racketboy.com

Neither Xenoblade nor Ys are turn based, due to the lack of taking turns.

alienjesus wrote:Neither Xenoblade nor Ys are turn based, due to the lack of taking turns.

Yeah, Xenoblade isn't even remotely turn based.

I don't know about the sequels, but Xenoblade Chronicles is semi-turn based, there's some attack sequence shuffling going on under the hood. Plus the cool down timers mean you are waiting around for your turn to use special attacks. All that said, it's not turn based in the traditional DQ/FF sense.

I didn't say Ys is turn-based. I said semi. It's still an action RPG but the bump system includes a turn-based design element. You are just not getting it. I remember several months ago realizing this and my friend laughed because he knew but wondered how I discovered it since most people never do. The one genre he really knows is the RPG genre. (yes he is making one but has experience in AAA development as well) Xenoblade is turn-based. Again you are disillusioned to think it's all Dragon Quest. Dragon Age Origins is also turn-based. When you press attack your swing of the sword is entirely stat based and the better the stats determine when you swing. It's the very definition of what turn-based is. DQ works on the same logic it just does it from a static menu is a major difference. Xenoblade is turned based. It has an auto attack but again those are determined by stats which determine the timing. The arts are the second part which acts similar to ATB.

I think that probably makes more logical sense from a design standpoint where you're accounting for polling/checks/whatever. I mean, at that point, what isn't "turn based" in some way? Many games incorporate timers or other mechanics that limit action - stamina meters, GCD, animation lock, whatever.

From a more player-centric, game categorization angle, I think turn based implies the game stopping to wait for input. If you need to time actions in between enemy actions, then as much as that's technically a "turn", the coordination required changes the nature of it.

isiolia wrote:I think that probably makes more logical sense from a design standpoint where you're accounting for polling/checks/whatever. I mean, at that point, what isn't "turn based" in some way? Many games incorporate timers or other mechanics that limit action - stamina meters, GCD, animation lock, whatever.

From a more player-centric, game categorization angle, I think turn based implies the game stopping to wait for input. If you need to time actions in between enemy actions, then as much as that's technically a "turn", the coordination required changes the nature of it.

This is how I feel as well. What we define as "turn based" comes down to player experience which I feel is what you described, the act of the player physically taking turns. There are some blurred lines and hybrids in there but that's still the gist of it.

If we want to get super pedantic almost anything can be turn based because all combat mechanics have to have some element of this limitation in order to function as balanced games.

We had this discussion in slack channel as well. There are some distinctions with a turn based combat mechanic that is automated in a way. Games like Baldur's Gate and say FFXII simulate and automatically move from turn to turn. Often games with auto attacks are turn based. This is in opposition to say games like Skyrim or Diablo, where you are mostly limited by animation speeds.

I see Xenoblade in the same way I see the Infinity Engine games (or KOTOR); it's semi-turn-based. Battles may play out in real time, but there's clearly a sort of timer going on in the background for each character's moves, not unlike Final Fantasy's ATB. Actually, that's a much closer analog. Despite the real-time element to Final Fantasy, folks still consider them turn-based. I definitely get Segata's point on this one.

Per our discussion in the Slack channel, turn-based is about user interaction and perception, not what's going on behind the scenes. Every game ever operates on discrete timers, either based on game logic or animation frames or screen refresh or whatever. It's about how the user interacts with those timed mechanisms. I break RPG-style games down into 3 types:

Turn-based - Usually menu-driven, but the turns are always apparent to the player. The "turn" itself is a critical game element that players clearly perceive and are aware they are acting within.
Timer-based - MMO-like in many incarnations, often featuring cool-downs or waits not immediately associated with animation frames. Actions don't conform to clearly user-perceptible "turns" per-se, though timers may or may not be visible and apparent to players.
Reflex/action-based - While there may be some timer cool-downs, the only real timers as such are based on animation and recovery frames that are visible to players through character actions and animations.

There are some games that implement elements of both. Some games bolt reflex-based action timing interactions on top of turn-based play (Mario RPGs), or abstract away some of the turn-based tropes to make things seem more action-y (BioWare D&D RPGs), or attempt to take turn-based interaction models and put them on top of more timer-based systems (Final Fantasy ATB-based battle systems).

It's sorta like Diablo. Diablo 1 and 2 are turn-based games where hundreds of turns happen in a frame. If the input is not tied directly to an attack and you need to wait, you're taking a turn.