Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHICH BATTLE TYPE IS GOOD FOR YOU?
Posts
SGCN
564
SGCN
View playlists
CloseI love CTB like ffx , mana khemia and fft
Anything that allows individual turns are probably my most preferred systems
I like when you have all the time in the world to decide what you'll do, and not an ATB where the enemy will attack you right when you pick the heal spell.
CTB all the way. It allows for careful decision-making when using certain moves (some moves have longer delay), whereas ATB can end up being a game of reflexes.
Neophyte
155
Any battle system as long as there aren't awkward pauses in the flow of battle.
Long animations, slow camera, slow gauges, atb pauses, delays in button presses, clunky mechanics, not user friendly, etc.
Long animations, slow camera, slow gauges, atb pauses, delays in button presses, clunky mechanics, not user friendly, etc.
Isometric turn-based tactics battles are my game. I love the amount of strategy involved (especially in the FFTactics games) and the isometric view not only keeps the game interesting and creates the illusion of depth, it looks absolutely rad when done right. I've always been a fan of the whole 'cross section of an area' look present in isometric games- the only things displayed are what's necessary to get the feel of the area.
I'm in to action RPGs. Generally, I have a limited tolerance for turn-based systems because the pressure and timing that I would get from other genres such as platformers or shooters is lost. I typically like games that utilize real time, the idea of a person standing there, facing an enemy, WAITING to attack, finally does it, then go "it's your turn", and takes a hit from an enemy doesn't appeal to me. While ATBs tend to be harder, at least I feel more engagement with the game than I do with a turn-based system.
My favorite by far is Final Fantasy Tactics-like.
I also really like ABS when they're well made, charming, like Secret of Mana.
I like RM2k3 DBS and similars, as long as battles are not too frequent or too long.
I don't like battle systems in which I can't see my characters, like RM2K and RMVX DBS.
I also really like ABS when they're well made, charming, like Secret of Mana.
I like RM2k3 DBS and similars, as long as battles are not too frequent or too long.
I don't like battle systems in which I can't see my characters, like RM2K and RMVX DBS.
Darken
3952
I never understood the disregard for front-view battles visually. Imagination is more powerful than silly looking battlers.
AABattery
732
post=121841
Isometric turn-based tactics battles are my game.
I've been planing to make a game like that for quite sometime now.
Hope I meet your standards XD
Chaos what was that supposed to mean? I still think it's pretty dull seeing only a half-face picture of the characters during battle.
I was refuting AA's claim that all front-view battles look like crap. If you want, Devil Survivor has a full-length battler for each character, and the Phantasy Star series has your characters front-view, third-person battles where the camera is behind your characters facing the enemies.
J-Man
4684
Sideview is mine. But I'm more of a real-time kinda guy. But combine real time with stuff like in Valkyrie Profile 1's battle system... gawd... I can still dream... -_-;
A perfect example would be FFX-2's battle system... we need more of those... the closest thing is the RTAB for rmxv and rmxp. While it does fufill my requirements... I'm no expert in the scripting department, and I'd so wish to tinker with that a little more...
A perfect example would be FFX-2's battle system... we need more of those... the closest thing is the RTAB for rmxv and rmxp. While it does fufill my requirements... I'm no expert in the scripting department, and I'd so wish to tinker with that a little more...
Kaempfer
1932
I loved FFXII's battle system. It was fast, it occurred where you expected to, and it was very intuitive. I had fun chaining battles (my highest was 112 or something), which is very rare for me. It had a lot to recommend it.
I'm not a fan of tactical games, but I did have a SHITLOAD of fun with FFT (not so much with FFTA, for some reason). I think, for me, FFT's job system did the trick.
Side-battling games are my favourite for 2D, though. No tricks, no gimmicks, just a good ol' well animated series of commands at a steady pace with no load times. CT pulled off on-the-spot battles extremely well, and I'd love to see more of that, but I'm not sure anyone would do it as well as CT did.
I'm not a fan of tactical games, but I did have a SHITLOAD of fun with FFT (not so much with FFTA, for some reason). I think, for me, FFT's job system did the trick.
Side-battling games are my favourite for 2D, though. No tricks, no gimmicks, just a good ol' well animated series of commands at a steady pace with no load times. CT pulled off on-the-spot battles extremely well, and I'd love to see more of that, but I'm not sure anyone would do it as well as CT did.
Crystalgate
694
There's really no system I really like since I've learned that execution of the system is far more important than the system itself. If you want me to like combat in your game it's going to involve a lot balancing, doing the math and testing so that things actually work as intended.
I do not like the ATB however. It shifts the battle system towards reflexes. While many great games requires reflexes, the problem is that the ATB still uses a menu based system which is there for strategy. If you play say Contra and get into trouble, you can maybe survive by via reflexes hit jump and left. This kind of situation doesn't translate well on a menu based system. Meanwhile, the need of thinking quickly negates strategy. Since the player doesn't have time to think, the game can't demand very much strategy in the first place.
Of course, there's Wait in ATB. However, having Wait chosen negates the point of ATB in the first place. I still always use Wait though since I consider the point of ATB pointless.
I do not like the ATB however. It shifts the battle system towards reflexes. While many great games requires reflexes, the problem is that the ATB still uses a menu based system which is there for strategy. If you play say Contra and get into trouble, you can maybe survive by via reflexes hit jump and left. This kind of situation doesn't translate well on a menu based system. Meanwhile, the need of thinking quickly negates strategy. Since the player doesn't have time to think, the game can't demand very much strategy in the first place.
Of course, there's Wait in ATB. However, having Wait chosen negates the point of ATB in the first place. I still always use Wait though since I consider the point of ATB pointless.
Darken
3952
post=122007
Chaos what was that supposed to mean? I still think it's pretty dull seeing only a half-face picture of the characters during battle.
How do bigger facesets taking up space make it less dull? Do you forget what the characters look like all the time or something?
post=121886
I never understood the disregard for front-view battles visually. Imagination is more powerful than silly looking battlers.
Two words: DWARF. FORTRESS. go imatination!
Mikemc
2101
I don't recall the game, it was one of those dumb fan/comedy games (maybe a Chain Game?) but when you attacked your character appeared in front of the camera and then attacked. Crudely drawn but they were there.
