Why do people call Final Fantasy 7 turn-based?

[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).