Are we all so ADD these days that we cannot handle a little bit of slower pacing and careful deliberation? Am I the only one who misses carefully considering your actions and then making your move ala Pen/Paper Roleplaying, Chess or other RL games?

I mean I understand the boredom aspect, but certain games (Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door, Shadow Hearts, Grandia, Final Fantasy X, Eternal Sonata, The Total War Series, Civilization Series, Fallout) do Turn Based gameplay in an interesting and compelling manner, and certain other games (The Bioware DND Games, KOTOR) allow an excellent comprimise.

Can a non-ADD-actionjunky-FPSfanboy explain this EXTREME aversion to me?

well, i dont hate it, its just that a) a lot of the time it defies logic, and b) it isnt as exciting (at least for me) as real time combat. ive played games with turn based combat and enjoyed them (golden sun) but a lot of the time turn based games dont do it very well, and earn a lot of stick from the community for that.

I've played old Final Fantasy games and find them quite boring. There isn't much skill needed in choosing the best move against certain opponents as it's quite obvious in parts of the game.

In response to both of you...

Bling Cat: The "I don't find it fun" makes sense, but it doesn't explain the trend, it used to be perfectly acceptable but now its not, and Real Time RPG Combat hasn't changed THAT MUCH in general feel since the PS1 era.

Southy: I don't find there's that much skill needed in Real Time RPG's to button mash over and over again and then enter convoluted combo that basically to me seems like a more complicated means to simply select an attack.

I think people are starting to realize that 2 groups of people standing infront of eachother in the middle of nowhere patiently waiting for whowhoever is doing something to finish is just stupid. I still like the Total War series because they are showing what your army has been up to in the last 6 months and actualy uses realtime combat when appropriete.

So your saying the hate is entirely... superficial?

I find that very shallow and kind of silly "Oh Gameplay isn't important, what's important is that the people don't MOVE all the time, my puny little brain cannot handle stillness without collapsing."

The problem comes when Turn based are used when Real Time would be more appropriate. You couldn't play Chess real time (Well, there's Blitz, but it's rubbish) but turn based DMC would be rubbish...Oh.

The thing about Turn Based Games is that it allows you to look at some of the strategies you could use (Civ) without forcing you to multi-task, which some of us find extremely tough.

Southy:
I've played old Final Fantasy games and find them quite boring. There isn't much skill needed in choosing the best move against certain opponents as it's quite obvious in parts of the game.

There's not much skill involved in most games if you put it like that; FPS = Aim and shoot, platformer = run n' jump, racer = hold down accelerate and turn etc.

turn based DMC would be rubbish...Oh.

Turn based DMC would not be DMC any longer. It wouldn't necessarily be rubbish.

In the past, turn based games were made because it is easier to make and play a board-game that requires turns. To an extent, turns were a thing video-games picked up from board-games, wargames and pencil and paper RPGs. Early strategy and RPGs (Civilization and Fallout) used turn based games because it would be impractical to make, or play a game of that scale or model. As technology improved most games became real-time? Why? Because real-time is better, it is more impressive to play and watch and more immersive.

Notice how most of the games on your list aren't considered good because they are turn-based or because they are amazing beacons of gameplay.

Final Fantasy - Story, scale and the age and fame of the franchise.

The Total War Series - It's the real-time battles not the turn based secttion that is the real draw to the franchise, that the turn based section is well done is a bonus.

Fallout - The first two Fallout games are old, both come from a time when their combat system would have been unwieldy, indeed semi-unplayable if in real-time.

I think the important thing is gamers want to be more involved in the gameplay experience, see interactive cutscenes etc. So turn based combat essentially amounts to clicking an option and waiting stuff to happen, whereas real-time, though it can arguably just as undemanding at least "feels" like you're actively participating.

With some turn based combat games its just using the same move over and over so much so that you can just keep hitting "A" (or "X" for Sony-ites) until the battle is over without paying any attention. Real time requires a ad more thought about how to approach a situation even if it too ultimately comes down to "Hit A/X till dead."

reasons why I dislike them:

They are a dated form of gameplay that has grow stale to me

they are a shortcut for lazy designers

they do not engage me at all

its generic

The problem I have with most turn based gameplay is that there's often no reason for it. The most common turn based games tend to be fairly simple once you understand the systems that are in place, and often there is a move that each character does that is the "best" thing for them to do.

For instance, in Final Fantasy 6, once Sabin hit level 99, Pummel (his most basic attack) did max damage. There was no reason for him to ever use any other one. Same with most of the characters. You could have them do their "good" move, or have them take time out of their normal rotation to heal. There was no strategy required beyond this. I understand why it was turn based, don't get me wrong. Sorting through a list of a hundred spells would get cumbersome if you also had to keep moving, but really you only used about 7 of those spells by the end of the game anyway.

I get that a game like chess requires more strategy than games like FF, but JRPGs tend to be what I think of when I think of "turn based". It's not a thinking man's battle, it's just slow.

- J

Most of the complaints people have here can easily be applied to RTRPGs or any other type of game really. In real time you just mash the same button or find 1 stratagy the works against everyone. All of them are about the same. It's as engaging, it takes just about as much thought a stratagy.

[quote=Shiloa]
There's not much skill involved in most games if you put it like that; FPS = Aim and shoot, platformer = run n' jump, racer = hold down accelerate and turn etc.
[quote]

Yes, but the difference between the two is that one keeps you active and alert to the changes and the other leaves you waiting while the attack finishes.

I'd also feel better about pulling off a combo, rather than the computer doing the move for me.

I like turn-based games and I wish there were more of them. I enjoy a measured, tactical pace. It's not for everyone, particularly as advances in technology open up more and more options for real-time. Western gamers in particular seem to prefer real-time. S'why we still get oodles of Dynasty Warriors releases over here, but no Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Best bet for turn-based games is the PC, but even there they're getting more scarce.

.

I like a good bit of turn-based combat. Playing some of the Final Fantasies (especially IX, where your party has 4 characters), you do have to think strategically. "Ok, so if I have my white mage cast 'Reflect', then get my black mage to cast 'Thundaga', then follow it up with 'Chakra', I'll then be ready to unleash my Dyne attack..." It requires a little planning and clever thinking. Compare this to Morrowind, wherein I just spent my time hammering the mouse button and wondering why I wasn't doing any damage.

People keep saying "Oh, it's unrealistic, it has no place in games". Since when have games peen defined by realism anyways? FF7 had you travelling over the world, trying to stop an Oedipal super-soldier from sucking the earth of all life. If you can suspend your disbelief enough to follow that, what's a bit of tactical combat thrown in on the side?

As a long term fps addict the problem I have with turn based fighting is very simple. It removes control.

Once in a turn based fight, you have to stand there in front of your opponent and exchange hits one at a time. The only way to win is to stand there and duke it out, you can't change your position and its all very slow paced.
You can run away in most games but you can't run away AND fight in any turn based game I've ever seen. Plus a lot of turn based games feature random encounters, thereby removing control altogether. Dodging/avoiding an opponent always seems to hinge around luck as well.
Also playing turn based against humans often boils down to highest level wins. Which is fine but I don't have a billion hours to spend grinding up to level 99.

Compared to an fps like Battlefield, where I can watch a tank trundle down a valley through my rifle scope. I saw it a good 300 metres away and it can't see me because I'm hiding. If I wanted to I could engage it myself, but I've already got on the teamspeak and called in the nearest helicopter. Which duly turns up and blasts the tank. I get up and run to the next tree line, where my attention is focused on the five infantry and one apc coming to follow up the tank.
I've just faught a battle, but without the enemy ever seeing me or firing a shot. Plus the whole scenario took about 30 seconds, required genuine teamwork and let me survive the mismatched scenario of Sniper vs. Tank. I've also been instantly pitched into the next one, but can choose whether to fight directly or just holler and wait for back up.

It gives me the feeling of being in control and of having outsmarted someone. Even if the Tank driver had seen me, then blown my little sniper to next tuesday, it would have been because I was stupid and picked the wrong hiding place. Not because he's in a tank

Having said that there are plenty of turn based games that are plenty of fun because they allow control in the extreme, games like Chess and Draughts. But since they exist outside of computers, I don't count them as turn based video games.

Turn based can be very good...*looks towards the sky*... i remember a game once. Incubation was its name, and it was possibly one of the best turn based strategic combat games ever.

Having a squad of soldiers, you were given missions to help you escape from a mutant alien infested city. action points determined how far you could move or shoot, but it was the enemies that determined your strategy, you could put your guys on guard to kill bad guys when they stopped in view. Some enemies had impenetrable front armour so flank and bait was the only way to kill them, you could run out of ammo, your men had different front and back armour so facing was something to think about, even if they didn't die they could still go into panic if they took too many attacks, they then can't do anything until they have rested one turn. Your weapons could overheat, or jam, and possibly blow up your man if you pushed them too much.

I remember a time when turn-based strategy had more depth than a couple of moves ahead.

You guys comparing the complaints of turn based to those of real time aren't considering that the real time games just aren't that good when you are comparing... now I understand wanting to sit and contemplate your moves and I do as well occasionally, but seriously.... thinking is never as exciting as doing. When the computer does you combo for you, you might as well not be there... but when you have to time the "button mashing" it gives a greater sense of accomplishment. (to me at least) Take a look at Witcher for example... you can probably kill most of the lesser creatures by button mashing, but anything big or any boss requires good timing and good strategy... when do I use spell a to help with my attack or spell b to defend as well as what potions do I need to help myself live as well as do damage. All of these considerations are in your average turn based fighting, but these things are done in real time in this game which mean you have to think on your feet... which in my opinion adds a level of difficulty... if you sit there to think about it it gets too tedious and makes for a less enjoyable experience.

FF X-2 was as good as turn based combat is going to get

I don't have much time, so maybe I can give my explanation completely through examples.

Turn based combat:

Fallout, Darksun: Shattered Lands, X-COM = awesome

Games where you stand in a line and spend the entire time managing menus = boring

I tend to prefer turn based games myself. Especially turn based RPGs. There are a number of reasons for this. Among them being able to control multiple characters with precisian. I am also one of those guys who also wistfully hopes for a return of the days when you could create your own party of adventurers, with individual skills. You know where you had like 12 classes and 10 races and could only have 4-6 in a party? (like Wizardry).

I feel real time is fine for certain kinds of games, like fighting games, FPS, etc... but doesn't belong in RPGs (which are becoming a neglected genere). Sadly I think due to development time and the profits to be made with MMORPGs Western-style RPGs are pretty much dying and all we're going to see for a while to come are interactive movie type JRPGs.

I know opinions vary, but then again I guess this is why there were distinctly differant types of games before recently where everything started to kind of lump together more than ever before.

Then again I'll admit I'm disabled in real life, and not as fast as I used to be (32). As much as I still enjoy fighting games, I'm pretty bad at them, and only a little better when it comes to FPS games.

For me, a good turn-based RPG is a godsend.

The big thing though is I'd like to see more games where I can create my entire party from scratch, and have numerous options.

PedroSteckecilo:
Are we all so ADD these days that we cannot handle a little bit of slower pacing and careful deliberation?

Maybe. I hate turn absed combat in a video game because I'm there to be entertained, not wait until the next tosser takes his turn.
If I want to wait my turn to attack I'll play D&D, with my friends, you know, NOT a video game.

A lot of people are using the Final Fantasies to highlight the better aspects of this mechanic. I disagree, personally, believing that the whole 'ENGAGE BATTLE, CHANGE SCREEN, FIGHT, WIN, VICTORY DANCE, RETURN TO MAP' routine took too long and got old after the third battle of the first FF I ever played. For a game that puts grinding up on a golden platform, it makes it a chore to do effectively thanks to the useless ceremony every time you engage a random enemy.

EDIT: I also happen to agree that (despite having the Civ. 4 collection on my Steam account) turn-based games are the appendix of the gaming industry; a relic of a time gone by, only used very rarely and usually requiring surgery to take out.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, companies like SSI (Pools of Radiance, etc) had turn based RPG combat with more than 1 dimension. The standard JRPG combat approach of "line-up at ten paces and volley fire" seems like a step backwards from that.

tiredinnuendo:
The problem I have with most turn based gameplay is that there's often no reason for it. The most common turn based games tend to be fairly simple once you understand the systems that are in place, and often there is a move that each character does that is the "best" thing for them to do.

For instance, in Final Fantasy 6, once Sabin hit level 99, Pummel (his most basic attack) did max damage. There was no reason for him to ever use any other one. Same with most of the characters. You could have them do their "good" move, or have them take time out of their normal rotation to heal. There was no strategy required beyond this. I understand why it was turn based, don't get me wrong. Sorting through a list of a hundred spells would get cumbersome if you also had to keep moving, but really you only used about 7 of those spells by the end of the game anyway.

I get that a game like chess requires more strategy than games like FF, but JRPGs tend to be what I think of when I think of "turn based". It's not a thinking man's battle, it's just slow.

- J

This guy has an excellent point. Another point is that most Jrpgs aren't real turn based combat in the sense that you are completley stationary and are very limited in your attack options outside of a few spells and a basic attack function.

Real turn based games focus on something that completley changes EVERYTHING: terrain. Fallout, Fallout 2, X-Com, Civilization, old school D&D, all of these used terrain to affect your enemey. If your enemy has a gun, use your turn to hide behind a wall, then heal so you are safe from him, then charge up some power move as you force him to engage you.

It feels like you earned a victory rather than successfully figured out a stupid pattern and /or game breaking death spell to use on every enemy. FF Tactics is by far the best Final Fantasy (in terms of combat at least) because of this. Why the hell would your long range support be on the front lines with your melee warriors? Thats just stupid and even more than stupid: retarded design.

Real tun based games force you to plan ahead so you can maximize your surroundings and the full range of your party/squad's abilities in order to achieve victory in as little turns (and hopefully as little movement so you don't have to give ground) as possible.

Now I honestly perfer real time combat or Bioware's patented semi-real time combat systems used in thier infinity engine games and the NWN series. But tactical turn based combat still kicks ass. Unfortunetly, standard party vs. monster menu based combat can go die in the cold depths of space.

SimpleReally:
FF X-2 was as good as turn based combat is going to get

I actually agree with that, while I hated the story, the battles were both strategic, involving, variable and incredibly fast paced. I'd love to see that battle system in a better game, FFXII came close, but so many of its attacks where useless and the battle system involved a little too much "autoplay" for me.

I also accept the dislike of "grinding" and "random encounters" as a valid reason for disliking Turn Based Combat and JRPG's and yes, the combat does take much longer, but I find some of the truly great boss battles in Turn Based RPG's are VERY rewarding.

Not all turn based games those specifically centered around being rpg's. A lotof people in this thread are referring to the rpgs that would make up turn based games. There are some fun games like Laser Squad Nemesis and X-com those are le awesome.

There are more to turn based games than rpgs look outside the box they're fun for the person who wants to outwit or outsmart the other.

True enough, Turn Based Strategy is an under appreciated sub-genre, one that only really sees use in Civ games and a bit in the Total War Games.

I dislike Turn Based games for one reason really. I find it illogical and hard to believe that everything, monsters and players alike, would be incredibly chivalrous as to wait diligently to take turns to attack. Its just not very real for me.

90% of the time when a game tries to be realistic it ends up taking away from the fun. I have nothing against Turn based games but only if they present a new element. I enjoyed Super Mario RPG turn based games and even Paper Mario because they bring simply new elements to an old style of game play but I hate recycled game engines that have me grind monsters very slowly.

I also hate going down three menus, to go into my spell menu, to select my fireball, then select the rank of it, to watch a 15 second casting animation only to find out it did 5% of the monsters health and I need to cast it 19 more times to beat a monsters that I need to kill 10 of before I can get the next level I need to get the next rank of fireball which I can use to kill the boss.

But if you find a game that presents a new element or style of a turn based game then I am all ears because anything that is new may be fun just a little bit.

KairiYukari:
I dislike Turn Based games for one reason really. I find it illogical and hard to believe that everything, monsters and players alike, would be incredibly chivalrous as to wait diligently to take turns to attack. Its just not very real for me.

Um... excuse me? Realism? I hate to burst the bubble of the deluded world you live in but um... games aren't realistic. I don't want to play "boring normal life" I want to go to far off places with exotic scenery and have characters that can do things I and maybe no other person in real life can possibly do. Turn based combat is a bloody ABSTRACTION instead of being a festival of twitch happy button mashy randomness. Its a deliberate gameplay construct designed to give maximum control over multiple characters instead of relying on poor AI control or (back in the day) only playing one character. It's meant to be the electronic equivalent of Pen/Paper roleplaying, which must used a "turn based system" out of necessity. Don't bring "realism" into a discussion about a medium that is escapism pretty much by nature.

Turn based combat is purley for taste, personally I find it too boring, but I will say that it suits JRPGS to the letter. Because they are completly abstract having people jump 10 feet in the air while holding a sword that would be impossible to hold in real life.

I respect turn based and its heritage, dating back to the first penicil and paper rpgs like D&D, but I feel it is just too slow for me, but then again I like masculine head stomping and FPS games, which is why I like TES IV and III over FF (sorry, I don't know many turnbased rpg games, I tend to avoid them like they have aids.)

When I think of turn based games I think of strategy rpgs like Disgaea and FF Tactics. They're the games that make the turn based genre into an epic chess-like game.

I think turn based games like in ff games are getting a little stale because it's been done so many times already. I just want some change once in a while. I understand why people hate it because it's slow and repetitive, but there are people that like it since it requires more thinking than your typical shooter.

PedroSteckecilo:
Are we all so ADD these days that we cannot handle a little bit of slower pacing and careful deliberation? Am I the only one who misses carefully considering your actions and then making your move ala Pen/Paper Roleplaying, Chess or other RL games?

I mean I understand the boredom aspect, but certain games (Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door, Shadow Hearts, Grandia, Final Fantasy X, Eternal Sonata, The Total War Series, Civilization Series, Fallout) do Turn Based gameplay in an interesting and compelling manner, and certain other games (The Bioware DND Games, KOTOR) allow an excellent comprimise.

Can a non-ADD-actionjunky-FPSfanboy explain this EXTREME aversion to me?

I've been classified as having ADHD and am a FPS guy so I'll take the liberty to explain my opinion. Also in case anyone wants to say I'm stupid I'm 17 and in college.

I personally find any turn based game that takes more than 20 seconds between turns is boring. Games such as chess and checkers are acceptable as you have to think between turns. On my computer Civilization BTS is fun, on my dad's computer a 400 turn game is going to cost me 400 mins of waisted time. Turn based games are fine as I have something to do between turns, not hitting the same attack and watching something wiggle for 5 mins strait.

To make it short I believe most turn based games are a waist of time unless they're mind games such as chess or checkers.