• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

why some turn based games are so popular?

This topic is 1073 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

maybe you say its a very childish question but its important to me. untill last few days i thought there are just indie turn based games that have simple idea.

i had never played any final fantasy game before. some day ago a firnd said the new ff game is awsome and....(lots of suggestions)

when i bought the game and i ran the game i saw lots of high quality aimations and ninja fights and..... it was obvious that there was lots of work on game visuals but after i was just getting sleepy, the game play started and i saw a monster is waiting for my attack :D and there is just a menu to choose and option. there is no dynamics no complex interaction. not sophisticated a.i at all. there are many anticipated games like this. like child of light, south park: stick of truth or divinity.

 

the big question is: these game are not like chess that needs thinking and tactics. just choose a magic or move. what is hidden and deep in these games that attracts many peoples specially critics. as a shooter fan and devlopper i find nothing important and exciting in these games. i like to know your answer and idea about thes games.

thanks

 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

maybe you say its a very childish question but its important to me. untill last few days i thought there are just indie turn based games that have simple idea.

i had never played any final fantasy game before. some day ago a firnd said the new ff game is awsome and....(lots of suggestions)

when i bought the game and i ran the game i saw lots of high quality aimations and ninja fights and..... it was obvious that there was lots of work on game visuals but after i was just getting sleepy, the game play started and i saw a monster is waiting for my attack biggrin.png and there is just a menu to choose and option. there is no dynamics no complex interaction. not sophisticated a.i at all. there are many anticipated games like this. like child of light, south park: stick of truth or divinity.

 

the big question is: these game are not like chess that needs thinking and tactics. just choose a magic or move. what is hidden and deep in these games that attracts many peoples specially critics. as a shooter fan and devlopper i find nothing important and exciting in these games. i like to know your answer and idea about thes games.

thanks

Because it removes the skill barrier from enjoying the stories, I'd think.

 

If it was an action game, people might feel pressured to perform better with their play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have fond memories of turn based RPG's like that, but they're just not enough for me anymore. Child of light has some great reviews, but I find it boring. I'd love to see a come-back of that kind of game, but with the deep strategy and tactics you mentioned. I'm imagining a game that would have the interesting decision making you get in a tactics game like Final Fantasy Tactics, or XCOM Enemy Unknown, but without positioning your units on a map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
the big question is: these game are not like chess that needs thinking and tactics. just choose a magic or move. what is hidden and deep in these games that attracts many peoples specially critics. as a shooter fan and devlopper i find nothing important and exciting in these games. i like to know your answer and idea about thes games.
thanks
 

 

Generally, difficulty in turn-based rpgs scales up considerably in time. Your arsenal of abilities/moves grows rather complex as does the enemy's as the game progresses. Obviously, there's room for disagreement whether certain games become tactics-based enough, but their complexity does usually grow. Early on, the battles can sometimes feel like a boring game of checkers, where you have one move. But, I think the good games usually expand into more of a chess-like experience. 

 

Also, all that said, these types of games usually are heavily story-driven. The gameplay is just how the story is delivered. I agree that it should be fun, but these games don't rely entirely on gameplay, and often times people love the games despite misgivings about the way they've handled the battles.

 

*User experience may vary and all that. Not everyone has to like turn-based combat tongue.png

Edited by Misantes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn based combat is a problem solving exercise like solving a puzzle.

 

You have a wizard 80HP and a warrior 120HP, the enemy 500HP is immune to all kinds of melee damage.

Your spells do 100 damage per turn, the enemy does 40 damage per turn.

 

The above is a simple battle, animations and effects are just eye candy.

 


as a shooter fan and devlopper i find nothing important and exciting in these games.

As a shooter fan think of it like this. When you run around a corner and suddenly find a enemy, you then face a problem.

 

You are equipped with a sniper it can kill with single head shot or two body shots, reloading takes a full second.

Your enemy has a AK47 and spotted you first. What do you do?

 

As you can derive from the above, the only difference between a shooter and turn based combat is time.

Turn based combat takes those fourteen milliseconds and expands it over infinity, removing variables like reaction time and turning it into a pure intellectual problem.

Just because you remove a single element from a game won't make it less fun, for some players it would even be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this some more. As Scouting Ninja mentioned, the puzzle of a turn based game is what makes it fun. I like having a variety of abilities to choose from, and the puzzle of trying to figure out what abilities will work best for the situation. It's about trying to optimize your damage, while reducing the damage you take from opponents, and you have all the time you want to pick over the details. Tactical turn based games with a map work well with this, because in addition to a variety of abilities, you also have a wide variety of places you can move your characters, which can put different enemies in and out of range.

 

The trouble I find with many simple rpg's like you described, when you feel like you're just selecting attack over and over, is when the different attack options aren't that different. Maybe you have a few attacks, but do they do anything tactically different? Or do they just do an amount of damage, and it's obvious what you should do every turn? And if the game gets more advanced eventually, how many hours must I trudge through the boring stuff before I get to the good part?

Edited by DifferentName

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well. you said very well my friends but there are something that i disagree. first you said a shooter and a turn based game are mostly the same but the time factor is deleted in turn based. i think most of turn based game give you time limitations just to prevent the game to be very slow. and you said in a shooter still you have to choice factor and im agree with it but a very important thing that makes it a shooter much better is skill factor. you should be able to aim faster, move faster and...

 

you said in most of turn based games, gameplay is not the main factor. its very important to tell the story. well i think in shooter games like call of duty, max payne, red dead, bioshock and half life you get much much better story rather than these turn based games.

 

im not completely against turn based but there is one game that gives you highest level of choce and tactics in turn based and that is rome:total war. in every turn you can send an spy to any country, you can choose to fight to each of them, you can rethreat, you can higher or lower taxes, you can upgrade your culture and so much more. but most of simple turn based games just looking for best choice for most damage i believe its not so much gameplay and even not so much story. sometimes i see critics admire these group games that i think i cant understand these games and they say call of duty is just a dull repetitive game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kinda funny how you mention the story in shooters being good. I actually won't even buy shooters anymore because multiplayer feels repetitive and I always feel that thes story is just too short and is never even that good (Not to say that it's empirically bad, it's just funny because that's my main reason for hating them XD) I also never loved the FF series for gameplay, (they are a terrible example of Turn-Based mechanics imo, though I will admit to not having played them all, I have played older ones and more recent ones.) I think FF sells based on visuals and soke story elements.

However, as to what makes turn-based games so popular. There are different types:

-Menu-based combat: This can be a lot of fun late-game because you end up having to think several moves ahead as well as adjust based on each turn. Usually the full compexity of these systems is not revealed until the middle of the game when move-types and such come into play. Pokemon is a great example of menu-vased combat dons right. There are a lot of complex interactions between the pokemon, items, moveset, types and even their attitudes.

-Turn-based: Some games are turn based in the actions that can be performed. These games are usually popular because the user has a limited number of actions that they can perform in a set amount of time. Usually one action per one turn. They can have ridculous complexity (Nethack) or managable Complexity (FTL). Nethack has an insane number of interactions possible between different items and monster and I would highly reccomend you learn to play (mastering the controls is a skill by itself) or at least read some spoilers for it.

Turn-based games just allow ghe player to think more about their next move and weigh all the possibilities, while shooters allow this to a limited extent. I think people look down on shooters because they don't require the same level of planning, though shootersdo require a high information processig speed and can achieve the same high-level play as a turn-based gsme. Though I think turn-based games tend to more complex (and again, FF is a horrible example of this imo) and thus can get a higher depth easier but at the expense of a high playerbase.

I think this also needs to be clarified: Some games are about mechanics, some are about story. Chess is about mastering the mechanics with zero story, whereas point-and-click adevtures are about story with zero mechanics. Some.of your examples are mismatched in this degree: Bioshock was mostly about story with very little mechanical mastery needed (as I recall, though I did not play the entire game), while games like Half-Life have a very good mix. Other real-time games like League of Legends have little story and a LOT of mechanical depth to them. Whereas Nethack has little story and tons of mechanics, and Dragon Quest is light on mechanics but heavy on story. (To some degree at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is true that the FF games don't very well demonstrate the possible depth and complexity that turn-based allows. I recommend you pick up something like Divinity: Original Sin. The interactions between elements, environmental conditions, etc can get deep. Break a barrel of oil to create an oil slick so your enemies slip and stumble. Light it on fire with a fireball spell to incinerate the confused foes. Extinguish the flames with a conjured rain storm and create a bank of fog to hide within. Cast lightning at the water they are now standing in to electrocute the whole group.

Once you've played a "good" turn based game, it's hard to go back to the basic FF-type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic and most important difference between a turn-based game and an action game is, that turn-based games are all about decision making (tactically or strategically) and action games are more about re-action and less decision making (during the action part of the game). The difference between reaction and decision is, that you don't think about your options you have when reacting. The following is something you do almost everytime in a turn-based game, but seldomly in an action game, at least if you want to win:

 

Should I take my pistol to shoot the opponent jumping around the corner or take the knife to safe some bullets

or shall I switch to a grenade because there's an ammo box around the corner.

 

A turn based game, regardless if it is a shooter or not, is about choosing an optimized decision path, whereas in a action game you need to choose the best time/effect combo. Therefor you can increase the challenge of an encounter in a turn-based games which would be almost impossible in an action game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is probably no unifying single reason.

In the case of FF, there is a case to be made that it is actually:

- An interactive story...

- ...that gives you an incentive to play by seemingly making it obvious you are growing more powerful over time (without employing a skills-based approach).

 

From a gamer standpoint, it could be argued that this is a lazy formula, but as speedrunners have demonstrated time and time again, it can be made into something quite hardcore that requires a lot of planning, etc. (100% glitchless runs, for example, demonstrate intricate understanding of the inner working of these games).

 

Child of Light, to me, was all about the visual experience. I felt it had a lot of merit in that regard. Combat was just "happening", and I'm led to believe the game could almost have done without, had it any proper replacement (something similar to Sword and Sworcery for example).

 

You've made it clear, by mentioning you are a shooter fan and dev, that the core gameplay experience you are most atuned to is adrenalin rushes, and turn-based does not drive people in that regard. Even under Action-Turn-Based systems, the risk/reward is played entirely differently. It is of note, however, that earlier titles in the FF franchise played a lot more with this (FF V notably).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first you said a shooter and a turn based game are mostly the same but the time factor is deleted in turn based. i think most of turn based game give you time limitations just to prevent the game to be very slow.

True time has been added for the purpose of speeding up a turn based game, it's not the best reason to add time though.

I consider Final Fantasy XIII to be the worst at this and Dragon age to be best at it.

 

The thing about Final Fantasy XIII thy attempted to pull new players by removing turn based combat elements and instead thy only highlighted the worst of it.

Battles are in real time this means those few milliseconds that determine a battle is played back at full speed, so as no surprise battles are short ranging from 22 milliseconds to a whole minute for me.

This makes it very annoying that the game has combat in a separate space, the transition takes longer than most battles.

 

By having real time combat thy force players to spend more times in the menu, upgrading, stocking items and leveling up so that thy can prepare for those short burst of battles.

In truth this just changes the point of turns, now it's the players turn when thy first spot the enemy. Thy select there team change there gear and then when thy feel thy are ready thy play that little game where you have to run up behind the enemy and start combat.

 

The reason I personally like Final Fantasy is that thy provide a set of puzzles to solve, first there is combat but usually only bosses are really fun.

Second there is leveling, this is a long-term puzzle that each short term puzzle adds to, there is the story that is revealed as you play and finally there are the secretes that often take more than one play through to find.

 

Final Fantasy XIII falls short on all of these, because it's linear noting the player does really matters and this brings me to the point.

 

The thing turn based combat gives you more than any other game is control.

 

If you think about when turn based games feel the slowest, it's when your turn is over. This is not often a problem when fighting a NPC because the AI thinks fast.

Time is mostly added when it's PvP, just think how bad it would be if your opponent is losing and then decides not to make any moves till you quit.

It's control Dragon age gives you when you can pause the game. It gives even more control by making the enemies attacks weak, allowing you to clearly see large treats by monitoring your characters HP.

 

Don't judge turn based games by the hoards of bad ones, there are even more bad shooter clones.

 

 

One last thing, there is one thing turn based combat offers that NO OTHER game type does. Full control of more than one entity.

Even a RTS needs AI to govern the units you command, only in turn based games can you be more than one.

Edited by Scouting Ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

maybe you say its a very childish question but its important to me. untill last few days i thought there are just indie turn based games that have simple idea.

i had never played any final fantasy game before. some day ago a firnd said the new ff game is awsome and....(lots of suggestions)

when i bought the game and i ran the game i saw lots of high quality aimations and ninja fights and..... it was obvious that there was lots of work on game visuals but after i was just getting sleepy, the game play started and i saw a monster is waiting for my attack biggrin.png and there is just a menu to choose and option. there is no dynamics no complex interaction. not sophisticated a.i at all. there are many anticipated games like this. like child of light, south park: stick of truth or divinity.

 

the big question is: these game are not like chess that needs thinking and tactics. just choose a magic or move. what is hidden and deep in these games that attracts many peoples specially critics. as a shooter fan and devlopper i find nothing important and exciting in these games. i like to know your answer and idea about thes games.

thanks

Because it removes the skill barrier from enjoying the stories, I'd think.

 

If it was an action game, people might feel pressured to perform better with their play.

 

Skill barrier? Dodge, Attack, Heal. That's the basic formula of real time rpgs. Turn based requires more skill because you have to choose your decisions wisely. It's not like Kingdom Hearts or Dark Cloud 2 where you are constantly mashing down X, Dodging, and healing. Theres no strategy or planning that comes with most Real time rpgs.

Edited by superherox7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, there have been a lot of "swipes" at both action and turn-based games, so we should probably establish some things.

 

1. Both types of games may or may not have story as a powerful agent towards creating enjoyment in a player.

- action and turn-based has a relation to the engagement with combat and gameplay mechanics, neither of which are necessarily related to the portrayal of a story. Story is generally presented in cutscenes in between these combat scenarios, so it is irrelevant to an evaluation of whether one is "better" than the other.

 

2. Both types of games appeal to different audiences.

- action isn't "better" than turn-based just like how baseball isn't "better" than chess. One is action and re-action based, the other is purely intellectual, much like how Scouting Ninja described previously.

 

 

 


The basic and most important difference between a turn-based game and an action game is, that turn-based games are all about decision making (tactically or strategically) and action games are more about re-action and less decision making (during the action part of the game).

3. The same decision-making -does- occur, it's just that the amount of time you have to deal with that problem is drastically reduced.

- The player must rely on a split-second decision derived from their experience and knowledge of the level/mechanics, and then they must execute it, relying on their dexterity, i.e. "how fast can I make my thumbs/trigger fingers move?". In a turn-based game, the time is expanded into "infinity" (what Scouting Ninja said), so that you may choose to make this decision in any given amount of time. The more you reduce the length of a "turn", the more the game begins to approach the state of an action game.

 

 

 


well. you said very well my friends but there are something that i disagree. first you said a shooter and a turn based game are mostly the same but the time factor is deleted in turn based. i think most of turn based game give you time limitations just to prevent the game to be very slow. and you said in a shooter still you have to choice factor and im agree with it but a very important thing that makes it a shooter much better is skill factor. you should be able to aim faster, move faster and...

4. While it may be true that time mechanics can be added to preserve the flow of the game (such as in XCOM multiplayer with a limit of 1.5 minutes per turn, or something to that effect), the statement that a "skill" factor is only present in shooters is not actually the case. A "dexterity" factor is not present in turn-based games, true, but a proportionally larger amount of "intellectual" factor is. This is generally because the player must control more characters than in an action game. In action games, you control yourself and your own movements. Turn-based games usually have you controlling a group of characters and coordinating their efforts. This means that the influence of your strategy and tactics skills becomes multiplied compared to the same type of skill evaluated in action games. Both game-types require large amounts of skill. Action = intellect + dexterity. Turn-based = intellect + more intellect. Essentially.

 

Again, it's not as if one type is better than the other. They simply rely on different types of skill sets more or less and have a corresponding difference in pacing. Action generally encourages an adrenaline rush with a quick suspense-release cycle whereas turn-based has this kind of slow rise of suspense or tension resulting from the gradual development of problems and then a big feeling of success if the troubles can be averted in the end, regardless of how long it takes to do so. They can both have strong or weak stories. They both can have relatively large levels of strategy or tactical thinking. The question is simply how many times must that task be done per "turn" (controlling how many characters) and how quickly do those turns progress (milliseconds or minutes?).

Edited by facehead1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Games like Divinity: Original Sin feel good because:

They give you different things to choose from, without an obvious best move. It's good to feel like you made an important decision.

They give you time to figure out and execute your plan. In action games, sometimes the action is just too frantic to pull off a cool move that you enjoy using, and you end up mashing the simple attack instead, or try to get enough time to use your cool move, but you miss the moment to do it.

The delivery is great. In the end, all you are doing in these games is incrementing/decrementing health and enabling/disabling status effect booleans. It's important to have a good looking facade in front of the raw numbers! Loud explosions, screen shaking, people on fire, BIG numbers when the critical hits land! This is the thing that Shadowrun: Returns lacked - every single thing you did in that game had weak delivery.


Real-time games are just turn-based games where everyone's taking simultaneous turns that are 1/60th of a second long. What matters is what you're allowed to do, and how it's presented. Edited by Nypyren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn based games in GENERAL are more tactical than realtime games. You have time to weight your options, think, and prepare your moves all the while you need to anticipate your opponents moves as you cannot interfere once your turn ends (or both players have chosen their commands for the turn and the animation plays)...

 

There are different variants that try to break up the flow a little that are closer to a realtime game (like moving singular units alternately), but generally, less pressure and more uncertainity makes it less of a game for the reflexes and more for the brain.

 

 

Whereas if we talk about realtime games, even some RTS games have taken the other extreme. As much as Starcraft is still a game that needs tactical thinking, click speed is very important when you have many units with special abilities that NEED to be triggered individualy, else the unit will not really work at full potential. No wonders nobody can beat those koreans in the game, I am sure they are great at tactical thinking, but what really sets them apart is their incredible speed with the mouse.

 

 

Now, if you a) are disabled and not able to click as fast as a game requires, b) just want to sit back and enjoy some challenge for the brain without working up a sweat, or c) just want to concentrate on the strategy part of a strategy game, a turn based game is clearly still better than a realtime one, even without any nostalgia involved.

 

 

 

If we are talking about RPGs: JRPGs have been turnbased since the dawn of time. While western RPGs evolved more into action adventures pretty early on. You will find exceptions (like secret of mana, if we go back to the SNES days), but the FF series more or less has sticked to its gameplay formula apart from the MMO ones with little changes apart from the updated visuals.... and lengthy cutscenes getting ever lengthier (how I lament the depths FF sank to after FF 6...) ... you might find fancy new systems to change how the turn based system works.... but it is turn based at its core.

And seeing how FF still seems to sell well, it seems to work. At least in Japan, its home market.

 

If you want to play a non turnbased Final Fantasy Game, AFAIK the FF MMO games where never turnbased... Though I would argue that the FF MMO games are not REALLY a JRPG anymore, as some important ingredients like preset player characters or a strong story based approach will never translate well to an MMO and have been replaced by a more western RPG formula.

Edited by Gian-Reto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement