I myself prefer real-time fighting for everthing just to have fluid control and choreographing a bad ass fight is just plain fun. Jade Empire is definatly somin im looking foward to!

Depends. BG: DA I and II and Champions of Norrath are some of my very favorite games of this generation, but on a whole, I greatly prefer turn-based. Mindless hacking and slashing gets boring after a while; the strategy required in most turn-based games adds an entirely new dimension of depth to the game, and really sucks me in. I like to be able to think about my next move, and create a battle plan. I' m very micromanagement oriented, so I like this kind of depth that turn-based usually affords.

But I can' t resist a great real-time game like BG: DA either. :)

I think I prefer real time. Turn based is fun for a while, but, if I' m not careful, I can find myself wanting to nap at the end of some long journeys and countless battles. So, the button mashing and control moving keeps me more interested.

Hey, nobody said I was a rocket scientist. I like pretty lights and moving things.

I prefer a mix. (A La Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic) But both have their qualities.

Turned based


squaresoft



Front Mission 3


Best turn-based battle system ever - and proof that turn based rules the roost. I got sent BG DA II for review and I' ve got to say it' s amazing it has so much going for it when you consider that the combat system is as flimsy as hell. Not so much hack and slash as it hack...and no slash. It' s like the budget couldn' t extend to multiple animations or even combos.

Real time just doesn' t offer enough depth for me, well, not BG' s brand, at least. Yeah, BG is fun (for whatever reason, I think it' s just because it does mindless gameplay so very very well) but it soon becomes monotonous.

KOTOR didn' t work badly, but then it barely held my interest.

Jesus, maybe I secretly hate games?

help.

That' s one of the main reasons I' m not a big fan of RPGs... they almost all of tern-based combat. I don' t like having to wait my turn to attack only to have it " miss" when it was clearly a hit. If I miss the enemy I don' t want it to be based on luck, I want it to be based on skill (lack of skill actually). So I' d rather my RPG not be turn-based but something more like Ninja Gaiden.

Preacher: I loved FM 3 myself. I' m assuming you' re psyched for FM 4? However, FF Tactics is my favorite game of all time; very similar to FM 3, just not using mechs.

However, perfection in turn-based, while owned by Square, is in their FF series. With the Materia, Junction, and Sphere Grid systems leading the way, and the addition of the ATB bar for an extra bit of panache, they walk the line between pure turn-based and semi-real-time (ala FF X-2).

As for BG: DA II, it has more depth than many hack ' n slash games. The skill system and the Workshop to upgrade weapons, armor, and accessories really opens the game up better than the original did. I love it myself. Btw, have you tried Champions of Norrath?

I' ve got a very keen eye on Front Mission 4 and Front Mission Online (though I doubt the UK will see that, online or off). Front Mission 3' s storyline was fantastic, the battle system absolutely brilliant and the mech building utterly compelling.


As for Norrath, I' ve not played it and don' t intend to unless I' m asked to for a review. In all honesty, it' s a series I' ve ignored for a long time. When my money has to spent on games, I tend to lean towards Japanese-developed games or AAA western developed titles.

Just a matter of preferences I suppose, but the whole " orcs and wizards" thing just doesn' t do it for me.

BTW, I thought the Sphere Grid was excellent, I just have issues with the length of FFX relative to the abilities and power required to defeat Sin.

Preacher: As for the length of FF X in direct relation to the pace at which you gain power, I wouldn' t know. I always take the time to do everything in any FF, in order to make my party truly powerful. That' s most of the fun, IMO.

I also prefer the Japanese RPG style to games like BG or CoN, but I must say, I get a whole lot of enjoyment out of BG and CoN...much more than I would' ve thought. Of the 40+ JRPGs I' ve played it my day, I must say that they are by FAR my preference, but every once in a while, a western real-time RPG surprises me.

I personally think the best and most addicting turn based combat can be found in Grandia II. Ah, what a game! FF may have some amazing turn based combat but Grandia II jaust took it to a new level of fun IMO. I' d love to see what a game with the Grandia battle system and the budget and amazing talent behind FF could come up with.

Overall, for RPGs I' d have to say I like turn based a bit more. For example, Diablo and Diablo 2 were a blast but after a while clicking non stop just get' s a bit repetative. Real time fighting can still be really fun though.

Grandia II just wasn' t polished enough, IMO. It had too many flaws, as evidenced by most reviews. Good game, though. FF definitely wins easily for turn-based, in my book.

Grandia II' s gameplay was so good Squaresoft used basically the exact same system in FFX, with a few changes. I prefer turnbased combat myself, and like Rampage I tend to agree about Grandia. I still hold it above all of the RPG' s I' ve played in a long while, the only one coming close was FFX.

Yosh, I heard some good news in OXM a few months back that a Grandia game was in the works for the xbox. Hope it' s true! that would be fricken awesome!

Turn-based battles are one of the reasons I hate RPGs, and while I' m no fan of the genre, I MUCH prefer Real-time fighting!

Contrary to popular belief, Square in no way emulated Grandia II' s battle scheme. If anything, it was the other way around. In the development world, these games (especially FF) are known about for years before we every hear a whisper about them. FF X was in development LONG before Grandia II, and the battle system was in place before G II as well (according to dev. timelines, anyway). Which one you like better is purely subjective, but I can' t see how G II even comes close. It was far too unbalanced and didn' t allow for the freedom you had with the Sphere Grid. This was one of the complaints voiced by reviewers at the time, and one of the reasons the game didn' t score as high as it could' ve.

So was FFX in development when the first Grandia came out? Everyone knows that the second Grandia' s battle system is a dumbed down version of the originals. Like I said, FFX took the ideas that Grandia originally used and gave it a twist.

Also, I hate to ask for this again but do you have proof other than what you' ve gotten from a contact at an EB or Gamestop that FFX' s battle system was in place before Grandia II' s?

You can call them " dumbed down" if you want, but you' ll be hurting the developer' s feelings. Supposedly, the battle system was completely reworked for the sequel. Work began on Final Fantasy X a full year before FF IX was even released on the PSOne, and testing began relatively early, putting their timeline well ahead of Grandia II' s.

And just as a side note, Square has always prided themselves on being the " copied," not the " copiers." What purpose could they have for emulating a game that didn' t sell all that well, and didn' t exactly sweep the critic/review world? Furthermore, I' ve played both, and the Sphere Grid and ATB aspects of FF X make the game completely different to any of the mechanics found in Grandia II.

Kikizo Games is posting a big video interview/feature with the developers of SUDEKI for Xbox, hopefully later this week. The developer discusses the decision to use realtime fighting, as opposed to turns-based, at some length if memory serves me correctly.

It' s for Xbox...how could it possibly be turn-based? American/western devs. rarely make any RPG that' s turn-based.