I think there is probably no unifying single reason.

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

- An interactive story...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Both types of games appeal to different audiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Games like Divinity: Original Sin feel good because:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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