

Turn based is fun when it's faster paced. Fast - FFV; Slow - FFIX. But I still prefer real time combat in RPGs. Turn based strategy, same deal, just make it so that it isn't a long wait to get to your next action. Hate waiting for enemies to do their thing in the FFT games, but something like Fire Emblem you can just skip all that and see the results immediately and get going again.

 

[Eusis]

I don't get it, something about it really puts me off, I was never able to get into any game that has turn based combat except for Pokemon as a kid. Why do you like turn based combat, or if there are people who share this opinion why do you hate it?

Usually if I hate it it's because it ends up being a monotonous drag that takes too long. The fact the PC Trails games and FFXII Zodiac Age have fast forward modes, along with Pillars of Eternity, has been a huge, HUGE boon that can make them a lot better for me.

 

[Neoleo2143]

My favorite is the "all you do is mash X" posts vs the "you gotta grind and shit" posts.

Now just where would the Goldilocks between them be!?! ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Games with more designed encounters obviously which generally discourage grinding. I'm quite fond of SMT's efforts in this sense as well as the concept of Xenoblade's Unique Monsters/Tyrants (the implementation is somewhat lacking either XCX or XC but conceptually it's great, tons of technically boss tier fight encounters? That's just rad)

 

[Syril]

What games are you talking about? Stuff like Banner Saga, Age of Decadence, and similar games tend to have battles dictated by narrative or consequences.

Or are you just talking about stuff like Pokémon and Suikoden, with random encounters?

The random encounter stuff. Some of those games might as well not even have non-boss encounters for as mindless as regular enemies get.

 

[isamu]

It really depends for me. I'm not really into turn based games where it's one side vs. the other, standing still and trading blows (e.g. Pokemon, early FF games). The gameplay loop just feels so static and dull. On the other hand, I really enjoy games like Advanced Wars and Mario + Rabbids as the strategy they demand in terms of movement and positioning makes it feel much more like a chess match - more challenging and rewarding.

This is EXACTLY why I decided to start playing Disgaea 1 on Steam. The strategy aspect of it is what draws me in and is a breath of fresh air from traditional turn based JRPGs.