Other than Final Fantasy, I really beg to differ. I've played every JRPG on the SNES, and a couple on the PSX and PS2, and they all run together, its like you're playing the same game.
You really need to play more JRPGs for the PS1 and PS2. What about the stories of games like Valkyrie Profile (1 & 2), SMT: Digital Devil Saga, Vagrant Story, Dragon Quarter and SMT: Nocturne?
Umm, why not? Care to say more than just 'No'? You can make a perfect system in real-time. Menus are clunky and primitive. At the very least, combine them into something like Kingdom Hearts or FFXII. You know, gamers shouldn't allow games to have "just mash 'X' until you win" combat anymore. It's inexcusable. But we keep buying into it, so it's not going to change.
Zombiemambo on
0
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
Well what does one get out of turn-based combat? It's not strategic to any extent that forces you to really think and it doesn't challenge your manual skill unless it has one of those pathetic "press x at the right time for bonus damage" features shoehorned in. Strategy RPGs are remotely better because a good one allows you to weigh your position and environment but the various iterations of normal turn-based combat are without merit.
Well when someone says Turn-based combat needs to die. I personally group strategy RPGs with that comment as well. Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Tactics Ogre, Stella Dues, etc. all have turn-based combat, right?
And personally I do get enjoyment out of turn-based combat, as do other people, or else turn-based RPGs wouldn’t sell. I like trying out different combinations of demons in Nocturne, I like the button pushing system of Shadow Hearts and customizing the judgement ring to suit me. I adore the grid system of Wild Arms 4 (particularly how characters are placed randomly on the grid during random battles) and I’m intrigued to see how they change it in Wild Arms 5.
I mean, personally I’d like to see more JRPGs aim for a more strategic battle system, and I do think the narrative of JRPGs (and videogames in general) need to improve. But I don’t see why people are so adamant about removing turn-based combat altogether.
You really need to play more JRPGs for the PS1 and PS2. What about the stories of games like Valkyrie Profile (1 & 2), SMT: Digital Devil Saga, Vagrant Story, Dragon Quarter and SMT: Nocturne?
Umm, why not? Care to say more than just 'No'? You can make a perfect system in real-time. Menus are clunky and primitive. At the very least, combine them into something like Kingdom Hearts or FFXII. You know, gamers shouldn't allow games to have "just mash 'X' until you win" combat anymore. It's inexcusable. But we keep buying into it, so it's not going to change.
But see, all those games I mentioned not only have at least a decent story line, they also have interesting combat. You can’t mash buttons in any of those games and come out victorious (well, maybe Valkyrie Profile if you’re lucky). SMT games require you to find the enemy’s weaknesses, and defend against your enemy’s attacks. Valkyrie Profile is reliant on chaining together different attacks to create combos. Dragon Quarter has everything in real time on the field, but shifts to a turn-based strategy RPG when you encounter an enemy.
I don’t think I’m “buying into it” I’m just buying what I enjoy. I play real-time games all the time; it’s just that every now and again I play and enjoy a turn-based RPG, and it seems like people have a problem with this. And I don’t understand why, because the genre isn’t really all that popular.
Turn-Based combat can be super-fine, though. I mean, there are thousands of systems to choose from, or you can just make a new one that is actually good. It's not like the transfer to computers makes it impossible for combat to be strategic.
Can you think of a strategic one and how it worked? If you can't recall any examples off the top of your head it's alright but I'd be interested to know how a strategic turn-based system works (preferably a non-srpg one).
AJR: I'm really interested in seeing if there is any merit to the 'line of allies v line of foes' system. I too enjoyed demon creation in Nocturne but it's sort of beside the point.
What is needed in the way of SRPGs is something like FFTactics but with a little more attention paid to balance issues. People always talk about Calculators and Orlandu but I think that even skills like Choco Meteor need to be looked at. Probably some Monk and Samurai skills as well.
The only time Disgaea had decent strategy was during some of the geo puzzles in the item world. Some of those levels were fantastic.
I would hate it if rpgs moved to a strategic way of playing. Calculating where enemies will be and how they will react for the next five turns based on your party's position and actions is something I consider masochistic. Not to mention the time it takes in a standard strategy rpg to go across the map and fight enemies. Battles become a chore rather than a minor inconvenience and turns a simple 2-5 minute fight into 20-50 minutes. I like having an archaic way of battling my enemies by just telling them "Attack". Kill the enemies, collect my experience and gold, move on. I absolutely do not want to spend time formulating a strategy for every battle I come across. This is not fun for me. This is painful. If I want to play a strategy roleplaying game, I will buy one. If anyone doesn't like the way rpg games work, they can always choose not to play it and find a game or genre they like instead of forcing it to their standards.
I'm playing through Paper Mario on VC since we stupidly lost our 64 copy, and since I physically loved Thousand Year Door.
Every time I pick one of these games up, I'm shocked at how perfectly it streamlines all the JRPG bullshit and replaces all the menial tasks such as grinding and repetitive combat with actual fun things. Why the hell hasn't anyone ripped this stuff off and applied it to other RPGs? If the creator of this thread hasn't played the Paper series, you should get right on it. The first hour or so can be pretty slow, but the rest is liquid crack.
I would hate it if rpgs moved to a strategic way of playing.
So what are they now then? As I asked earlier, what is anyone getting out of this system? In your case, wouldn't you prefer an action-based RPG or a platforming-type game with RPG features? Why line up and take turns?
Sprocket Floss on
0
turtleantGunpla Dadis the best.Registered Userregular
You actually find the plots for the majority of JRPG's compelling?
JRPG's focus on the good/bad/grey areas? They force you into the role. Most of the time its a spunky 15 year old save the universe by using team work cause everyone is different but we can over come the treacherous church/former ally with the power of heart that we learned while rescuing the damsels in distress that had amnesia. Or work to avenge my village that was attacked for no reason only to find out I'm the hero of legend and they were looking for (insert item/hero of power).
There's a definite storyline trend with a bunch of JRPGs, but what splits the good from the bad are the ones that do actually put thought into their story. As cliched as it was, FF4's storyline was pretty good back when I first played it (I was 11 though, so take that as you will). FF6 still has an incredibly solid storyline due to the fact that it took a different turn than most games. The characters, as many as there were, were developed to a point where you could easily get into the story and feel for the characters when they got the 15 seconds of fame, so to speak. FFT's storyline was nothing short of amazing, and I think everyone who's played this game agrees. I'm playing through FF9 right now and the storyline there's pretty solid as well.
Games like BoF, Chrono Trigger, and Secret of Mana (rattling off the really successful SNES games, where JRPGs were really at their prime) definitely follow the kind of trend you're discussing. While it's rather mundane and boring, especially when looking back at it now, the games themselves were fun even if their storyline was repetitive aside from a few unique perks here and there.
What better way to focus on good/bad/grey areas than having the freedom to do whatever you want. KOTOR and the like have problems with sometimes having the good(save village)/bad(burn village) choices a little to clear cut but you are often allowed to make what you want. Often times I choose(that's right choose) to play a good person in RPGS, but I disctinctly remember being very angry at some NPC's in morrowind and choosing to kill him for annoying me. Both Western and Eastern designs have glaring problems, but to say this is a problem addressed by the JRPG side is blatantly wrong.
Here is an example of choice in a typical JRPG
"can you help me? >>no aw please , can you help me? >> no..." and I can't progress until I hit yes. And yes I've played a ton of JRPGs in my time, and I'm pretty sick of the genre outside of a few shining examples.
The dialog is often horrible, worse than most filler anime or super hero comic books. How you can be genuinely entertained and find the plots of most JRPGs redeeming is beyond me. There's not much better writing in games in the RPG genre than the writing in Planescape and Baldur's Gate.
Often times I play JRPGs cause they are fun DESPITE their horrible plots. Grandia II was really fun, horrible plot. Symphonia was great, though the plot and dialogue were horrible (parody or not). I am absolutely in love with Dragon Quest VIII but its as cookie cutter as can be, though the characters were extremely lovable in the game.
I could go on and on about how dumbfounded I am of your opinion but I feel like you already have some incredibly strong rose tinted glasses on.
Edited a little.
I think of JRPGs not so much as an adventure where I can pick and choose what I'm able to do but a story I'm experiencing. Whether that's good or bad is up to the individual person, but that is what it is. Saying you don't like them because they don't play like some other game is like saying you don't like the apple because it doesn't taste like an orange, and while you're certainly entitled to your opinion you can't really fault something for not being like something else.
I too play JRPGs whose story's horrible but gameplay's fantastic. FF1: Dawn of Souls is something I bring around with me and play in my downtime. The changes to a bunch of the game mechanics truly make running through the game (whose story is so horrible I cry every time I have to run through the ending) fun by attempting to do it with different parties. Other games are fun to play despite their flaws due to other things as well, like you stated. I don't necessarily think this is exclusive to JRPGs, though.
Overall I can agree that the JRPG archetype certainly isn't the best out there, but it provided a good, solid platform that gave birth to some really fantastic titles, and for me that's good enough. The fact that it's changing means that things can only go up from here, really.
Minor aside: One of the things that really, really irked me in a lot of JRPGs was when the hero did not talk. It really is one of the dumbest things I've seen.
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
1 line a side combat? That narrows it down a bit.
I like the system in Nocturne and Digital Devil Saga, but you’re familiar enough with the push-turn system that I won’t bother about arguing about those.
I like the judgement ring system of the Shadow Hearts series. It’s simple, but fun. It’s not particularly strategic, but it adds a slight real-time element to fairly traditional turn-based battles.
The combo system of Chrono Trigger was pretty interesting. Combination attacks are possible with just about every character, so it was interesting to see what combinations worked best.
There are more examples, probably much better ones, but I really haven’t played that many JRPGs. There are probably people far more knowledge on the subject than me.
And as to why people like myself enjoy turn-based combat? I can’t really say. I just do.
Man, the last thing JRPGs need to do is include more boring as fuck MMO-style Tank-DPS-Healbot bullshit.
Because JRPG-style Tank-DPS-Healbot bullshit is better, right?
MMOs and RPGs in general need to try to move away from specialization and introduce classes that do a variety of things, and content that emphasizes the use of all of your abilities. This doesn't mean the class has to be able to to fill multiple base roles, but they could provide a main role and some kind of support that fills their class description. In RPGs the issue isn't *as* bad because you're in control of all of the characters, so even if they're specialized you, the player, are controlling all aspects of the battle (healing, damage, etc). In an MMO it's a disaster though, since being delegated to one role ends up being mind numbingly boring. I'm looking forward to what RPGs in general come out with as time continues to see if they address this.
So what are they now then? As I asked earlier, what is anyone getting out of this system? In your case, wouldn't you prefer an action-based RPG or a platforming-type game with RPG features? Why line up and take turns?
I like action based rpgs, such as Radiata Stories, but I also like very traditional rpgs. Actually, the main thing I look for in an rpg are the characters, not gameplay. If I like the characters, I will like the game. Final Fantasy 6 had many characters I could choose for my party, all of which I liked. The characters in Xenosaga make me want to break the disc to pieces after playing any longer than 20 minutes.
RPGs now do have some element of strategy. For example, certain monsters might be weak to certain attacks or status effects. Some have relatively simple features which makes battle a little more strategic, such as Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne's use of gaining a turn when hitting a weakness. At it's core though, it's the same battle style. It's simple, fast, and doesn't require much hassle to get through a battle. That is what I get out of it. Moving to have battles require deep thinking and complex systems just seems needless to me and makes a relatively simple battle become drawn out. I can appreciate things, such as how Romancing Saga works, but to move rpg battles into a strategy game would ruin my enjoyment. Again, I can appreciate a strategy game, but I do not want to fulfill strategic challenges to advance the story of an rpg.
Geo on
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
You know what I want?
I want to use my WHOLE part at one time!
What's the point of having 20 characters to choose from, if you can only use 3?!
Either focus on 3 or allow me to use all 20 characters.
Casually Hardcore on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Why are RPG genre cliches so bad, and other genre cliches not?
The point of having a large number of characters but only a few slots available in the party is so you can switch out and match character's abilities, specializations and skills to the challenges of the latest/dungeon boss. Unless, of course, all your characters basically start out as 'blank slate' characters that can be built up into generic asskicking machines, so, yeah, it becomes stupid then.
Pureauthor on
SS FC: 1334 0950 5927
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Why are RPG genre cliches so bad, and other genre cliches not?
Other cliches are bad.
So what's an RTS cliche?
I was thinking more along the lines of crates in FPSs and so on. In RTSs, I would say something like those damn 'evade' missions that are scarcely better than escort missions.
Actually, this comparison works well, because good escort missions are possible (see RE4). It just takes effort to do them well. I think that if the game is good, it's easier to ignore the cliches, or the cliches become less of a hindrance, and more of a feature, If you see what I mean.
Why are RPG genre cliches so bad, and other genre cliches not?
Other cliches are bad.
So what's an RTS cliche?
buildings that pop up in seconds? Training soldiers in seconds? Future nukes that have to be manually aimed? Fuck battlefield resource gathering/unit producing is not only a long running cliche, but one that makes almost no sense.
I'm still waiting for a JRPG where you use your whole party when fighting the final boss. FF6 was close, but I want a final boss that is killing party members left and right. Actually if Square used the system in the PSP vs all gamesystems FF6 flash movie I'd supply their offices with free ice cream for life.
I'm still waiting for a JRPG where you use your whole party when fighting the final boss. FF6 was close, but I want a final boss that is killing party members left and right. Actually if Square used the system in the PSP vs all gamesystems FF6 flash movie I'd supply their offices with free ice cream for life.
You ever play FFX, son? You can switch out party members on the fly, as long they are alive. Same with FF XII, only you can switch them when they are dead.
Why are RPG genre cliches so bad, and other genre cliches not?
Other cliches are bad.
So what's an RTS cliche?
buildings that pop up in seconds? Training soldiers in seconds? Future nukes that have to be manually aimed? Fuck battlefield resource gathering/unit producing is not only a long running cliche, but one that makes almost no sense.
Lack of scale that means the soldiers will be as big as the bases they came from. A unit cap that means you can't produce as many units as you want to.
Actually, this comparison works well, because good escort missions are possible (see RE4). It just takes effort to do them well. I think that if the game is good, it's easier to ignore the cliches, or the cliches become less of a hindrance, and more of a feature, If you see what I mean.
Another example would be exploding barrels in FPS games. They might be done well in very skilled hands, but they are mostly just stupid in all other hands.
Get rid of random encounters. Then use an SRPG or Real-Time system.
Done.
So what you're saying is that the turn-based RPG is unsalvageable?
If by "turn-based" you're talking about the line v line variety then I'd say they are utterly hopeless. The only reason they will continue to exist is that people like them for some vague reason.
Get rid of random encounters. Then use an SRPG or Real-Time system.
Done.
So what you're saying is that the turn-based RPG is unsalvageable?
If by "turn-based" you're talking about the line v line variety then I'd say they are utterly hopeless. The only reason they will continue to exist is that people like them for some vague reason.
I'm still waiting for a JRPG where you use your whole party when fighting the final boss. FF6 was close, but I want a final boss that is killing party members left and right. Actually if Square used the system in the PSP vs all gamesystems FF6 flash movie I'd supply their offices with free ice cream for life.
You ever play FFX, son? You can switch out party members on the fly, as long they are alive. Same with FF XII, only you can switch them when they are dead.
I haven't played it, but I knew about it, and I have played megaman X command mission (God have mercy on my soul) which also did that and I'm sure there are others. I just wanted it for the final battle though, to make the final boss actually feel like more exciting and unique. That way the boss can be stupid powerful, but still beatable through numbers. It always seemed stupid that in most RPG's your fighting the incarnation of Death/God/Evil itself and you only use 1/4th of your battle strength.
Get rid of random encounters. Then use an SRPG or Real-Time system.
Done.
So what you're saying is that the turn-based RPG is unsalvageable?
If by "turn-based" you're talking about the line v line variety then I'd say they are utterly hopeless. The only reason they will continue to exist is that people like them for some vague reason.
If you read the OP, you would know what I mean.
I agree that character animations interacting with eachother more, team attacks, and the like would improve the genre. Those vary game to game, yes.
The only revolution for the genre to explore are real time elements and other things covered in other genres. Basically, JRPGs that want to appeal to people who don't like the hardest core of the elements need to hybridise with something else or they remain, JRPG standard.
A neat concept might be an intricate combat system worked into a turn based state. An example would be a traditional sword fighting scenario. The opponent attacks the player with an overhead sword slash and the player taps a button at the right time to block it. At the moment of sword to sword contact the game pauses and it's the player's turn. The player couuld have options like Resist (Str), Counter (Agi), Special.
You select resist and a button pounding minigame starts where you try to press the opponents blade away from you. Counter would be a timing based minigame where, if successful, your character makes a spin to the side of the opponent and tries to slash him/her (which can be blocked somehow by the opponent). Special could have any wierd character specific crap you can come up with. Teleport-to-behind would be nice.
Once you have the result of this (You either successfully repel the opponent's blade, take the hit, have your attack dodged, blocked, or have your attack connect) it becomes the opponent's turn again. Unless you have turns being based on each character's speed vs the other's.
If you built a system similar to this with as many variables as humanly possible it *might* be playable and nice. You'd need incredible animations, graphics, and random variation, otherwise it'd be horrible and slow game with repetitive combat. Then again, you wouldn't be too worse off.
You add magic and other things to a system as complicated and it might work.
Get rid of random encounters. Then use an SRPG or Real-Time system.
Done.
So what you're saying is that the turn-based RPG is unsalvageable?
If by "turn-based" you're talking about the line v line variety then I'd say they are utterly hopeless. The only reason they will continue to exist is that people like them for some vague reason.
If you read the OP, you would know what I mean.
I agree that character animations interacting with eachother more, team attacks, and the like would
improve the genre. Those vary game to game, yes.
The only revolution for the genre to explore are real time elements and other things covered in other genres. Basically, JRPGs that want to appeal to people who don't like the hardest core of the elements need to hybridise with something else or they remain, JRPG standard.
A neat concept might be an intricate combat system worked into a turn based state. An example would be a traditional sword fighting scenario. The opponent attacks the player with an overhead sword slash and the player taps a button at the right time to block it. At the moment of sword to sword contact the game pauses and it's the player's turn. The player couuld have options like Resist (Str), Counter (Agi), Special.
You select resist and a button pounding minigame starts where you try to press the opponents blade away from you. Counter would be a timing based minigame where, if successful, your character makes a spin to the side of the opponent and tries to slash him/her (which can be blocked somehow by the opponent). Special could have any wierd character specific crap you can come up with. Teleport-to-behind would be nice.
Once you have the result of this (You either successfully repel the opponent's blade, take the hit, have your attack dodged, blocked, or have your attack connect) it becomes the opponent's turn again. Unless you have turns being based on each character's speed vs the other's.
If you built a system similar to this with as many variables as humanly possible it *might* be playable and nice. You'd need incredible animations, graphics, and random variation, otherwise it'd be horrible and slow game with repetitive combat. Then again, you wouldn't be too worse off.
You add magic and other things to a system as complicated and it might work.
Your ideas are like a more complex version of the ideas that I had proposed. What I had in mind was a simple choice to be made, let's say that a swordsman attacks you:
X raises shield
Triangle attempts parry
Circle attempts dodge
Dependant upon different abilities, and with different timing and effects. Yours is more skill and timing based, which I can see either working well or being frustrating/repetitive. It all depends on the design.
Get rid of random encounters. Then use an SRPG or Real-Time system.
Done.
So what you're saying is that the turn-based RPG is unsalvageable?
If by "turn-based" you're talking about the line v line variety then I'd say they are utterly hopeless. The only reason they will continue to exist is that people like them for some vague reason.
If you read the OP, you would know what I mean.
I agree that character animations interacting with eachother more, team attacks, and the like would
improve the genre. Those vary game to game, yes.
The only revolution for the genre to explore are real time elements and other things covered in other genres. Basically, JRPGs that want to appeal to people who don't like the hardest core of the elements need to hybridise with something else or they remain, JRPG standard.
A neat concept might be an intricate combat system worked into a turn based state. An example would be a traditional sword fighting scenario. The opponent attacks the player with an overhead sword slash and the player taps a button at the right time to block it. At the moment of sword to sword contact the game pauses and it's the player's turn. The player couuld have options like Resist (Str), Counter (Agi), Special.
You select resist and a button pounding minigame starts where you try to press the opponents blade away from you. Counter would be a timing based minigame where, if successful, your character makes a spin to the side of the opponent and tries to slash him/her (which can be blocked somehow by the opponent). Special could have any wierd character specific crap you can come up with. Teleport-to-behind would be nice.
Once you have the result of this (You either successfully repel the opponent's blade, take the hit, have your attack dodged, blocked, or have your attack connect) it becomes the opponent's turn again. Unless you have turns being based on each character's speed vs the other's.
If you built a system similar to this with as many variables as humanly possible it *might* be playable and nice. You'd need incredible animations, graphics, and random variation, otherwise it'd be horrible and slow game with repetitive combat. Then again, you wouldn't be too worse off.
You add magic and other things to a system as complicated and it might work.
Your ideas are like a more complex version of the ideas that I had proposed. What I had in mind was a simple choice to be made, let's say that a swordsman attacks you:
X raises shield
Triangle attempts parry
Circle attempts dodge
Dependant upon different abilities, and with different timing and effects. Yours is more skill and timing based, which I can see either working well or being frustrating/repetitive. It all depends on the design.
Mine is still as simple a choice as yours on defense. Block or Dodge, really.
It's just that the outcome would effect the following turn by putting you and your opponent in different starting positions.
I think what we'd all like to see is the combat be more fully realised. Have the combat take place in the actual environment you're in (not too much to ask, it's 2007). Have the environment matter. Have everyone involved interact with eachother more realistically too.
Another example.
You trigger a double team move. Your huge strong dude (HSDtm) throws your funny short dude (FSDtm) at the opponent. If the opponent decides to block, he'll take less damage than if he failed his check to begin with and the FSD ends up right in front of the opponent for his next turn while the HSD remains where he was. The opponent could be knocked back aswell. Closer to the lava behind him.
If the opponent successfully dodged the FSD, your FSD would end up landing in the lava and die a horrible death as you realise how stupid it is to throw teammates around in a lava cave.
So to summarise. Blows that knock people back, cause people to interact with objects, change the environment. Active physics in a turn based system, not scripted garbage.
Though again, if you notice, I'm using alot of assumptions that this system is more similar to an SRPG than a J one and that this fantasy JRPG of the magical future is some massive 6 year next gen project that's balanced well and designed well.
I like a lot of your points, and I find them very interesting.
When I got to the "movement" point of my OP, I began to worry that I was just going to start talking about SRPG's. Then I realized that what I really wanted was the focus on complexity of a standard RPG mixed with the tactical movement and teamwork of an SRPG.
I would like to see a core group of four people, possibly five, with unique, deep options. They should interact as a team, and face off against similarly organized and complex foes in a dynamic battlefield. (I find that radius systems are a natural evolution from tile based systems, as an aside.)
Blurring the genres can only work for the better.
Anonymous Robot on
Sigs shouldn't be higher than 80 pixels - Elki.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
The stereotype of the JRPG is fully this:
Spiky haired youths go on quests to save their kingdom (empires are evil, kingdoms are good). Their adventures consist of battling enemies (sometimes PALLETTE SWAPPED!) by pressing buttons in a not-so-timely manner. Interaction is limited.
That being said, we all know that pretty much describes the PS1 and PS2 Final Fantasies mostly (others fit the bill).
I think, since the IDEA behind it being turn based means you need to incorporate strategy, then more strategy should be able to be incorporated. Real-time battlegrounds (Chrono Trigger), environment damage (slam some guy into a wall for massive damage, crab or not), some sort of physics incorporation would even be badass.
Having an American colonial war with anime kids and gunblades may have run its course.
Turn-Based combat can be super-fine, though. I mean, there are thousands of systems to choose from, or you can just make a new one that is actually good. It's not like the transfer to computers makes it impossible for combat to be strategic.
Can you think of a strategic one and how it worked? If you can't recall any examples off the top of your head it's alright but I'd be interested to know how a strategic turn-based system works (preferably a non-srpg one).
Ship battles in Skies of Arcadia (well, you could say normal battles too, to a lesser extent but I'm going to stick with ship battles). Your ship and the enemy ship move around each other in a pre-defined pattern (although you do occasionally get offered a choice between two movement orders). When inputting commands you can see when you and you enemy have chances of dealing big damage, when you're safe and when you will be positioned correctly to use your super weapon. You also have a supply of SP, everything except defending, using items and focus (which gives you more SP for use next round) costs SP. At the beggining of every round you gain X amount of SP and input commands for which party members will do what and in what order. There are certain types of guns that can be fired through multiple segments of a round (each round has 4 segments, one for each party member), effectively allowing a character to act more than once, some types of guns fire once and hit in the same segment (these tend to be most powerful), torpedos are fired in the segment a character acts and hit in a later segment of the player's choice. In certain segments hits on the enemy will deal more damage, in others hits on you will deal more damage. You have a super weapon that can be fired only on certain (usually few and far between) segements, it does far and away more damage than anything else but it costs a huge amount of SP. You have to juggle the neccessary healing / buffs etc. with having the SP (and party members) available for super weapon use and attacks that hit in a segment when they'll deal more damage.
Posts
Umm, why not? Care to say more than just 'No'? You can make a perfect system in real-time. Menus are clunky and primitive. At the very least, combine them into something like Kingdom Hearts or FFXII. You know, gamers shouldn't allow games to have "just mash 'X' until you win" combat anymore. It's inexcusable. But we keep buying into it, so it's not going to change.
Well when someone says Turn-based combat needs to die. I personally group strategy RPGs with that comment as well. Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Tactics Ogre, Stella Dues, etc. all have turn-based combat, right?
And personally I do get enjoyment out of turn-based combat, as do other people, or else turn-based RPGs wouldn’t sell. I like trying out different combinations of demons in Nocturne, I like the button pushing system of Shadow Hearts and customizing the judgement ring to suit me. I adore the grid system of Wild Arms 4 (particularly how characters are placed randomly on the grid during random battles) and I’m intrigued to see how they change it in Wild Arms 5.
I mean, personally I’d like to see more JRPGs aim for a more strategic battle system, and I do think the narrative of JRPGs (and videogames in general) need to improve. But I don’t see why people are so adamant about removing turn-based combat altogether.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
But see, all those games I mentioned not only have at least a decent story line, they also have interesting combat. You can’t mash buttons in any of those games and come out victorious (well, maybe Valkyrie Profile if you’re lucky). SMT games require you to find the enemy’s weaknesses, and defend against your enemy’s attacks. Valkyrie Profile is reliant on chaining together different attacks to create combos. Dragon Quarter has everything in real time on the field, but shifts to a turn-based strategy RPG when you encounter an enemy.
I don’t think I’m “buying into it” I’m just buying what I enjoy. I play real-time games all the time; it’s just that every now and again I play and enjoy a turn-based RPG, and it seems like people have a problem with this. And I don’t understand why, because the genre isn’t really all that popular.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Can you think of a strategic one and how it worked? If you can't recall any examples off the top of your head it's alright but I'd be interested to know how a strategic turn-based system works (preferably a non-srpg one).
AJR: I'm really interested in seeing if there is any merit to the 'line of allies v line of foes' system. I too enjoyed demon creation in Nocturne but it's sort of beside the point.
What is needed in the way of SRPGs is something like FFTactics but with a little more attention paid to balance issues. People always talk about Calculators and Orlandu but I think that even skills like Choco Meteor need to be looked at. Probably some Monk and Samurai skills as well.
The only time Disgaea had decent strategy was during some of the geo puzzles in the item world. Some of those levels were fantastic.
Every time I pick one of these games up, I'm shocked at how perfectly it streamlines all the JRPG bullshit and replaces all the menial tasks such as grinding and repetitive combat with actual fun things. Why the hell hasn't anyone ripped this stuff off and applied it to other RPGs? If the creator of this thread hasn't played the Paper series, you should get right on it. The first hour or so can be pretty slow, but the rest is liquid crack.
So what are they now then? As I asked earlier, what is anyone getting out of this system? In your case, wouldn't you prefer an action-based RPG or a platforming-type game with RPG features? Why line up and take turns?
Because JRPG-style Tank-DPS-Healbot bullshit is better, right?
There's a definite storyline trend with a bunch of JRPGs, but what splits the good from the bad are the ones that do actually put thought into their story. As cliched as it was, FF4's storyline was pretty good back when I first played it (I was 11 though, so take that as you will). FF6 still has an incredibly solid storyline due to the fact that it took a different turn than most games. The characters, as many as there were, were developed to a point where you could easily get into the story and feel for the characters when they got the 15 seconds of fame, so to speak. FFT's storyline was nothing short of amazing, and I think everyone who's played this game agrees. I'm playing through FF9 right now and the storyline there's pretty solid as well.
Games like BoF, Chrono Trigger, and Secret of Mana (rattling off the really successful SNES games, where JRPGs were really at their prime) definitely follow the kind of trend you're discussing. While it's rather mundane and boring, especially when looking back at it now, the games themselves were fun even if their storyline was repetitive aside from a few unique perks here and there.
I think of JRPGs not so much as an adventure where I can pick and choose what I'm able to do but a story I'm experiencing. Whether that's good or bad is up to the individual person, but that is what it is. Saying you don't like them because they don't play like some other game is like saying you don't like the apple because it doesn't taste like an orange, and while you're certainly entitled to your opinion you can't really fault something for not being like something else.
I too play JRPGs whose story's horrible but gameplay's fantastic. FF1: Dawn of Souls is something I bring around with me and play in my downtime. The changes to a bunch of the game mechanics truly make running through the game (whose story is so horrible I cry every time I have to run through the ending) fun by attempting to do it with different parties. Other games are fun to play despite their flaws due to other things as well, like you stated. I don't necessarily think this is exclusive to JRPGs, though.
Overall I can agree that the JRPG archetype certainly isn't the best out there, but it provided a good, solid platform that gave birth to some really fantastic titles, and for me that's good enough. The fact that it's changing means that things can only go up from here, really.
Minor aside: One of the things that really, really irked me in a lot of JRPGs was when the hero did not talk. It really is one of the dumbest things I've seen.
Ghalan - Tauren Druid
I like the system in Nocturne and Digital Devil Saga, but you’re familiar enough with the push-turn system that I won’t bother about arguing about those.
I like the judgement ring system of the Shadow Hearts series. It’s simple, but fun. It’s not particularly strategic, but it adds a slight real-time element to fairly traditional turn-based battles.
The combo system of Chrono Trigger was pretty interesting. Combination attacks are possible with just about every character, so it was interesting to see what combinations worked best.
There are more examples, probably much better ones, but I really haven’t played that many JRPGs. There are probably people far more knowledge on the subject than me.
And as to why people like myself enjoy turn-based combat? I can’t really say. I just do.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
MMOs and RPGs in general need to try to move away from specialization and introduce classes that do a variety of things, and content that emphasizes the use of all of your abilities. This doesn't mean the class has to be able to to fill multiple base roles, but they could provide a main role and some kind of support that fills their class description. In RPGs the issue isn't *as* bad because you're in control of all of the characters, so even if they're specialized you, the player, are controlling all aspects of the battle (healing, damage, etc). In an MMO it's a disaster though, since being delegated to one role ends up being mind numbingly boring. I'm looking forward to what RPGs in general come out with as time continues to see if they address this.
Ghalan - Tauren Druid
I like action based rpgs, such as Radiata Stories, but I also like very traditional rpgs. Actually, the main thing I look for in an rpg are the characters, not gameplay. If I like the characters, I will like the game. Final Fantasy 6 had many characters I could choose for my party, all of which I liked. The characters in Xenosaga make me want to break the disc to pieces after playing any longer than 20 minutes.
RPGs now do have some element of strategy. For example, certain monsters might be weak to certain attacks or status effects. Some have relatively simple features which makes battle a little more strategic, such as Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne's use of gaining a turn when hitting a weakness. At it's core though, it's the same battle style. It's simple, fast, and doesn't require much hassle to get through a battle. That is what I get out of it. Moving to have battles require deep thinking and complex systems just seems needless to me and makes a relatively simple battle become drawn out. I can appreciate things, such as how Romancing Saga works, but to move rpg battles into a strategy game would ruin my enjoyment. Again, I can appreciate a strategy game, but I do not want to fulfill strategic challenges to advance the story of an rpg.
I want to use my WHOLE part at one time!
What's the point of having 20 characters to choose from, if you can only use 3?!
Either focus on 3 or allow me to use all 20 characters.
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
Other cliches are bad.
So what's an RTS cliche?
because RPGS are supposed to rely heavily on a good story?
BRAWL CODE: 3866-7685-8500
Actually, this comparison works well, because good escort missions are possible (see RE4). It just takes effort to do them well. I think that if the game is good, it's easier to ignore the cliches, or the cliches become less of a hindrance, and more of a feature, If you see what I mean.
This is where it becomes a Strategy RPG.
buildings that pop up in seconds? Training soldiers in seconds? Future nukes that have to be manually aimed? Fuck battlefield resource gathering/unit producing is not only a long running cliche, but one that makes almost no sense.
You ever play FFX, son? You can switch out party members on the fly, as long they are alive. Same with FF XII, only you can switch them when they are dead.
Lack of scale that means the soldiers will be as big as the bases they came from. A unit cap that means you can't produce as many units as you want to.
Another example would be exploding barrels in FPS games. They might be done well in very skilled hands, but they are mostly just stupid in all other hands.
It is about turnbased RPGs, their gameplay, and how to rectify it.
Get rid of random encounters. Then use an SRPG or Real-Time system.
Done.
So what you're saying is that the turn-based RPG is unsalvageable?
If by "turn-based" you're talking about the line v line variety then I'd say they are utterly hopeless. The only reason they will continue to exist is that people like them for some vague reason.
If you read the OP, you would know what I mean.
I haven't played it, but I knew about it, and I have played megaman X command mission (God have mercy on my soul) which also did that and I'm sure there are others. I just wanted it for the final battle though, to make the final boss actually feel like more exciting and unique. That way the boss can be stupid powerful, but still beatable through numbers. It always seemed stupid that in most RPG's your fighting the incarnation of Death/God/Evil itself and you only use 1/4th of your battle strength.
I agree that character animations interacting with eachother more, team attacks, and the like would improve the genre. Those vary game to game, yes.
The only revolution for the genre to explore are real time elements and other things covered in other genres. Basically, JRPGs that want to appeal to people who don't like the hardest core of the elements need to hybridise with something else or they remain, JRPG standard.
A neat concept might be an intricate combat system worked into a turn based state. An example would be a traditional sword fighting scenario. The opponent attacks the player with an overhead sword slash and the player taps a button at the right time to block it. At the moment of sword to sword contact the game pauses and it's the player's turn. The player couuld have options like Resist (Str), Counter (Agi), Special.
You select resist and a button pounding minigame starts where you try to press the opponents blade away from you. Counter would be a timing based minigame where, if successful, your character makes a spin to the side of the opponent and tries to slash him/her (which can be blocked somehow by the opponent). Special could have any wierd character specific crap you can come up with. Teleport-to-behind would be nice.
Once you have the result of this (You either successfully repel the opponent's blade, take the hit, have your attack dodged, blocked, or have your attack connect) it becomes the opponent's turn again. Unless you have turns being based on each character's speed vs the other's.
If you built a system similar to this with as many variables as humanly possible it *might* be playable and nice. You'd need incredible animations, graphics, and random variation, otherwise it'd be horrible and slow game with repetitive combat. Then again, you wouldn't be too worse off.
You add magic and other things to a system as complicated and it might work.
Your ideas are like a more complex version of the ideas that I had proposed. What I had in mind was a simple choice to be made, let's say that a swordsman attacks you:
X raises shield
Triangle attempts parry
Circle attempts dodge
Dependant upon different abilities, and with different timing and effects. Yours is more skill and timing based, which I can see either working well or being frustrating/repetitive. It all depends on the design.
Mine is still as simple a choice as yours on defense. Block or Dodge, really.
It's just that the outcome would effect the following turn by putting you and your opponent in different starting positions.
I think what we'd all like to see is the combat be more fully realised. Have the combat take place in the actual environment you're in (not too much to ask, it's 2007). Have the environment matter. Have everyone involved interact with eachother more realistically too.
Another example.
You trigger a double team move. Your huge strong dude (HSDtm) throws your funny short dude (FSDtm) at the opponent. If the opponent decides to block, he'll take less damage than if he failed his check to begin with and the FSD ends up right in front of the opponent for his next turn while the HSD remains where he was. The opponent could be knocked back aswell. Closer to the lava behind him.
If the opponent successfully dodged the FSD, your FSD would end up landing in the lava and die a horrible death as you realise how stupid it is to throw teammates around in a lava cave.
So to summarise. Blows that knock people back, cause people to interact with objects, change the environment. Active physics in a turn based system, not scripted garbage.
Though again, if you notice, I'm using alot of assumptions that this system is more similar to an SRPG than a J one and that this fantasy JRPG of the magical future is some massive 6 year next gen project that's balanced well and designed well.
When I got to the "movement" point of my OP, I began to worry that I was just going to start talking about SRPG's. Then I realized that what I really wanted was the focus on complexity of a standard RPG mixed with the tactical movement and teamwork of an SRPG.
I would like to see a core group of four people, possibly five, with unique, deep options. They should interact as a team, and face off against similarly organized and complex foes in a dynamic battlefield. (I find that radius systems are a natural evolution from tile based systems, as an aside.)
Blurring the genres can only work for the better.
Spiky haired youths go on quests to save their kingdom (empires are evil, kingdoms are good). Their adventures consist of battling enemies (sometimes PALLETTE SWAPPED!) by pressing buttons in a not-so-timely manner. Interaction is limited.
That being said, we all know that pretty much describes the PS1 and PS2 Final Fantasies mostly (others fit the bill).
I think, since the IDEA behind it being turn based means you need to incorporate strategy, then more strategy should be able to be incorporated. Real-time battlegrounds (Chrono Trigger), environment damage (slam some guy into a wall for massive damage, crab or not), some sort of physics incorporation would even be badass.
Having an American colonial war with anime kids and gunblades may have run its course.
Realism aside, I loved the look of that weapon.
Ship battles in Skies of Arcadia (well, you could say normal battles too, to a lesser extent but I'm going to stick with ship battles). Your ship and the enemy ship move around each other in a pre-defined pattern (although you do occasionally get offered a choice between two movement orders). When inputting commands you can see when you and you enemy have chances of dealing big damage, when you're safe and when you will be positioned correctly to use your super weapon. You also have a supply of SP, everything except defending, using items and focus (which gives you more SP for use next round) costs SP. At the beggining of every round you gain X amount of SP and input commands for which party members will do what and in what order. There are certain types of guns that can be fired through multiple segments of a round (each round has 4 segments, one for each party member), effectively allowing a character to act more than once, some types of guns fire once and hit in the same segment (these tend to be most powerful), torpedos are fired in the segment a character acts and hit in a later segment of the player's choice. In certain segments hits on the enemy will deal more damage, in others hits on you will deal more damage. You have a super weapon that can be fired only on certain (usually few and far between) segements, it does far and away more damage than anything else but it costs a huge amount of SP. You have to juggle the neccessary healing / buffs etc. with having the SP (and party members) available for super weapon use and attacks that hit in a segment when they'll deal more damage.