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)
TURN-BASED...DEAD?
Posts
Craze
View playlists
Close
cho
0
xenosaga 3 has the best turn-based battle system that there is
this is probably not a fact but i'll pretend it is until i die
this is probably not a fact but i'll pretend it is until i die
mellytan
995
author=Craze
SH2:C is still good without the Judgment Ring, however. That's why I didn't mention the ring. =D
and the ring made it even better than good B)
Gimmicks can really enhance a turn-based system, from the inside or outside. The varied roles of the characters in SH:C helped make the battlesystem great. Though Yuri and Kurando were pretty similar in that they could both transform, the others had neat battle-related gimmicks that were both interesting and useful.
cho
xenosaga 3 has the best turn-based battle system that there is
this is probably not a fact but i'll pretend it is until i die
XS3 is one of my most favorite games ever, sooooo I'll have to mostly agree, Firaga aside. I'm not sure the game really needed the ability to unlock basically every Ether skill with the hidden skill unlockers, though.
mellytan: And they still had different summons! Kurando was cute, too.
LightningLord2
230
Pokemon, to qoute a franchise that was successful early on and is still successful today.
...Although to further the SH:2 thread, none of the unique commands were especially original. Lucia pulls tarot cards which sometimes help and sometimes hinder! Anastasia learns spells by analyzing enemies! Gepetto uses elemental attack spells! Yet, what makes them interesting is the "gimmicks." Lucia's tarot cards are on a bit of a sideways slot machine reel for you to pick from and one of them is always 'special;' Anastasia analyzes enemies by taking their photo and keeping the spell in her album; and Gepetto's elemental attack is tied to whatever elemental dress Cornelia is wearing.
Basically, you can include Firaga if it somehow adds something to your game, even if it's just flavor. After all, Gepetto's command was just Firaga with different spices on top. `-`
Basically, you can include Firaga if it somehow adds something to your game, even if it's just flavor. After all, Gepetto's command was just Firaga with different spices on top. `-`
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Turn-based and ATB aren't really that different, in terms of complexity. Here are the major differences.
- In most turn-based systems, you input your entire party's turns, and then all allies and all enemies take turns according to their agility. This means:
---- If your healer's turn occurs after the enemy's turn, in ATB he can respond and heal the same target as the enemy, while in turn-based he has to predict the enemy's target.
---- If your offensive characters' turns occur after the enemy's turn, in ATB they can respond and not target enemies who perform defensive actions that turn.
---- If your tank's turn occurs after the enemy's turn, in both ATB and turn-based systems the tank's defensive actions will hopefully carry over until the enemy's next turn. So there is no real difference, unless the designer is an idiot.
- In some turn-based systems, the above is not actually true. You still input each character's action when that character's turn comes up. This type of turn-based system is totally indistinguishable from ATB, except for the following difference:
- In an ATB system, it's guaranteed that some battlers will get turns more often than other battlers based purely on their stats. In a turn-based system, battlers will all get turns equally often, unless some sort of action or effect gives them bonus turns or deprives them of turns. Pure stats will not directly affect turn frequency.
...And I think that is pretty much the entire list of differences between turn-based and ATB. It's not really that big of a list, and nothing on the list is that big a deal except maybe the healing thing. How often you get turns is not a game-breaker, it does not offer that many different options balance-wise. The only big difference is the turn-based issue of inputting an action, and then the enemy attacking before that action goes off. That makes you plan one turn ahead, adding some extra strategy and making the game slightly harder for novices. But I've seen ATB games that do the same thing by giving spells charge times. FF4, for example.
- In most turn-based systems, you input your entire party's turns, and then all allies and all enemies take turns according to their agility. This means:
---- If your healer's turn occurs after the enemy's turn, in ATB he can respond and heal the same target as the enemy, while in turn-based he has to predict the enemy's target.
---- If your offensive characters' turns occur after the enemy's turn, in ATB they can respond and not target enemies who perform defensive actions that turn.
---- If your tank's turn occurs after the enemy's turn, in both ATB and turn-based systems the tank's defensive actions will hopefully carry over until the enemy's next turn. So there is no real difference, unless the designer is an idiot.
- In some turn-based systems, the above is not actually true. You still input each character's action when that character's turn comes up. This type of turn-based system is totally indistinguishable from ATB, except for the following difference:
- In an ATB system, it's guaranteed that some battlers will get turns more often than other battlers based purely on their stats. In a turn-based system, battlers will all get turns equally often, unless some sort of action or effect gives them bonus turns or deprives them of turns. Pure stats will not directly affect turn frequency.
...And I think that is pretty much the entire list of differences between turn-based and ATB. It's not really that big of a list, and nothing on the list is that big a deal except maybe the healing thing. How often you get turns is not a game-breaker, it does not offer that many different options balance-wise. The only big difference is the turn-based issue of inputting an action, and then the enemy attacking before that action goes off. That makes you plan one turn ahead, adding some extra strategy and making the game slightly harder for novices. But I've seen ATB games that do the same thing by giving spells charge times. FF4, for example.
In a turn-based system, battlers will all get turns equally often, unless some sort of action or effect gives them bonus turns or deprives them of turns. Pure stats will not directly affect turn frequency.
Stat affected turn frequency in FFX, also inputting commands was immediately followed by execution.
It sorta blended the ATB trait of immediacy with classic turn based.
And I think that is pretty much the entire list of differences between turn-based and ATB.
Ah, you forgot a big one, not waiting for a bar to fill up (;
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
FFX is an ATB system.
The bar just fills up really fast.
Like, in one frame.
The bar just fills up really fast.
Like, in one frame.
LightningLord2
230
ATB that makes use of the "high speed guys get more turns" often have a problem with that they completely pwn the shit out of everything if their speed is too high. In general, the many actions of the players are a frequent problem especially in boss fights (because it's mostly 4 on 1, and the bosses tend to be not fast in ATBs). To the point that game makers let bosses act twice in a row when they get their turn (and I still have no clue how to do this in any RPG Maker, though it's mainly to experiment with it).
Atmaweapon
179
What a great thread topic. =)
It is my opinion that every gamer plays a game and thinks to themself, "man, wouldn't that be cool if you could..." and "dude, they should..." and other ideas of gameplay possibility. Personally, though, as gaming has evolved and all of these ideas have been implemented there feels to be some sort of numbing effect. As time goes by, I am less and less impressed with graphics and features. Especially when I can think back to all the fun I've had with older games that couldn't hold a candle to what modern games are capable of.
It is my feeling that this happened to turn-based combat over the years hand in hand with the desire to attract different types of gamers to a certain genre. In the end, I believe that a game can e good or even popular to the masses with or without turn-based combat. What really makes or breaks it is the design and proper execution of ideas to enrich what could easily become a boring and repeatative style of mindless menu based tasks.
Personally, I have a strong feeling that turn-based combat can be just as fun, given the proper style, design, and execution.
It is my opinion that every gamer plays a game and thinks to themself, "man, wouldn't that be cool if you could..." and "dude, they should..." and other ideas of gameplay possibility. Personally, though, as gaming has evolved and all of these ideas have been implemented there feels to be some sort of numbing effect. As time goes by, I am less and less impressed with graphics and features. Especially when I can think back to all the fun I've had with older games that couldn't hold a candle to what modern games are capable of.
It is my feeling that this happened to turn-based combat over the years hand in hand with the desire to attract different types of gamers to a certain genre. In the end, I believe that a game can e good or even popular to the masses with or without turn-based combat. What really makes or breaks it is the design and proper execution of ideas to enrich what could easily become a boring and repeatative style of mindless menu based tasks.
Personally, I have a strong feeling that turn-based combat can be just as fun, given the proper style, design, and execution.
WolfCoder
Legend of Dragoon
Giving a two-generations old game with no explanation is a great way to show that turn-based gaming isn't dead.
Shinan
4314
author=CrazeWolfCoderGiving a two-generations old game with no explanation is a great way to show that turn-based gaming isn't dead.
Legend of Dragoon
Maybe it's an example of the game that killed turn based?
LightningLord2
230
However, just because some gaming companies don't make turn-based games doesn't mean you can't.
I have no interest in RPGs that aren't either classically turn-based (Final Fantasy 1-10) or in first person real time (Oblivion). I think this, actually, more than anything else, is why I did not enjoy Dragon Age.
Does anyone feel the same way?
Does anyone feel the same way?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
So you don't like western RPGs, okay. I guess that's fine, you're allowed to not like a certain genre of games. It just seems odd since that style is a hybrid of the two styles you say you do like. It's not that different from real-time, the only difference is that you can pause, so there's no pressure and you can be more tactical. I don't like having time limits on choosing tactics, so I greatly appreciate that aspect of games like Dragon Age and KotOR, and the vast majority of RPGs in general.
