>>1978632 Have you tried approaching it in a matter with the expectation of planning out your moves as opposed to expecting immediate action and responses as you make your own moves? The whole point of turn based games is to plan your course of action, see if they pan out, and reformulate based on your circumstances and set up options.

>>1978632 I like the occasional turn based game. Being able to relax/focus and think about your next move or plot out some scheme is entertaining. >Turn based combat without real time mechanics in any game is fucking garbage I've noticed that some RTS games have been adding a tactical pause mechanics to gameplay where you stop time and can issue orders before resuming so players can treat it like a turn based game to an extent.

I see this from the point of view of "axes of interaction", if the only thing you do every turn is pick from a predefined set of actions you can take, one at a time, and that's it, then it's the most boring shit imaginable because it's just baby's first "I can compound math!" and "oh no! my character is <under distress>! maybe I should <spend obvious resource>" every turn. Even creating builds for the characters in these turn based games is boring as hell because they're usually either "Deal 100% more damage when the enemy is on fire" OR "Apply weakness every third thursday of the month, once, for 1 turn" which makes it super obvious how to build like a non retard, and this ends up trivializing the game. It gets better as you add more axes of interaction, however. Most importantly, positioning is a great axis for interaction because it's usually not as obvious and it leads to more complex and engaging combinations, chess is a great example of why this works but it's also why cRPGs don't bore you to death too (as long as they're the good ones where positioning DOES matter, like divinity or bg3, owlcat's shit doesn't fucking care at all). That's not to say that all axis of interaction are created equal, Expedition 33's QTE are more on the end of being annoying and trying to keep you engaged through the boredom than actually fun, it's like a stopgap measure to try to keep the zoomer attention span under control because if nothing is happening on the screen for more than 3 seconds they would look at their phone.

>>1978632 >gave every single fucking move a QTE Only a handful do this. The Mario rpgs, the South Park RPGs, Legend of the Dragoon, and a few indie games. That's it.

>>1978632 Is Superhot turn based? Where do you draw the line of the game waiting for input?

Play Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne on the PS2

I play Japanese RPGs for the story/characters. There's really not much you can do about the gameplay, it's not why I play them, just don't make it too grindy or I'll be forced to use turbo speed in the emulator.

>This stupid meme again. Nah, Turn based games are great. I will happily take FFIX over XV and XVI any day of the week.

>>1978632 >in this thread a GenZ complains about a game not flooding his receptors to the max every second of play time I bet you think old B&W suspense movies are trash compared to modern Marvel crap too.

>>1978632 >Planning, and thinking in general, hurts my brain

Few weeks ago I've played a game called Cthulhu Saves Christmas, its a short game, but the pacing of the game made it a slog to play, every fight takes around 3-5 minutes, every single fight, all enemies have bloated HP, some enemies have more HP than the bosses themselves. There is this neat feature that I like in the Cthulhu Saves games, you have to fight a number of random battles, after that the random battles stop, but because of the way the game is structured each dungeons takes at least one hour to complete, so I used CheatEngine to decrease the health of the enemies by 50%, and the game was actually fun, the dungeons were short but it was fun. This made me think, the problem of JRPG is not the combat but the pacing, if every encounter plays like a boss battle, the game is going to be boring, mooks should be easily killed by the party, while bosses can have battles that take up to 10 minutes to complete.

>>1979649 Reminds me of some tabletop stories where the the enemies were considered slogs or a pain to fight with the GM prevents you from finding ways to beat them outside of straight forward fights, railroading them into a boring campaign.

>>1978632 >Chess >but both players move in real time >RTS chess Interdasting.

>>1978632 >he's never played alchemy meister or sengoku rance before

This isn't cuckchan, you don't have to post outrageous bait to get attention, you can just be a reasonable human being and have normal discussions here.

A related problem to what OP describes is how turn based games also almost always rely much more significantly on RNG. Not only is it stupid that the enemy sits there and waits to get attacked, and that you are then forced to sit there and wait to get attacked back, but then the attacks might just miss through no fault of your own. Or sometimes they do double damage, through no fault of your own. And I know, you say "well plan for that! Use moves or items that change the likelihood of these things!" Okay, but that's still playing RNG. It makes it slightly more in your control, but it's still less in your control than if you actually had full control. RNG inherently makes a game less skillful. The other mechanic that almost always goes with turn based games is character stats, which also exist for the actual purpose of removing player skill from the equation. Doesn't matter if you're good or not, you can just sit there and grind and eventually your character will get good, even if you suck. Instead of worrying about actual mechanics, just pump some numbers up. Real time games can also have the above issues, and they're problems there, too, but they're more common, almost ubiquitous in turn based games. And most of the real time games that do these things very badly are from devs or series that are used to being turn based. Someone already mentioned later Final Fantasy games in this thread as examples of bad real time games. Of course. Because they aren't really meant to be real time. They've cultivated an audience, not to mention a dev team, not interested in video games as a medium, not interested in gameplay at all, so the action is half assed. And they're not the only example, obviously. A lot of even earlier western RPGs tried to go real time, but ultimately the entire genre descends from DnD, which is turn based because it's a fucking board game, so they still have these retarded mechanics. Then you end up with games where I see my sword slice right through an enemy, but get told I missed anyway. It's like the developers don't even like video games. They might as well have just made an elaborate board game. >>1979126 >I play Japanese RPGs for the story/characters. Why not just get into anime or manga instead? It's the same thing, but without the gameplay, which you admit isn't even why you play. >>1979533 Turn based games make thinking easier since you have infinite time, so even dummies can take forever, or even look up what to do between every move. Real time games are the thinking man's games. >>1980807 >I don't like it, but I'm an idiot that can't explain why (or simply wrong, and thus it's impossible to explain why) so I'll call it bait instead of saying why it's wrong.

>>1981479 >RNG inherently makes a game less skillful. No, and there is a very good presentation on why that is not the case, which I suggest everyone to watch. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=2owa2s8GdlM The best example he gave was for a theoretical game "Rando Chess", which is the same game as regular chess, but at the end of the game a dice is rolled. If it's between 2-6 the winner of the chess round wins the match of "Rando Chess", but if it's a 1 then he loses. Now does this make the game less skillful than regular chess? No, since it still has the same strategies, moves, as regular chess, and it also has an incentive to win, to have a higher chance of winning the dice roll. Just because you added a bit of RNG at the end, doesn't mean it subtracted from the skill required to play regular chess. Now, is this a shit game, that nobody would want to play? Yes, but that's not the point of the "Rando Chess" example. Now, on the other hand, what he also says is that a bit of luck/rng has a better chance of attracting and retaining a larger audience, as every victory they have, they can attribute it to their personal skill, and any loss they might have, they can simply blame it on bad luck. Unless, it's a multiplayer game, like DOTA, then you can blame it on your team-mates.

>>1981975 It subtracts from the skill required to win. You need no skill to play, actually. You can move randomly, being corrected every time you do something against the rules, and still win if you get the dice roll. And no, if you win due to the dice rolling 1 for the other guy, you can't attribute that to your skill. It's literally unrelated to your skill. RNG exists to remove your skill from the equation, as do character stats. Hell, famously Symphony of the Night added RPG mechanics specifically because Castlevania had come to be seen as hard, so they wanted to make it so even people not good at video games could still beat it.

>>1982015 The majority of RNG in strategy games is there as an abstraction for the simulation that they represent, not to appease to casuals. How you don't see this is kind of odd to me. Yeah, some amount of it can be used to appease casuals, the good old party game vs competitive game dichotomy, but strategy games are often high level abstractions, which means that you, as a player, won't be directly interacting and resolving things on the lower levels, thus they must be abstracted away to some degree of RNG (either directly or indirectly), which is there to represent the inherent unpredictability of real life (Even Magnus Carlsen, the monster that he is, still loses here and there to the other Super GMs even though he might as well be on a category of his own. It's simply the nature of unpredictability that lies around in life, and dealing with some amount of unpredictability IS a skill). If your main point is about prancing around pretending that tactical / operational skill is somehow implicitly better because it has no RNG, then you're kind of stupid and missing the forest for the trees, but if you're just mad that casuals are kind of stupid, then that's okay, just try to be clear that you're venting rather than really bringing in a real point.

>>1981479 >Turn based games make thinking easier since you have infinite time, so even dummies can take forever, or even look up what to do between every move. Real time games are the thinking man's games. Okay then, beat pic related. It should be easy since it's turn based.

>>1981479 >Turn based games make thinking easier since you have infinite time today i will remind them

>>1981479 >I don't like something therefore I'm going to say its literally not a videogame anymore Wew

>>1982015 >It subtracts from the skill required to win. You need no skill to play, actually. You can move randomly, being corrected every time you do something against the rules, and still win if you get the dice roll. If you just play random moves on Rando Chess, after 100 games, you will be in the lowest tier of players, while the highest skilled players will still be in the top. Just because there is a 1/6 chance to win one game of Rando Chess after loosing the regular chess round against a Chess Master, doesn't mean you will win against him if you do best of 10 or best of 50 (has been done before for regular chess). Kind of like with Poker, the people who are in the top, might loose a few rounds here and there, but they win on average, because of their skills. Also you haven't explained how it subtracts from the skill. How does throwing a dice at the end of the game, substract from all the skills involved in playing chess? Are there somehow less moves? Less strategies? Less pieces? The answer is no, Rando Chess involves the same amount of skill as Regular Chess, but also has extra RNG.

>>1982559 I am angry that fags like the OP of the thread in that image are allowed to even LOOK at video games!

>>1978632 Me as Dagger please

>>1984216 U want'n to get scooted by the monkey or the little black mage boy?

>>1984239 Both, I can take two boys at once

>>1984353 >I can take two boys at once

>Turn based combat without real time mechanics in any game is fucking garbage I don't think anyone genuinely believes this, otherwise I would see people demanding real time elements in poker, chess, etc. But it's strangely common for retards to play a turn based strategy game involving cute anime girls, dislike the combat, and then extrapolate wildly until they reach hilariously retarded conclusions. Somehow they become unable to comprehend the possibility of relying on intelligence rather than dexterity, or that the abstraction of combat in the game doesn't need to be a direct recreation of reality (I don't see these people complaining that chess piece movements are too unrealistic). It's a very strange phenomenon. >>1981479 >RNG inherently makes a game less skillful. RNG generally makes games more complex. If every action has a certain outcome it essentially becomes a puzzle where you are searching for a single route to the end. But if there are multiple possible outcomes for an action you now have to weigh the probability of each outcome against the favorability of those outcomes and continue doing so for every subsequent possible gamestate. The decision tree becomes much more dense. It takes a lot of effort and 'skill' to sift through all the countless possibilities and determine the optimal moves, whereas if you were to remove the RNG or to allow the player full control over the RNG the game would be greatly simplified. Also consider the impact of RNG on enemy behavior. This also applies to other genres like action games and shmups. If there's no RNG involved then the player only needs to memorize a single sequence of movements to win every time, but if the boss has some randomness in how he moves and fires his bullets then you actually need to git gud to win consistently.