Does anyone actually like turn-based combat?

If it's well done it can be enjoyable, if it's lazy shit it becomes a chore

yah i dont really have to pay attention and lets me take my time and can easly set them down and just come back later.... i just find them more enjoyable i guess

pokemon is an excellent example of bad turn based combat. you need, need NEED parties in these sorts of games, because making one decision every turn feels slow and boring as fuck. even in something like P3 you can tell your faggots what to do.

>>Real-time with pause: Seems a good idea until you actually play it - it lacks the action of real-time and the tactical depth of turn-based, and ends up a mess with the weaknesses of both

Real-time with pause is what you make of it. It can have the action of real time if you don't pause. It can be practically the same as turn-based if you pause every couple of seconds.

Yeah and it plays like complete dogshit.

>Real-time with pause:
There's this indie game in development hell called Dual Gear iirc, it's a front-mision spiritual successor.
It has a really interesting take on this idea that merges RT with SRPG gameplay and it worked pretty well in the demo I tried out.

>MEH TIER
Standard Final Fantasy / Dragon Quest turn based combat.
>OK TIER
Active Time Battle combat, where turns go by the action bar filling up.
>GOOD TIER
Where movement is a part of the turn. Tactics games like Fire Emblem and Disgaea. And stuff like Valkyria Chronicles with real time movement and attacks, but controlling troops one-at-a-time, turn based.
>GOD TIER
The Mario RPG style of timed button presses for better attacks.

No, turn based combat only exists due to hardware constraints.

turn based is superior in certain games look at poe2

Every game is basically a turn based combat, user.

Attached: 20580.png (270x216, 5K)

No it doesn't.

Does anyone actually like random encounters?

Attached: Pokemon-Sword-Shield-Random-Battle-Cover.jpg (1710x900, 160K)

>Yeah and it plays like complete dogshit.

No it doesn't. There are some encounters that the default AI for your party can handle. Some where you want to micromanage by pausing and some where you want to micromanage some party members and let the AI handle the rest.

Yes, I dislike real time combat. Real time combat incentivizes button mashing, while turn based combat incentivizes strategy. FFX has the greatest combat system ever devised.

The nips still have a hard-on for DQ3 for some reason

No. Turn-based combat usually involves a lot of waiting, which I hate, and isn't as viscerally satisfying as kicking someone in the face yourself. It also tends to be tied with strategic resource management, which I hate for usually having solved early games/deckbuilding that punish early mistakes for the rest of the game. Chess is a prime example of what I don't like.

Attached: ''Sun Tzu.'' -David Sirlin.gif (360x360, 19K)

>Xenoblade
How is that turn based in any way whatsoever?

ATB is the standard for FF, you retard, it literally invented it.

It depends on the system and design really. I like isometric tbc like in Jagged Alliance and X-com and also traditional tbc when it's done with an interesting twist like in Darkest Dungeon.

Both incentivize strategy. If you button mash you're just going to lose to anyone who knows what they're actually doing. Just like you'll lose in turn based if you mindlessly just click whatever move is super effective.

Yeah, currently playing Black 2 for the first time and I'm having fun. I see what people meant when they said Pokémon peaked with Gen 5, I played Y and Sun and they were nowhere near this polished and memorable.

We all know Zelda II had the greatest combat system. Shit felt like an actual swordfight.

shit, I think I meant to type 'Xenogames'

>Xenoblade
>Turn-based
Did you mean Xenogears or Xenosaga?

Attached: confused endbringer.png (633x581, 798K)

I don't. Maybe it's because I'm 18 hut I fucking can't stand the idea of waiting turns just to attack. I remember people hyping up DQ11 and vesperia. I loved vesperia but absolutely HATED DQ11. It was so damn slow. I preferred ninokino 2 to it. That's how badly I hated the system.

Games were only turn based due to the hardware limitations. Now that they are gone most games are real time. So to see a game like DQ do that is just bleh.

I think older folks in their 20s and 30s love it because they're reaction times are slower so they need time to "think" and "plan".

Even though you know, you can just pause real time games and have all the time to "strategize".

now that's a shit sandwich always

Any number of reasons.

One is that it helps (or might be entirely necessary) for certain genres. If you're playing a game where you have to control multiple people (like a standard JRPG or a squad-tactical game like XCOM) or a strategy game, keeping it turn-based keeps things simple, manageable, and enjoyable.

>Turn-based PVE
I sleep
>Turn-based PVP
Now that's the real shit

Attached: 1551176000017.jpg (680x366, 76K)

bait

Considering most people in my gen hate those games? I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
It's just nostalgia. Like oldfags crying about the lack of classic camera in RE2 remake. Even though the game was damn good they cried about something so trivial.

Imagine being this shallow.

This is the right answer.

No. Random encounters are a relic of the past that should have died between Mother 1 and Earthbound's release.

Earthbound offered a great alternative to random encounters in a turn-based RPG (random enemy spawns on the overworld, each with its own movement pattern and "attitude" toward the player (beeline for you aggressively, moves in an erratic pattern, runs away from you, stays still as a mimic until you get close, etc.) How you approach an enemy on the overworld can net you or your enemy a free opening turn provided you attack them from the back or they attack you from the back, rewarding sneaking up on enemies and punishing cowardice, enemies that are too weak and the game detects you can KO in a single turn of normal attacks are instantly KO'd without transitioning to the battle menu, enemies change their behavior according to whether or not you've already defeated the boss of their dungeon, etc.) and any RPG that can't live to or exceed the standards set by this 25 years old game is a fucking failure of game design.

Turn based combat rarely requires more strategy than real time combat does.Beyond trying to make sure whatever you do on your next couple of turns doens't get you killed, you seldom have to worry about things like positioning yourself.

>pokemon is an excellent example of bad turn based combat

I know of no series with better turn based combat though.

Yes but Pokemon is a really bad example.
Select Attack -> Select the attack you want to do -> Text box -> Animation -> Health goes goes down -> Text box if critical -> Text box if type advantage -> Text box if special effect -> Animation for running effects -> Health goes down -> Text box for running effects -> Repeat for enemy turn

This is the fuckin worst, these steps should be merged. Health bars and animations and text should all be happening at the same time and make a little symbol pop up for special effects and effectiveness. This was fine on gameboy but for some reason every game is completely incapable of multi tasking anything and it makes pokemon by far the slowest turn based combat to the point where everyone has to turn off animations just to make it slightly better.

Chess is good.

This. Also, Pokemon is fun vs another human but terrible vs the shitty ai.

For exclusively single player games I like ffv, ffix, and ffxi.

Absolutely

Attached: tactics.png (400x720, 540K)

You can say that about literally any genre or type of game. What kind of fucking thread is this? Real-time shit, though, like FFXV is garbage

Other way around

Doesn't require twitch based skills and you can take your time

Relies more on intelligence than mechanics

>Real-time with pause is what you make of it. It can have the action of real time if you don't pause. It can be practically the same as turn-based if you pause every couple of seconds.
In real time, the action of each character is really unresponsive compared to ARPG, and if want to play "turn based" you MUST pause the game every fucking second to check that you gave the correct order to each character and check their action bar to see whether they're ready to receive another order.
It's good if you have OCD.

Weighing probabilities and making decisions based on your conclusions, assumptions and hopes is fun. Video games are at their best when you get that high of making the right choice in a tough situation.

Attached: 1529788158607.png (323x368, 176K)

>Games were only turn based due to the hardware limitations.
Tabletop RPGs and every boardgame ever would like a word. Turn based combat predates vidya by decades.

Does anyone actually like blacks?

I do.

Attached: DarkestDungeon.jpg (1600x800, 221K)

Most RTWP games I've played have a lot more depth than turn based just because of how much more variance it allows for in what constitutes a "turn" that a character is taking. Plus they're usually more number heavy due to being based off old tabletop games.

i can smoke a bong without having to pause

The biggest reason why i like turn-based combat is because of Super Mario RPG. The game conditioned me into pressing a button thinking it would do more damage in every games i played.

For Pokemon, i remember not liking it at all when i tried red. It was sluggish to shit and the amount of waiting kind of pissed me off. If it wasn't for the anime and Pikachu following you in Yellow, i wouldn't even bother with the series at all. Hell, i fucking loved Silver just because for once i could play at night in secret and the game itself would be night time. I just wish i had a fucking houndour instead of having to trade for one or go to Kanto. Needless to say, i like Let's Go just because you can have your bro following you around, and Soul Silver is a great spin on my favorite mainline game

Attached: 1357261236750.jpg (600x400, 15K)

Yes.

No one likes niggers.
Not even other niggers.
t. nigger.

It's fun

There's something absolutely boring about the game. I don't know if it is the cute as fuck sprites or the music but it just doesn't click for me

>You seldom have to worry about things like positioning yourself
You could have just said we're using your specific definition of turn-based combat. If you were gonna cherry pick like that I could have said action games are braindead and used Asura's Wrath as my only example too.

absolutely

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1801x897, 283K)

Same, DD is not a good game I don't know why people here like it so much. RNG and grinding out the ass.

>RNG and grinding
That's exactly why people play it though

I love playing cute cartoon animal poker

I've been playing JRPGs for 25 years, kid, and I'll have you know I don't really care. It's fine, but I also don't mind if it gives way to ARPGs.

Yes

Attached: 1544863314582.jpg (1150x600, 719K)

Turn based battle is really fun. Not in most games though. Why? Because they're usually dumbed down due to needing the balance to accomodate players of different skill levels. Grandia games are a good example of a set of feautures that makes turn-based more fun. Pokemon is one of the dull ones and relies on the whole monster collecting and switching to take advantage of type thing to stay interesting.

Strategy, character/party building and controlling more than one character at a time

I'm a bit slow so games where I can take my time are a lot more enjoyable

t. never played FTL

>I like Let's Go
It's alright user, you just have to accept that I despise everything you stand for

Yes. My brain is slow and unfit for real-time combat.

>do people actually like chess and most board games
Use your problem-solving skills to figure it out.

Don't take Let's Go too seriously. It's pretty harmless in the grand scheme of things.

I'm aware. It's still pretty insulting to play a 'gen 1 remake' that feels like a straight downgrade in everything but graphics when compared to the originals. At least my experience was cushioned by the fact that it was my friend's copy that we played co-op and that I paid nothing for and we could laugh and fashion dark-humored jokes about its vapidity together.

Attached: 1376922813018.jpg (1058x705, 117K)

You also getting this worked up about Link's Crossbow Training?

That doesn't even approach being a good analogy.

Why not?

Know what really makes me sad? I know that the FFVII remake is going to be the same as FFXV.

Attached: 1407615640829.jpg (790x1071, 80K)

Come on now. They can both be classified under the 'spinoff' umbrella, but just about everything else about their circumstances is different. Let's Go is a simplified, stripped down version of mainline Pokemon RPGs, intended to lure in an audience that might not give a crap otherwise. Link's Crossbow Training is a minigame expanded into a standalone release that is a completely different genre from other Zelda franchise games and serves as a pack-in for the Wii Zapper peripheral, aimed for just about anyone interested in lightgun games on the console.

I find it funny how people say JRPG combat is "dated" and was only made that way because of "technical limitations" (which is false), yet nobody ever says this about turn based strategy.

I especially see journos regularly shitting all over JRPGs while praising XCOM and Civilization.

I don't understand why people can't just say "this style of gameplay doesn't appeal to me" and fuck off instead of demanding that everything be action games.

Real time and turn based combat both involve strategy, but in different ways.

Real time is much more dependent on making rapid decisions and reacting to stimulus, e.g. seeing the wind-up animation and dodging.

Turn based allows for a system that requires a lot more planning ahead both before the fight (items, party setup etc.) And during (sequences of attacks to maximise DPS, choosing when to rebuff, buff, heal etc.)

Eh, fair enough. I was more about the core method of engagement being changed in both games compared to their mainline counterparts, but I forgot there for a minute that Let's Go actually does have battles.
I don't really care about the intention behind their existence, just about the fact that I am perfectly capable of ignoring them without missing out on anything.

Turn-based is for board games where the technical limitations force it. In video games it's just laziness.

Do you really not think turn-based games allow for unique mechanics that do not translate well into action games?

chess

For the simple fact it is something different is why people should at least embrace the existence of these types of games. I don't get this extreme hatred for the genre. If you don't like it just move on. I think its pretty sad how the genre declined so much since its golden years in the 90's. I never got much into turn based RPG but I recognize the appeal of that type of gameplay. Some are even really good in fact. You could have amazing turn based RPG today but very few are even willing to make them outside of the niche anime and soft porn developers. This isn't even limited to turn based games though. It effects lots of genres like stealth, survival horror, RTS and hack and slash action games.

How bout you take turn on my base lol

Oh, I don't have any special grudge against Let's Go in that sense, Game Freak can do whatever they want as side projects given that I still enjoy the mainline RPG series and they're not about to stop making those. I'll just reiterate that I despise everything that YOU stand for when you say (in a thread about turn-based combat) that you liked this intentionally watered down experience.

Attached: 1470639698345.png (852x538, 404K)

I like it in actual strategy games but not in JRPGS where it's just mindlessly skipping through menus

It gives your actions a lot of weight for your actions that's missing in most action-based combat. If I screw up in SMT by using the wrong attack and hitting a resistance, I WILL know and I'll pay for it heavily.
In action-based games, even in the harder, more methodical ones like DS, I can just run back, heal myself, change my tactic and try again. Or, hell, if I have AI companions, I probably don't even need to, they'll sort it out for me. It removes most of the weight of your mistakes.

Pokemon (at least the idea used to be, don't know about now since don't play them) was built on the idea of a rock/paper/scissors sort of gameplay. Having party based combat sort of ruins the idea behind it.

I'm a huge fan of turn based combat.
I can't stand shit like bejeweled, chess, or sodoku, but when it's something like XCOM or POE 2's turn based mode, I suddenly find myself having a blast commanding my dudes, having a short think about each decision about what to do or not to do.

I mostly like it because I find the type of gameplay very gratifying all on its own, but turn based games are also very practical; It's nice to have something I can take my time to play while winding down after a tough day at work, when my brain is completely fried and there's no way I could play Quake Live or Starcraft properly. You can also play them while doing other stuff, like watching a movie or while cooking or cleaning.

These days though, I just find myself having more fun with the turn based stuff even on the weekends.

I disagree. FFX did party based turn based RPS combat, and that ended up being one of the best combat systems in a FF game to date.

Giving the player more time to think allows them the opportunity for greater strategy, which in turn allows you to present them with greater challenges to overcome.

Attached: TRICKSWORDTRICKROYALGUNSLINGTRICKROYALSWORDGUNSWORDROYALTRICKGUARDTRICKGUARDTRICKSWORDGUNSWORD.gif (190x294, 133K)

Press-turn is a fun system.

For rpg's : tbc with multiple party members>rtc>tbc with single party member

Most people don't actually like the "combat" portion of turn-based combat, but the customisable part. People don't like mashing the attack/skill command over and over, but they do like it when they press the attack command after creating a character build and doing 5x the damage.

I mean think about it, when you play Final Fantasy, SMT etc. Which parts do you latch onto? It's mainly how to make your characters op, not the actual fights.

>real time combat doesn't require strategy
I guess every actual soldier in the world just 360noscopes and doesn't think about what they should do at all.

Have you played Bravely Default?
If so how did you like that?

Who are you quoting? Nobody said that.

But you're forgetting that a Final Fantasy game runs on different ideas and themes than a Pokemon game. A FF game is about some epic story usually involving some sort of spirituality concepts in it and revolves around a party of characters. Pokemon is about collecting monsters to battle with. The people in the Pokemon world created rules on how battling with pokemon should work or at least that is how it seems to me. What makes Pokemon click right is knowing what exactly to do every given turn. Do you go for a one hit kill super effective attack? Do you maybe switch the pokemon for something else to counter the other guy? You lose this when you have a party with roles. This is why these games never went all in on the idea and why you've seen the formula barely change since the first gen games.

Excatly: hardware limitations.
Moving all your Space Marines at the same time and rolling all those dice would be physically impossible. Hardware made Dawn of War a reality.

>yet nobody ever says this about turn based strategy.

Because TBS has movement and positioning that matters, which allows for meaningful tactics in ways that most JRPGs do not, while most of the latter stick to the borderline braindead "attack with your most damage dealing attacks until you need to heal".

Both genres suffer the issue of the fights being more influenced by randomness the tougher they are, it's just that TBS games tend to have more open possible strategies due to you not locked into a line where everything can target everything else and you are constantly maintaining your current state via healing spells instead of the battle developing along various lines. There's only so much thought you can put into most JRPGs given the options you have.

Controlling a party of characters or a small army without clicking 110 times a second

Focus on setup, item management, abilities and predicting enemy behaviour without being rushed into it

I wish Last remnant had fewer problems so I could use it as the ultimate example

That's because turn based combat in JRPGs is shit while in everything else it's done well. It's the same boring slog you have to go through just to get to the story bits, and story in JRPGs is usually sucky too. It's padding rather than gameplay.
JRPG TBS is inferior even to paper RPGs. It's literally just "select skill, roll dice".
SRPGs however are great.

Xenoblade is tick based to the extent that you more or less have delineated “turns” as long as you are awake

Considering the single most profitable franchise of all time is turn based (your pic related), I’m gonna say yea.

Black White 2 were some of the best Pokemon games imo. Too much dialog/story though

I love when Yea Forumsirgins pretend to know what combat is really like

Yes. Turn based is for patricians.

Attached: PDS-Atolm.webm (482x360, 2.93M)

I am using "my specific definition of turn-based combat" because almost all vidya combat is massively less strategic than something like Chess and so it irritates me when people try to defend the typical turn based vidya by bringing it up.

>Giving the player more time to think allows them the opportunity for greater strategy

It can, if the player it given enough strategic options that deep, long term strategic thought given the information available is actually rewarded properly. Very few games do this, and most people who like turn based games like them because they can win most things through a combination of grinding, basic optimization and retrying and hoping that dicerolls end up in their favor. In principal I'd love turn based vidya, but almost all of it is woeful and limited.

>FFX did party based turn based RPS combat

It didn't. There is no RPS in FFX at all. You just pick the element you know the enemy is weak to 99% of the time, with there possibly being one enemy that this doesn't apply to.

I find it really comfy

I'm pretty sure that people would still buy Pokemon if they changed to an action rpg, or some kind of hybrid action/turn-based game. I would think that most people who play Pokemon do so because of the Pokemon, not because of the riveting gameplay.

>can be played without any sense of urgency at my own pace
>can be played while rolled into a blanket
>can be played while sipping hot cocoa
my life is stressful enough, sometimes i just want to R E L A X

retard

no. it enhances it. you build a team to cover weaknesses and big threats you can swap in to resist stuff. that also enables mindgames if you predict switchins.

if it was only rock paper scissors it would be way too fucking simple.

>sometimes i just want to R E L A X
You fap in turns too?

>sure, i always seek out slideshows and have two strokes per image :^)

Having moves with cooldown doesn't make it turn based (the auto attack doesn't even have this), you can move at any point during the battle and positioning does make a difference. You're trying very hard to stretch the definition of "turn" and even then it still doesn't apply.

I fap to 2d, so yeah, basically

Attached: un.jpg (1240x1732, 412K)

Yes it's called edging.

god i wish that were me

>t. Brainlet

I find it so boring
I've yet to play a turn based game which actually makes me think. Yea Forums says it requires strategic thought but there's always an obvious way to win.
Doesn't help that jrpgs, the genre that turn based combat is most associated with, are often plagued with a bunch of other issues that make them a slog to play. Doesn't leave a good impression.

There's exceptions friend

Only if it also has movement options.
Otherwise it’s simplistic as fuck while being praised as “strategic” by brainlets

I grew up on Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pokémon, and Megaman RPGs.
Also I have a sub-abysmal reaction time (400 ms is the absolute best I can do, on a good day and at full energy) so I really don't enjoy anything based on quickness.
I really love DQ's style because of the semi-random factor with the agility stat, you can absolutely build a strategy if you know your characters' turn order, but there's still a chance for it to fuck up since it's not completely fixated.

Except games that aren't turn-based precede my examples, yet we still invented the system. Obviously it appeals to a certain crowd.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about vidya here when I say games, but more in the line of sports.

I agree with you. The only okay ones are the paper mario ones, as entry level as they are, at least you have to time your attacks precisely and pay attention to stuff around you.Pretty crazy how it is.

The problem with turn-based combat is trying to create a challenging system that stays challenging once you know all the ins and outs. The only turn-based game that has remained entertaining even after I cheese it is Darkest Dungeon.

Why do people like card games???

It's not fair to judge turn-based games based on braindead Japanese RPGs

>Games were only turn based due to the hardware limitations
this is such a brainlet thing to think
the first video games were action games

K think the real question here is why do people like cunny?

Yes

>TB Combat tier list
>Shit tier
Combat is just repeating the same actions all the time
>Meh tier
Combat is making small choices all the time
>Okay tier
Combat is frequently about taking advantages and thinking.
>God tier
Combat where every turn matters.

Brainlet detected.

Attached: chess.jpg (630x354, 36K)

Me wearing the ears

smt.

People always say turn based requires more strategy and intelligence, but i never feel this way. In most Jrpgs with turn based combat I feel like it’s almost a mind numbing experience where I keep doing the same things over and over, and just heal at the right time. And of course you can always shop or grind. Meanwhile I feel like real time combat, like Zelda 2 or souls demands much more out of me mentally, I really have to react, challenge myself and really resist the enemy. Turn based often feels too polite and repetitive.

Yes.
I greatly enjoy board games

Bravely Default would’ve been a literal master piece of TBS if they hadn’t gotten lazy after designing the system and made mobs actually variable with large enemy pools from which to make a huge number of different combinations instead of just planting the exact same trash parties in front of you in the exact same composition, turning what could’ve been a game where every single fight is a puzzle to solve into a boring chore of programming the exact same actions for every fight the exact same way.

That’s because most of them are exactly that because the devs are lazy and know it’ll sell to their core market.

JRPGs that actually twist mechanics and then carry through with it are rare but wonderful experiences.

I thought I did.

Then I tried putting in FF7, FF8, and FF9 in the other day when I had free time to try and play any of them for the first time in ~10 years. Jesus Christ what a chore these games are to play, and the pay-off is just terrible. I'd like if they came with a built-in throttle like FFX on PC does, at least they acknowledged how much grind there is and how much more enjoyable the game is when you don't have to spend "young child alone at home during summer" hours playing it.

This is why I never got the JRPG genre. The sense of adventure is amazing, stories are great, graphics and music are often amazing, exploring the world and talking to NPCs is great, but the combat is usually complete and total boring shit. And yet the combat probably takes up 95% of playtime. Why does the worst element of the game take up by far the most amount of time? Going through areas with lots of enemies always, always feel like a tedious chore rather than a fun experience.

SRPG games are pretty good with it. Some dungeon crawlers and roguelikes where you have to care about resources are good. RPGs with some puzzle elements can be good.

I have no idea why people like dragon quest style rpgs though. There's no tension and the only thing to do is either guess what the enemy is weak to or spam the strongest attack. Is there some exception I've never seen before?

And they could have made the FFVII remake have some sort of variation of FFX combat but nope. Got to chase that action crowd bucks. It pisses me off.

Only in fun dungeon crawlers. Pokemon is way too slow now for me to enjoy it anymore

The main thing I enjoy in games like this or golden sun the strengths and weaknesses element, where you pick the right attack to use against certain enemies. That’s the satisfying part for me.

I would ironically enjoy a game that uses a mechanic like this boss in warioware inc

Attached: 32A38320-8557-47E8-AA9A-2403B13EB08F.jpg (480x360, 23K)

I like it when I have to take positioning into account. Otherwise I find it pretty dull

they're acceptable if you're traveling across a map and then you get pulled into a battleground with it's own map that can traverse, like how fallout or baldurs gate did it

turn based is only good when you have lengthy minigames for each attack

youtube.com/watch?v=WwCKPhlyU5M

SMT doesn't actually have better combat though. It still relies on the same attack/recovery system other JRPGs have, but will punish you more for not dealing with buffing. Pokemon PvP involves planning for contingencies and setting up teams in ways that you mostly don't in other RPGs.

Turn-based games are for people who have to leave on literally no notice, like working for WOOHP or having SWAT-officer parents who literally yank you out of your gaming chair to make you do something, and you need the enemy to wait patiently for you to come back and kill them when you're done.

You misunderstand. I dislike Lets Go. I was not the same guy you were talking to.

Yes. I genuinely dont understand the huge fuss about them.

>Games were only turn based due to the hardware limitations.
why do zoomers keep pushing this lie when there's been action rpgs since the '80s?
turn-based and action-based exist because they're both perfectly valid systems of play.

High level Pokémon that doesn’t include overused Pokémon is incredible to watch when you know what’s going on

Even lower level stuff is fun to watch if some guy has a particularly wack strategy.

Take this for example
m.youtube.com/watch?v=iCov5hQ4BW4

I don't really hate it but it's the main reason why JRPGs are 50 hours long.

Attached: mudkups.png (428x362, 35K)

I always found doubles matches in Pokemon way more interesting than single matches.
Yet i think Pokemon is too much based on speed stat and super effective moves than actual strategy.

The best turn-based combat is when you can manipulate your turn position for combo and better moves. Bravely Default or Radiant Historia for example. Risking more damage for better rewards.

I only play turn-based JRPGs, fuck z00mers

Attached: yande.re_520112_aikano_yukizora_no_triangle_cleavage_kazahana_koharu_kotatsu358_pantyhose_prekano_se (1200x1647, 799K)

>Yet i think Pokemon is too much based on speed stat and super effective moves than actual strategy.
this.
It becomes a boring match to see who can one-shot the other first and it's so simplistic with stats and types that I'd barely call it strategic

>Kingdom hearts crazy

Oh God

I prefer turn-based rpg games because my reflexes have never really been very strong so I'm not all that great at action games or real-time combat.

The strategy in Pokemon comes almost entirely from switching, since each Pokemon is so limited in what they can do and will get one-shot by the wrong matchup. That's a big reason I don't like doubles, since switching is so much more costly and thus used less.

Gamers these days have terrible taste, so no, they don't like turns

I do. Golden sun was one of my favorite games.

>tfw zoomers will never know the glory that is Advance Wars

If the NES controllers started with the number of buttons that the Switch has, I doubt turn-based combat wouldn’t be as alive as it is today.

Button combinations weren’t as much of a feasible concept in the NES day, hence turn-based combat.

The best kind of turn based combat imo is the kind where you have to actually do shit while battling

Like how those RPG Mario games have action commands

I think we need to make a poll one of these days on if Yea Forums likes or dislikes turn based combat. I would be interested to see where the people on this board truly lean. I'm thinking its majority dislike for sure.

Problem with switching is basically you pass your turn, take damages and pray to avoid critical hit. (with exception of switching moves)
The turn manipulation it implies bears no immediate reward, and is basically a coin flip.
If i make a rough comparison with a game like bravely default, passing and stocking turns implies more damages, given the risk you take.

Advance Wars is great but the infinite production mechanic is horrible, it drags the game way too much.

pic related and then some.

Attached: SI_GBA_MarioAndLugiSuperStarSaga_image1600w.jpg (1600x800, 243K)

why not like turn-based combat? Shit like pic and its awesome boss fights would be impossible to do in an active system.

Attached: 20190208222023_1.jpg (640x480, 112K)

>Drowzee used hypnosis
No, prob, ill switch my pokemon
>Drowzee used hypnosis
Switch
>Drowzee used hypnosis
Switch
>drowzee used hypnosis
FUCK YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT POKEMON.
i swear some wild pokemon purpose is just to make the battle last longer.

>Drowzee used hypnosis
60% accuracy except when it's you it go up to 110%

The Mario RPG series of games do it the best

This is why i can't never get into pokemon TCG 2, 1 was fine but 2 has to many RNG attacks, flipcoins and all that shit.

the nes had nothing to do with it. jrpgs started on japanese computers, like the pc88, msx and sharp x1. most of those games already had turn-based combat. the famicom was mostly living off ports from those systems.

only if it's very balanced. Battle brothers is the best turn based game I've played. Xcom is pretty good, but I wish it was much larger scale. Pokemon just too shallow. I think they should make an RTS pokemon game.

>Too much dialog/story though
Nowhere near the level of SM, and so far all dialogs have been fairly short and mostly followed by battles (at the 7th gym).

I couldn't finish 2 because of all the bullshit restraints that asks you to literally shit up your deck on the evil team's island
>YOU MUST HAVE FOUR PIKACHU CARDS IN YOUR DECK TO CHALLENGE ME
>YOU CAN ONLY HAVE GRASS ENERGY IN YOUR DECK TO CHALLENGE ME
Fuck off with that shit.

>Ah ah dude they should totally like ditch the turn based combat for the next Pokemon game and make it real time combat and also an MMO Open world with all the regions added

Attached: 1440872021380.jpg (1096x800, 223K)

If turn based combat is so bad then why is Persona 5 the best JRPG in the past 10 years? Hmm?

what game is pic from?

I like turnbased when it's like XCOM or Divinity Original Sin, to name more recent examples

it's not just boring clicking on the same attack over and over but you have to keep an eye on the environment and positioning of all the different units, that's when turn based is fun

Pokemon is garbage

because persona is a glorified dating sim.

Don't tell me you wouldn't play a Pokémon spin-off by Monolith Soft

Attached: 1477279823999.jpg (3989x2529, 3.94M)

It's a hell of a lot better than real time with pause.

Pokemon's problem isn't that it needs to become real-time or an arpg or some shit, but that they need to add SOME refinements to it. Its been the same basic structure since Gen 1, and people only accepted that style of combat because of the hope the series would advance beyond that at some point. A fucking spin-off in the form of Coliseum had better combat than most the mainlines.

Superman 64

Not that guy but I don't want MonolithSoft to waste their time on Pokemon. I think a DQXI style world would suit it better.

Turn-based combat + battle-rape

Attached: 👌.png (598x535, 290K)

because it's fun

only when it doesn't have that retarded action bar thing

Persona 5 is fucking terrible. But maybe if it had more emphasis on gameplay then it wouldn't be.

>40k
>tabletop rpg
you're fucking retarded