"Turn based is outdated"

I've seen this with a few turn based games but I will say this again. If you have an auto battle option/button built into your game then you know you've made an unnecessary grind of a battle system or high encounter system and need to start over. Which leads to player fatigue when it comes to turn based combat and an avoidance to turn based games. Grind Grind Grind love it or hate it the devs heard this major complaint from game journalists all through the 90's and early 2000's.
 
I've seen this with a few turn based games but I will say this again. If you have an auto battle option/button built into your game then you know you've made an unnecessary grind of a battle system or high encounter system and need to start over. Which leads to player fatigue when it comes to turn based combat and an avoidance to turn based games. Grind Grind Grind love it or hate it the devs heard this major complaint from game journalists all through the 90's and early 2000's.
Coincidentally, I had Reload on in the background just grinding through Tartarus when I saw this. Real important addition.
 
The case of genre having steep accessibility to the point of removing core aspects of what made the genre interesting in favor of casual players. Like how Elder Scrolls started to remove all the features in order to make it appealing and sell more, because it was more slower and required lots of learning to play
I think this is exactly why people (including me) are so hype for Clair Obscur; it's one of the first almost-kinda-triple-A-ish titles that is truly turn-based in a while
I'm glad someone aknowledges such game, I think it might slowly but surely revitalise the genre, like how Sea of Stars or Omori did
 
I've seen this with a few turn based games but I will say this again. If you have an auto battle option/button built into your game then you know you've made an unnecessary grind of a battle system or high encounter system and need to start over. Which leads to player fatigue when it comes to turn based combat and an avoidance to turn based games. Grind Grind Grind love it or hate it the devs heard this major complaint from game journalists all through the 90's and early 2000's.

I generally play turn based games with only forced or minimal grinding (unless I really enjoy the combat). Makes the games both more challenging and helps me beat them faster.
 
I generally play turn based games with only forced or minimal grinding (unless I really enjoy the combat). Makes the games both more challenging and helps me beat them faster.
I do that too.


I think i played way too much Final Fantasy that my brain would shut down the moment i play something else with combat "where ATB?"

Confused High Quality GIF


Yeah when i was replaying D2 i was like "damn no battle transtion this is way too fast"

Im a bit more tolerant of turn based after all FF games i played.
 
I mean I don't want to sound like a shill but I did buy the newest SaGa titles when it first launched so at least they understand their SaGa rereleases and remakes are working to that Turn Based till.
As far as I know Kawazu is one of the higher ups at Square these days so the SaGa series has been treated pretty well over the years, especially recently, compared to other square titles. Not that it doesn't deserve it. I'll shill the series if you're not. The SaGa games are great and the remasters are really well done and more people should buy them so the team gets a bigger budget for the next mainline SaGa game after Emerald Beyond.
 
I have a backlog of videos to watch and documentaries to listen to as I grind so it's doable just I loled the first time I saw that autobattle option in Wild Arms 3 and went WHAT?! Who made this and why is this here? Is this a warning?
Same confusion when i heard pixel remaster has auto battle like who added this shi
 
Turn-based combat isn't outdated at all, and this line of thinking is rubbish in my opinion. There's space for all kinds of RPGs, and I don't believe that just because action oriented combat exists, that you should do away with turn-based entirely.
You guys were discussing the fact that devs sometimes make the gameplay easier in sequels or re-releases... this can be a good and bad thing depending on how it is done. There are RPGs with high encounter rates, nerfed EXP/gold, etc... such aspects can make one's experience less enjoyable and therefore it's nice when there is an alternate version with 'fixed' rates, automap, etc...

I dislike excessive grinding, mainly because I spent too many years doing that in MMORPGs. High encounter rates annoy me as well.
 
I can't see turn-based as an outdated system.
It seems more like the software houses are gravitating toward a system that, in their eyes or according to their "data", is the one that can assure a more substantial success and more profit.
It ended up making the games much more standardized and less unique, aiming also to an hyper realistic way of portraying the world. It's logical to see how a lot of players are movie to indie, due to the liberties of indipendent developers and also, to a degree, of nostalgy due to the use of elements of games form the past and inspired by iconic ages of the gaming industry.
It's bizarre how the turn-based system is seen as "slow", using old games as a term of paragon. With modern technology and the amount of experience due to how much the gaming world changed during the years, I'm sure someone could elaborate new evolutions in the turn-based system and unique alternatives to it.
Instead, they are sticking to the most obvious solution for core aspects like the gameplay, pumping the graphic/story compartment like crazy, often resulting in bloated or incoherent stories, overdetailed or messy graphical interfaces and lot,s lots of bugs due to the complexity of the projects. So bizarre.
 
Regular turn based? Maybe, but it's not totally outdated if you can make it work, like a white canvas, in fact, my favorite Turn Based games are the ones that take great advantage of the turn system, i

All post Nocturne Megaten gives the Press Turn, for those new, if you Crit or hit a weakness, you can do a extra action, same for enemies, but if anyone fails, they lose their press turns, sadly Strange Journey lacks it, but there is a compensation in the form of Co-ops, hit a weakness and see your same Aligned demons rip a new one on the enemy

Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi lets you resists attacks and power up yours by playing a microgame or simply timing a press, leading to lots of "clones" that i came to cherish

Undertale and Deltarune (Summons anti-Gorse barrier) has basic *Time a press to attack* on your side, but on the enemies side you have full fledged minigames that makes Paper Mario's look dullard

Lisa RPG are kinda barebones, but you usually have a Combo system where certain characters can introduce a command to unleash their Skills, you can choose them from the menu, but it's not as effective since the extra attacks of the combo are still good

As we can see, Turn Based is not outdated, just people hasn't made creative use of it
 
yes, it is outdated in the eyes of developers.
turn based games were created because of the limitations of technology at the time. back then they really wanted to create action games. limitations on storage or hardware specs made them choose between a smaller world full or action or a story driven world without action. few broke that, like for example tales of phantasia, that still had to make compromises here and there.
now days there are little to no limitations and devs can do whatever they want, so they tend to create what they always wanted, action packed games that can also tell fantastic stories on big worlds.

as for me, i still play turn based games. metaphor is great and i'm replaying chrono trigger. good games are good regardless of what they choose to do.
 
turn based games were created because of the limitations of technology at the time. back then they really wanted to create action games. limitations on storage or hardware specs made them choose between a smaller world full or action or a story driven world without action.

I don't know if that is completely accurate. The worlds in Secret of Mana/Seiken Densetsu 2/3 are as large as any other JRPG and they have action gameplay. Plus by the PS1/PS2 era it was possible to create action RPGs of any size imaginable and they were still making turn based games.
 
I don't know if that is completely accurate. The worlds in Secret of Mana/Seiken Densetsu 2/3 are as large as any other JRPG and they have action gameplay. Plus by the PS1/PS2 era it was possible to create action RPGs of any size imaginable and they were still making turn based games.
go back to the NES and before where turn based games were born and try to find anything like that.
it was out of necessity, but the concept stuck because people liked it. that doesn't mean that every dev did or that it was exactly what they wanted to create.
now it is a design choice, back then there really was no other way and if there was, it was too demanding and would have taken too long to come to fruition. turn based with random encounters is less of a hassle to put together than action based combat with roaming enemies.
 
go back to the NES and before where turn based games were born and try to find anything like that.

Sure thing. Legend of Zelda, Zelda 2, Wizards and Warriors, Crystalis, Astyanax, StarTropics, Willow, Rastan, Simon's Quest, Final Fantasy Adventure (GB), Faxanadu.

There have always been action games with RPG elements in every console since the NES. Maybe in the early era computing/Atari era there were technical limitations, but since then it has generally been a design choice.
 
all good examples to show the limitations.
zelda 1 has almost no dialog and has zero storytelling in the game itself. all of those bits are in the manual.
zelda 2 and simon's quest fare better in storytelling but fall short. the towns barely feel alive with small talk that doesn't really make much sense. npcs say just enough to point you in the direction you need to go.
haven't played the others you mention, but i know startropics is basically zelda 1 but different. so, i would assume is has similar shortcomings.

the limitations of the nes made ambitious games read very stiff. npcs aren't allowed to have more than a few lines of dialog, so they go to the point. which is good in a way but makes them poor for storytelling.
that is the point i'm trying to make. newer hardware made developers able to have action AND npcs capable of actual dialog, not just directions.
also let's not forget that animations are very limited in those games, so the actions you can perform also are.
the sprite limit made impossible to have many things happening, there is a limit to what can happen on screen.
that's why we started to see proper action rpgs on the snes, because better technology allowed for it.
turn based gameplay allowed them to have screen filling effects to demonstrate the action they were trying to achieve. they have full control over what happens, how much of it and how often.
for example, spells in tales of phantasia on the snes pause the gameplay while taking effect because of it.
final fantasy games on ps1 were able to show high quality effects because they happen one at a time.
i could go on, but i think i made my point clear.

there are no such limitations with today hardware, so they can do away with turn based gameplay if they choose to.

i enjoy turn based games, but most developers and "modern audiences" don't seem too fond of them.
 
all good examples to show the limitations.
zelda 1 has almost no dialog and has zero storytelling in the game itself. all of those bits are in the manual.
zelda 2 and simon's quest fare better in storytelling but fall short. the towns barely feel alive with small talk that doesn't really make much sense. npcs say just enough to point you in the direction you need to go.
haven't played the others you mention, but i know startropics is basically zelda 1 but different. so, i would assume is has similar shortcomings.

the limitations of the nes made ambitious games read very stiff. npcs aren't allowed to have more than a few lines of dialog, so they go to the point. which is good in a way but makes them poor for storytelling.

But by your own admission, the limitations of the NES affect both turn based and action games. The choice was make a limited RPG game or make a limited action game. Its not like the NES RPGs were dramatically better than the action versions. Perhaps they could better convey a sense of scale with the pulled out map and exploration, but that's about it.

that is the point i'm trying to make. newer hardware made developers able to have action AND npcs capable of actual dialog, not just directions.
also let's not forget that animations are very limited in those games, so the actions you can perform also are.
the sprite limit made impossible to have many things happening, there is a limit to what can happen on screen.
that's why we started to see proper action rpgs on the snes, because better technology allowed for it.
That is true, but the sprite limit affects turn based RPGs equally, especially those like Final Fantasy where there's some amount of animation to the characters.

turn based gameplay allowed them to have screen filling effects to demonstrate the action they were trying to achieve. they have full control over what happens, how much of it and how often.
for example, spells in tales of phantasia on the snes pause the gameplay while taking effect because of it.
final fantasy games on ps1 were able to show high quality effects because they happen one at a time.
i could go on, but i think i made my point clear.

Yeah, that is true. The effects are more impressive in early RPGs than action games because of the non-real time factor. They are essentially FMVs being played while the player is gaming. It could be argued that the FMV style of PS1 games is a detriment, but I see your point.

I think by the PS2 era, action games were starting to have equally impressive graphics as the turn based ones though.

there are no such limitations with today hardware, so they can do away with turn based gameplay if they choose to.

That is true, but I'd argue that from the PS2 era on, they probably could've done away with those games and they didn't.

i enjoy turn based games, but most developers and "modern audiences" don't seem too fond of them.

I feel like it is a self defeating prophecy. Whenever a turn based game comes out and it is well made and has some impressive visuals behind it, it generally sells well. If it is just a middle of the road game like many we've seen before or some nostalgia bait, then perhaps that is true.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Connect with us

Featured Video

Blue Reflection (VITA)

Latest Threads

Give money!! Nintendo direct previous day is REAL Direct


Surprise?? -> YES.
One more thing?? ->YES
Free price?? -> YEEESSS!! It's Fan...
Read more

The new PlayStation Portable: Sony comes with a “revolutionary” answer to the Switch 2

The PlayStation Portable – for everyone who thought less power and more accessories would be the...
Read more

Games you've played but feel don't exist

I have played many random obscure games i found in my life, many of them being flash games, and...
Read more

"Enemies" you Never Fight

What are some enemies in video games that you rarely (if ever) fight, and maybe even actively...
Read more

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
268
Total visitors
477

Forum statistics

Threads
6,398
Messages
162,029
Members
421,938
Latest member
Agyfd5

Support us

Back
Top