So I've been replaying Final Fantasy X and pretty much realised I am in love with the combat system. I like being able to take the fight as fast or slow as I need to so I can actually plan what I'm going to do ahead of time.
But a lot of people seem to dislike turn based combat in all its forms. Or at least that's what one would be led to believe since it seems to have faded into disuse among modern RPGs.
At first I just wanted to know how many people actually DO like turn based combat, but now I'm more interested in the kind of combat people want to see in games. And I don't mean your favourite RPG. FFX's combat is my favourite, but it's not exactly my favourite RPG as a whole.
So let me know what you think. I apologise in advance for forcing you to generalise your favourite combat system into one of the poll options, feel free to expand on it in your post.
I like the typical turn based option.
It gives me time to think and plan out the most efficient and effective battle plan, and I love doing that.
Although I do like the kingdom Hearts actiony style a lot too.
Kind of funny, but I'd be cool with anything but turn-based combat.
I can and have had fun with games of every other scheme you listed, but turn-based gameplay just turns me off completely unless it's a strategy game (like Civilization or, to fit the RPG theme, Disgaea or Fallout).
For the record, I put 'other'.
Actually , FF1 doesn't have the same turn base combat as FFX. It's more like ff4 Through ff9 . Enemies will attack you rven if you don't input a command .
I voted for that anyways. It prefer with a ath gauge , because it makes things more fast paced and stressful , as long as you don't have wait mode on . I have to admit that the FFX/SMT:nocturne style of gameplay adds a strategic element to it which is fun , especially on hard bosses .
I didn't realise FF1 wasn't pure turn based. Admittedly I've only played it in Dawn of Souls form so they could have changed it.
Hopefully the poll is still clear enough. Still sorry for the wee mistake.
I strongly dislike turn-based stuff. And target-based combat, for that matter. I much rather have fast, direct combat a la ME or Amalur as opposed to, say, FF or DA:O.
I would say first and third person combatible RPG would be decent, although the only rpgs I found are either mainly FPS with third person as an option but not being really useful (fallout) while third person being the only option but actually works well (mass effect).
I like them all. Whether or not a given combat system is well-implemented differs from game to game.
Depends on the type of game.
If it's a party based rpg, straight up turn based all the way.(better control and feedback) I can tolerate real time with pause, but it's not optimal.
Not a big fan of action gameplay in RPGs for the most part because they seem half baked compared to true action/adventure games. Dark/Demon Souls actually had some decent action combat though, but that's the exception.
1st person seems to translate better to gunplay, rather than swordplay. For example, the combat in New Vegas i can tolerate, even though it's far from great (VATS helps), but I can't stand the combat in Oblivion/Skyrim.
I don't really mind unless it falls within the limbo between action and statistical/strategical based gameplay a la oblivion or even mass effect 1.
I think it should focus on either being tactical or action-based. I don't mind small inclusions of the other into it, but it's when they try and get a balance I don't really enjoy it.
Depends. If there's strategic depth (Fallout, Brogue, Witcher 2, etc.) turn-based, ARPG, and anything in between are fine. If there's less depth, I'd rather have something like Mass Effect where the actiony shooting/hacking/etc. can stand on its own. Turn-based and shallow (insert flash rpg here) or real-time, shallow, and repetitive (insert Elder Scrolls game here) are of course the worst.
Anything that I don't fall asleep to.
But seriously, I have never found a combat system in RPG's that I actually loved. Sure, Fallout 3/NV were functional, along with Mass Effect and KOTOR.
I really liked FFX's combat because it's turn based, but not in the "line up and attack at once" manner of Golden Sun or Dragon Quest, you had to decide on which three people you wanted out and there was a turn order that you could manipulate and abuse. I don't necessarily like turn based, but the particular nuances of FFX's combat made it my choice.
I feel that as much as I may like or dislike a certain system, it really varies from game to game. Like FFX-2 and FFXIII were similar in that they were ATB battles on an organically organized field (ie people stand wherever rather than in rows facing each other). However, FFX-2's attacks that target multiple enemies would automatically hit them wherever they were, but in FFXIII, attacks like blitz or firaga would only hit in a certain area, and you have no way to control where enemies stand, so in this case, FFX-2 is handling that method of attacking better. Things like this factor into my liking or disliking of a system much more than the broad archetype in which the system lies.
In essence I think there's no excuse for RPGs using a crutch of an outdated combat system. If it's turn based then it should be properly tactical or strategic (Xcom, not Fallout or Final Fantasy). If it's action based it should be high quality (ME2 not Fallout 3)
Well there are a few elements to the RPG combat I prefer:
Real time with pause, squad, class based, with auto attack
But those really need to be used together and balanced well to create a solid package, take them one by one and they will make quite a horrible experience.
That's why most devs just roll with averaged out action combat, in ME class/squad/skills/weapons actually don't matter at all, any setup will work in about the same way all the time.
But hey that's how you make RPG for the masses and how you make the big bucks.
I don't really like combat systems in my rpgs... so, other, I guess?
my favorite combat is from the growlanser series. everything happens in real time, but you can pause and micromanage as much as you need.
When i think Fallout its not FPS, its more FO1 and 2. AKA turn based.
Pen and Paper, is the best RPG combat. Any game that uses the d20 system (Neverwinter Nights, etc) is the way I prefer RPG combat to be.
The Tales games have, IMO, the best combat out of any RPG I've ever played. Therefor I voted hack'n'slash.
I don't care what form the combat takes, all I care about is that the character's abilities are emphasised over your own. If your own physical abilities and reflexes are more important than what your character can do, then the game is no longer an rpg in my eyes.
I really dislike the way many modern games handle the combat because it strips away the a lot of the pleasure of building your character. I can definately finish Mass Effect 2 without levelling up my character at all on normal difficulty, it honestly isn't that difficult to do, what is the point in giving me combat stats? This kind of thing just undermines the bit that makes a game an rpg - developing a character.
For that matter, why is it that every rpg I can think of is combat based? The whole point of the genre is to put you into someones else's shoes and yet I can think of more First Person Shooter games that don't require me to kill.
I'm currently playing Fallout 3 and appreciating it a lot so I voted First-person style. I also really like turn based combat, I hope that style makes a comeback.
The upcoming south park RPG from Obsidian has me intrigued, since it's turn-based and even 2D. I hope it's just the start of a 2D turn based revival in 1080p.
ATB system, with manipulation of how you time attacks. I thought Final Fantasy X-2 had the best combat system in the entire FF series. Lining up timing for your specials to pile on the hurt felt rewarding.
Even though FFX-2 fell short in all other areas, the combat system allowed me to finish the game.
Nothing in particular. I just want it to flow well with the game. RPG combat system doesn't really matter one way or the other and its funny to watch people argue over it. RPG combat systems are only there to simulate combat, if it does that, it succeeds.
I kinda like the stuff in the Mario Rpgs, It is turn based, but it also gives you a chance to dodge or counterattack. It seems more natural than pure turn-based combat where you take turns slapping each other.
Nominally turn-based with an ATB system is my favorite. Pretty much all of my favorite RPG combat systems were that, from FF4 up through Resonance of Fate.
Honorable mention for actiony combat a la the Star Ocean series. After that first/third person action with a pause system (the new Fallout games... which I play mostly in third-person) works quite well... remove the pause from it and it turns to crap, though (lookin' at you, Elder Scrolls).
Turn based all the way, I can, will and have planned one turn for upwards of ten minutes and Fire Emblem is one of the few series I rank above Final Fantasy.
I picked other, be I love all of those RPG styles. I don't mind variety and there really isn't one I prefer over another, as long as the RPG doesn't come with loads of gimicky DLC junk I'm happy.
My three favorites are the one with a tactical, turn-based approach(FF:Tactics), real-time third person perspective(Dark Souls, Phantasy Star Online) or a real time arena-based structure(Tales series). In all of these cases, it really does feel like I'm contributing to the result of the fight, it takes either skills or smarts, and I can easily get punished for making mistakes.
Although, I have to admit, the possibly most important part of it is that dice rolls/percentages/RNGs overall isn't a major contributor to the combat. This is the sole reason I can't be bothered to play the otherwise good Black Isle-RPGs. =/
hacky slashy like in dot hack//GU it felt more fluid then the the one they used in Infection-Quarantine.
i prefer the combat from the Tales of games and star ocean. No random encounters and fighting like a hack and slasher but i don't mind random encounters they can be fun as well but some times they are way to frequent which just annoy me.
I sort of prefer third person since the only rpg combat that I actually like was Xenoblade Chronicle.
The way that combat work was that the character deal normal attack (hacking and slashing) automatically when you are within range of the enemy/ monster. You're pretty much keep circling around it but you can still move away from it.
You do got a skill/ spell bar to press and they all have cooldown timer so you can't just spam it. Also some of the skill/ spell do more damage depending which side you attack the enermy/ monster from like e.g. a backslash imply a greater damage when you attack it from behind.
In a nutshell, the more combat mechanics RPGs steal from other genres, the better they will be.
I like turn based combat too, but a lot of games screw it up. A turn based game should be about planning your actions, not about being forced to take turns performing the same actions over and over again.
I like first and third person style.
And action hack & slash is good too.
uhm.... all of the above?
Sometimes I feel like something turnbased, other times something more hack-and-slashy, etc etc. I enjoy it all.
well apart from FPS. I'm not as big a fan of that style as I am for the others.