-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I love turn-based battles
- Thread starter Liquid Plejades
- Start date
The "turn-based battles are boring" discourse from last decade was such fucking BS. There are so many damn great games with turn-based systems, thank goodness we moved on from that.
Just got it on sale, more hyped now!
I mostly remember fast-forwarding though the battles once an effective strategy was set up, but I did like a lot of the ideas
I love turn battles! I dislike ffx with a passion though. That is so boring and grindy. No fun at all.
The issue with FFX is that it's literally just those toddler puzzle houses with blocks. Use fire against blue-colored ice flan, use Wakka against flying enemy. It's massively boring especially compared to how many great turn based games released at the same time and had much deeper combat (Valkyrie Profile being the highlight)
Yep! I love turn based games - I know a lot of people hated Octopath Traveler but the battle system was amazing to me since it had a nice mix of classic and modern turn-based combat.
Tactics based games though? Those bore me to tears so I stay away.
Tactics based games though? Those bore me to tears so I stay away.
People rag on turn-based as if it was some antiquated form of gaming that needs to die and come up with the excuse "Well, well, the game designers ORIGINALLY envisioned something ARPG-esque, but due to gaming limitations HAD to make it turn-based!". Yeah... NO! Turn-based gaming existed before video games. Chess is turn-based. Checkers is turn-based. A lot of board games are turn-based. D&D campaigns are turn-based. It's is a VALID gameplay style with a RIGHT to exist. Just because someone doesn't LIKE something doesn't mean it has no right to exist.
I'm also a fighter for variety. More styles are better than having EVERYTHING conform to just ONE style. I like turn-based and I like ARPGs, it's alright for both to coexist.
I'm also a fighter for variety. More styles are better than having EVERYTHING conform to just ONE style. I like turn-based and I like ARPGs, it's alright for both to coexist.
Last edited:
OP
OP
The issue with FFX is that it's literally just those toddler puzzle houses with blocks. Use fire against blue-colored ice flan, use Wakka against flying enemy. It's massively boring especially compared to how many great turn based games released at the same time and had much deeper combat (Valkyrie Profile being the highlight)
I mean sure but lotof RPG's have some kind of status thing and you are describing the basic enemies in FFX. There are some enemies and notable story bosses that can be challenging for many, but obviously there some cheese strategies which is up to the player to use if they just want a shortcut. There is also the whole Dark Aeon and Monster Aren for more challenge.
Turn based games can be great. The additional level of abstraction lets them do all kinds of cool things and the lessened focus on execution and quick reactions means that it's a lot easier experiment with game mechanics that would be too much to deal with in a real-time action game. Things like turning the combat into a deck-building roguelike (Slay the Spire) or reinventing conversations as a card game (Signs of the Sojourner) wouldn't work nearly as well in an action game.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of turn-based games that don't try to do anything even remotely innovative and where the gameplay just consists of spamming the same basic attack against endless random encounters, which sadly seems to be much too common. Then again, the same goes for real-time games as well.
I do wish there were more turn-based RPGs that actually tried to implement mechanically complex fights. I'd play the hell of a turn-based RPGs with bosses that had mechanics like the ones in FFXIV, but games like that simply don't seem to exist.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of turn-based games that don't try to do anything even remotely innovative and where the gameplay just consists of spamming the same basic attack against endless random encounters, which sadly seems to be much too common. Then again, the same goes for real-time games as well.
I do wish there were more turn-based RPGs that actually tried to implement mechanically complex fights. I'd play the hell of a turn-based RPGs with bosses that had mechanics like the ones in FFXIV, but games like that simply don't seem to exist.
yup! super boring. Weirdly enough I love P5, while similar I guess having to craft my monsters, choosing which characters to take with me, choosing which abilities to forget, etc. is more interesting.The issue with FFX is that it's literally just those toddler puzzle houses with blocks. Use fire against blue-colored ice flan, use Wakka against flying enemy. It's massively boring especially compared to how many great turn based games released at the same time and had much deeper combat (Valkyrie Profile being the highlight)
Tactical rpgs, if you're willing to go for something where movement mechanics allow for a vast increase in complexity, but then you're looking at battles that are a lot longer.
It's already been mentioned, but Darkest Dungeon has a fantastic system that increases the complexity by adding positioning/restricted targetting/movement and still has battles that are over in a minute. Excellent combat system if you want both quick battles, and a bit of mechanical complexity
I love games with good characters that go together on a Journey. In a turn-based battle everyone gets to show what they're made of & contribute so I love them for that. By comparison In action rpg systems it's just the player controlled God character & AI that can barely figure out anything but auto-attacking (looking at you modern FF action games). I've yet to find an action game system that can make me feel good about the way the "party" is handled in battle in the same way a turn-based combat system can. Not to mention I love tactical games like some mentioned in this thread (Fire Emblem, Troubleshooter, Heroes of Might & Magic), and those are basically only enjoyable for me with a turn-based concept (can't get into RTS).
I like them too, never understood why they got such a bad rap all of a sudden. Kind of like adventure games.
I agree with this entirely. I love turn-based combat in dungeon crawls, SRPGs and RPGs where each move is a choice, where positioning and formations and turn order really matter. Where you have the exact info of how long buffs and debuffs will last on all combatants so can synergise with precision in a way you just can't with AI-controlled allies in an action game. Where synergy around all those choices can improve results, where clever play is rewarded with better post-battle results. Where you can't reliably get away with automating the combat, where there is a limit on resources or a chance of a party wipe.
If a game mostly has the option to fast-forward because, over the course of the game, selecting 'Attack' five times is the most efficient course of action due to zero threat from random battles, and exploring the depth of a combat system that has dozens of potential moves outside of bosses is less effective in times of time as well as risk than hammering the most basic option, I start to wonder why the game doesn't have half as many battles, make them twice as hard and give twice the xp. It's one thing that stops me going back to a lot of classic JRPGs that I loved at the time to be honest.
Lots of games explore aspects that I've mentioned above.
Etrian Odyssey has the risk/reward of a meter showing how close you are to provoking a fight, which then works with one square of movement =one turn of battle, as each turn in combat can attract the minibosses patrolling the level one step closer if you aren't careful. That then encourages you to fight hard rather than preserve resources if you need the combat to be over quickly to avoid a further fight you can't handle. It thus balances resource management with giving you all the info you need, and some really good cross-class synergy options that could only really work in turn-based. Like options to have every fire attack by a party member earlier in the turn 'chased' by a party member acting later who gets an extra attack in support of each one etc.
I also really like the positioning in Trails, where AoE spell effect areas are laid on the ground, giving some targets a chance to evade or choose to tank the hit if they would rather trade blows where they are. Again, a combat system that gives you tons of info on unit status.
SMT I enjoy too, and Radiant Historia, although the latter unfortunately had an interesting formation system that made each fight take a little too long to me. The Alliance Alive was fun too. A great combat system, loads of cool ideas on developing your own formations, to the point where you can go as deep as you like into it and switch between multiple setups of your own creation on the fly to counter everything or just stick with a simple all-purpose one.
I love turn based battles too. I play through FFX almost every year. I love that game and its combat.
Besides some exceptions like DQXI and such I highly dislike turn based stuff, it isn't bad but it bores me a ton especially in games with tons of combats back to back
I mean, I was specifically talking about my experiences growing up, not all games in the space, though I have yet to find any of this style that I enjoy the combat therein.
I mean, I don't think it has to be super strategic or challenging to be engaging, but it does have to be engaging for it to be a net positive to the game. I kinda get what you guys are saying, as a parallel, I don't like a lot of hardcore action games, but I love like... dynasty warriors. Turn brain off, mash buttons, kill poor drafted peasants. Gotcha. But my experience with the sorts of turn based battles here is a lot more of just choose fight while reading a book or twitter on my phone, then occasionally using a heal spell or a potion. They are like the commercial break of the game. I recognize they need to be there for the rest of it to exist, but I don't have to pay attention or care.
And yeah I'm old, but don't underestimate the breadth of games I've tried and continue to try.
I'm a huge fan of turn-based battle systems.
The Etrian Odyssey series is great - the actual combat systems aren't that innovative, but there are a ton of unique classes & abilities, non-damaging abilities are actually very useful (binds, ailments, buffs, debuffs, etc.), and the enemies tend to have drastically more interesting attack patterns & strengths & weaknesses than they do in most games. The FOE system where you can face very powerful optional bosses early on and if you defeat them, get item drops that let you craft powerful new equipment provides a great risk/reward factor.
Persona doesn't have the deepest gameplay (it's not bad), but it really shows how you can make turn-based combat look flashy & feel great with proper pacing, UI, and visual effects. Persona & SMT in general are really good at keeping combat fast-paced.
Grandia's interrupt system provides a great ebb & flow to combat. It's a shame that the games tend to be too easy to really make delving into the battle system that important though.
Desktop Dungeons & Into the Breach are great examples of turn-based combat turned into something that feels almost like a puzzle game.
I just picked up Dicey Dungeons and it's amazing how it's been able to turn RNG into such an engaging turn-based system. It's quite the inspirational game.
The Etrian Odyssey series is great - the actual combat systems aren't that innovative, but there are a ton of unique classes & abilities, non-damaging abilities are actually very useful (binds, ailments, buffs, debuffs, etc.), and the enemies tend to have drastically more interesting attack patterns & strengths & weaknesses than they do in most games. The FOE system where you can face very powerful optional bosses early on and if you defeat them, get item drops that let you craft powerful new equipment provides a great risk/reward factor.
Persona doesn't have the deepest gameplay (it's not bad), but it really shows how you can make turn-based combat look flashy & feel great with proper pacing, UI, and visual effects. Persona & SMT in general are really good at keeping combat fast-paced.
Grandia's interrupt system provides a great ebb & flow to combat. It's a shame that the games tend to be too easy to really make delving into the battle system that important though.
Desktop Dungeons & Into the Breach are great examples of turn-based combat turned into something that feels almost like a puzzle game.
I just picked up Dicey Dungeons and it's amazing how it's been able to turn RNG into such an engaging turn-based system. It's quite the inspirational game.
If we are talking JRPGs, the combat has to be pretty damn snappy for me to like it. FFX, Persona, Octopath, etc. For strategy games I'm pretty much always down.
When it comes to turn based games, I feel Grandia does it best, and I haven't played anything that comes close really. Would be nice to get a new one.
Into the Breach is something really special, first strategy game in ages that wowed me with how it expects you to do more with less, simplifying a lot of genre mechanics into a handful of options with 3 units and some great ideas like the changing maps. Love it.
The 'bind' system in EO is one of those game-wide concepts I like so much in game design. Like how the painting in Link Between Worlds is used for at least a dozen different things, or any number of games that use the same mechanic in different ways for both offence, defence and mobility (the wirebug in Monster Hunter Rise for example).
So, to anyone not aware, bind is a status ailment, or rather a collection of them. Status ailments work in EO by, if it's resisted, the next attempt has an increased chance to succeed. The more times you successfully use it, the greater the chance of it failing. This means ailment builds are effective to a greater or lesser extent with a degree of chance involved, rather than RPGs where bosses are tediously immune to them all and so you're better off spamming hit harder' and 'biggest spell' abilities for raw damage rather than more interesting tactics.
Bind head stops all shouts, spells and breath weapons.
Bind legs stops all charge moves, evasion moves and fleeing.
Bind arms stops all special skills.
All of these apply to both the party and the enemy, so, if an enemy giant monster has a breath attack, bind head works. If it's a rare enemy wanting to escape, bind legs works, and the same applies to you.
There's also a suite of synergy skills that tie to it, inflicting extra attacks, damage and debuffs on bound enemies, 'full bind' abilities that aim for all three, skills that make you resistant to it, and also the boss fights are rough and a bind build can shut down their special moves and buy you some breathing room.
Just a really fun part of the battle system that takes some familiar debuff ideas like 'silence' etc and codifies them into something wider across the combat system.
Just going to echo the others - SaGa Scarlet Grace has the best turn-based battle system of all-time.
So strategy RPG's or the RTS variant? Full disclosure, I don't play RTS, I've only seen the gameplay in passing and for very long
Are Kemco games an example in your opinion?
Do you by chance have a love hate relationship with Pokemon?
I don't think I've played any of those, but a few examples of each would be:
1) Turn based games with interesting decisions and strategy: Final Fantasy Tactics, Into the Breach, Dicey Dungeons, Hearthstone, X-Com, the boss battles in Octopath Traveller
2) Turn based games where you might as well mash Attack: Most JRPGs where you grind through dungeons or random encounters to get from point A to point B. This includes a lot of Final Fantasy and DQ and Persona, for starters.
If there's anything 'outdated' about turn-based video games, it's the ones that waste your time and your patience with repetitive trash encounters. I would much rather spend that time engaged with something I have to actually think through, even if it's harder, than just endure tedious crap.
Last edited:
if you're getting through by level-grinding and mashing attack you're playing them wrong
I mean this is true but X had the great advantage of also being about maximizing your turns and planning for using your whole team for each battle, especially when it came to bosses. That was the really the fun of FFX, juggling turns and switching in and out team members to maximize efficiency. Other than perhaps XIII, X was the one where Haste and Slow had more evident effects and were immediately useful.
Valkyria Chronicles proved you can do without grid based movement, but you really need extra mobility options and active abilities to make that combat shine.
First comment gets it right. Well, that and along side P5R. Seriously, these two games are the pinnacle of how turn based combat should be for RPGs. The fact that not many games took notes from FFX and it was released 19 years ago is kinda crazy.
If you have a Switch, do not let this one slip by you OP. It is a gem for turn based combat!
This game is fuckin awesome. It's probably not quite what OP is talking about, since you have to move around a map, but yeah. I'll take any chance I can get to remind people not to sleep on this game.
Great stuff.
Old Square ATB was a nice mix too.
Also liked the combos in Xenogears which reminds me that I also liked them in the two Legaia games I haven't played in ages.
Yeah. I'd love to have a digital copy of WA5 that I could have on my PS5 as comfort food like I do WA3.
The character models would look pretty nice uprezzed too (like other later PS2 jrpgs).
