Are Turn-Based Purists The "Boomers" Of Gaming?

[ethomaz]

I just forgot to say that one of contender to GOTY is turn based.

Baldur’s Gate 3.

 

[Swift_Star]

I just forgot to say that one of contender to GOTY is turn based.

Baldur’s Gate 3.

it’s really awkward in that game but it’s ok, I guess. And it’s fine that SQEX doesn’t want turn base anymore for the main series. People have to let it go.

 

[ethomaz]

it’s really awkward in that game but it’s ok, I guess. And it’s fine that SQEX doesn’t want turn base anymore for the main series. People have to let it go.

Awkward how?
The game is suppose to give you D&D experience via videogames.

RPGs in real life are turn based.

 

[Box]

The game is suppose to give you D&D experience via videogames.

By having sex with a Bear?

 

[Vertigo]

Awkward how?
The game is suppose to give you D&D experience via videogames.

RPGs in real life are turn based.

if we’re going by the most traditional interpretation of what an RPG is, that being DnD, then like no jrpg fits that definition

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Specifically, people who want long-running franchises to "go back to the way they were" 20+ years ago are boomers.

Resident Evil also has its own share of these people. They think RE isn't RE unless it has tank controls and static camera angles. They resent RE4 for leading the charge in shifting away from those things, and hate the 2-4 remakes strictly on the basis of not having those, either.

Doom also has these purists. They're the ones who said Eternal wasn't a real Doom because it dared to put emphasis on movement and dared to have platforming sections. Some also complained about a lack of pickups and needing to create your own opportunity for picks up via Flame Belch, Grenades, etc.

Franchise purists are arguably the most insufferable subgroup of any series fanbase more than 20 years old.

Also, FF7R's combat was excellent. If you played efficiently and knew what you were doing with your materia loadout, you could practically make the game indistinguishable (in terms of speed and spectacle) from "pure" character action, especially when you control Tifa.

Pretty sure people can prefer past versions of a franchise to new ones without being boomers. Thinking stuff is better simply because it's newer is arguably something someone ought to be more ashamed of than preferring the past.

 

[ethomaz]

if we’re going by the most traditional interpretation of what an RPG is, that being DnD, then like no jrpg fits that definition

Well the game I said is basically D&D in videogame form from the videos I saw.
Instead to play your character in real life you are playing it in the video game.
Combat is exactly like D&D do combats.

 

[Vertigo]

Well the game I said is basically D&D in videogame form from the videos I saw.
Instead to play your character in real life you are playing it in the video game.
Combat is exactly like D&D do combats.

I believe this was one of KOTOR’s design origins as well.

What’s an rpg or true rpg is whatever man. We’re actually debating preference of game types tbh right? .

If DnD is being used as the base of which is a real rpg and what’s not then every game with a linear narrative and non-player created protagonist is not an rpg.

I do kinda adhere to the classic dnd definition tho hehe. It’s just a messy debate amongst jrpg fans to tell them most of their favorites aren’t RPGs (which makes the Ragnarok vs ff16 debate even more fun).

 

[ethomaz]

I believe this was one of KOTOR’s design origins as well.

What’s an rpg or true rpg is whatever man. We’re actually debating preference of game types tbh right? .

If DnD is being used as the base of which is a real rpg and what’s not then every game with a linear narrative and non-player created protagonist is not an rpg.

I do kinda adhere to the classic dnd definition tho hehe. It’s just a messy debate amongst jrpg fans to tell them most of their favorites aren’t RPGs (which makes the Ragnarok vs ff16 debate even more fun).

But in this own thread people created the narrative that turn-based was choose due hardware limitation... looks at my previous posts.
That is suck a made up claim because turn-based was created to minic real-life RPG games like D&D.
Well RPGs in videogames were created inspired in D&D like real life games (that is why the genre in called RPG to begin).

And about the linear narrative and non-player created protagonist is not a issue in D&D because the Dugeon Master can force that to every player... after all the Dugeon Master set all the rules, narrative, etc that are what the videogame does.
So it continues being a RPG like D&D.

The Dugeon Master is the videogame... it set that you will be a fixed character and the narrative is done by the Dugeon Master (aka the videogame) .

TLTR... the Master in a D&D decides if the narrative is linear and/or you will use the own created characters or a pre-defined one.... the videogame itself is the Dugeon Master (nobody can take that role in videogames unless you are the game designer).

 

[Mild Conviction]

Pretty sure people can prefer past versions of a franchise to new ones without being boomers. Thinking stuff is better simply because it's newer is arguably something someone ought to be more ashamed of than preferring the past.

I'm not talking about simply preferring.

It's about the verbiage of "not a 'real' ___".

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I'm not talking about simply preferring.

It's about the verbiage of "not a 'real' ___".

Still worthy of discussion, tho.

Let's say you want to make a new game that honors old school FPS design with your own new twists and you realize a new IP won't get the financial backing? Why not call it DOOM. All of a sudden it can get the budget it needs because people say "oh wow, a Doom game with a new twist!" or some shit. When you realize this level of cynicism is behind most franchises continuing while new IP doesn't get made it makes you wonder what exactly makes a game part of a franchise? Is it just some suits deciding it's better as part of a franchise to sell better or does it actually feel like it belongs in that franchise?

And this will differ by the person based on what you think was integral to that franchise's identity. Some of it can just be elitism and because someone doesn't enjoy a game they want to tell you it's not even a true part of that franchise but I feel like allowing that to cloud the discussion of what it means to be a true successor to a prior game is unfortunate. By and large people want new entries in successful franchises to evolve while remaining true to what came before. Radically different takes aimed at new audiences are always a big risk and often scream of the notion that they had an original idea and cut that original idea to fit a prior mold slightly better.

 

[Mild Conviction]

Still worthy of discussion, tho.

Let's say you want to make a new game that honors old school FPS design with your own new twists and you realize a new IP won't get the financial backing? Why not call it DOOM. All of a sudden it can get the budget it needs because people say "oh wow, a Doom game with a new twist!" or some shit. When you realize this level of cynicism is behind most franchises continuing while new IP doesn't get made it makes you wonder what exactly makes a game part of a franchise? Is it just some suits deciding it's better as part of a franchise to sell better or does it actually feel like it belongs in that franchise?

And this will differ by the person based on what you think was integral to that franchise's identity. Some of it can just be elitism and because someone doesn't enjoy a game they want to tell you it's not even a true part of that franchise but I feel like allowing that to cloud the discussion of what it means to be a true successor to a prior game is unfortunate. By and large people want new entries in successful franchises to evolve while remaining true to what came before. Radically different takes aimed at new audiences are always a big risk and often scream of the notion that they had an original idea and cut that original idea to fit a prior mold slightly better.

At the end of the day, unless information is volunteered from a developer, the notion of "what if this was an original idea turned into a franchise game" will only ever be speculation. Even if it ends up being the case, I still care more about the quality of the final product above anything else. Sure, maybe that's boringly utilitarian at first glance, but this stance has kept me open to and appreciative of a lot of changes I ultimately ended up enjoying.

In the cases of games like Resident Evil, Like a Dragon, and Final Fantasy, some of the biggest changes were made by the original creators who had been there since the beginning, and even within some of those, unshackling themselves from the old formula was the entire point (Shinji Mikami made RE4 the way it is because he was extremely tired of static cameras and slow pacing), and many of these deviations ended up being extremely popular. If anything, it's not about how far you deviate that really matters to most people, it's how far you deviate while still making a good game. The deviation limit is much shorter for a bad game than a good one.

If there are any sort of requirements I think need to be maintained between franchise games that have even the biggest changes, they would be almost entirely thematic, less so mechanical or visual.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

At the end of the day, unless information is volunteered from a developer, the notion of "what if this was an original idea turned into a franchise game" will only ever be speculation. Even if it ends up being the case, I still care more about the quality of the final product above anything else. Sure, maybe that's boringly utilitarian at first glance, but this stance has kept me open to and appreciative of a lot of changes I ultimately ended up enjoying.

In the cases of games like Resident Evil, Like a Dragon, and Final Fantasy, some of the biggest changes were made by the original creators who had been there since the beginning, and even within some of those, unshackling themselves from the old formula was the entire point (Shinji Mikami made RE4 the way it is because he was extremely tired of static cameras and slow pacing), and many of these deviations ended up being extremely popular. If anything, it's not about how far you deviate that really matters to most people, it's how far you deviate while still making a good game. The deviation limit is much shorter for a bad game than a good one.

If there are any sort of requirements I think need to be maintained between franchise games that have even the biggest changes, they would be almost entirely thematic, less so mechanical or visual.

Right, I'm coming at you from the perspective of someone who loved Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal but still thinks they aren't "real" DOOM tho, this isn't about me being too good for what they're offering or something, I liked them plenty.

 

[MaxParrish]

Turn based was a result of hardware limitation. I don't know why people want it back. Back during PS1 days we always wanted to see these combat become real time where we can control the character.

This make little sense : independently from the hardware, till now no real time combat system can give you the same range of option of a turn based one and series like Tales of... or Ys proposed real time battle since the SuperFamicom. It is primarily a stylistic choice to go with Turn based or Real time and each one offer its specifical advantages and limitations over the other .

 

[teezzy]

Turn based combat feels cozy

Gives you time to breathe and strategize. Those games are relaxing

Maybe its me showing my age (im only 32) but idgaf

 

[historia]

I enjoy turn based on handheld consoles. I am a boomer and I just hate Gaas games or mindless shooters like COD.

Turn based on a big TV is boring to play

If P6 don't comes out on new Switch at launch like P3R, it's DOA. Screw Atlus and their stupid rhetoric

 

[Yurinka]

I think turn based were ok in the 8 bit and 16 bit generations, but in the 32 bit generation already started to be outdated. And now, several generations later, even more.

I think it's ok to have some turn based games, specially when are remasters of old games or small niche projects. But I think that for most games is better to have free movement action combat.

 

[Deleted member 223]

Never liked it as a main dish and I'm old as shit as far as gaming is concerned. It has its niche but massively outdated by more attractive gameplay systems.

I will say this. They do make for good mini-game distractions in big games ala say Witchers 3 Gwent or AC Black Flag Navy mini-game. As that sort of stuff if you build it that way within a much bigger game I find it okay.

 

[Sloane_Ranger]

There is pleny of room for many differnt playstyles in gaming, and each can be a lot of fun when done well.

I enjoy fast twitch as much as much as strategic turn based.

 

[ethomaz]

This thread seems a bit premature now that one of the best games in the year (and probably the GOTY) is turn-based