RPG turn-based vs. action-based

So, This is an ancient battle between preferences of people.
However lately, as i'm planning on working on my own RPG, I've been told several times that Turn-based RPG's are just not working.

Makes the game too slow, and people think it's just plain old.
Action RPG's are more along the lines of Kingdom hearts and Zelda.

I'm just wondering how other people think about this, I still really want to move along with doing a turn-based RPG, but I wouldn't mind changing it if that would mean more people would eventually play it.
I'm just trying to figure out here what would be my best target.

Please if you enter the post dont start a war over which one is better, just post your opinion, along with some examples of other games if possible.

thanks!

Turn based is easier to implment, and gives the
user more time to think about tactical choices.

Games like Jagged Alliance 2 are a perfect example of
turn based action.

Fallout 3 used a nice twist to the real time action, by
stopping the game, and let the user apply a shot to a certain
area of the target.

I think an apply-command-then-action vartiant is cool.
Where players assign actions at the same time, and then the
game runs for a certain time, perforing the commands,-- vs the
pure turn for each player mode.

i hate turn based games, lol, too slow, boring and repetitive, not that i wouldnt play one but i'd never make on or advise someone to make one, i want to control my character which is why i'm 'playing' the game in the first place

i also dont like point and click games, lol, i'm an action fanatic, i like exploring and doing my own thing, if its gonna be turn based, atlease give me basic movement and a list of actions that i must try and execute by myself, example:

[battle start]
-i can run around and do basic weak attacks while a 'power bar fills'-
[power bar maxed, i can now select from a list of special attacks]
[battle resume]
-i need to try and execute my selected attack by myself-

i'd like a mixed system like that

In a game like Zelda the strategy comes done to which item or weapon is useful for the given situation, and to a degree how well you use it.

A turn-based game thrives in situations where thought must really be put into every move -- behind every move is a strategy instead of reflexes and so on. When you have multiple enemies to choose from, using certain attacks requires certain resources, and especially when you want the player to control multiple characters at the same time, turn-based is almost definitely the way to go.

IMHO turn-based games could benefit from simultaneous moves -- that is, you and your opponent each choose a move, and then they are performed simultaneously. The success of each move doesn't just depend on the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent, but sometimes on the move they used at the same time. I personally think turn-based games that limit themselves in other strategy (if there's only one target to attack, and/or there's only one player-controlled character in the battle strategic options are significantly reduced) could very easily add significant strategic depth through this.

Jibb

I wouldn't call Zelda a RPG, it's an Action Adventure IMO.

But Kingdom Hearts is for sure. The battles between Zelda and KH are way different.

Well it always depends what you want to achieve.

Action based RPGs like Kingdom Hearts are good to let a mass of enemies spawn and you have great, fast battles, jumping around, slashing here and there, throwing in some magic, etc. Lots of things happens on the screen.
The contra part on this is that you barely can do anything tactic related as you don't have a lot of time to think about your next step. But the fights are way cooler.

On the other side, round based RPG's like Final Fantasy give you way more chances to fight in a tactical way. The game Lost Odyssey for example, IMO the better version of "Final Fantasy", has great round based battles. You don't wait for the ATB to fill up, you just choose your next attacks/magic and a list is generated who will be first/next (kinda like in FFX).
The battles really great too as the bosses are hard and it takes a lot of tactical planning in order to defeat them.
With a combination of great effects, music, SFX and the option to make your attacks stronger everytime you attack (you have to press a button in the right moment, kinda like the gunblade from FFVIII), the battles are great fun.

So i wouldn't say round based RPG's are "out of date". If you don't have hard loading times like in old FF games, and you combine something so the player has more interaction in a fight, it is a great fun too.

The most annoying thing on Round Based fights for me were always that you wont see enemies on the map, but just randomly enter a fight. Games like Eternal Sonata made it different and it's way better like this (also a great round based RPG COMBINE with action elements).

I find FF7 and FF8 for example to be some great turne based games.
Because of characters and combat system and personnalisation.

FF12 is turn based in a more active dimension, it works really great with a great system of customisation.
And in the last FF13 combat system is return to more turn base compared to FF13, but it's fun, caus it's very dynamic.

I think you can make turn based if you bring a dynamic dimension in it.


Another system mix RPG and real time very well and it works great like :
-Star Ocean 5
-Tales of Visperia
-Follout 3
-Dragon Age Origins
-Mass Effect 2

Just be inspired by these good selling games if you want ideas !

IMHO.

Action based leans to a more fast paced game where action is itself a selling point, though if you try to impress with i.e. story and action is only a minor selling point, one should use turn-based system. It's all about the style of the game.

FF uses turn based because it matches the game style. Fallout uses the system because it works to that game style.

I would also invite you to look at Grandia. It has a turn based system that I absolutely love.

Then there's the question whether you will use "battle scene" where the player is transferred to different place and fights there, or if simply a battle mode is enabled (like in Chrono Trigger).

I would play it anyways as long as the battle mode does not intefere with the game style and mechanics like a hammer to the face.

Fallout 3 is the most fun when using the VATS mode, wich is basically a turnbased mode.
(First Person -Paused game - Target selction Mode)

They knew they had to include something similar to
the old turnbased combat, so the Fallout Fants wouldnt burn their house down.

I think its a good mix of real time Combat and stop-action combat
they managed to make.

---

Big RPG like Dragon Age also use a pause-command mode.
Since pure realtime combat wouldnt work in big battles.

I'm with darkinferno....I was never a fan of turnbased...if it boils down to decision making, then I could just read one of those "choose your own adventure" books....it's about the same "game play" style....sorry just my opinion.

Yea, it's a big cloud of subjectivity this one, but an interesting question I think.

You definitely see less of the traditional TBBS in current-gen RPGs, but the demand is still there. I'd say that the action elements were introduced in the genre to try and make it more mainstream, but don't quote me on that. Regardless, if you want my opinion on a good battle system suitable for a GS title,I'd recommend a blend between that of a game such as Lost Odyssey (A fairly traditional TBBS with a few innovating and modern elements) or perhaps one that feels a little less static such as it's seen in Arc the lad: Twilight of the spirits (ps2). In my opinion, both are more than decent, and both present a system with enough depth to keep a player excited for many hours. Something like that should be reasonable for a hobby project too.

Yes, it's probably a good thing to keep development difficulty in mind for such a battle system, and my personal guess would be that a real-time action-based battle system is harder to develop than something that is built around turns. Turn-based, you'll avoid all manners of tough topics, such as path finding, complex animations (running + swinging a sword + jumping?) and complex camera handling.

All in all, the more static you make your battle system, the easier it gets to control, and the faster it is to develop. As for what's cooler, that's such a scary opinion-based matter, I'll keep to my opinion alone: yay for Lost Odyssey and hurray for Arc the dude.

That's just my opinion though

turn-based is definitely the easier thing to develop - camera handling is simpler, AI is simpler, less need of difficult to tweak collision = should be your choice imo

actually, one of my oh so many (3) projects ATm is an RPG, but its diablo style and thus obviously real time, even though its not that battle heavy.

i always rpefered the action style because im not really a tactical person. a match in warcraft 3 against me usually goes: spike gets troops, tries to level up and hit the enemy as hard as he can in the hopes that in the end he survives long enough to harvest enough gold so that all other players run out of gold and die.
i hate rushes XD