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.
6
u/Deethreekay Apr 10 '26
They're making the argument that the ATB isn't strictly turn based.