Support NeoGAF

[TheEndOfItAll]

Persona 5 is proof that turn-based AAA games can still work. Despite the mechanic of it, you can move very quickly through the commands and many times execute commands before the options appear, giving it a faster pace for those that desire it.

That said, FF has not been truly turn-based in this way since the NES days, with a brief respite in FFX.

 

[AGoodODST]

We did, it's called World of Final Fantasy and it's kinda shit.

A turn based system has to nail it to make it fun. The one in WoFF is so slow and the enemies so easy you never have to do anything other than attack.

 

[shark sandwich]

OP better buy the fuck out of Dragon Quest XI, then.

We'll have to see where FF7R goes with how they hybridize turn-based combat with action combat, because FFXV's combat was a shallow and brainless affair.

Most of the turn-based FF games' combat was shallow and brainless as well.

"Heal if HP is low, otherwise keep choosing attack until everything dies" was all the strategy you needed for 99% of non-boss battles. Maybe for the boss battles you'd need some advanced tactics like "if enemy telegraphs that he'll counterattack, wait till he stops" or "use the element that the boss is weak against".

Not exactly deep and cerebral.

 

[The Dude]

Most of the turn-based FF games' combat was shallow and brainless as well.

"Heal if HP is low, otherwise keep choosing attack until everything dies" was all the strategy you needed for 99% of non-boss battles. Maybe for the boss battles you'd need some advanced tactics like "if enemy telegraphs that he'll counterattack, wait till he stops" or "use the element that the boss is weak against".

Not exactly deep and cerebral.

I can sit and mash buttons in ffxv and get A+ or warp strike around nonstop and still get an A+.

But the fact you went in that direction shows me you don't quite understand the point of turn based gaming. You must of never played pen and paper rpgs etc..

 

[Dark_castle]

Honestly the battle system in Persona is very poor (based on my experience of Persona 3 and 4).

It is pretty much repeating the same strategy again and again. Weakness, weakness, weakness, rush attack. Repeat. Incredibly boring.

There are more interesting turn based RPGs out there, Lost Odyssey for example. Phantasy Star IV if you consider older games.

Battles that are not too long, yet involve some strategy to finish them fast enough. You can't simply Attack Attack Attack your way through those games, so that's good.

I think you can make a clever and interesting battle system without having incredibly complex mechanics.

Final Fantasy X has a fine battle system, I like it. Too bad you have to switch all characters for them to gain experience : so annoying.

What's so different about FFX's battle system compared to Persona 5? In FFX, you bring in Auron to hit hard enemies, Wakka for flying, Tidus for nimble, magic casting for elemental weak enemies (also fire against ice enemies vice versa). Weakness, weakness, weakness.

Not to mention P5 is a much more challenging game in general. Even regular encounter can wipe you out if you're ambushed or unprepared.

 

[dramatis]

Persona 5 is proof that turn-based AAA games can still work. Despite the mechanic of it, you can move very quickly through the commands and many times execute commands before the options appear, giving it a faster pace for those that desire it.

I guess we're going down this road again, but P5 is not an AAA game, its budget is probably mid-tier.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Uh, you got WoFF.

Nah fam.

People realize how poor of a comment this is, right? As if we can't be displeased with the direction of a series and want a different evolutionary path and thus have to play old games we have already played instead of new games that utilize a new form of the very style and genre trappings that got us to enjoy them in the first place, right?

Like does anyone say stuff like this when other series or games change up things?

You should check out more Re threads. It's a common saying over there.

 

[Aleh]

If they ever get around to remaking FFIX just to remove the turn-based combat, I will find them. And I will... Slap them.

 

[i-Jest]

Doesn't FFXIII VS becoming FFXV contradict this?

How so?

 

[-MB-]

Also, you can still innovate/experiment with turn based combat. Real time and turn based are both ancient, just because they decided to experiment with real time doesn't mean it's not taking an old ass game convent and repackage it. But they could as easily do it with turn based as well

Seems to me that they feel turn based does not mesh well with the more realistic and cinematic route they wanted to go with FF, so they went with more action-ey battle systems.

 

[Wink]

Such a good turn based system, Atlus has built upon and refined it over decades. Then they took a lot of time to polish Persona 5 on top of that. It proofs that turn based can be quick and smooth yet lose none of its complexity.
It's highly doubtful that anything Square cooks up for FF could come close to it just like that so my advice would be to just give up hope for that to happen, especially after XV sold so well. There's clearly a much higher focus on marketing to an audience that's not interested in thoughtful combat and it worked out for Square on an insane scale.

 

[LordKasual]

If they ever get around to remaking FFIX just to remove the turn-based combat, I will find them. And I will... Slap them.

FFIX had the slowest and most boring turn based gameplay in the series, so I for one would welcome the change

 

[shark sandwich]

I can sit and mash buttons in ffxv and get A+ or warp strike around nonstop and still get an A+.

But the fact you went in that direction shows me you don't quite understand the point of turn based gaming. You must of never played pen and paper rpgs etc..

I'm not completely against turn-based battles. I'm playing Cosmic Star Heroine now, and that game fixes basically every annoyance I've had with turn-based battles in JRPGs.

I just take issue with people trying to claim that the old turn-based FF games had some kind of tactical depth that the real-time ones don't. That is some rose-tinted nostalgia bullshit. 99% of the time you're making only the most braindead-simple decisions.

Honestly FF Tactics and XIII are the only turn-based FF games where I really felt like I was making important choices and where I had to make use of all the tools in my arsenal.

I can say I felt a hell of a lot more engaged as Noctis warping around, breaking appendages, etc. than I did as Cloud Strife picking "attack" from a menu defeating most non-boss enemies in 1-2 hits.

 

[-NeoTB1-]

Agreed, OP. Turn-based is still my jam. FFXII was a fun diversion, but the combat in XV completely turned me off (among other things, but that's a thread that's been done here). Persona 5 combat is pure bliss, and not just because of the game's style.

 

[Arkeband]

Most of the turn-based FF games' combat was shallow and brainless as well.

"Heal if HP is low, otherwise keep choosing attack until everything dies" was all the strategy you needed for 99% of non-boss battles. Maybe for the boss battles you'd need some advanced tactics like "if enemy telegraphs that he'll counterattack, wait till he stops" or "use the element that the boss is weak against".

Not exactly deep and cerebral.

I'd rather have some strategy than literally fuckin' none.

 

[Rob2K19]

An aside: The Persona 5 development team experimented with real-time combat for the game in its early stages. The reason they gave for ditching it was because going with that would mean abandoning their years of accumulated know-how for turn-based games.

Persona Versus 5 incoming?

 

[Kthulhu]

How so?

I'm pretty sure FFXV was made its own thing because of the backlash from FFXIII.

 

[LordKasual]

I'm pretty sure FFXV was made its own thing because of the backlash from FFXIII.

FFXV was the natural progression that FF has been aiming towards since Advent Children. They've been aiming for "battles like AC" and "visuals like AC" since it dropped.

FFXIII's target concept was basically an action rpg, if anyone remembers how drastically different it looked. IIRC even during early demos you were able to move your character around the battlefield, as well as manually choose to Launch enemies, until they removed that too (and made it all automatic).

XV is probably what FFXIII wanted to be all along. They just couldn't technically achieve it because "HD was hard" and they didn't have the tech to accomplish it. Now they do.


Square has always been a cinematics driven company. Turn-based gameplay has always been a way to suggest action and cinematics without actually doing it...but now that they can literally do it, i dont think Final Fantasy has a reason to be turn-based anymore.

 

[Two Words]

But I look around and I see EO, Bravely Default, games like cosmic star heroine just out that's turn based, Persona 5, I am setsuna, success from games like lost Odyssey and blue dragon etc... .Turn based is a great combat style and its alive and kicking... But why does ff stray so bad and why is the modern fan base so hellbent against it?

Why are you listing 10 year old games as a part of your "alive and kicking" argument?

 

[GeoramA]

Amen.

Or just copy the Judgement Ring system from Shadow Hearts. That's when turn-based combat peaked for me.

 

[Dark Cloud]

Oh god I want square to give us turnbased mainline FF games again. It'll never happen though. ☹️

 

[Zukkoyaki]

Give me a FFXVI with X's combat and gorgeous HD pixel art.

 

[BlackJace]

Has someone called Turn-based archaic yet

 

[Modest Mauser]

I'd rather have some strategy than literally fuckin' none.

Action games aren't inherently without any strategy.

I would love for FF to make a new turn-based game but they're going to have to work to make it deeper than past FF games to stay interesting.

The potential of turn based combat in video games feels unexplored in general since they're so rarely made these days, and when they are, it's often deliberately for nostalgia's sake and and so they don't do much new.

 

[The Dude]

I'm not completely against turn-based battles. I'm playing Cosmic Star Heroine now, and that game fixes basically every annoyance I've had with turn-based battles in JRPGs.

I just take issue with people trying to claim that the old turn-based FF games had some kind of tactical depth that the real-time ones don't. That is some rose-tinted nostalgia bullshit. 99% of the time you're making only the most braindead-simple decisions.

Honestly FF Tactics and XIII are the only turn-based FF games where I really felt like I was making important choices and where I had to make use of all the tools in my arsenal.

I can say I felt a hell of a lot more engaged as Noctis warping around, breaking appendages, etc. than I did as Cloud Strife picking "attack" from a menu defeating most non-boss enemies in 1-2 hits.

It's akin to either playing a game of chess or a game of football.. Both are games, both require different skills sets and feel different. I'm not claiming that old turn based games were the epitome of strategy, but it was simply a fun style as when I wanted real time I popped on over to zelda or something.

The fix for turn based in terms of strategy is simply make enemies tougher. The difficulty was only what could of been bumped in many old turn based games.

But here's the kicker, like all games pretty much with leveling people grind and all games get to where you can just crush enemies pretty much, in the realm of typical rpgs and jrpgs.

 

[Azuran]

Don't. Battle system is automated unfun garbage. Looks real flashy though.

"Automated"

lol

This is how you can tell someone never made it to Grand Pulse. Good luck beating the stone missions by letting the game do everything while you select random stuff or attack continuously with no thought to your actions. After all, the battle system is "automated", so no one should be having any issues.

 

[Kthulhu]

FFXV was the natural progression that FF has been aiming towards since Advent Children. They've been aiming for "battles like AC" and "visuals like AC" since it dropped.

FFXIII's target concept was basically an action rpg, if anyone remembers how drastically different it looked. IIRC even during early demos you were able to move your character around the battlefield, as well as manually choose to Launch enemies, until they removed that too (and made it all automatic).

XV is probably what FFXIII wanted to be all along. They just couldn't technically achieve it because "HD was hard" and they didn't have the tech to accomplish it. Now they do.


Square has always been a cinematics driven company. Turn-based gameplay has always been a way to suggest action and cinematics without actually doing it...but now that they can literally do it, i dont think Final Fantasy has a reason to be turn-based anymore.

Except when you look at what FF XV was when it was 13 vs, it's pretty obvious they were going for a refinement of 13, not an open world game.

I'm betting Square realized that the 13 formula and name were toxic, so they scraped it mid development and tried to retool what they had into an open world game, which resulted in the extremely fucked development cycle.

 

[ULTROS!]

Nope, the beauty of the Final Fantasy series is that each entry is unique. Sure some mechanics are shared, but each game tries something different. FFXV's combat, while not perfect, is such a different shift from the series roots. One of the many reasons why Final Fantasy continues to be my favorite JRPG series.

Persona 3-5 are essentially building off of what Persona 3's structure since 2006. Persona 4 refined it even more in 2008, and now here in 2017 Persona 5 has pretty much perfected it. I hope a potential Persona 6 tries to do something a little different, because it's hard to see where they can continue to go with this structure.

I agree. Final Fantasy builds a lot of divisive opinions. There's no clear "best" Final Fantasy because each FF is very different from its own, you either hate the game or you like it. Every FF is a fresh new take on the system and I'm fine with that.

 

[Nottle]

I would love another turn based mainline game, one that doesn't take itself too seriously, maybe a job system with a lot of fun experimentation and the ability to steamroll bosses with the right setup sort of like some of the SMT games or FF5.

 

[n0razi]

Give FF14 a try since its free now up to lvl30. Its not a classic turn based RPG but for an MMO its a competent single player FF

 

[brawly]

The turn based combat is my least favorite thing about Persona. It's a nuisance more than anything and it doesn't matter how they design the dungeons, it will always be boring to me.

If there was a "skip all combat" option in Persona I would use it.

 

[Pejo]

ATB is still my favorite battle system of all time. I'd love to see another mainline FF with it.

Glad turn-based is getting some exposure again with P5 though.

 

[The Dude]

The turn based combat is my least favorite thing about Persona. It's a nuisance more than anything and it doesn't matter how they design the dungeons, it will always be boring to me.

If there was a "skip all combat" option in Persona I would use it.

So you don't play anything In life that requires "turns"? No cards, no chess, no board games... Ain't nobody got time for that?

 

[LordKasual]

Except when you look at what FF XV was when it was 13 vs, it's pretty obvious they were going for a refinement of 13, not an open world game.

I'm betting Square realized that the 13 formula and name were toxic, so they scraped it mid development and tried to retool what they had into an open world game, which resulted in the extremely fucked development cycle.

Nah man. From the jump, Versus had an entirely different air about it.

Even before they planned to use it build Luminous, they had a focus on realism, interactive cutscenes, team-based features and full-action combat. The car was still a focal point of the game and they even were showcasing the day-night cycles. It probably wasn't "Open World" in the same sense that XV is now, but that was probably a technical limitation more than anything, and may explain why they just held the concept until it became XV.

If anything, Versus XIII was an attempt on XIII's original target concept, not what XIII actually became. XV was just a better realization of it.

Regardless of how much you like the combat, XV delivered on essentially all of its original concepts, save for maybe environmental trigger attacks, which were just folded into linkstrikes. Anything else regarding XV's combat is just mechanic related and can be polished in future attempts...but if they wanted to actually re-create that FFXIII target render combat video using XV's engine, they absolutely would be able to.


As much as I dislike FFXIII, I feel like it would have been a completely different game if it played similar to FFXV, since all you do is fight and traverse terrain anyway. Maybe you'd actually be able to make use of Lightning's gravity thingie. I wouldn't even mind a remake to better realize the concept.

 

[OmegaDL50]

Persona fanbase can be a vicious and defensive one. They like their Persona games a certain style, but will support the IP regardless of what direction it takes. Devs know this and try to stay faithful to what makes the series great, building on each new entry, which in turn keeps fans coming back for more. Square and Atlus aren't in the same position when it comes to what fans want and expect. Square has the luxury to take the hate it gets and brush it off while moving into the next thing. Atlus tries to stay faithful to fans since alot of what they put out in the past was niche and catered to a small group. They didn't have the luxury to brush off outcry thinking they'd get continuous support.

I hope that makes sense. This is just my perspective though.

Except the in this case the Dragon Quest mainline series is somewhat in the same position as the Persona series in which it's heavily fan centric, especially so in Japan compared to the more Western focused sales of the FF series.

The mainline Dragon Quest games with the exception of 10 which even still is relatively faithful has been a constant in it's mechanics of having turned based combat systems over the past 30 years since the series inception, which apparently this trend even continues even in Dragon Quest XI as well from statements Yuji Horii has implied.

So I doubt how long a series has been around having dozen plus releases has nothing to do with the situation of simply changing things around to adhere to a concept of change much like how the Final Fantasy series has taken as such.

People argue for for sake of innovation and bringing fresh ideas to the table, but innovation has never under any circumstance been an acceptable substitute at the cost at the core mechanics of it's gameplay.

Pushing for new ideas is all well and good, but it serves no purpose if the emphasis on the "game" part of an actual game becomes lacking. In the case of FFXV and Type 0, they weren't entirely shining examples in this regard, when even in the face of other Action RPGs weren't actually high notes in terms of their combat systems.

Innovation is nice, but I'm much prefered for taking a proven formula that is known to work and tweak it to iron out the flaws and include things that would emphasis on the well working core that already exists even further. Persona 5 and Dragon Quest seem to do precisely this. Square at one time did the same thing for the ATB system from its beginnings with FFIV and the eventual culmination of something like FFX-2 or Lightning Returns.

There are some ARPGs that do this as well, notably the Tales series for example which have seen many iterations of it's Linear Motion Battle system which was established in Phantasia into the form it now exists in today. I'd say there are far better cases of sticking to a formula that actually works rather than just changing the whole system entirely to chase a new audience that FFXIII and FFXV tries to do.

 

[shark sandwich]

It's akin to either playing a game of chess or a game of football.. Both are games, both require different skills sets and feel different. I'm not claiming that old turn based games were the epitome of strategy, but it was simply a fun style as when I wanted real time I popped on over to zelda or something.

The fix for turn based in terms of strategy is simply make enemies tougher. The difficulty was only what could of been bumped in many old turn based games.

But here's the kicker, like all games pretty much with leveling people grind and all games get to where you can just crush enemies pretty much, in the realm of typical rpgs and jrpgs.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I feel like a lot of attempts to make battles more challenging/strategic ultimately just make it more tedious.

Like, you could have a battle that really makes you sweat and you have to use your brain to win. But if you have a dungeon where you might encounter this same group of enemies 10+ times, you are just solving the same puzzle over and over and it gets tedious as hell (see Xenosaga 2 for a good example of this).

And of course the difficulty is highly dependent on your level, which usually means the "sweet spot" where the difficulty feels just right is pretty narrow. Staying within that sweet spot where you're neither overleveled nor underleveled is a challenge in itself.

 

[The Dude]

I don't necessarily agree with this. I feel like a lot of attempts to make battles more challenging/strategic ultimately just make it more tedious.

Like, you could have a battle that really makes you sweat and you have to use your brain to win. But if you have a dungeon where you might encounter this same group of enemies 10+ times, you are just solving the same puzzle over and over and it gets tedious as hell (see Xenosaga 2 for a good example of this).

And of course the difficulty is highly dependent on your level, which usually means the "sweet spot" where the difficulty feels just right is pretty narrow. Staying within that sweet spot where you're neither overleveled nor underleveled is a challenge in itself.

They can program it any which way tho. You dont have to have every enemy act the same.. You can have various forms of attacks and enemy AI.

Difficulty is only one way. Adding more unique skills, adding more variety to enemy AI, there's a lot that can be done.

My point is just like how some can sit and think of special attacks, or skills in real time combat they could do the same for turn based. But the thing is alot of games do come up with some unique stuff, but they aren't in the mainstream.

But the point is this, real time turn based have their pros and cons, they both have their place in gaming and both can be great combat structures pending the game.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Nah, we need more games like XV where the combat makes no sense.

Lol, seriously. The combat in XV is awful for an ARPG. It's flashy but there is little substance to it.

 

[OmegaDL50]

I don't necessarily agree with this. I feel like a lot of attempts to make battles more challenging/strategic ultimately just make it more tedious.

Like, you could have a battle that really makes you sweat and you have to use your brain to win. But if you have a dungeon where you might encounter this same group of enemies 10+ times, you are just solving the same puzzle over and over and it gets tedious as hell (see Xenosaga 2 for a good example of this).

And of course the difficulty is highly dependent on your level, which usually means the "sweet spot" where the difficulty feels just right is pretty narrow. Staying within that sweet spot where you're neither overleveled nor underleveled is a challenge in itself.

Another problem is when games use scaling to combat the effect of overleveling which doesn't add challenge persay but just try to maintain some equilibrium. There are cases where this can work, such as Final Fantasy Tactics or Morrowind or even Kingdoms of Amalur. Then in the inverse there is examples like Final Fantasy VIII or Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

 

[Fbh]

Totally agree.
I love a good action RPG with good combat like Dark Souls, Dragons Dogma or Nioh.

But I much preffer a turn based system over some weird hybrid "worse of both worlds" stuff like you see in the vast majority of action RPG's.
I also miss the whole "playing as a team" aspect of turn based games. Action RPG's often come down to you playing as one character with brain dead AI (your "party) trying to keep up

We did, it's called World of Final Fantasy and it's kinda shit.
.

World of Final Fantasy is in no way a mainline entry.
It's a fan base pandering spinoff with an ugly art style

 

[themaskedndi]

I just want an FF game that has a battle system that's difficult / forces strategy. You get options out of the wazoo from any mainline FF game, but you're not really compelled to explore beyond the usual "attack + cure". The only time I ever explore other options is when doing challenge runs.

This is how I feel. I'm a fan of turn-based combat in theory, but in practice, a lot of turn-based games are lacking strategic depth. SMT games are really the gold standard for me. I'm okay with action combat in FF, but I'd be thrilled with a game that offered the same sort of thing Atlus games do.

 

[Mesoian]

Good news, there are FF games with turn based combat. 13 of them to be exact.

Except not really...

Hell, if you play 12 the way they tell you to, you are basically never putting inputs. Same with 13.

There hasn't been a real turnbased mainline FF since 10.

World of Final Fantasy is in no way a mainline entry.
It's a fan base pandering spinoff with an ugly art style

Boo this man. WOFF was great. But yes, it is a fandom project, not mainline.

"Automated"

lol

This is how you can tell someone never made it to Grand Pulse. Good luck beating the stone missions by letting the game do everything while you select random stuff or attack continuously with no thought to your actions. After all, the battle system is "automated", so no one should be having any issues.

I mean, that's 20 hours into the game. Getting to Grand Pulse is asking a lot out of any player.

Persona Versus 5 incoming?

I wouldn't be shocked if that abandoned real time combat system is what drives that SMT game they're making for the switch.

 

[OceanBlue]

Action games aren't inherently without any strategy.

I would love for FF to make a new turn-based game but they're going to have to work to make it deeper than past FF games to stay interesting.

The potential of turn based combat in video games feels unexplored in general since they're so rarely made these days, and when they are, it's often deliberately for nostalgia's sake and and so they don't do much new.

They don't have to work since there are plenty of examples to draw inspiration from due to the gameplay style being around for so long. People bring up the EO series but there are a lot even out of the dungeon crawler genre like Radiant Historia.

 

[Teletraan1]

"Automated"

lol

This is how you can tell someone never made it to Grand Pulse. Good luck beating the stone missions by letting the game do everything while you select random stuff or attack continuously with no thought to your actions. After all, the battle system is "automated", so no one should be having any issues.

This is how you can tell someone never noticed that they were only entering commands for the party leader and not the other two members directly.

 

[shark sandwich]

This is how you can tell someone never noticed that they were only entering commands for the party leader and not the other two members directly.

Switching paradigms is itself a way of commanding your party members. And settting up/using your different paradigms had more strategic depth to it than any other Final Fantasy battle system except maybe FF Tactics.

 

[brawly]

So you don't play anything In life that requires "turns"? No cards, no chess, no board games... Ain't nobody got time for that?

How do you get that out of my post? I don't dislike the concept of taking turns. It's just not fun in a combat system to me.

 

[inner-G]

Switching paradigms is itself a way of commanding your party members. And settting up/using your different paradigms had more strategic depth to it than any other Final Fantasy battle system except maybe FF Tactics.

People complained about switching characters out in X, but switching to the best paradigm for an enemy is functionally about the same as switching to the best character for an enemy.

Setting up paradigms also reminded me of dresspheres a bit

 

[Death Penalty]

I can sit and mash buttons in ffxv and get A+ or warp strike around nonstop and still get an A+.

But the fact you went in that direction shows me you don't quite understand the point of turn based gaming. You must of never played pen and paper rpgs etc..

Comparing stand-in-a-line turn-based to the depth of tactical positioning and choice in a pen and paper RPG is pretty laughable. I also know for a fact that you can't just mash buttons in XV unless you drastically outlevel the competition. I did not care for the game's battle system at all, but you would definitely get knocked on your ass regularly without trying to pay some attention to guarding or dodging on even fights.

Also, let's mention again that even were your premise true which I don't believe it is, XV is a bad example of an Action RPG. Try doing the same thing in a Souls game or even in some of the more demanding bosses in the KH games. You have to spend a good deal of time learning attack patterns, where things land, when bosses use these abilities, etc. You don't find anything approaching that level of combat engagement in any stand-in-a-line JRPG I've played, Persona included.

I'll reiterate that I think turn-based is perfectly viable, but it needs an added layer of tactical depth that isn't present in traditional turn-based.

 

[Squire]

I wish we could get a new, offline FF with a good story and game design. With a cohesive vision, period.

I'm not that attached to turn-based combat. I would (probably) prefer it, but a well-made action system is more than fine. They need to go all in though and stop trying to find this non-existent midpoint that pleases everyone. XIIIs combat is OK, and honestly pretty good the farther into the game you get, with more being thrown at you. FFXVs is awful and just embarassing after something like Nier: Automata especially.

Edit: I also think FFX is the best turn-based combat SE has made. The Trails series is more than delivering on the promise of it in the Cold Steel games. Really excited to see what CS3 adds to the mix. It's my favorite turn-based combat right now, easily.

 

[StoneFox]

Some of the posts in here hating on turn-based systems kinda read like "Man, chess is dumb, it should be an action game because that innovative! Both players move at the same time!"

Action is not better than turn-based or vice-versa. It's all in the execution of the game and personal tastes. There are just as many shitty turn-based games as there are action.

The fact of the matter is is that Persona 5 is a well-executed game that knew what it wanted to achieve with its battle system, and making it action would ruin the design. A game should not be one or the other because of some focus testing or by what's popular, a game should be what's best for it.