One of the major beefs I've always had with traditional (FF-like) RPGs is that the battles are not very engaging. (1) Menu pops up, (2) select a command, (3) wait. The cycle repeats itself over and over, all the time, every time. I would like this thread to be a discussion point on how to mitigate the problem. How do we engage the player more in the heat of battle, rather than having them just select commands to execute? Let's set some things first. I'm going to roughly group console RPGs into three categories, based strictly on the nature of their battle systems. Those categories are: Action, Turn-Based, and Real-Time. I'll also briefly list pros (+) and cons (-) of each category with respect to player interaction. Action RPGs allow full motion, and the player is in direct control of the character. A good example of an Action RPG is Secret of Mana (SNES). Action RPGs are definitely the most engaging for the player, because you can run around dodging enemies/projectiles, charge in and attack when you spot a weakness, etc. The disadvantage is that this type of control is limited to a single character on the screen, and other characters would have to be controlled via AI. PROS/CONS + Full control over a character + Movement across battle field - Only feasible to control one character at a time; rest must be controlled by AI A good example of a Turn-based RPG is Super Mario RPG (SNES). In each turn, you select the actions of all your characters and the battle action stops until you are finished. Then, one at a time, each entity on the battle field gets to execute their action. The problem here is that the player is usually kept waiting, but SMRPG has "timed attack/defense" so you basically push a button at the right time to make an attack or defense more effective. PROS/CONS + "timed attack/defense" allows the player to practice their skill in battle, rather than just strategy of proper command selection - the "down-time" when battle action ceases relieves the tension from the player (that's a bad thing IMO) Real-Time RPGs are those seen in games like Final Fantasy VI (SNES). The battles happen in real time and the player is actively selecting actions as their characters are able to take turns. PROS/CONS + Since things are continually happening in real-time, the player doesn't get detached from the battle - Unknown amount of time between actions and the "menu popup" make it more difficult to engage the player inbetween actions So now we get to the good part. How can we make things better? You can focus on any battle system category (or all of them), but I'd like to focus on the real-time system because that's what's going into the game I'm working on. [grin] I really like timed attacks from SMRPG because even though it was simple (and frankly sometimes boring), it kept me more attached during the battle. The menu popups make a timed attack more difficult in a real-time system though, because a player could be attempting a timed attack, only to be interrupted by a menu. One solution to this may be to have a "trigger button", which is exclusively used for triggering these timed attack/defense responses. (A shoulder button on a gamepad is a good candidate for this.) But there still may be a problem where a user is trying to execute a timed attack while simulatenously using other buttons to select an action for another character. I think I've said enough for now. I look forward to seeing what ideas others share. [smile]

Well, the "Tales of Symphonia" system was a pleasant one, as systems for RPGs go. It was a "happy" blend of Secret of mana's and of FF's. It required you to make your attacks in a Fighting game style, that is, with quarter-circles, and half-circles, and double-daashes and such, plus a sequence of buttons. You could also pause the game in order to give your teammates their orders, and switch between characters.

The most interesting thing about this system was that it allowed for three different "modes", that is full-auto, in which you merely had to choose your attacks from the menu, semi-auto, in which you chose the sequence of buttons for your attacks, and manual, in which the sequences were pre-set, and you had to perform them perfectly, and more interestingly, in time.

As a "pro" for this system, I would say that it helps feel in the heat of the battle, since it is a system that is adapted from the most basic "street-fighter-like".

But on the other hand, I can't help but consider that the fights will be limited to what the PLAYER can achieve easily, instead of the most powerful moves the CHARACTER could achieve. It means that it deprives the player of the pleasure of using some of the evolutions of his character, just because he can't time his moves right, or accomplish the uber-double-half-circle-A-A-R-Double-Dash-A attack. Which means that you keep doing the same basic atacks or start using the semi-auto mode.

Well, only my two cents...

I would belive that any pure RPG would be turn based. However that doesnt mean it has to be that dull. Such games like Grandia has all the characters running around and interacting at the same time no matter what the situation was, but each decision the player made was what made the differance.

This kind of dinamic feel would keep me more involved in RPGs, but so many RPGs have the characters glued to an invisable line in the middle of a parking lot that resembles the location they were attacked in only leaving to perform a single action that somtimes doesnt even come in contact with the target.

I know this was practical before the graphics were as good as they are now, but designers need to drop that old age concept to open for more engrossing experiances.

Another great example is Skies of Arcadia, where wile you witnessed one of the characters attacking as you commanded the others were in a state of ongoing combat in the backround, giving the feel of constant action.

Its just a habbit that needs breaking.

Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter has a combat system that deals with a lot of those lack-of-interaction problems. For instance, you don't have "menus" in the sense that the D-PAD runs a cursor through them. They're all managed through key combos and hot-keys. The D-PAD is reserved for moving the characters around the battle field. That movement is restrained by a range, and theres an AP expenditure. Move too far, and you lose the ability to use the 30AP attacks, for instance. The feeling you get out of this system, is that its a lot more forgiving version of an Act-RPG. You directly run over and start slashing up the enemies. Of course, its not an easy game by any means, as the difficulty is all placed on enemy AI, battle strategies... Theres absolutely no curative magic what so ever. Even the curative items are in short supply.

Quote:

Original post by Dasubermechen I would belive that any pure RPG would be turn based.

Why? An action or a turn-based approach, either is equally valid for an RPG. The old PnP games were turn-based simply because you had no choice, there was no actual "simulation" controlled by a third party and allowing for real-time action. These old games cannot be held up as indicitive of what an RPG should be on a computer. The "RPG" category is broad and encompasses many approaches and styles. An RPG is not "purer" due to adhering to a particular action-type format.

Eh? Timed turn-based? That's not turn based combat. Combat like the old gold-box games, or even the Infinity games [in turn based mode] is turn based. I've always liked the turn based tactical combat in RPGs, and think that simply cutting to FF tactics style combat in the console-style games would be pretty fun/interesting.

Quote:

Original post by Ned_K Quote: Original post by Dasubermechen I would belive that any pure RPG would be turn based. Why? An action or a turn-based approach, either is equally valid for an RPG. The old PnP games were turn-based simply because you had no choice, there was no actual "simulation" controlled by a third party and allowing for real-time action. These old games cannot be held up as indicitive of what an RPG should be on a computer. The "RPG" category is broad and encompasses many approaches and styles. An RPG is not "purer" due to adhering to a particular action-type format.

I guess a better word for PURE should be TRADITIONAL, i do agree that just becasue its a Role Playing Game it does not have to be Turn Based.

Quote:

Original post by Fournicolas Well, the "Tales of Symphonia" system was a pleasant one, as systems for RPGs go. It was a "happy" blend of Secret of mana's and of FF's. It required you to make your attacks in a Fighting game style, that is, with quarter-circles, and half-circles, and double-daashes and such, plus a sequence of buttons. You could also pause the game in order to give your teammates their orders, and switch between characters. The most interesting thing about this system was that it allowed for three different "modes", that is full-auto, in which you merely had to choose your attacks from the menu, semi-auto, in which you chose the sequence of buttons for your attacks, and manual, in which the sequences were pre-set, and you had to perform them perfectly, and more interestingly, in time. But on the other hand, I can't help but consider that the fights will be limited to what the PLAYER can achieve easily, instead of the most powerful moves the CHARACTER could achieve. It means that it deprives the player of the pleasure of using some of the evolutions of his character, just because he can't time his moves right, or accomplish the uber-double-half-circle-A-A-R-Double-Dash-A attack. Which means that you keep doing the same basic atacks or start using the semi-auto mode.

While I think it would be good to have something that required more than a single button push for timed attacks (ie SMRPG), I think having full fighting-style combinations of buttons for each move is just way too much. The player would have a hard time remembering them all, and it may even become annoying/frusterating for them instead of engaging. I remember I always had trouble executing some of Sabin's blitz moves in FFVI (especially the ones with diagonal movement in them), and if I had to do something like that for every character I think I might just flip out. [lol]

That's kind of interesting that they had all those different modes, but I think that would make things a little too complicated and difficult to balance so one mode doesn't have an obvious advantage over the others. (I've never played this game by the way). I guess I'd have to see it for myself to understand it. I don't like the fact that you pause the game to switch characters though. :P



As for Skies of Arcadia, I finished playing it recently and I felt the battle system was a huge let-down. It had the potential to be great, but it was plagued with annoyances, like super-long animations for each attack that you would always end up skipping, too many "sudden death" attacks, etc. In fact, in the later half of the game I'd often select my character actions, then get up and go to the bathroom, grab a snack, check my e-mail, etc. and come back and the turn STILL wasn't over sometimes. Plus it was way too easy to abuse the system in the later part of the game because the amount of team skill points or whatever was reset at the start of each battle, and so you'd just bust out the "attack all enemies" move and 80% of the time that ended the battle right there. It was a bore and a chore IMO. Still a decent game though, just had some serious flaws I felt.

I recommend Fallout or Jagged Alliance turn-based system (or any variation of those).

I want to see a turn-based system that allows all the actions to occur simultaneously. In Fallout, if I had the action points, I could break cover, fire a round, and duck back behand cover in a single turn. I'd be able to shoot indefinitely and my adversaries would never have an opportunity to return fire. I should have been vulnerable when "popping out" to take that shot.

What if you let everyone punch in their moves, and then had them all happen at the same time? So I set my five guys to do something in Fallout, and then the "action sequence" occurs, and they all roll out while the bad guys do the same. Depending on the length of a "turn", yo could have a guy running from cover to cover while another guy shoots at him, or have someone covering a choke point while others decide whether it's safe to go through it this turn or if he'll still be covering it.

WIth Fallout's AP system, you could script a lot of differet ections, and even account for faster or slower characters by assigning AP and adjusting the cost of certain actions.