What's your opinion on turn based combat Sup Forums? Do you think it's tedious and repetitive?

What's your opinion on turn based combat Sup Forums? Do you think it's tedious and repetitive?

Other urls found in this thread:

gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Nintendo_Game_Boy//Manual/formated/Final_Fantasy_Legend_2_-_1991_-_Square_Co.,_Ltd..pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I like it, depending on the implementation.

I like it and I think the exclusion of it from revcent FF games have only hurt them.

>think it's tedious and repetitive?
Only if just pressing one button means you win every fight.

I like games that let you switch in your whole party.

Breath of Fire IV has a great system with combos to keep it interesting. You can even combo buffs and healing.

FFX has the same switching style but is a much worse game.

Suikoden Tactics let you cover the map in units.

A lot of turn based games are tedious and repetitive, such as Chrono Trigger (ATB is even worse). Those are bad games.
Many of my favorite games are turn based, but they are not tedious and repetitive. This is often the case in good games.

Very few turn based games are shit.

When it comes to RPG's I enjoy turn based a lot more than real time combat.

nice on m8

I agree, but that's because most rt combat in rpgs just devolves into circle strafing enemies and hugging their asshole/any other blindspot. See Dark Souls, for example, or pretty much any modern WRPG.

>30~40 hours of this
And with a lot of JRPG's it isn't coupled with good level design or they stick with archaic concepts like linking all of your skills that you want to actually try to combo with to a MP meter that has a very hard time to replenish so you can't experiment/have fun as easily.

Most of it is just boring, tedious and only included in the game because the developers are lazy and unimaginative. ''It's how JRPGs have always been!'' is the go to excuse for it.
Very, very few games make use of the benefits of turn-based combat(like SRPGs involving positioning of multiple units per turn that lends strategic depth to the combat) and instead follow the same DQ/FF bullshit we've grown tired of for decades.

>we
learn to speak for yourself.

I don't mind it, I have more of an issue with random enemy encounters as I'm just walking around, it gets way more tedious.

When I said we, I meant people of taste. Obviously excluding you.

Nah, you were just trying to give your opinion more validity by including more people in your statement, which only has the opposite effect.

If people were tired of it, Persona 5 wouldn't be one of the most anticipated games by a good chunk of this board, neither would the Pokemon series still be such a success.

We all kinda think you're a moron.

>instead follow the same DQ/FF bullshit we've grown tired of for decades.
What is the DQ/FF style mechanics then?

Persona 5 is anticipated because it's been delayed by 3 years and is a dating sim bastardization of a once decent series. Obviously lonely neckbeards are going to look forward to seeing cute girls again after being edged for so long.
The Pokemon series is a success because it's bought by literal children. Children who have yet to develop any proper opinions. If you think Pokemon is a good example of turn-based RPGs, I don't even know what to tell you. It's so by the books and basic because it's meant to be played by children. There are no redeeming values to it.

The turn-based system is not justified by an increase in complexity. You have very, very basic actions in the form of attacking with equipped weapon, casting an offensive spell or healing and there is never any doubt whether which option is the best one. You never have to plan anything further than ''Use defensive magic at the start, heal when necessary'' in these games.
Also, turns are based on hidden values. That is, you can't see the turn order. No way to make educated decisions when you don't even know when the enemy is going to butt in on your party's turn. FFX had the right idea, but came up short for lacking any strategic depth and having far too long animations.
Like I said earlier, SRPGs make good use of turn-based systems, because you'll have to manage a larger group, each with their own set of abilities, too complex to be done in real time.

>you were just trying to give your opinion more validity by including more people in your statement
>neither would the Pokemon series still be such a success.

It's good when it's done right (see: FF Tactics, Original Sin, Hearthstone) but when it's reduced to nothing but attack & heal, it's a stupid system. If it's going to be turn-based, there needs to be tactics involved, a la chess. If it's going to be just attack and heal (like most FF games), it may as well just be a button masher.

I wasn't asking for a blog post about your feelings on combat mechanics, I'm just telling you that you should speak for yourself instead of trying to make it seem like your opinion on combat systems is a fact set in stone.

SRPG add barely more depth to the system and just drag battles out to no end because you end up chasing low level monsters around the map forever one tile at a time. The one mechanic that gets added to the system and it introduces nothing but tedium. What a brilliant use of the turn based combat system, you are indeed a scholar.
Is the Pokemon series not a success? I have facts to back up that statement, where is the evidence that "we" are tired of it?

Argumentum ad Populum. ''A lot of people like it, so it must be good!''
In other words, not an argument.

RPG kino

It being good or not is not the argument of this conversation. The argument is that "people/we are tired of it".

Brush up on your reading comprehension and stop parroting words that you barely understand.

>SRPG add barely more depth to the system
Wrong. Positioning and unit management plays a huge role and elevates the regular combat to another level.
>and just drag battles out to no end
God forbid you actually get to spend time playing a game instead of reading it. As long as the gameplay is good, why would you want to avoid it?
>because you end up chasing low level monsters around the map forever one tile at a time
Why not corner them? Why not use AoE spells? This is why positioning is important. I think you might not know how to play the games, honestly. In contrast to regular turn-based RPGs, SRPGs have somewhat of a learning curve.

>Also, turns are based on hidden values. That is, you can't see the turn order. No way to make educated decisions when you don't even know when the enemy is going to butt in on your party's turn.
That can be attributed to risk versus reward. Will you try to finish that enemy off or will you first try to heal a guy with your highest speed guy before an enemy attacks? Games don't need to divulge turn orders. Due to that you are making an educated decision in balancing being aggressive or defensive.

>ou have very, very basic actions in the form of attacking with equipped weapon, casting an offensive spell or healing and there is never any doubt whether which option is the best one. You never have to plan anything further than ''Use defensive magic at the start, heal when necessary'' in these games.
It all depends on how combat is carried out, how resources are managed especially how MP or whatever variant the game has is handled in how much the player will divulge in the skill set in the game. In Final Fantasy II I found myself using my mage often due to needing to lowering my MP to have any sort of MP gain and that using elemental weaknesses really did help on battles especially against undead foes which often stunned my guys upon their attacks.

I still want to see JRPG's to go passed the MP cannot regenerate unless you use a MP restorative item and have more emphasis on utilizing your skill set that your characters have in combat like the Romancing SaGa remake.

>I still want to see JRPG's to go passed the MP cannot regenerate unless you use a MP restorative item
I think they should just get rid of MP altogether. Replace it with a universal resource that drains with physical attacks as well, and regenerates automatically during defensive actions.
I think Bravely Default did something like this, but I never played it.

>Positioning and unit management plays a huge role and elevates the regular combat to another level.
Same deal with regular jrpg and front/back row switching and party management. To a lesser degree perhaps, but that depends on the game anyway. Making generalizing statements about entire genres of games has little validity in the first place.
I doesn't elevate anything, it just makes the fights longer. That's what we feel.

>God forbid you actually get to spend time playing a game instead of reading it. As long as the gameplay is good, why would you want to avoid it?
So you agree that it is drawn out, we thank you for this concession.

>I think you might not know how to play the games, honestly.
Probably, some people like different games. We never gave them much of a chance because they always bored us, and seeing how their most obsessed fans are usually snooty manlets with superiority complexes, we don't see a reason to give them a chance either.

>What's your opinion on action games Sup Forums?
well gee I sure know how to answer a question as focused and specific as that.

There are various ways to do it. One of them in Chrono Cross in which you use your normal attacks give your character a charge and depending how much you stockpile during that battle is the maximum rank you can cast for your magic so there was a point to use all of your skills during battle. Of course the stamina system balances this out with each action taking up some stamina and if you decide to cast a high tier magic spell with almost no stamina then that character won't be acting for awhile.

Then of course I mentioned Romancing SaGa which each character has their own build up rate for battle points which they consume to initiate skills, and these skills consume battle points and sometimes weapon durability depending upon class level and what the skill is.

Citizens of Earth has a similar system in which certain attacks build up energy and other attacks consume energy.

The best way to bring turn based RPG's forward is not only being able to use a lot of these skills during battle but needing to do so against standard encounters.

I didn't grew up with these games, since I'm 20.
So I didn't played them, and they look hard and not fun.

Can you give me three good turn-based combat games please ?

Marle is ice. I just realized this cover makes no sense.

>tfw you're too retarded to formulate an opinion and put it into words

None of them are hard, and they all come with built-in cheating aka grinding.

Depends if they have any mechanics like battle rank or not.

I prefer turn based over action a lot of times.

that means when I'm not good enough for the game I have to farm stuff for hours ?

what should I play as a beginner ? something short like 10-20 hours should be good.

Final Fantasy Legend II is within that length. Was literally my second RPG I've played. Might want to check the online instruction manual for it though since the races have their own character growth mechanics though.

gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Nintendo_Game_Boy//Manual/formated/Final_Fantasy_Legend_2_-_1991_-_Square_Co.,_Ltd..pdf

Not hours, minutes. Usually people just overcompensate in their grinding when all they needed was a single level.

Something short, give Final Fantasy I a try. Or Dragon Quest Caravan Heart on GBA.

Depends on the game. It usually sucks in RPG

thanks, i'll check it out.

>Grinding
>Cheating

Have fun with the Last Remnant.

alright, i'll try. thank you.
have a smurf.

Didn't bother with it, uninstalled the game after 30 minutes.

random encounters are more tedious.

Better than real time in most scenarios, far, far, FAR better than RTwP.

You mean very few are good

The sooner Turn Based Combat dies out, the better off RPG's will be.