Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Turn-Based Controversy

Mitsu

Mitsu

Supernova
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
[td] text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text [/td]

[td]
On June 15 Sony made an announcement that would cause many gamers to cream their pants, drop to their knees, and rejoice in pure bliss: Final Fantasy VII was gong to be completely remade. This was the game that Final Fantasy fans have been clamoring for even since the release of the PlayStation 2 in the year 2000. That's about 16 years of wishful thinking and imaginations running wild, only spurred on by the beautiful effort of Advent Children and the infamous Final Fantasy VII PS3 tech demo. Gamers were pumped!

Then they showed more of the game.

Square revealed that the game was not only getting a new chassis and coat of paint, but an entirely new engine and steering wheel. Gamers were pissed. How dare they take away the turn-based combat that was beloved by so many RPG fans. How can they even think to do something so heinous as to change the core of what made the game so fun, and very much playable to this day? In almost no time at all the hype and celebration that surrounded the title turned into another mangled, bloody mess on the battlefield of the wizened neck-beard.

"It looks just like Kingdom Hearts now!"

"How are you going to control your party members now?"

"It's just going to be a press X to win, hack and slash."

"Nomura is literally ruining Square!"

I'm here not only to point out that this line of thought is ridiculous, but to also state why.

Oh, so you're into the line up and stare at each other, and take turns hitting each other approach? Why? Final Fantasy VII was ATB anyway, so all they're doing is making the ATB faster, and getting rid of the 1700's musket warfare approach. It's the natural progression of the series and genre. Turn based or ATB were just approximations of a real battle that the development staff could not properly make work in real time. It's okay to like it, but it's silly to think the genre should stay like that. Personally, I'd like to play Advent Children, not Final Fantasy VII with cool graphics. I'll play Final Fantasy VII if I want that gameplay.

Anything you can do in turned-based you can do in real time. You can debuff, the timing is far more strict, and there "can" be just as much strategy. The only difficult thing is having as much of a complete control over the party. I can play Final Fantasy VII all the way through by mostly just hitting attack and using Limit Breaks. The only annoying enemies are frogs, and one or two I'm probably forgetting. Occasionally I'll use cure or protect/shell. Anything else can just be brute forced. Let's not pretend that that turned-based is the bastion of strategic gameplay. Doing the same stuff in real time is far more impressive and rewarding, plus it "can" be more difficult.

Plenty of turned-based games are just mash X to attack. They can fuck up turn based/ATB just as easily as they can fuck up ARPG. So, really, lets see more than a short-ass clip before we start to get too critical of things. Hell, maybe they might ever surprise some people with the quality. Perhaps this could be a return to form.

Sticking to ATB would not create gameplay anymore good than an ARPG. Sure there are preferences, but it's just real-time or not real-time. Hit X to attack constantly, hit x to attack every so often. There is no magical layer of depth, because it's being played in out in turns. The slower gameplay does not automatically mean deeper gameplay, just slower gameplay. You can have deep gameplay that moves more briskly-- probably why Final Fantasy switched to ATB for the fourth installment. They recognized that you could actually add to the combat by making it quicker. If enemies could attack on their turns without waiting, then it's more pressure on the player. So is ARPG that much of a stretch?

Besides turn-based looks worse and worse the more "realistic" the character models are. I'd rather it just play out in real-time, so it doesn't look horribly stupid. Real cool watching Cloud just kinda standing there, and then jumping back to his assigned spot after getting a hit in. It's silly. It was easier to write off before, because everything was an approximation of what something was supposed to look like. Now that things are far more believable, it will look more off. The only turn-based that won't look completely stupid, in my opinion, would be tactical turn based (e.g. FFT, Fire Emblem, or more organic like Valkyria Chronicles).

If one isn't concerned with the visuals, then why would one care at all? Sure you'll miss out on whatever new content they'll add, but surely it won't change the story drastically, and you'll be saved the hassle of paying for like 80-90% of the same game again. Then again maybe you're fine with the visual absurdity of the 18th century line-em-up style of battle.

The question of whether or not Square can actually making a compelling ARPG is in the air.


text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here text here

​

[/td]


[td] text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text [/td]
 
I think the majority of the problem is nostalgia, most people's RPG experiences have always been turn-based, they feel it is the superior choice because it is the safer avenue. In most people's minds, it's all the same thing. But let's keep in mind that there were a handful (and probably more) of RPG's over the years that turn based was a thing where people tried something different, like the Tales of Series, which is probably the only real 'mainstream' RPG that is still going on to this day with increased success that was never turn-based, even back on SNES. But it was definitely a case of a technological limitation that people either ignored entirely (Dragon Quest) or attempted to make it so the turn based combat had more dynamic parts to involve you into the process, like Legend of Dragon, Legend of Legaia and so on.

I think for me, it's just...I don't have the energy to be bored playing a video game. A lot of old RPGs that I don't have any real nostalgic attachment to are hard for me to play purely for that reason, the world itself is something you can really sink your teeth into, but gameplay wise, I need something to really get me to focus. Which is probably why games like Smite, Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Kingdom Hearts, Dynasty Warriors and such always get my attention, because even if the world is a slow paced crawl, I can't just zone out. It doesn't help that most RPGs, they take some time to get into, things have to be built up and stories have to be started, which is totally fine, but add that to the slower combat system and it can really vary on how much you invest in any game. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate new turn based RPGs, or new turn based experiences, there's definitely a niche for them that would let me enjoy them if they were not the only option. Of course, this can also backfire and the 'dynamic combat' can come off as extremely lazy and uninteresting after a while, like Dragon Age Inquisition did for me.

But I think this is a good thing, and I doubt Square is going to fail on this one, since their whole "RPG company" rep is likely riding on this, and not fucking FF7 and FF15 up.
 
FF7 was the first game I got on the PS1 and still I have a soft spot for it. We've literally seen... 5 seconds of gameplay? I think there are other, bigger things to be concerned about for the game (letting it come out in installments and such). Turn based games definitely aren't going anywhere, but I think it will be interesting to see how it actually handles when we get some real gameplay videos. The game is probably barely in Alpha right now.
 
I don't know why anyone expected turn based. I mean, FF7 is an entire franchise now, and turn-based combat is NOT a defining feature of that franchise. Crisis Core was already Kingdom Hearts combat with an FF7 tune (It was also great. The Materia system is superb with only a single character). Dirge of Cerberus tried to be an FPS and DMC at the same time. Even the featurephone game was an action-RPG, as I recall.
 
While I did have a Playstation in my youth, I did not grow up on or even play FF VII on it. Some people call me a blasphemer when I say this, but it's true. I got the system and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 as a Christmas present. This makes me remember all sorts of memories from my childhood, and while I never will experience the nostalgia creaming of the announcement of the remake for FF VII, I do have something relatable to it. They released THPS HD a little while ago, and while the majority of the game was the same, one little thing they did change was the way grinding worked. While I won't get too much into details here, what happened was a huge amount of outcry for such a small thing.

I feel like the rage around this change is the same too. I never liked RPGs as a kid, and hell, I especially didn't enjoy a turn based battle system. The first RPG to get me into the genre was Oblivion, and I loved the real time combat systems. Hell, the only reason I'm thinking of picking up XV is because of the combat change. While I do appreciate a game being released for nostalgic purposes, and because Square knows the bank they would make off of such a release, they were going to change things to make it viable to more than just the old players of the game. Just because it's a remake doesn't mean more than just the nostalgic players will play it. Newcomers to the series might be recommended it, just like back in the day.

I see it as a grand acknowledgement of both parties. A lot of the things are staying the same, and that is for the party playing for the nostalgia, but a lot of players play Kingdom Hearts, so they combine the two and create what might be the perfect game to some people. Who knows?
 
I have never liked the way Final Fantasy has played ever since they stopped being turn based, but luckily for me I have never felt a strong affinity to the earlier games anyway so it makes no difference to me how the remake will play. If the engine is better and less confusing than 13's engine, I'm all for the change.

I do find it slightly disparaging to hear your thoughts on turn based RPGs though. They may not be relevant in today's gaming world, where online play and instant gratification takes top priority...but I still prefer them to hack and slash, or worse, the hybrid of turn based and real time, which can turn me off completely to a game.

It seems like everyone prefers these complicated systems, but there is nothing wrong with simplicity either.
 
ARPGs like Kingdom Hearts or Crisis Core are very simple. You just press X to attack, and move your character out of the way of other attacks. Sometimes you use a spell. ARPGs are really just turn based without the turns and with the ability to move. It's taking away restrictions on the player. I clearly stated that preferences are fine, but let's not pretend that an antiquated system is where the genre as a whole should stay. A hybrid like Valkyria Chronicles allows us to enhance the turn based system, by giving us the ability to move the characters. Where we move has consequences both positive and negative to the battle at hand. It's more dynamic and interesting then two sides lined up at each other. We literally have MORE unique gameplay opportunities.

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no room for anything turn based at all. One of my favorite RPGs of the last generation was the Last Remnant, while I never finished the quirky and unique Resonance of Fate. The Last Remnant had a battle system that was simple and vague on the surface, but had layers of depth like few others. It managed to blend real-time visuals with a combat system that was entirely turn based. However, it still suffered the rigid limitations and lack of flexibility that turn based combat enforces on the player.

I'd also argue that turn based games are instant gratification as well. You press a button, and get the reward of watching the damage and attack animations. It's super gratifying to press R1 when Squall is about to hit. It feels great to get a perfect on the attack ring in Lost Odyssey. It's gratifying when your new weapon boosts your attack damage by a thousand. All you're doing is taking the instant gratification (whatever it may be) from a fast game and adding some filler. The slowness of a turn based JRPG game offers nothing but slowness. It's nothing like moving your troops around in XCOM and setting up an ambush, or perfectly setting up an organized flanking maneuver in a strategy game. If you want to talk about slow and deliberate, then those are the kinds of games you want. You shouldn't look down on "instant gratification", because your preferred game style is chock full of it-- or at least slightly delayed gratification, if you want to get picky with terminology.

While simplicity is fine, you need to understand that we are human beings. We are not satisfied with a base simplicity. Look at any aspect of human culture, and you will see complexity. Our instruments are no longer sticks, stones, and reed flutes. The most highly regarded music and art has layers of depth that intrigue the mind and spark the imagination. As we grow older we are no longer satisfied with forms of entertainment that are basic. Children shows do not have the emotional depth of a drama, or the wit of a good comedy. Our dolls and action figures will rarely engage us in the same way that a video game will. Pong gave way to Pac-Man, and Pac-Man to Mario.

There is nothing wrong with simplicity, but you need to understand that it is natural to seek out complexity. Our brains adapt and the things that were new become old and boring. Who wants to go back to watching Leave it to Beaver when we have Game of Thrones?
 
You mistook my post as looking down on people who have a preference on hack and slash ARPGs or whatever fancy term you used. I was just expressing disappointment of how you and many others see turn based RPGs. While I initially agreed that there is nothing wrong with remaking the way Final Fantasy 7 plays, I was just saying there is also nothing wrong with turn based either...and there are still relevant games that use the system like Fire Emblem.

I didn't come here to debate, just to express my opinion on the matter. I like what I like, there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with people who like the way RPGs are evolving, but that's no reason to turn your nose up and express immense disinterest at the classic style that is turn based RPG.
 
I'm pretty sure I'm perfectly free to express my "immense disinterest" in traditional JRPG gameplay, just like you are free to express your positive opinion of it. I made this thread to foster discussion on the topic. Seeing as how you were the first person to pose an opinion in opposition to my own, I replied to you (I've already discussed it at length with Broomhandle45). I'm not going to comment to people about how I agree with them all day. It's interesting to read what they think, but I have nothing of worth to add to their thoughts. Furthermore, in my opening post I had already stated that there was room for turn based systems in games such as Fire Emblem.

I enjoy games like Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics, XCOM, the Last Remnant, and Valkyria Chronicles. Each of these games are turn based, and use the style of battle in a more organic way. My issue is with the idea of reviving the traditional JRPG battle system as described in the opening post. I still really like Final Fantasy VII, VIII, X, the Persona titles, and other games with the traditional JRPG battle system; but I just feel like the industry should move forward.

As for misunderstanding you, perhaps I did. People that tend to use instant gratification to describe something often aren't viewing it in a positive light. This is especially true of people that prefer their games slower and/or more thoughtful.
 
Personally, I find turn based combat to be rather...boring. At the same time I feel super hypocritical because I'm an OG Pokémon player and love the 'monster trainer' genre in general (Dragon Quest Monsters, Digimon, Monster Rancher, etc). At least in Monster Rancher's case it isn't really turn based.

The thing is I feel turn based combat is more a relic of time. It worked back then because the medium was quite limited. But with what we have today, games that once were turn based can be updated to be far more interesting and engaging. I'm going to be perfectly honest, I have refused to touch a FF game since the franchise's inception. I just won't do it. There's many reasons, but the main one is turn based combat. With the FF7 remake being an action RPG like Kingdom Hearts, I'm actually considering picking it up. I can swallow long cutscenes or mass exposition and other things that tend to come with FF if it means combat is actually FUN to play, which should be the meat of the game anyway.

But that's just my super bias opinion. If people want turn based and that's their boom jam, that's totally fine and I'm glad they're getting something that makes them happy if this FF game goes turn based. It's just not for me. It just feels super outdated to me :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom