What if Rpgs had two combat systems

see final fantasy XII

kthxbai

 

No that was. Nice job. Look at all the other replies!
Kthxbai.

 

Because the most played game of all time isn't an RPG right?

 

Sorry QKT, but FFXII was not like what hes talking about, not at all. It was like a blending of the two, yes. But it did not have the distinction of a full on turn based system, or that of a full on real time action system. It used real time in a turn based type system where the character could still move around at will.

What he is saying (if I understand correctly) is that there should be a game with the option, say in the beginning of it, to choose between a turn-based battle system, or a real time battle system. Not a combination of the two. If a turn-based system was chosen, you would either A: not encounter monsters/enemies in the wild and rather they would be random encounters, or B: you would still see monsters/enemies in the wild and nearing them would prompt a battle to engage with said monster/enemy.

This certainly would make for a very flexible game, and it probably would be quite popular, especially since it would appease both types of RPG fans. However, this would take a remarkable amount of time and resources to accomplish, but with that said, I think that this should be attempted to be implemented into Square Enix's next game that isn't FFXIII Versus.

 

To be fully honest, the only way I could see something like it happening though not completely what we just described (or at least what I described) is that they A: Release a Real-Time version of the game and have the option of downloading the turn-based portion of the game online at a latter time or B: Release a Real-time version of the game, then at a latter date, release a Turn-based version, then near the same time, release a two disk special edition that as both the Turn-based game, and the Real-time game.

Honestly, this is the only way I can see them justifying the use of the amount of time it would take and the expenditure of resources. In this way, they receive a good amount of compensation for their work, people can choose which type game they play, and they pretty much only profit, given there isn't a large gap of time in between releases.

 

fallout?

And i think it would lessen an audience. Just think, a games developer can make game 'X', based around a specific theme and mechanism. Now some developers nail their game mechanics, some suck at them. Imagine trying to do 2, with the knowledge that the player will only use one, and will still expect it to be at the quality as if the developer had focused on that explicitly. What's the point?

 

pointless. youd be doubling time and resources on developing two combat systems without that much gain, mostly because turn based combat is boring and the only people who enjoy it are the japanese. which is why you only see it in JRPGs. and if you want the japanese to buy it, you must have characters who are young people with large and oddly colored hair with giant swords who could pass for either gender. and this usually turns off people who buy western (or real time combat) RPGs. because most things that the japanese enjoy are turn offs for westerners. such as young boys being molested by tentacle monsters on subway trains.

 

Actually Wood Wonk, all the characters in the more recent, good JRPG's, or at least higher budget ones, have definitive genders. You can not tell me that The Conqueror from the last remnant could pass as a chick, at all. Heres a pic. for reference:



Also, most of the characters from FFXIII can't go both ways for gender either, what you're saying is just a stereotype that as of late has been fixed for the most part, now don't even mention Sora, seriously, he doesn't count here.

Anyways, I personally would like the option, though if I had to chose one of the two to just get rid of entirely, it would be Turn-based combat. Yeah I'm western minded, so shoot me (I'm actually west enough that I'm only an ocean away from "The Far East"). But anyways, it would have its own little novelty factor of being able to go through a game going brute force through everything, mashing buttons and never being stopped because of acting like the juggernaut, and then deciding to replay the game in turn-based combat and actually think things out be tactical with combat. And just to let you know, I actually hated the VATS system in Fallout, it just made things far too easy. Turn-based combat is not meant to be easy unless you are fighting something thats a little weakling.

But W/e, everyone has their opinion, and there will always be people who dislike Turn-based combat... hell, I'm one of them, I just understand that not everyone hates it, and some of them would like Real-time combat as well.

 

There is a reason that there hasn't been; you would essentially be making two games, except that you would only get paid for one, recognized for one, and criticized for two.

Plus, I wasnt aware that RPGs werent prospering. They are still the most widely played. FPS's seem larger because they belong to the casual gamer, who is usually 13 years old and doesnt enjoy a game with a story because it takes away from the atmosphere of spamming AK47's everywhere and slows down, and adds emotion.

Basically put, RPGs arent common among casual gamers because they are only in for something that they dont have to invest in. Among everyone else, they still are the number 1 id guess.


EDIT: Also, the FF turn based combat aint got **** on Legend of Dragoon.

 

That character is still off-putting though. It's a man, I can tell that much, but still highly effeminate. Seriously, what is with the long hair? It looks like it was transplanted from a woman. I think it's some sort of sick joke.

In a world full of hatred and ugliness. There is only one man. One man with the power, the might, and the hair to set things straight...err set things right.

Anyways, back on topic. It's already been said. Dev's should focus on making a game not two at a time.

I prefer first person perspective rpg's like the elder scroll series. It exemplifies best, what an rpg is. You play the game the way you want to. I've had trouble calling Mass Effect or even Final Fantasy a true RPG because of how the game world is set up. You don't get to explore the game universe or have many of the freedoms that you do like in the Elder Scroll series, but the biggest flaw I find is that you aren't really developing your own character. You play through the story as the game intended. That's my biggest turn-off to them, because the game play is repetitive and the big driving force behind the game is the story and once that's beaten there's not much reason to go back and play through the game unless you're insane.

 

im not sure, but i think the valkyrie chronicles franchise has a unique combat system which some consider as a dual combat system

 

I lol'd.