Turn based game

>turn based game
>balanced around party members dying in one hit and killing enemies in one hit

Attached: 1549017227699.png (378x314, 171K)

Xcom is pretty fun though

xcom isn't really the same type of turn based

So chess? checkers?

What game?

name one game that does this

Mutant: Year Zero

the picture is fucking pokemon is it really that hard to guess

But they don't die in one hit.

Huh. But Pokemon is not balanced how the OP describes it?

>playing singles or doubles

Attached: 1506674082695.png (485x443, 25K)

Yeah man I kind of love SaGa Frontier.

t. has literally never played a pokemon game
there are 700+ mons and only 15~ won't die in one hit

Pokemon doesn't really do this though. Unless you have a big type advantage or multiple stages of attack buffs, you're probably not OHKOing an equal opponent.

Unless it's Absol. Absol fucking sucks.

doubles can't happen fast enough
when will gamefreak realise that singles are a shitty format

>playing Pokemon
Get some taste

Nocturne is fun though

it happens in the turn based digimon games too, as well as disgaea and everything outside of boss fights in final fantasy

is the op talking about pokemon?

Attached: 4t24g.jpg (1000x1000, 43K)

and persona

Persona 5

>If the MC dies it's game over

Attached: 1552776370946.jpg (1089x613, 267K)

>can control party members
>party members can use revive items
>party members can use revive spells
>if the mc dies its game over

Attached: 1523736573267.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

What if triple battles were the pokemon standard?

somebody fight this guy with a Toxapex stall team so he can rip his hair out

Let's just go with Jagged Alliance: Pokemon Edition

Literally any supereffective hit can kill 90% of pokemon in one shot

What would you do to make combat in Pokemon more interesting?

You can’t make it real time, has to be turn-based.

you just shot down the only real option (wether it's good or bad) Turn-based one on one is highly antiquated. Take my favorite turn based strategy, age of wonders. that has 1 to 50 units engaged most of the time. (depends where you are in a game)

Not him, but 1v1 is a shit format. 2v2 or 3v3 with 6-8 movepool per pokemon having team oriented moves should do the job and make the damn games playable for more than 1-2 hours (Basically turn it into any other jRPG because any other jRPG is better)

I think people just want real time cause they want it to be like the show. Turn-based is a lot more strategic though. Tons of TBS games are super fun, and all card games are Turn-based too. I just think Pokemon is too focused on gimmicks.

At best you could do ATB and add cooldowns on the moves or something. But full RT is not the way to go imo.

What would adding more moves do? I think the limits on moves is quite good as it forces Pokemon into specific builds rather than jacks of all trades.

4 movepool basically turns your units into rigit one-trick ponies.
More moves avaliable => more interesting shit you can do gameplay-wise, variety is the spice of life after all

>What would you do to make combat in Pokemon more interesting?
Without reworking the game from the ground up?
Nothing, the games need to be completely redesigned to the point they'd hardly play like Pokemon anymore.

Sure, but couldn’t more variety be done by having 3v3 be the standard? Though I guess 6 moved wouldn’t hurt now that I think about it.

this

That’s what I’m referring to. Similar and familiar concept, but actually done competently.

Triple battles as standard

the biggest problem with pokemon is that there are far too many to balance it in a form that would actually be good

3v3 with positional abilities. Make it so (most) physical attacks must be done from and to a front row

I agree on positional elements being a thing as well.

3v3
You have 5 spots.
2 in front row, 3 in back row.
Moves now hit certain squares, rather than one or all.
You can reposition mid-battle.

EOxPokemon would be neat.