Claiming that something is bad because it's "not realistic" is the worst criticism anyone can give, regardless of genre. Sadly, this type of criticism is becoming more common these days. Game devs break the rules of reality because they put fun > realism every single time. Fighting games have characters with crazy and memorable designs that don't look realistic because each character's silhouette and animations needs to stand out from a distance. This makes the game easier to read and understand. Platformers have the coyote time mechanic which allows players to jump a few milliseconds after they run or slide off of a platform. It's not realistic, but it makes the game feel more enjoyable and less frustrating. There was a video I watched where a guy dropped a game because in the game, he was stuck in traffic. He realized that the stuff he was doing in the game was things that he could do in real life so he asked himself "why bother"? Realism in games is a detriment imo.
to be honest I'm seeing the conversations surrounding that have changed dramatically, where 5 years ago the majority cried "graphics graphics!" and now that we've achieved near realism people just want good games. They don't want hyper real, they wan't a good game that doesn't take hours to install and riddles with micro-transactions (although thats a different conversation entirely)
@@Panther-kid What you said about the conversations is very true about Japanese games. Games such as Guilty Gear, Persona 5, and Breath of the Wild made the graphics work in such a way that their unique styles were pushed to the max. These are examples of some of the most visually appealing games out their. It also helps that these games are very good to play as well. The Breath of the Wild GDC talked about how the devs wanted to make an art style that "made it easy to lie", or to better put it, make an art style that allows them to get away with more fantasy/non-realistic things in the game. For Western games, however, graphical realism was and is still predominantly preferred, especially with PC gamers, with games like Fortnite and Overwatch being the rare exception. Games like the Last of Us, new Tomb Raider, and Uncharted are examples of games that pushed the "need" for games to be more realistic. This is where the graphic obsession peaked at an all time high imo. This was extremely prevalent in the PS3/Xbox360 era, where realism was king. Ironically, this is the same era where people claimed that JRPGs and Japanese games as a whole were "dead". If you search a list of the best PS3/Xbox 360 games of all time, with the exception of Minecraft, all of them had realistic art styles.
Prioritising animation over responsive controls is another problem in some games that are trying to emulate realism...look at red dead redemption 2 for example, moving the characters around is like steering a boat.
Couldn't agree more about rdr2. Trying to pick shit up gets so absurd when my character wants to stumble an extra 3 steps forward. I don't mind sacrificing that detail of "realism" if it hinders ease of use.
Whats realistic or not is something i wont get into but i am one of those that look for *realistic standards* in games. To me its a matter of principles and i think principles should be kept or chaos will unfold (even in video games). World of Warcraft is a fantasy game BUT everything has to exist according to the world. You cant just add loli or pikachu as a dress me options in there, Its UNREALISTIC and will break any sort of immersion (its what mainstream video games do nowadays). Another example to understand what i am saying is: picture that u play a game where u have a char thats a Werewolf. And he has the same Physical STR with a char thats a little girl/loli thing, well, THATS atrocious! REALISM IS NEEDED or chaos unfolds (as i said above). Sacrificing realistic principles that define each character, that define the world u play in etc is the downgrade of video games. I personally dont play Fire Emblem games (although i have fun in them). Why? because there is no UNIT turn order. You act then your enemy. To me, this is unrealistic and its a game breaking design.
The tactical depth of turn-based games inevitably requires that they make unrealistic use of time, and instead favor large turns where units stand there helplessly as our opponent is using their turn. Take Chess, for example. The tactical depth of Chess comes from the fact that I have to stand there helplessly, frozen in time, as my opponent causes his knight to take my rook, with my rook being rendered helplessly frozen in time since it's not my turn. That is the key to the tactical depth of Chess. It's through that unrealistic use of time that every turn becomes so thought-provoking and requires us to try to anticipate what our opponents will do in the future. If Chess were to make realistic use of time where things occur simultaneously on both sides ("real-time chess", i.e.), then I can have my rook retreat simultaneously as my opponent picks up his knight. At that point it would be a frenzied game that rewards quick-thinking and fast reflexes, much like real-time strategy games dominated by gamers who can perform 300+ actions per minute, but the tactical depth of trying to anticipate what opponents would do in the future would be eliminated in favor of a much more fast-paced, reaction-based type of gameplay. As for the buffoons who equate realism to fun, perhaps it is a problem with turn-based games becoming increasingly detailed in their animations. I always thought of them as animated miniatures on a board. Yet perhaps the more sophisticated the animations become, the more it will cause such types to think that X-Com should be turned into a first-person shooter, e.g.
While there are times when I like the hack and slash element of action RPG just for something more fast paced, there are few battle systems where I feel as satisfied as turn-based combat. My favorite battle system of all time is the Conditional Turn Based system from FFX (and later on copied by many other RPG). Anticipating future enemy turns against your own, using tricks to delay enemy turns just provides such an immense decision space when you start adding in other elements. For example, Radiant Historia turns this formula on its head when the game allows you to swap your turn with an enemy to create chain combos. Mana Khemia series lets you "plant" traps in the turn order queue. Trails of Cold Steel entice you purposely place your future turns into certain slots to get combat bonuses. Press Turn System in Shin Megami Tensei force you to care about exploiting elemental weaknesses. Golden Sun's Djinn system allows you plan your moves in such a way to summon powerful creatures in a future turn. Octopath Traveler's simple and versatile Boost system really makes you think about when is the optimal time to unleash a powerful attack. I can only imagine what future game designers can come up with. The turn-based genre is far, far from dead; and I truly believe that.
Great video, but I feel you missed the chance to talk about one big difference between turn-based combat and action-oriented combat: the former allows you to give commands to multiple characters, while the latter can only put you in control of one character at a time, leaving the other characters to AI (which you can still more or less control like in Persona 3/4, FFXIII or the Tales games). Being able to tell multiple characters exactly what to do, after taking my time to formulate a tactic (even though tactis end up very simple and repetitive in a lot of RPGs), is a huge part of why I love turn-based combat.
I feel like the current wave of turn-based indie RPGs have been fairly creative in how they deal with player engagement. You have Undertale / Deltarune, and games following their trend, with combat based around minigames, adding interactivity and a skill-based element to keep combat engaging despite lengthening encounters. On the other hand, you have games like Omocat's Omori and Moonana's Virgo vs the Zodiac & Keylocker which are about balancing resources and elemental weaknesses as well as combining different abilities and attacks to do the most damage possible. Between the rereleases of older RPGs and the innovation from new ones, turn-based RPGs are in a better place than they've ever been.
It's also worth mentioning that the claim that turn-based combat was a result of limitations of the time is demonstrably false. Secondly, the term turn-based is often confused. The Japanese, and more accurate term "command (based) combat" is better in my opinion, as it captures the obvious fact that there is nothing inherent to the genre that necessarily makes it slow or requires characters to wait according to a strict sequence of turns. In either case, "turn-based" combat was lifted from DnD because RPG as a genre was defined by turn-based combat since long before the first RPG video-game was ever made. Action RPGs existed as early as on the NES, and by the time the SNES came around there were plenty of solid action RPGs out there. This still had no impact on say, Squaresoft (despite having produced multiple action RPGs for the SNES) to keep their flagship series Final Fantasy numbered entries using command systems all the way up to 15 on PS4. This had nothing to do with tech limitations what so ever.
I've had this exact conversation and the stubbornness is incomprehensible. I just like to address it nonetheless because, even assuming that it had merit, it still lacks substance as a criticism. Thanks Hian!
@@HighLevelReviews Np. I agree totally. It's such a pervasive perspective but quite clearly it just stems from motivated reasoning I.E "I can't relate and have fun with command based systems, therefore there must be something wrong with them" *scrambles for any surface reason seemingly available. It's just so banal. Some of the most historically significant and lasting games ever conceived by humans are entirely abstract - chess, traditional cards, Igo, rock paper scissor etc. Many humans have a propensity towards enjoying abstract games, and taking combat and turning it into an abstract exercise is actually a very clever act of gameification. Interesting this is actually what chess is as well - Modern chess is a derivation of Chaturanga, an indian strategy game which was itself an obvious abstraction of army combat as seen from the view of the commander - the first strat RPG if you will.
One of the major advantages of turn based systems is accessibility. They could be all sort of reasons that a more actiony game (of any kind) will be impossible you someone, disability, being way old, frequent interruptions, their new to games and haven't spent the thousands of hours needed to build up the general gaming skills. The end point of this is sryth which by being turn based and text based is assessible to almost everybody
I'm sure there will be some points I'll need to clarify so don't hesitate to ask questions or call out something you have an issue with. As always, thanks guys!
I went back to psx era FF games recently and realized that the battles are more cinematic than even a contemporary game like ff7 remake. Action games struggle because the camera never frames attacks well. I'm pretty good at action games and I feel they are very boring because it's mostly just repeating one action over and over. I can't play any action RPG except dark souls but old turn based RPGs like phantasy star still excite me. I find it more immersive when there's complex systems and stats you have to think about in combat instead of timing your button press to onscreen animations.
Of course the turn-based combast system isn't meant to represent what's actually going on in the fictional game world. Would be really funny, though, if someone wrote a story about a world where combat actually was turn-based. A bit like No Game No Life, but for a specific video game and its mechanics. Maybe this has already been done, but if not imagine the in-story characters talking about how when you're in a conflict with someone the laws of nature prohibit you from taking two successive actions because the gods (or something) thought it was unfair if someone just kept hitting someone without the other person being given a chance to hit back. So whenever you hit someone the gods freeze you in place until they hit you back.
yeah, would be hilarious/brilliant to run with the oft-repeated "it's not realistic!" line and make it "realistic" in a specific universe to further comment on the inanity of that criticism.
@@HighLevelReviews yeah, and you made a good point in the video that all games, even the supposedly "realistic" ones, are still abstractions. Combat in real life doesn't work like in Devil May Cry or Rainbow Six either. Scott Pilgrim is what happens when you bring even "realistic" video game logic into a real world setting.
Realism theoretically helps players subconsciously connect to the digital game world , however if the player isn't having a meaningful experience due to that realism, then the inclusion of said realism is questionable. There's some old wisdom that says: "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". As the hardware gets more powerful the realer the games will get, especially with optimized VR and quantum computing coming soon. Turn-based combat will always have a nostalgic place in game design and my heart. There are a multitude of Turn-based design iterations that can make the RPG genre incredibly engaging without realism. Matter of fact, right now I'm on a quest as a solo programmer/game dev to design a unique combat system with Timed hits similar to Super Mario RPG. Too many games fall into the "just zone out and hit attack" category which I strive to overcome by taking inspiration from innovative history turn-based games. I have a working prototype that still needs some fine-tuning. Videos like this help me analyze the design and understand ideas I've overlooked. I just watched your Freya video; great stuff gonna check out the rest of your channel. Thanks :)
>> Realism theoretically helps players subconsciously connect to the digital game world [...] Even this conjecture is flawed as I see it since it conflates "realistic" with "intuitive". That is not always the case. If fighting became more realistic in games, for example, it would look much less flashy, much less cinematic, and actually far more awkward and clumsy. For many users, their intuition of fighting is shaped by unrealistic choreography from films and TV shows designed to read well on camera rather than simulate the awkwardness and chaos of a real fight, by sports like MMA and boxing which do not particularly resemble a real fight to the death due to their rules, by comic books involving superheroes, etc. Even realistic dialogue is not necessarily intuitive in the media filled with "umms" and awkward pauses and small talk and the like. A game aiming to simulate those aspects of everyday speech would likely bore its audience to death, since it would be placing equal focus on the mundane rather than the more exciting and interesting aspects of a conversation. Even the best photorealistic and naturalistic artists don't make realism their ultimate goal, and instead aim to exaggerate reality (ex: exaggerating the poses of their models, exaggerating contrast between foreground and background, exaggerating value differences of focal points, etc.) because the exaggeration actually more deeply resonates with our intuition of how things should be rather than how they actually are. Intuitive can help a lot since it aligns with our expectations. But sometimes the conventions that shape our intuitions are hardly realistic. My intuition is conditioned into associating a blue icon of a floppy disk as a save button, even though that has very little to do with realism. I can see intuition as a noteworthy goal like using A to jump and B to attack on a Nintendo controller instead of defying expectations and ergonomics by reversing the two, but I think realism is a red herring.
@@AnonyMous-og3ct There have been some really enlightening studies focused on player expectation in relation to dialogue/conversation (both fore and backgrounded). Most of them clearly demonstrate that players expect and indeed anticipate every conversation and all world chatter to be, in some way, player referential. This is what many players label as "realistic" during these studies. Outside of certain archetypes, this is absurd. It simply defies the sociology of a layered and functional world. But to add to your point, how boring (though realistic) would an escapist adventure be if none of its inhabitants acknowledged the player or involved him/her in their exploits? Despite the wrongheaded and misguided stamping of "realism" on to absolute player involvement, it's clear that recreating real-world communicative practices is not the goal (and shouldn't be). Appreciate the comment!
This is very well done. We love the video selections that you chose and we can remember playing 🎴 that game there with the aztec looking wheel 🎡 and the quadrants! Very well thought out 💭🤔 thought good sir.
Thank you!! 3:30 I never had this idea communicated to me before but it makes sense now! Turn-based battling 'in the game world' happens in real time, however, because of the game design and method of immersing the player in decision-making, the player experiences this in a turn-based fighting system
I personally don't like action combat in RPGs. I feel that both sides are at odds with one another. You have an action RPG and it is mostly based around the players skill to progress with button combinations and dodging in combat? Then you have an action game and developing the character isn't impactful. Want to make it impactful? It suddenly becomes a chore because enemies feel like sponges due to the player out putting such low damage that it is better to just run away from any combat than to just actually participate in it in an action game. Due to the length of RPGs you get drip fed skills here and there over many dozens of hours throughout the game. So when can the player be guaranteed that the combat will evolve enough to be entertaining and not mashing your basic attack and possibly one skill? You can just compare it to something like a beat em up and you already have a repitore of moves right at the start and you can experiment with what works in certain situations. They are at odds with one another, it is either heavily leaning into being an action game or the RPG elements are dragging the game down.
really well made video, surprised it doesn't have more views would love to see a more fleshed comparison/discussion of the topic with more attention to the alternative methods games have tried to combat the realism (or at least suspension of disbelief) issue.
Nice video. I'm thinking about getting into rpgs, and I'm trying to learn more about turn based combat because it's always looked challenging and interesting. Thank you.
Awesome vid and I totally agree! Honestly, has a similar idea for a vid about Hitsparks and Weapon Trails and another one about Pre Rendered backgrounds
How to make a realistic turn based system as soon as the battle begins who ever attacked who first in the over world takes 9999 damage bosses can take up to 100 hits each player can take one oh also while you need time to choose what you want to choose your opponent has no delay and gets to swing every second and 1 hit will instantly ko you why? Because fighting a 30 monster who can break stone most definitely will kill you and if it’s that big a sword Won’t do much unless you throw it and hit them in the eye.
My favorite turn based combat system is the Computer Virus battle from Kirby Super Star. You can move around and attack but when it's the enemy's turn you can only guard I think. It was kinda fun. I also like how it's done in Mario and Luigi Super Star. Though I'd to see a turn based system that pushes it to it's limits. Something where it's just as fun as an action game or even better.
I think of two different players. Player A likes the idea of a high fantasy type of Role Playing Game. They want to experience the fantasy of being a medieval warrior or whatever through whatever systems of abstraction they can. They just want the fantasy, that is why they play RPGs. Player B plays RPGs because they intrinsically enjoy the systems in place, such as turn-based combat, and the fantasy setting is just an enjoyable "skin" that adds to the experience. So when RPGs start showing that they can have real-time combat in order to be more "realistic", Player A is happy because they can more vicariously live out their fantasy, while Player B is not because they actually enjoyed the old style for what it was, and not for what it was an abstraction of. In the same vein, when presented with a "new" RPG that uses older methods of abstraction, like turn-based combat, Player A will turn up their nose at what they once enjoyed because they now see it as a strictly inferior, outdated way of chasing their fantasy. Player B will appreciate it because it's what they like. I don't really think either side is objectively correct, but that's just how I see it. Obviously there's many sides to this, but I think I've boiled down one of them. Great video. Only came up with what I just typed after hearing what you had to say. Demonstrably thought-provoking content, as always. :)
Great video! I've always had trouble with the "not realistic" criticism as well -- in heneral, not just for TBC. I don't understand what's so great about realism anyway. Reality kind of sucks sometimes -- that's why I play video games.
I love your videos and I can tell a lot of work goes into them. If I can suggest one thing though, your audio mixing seems a bit off. Your intro and end card music is much louder than your voice. Which means I need to adjust the volume a few times while watching. If you could boost your own talking volume in post by just a bit I think that would go a long ways. I noticed it much more in your older videos and it's not as pronounced in your more recent work, but it's still there. Hopefully this is seen as constructive criticism and not taken too negatively.
I like turn based combat like deltarune and pokemon and the super mario bowsers inside story/saga/something along those lines that kinda type of turn based combat it requires my time of *INSERT VERY BAS CONSENTRATION STRATEGY AND MABEY SPAM LIKE HELL HERE* and i can relax it and pick a attack that deals effective damage hope it hits then hope the enemys attack misses or is ineffective:3
Xenogears music forgot the name of the track. LOL Interesting video about turn based combat Some JRPG are Grinding, Some Have more depth in the combat, Some can zone out. It all depend
I see similarities between this line of reasoning and the line of reasoning that goes, "I hate wrestling because it's fake, but I still watch Game of Thrones, Sopranos, etc."
Bro that's a strawman what they meant is that isn't engaging and immersive but people misuse the term realism often because they have no other word to describe your counter argument is pathetic
@@newmobils8294 Dude. You do not even know what a strawman is. A strawman is a bad argument that nobody ever makes but is used as a representative. There are plenty of horrid arguments people do make (like nitpicking the realism of fantasy combat and using that against turn-based combat). It is an argument that is actually made by people (that think themselves the modern Einstein) . Your opinion about turn-based not being engaging is barely a step up because that retarded opinion did not stop Pokemon, SMT, Dragon Quest or D&D from becoming mammoth IPs.
Turn based combat was not developed due to limitations of the system, the NES still had action based combat with dragonslayer faxanadu, hydlyde and zelda. Turn based combat was developed to simulate DnD battles in a digital media. Compare a game like Fallout to Baulders Gate. The former feels more like a DnD session than the game named after the property.
Considering interview after interview i read of developers confirming turn-based wasn't the first option but felt that what they wanted out of an action based system at the time simply couldn't happen or be executed in the way they'd envisioned, I'll kindly disagree. I'm not saying turn based wasn't a deliberate first choice for some but there's a lot of evidence that suggests it wasn't for many.
I think turn based isn’t used enough maybe I’m old school growing up on old turned based rpgs from the snes and ps1 I think for the most part the criticism comes from newer gamers that didn’t grow up on them maybe that’s just from my experience always enjoy the videos man thanks keep up the good work
Anytime someone says that it's not realistic I say "Do you have a problem with Chess? No? Then stop!"
Ozzie Arcane the only time that critique is valid is a history documentary
100%
Wow talk about abstraction. Good point….
Claiming that something is bad because it's "not realistic" is the worst criticism anyone can give, regardless of genre. Sadly, this type of criticism is becoming more common these days. Game devs break the rules of reality because they put fun > realism every single time. Fighting games have characters with crazy and memorable designs that don't look realistic because each character's silhouette and animations needs to stand out from a distance. This makes the game easier to read and understand. Platformers have the coyote time mechanic which allows players to jump a few milliseconds after they run or slide off of a platform. It's not realistic, but it makes the game feel more enjoyable and less frustrating. There was a video I watched where a guy dropped a game because in the game, he was stuck in traffic. He realized that the stuff he was doing in the game was things that he could do in real life so he asked himself "why bother"? Realism in games is a detriment imo.
to be honest I'm seeing the conversations surrounding that have changed dramatically, where 5 years ago the majority cried "graphics graphics!" and now that we've achieved near realism people just want good games. They don't want hyper real, they wan't a good game that doesn't take hours to install and riddles with micro-transactions (although thats a different conversation entirely)
@@Panther-kid What you said about the conversations is very true about Japanese games. Games such as Guilty Gear, Persona 5, and Breath of the Wild made the graphics work in such a way that their unique styles were pushed to the max. These are examples of some of the most visually appealing games out their. It also helps that these games are very good to play as well. The Breath of the Wild GDC talked about how the devs wanted to make an art style that "made it easy to lie", or to better put it, make an art style that allows them to get away with more fantasy/non-realistic things in the game.
For Western games, however, graphical realism was and is still predominantly preferred, especially with PC gamers, with games like Fortnite and Overwatch being the rare exception. Games like the Last of Us, new Tomb Raider, and Uncharted are examples of games that pushed the "need" for games to be more realistic. This is where the graphic obsession peaked at an all time high imo. This was extremely prevalent in the PS3/Xbox360 era, where realism was king. Ironically, this is the same era where people claimed that JRPGs and Japanese games as a whole were "dead". If you search a list of the best PS3/Xbox 360 games of all time, with the exception of Minecraft, all of them had realistic art styles.
Prioritising animation over responsive controls is another problem in some games that are trying to emulate realism...look at red dead redemption 2 for example, moving the characters around is like steering a boat.
Couldn't agree more about rdr2. Trying to pick shit up gets so absurd when my character wants to stumble an extra 3 steps forward. I don't mind sacrificing that detail of "realism" if it hinders ease of use.
Whats realistic or not is something i wont get into but i am one of those that look for *realistic standards* in games. To me its a matter of principles and i think principles should be kept or chaos will unfold (even in video games).
World of Warcraft is a fantasy game BUT everything has to exist according to the world. You cant just add loli or pikachu as a dress me options in there, Its UNREALISTIC and will break any sort of immersion (its what mainstream video games do nowadays).
Another example to understand what i am saying is: picture that u play a game where u have a char thats a Werewolf. And he has the same Physical STR with a char thats a little girl/loli thing, well, THATS atrocious! REALISM IS NEEDED or chaos unfolds (as i said above).
Sacrificing realistic principles that define each character, that define the world u play in etc is the downgrade of video games.
I personally dont play Fire Emblem games (although i have fun in them). Why? because there is no UNIT turn order. You act then your enemy. To me, this is unrealistic and its a game breaking design.
The tactical depth of turn-based games inevitably requires that they make unrealistic use of time, and instead favor large turns where units stand there helplessly as our opponent is using their turn. Take Chess, for example. The tactical depth of Chess comes from the fact that I have to stand there helplessly, frozen in time, as my opponent causes his knight to take my rook, with my rook being rendered helplessly frozen in time since it's not my turn. That is the key to the tactical depth of Chess. It's through that unrealistic use of time that every turn becomes so thought-provoking and requires us to try to anticipate what our opponents will do in the future.
If Chess were to make realistic use of time where things occur simultaneously on both sides ("real-time chess", i.e.), then I can have my rook retreat simultaneously as my opponent picks up his knight. At that point it would be a frenzied game that rewards quick-thinking and fast reflexes, much like real-time strategy games dominated by gamers who can perform 300+ actions per minute, but the tactical depth of trying to anticipate what opponents would do in the future would be eliminated in favor of a much more fast-paced, reaction-based type of gameplay.
As for the buffoons who equate realism to fun, perhaps it is a problem with turn-based games becoming increasingly detailed in their animations. I always thought of them as animated miniatures on a board. Yet perhaps the more sophisticated the animations become, the more it will cause such types to think that X-Com should be turned into a first-person shooter, e.g.
Then you have well designed fighting games where it becomes physical chess rather than, spamming.
While there are times when I like the hack and slash element of action RPG just for something more fast paced, there are few battle systems where I feel as satisfied as turn-based combat. My favorite battle system of all time is the Conditional Turn Based system from FFX (and later on copied by many other RPG). Anticipating future enemy turns against your own, using tricks to delay enemy turns just provides such an immense decision space when you start adding in other elements.
For example, Radiant Historia turns this formula on its head when the game allows you to swap your turn with an enemy to create chain combos. Mana Khemia series lets you "plant" traps in the turn order queue. Trails of Cold Steel entice you purposely place your future turns into certain slots to get combat bonuses. Press Turn System in Shin Megami Tensei force you to care about exploiting elemental weaknesses. Golden Sun's Djinn system allows you plan your moves in such a way to summon powerful creatures in a future turn. Octopath Traveler's simple and versatile Boost system really makes you think about when is the optimal time to unleash a powerful attack. I can only imagine what future game designers can come up with. The turn-based genre is far, far from dead; and I truly believe that.
Radiant Historia, Mana Khemia, Shin Megami Tensei, and Golden Sun all have outstanding combat. Haven't played the other ones yet.
Great video, but I feel you missed the chance to talk about one big difference between turn-based combat and action-oriented combat: the former allows you to give commands to multiple characters, while the latter can only put you in control of one character at a time, leaving the other characters to AI (which you can still more or less control like in Persona 3/4, FFXIII or the Tales games). Being able to tell multiple characters exactly what to do, after taking my time to formulate a tactic (even though tactis end up very simple and repetitive in a lot of RPGs), is a huge part of why I love turn-based combat.
That's fair but I really only wanted to address the "realism" claim, and not necessarily the precise differences of each system.
I feel like the current wave of turn-based indie RPGs have been fairly creative in how they deal with player engagement. You have Undertale / Deltarune, and games following their trend, with combat based around minigames, adding interactivity and a skill-based element to keep combat engaging despite lengthening encounters. On the other hand, you have games like Omocat's Omori and Moonana's Virgo vs the Zodiac & Keylocker which are about balancing resources and elemental weaknesses as well as combining different abilities and attacks to do the most damage possible. Between the rereleases of older RPGs and the innovation from new ones, turn-based RPGs are in a better place than they've ever been.
and the music is very well chosen, the closing is too good
It's also worth mentioning that the claim that turn-based combat was a result of limitations of the time is demonstrably false.
Secondly, the term turn-based is often confused.
The Japanese, and more accurate term "command (based) combat" is better in my opinion, as it captures the obvious fact that there is nothing inherent to the genre that necessarily makes it slow or requires characters to wait according to a strict sequence of turns.
In either case, "turn-based" combat was lifted from DnD because RPG as a genre was defined by turn-based combat since long before the first RPG video-game was ever made.
Action RPGs existed as early as on the NES, and by the time the SNES came around there were plenty of solid action RPGs out there.
This still had no impact on say, Squaresoft (despite having produced multiple action RPGs for the SNES) to keep their flagship series Final Fantasy numbered entries using command systems all the way up to 15 on PS4.
This had nothing to do with tech limitations what so ever.
I've had this exact conversation and the stubbornness is incomprehensible. I just like to address it nonetheless because, even assuming that it had merit, it still lacks substance as a criticism. Thanks Hian!
@@HighLevelReviews
Np. I agree totally. It's such a pervasive perspective but quite clearly it just stems from motivated reasoning I.E "I can't relate and have fun with command based systems, therefore there must be something wrong with them" *scrambles for any surface reason seemingly available.
It's just so banal. Some of the most historically significant and lasting games ever conceived by humans are entirely abstract - chess, traditional cards, Igo, rock paper scissor etc.
Many humans have a propensity towards enjoying abstract games, and taking combat and turning it into an abstract exercise is actually a very clever act of gameification.
Interesting this is actually what chess is as well -
Modern chess is a derivation of Chaturanga, an indian strategy game which was itself an obvious abstraction of army combat as seen from the view of the commander - the first strat RPG if you will.
Don't forget that the first ARPG, Dragon Slayer by Nihon Falcom, was released in 1984.
One of the major advantages of turn based systems is accessibility. They could be all sort of reasons that a more actiony game (of any kind) will be impossible you someone, disability, being way old, frequent interruptions, their new to games and haven't spent the thousands of hours needed to build up the general gaming skills.
The end point of this is sryth which by being turn based and text based is assessible to almost everybody
THIS.
I'm sure there will be some points I'll need to clarify so don't hesitate to ask questions or call out something you have an issue with. As always, thanks guys!
Another great review of more arcane narrative elements. Amazing job! Keep up the great work!
I went back to psx era FF games recently and realized that the battles are more cinematic than even a contemporary game like ff7 remake. Action games struggle because the camera never frames attacks well. I'm pretty good at action games and I feel they are very boring because it's mostly just repeating one action over and over. I can't play any action RPG except dark souls but old turn based RPGs like phantasy star still excite me. I find it more immersive when there's complex systems and stats you have to think about in combat instead of timing your button press to onscreen animations.
Of course the turn-based combast system isn't meant to represent what's actually going on in the fictional game world. Would be really funny, though, if someone wrote a story about a world where combat actually was turn-based. A bit like No Game No Life, but for a specific video game and its mechanics. Maybe this has already been done, but if not imagine the in-story characters talking about how when you're in a conflict with someone the laws of nature prohibit you from taking two successive actions because the gods (or something) thought it was unfair if someone just kept hitting someone without the other person being given a chance to hit back. So whenever you hit someone the gods freeze you in place until they hit you back.
yeah, would be hilarious/brilliant to run with the oft-repeated "it's not realistic!" line and make it "realistic" in a specific universe to further comment on the inanity of that criticism.
and you say of course as though thousands of people aren't baffled it isn't accurately representing some imaginary combat state in that world
@@HighLevelReviews yeah, and you made a good point in the video that all games, even the supposedly "realistic" ones, are still abstractions. Combat in real life doesn't work like in Devil May Cry or Rainbow Six either.
Scott Pilgrim is what happens when you bring even "realistic" video game logic into a real world setting.
Realism theoretically helps players subconsciously connect to the digital game world , however if the player isn't having a meaningful experience due to that realism, then the inclusion of said realism is questionable. There's some old wisdom that says: "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". As the hardware gets more powerful the realer the games will get, especially with optimized VR and quantum computing coming soon.
Turn-based combat will always have a nostalgic place in game design and my heart. There are a multitude of Turn-based design iterations that can make the RPG genre incredibly engaging without realism. Matter of fact, right now I'm on a quest as a solo programmer/game dev to design a unique combat system with Timed hits similar to Super Mario RPG. Too many games fall into the "just zone out and hit attack" category which I strive to overcome by taking inspiration from innovative history turn-based games. I have a working prototype that still needs some fine-tuning. Videos like this help me analyze the design and understand ideas I've overlooked.
I just watched your Freya video; great stuff gonna check out the rest of your channel. Thanks :)
Really appreciate that man, I look forward to your stuff. Got a twitter or anything I can follow it on?
@@HighLevelReviews
yup follow me on twitter @joefro0 :D
>> Realism theoretically helps players subconsciously connect to the digital game world [...]
Even this conjecture is flawed as I see it since it conflates "realistic" with "intuitive". That is not always the case. If fighting became more realistic in games, for example, it would look much less flashy, much less cinematic, and actually far more awkward and clumsy. For many users, their intuition of fighting is shaped by unrealistic choreography from films and TV shows designed to read well on camera rather than simulate the awkwardness and chaos of a real fight, by sports like MMA and boxing which do not particularly resemble a real fight to the death due to their rules, by comic books involving superheroes, etc.
Even realistic dialogue is not necessarily intuitive in the media filled with "umms" and awkward pauses and small talk and the like. A game aiming to simulate those aspects of everyday speech would likely bore its audience to death, since it would be placing equal focus on the mundane rather than the more exciting and interesting aspects of a conversation.
Even the best photorealistic and naturalistic artists don't make realism their ultimate goal, and instead aim to exaggerate reality (ex: exaggerating the poses of their models, exaggerating contrast between foreground and background, exaggerating value differences of focal points, etc.) because the exaggeration actually more deeply resonates with our intuition of how things should be rather than how they actually are.
Intuitive can help a lot since it aligns with our expectations. But sometimes the conventions that shape our intuitions are hardly realistic. My intuition is conditioned into associating a blue icon of a floppy disk as a save button, even though that has very little to do with realism. I can see intuition as a noteworthy goal like using A to jump and B to attack on a Nintendo controller instead of defying expectations and ergonomics by reversing the two, but I think realism is a red herring.
@@AnonyMous-og3ct There have been some really enlightening studies focused on player expectation in relation to dialogue/conversation (both fore and backgrounded). Most of them clearly demonstrate that players expect and indeed anticipate every conversation and all world chatter to be, in some way, player referential. This is what many players label as "realistic" during these studies. Outside of certain archetypes, this is absurd. It simply defies the sociology of a layered and functional world.
But to add to your point, how boring (though realistic) would an escapist adventure be if none of its inhabitants acknowledged the player or involved him/her in their exploits? Despite the wrongheaded and misguided stamping of "realism" on to absolute player involvement, it's clear that recreating real-world communicative practices is not the goal (and shouldn't be).
Appreciate the comment!
Nice touch with the Xenogears music
This is very well done. We love the video selections that you chose and we can remember playing 🎴 that game there with the aztec looking wheel 🎡 and the quadrants! Very well thought out 💭🤔 thought good sir.
Thank you!! 3:30 I never had this idea communicated to me before but it makes sense now! Turn-based battling 'in the game world' happens in real time, however, because of the game design and method of immersing the player in decision-making, the player experiences this in a turn-based fighting system
Wonderful breakdown. Loved it. Subscribed!
I personally don't like action combat in RPGs. I feel that both sides are at odds with one another. You have an action RPG and it is mostly based around the players skill to progress with button combinations and dodging in combat? Then you have an action game and developing the character isn't impactful. Want to make it impactful? It suddenly becomes a chore because enemies feel like sponges due to the player out putting such low damage that it is better to just run away from any combat than to just actually participate in it in an action game. Due to the length of RPGs you get drip fed skills here and there over many dozens of hours throughout the game. So when can the player be guaranteed that the combat will evolve enough to be entertaining and not mashing your basic attack and possibly one skill? You can just compare it to something like a beat em up and you already have a repitore of moves right at the start and you can experiment with what works in certain situations.
They are at odds with one another, it is either heavily leaning into being an action game or the RPG elements are dragging the game down.
really well made video, surprised it doesn't have more views would love to see a more fleshed comparison/discussion of the topic with more attention to the alternative methods games have tried to combat the realism (or at least suspension of disbelief) issue.
Nice video. I'm thinking about getting into rpgs, and I'm trying to learn more about turn based combat because it's always looked challenging and interesting. Thank you.
Awesome vid and I totally agree! Honestly, has a similar idea for a vid about Hitsparks and Weapon Trails and another one about Pre Rendered backgrounds
How to make a realistic turn based system as soon as the battle begins who ever attacked who first in the over world takes 9999 damage bosses can take up to 100 hits each player can take one oh also while you need time to choose what you want to choose your opponent has no delay and gets to swing every second and 1 hit will instantly ko you why? Because fighting a 30 monster who can break stone most definitely will kill you and if it’s that big a sword Won’t do much unless you throw it and hit them in the eye.
My favorite turn based combat system is the Computer Virus battle from Kirby Super Star. You can move around and attack but when it's the enemy's turn you can only guard I think. It was kinda fun. I also like how it's done in Mario and Luigi Super Star. Though I'd to see a turn based system that pushes it to it's limits. Something where it's just as fun as an action game or even better.
I've always had a great time imagining how it'd look to see RPGs in real time. I understand an outsiders perspective.
instant like for the use of bond of sea and fire
opening music..is from my favorite XenoGears
Constraint fuels creativity, in every medium, every art form, and every human endeavour.
Another amazing review!! ❤❤
I think of two different players. Player A likes the idea of a high fantasy type of Role Playing Game. They want to experience the fantasy of being a medieval warrior or whatever through whatever systems of abstraction they can. They just want the fantasy, that is why they play RPGs.
Player B plays RPGs because they intrinsically enjoy the systems in place, such as turn-based combat, and the fantasy setting is just an enjoyable "skin" that adds to the experience.
So when RPGs start showing that they can have real-time combat in order to be more "realistic", Player A is happy because they can more vicariously live out their fantasy, while Player B is not because they actually enjoyed the old style for what it was, and not for what it was an abstraction of. In the same vein, when presented with a "new" RPG that uses older methods of abstraction, like turn-based combat, Player A will turn up their nose at what they once enjoyed because they now see it as a strictly inferior, outdated way of chasing their fantasy. Player B will appreciate it because it's what they like.
I don't really think either side is objectively correct, but that's just how I see it. Obviously there's many sides to this, but I think I've boiled down one of them.
Great video. Only came up with what I just typed after hearing what you had to say. Demonstrably thought-provoking content, as always.
:)
Hmmm. I always thought about it as less of an abstraction and more of a metaphore.
Missed ya man
Great video! I've always had trouble with the "not realistic" criticism as well -- in heneral, not just for TBC. I don't understand what's so great about realism anyway. Reality kind of sucks sometimes -- that's why I play video games.
I love your videos and I can tell a lot of work goes into them. If I can suggest one thing though, your audio mixing seems a bit off. Your intro and end card music is much louder than your voice. Which means I need to adjust the volume a few times while watching. If you could boost your own talking volume in post by just a bit I think that would go a long ways. I noticed it much more in your older videos and it's not as pronounced in your more recent work, but it's still there. Hopefully this is seen as constructive criticism and not taken too negatively.
Great vid, thanks Google for the random recommendation, and to the creator of the video
Would be cool if there was a game where after the turnbased combat is done, the game would show you how that would have looked had it been realistic
turn based is great with strategic titles.
I like turn based combat like deltarune and pokemon and the super mario bowsers inside story/saga/something along those lines that kinda type of turn based combat it requires my time of *INSERT VERY BAS CONSENTRATION STRATEGY AND MABEY SPAM LIKE HELL HERE* and i can relax it and pick a attack that deals effective damage hope it hits then hope the enemys attack misses or is ineffective:3
You deserve more subs, dude.
thanks!
Does anyone know what the last game showed in the background is?
Ah damn CZcams I thought you were going to show me abstraction of the combat system for programming!!!! Ffs CZcams.
Opinion on Dragon Quest XI?
Underwhelming, sadly.
@@MrSerpico145 Where does he say that? in a video?
@@gamerprince-tl5hg that's my opinion. He asked for one.
@@MrSerpico145 oh i thought you were saying HighLevelReview's opinion on the game. my bad.
@@gamerprince-tl5hg np
Xenogears music forgot the name of the track. LOL
Interesting video about turn based combat
Some JRPG are Grinding, Some Have more depth in the combat, Some can zone out. It all depend
ChasingPerspective bonds of sea and fire I believe
Thanks. Your right hard to remember many JRPG Soundtrack. There too many great JRPG soundtracks LOL
CZcams readed my mind?...
What was that last game in the footage? That turn based system looked pretty wild!
Suikoden 2
Isn't that music from PS1 game XenoSaga? So nostalgic!
Xenogears, but I'm assuming that's exactly what you meant.
Haha yes, I just found out I put the wrong name in my message, and was coming back to modify it.
I see similarities between this line of reasoning and the line of reasoning that goes, "I hate wrestling because it's fake, but I still watch Game of Thrones, Sopranos, etc."
What is the game at 4:57 ? It seems great !
Shadow Hearts! It is wonderful.
Thanks for the quick answer ;)
@@loulipac of course, thanks for watching my video lol
Nothing is more realistic than defeating a dragon with a holy spear given to by a god, but that turn-based battle system is so unrealistic.
Bro that's a strawman what they meant is that isn't engaging and immersive but people misuse the term realism often because they have no other word to describe your counter argument is pathetic
@@newmobils8294 Dude. You do not even know what a strawman is. A strawman is a bad argument that nobody ever makes but is used as a representative. There are plenty of horrid arguments people do make (like nitpicking the realism of fantasy combat and using that against turn-based combat). It is an argument that is actually made by people (that think themselves the modern Einstein) . Your opinion about turn-based not being engaging is barely a step up because that retarded opinion did not stop Pokemon, SMT, Dragon Quest or D&D from becoming mammoth IPs.
Like for xenogears theme music
Realistic ≠ better
I’ll never understand gamers acting like making a game feel/look more like real life matters in any way to the quality of the game
I love turn based games, this push to action RPGs being the norm is depressing.
Any tips a a PvP turn based wresting game hahah
Turn based combat was not developed due to limitations of the system, the NES still had action based combat with dragonslayer faxanadu, hydlyde and zelda. Turn based combat was developed to simulate DnD battles in a digital media. Compare a game like Fallout to Baulders Gate. The former feels more like a DnD session than the game named after the property.
Considering interview after interview i read of developers confirming turn-based wasn't the first option but felt that what they wanted out of an action based system at the time simply couldn't happen or be executed in the way they'd envisioned, I'll kindly disagree. I'm not saying turn based wasn't a deliberate first choice for some but there's a lot of evidence that suggests it wasn't for many.
Hey, you should add, that this movie is only about JRPG and thiers TBC. Here u miss very crucial thing, which is board.
nuttin' wrong wit 'em. just don't like 'em is all.
Totally understandable!
I think turn based isn’t used enough maybe I’m old school growing up on old turned based rpgs from the snes and ps1 I think for the most part the criticism comes from newer gamers that didn’t grow up on them maybe that’s just from my experience always enjoy the videos man thanks keep up the good work