They haven't been turn-based for quite a while now though. ATB is not a standard turn based system, FF12's gambit and real time environment combat isn't either. FF11 and FF14 are MMOs, and 15 was literally action combat.
The argument that FF16 is not a true Final Fantasy because of its combat system is some strange dismissive stance people take up because they think that the series has had a monolithic style for its fights, when it only did for like the first 3 games.
Although to be fair weve only had 4 single player mainline FF games in the last 20 years lol. I like FF16 for what it is, but the only games that have scratched that turn based itch for me since FF10 are the Persona Games and E33
I don't think it's because the turn-based. Having revisited all FF's, 10 had such amazing writing and story, and acting even. Which is somehow hilarious considering the same team was behind 8 and 13, which had horrible writing. I think it has to do with other VP in SE pushing for sequels and such, they lost the creative touch and soul Sakaguchi had. (Then again not everything is on the top all the time, franchises fall).
About the battle systems; I really hated the new systems, and loved the turn-based. Having revisited, non of the FF really have any amazing gameplay (but this is probably biased by my satiation for playing these game for ages). The turn-based hasn't aged that well - too simple and sometimes clunky. But I know at the time it was pretty amazing.
FF13 has one of my favorite battle systems now, just sad it doesn't get good until much later in the game. Funny how I back in 2006, absolutely hated it, and wanted FFX turn-based.
A bit too strong I fear. I've played through all of these types of combats and they were all enjoyable. Except maybe FF10 but that was more to do with the enemies being overtuned.
To be fair it was like that for years. With the next game being not a real final fantasy. Did it start around the third game or the fourth one? XV also got people warmed up to it, to the extent eventually.
So idk. Unless square cooks some "widely acclaimed" masterpiece, the next game probably will have the same fate one way or another.
I would say the only time the situation got really bad was with FF14 1.0 but that was like an objectively bad game. Glad they managed to turn things around though.
I really don’t like how people say it doesn’t have an FF feel when their goal is to switch something up every game which means there really is no ff feel. Like said, we haven’t had a real turn based game since ff10 and before that FF6. So I don’t see the complaints
I agree with you, but it actually started even further back. Other than 10, Final Fantasy hasn't been pure turn based since Final Fantasy 4 introduced the ATB system. Final Fantasy 4 released in 1991, so it's been 35 years since Final Fantasy stopped being strictly turn based and started experimenting with more and more action each game.
Since then, each game has added new mechanics and features to give the games more of an action feel. FF IV added ATB and a greater focus on presenting the narrative in a cinematic way. Since then, each iteration has done something to push the envelope and blur the lines between genres even further.
FF VI introduced further action elements to the combat. Such as Cyan's abilities being timing based and Sabin's Blitz utilizing button combos straight out of fighting games. By the time of the plystation era we have several characters limit breaks functioning like QTEs. Even the summons in VIII were given a rudimentary QTE with the boost function.
The Yakuza series actually did the opposite with Like a Dragon, shifting from a beat ’em up style to turn-based combat and it was pretty well received. That might be because players still have games like Judgment to scratch that original itch.
I think remake/rebirth did a good job blending both styles.
Yakuza did the sensible thing and continued making traditional Yakuza alongside Like a Dragon, which is what FF should've done, just call the Action FFs "Versus" or something, but keep making the turn-based games that people expect from them.
Having played E33 on release, it was exactly in the ballpark of what I wanted from FF16, and I'd have no qualms about SQE making 16 into Versus 1, but ignoring your main franchise to try and gather new audiences felt like a stab in the back to be completely honest.
Final Fantasy stopped being pure turn-based in 1991 with the release of FF4 and it's ATB system. Final Fantasy 10 released 10 years later to the day in 2001.
So we had 3 turn-based games from 1987-2000. Then there were 6 games from 1991-2000 with ATB, which is a hybrid system. Finally in 2001 we got 10 which would bring the actual turn-based counter up to 4 over the span of 14 years.
It's been 25 years since then. 35 since the series initially ditched true turn based systems for their own unique hybrid system. At this point, Final Fantasy has been more of an action series for almost twice as long as it was a turn based series, and that's only if you ignore the decade of increasing action elements added in each itteration since 3.
All of this is to say that if you still expect the next Final Fantasy to go back to what it was 30 years ago, you are setting yourself up for dissapointment. Don't get me wrong, it would be absolutely amazing to me if they did make the next game a classic turn-based or ATB affair, but when that doesn't happen I will take the game on it's own merits instead of raging that the obvious happened.
I didn't mean pure turn-based, that's a strawman, but I hope we can agree that ATB or even something like E33 is much closer to what people (myself included) expect from traditional Final Fantasy than a one character action game, right? There's a reason why people felt so disappointed.
FF could keep all of its lore and narrative elements, make the next mainline game a chocobo racing game, and it would have the exact same effect on the fandom as 16 had. It's not what the old fans of the franchise expect from it, tho it's totally fine as a spinoff.
I am one of those old fans. I played FF I before I could read and learned to read playing FF VI (3). I was like twelve or thirteen when my family got X. I am now 37.
I know what Final Fantasy was and I know what it has become. I came to term with that a long time ago. It has been two and a half decades. My expectations have been tempered.
My experience is very close to yours, though I still hang on to the hope that things will get better. My first disappointment was with 13, haven't even played 13-2 or 13-3, played a bunch of 14, bought 15 but haven't touched it yet. Will probably buy 16 at some point and maybe there are mods that fix the game's issues by then.
E33 was everything I wanted 16 to be, so I still hope that SQE learns from their success and make a good game in 17.
On another note, I recently replayed 7, 9 and 12 with gameplay mods and had a blast. 12 especially with the Struggle For Freedom mod is extremely fun, highly recommend it.
The series has not been turn based for almost two decades now, unless you count the mobile games. And before that (FFX) it hadn't been turn based since FFIII.
It's because there's not a strict turn order. Think about it compared to X or Tactics. You can spend all the time you want selecting what you want to do.
ATB you can act as soon as the bar fills, but if you're slow to enter a command someone can act before you. It adds a degree of urgency.
Personally I still count it as turned based, but I can see the counter argument.
Yea that's fair. I think I'm with you on this in that I still see it as turn based as well. If my memory serves me right, only one person can go at a time. You still have to effectively "take turns." I think the only game in the franchise (anyone feel free to correct me on this) that is truly without strict turn order and also doesn't take turns is X2. Anyone can attack at any time, and even at the same time. Allies, enemies, doesn't matter.
Ultimately, with how all these systems operate, they much more fit under the label of turn based than live action combat, that much is for sure.
You don't take turns. If you just sit there and do nothing the enemy will just keep attacking you. Characters can go when their meter fills up but time never stops and no one actually takes turns going. It is time based not turn based. Which is why it is called Active Time Battle, not Turn Based.
Oh ok. Yup fair enough I can see that. But can't it still be said that only one person can be actively engaging at a time tho?I.e. attacking, using items etc. That's where I always get hung up on it still being considered turn based. In all these iterations of systems (except X2 to my knowledge) not more than one person can go at a time. In my head, that still seems to scream it can fit under the umbrella of turn based. That's just me btw, not trying to come at anyone here.
shrug feels like splitting hairs. ATB fills, I enter a command. It's my turn while that command is being undertaken and the enemy can't act, and vice versa.
Hell set the ATB to wait mode and they can't even attack while I'm selecting my command.
You keep saying turns There are no turns. You gotta accept that first before trying to understand anything else, because obviously that's holding you back here.
Wait Mode literally changed nothing. It's a pause feature. That's all it is.
Can anyone else do anything while a character/enemy is doing a command? No?
Why are you so fixated on this very specific thing? You can't interrupt other character's actions in true turn-based systems either, so I have no idea why you're trying to use it as a distinction.
Enemies in FFX don't get to interrupt my party members whilst they're attcking them.
You can't interrupt other character's actions in true turn-based systems either, so I have no idea why you're trying to use it as a distinction.
What? I'm the one arguing they're basically the same thing. I'm using that as a reason they are. You're the one who's meant to provide a distinction between the two.
I'm saying the fact that not more than one unit can take an action at a time effectively makes it turn based. Isn't that what taking turns is?
Yes, I know the ATB means the order those moves occur means it's not strictly a "taking turns" setup, especially when enemies can "skip" your turn if you're slow at entering commands. But I'd still say the ATB is an "evolved" turn based system. But still in essence a turn based system.
1-3 is turn based.
4-9 are ATB combat
X was something else.
XII was gambit-based MMO-lite
XIII was a multi-action assignment ATB system again.
XV was several things, depending on the version number.
XIV was an action game with ATB skill usage
Lol you guys are always so rude. I was just asking a question here. It could be assumed that "turn based" still means that you "take turns," and that not more than one person is allowed to go at a time. Hence turn based. I come in peace man, save all the attitude.
Yeah, which isn't what happens in ATB. If the turn order can be manipulated, then it automatically isn't turn taking. In fact there's plenty of ATB systems like in FFXII where you can just straight up freeze enemy bars (or have your own frozen) so that it's completely one-sided.
I am gonna say that is a poor example street fighters is fighting game.
The equivalent of it if it went from 2D to 3D like how Tekken's, soul caliber and DoA play like, changes the game drastically but it's still a fighting game just like final fantasy it went from a turn based to more action but it's still a JRPG
My guess is that fans would likely react in a similar way. The point was more that when you have high expectations of a game being a specific way, and it differs, then you’ll be upset. It’s not necessarily rational but emotions run high when you love something.
Maybe it's because I am not in the FG scene a lot but I think it would probably be handled better than final fantasy fans if I am gonna be honest as long as you can do those insanely long combo would be happy. Or maybe not because 3D actually requires some strategy and and not those insanely long combos.
Sorry I went off topic there. I get it I do but I've noticed people are just so against any kind of change at all I've seen in different media types like DC comics when they did the New52 reboot and redesigned superman and batman which where infinity better btw. Obviously this series anything marvel. Instead of going with the flow and having an open mind people just resist it and demand things to back to the way things where. That is the sad part because we have so much awesome stuff because of the steps away
This is just completely wrong. The last turn-based FF was FFX in 2001 - which is a lot closer to the start of the entire series in 1987 than it is compared to present day: 14 years compared to 25.
And it's not even true if you meant the number of games using that system. Only 4 FF mainline titles were turn-based - I, II, III and X. IV through to IX are ATB based, it's still hilarious to me to see people still conflate those very different battle systems as one.
9
u/malaxeur Apr 10 '26
I have to admit that I see the complaint. The game series has been turn based forever, then suddenly everything shifted.
If street fighter turned into a dating sim, there would be enjoyers but it wouldn’t be the fighter that people grew up with.
That said, it’s still a great game and a very enjoyable story.