Should the Final Fantasy series go back to the turn based combat?

Should the Final Fantasy series go back to the turn based combat?

  • Total voters
    375
EDMIX said:
Because they already got franchises that are turned based and the fact that the All the entries are different and only the name remains the same makes this entire thing even more irrelevant because you could just swap out any fucking final fantasy with a bravely default and just pretend that's what they lead with regarding the franchise

So I'm sorry you're bickering over a name showing something and being turned based in disregarding the concept already exist with the company

So I think they're completely fine to go their current path there have with the action based stuff they're doing as there's not really one way to make a JRPG

And they built their franchise off of being different with each entry there was nothing that argued final fantasy was supposed to say the same regarding its gameplay especially considering a lot of the games did so many different things there is no reason for them to stay in one game play type as that doesn't make sense based on what the franchise's generally did...

Which actually means it makes just as much sense for them to just make a random turn base one as for them to make it action because each entry was different in the first place.....

Keep in mind I don't even see any evidence that what made final fantasy successful will solely turn based

Bravely default and octopath technically should be outselling final fantasies if such a fucking thing was true so I don't see any evidence to really support any of that lol

I think you simply wish that was true.

lol here is your FF, lets print it out and you have your wish sir lol

PaT7VZF.jpeg


Look, you win. OMG BRO, they really did it WOOOOOW! /s lolz



This 1000x

This obsession with them wanting to be validated with having some turn based title CALLED FINAL FANTASY is hilarious

Even if we took bravely default 3 and they decided to say fuck it let's just name it "final fantasy" I think you'll have a lot of them fooled and then when they find out internally it was supposed to be bravely default they'll just start fucking complaining about some other dumb shit lol

Because each entry is different they're basically arguing over the title of something....

I'm just happy they still make turn based games and that's good enough for me whether or not one of the main final fantasies is that is completely irrelevant. I'm fine with them experimenting and keeping it action.

The entire thing is semantics and Square has a game if you want that with Final Fantasy, its called Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler etc

137276021529.jpg


Kataploom Kataploom I mean sure, but they already do, it called Bravely Default and Octopath

So fuck me man, not only do they have 1 spin off like this, they have 2....they literally have 2 fucking IP devoted to that old concept and folks are stuck on a NAME.
Click to expand...
People want the final fantasy name, items, attacks, etc. In those, haven't played them but maybe that's why they don't care about them
 
Kataploom said:
People want the final fantasy name, items, attacks, etc. In those, haven't played them but maybe that's why they don't care about them
Click to expand...
The name is Semitics and childish, print out the custom box art with the FF name and....there you go lol

The items and attacks is also greatly moot, play Bravely Default and Octopath and you'll see what I mean, they are literally Final Fantasy in everything but name.
 
EDMIX said:
The name is Semitics and childish, print out the custom box art with the FF name and....there you go lol

The items and attacks is also greatly moot, play Bravely Default and Octopath and you'll see what I mean, they are literally Final Fantasy in everything but name.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you know, people want the name, maybe they'll play them and won't care about it anymore but those games are not being advertised as "Final Fantasy but with other names", they might look like random JRPGs to many, that's what I mean.
 
AA devs for Expedition 33 is doing wonders with turn based so FF should go back to get the crown.
But really why not both. Its Final Fantasy with lots of stories to tell. Do Action RPG and Turn based for different games.
 
Absolutely. As someone mentioned already, with an added "twist" and "depth" to the original foundation like they used to do per iteration prior to and with FFX.
 
Last edited:
All Final Fantasy games excepting X and also the OG I/II were never truly "turn-based" to begin with

Active Time-Battle is not turn-based and never was

But I understand the general point of the OP even though it's not really accurate
 
No, mainline FF should stay AAA production values

Drell said:
In that case tell me why is it FF that should shift to real time and other licenses continue what FF did in the past and not the other way around? To me, the current paradigm is stupid because you'd better build up your big franchise on what made its success and try new ideas with new IPs.
Click to expand...
FF always tried to be mainstream and mainstream prefers action-RPG over turn-based
 
I'd be fine with FF7 Remake combat, traditional ATB, or turn based. I'd also be ok with 16's combat if they didn't strip every bit of RPG out of it and make it an action game.
 
I don't mind the Remake/Rebirth system (the latter being significantly improved from the former), but I think the ceiling on its appeal may not actually be especially high once we subtract the FF7 element from the equation. I don't view it as being obviously more commercially viable than turn based.

I don't think there is an obviously sensible direction for them to go in moving forward in order to support the production quality we see in the Remake trilogy. There is no consensus from fans on what they should do. It may be that without the appeal of FF7 they are going to lose some players whichever direction they decide to go in, and so they may have no choice but to assume they will sell less and budget accordingly.
 
As long as it follows the Clair Obscur style of turn based combat then YES please. The game's evade and parry action system fundamentally changed turn based combat for me to the point it's jarring to go back to the old,wait your turn to get hit bullshit.

How the hell has no japanese dev for over 35 years even thought to include player interaction for avoiding getting hit instead of standing there waiting to get hit like a moron,in a genre they basically coined,is beyond me...

This is what people complain about when they talk about the industry stagnating like shit:

A simple idea that changes a genre for the better...took over 35 years to implement and was not done by a big company with resources,noo,God forbid such companies invest in talent and ideas,too busy wasting budgets on DEI involvement and cometee approved slop...because apparently they needed to wait years upon years for a team of 30 french people in a small indie studio to school them in a genre they fucking created... embarassing!
 
Unquestionably, yes.

They've aptly demonstrated by now that they cannot make higher tier magic, limit breaks and Summons work in a satisfying way without Turn-Based combat. It's time to return to the series roots.

They're already well on their way with the last game finally having a coherent story. They just need to fix the combat and the franchise will shine again.
 
it doesn't matter if it's realtime or turn based. the important part is if the combat is engaging.

for example, the combat in Expedition 33 is 100x more engaging than the combat in Final Fantasy 16.
same for Resonance of Fate, which has a very unique turn based combat system that is engaging.
FF16 is dull because it is so baby easy that even the coolest combo possibilities can't make it interesting as you don't need your brain during any encounter.

what also isn't engaging is game #5182 that just goes for SNES era turn based combat with the same old mechanics.

so who cares if it's turn based or not? it has to be interesting
 
'What if we introduced a timing based damage avoidance mechanic which can effectively negate every other combat system in the game.'

I'm loving Exp33 and it's refreshing, and I kinda like that it doesn't give a single fuck about being balanced, but I think it's understandable why traditional JRPG developers have been reluctant to introduce a mechanic like that. If you want to make an intricate and remotely balanced turn-based combat system you cannot have a parry system as it's implemented in Exp33.

I think it is probably a fun novelty which will wear off rather than a new standard for the genre. Once you accept the reflex/timing based elements dominating the traditional non-timing elements, you are making a very different type of game and I think it inevitably leads to 'why don't we go the rest of the way and make an action game'.
 
First they should go back to being JRPG (Yes I am looking at you FF XVI).

Yes to turn base or any hybrid systems they want to test. I liked their experimentations in each game. XVI completely broke the formula by going full action and no RPG elements.


Clair Obscur : Expedition 33 showed that you can clearly do a dynamic turn based combat. EDIT : I am not saying this system is perfect and should be the basis for a new turn base system. Just saying it's possible to still experiment with turn base
 
Last edited:
Yes please and why not make the game in both 3D and 2D versions and allow us to either play in old school 2D style, or switch on the fly?

I do like the combat in FF7 remake and rebirth. A decent marriage and variety. FF16 not so much.
 
No, they just need to bring back fighting and growing with party members. I think they should create a new series that has turn based combat to see if it they could make it work.
 
It can go back, but it's also not necessary. I can enjoy The Witcher 3 style ARPG combat as much as Baldur's Gate 3's turn based combat.

But it was never about the combat anyways. It's about the world, characters, story, music, everything else. The newest Final Fantasies just coincidentally went more action focused while creating crappy stories and worlds at the same time.
 
Would like a Square budget FF with the Trails of series turn based combat system from CS3-Reverie also a FF spin on the quartz(marteria) system along with it.
 
Last edited:
Cyberpunkd said:
How is that working for them?

FFXIII - meh
FFXIII-2 - shit
LR - ok'ish
FFXV - meh
FFXVI - shit

FFXIII came out in 2009, they didn't make a good FF game for 16 years now.
Click to expand...
13-2 is the best one in 13 series
And 14 is one of the best FF games of all times

And cutting budgets to AA will make things only worse, at least now we have some good parts coming from money, like epicness of FF16 or beautifully directed cutscenes of FF7R2. Now we at least have blockbuster - visually stunning with lacking story/gameplay presentation. If budget would be cut - it'll be just bad everywhere. And turn based combat will not change anything, SE turn based games just as lacking (and Nier with action combat is fantastic)
 
Combat is not the problem with FF games (well it is, but not the main problem).
Whether they use TB or RT, they need to make it actually good.
But without improving other aspects (writing, quest design, exploration) combat alone will not save it.
 
FeralEcho said:
As long as it follows the Clair Obscur style of turn based combat then YES please. The game's evade and parry action system fundamentally changed turn based combat for me to the point it's jarring to go back to the old,wait your turn to get hit bullshit.
Click to expand...

My first one was Super Mario RPG so I've been a snob for action events in combat and seeing enemies in the world (no random encounter) since the beginning.

Expedition 33 is like my perfect real RPG, a FF antidote. It feels like what FF may have become in a different timeline.

People who bounce off it need a little gumption with the battle system. I lost my first fight with the boss before getting to the big overworld map. I did two smaller fights to level enough to get a healing spell and came back. But I ended up never using the spell because by that time I mastered the timing of his magic attack and I dodged every single one by the sound, in other words my brain thinks it's playing a Mario RPG sequel.
 
I have a soft spot for the old turn-based style, but honestly, so long as it's fun and engaging, I don't mind - as someone else said - there's room for both with a series this big.

They need to fix the abysmal writing and world-building, bloated production cycles, Westernized open-world design, and by-the-numbers flow of these games first. The combat should complement and heighten everything else - it should feel like a cohesive whole.

When your characters all spout off like they just stepped out of some teenager's Shonen fan-fic, it's hard to stay invested. When you're being showered with endless fetch-quest nonsense, or copy-pasta dungeon corridors, it's hard to care.

More than anything, go back to making games rather than merchandising a legacy franchise for mass-market appeal.
 
BlackTron said:
I did two smaller fights to level enough to get a healing spell and came back. But I ended up never using the spell because by that time I mastered the timing of his magic attack and I dodged every single one by the sound
Click to expand...

I love the system but this is a bit of a problem for.
At first I also equipped some healing/defensive spells but since you can parry/dodge everything, these spells are kind of useless.
A a character is low HP I am always "Should I heal it ? No, I'll parry if it's attacked". Of course it comes with a risk but in the end the system will probably makes me ignore all the defensive/healing option of the game.
After some people who don't want to engage with the Parry system or are not good at it will use these spells.
The dev probably thought in this way.
Still a bit weird that the main gimmick of the combat system makes useless healing.
 
calico said:
'What if we introduced a timing based damage avoidance mechanic which can effectively negate every other combat system in the game.'

I'm loving Exp33 and it's refreshing, and I kinda like that it doesn't give a single fuck about being balanced, but I think it's understandable why traditional JRPG developers have been reluctant to introduce a mechanic like that. If you want to make an intricate and remotely balanced turn-based combat system you cannot have a parry system as it's implemented in Exp33.

I think it is probably a fun novelty which will wear off rather than a new standard for the genre. Once you accept the reflex/timing based elements dominating the traditional non-timing elements, you are making a very different type of game and I think it inevitably leads to 'why don't we go the rest of the way and make an action game'.
Click to expand...
You could keep a parry system and just made it reduce damage by 50% and balance the combat around it, thus keeping it relevant but without negating everything else.
 
DelireMan7 said:
I love the system but this is a bit of a problem for.
At first I also equipped some healing/defensive spells but since you can parry/dodge everything, these spells are kind of useless.
A a character is low HP I am always "Should I heal it ? No, I'll parry if it's attacked". Of course it comes with a risk but in the end the system will probably makes me ignore all the defensive/healing option of the game.
After some people who don't want to engage with the Parry system or are not good at it will use these spells.
The dev probably thought in this way.
Still a bit weird that the main gimmick of the combat system makes useless healing.
Click to expand...

The usefulness of heal is dependent on your timing effectiveness. You pretty much laid it out; weighing the risk of failing the timing (it might not be the same attack you've mastered, maybe it's a different one you're still iffy with), so instead of yawning pressing buttons, you are stopping to think about the battle and weighing multiple paths to winning. Even if you know the attack: you're paying careful attention to the game eager to get it right because the fuckup will ruin the match.

Maybe I could have won my first encounter with the boss had I leveled more and walked in with the healing spell. Presenting an alternate way to win faster without knowing the patterns yet. All the enemies have different attacks with different timings. You're not going to know them all, you're going to get hit and need to heal at some point, unless it's just easier to lose battles while learning and do them over again.

The better you are at the game from experience playing it, the more comfortable you feel plowing it without needing help. That's just a good game 🤷‍♂️
 
BlackTron said:
The usefulness of heal is dependent on your timing effectiveness. You pretty much laid it out; weighing the risk of failing the timing (it might not be the same attack you've mastered, maybe it's a different one you're still iffy with), so instead of yawning pressing buttons, you are stopping to think about the battle and weighing multiple paths to winning. Even if you know the attack: you're paying careful attention to the game eager to get it right because the fuckup will ruin the match.

Maybe I could have won my first encounter with the boss had I leveled more and walked in with the healing spell. Presenting an alternate way to win faster without knowing the patterns yet. All the enemies have different attacks with different timings. You're not going to know them all, you're going to get hit and need to heal at some point, unless it's just easier to lose battles while learning and do them over again.

The better you are at the game from experience playing it, the more comfortable you feel plowing it without needing help. That's just a good game 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

I feel like losing a character is not as punishing as it sounds. Especially due to the fact that if you revive them, they can act pretty quickly (and I am glad for that, it was such an annoying thing in old games) and even if low in life, you can just parried the next attack.

But indeed, it depends on playstyle, skill, knowledge... I am only 8 hours in so it might change, but I already ditch out all healing and defensive spells because I never feel the need to use them. Only on some bosses, I use 1 or 2 healing items, but I always feel like it a wasted turn.

Still love the system.
 
DelireMan7 said:
I feel like losing a character is not as punishing as it sounds. Especially due to the fact that if you revive them, they can act pretty quickly (and I am glad for that, it was such an annoying thing in old games) and even if low in life, you can just parried the next attack.

But indeed, it depends on playstyle, skill, knowledge... I am only 8 hours in so it might change, but I already ditch out all healing and defensive spells because I never feel the need to use them. Only on some bosses, I use 1 or 2 healing items, but I always feel like it a wasted turn.

Still love the system.
Click to expand...

Probably better with timing than most people if you are managing to do that without losing any fights and hardly any healing. What difficulty are you on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Windows Central] 'Clair Obscur: Expedition 33' utterly destroys Square Enix's gaslighting over Final Fantasy turn-based combat
2 3
132
938
Andrew Evenstar replied
Yoshinori Kitase : The Real Grandfather of Final Fantasy
28
31
Walliwallipaloo replied
Square Enix Appears to Confirm Entire Final Fantasy VII Remake Series is Coming to Switch 2
News 
27
396
MagiusNecros replied
Final Fantasy Tactics: The Ivalice Chronicles Releases Sept 30, 2025
News  2 3 4 5
227
228
TonberrysKnife replied
Turn-Based Battles Aren’t Dead—‘Metaphor: ReFantazio’ Designer Shares His Approach to Modernizing the Genre
37
2K
kremiso replied
Top Bottom