Why do people call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based?

[Yunru]

So I've just started playing this marvel of a game, and I've found it's been greatly mis-sold as a turn based game.

Let me describe to you a turn based game, chess:
The white player makes a move.
The black player makes a move.
This then loops through their turns until the game ends.

Now let me describe FF7's combat:
Everyone stands around waiting to come off of global cooldown so they can attack at any point.
...
The only parts of that which are turn-based is when an animation gets delayed by a previous one, and the order in which you can issue orders if multiple PC's are off of global cooldown.

[Zevox]

Because a lot of people don't make the distinction between normal turn-based combat and Final Fantasy's "Active Time Battle" (often abbreviated ATB) system as clear as it should be, and just think "the characters take turns, therefore it's turn-based." But yes, there is a pretty substantial difference. You'll find that style of combat on most Final Fantasy games from 4 onward and on Chrono Trigger.

For Final Fantasy games with actual turn-based gameplay and not the ATB your options are 1-3 and 10, as far as I'm aware. Maybe the MMOs (11 and 14), I'm not sure how those play.

[Anteros]

The mmos play like every mmo game ever. You have abilities that have cooldowns and a set time between attacks, but it's not turn based in any real sense.

For ff7, I think turn based is close enough for a descriptor. Sure, if you sit there long enough the enemy will go ahead based on their speed stat, but that's true of many, many turn based games. Even chess is supposed to give you a limit on how long you can delay before losing your turn. It's a minor enough difference that the term turn based still gets the basic gameplay loop across.

[Zevox]

For ff7, I think turn based is close enough for a descriptor. Sure, if you sit there long enough the enemy will go ahead based on their speed stat, but that's true of many, many turn based games.
No, no it isn't. Certainly not among single-player video games - the only such examples I can think of are multi-player, competitive games where allowing unlimited turn time would become an issue in competition. And even that's still not the same thing at all - in that you're just limited in how long you have to take your turn, the time you take on your turn won't literally allow your opponent to take additional turns.

[Man_Over_Game]

So I've just started playing this marvel of a game, and I've found it's been greatly mis-sold as a turn based game.

Let me describe to you a turn based game, chess:
The white player makes a move.
The black player makes a move.
This then loops through their turns until the game ends.


What you describe is one method of turns, but it doesn't really leave room for anything else. Consider the system we had for Final Fantasy X (which did have different levels of weight/wait for your turns) and that was literally a pause-while-you-make-your-decisions game. You could have two actions while your opponent had one, still a turn-based game.

FF7 having the ATB bars doesn't disqualify it from being a turn-based game, similarly how Lost Odyssey and the Mario & Luigi RPGs having quick-time events in the middle of combat doesn't necessarily make them action games.

Partially because you can change the ATB system to having a pause almost all of the time, but mostly because playing it identically to a turn-based game will get you much further than playing it as an action-based one.

We've hit a point in gaming where being pedantic doesn't really help identify the game. Describing FF7 as a turn-based JRPG will tell you pretty much everything you need to know, even if it was made by a Western team, or even if it doesn't take "turns" in the classical sense. You can almost immediately make a decision about whether or not you'd like to try it.

[Yunru]

but that's true of many, many turn based games. Even chess is supposed to give you a limit on how long you can delay before losing your turn. It's a minor enough difference that the term turn based still gets the basic gameplay loop across.Actually chess doesn't have a turn time limit. Rather, for each game you have a total playtime limit before you lose.

Which can be necessary to stop *******s from just dragging out ranked matches, but also entirely unnecessary for single-player games.


Describing FF7 as a turn-based JRPG will tell you pretty much everything you need to know, even if it was made by a Western team, or even if it doesn't take "turns" in the classical sense.
Except it won't, because what you're describing is exactly an action game, not a turn based one. A turn based game relies on strategy, with player reflexes having no impact. An action game relies on not just your strategy, but how quickly you can develop and implement it.

Edit: I'm also being tired apparently, because I didn't note that you're presenting action as the opposite of turn based when it isn't. Real time is the opposite of turn based.

[Man_Over_Game]

Except it won't, because what you're describing is exactly an action game, not a turn based one. A turn based game relies on strategy, with player reflexes having no impact. An action game relies on not just your strategy, but how quickly you can develop and implement it.

I think you might just have a rigid perspective. Describing Starcraft as "More Action than Strategy" might, uh, get some strong opinions.

Heck, there's even Turn-based Strategy-Action games! The Unholy War, Wrath Unleashed, and Archon all sit perfectly in this category.

Is FF7 more of an Action game than its predecessors? Sure. Does that make it one? Probably not what most folks would say. I know that if you tried to market Lost Odyssey as an "Action RPG", it'd probably make some folks upset.



I guess, the question is, does calling it anything else at all helpful?

[Narkis]

Let us examine a turn-based game that is a little more complex: Dungeons and Dragons. (I hope we agree Dungeons and Dragons is actually a turn-based game. Otherwise I cannot possibly explain why people call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based)

In Dungeons and Dragons, combat is divided into rounds, with each character taking a single turn for each of those rounds. The difference with chess is that there are more than two characters acting on each round and the order on which they do depends on their Initiative value. But the fundamental rule does not change: Every character takes a single turn per round, no matter how high or how low their Initiative is.

Now, Final Fantasy and the games that work like it take it a step further. There are still characters that act one after the other, and there is still an Initiative-like value that determines the order on which they act. But there is no round, and the fundamental rule is broken. Characters with high Initiative not only act first, but they also act more often. The fact that people's turns are based on a bar filling up instead of comparing a value does not really matter. If we sped the game up 1000x so that bars filled near-instantly it wouldn't alter the mechanics of combat in any way, and it would become obvious that combat is really based on turns.

edit: partially ninjaed by Man_Over_Game.

[Yunru]

I think you might just have a rigid perspective. Describing Starcraft as "More Action than Strategy" might, uh, get some strong opinions.

Heck, there's even Turn-based Strategy-Action games! The Unholy War, Wrath Unleashed, and Archon all sit perfectly in this category.

Is FF7 more of an Action game than its predecessors? Sure. Does that make it one? Probably not what most folks would say. I know that if you tried to market Lost Odyssey as an "Action RPG", it'd probably make some folks upset.



I guess, the question is, does calling it anything else at all helpful?Ummm... Yes?
Of course it does.
Can you imagine how inaccurate calling Starcraft a turn based stragey would be? It entices a completely different audience.

Advance Wars is a turn based strategy, Red Alert is a real time strategy.

D&D is a turned based RPG, FF7 is a real time RPG.


Let us examine a turn-based game that is a little more complex: Dungeons and Dragons. (I hope we agree Dungeons and Dragons is actually a turn-based game. Otherwise I cannot possibly explain why people call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based)

In Dungeons and Dragons, combat is divided into rounds, with each character taking a single turn for each of those rounds. The difference with chess is that there are more than two characters acting on each round and the order on which they do depends on their Initiative value. But the fundamental rule does not change: Every character takes a single turn per round, no matter how high or how low their Initiative is.

Now, Final Fantasy and the games that work like it take it a step further. There are still characters that act one after the other, and there is still an Initiative-like value that determines the order on which they act. But there is no round, and the fundamental rule is broken. Characters with high Initiative not only act first, but they also act more often. The fact that people's turns are based on a bar filling up instead of comparing a value does not really matter. If we sped the game up 1000x so that bars filled near-instantly it wouldn't alter the mechanics of combat in any way, and it would become obvious that combat is really based on turns.

edit: partially ninjaed by Man_Over_Game.
Except by removing said round structure, and making turns skippable/delayable if you don't react in time, it is no longer turn based, it has become real-time.

[Narkis]

Except by removing said round structure, and making turns skippable/delayable if you don't react in time, it is no longer turn based, it has become real-time.

Assume I add a houserule to Dungeons and Dragons: If you don't take your turn in X minutes, you are skipped. Does this make it real-time?

[Yunru]

Assume I add a houserule to Dungeons and Dragons: If you don't take your turn in X minutes, you are skipped. Does this make it real-time?

Yes! Because now you have to act in real time. The clue's in the name.

[Tvtyrant]

Because the majority of people don't agree with your definition or don't care, to answer the original question. I wouldn't call FF7 real time, that implies to me that all of the characters move at once all the time (ie as in actual time.) Turn Based implies an abstraction, that for convenience's sake people move in sets or one at a time. Each person takes a turn, you and the monster don't attack at the same time or move simultaneously.

Even if it isn't perfectly accurate it is good enough that the majority of people use it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can you imagine how inaccurate calling Starcraft a turn based stragey would be? It entices a completely different audience.

Sure, but the "Real Time" of "Real Time Strategy" is really important with Starcraft, pretty much half of the game in fact.

Is it important in FF7? Probably not, considering you can all but turn it off on Wait mode.

And I'd question if calling FF7 a "Real Time RPG" would appeal to a different audience than the people who played every other Final Fantasy before it. Heck, it barely deterred people from playing FFXIII, and that was a much worse game for the time, with a lot more emphasis on the real-time elements.

[Yunru]

Is it important in FF7? Probably not, considering you can all but turn it off on Wait mode.
Wait mode turns it off in exactly two situations: when an animation is playing, or when you are selecting a target. It's about as much of a turned based system as Fallout 3 and 4's VATS is.

[Narkis]

Yes! Because now you have to act in real time. The clue's in the name.

Well, here's the answer to your question. People who call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based disagree with you in this. A turn-based game doesn't suddenly become real-time just because a time limit is added.

You can keep thinking people are wrong to think that, but I'd wager you're unlikely to convince them of this.

[Yunru]

Well, here's the answer to your question. People who call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based disagree with you in this. A turn-based game doesn't suddenly become real-time just because a time limit is added.

You can keep thinking people are wrong to think that, but I'd wager you're unlikely to convince them of this.
Well that's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
I mean, people disagreeing or not doesn't change the definition. In a turn based game, each actor acts in sequential turns. In FF7, there are no turns. By definition it cannot be turn-based.

[Tvtyrant]

Well that's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
I mean, people disagreeing or not doesn't change the definition. In a turn based game, each actor acts in sequential turns. In FF7, there are no turns. By definition it cannot be turn-based.

It literally answers your question in the OP, so it is in fact entirely relevant.

I would argue turn base implies each person acts within a separate little time pocket, where everyone else stands around watching while they do things (hence they get a turn.) Real time means they all move at the same time. But how you want to define it is up to you, it's just not going to change how the rest of us do.

[Traab]

Its closer to turn based than most of the rpgs that came after the ps2. Its honestly one of the reasons I stopped playing the games. I hated the change over to every character running around a battle map with the monster. I much prefer the old style "bad guy stands there, good guys stand here, lets (more or less) take turns. No its not precisely turn based as its possible to "lose" a turn or gain extras, but its close enough to the point for a quick descriptor as thats how it tends to work when you actively play the game. Bad guys attack, good guys attack, bad guys attack, good guys attack. Every now and then one side or the other gets to attack again due to speed differences, but in general, thats how it goes. Im assuming we are talking the original version not the remake right?

[Yunru]

Yes, and kinda no.
It's been niggling at me while watching let's plays of the remake. A lot were saying the had doubts about changing the battle system when the only goddamn difference is there's now basic attacks, and the system can handle more than one animation at once.

[InvisibleBison]

I mean, people disagreeing or not doesn't change the definition.

Yes it does. Words don't have inherent meanings; they only mean what people use them to mean.

[Rynjin]

Well that's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
I mean, people disagreeing or not doesn't change the definition. In a turn based game, each actor acts in sequential turns. In FF7, there are no turns. By definition it cannot be turn-based.

Except the definition of turn based is created by the community. It is a context based, medium based, industry based term. The term's definition is created by a consensus.

It is an industry term agreed upon by a vast majority of the people who not only play games, but create games. The creators of Final Fantasy 7 say it's a turn based game. Most players say it's a turn based game. It is sold by every vendor on the planet using the description turn based game.

To turn your own words back on you, you disagreeing or not doesn't change the definition.

The sheer arrogance seemingly apparent in your post astounds me. Please don't try to argue definitions like they're completely rigid and immutable, especially not when you're trying to apply a rigid definition that may be correct in one context to a completely different context. Chess and other board games do not have the same communities or definitions as video games.

[Narkis]

Well that's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
I mean, people disagreeing or not doesn't change the definition. In a turn based game, each actor acts in sequential turns. In FF7, there are no turns. By definition it cannot be turn-based.

Definitions are not laws of physics, unchanging and proven true by observation and logic. They are conventions, commonly agreed labels we put on concepts so we can talk to each other about them. And it is very possible to disagree on definitions.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This is the classic example. Without descending into solipsism, there are two possible answers:
If one defines sound as "a material wave propagating through the air" then the answer is yes. A tree falling does in fact cause such a wave to be created.
If one defines sound as "the sensation of hearing, by which the ears are used to detect the presence of such a wave" then the answer is no. There is no one present for such a sensation to happen.

This is a classic example because there is no correct answer. It depends entirely on the definition one personally uses, and it is impossible to discuss productively without being exceedingly clear about one's definitions, as well as accepting of the fact that those definitions may, in fact, not be the same as those of the person you are discussing with.

[Zevox]

All of the haggling over what to call it seems a bit ridiculous considering that the people who designed the system gave it a distinct name. It is the Active Time Battle, or ATB, system. It has elements of both turn-based systems (in that characters act in distinct turns) and real-time ones (in that when those turns occur depends on how much real time passes when it's not their turn). It is certainly something distinct from any ordinary turn-based or real-time combat systems, unarguably.


Yes, and kinda no.
It's been niggling at me while watching let's plays of the remake. A lot were saying the had doubts about changing the battle system when the only goddamn difference is there's now basic attacks, and the system can handle more than one animation at once.
Oh no, there's a lot more differences than that. Final Fantasy 7 Remake is a true action-RPG, with you in constant control of one character at a time. There's no more pretense of taking turns of any sort - the "ATB" in that game is more of a meter that you spend to activate special moves, like an EX/Super meter in a fighting game, nothing at all like the turn-timing bar of ATB games. Attacks have actual hitboxes to determine when they connect, rather than hits or misses being based on RNG (mostly; at least one enemy type is able to break that particular rule). The environment that you're fighting in can matter, limiting your space to do things like dodge. Blocking is actually useful rather than largely a waste of time. There's the stagger mechanic, and consequent increased focus on taking advantage of enemy weaknesses, both of the obvious elemental type and of the less obvious mechanical type. FF7R is a whole different ball game from the original - and greatly improved for it, in my personal opinion.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd argue that the ATB system, especially some versions I've seen where the game does pause while selecting actions, is a variation on turn based combat. It's as much real time as me using an egg timer, a bell, and a rubber mallet to enforce two minute turns in D&D (which keeps rounds out of real time by several orders of magnitude, but they really chad no chance once they dropped to six seconds).

It's inferior to FFX's Conditional Turn-Based Battle, which from my understanding operates under a Tick system (think Exalted) rather than a Round system, but then again strict turn based is just better than hybrid in my opinion. Wish CBT had shown up in more games (I believe it was in a LotR one, sand that's as far as my knowledge goes).

The difference is that in real time everybody acts at once. ATB might have a variable turn order, but characters still act in turns (which is why you could argue that KotOR is turn based,and I believe it is on the simulation level).

[Quizatzhaderac]

In both an ATB system and a round/turn based system there are times when you can take an action and times you cannot, hence there are "turns".

In a real time game there can never be occasions when you can't act purely because of the clock.

ATB is unlike a true turn system in that it's possible for it to be multiple characters' turns at the same time, in this case, it does matter the speed at which one enters commands. The question then becomes, how much, and which situation is it closer to?

If a FF7-style battle occurred between two human players with the ATB filling at 1000X, the one who enters commands twice as quickly will have nearly a 2X advantage.

If a FF7-style battle occurred between two human players with the ATB filling at 1/1000X, the one who enters commands faster would have no noticeable advantage.

At the actual speed the ATB gauges fill, and range of speeds typical players will enter commands in, the faster player still has a pretty small advantage.

The real difference is between a player that engages the timed aspect and one that ignores it. This is what I'd call a "trivial mechanic", where engaging it is important but mastering it can be taken for granted. When many people analyze video games, they entirely disregard the trivial mechanics.

[Kish]

It literally answers your question in the OP, so it is in fact entirely relevant.
Yes, this. Your post text never indicates a desire for anyone to answer anything for you, but the post title has a question in it.

Now that we've established that, in fact, you meant something more like "People shouldn't call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based," we can all get on with our lives.

[Anteros]

Yes, this. Your post text never indicates a desire for anyone to answer anything for you, but the post title has a question in it.

Now that we've established that, in fact, you meant something more like "People shouldn't call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based," we can all get on with our lives.

I mean, only after we point out how wrong they are.


Yes it does. Words don't have inherent meanings; they only mean what people use them to mean.

This is exactly right. If you find yourself arguing with a group that the words they all use to communicate successfully are wrong, then it's you that's wrong.

[Zevox]

I mean, only after we point out how wrong they are.
But they're not exactly wrong - though not entirely right, either. While it's not entirely incorrect to call FF7 turn-based, since the ATB is partially a turn-based system, if you just refer to it as such you very much run the risk of misleading people who aren't familiar with Final Fantasy's particular variant on turn-based mechanics into believing that it plays differently than it actually does. It seems to me like Yunru feels like they were mislead in that manner prior to trying the game, and it's hard to argue that someone in that situation isn't justified being irked about it if they're the sort of person who would like more normal turn-based mechanics but don't like the ATB system.

[danzibr]

It's already been mentioned, but hey, I'll chime in.

I distinguish between ATB and turn-based. In my mind, ATB does not fall under turn-based.
FFI, II, III, X, Tactics are turn-based. I'd specifically call Tactics SRPG though.
FFIV (which was novel because you could use Kain's jump to dodge attacks), V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XIII are ATB.
FFXII, XV are... I guess I'd say ARPG. I'm guessing XI and XIV are too.

Granted you could also dodge things with jump in Tactics...

[Zevox]

FFXII, XV are... I guess I'd say ARPG.
My understanding is that 15 is, yes (though I haven't played it). 12 is not though - it's Real Time With Pause. Which is another technically-sorta-turn-based system, though one very much closer to the real time end of the spectrum than the ATB system is. It's rather different from the rest of the franchise that way, more comparable to games like KotOR or Dragon Age. Especially Dragon Age, since both of them have very similar systems for programming non-controlled party member behavior.

[danzibr]

My understanding is that 15 is, yes (though I haven't played it). 12 is not though - it's Real Time With Pause. Which is another technically-sorta-turn-based system, though one very much closer to the real time end of the spectrum than the ATB system is. It's rather different from the rest of the franchise that way, more comparable to games like KotOR or Dragon Age. Especially Dragon Age, since both of them have very similar systems for programming non-controlled party member behavior.
Thansk for the response!

I'm really thinking the running around part of it.

Lightning Returns (which, for as much crap as it gets, I really enjoyed, no joke one of my favorites in the series) is a kinda hybrid. Touch a baddie, go into the battle map, then free movement (albeit a bit slow).

So uh... I guess in my mind turn-based and ATB both take you to separate battle screens, ARPG does not. Maybe non-standard. But even with battle not occurring in a separate screen, there can be major differences (like as you mentioned with KotOR and Dragon Age).

I guess you could make a little square chart out of it. Different screen + pause: turn-based. Different screen + time flows: ATB. Same screen + pause: ARPG???. Same screen + time flows: definite ARPG. (At least in my mind.)

EDIT: Man, me mentally thinking same screen alone makes an ARPG is really dumb. I mean, the A is for Action. I definitely wouldn't call it turn-based or ATB, dunno what to call it though.

Or maybe not really dumb... after all, in FFXII you can run around and stuff. Yeah, XII is pretty action-y. Same for Baldur's Gate or KotOR or Dragon Age. Can pause if you wish. For that matter, XV has this setting.

[Bohandas]

So I've just started playing this marvel of a game, and I've found it's been greatly mis-sold as a turn based game.

Let me describe to you a turn based game, chess:
The white player makes a move.
The black player makes a move.
This then loops through their turns until the game ends.

Now let me describe FF7's combat:
Everyone stands around waiting to come off of global cooldown so they can attack at any point.
...
The only parts of that which are turn-based is when an animation gets delayed by a previous one, and the order in which you can issue orders if multiple PC's are off of global cooldown.

I sympathize with you. I've had massive arguments in the past with people who tried to claim that Baldur's Gate was turnbased because you can pause it. I'm still trying to suss out the insane troll logic behind that one.

[Cazero]

I sympathize with you. I've had massive arguments in the past with people who tried to claim that Baldur's Gate was turnbased because you can pause it. I'm still trying to suss out the insane troll logic behind that one.
I'm not sure about Baldur's Gate, but Neverwinter Night is definitely turn-based. It's obvious once you notice that the D&D rules about attack restrictions from movement are enforced. There is a clear "new round" tick that allows your character to do stuff.

[Winthur]

I'm not sure about Baldur's Gate, but Neverwinter Night is definitely turn-based.
The Infinity Engine games and Neverwinter Nights work off a Real Time With Pause system that is not truly turn-based. While it's true that Baldur's Gate measures spell durations in units like turns and rounds, there is a handful of concessions the games are making compared to a truly turn-based game, including a less-than-transparent quasi-initiative system and certain odd mechanical interactions that technically shouldn't be possible. There's a system of "ticks" in place, each taking place at roughly 0,6 second intervals.

[Psyren]

Definitions are not laws of physics, unchanging and proven true by observation and logic. They are conventions, commonly agreed labels we put on concepts so we can talk to each other about them. And it is very possible to disagree on definitions.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This is the classic example. Without descending into solipsism, there are two possible answers:
If one defines sound as "a material wave propagating through the air" then the answer is yes. A tree falling does in fact cause such a wave to be created.
If one defines sound as "the sensation of hearing, by which the ears are used to detect the presence of such a wave" then the answer is no. There is no one present for such a sensation to happen.

This is a classic example because there is no correct answer. It depends entirely on the definition one personally uses, and it is impossible to discuss productively without being exceedingly clear about one's definitions, as well as accepting of the fact that those definitions may, in fact, not be the same as those of the person you are discussing with.

I would bloody sig this whole post if I had room.

[Man_Over_Game]

Lightning Returns (which, for as much crap as it gets, I really enjoyed, no joke one of my favorites in the series) is a kinda hybrid. Touch a baddie, go into the battle map, then free movement (albeit a bit slow).

With you right there. I've played a lot of RPGs over the years, and LR is the only one I can think of that really captures the strategy that a lot of folks want out of an RPG. Sure, FF15 was interesting, but the combat was pretty shallow and was fairly unresponsive to skill level.

Lightning Returns didn't have the best plot, but probably has the most fun I've gotten out of combat in an RPG that's come out in the last 10 years. The only one that I can think of that comes close to rivaling it is Chrono Cross (as mastery of its magic system is both taxing and rewarding).

[Zevox]

So uh... I guess in my mind turn-based and ATB both take you to separate battle screens, ARPG does not.
No, that's really a separate thing entirely. Just to give a couple of examples, the "Tales of" franchise is very much an action RPG series, yet takes you to a separate screen for combat, whereas Quest 64 was a turn-based RPG that did not take you to a separate screen when combat started. It'd be more than fair to say that it's much more common for turn-based RPGs to take you to a separate screen for combat and action RPGs not to, but it's not even universal to either style, much less a defining element.

Really though, there's enough variety out there for RPG combat systems that you need to get fairly specific in your definitions to be fully understood. Which is kind of a problem that RPGs have in a lot of ways, actually.

[Anymage]

I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out how, given animation times vs. bar refill times, it's unlikely for one playable character in an ATB game to lap another character and double turn them. It's possible if you pile speed on one character while neglecting another, but in practice action economy is important enough that people will want to make everybody speed demons if possible. So while a properly hasty party might wind up double turning an enemy (depending on specifics of animation times vs. bar fill times), characters usually wind up with an initiativelike turn order in practice.

[Razade]

Yeah, the above is really my take on it. It's not so much a cool down as actively showing you how the time is being calculated to provide each character a turn. There is still a turn order and if they hid the clock from you, I don't think anyone would be here disputing whether it was turn based or not. These same functions are under the hood of Playstation era RPGs. You just don't see them because it's in the code and not itemized on a cool bar that shines.

[Knaight]

I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out how, given animation times vs. bar refill times, it's unlikely for one playable character in an ATB game to lap another character and double turn them. It's possible if you pile speed on one character while neglecting another, but in practice action economy is important enough that people will want to make everybody speed demons if possible. So while a properly hasty party might wind up double turning an enemy (depending on specifics of animation times vs. bar fill times), characters usually wind up with an initiativelike turn order in practice.

That's pretty irrelevant though - a structure where I take two turns, you take a turn, I take two turns, you take a turn is clearly turn based, what with all the turn taking involved. Similarly a fully real time game where actions are likely to end up paced in an alternating fashion (e.g. some of the more sluggish soulslikes) is still not turn based.

[Zombimode]

I sympathize with you. I've had massive arguments in the past with people who tried to claim that Baldur's Gate was turnbased because you can pause it. I'm still trying to suss out the insane troll logic behind that one.

Baldurs Gate (and all of the other Infinity Enginge games, as well als both NeverWinter Nights, and both KotORs, and I think Dragon Age as well) have internal structures that are strictly turn-based. They differ from each other as much as the respective rule sets differ.

They all run on a time-tick system, where turn starts and turn ends happen at specific timestamps. The turn starts and turn ends are not relative. They are true for all actors.
What can happen during a turn depends on the rules and the actors abilities. For instance, you can cast one spell in Baldursgate per turn. No matter how fast the spell is cast, an actor HAS to wait until the next turn to cast another spell*. And casting a spell also means you can't attack or use an ability or item this turn.
WHEN an action happens depends on other factors such as action speed (like casting times), initiative and movement.


One way to describe these games is that they run on a real-time engine that has a turn-based structure superimposed on it.


Genre-wise, Baldurs Gate & co are of course NOT turn-based games, simply because the gameplay is not that of a turn-based game.
But I hope you can see now why some people describe these games as turn-based :-)


*there are effects of course that can change this limit

[Yunru]

I mean, defining something as turn based because it works on ticks is kinda... Eh?
Call of Duty runs on ticks, and that definitely isn't turn based.

[Rodin]

I mean, defining something as turn based because it works on ticks is kinda... Eh?
Call of Duty runs on ticks, and that definitely isn't turn based.

What? No it doesn't. Read up-thread where the underlying turn-based structure of Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter Nights is described. There is nothing like that in Call of Duty. I don't fire my gun once a turn, and two players pressing the fire key simultaneously will fire simultaneously instead of one player firing first based on initiative order. Infinity Engine games simulate a D&D turn and then execute that term in real time.

Also as people have noted upthread, most people don't consider tick-based as turn based anyway. It's considered Real-time-with-Pause, because you can freeze the game on any individual tick and issue commands but the action appears to be in real time to the player otherwise.

[Yunru]

What? No it doesn't. Read up-thread where the underlying turn-based structure of Baldur's Gate/Neverwinter Nights is described. There is nothing like that in Call of Duty. I don't fire my gun once a turn, and two players pressing the fire key simultaneously will fire simultaneously instead of one player firing first based on initiative order. Infinity Engine games simulate a D&D turn and then execute that term in real time..
Umm. Yes, you do. Literally once per tick is the best you can do. The only difference is the turn time and "time until turn skip" is much smaller.

It's the extreme end of the scale, but it's not beyond the scale.

[Winthur]

This thread reminds me of how I once had an argument with someone that D&D isn't turn-based because you don't have to spend your turn on combat maneuvers and instead can just sit down outside of a fight, pull out some popcorn, and watch other people. Because Final Fantasy doesn't have a "Skip Turn" button, and forces you to act like an useful person. "Being deliberately subversive as to how combat works" defines roleplaying, apparently.

I think it's reasonable to argue that Final Fantasy 7 is called turn-based because everything and nothing is at the same time. My favourite turn-based RPG is GTA: San Andreas with its robust stat system and the fact that I can't get anywhere in a car without turning the vehicle.

[Zevox]

Umm. Yes, you do. Literally once per tick is the best you can do. The only difference is the turn time and "time until turn skip" is much smaller.

It's the extreme end of the scale, but it's not beyond the scale.
No, that is not how that works. You are conflating attacks taking a set amount of time because they need to be animated with time and attack opportunities themselves being segmented into set turns. Counting frames in an action game is not the same as a turn-based system.

[Zombimode]

Umm. Yes, you do. Literally once per tick is the best you can do. The only difference is the turn time and "time until turn skip" is much smaller.

It's the extreme end of the scale, but it's not beyond the scale.

You can of course try to define the update cycle of real-time games as "turns" but you loose the meaning along the way.

The turns in Baldurs Gate, NWN etc. are makro structures that bundle specific things that can happen within them. This goes beyond the trivial update cycle of the gamestate which includes *everything*. Instead they represent a model of a game system within the context of the video game. In that they are compareable to, say, the implementation of an attack roll.

Like it was already said, RTWP games whether they run on an internal turn structure or not, are NOT turn-based games in the genre sense.

The distinction is meaningful, though, since RTWP games that do have a turn structure (BG, NWN, KotRO, etc.) really do play differently from RTWP games that DON'T (Pillars of Eternity).