No. The battle systems are just too slow and loaded with too many animations and flares.

DQVIII USA was a big offender (DQVIII JPN was much better but not perfect) in this regard. However, DQIV or V on DS were virtually flawless and used almost the same battle system just less animation. Animations should last ~1-1.5 seconds for them to still be enjoyable.

I like the battle systems. Some of them offer interesting customization and strategic depth. Of course being able to turn off the long animations and/or shorten them is also helpful.

In a way Xenogears is a good example of both extremes of RPGS, exploration focused and story driven. Disc 1 is a great example of the RPGs of it's day with towns to explore and things to discover as your ability to travel the world increased. Disc 2 is almost pure story with a boss battle here and there until you get one last shot at exploration before the final dungeon.

the battles should be fast -- and challenging. the main problem with modern turn-based RPGs is just that they're too slow and too easy. it's like the games are afraid of ever killing the player.

@cochesecochese: It's not that the battle systems are terrible. It's that many times, I don't know what they're doing in the game. Final Fantasy 10 for example, why did I have to fight random battles? They don't really contribute to the story and they feel so separated from the story.

@zenprime: I was trying to imply that with exploration, it's inevitable you fight monsters so that it sorta makes sense. For example, Xenogears, in the beginning, you have to go see Citan. Why are there monsters on the path from the town to his house? Why do I even have to fight? The battle with the imp really has nothing to do with the story.

@Koggit: One reason why I can see why they do that is because many people play games for the story. It's really a pain when you want to see the next scene in the story and you have to fulfill some gameplay challenge. For me, it's okay because the story is the icing on the gameplay cake, but some other people don't even wanna bother with learning basic skills to advance.

Still, after Suikoden 5, that game was way too easy. There was only one average difficulty section in the entire game and it lasted an hour.

Why do RPGs have random battles? Because the game world is a dangerous place, otherwise it wouldn't need heroes to save it.

An RPG style story has protagonists get stronger until they can overcome the last boss. There's no sense of accomplishment if your characters don't accumulate experience and progress through the game. It feels fake to have no hand in character growth.

I agree with the comments that battles aren't the inherent problem, they just need have a sensible ratio of time spent battling vs story. Having played Suikoden III recently, the slowness of its battles compared to I and II was awful, and while leveling wasn't difficult, accumulating skill points and money took too long.

FF XII was a great example of not doing away with battles, but streamlining them such that leveling was not tedious. A shame other games don't take the idea and run with it.

If you want games with story but don't use random battles to explain how characters get stronger, play SRPGs, puzzle/adventure games like Prof Layton, visual novels, or Shadow of the Colossus. Play only RPGs where you can cheat by starting at level 99 and avoid random encounters. Don't play RPGs at all and just watch cutscenes on YouTube.

Random battles are just a carryover from the old pen and paper RPG days where DMs used the encounters as ways to wear down characters, level them up, or just fill in time between the story. I'd agree with a lot of players that random battles in video games are just plain annoying. I have nothing against a little bit of grinding here and there to level up and try out new powers and abilities, but JRPGs tend to take this to a very extreme degree. I would much prefer to pick and choose the battles I fight, but of course, that's not always possible in real life either.

@surak: I can see your point in a game like Dragon Quest or Etrian Odyssey, when the point of the game is to grow your character to defeat the evildoer. I can also see it some American RPGs, especially the classic ones.

However, in a game like Final Fantasy 8, when you reach the end, do you really feel that you were able to beat Ultimecia because you spent so much time fighting monsters, or that it was because story-wise, the characters matured and overcame their fears to become stronger and more confident?

I'm not saying that we should have story only. (Funny you bring up Layton, because we can also ask ourselves why that game has puzzles. On the other hand, everyone thinks of the story as a treat for beating the puzzles.) But unless it's integral to the game like it was for most old-school RPGs, I would think there are better ways to create a gameplay system to enhance the story.

I'd like to read your ideas on how to change the gameplay (really, not being sarcastic). It's true that there's usually only one real inevitable ending in JRPGs, but I still think that battles are a fundamental way of making you feel like you had a part in character growth. How would you give a player control over FF8 characters' maturing and overcoming their fears? Make them press triangle: mature, circle: make fart joke, square: overcome fear, x: pee in pants and run away?

I watched some DVD of FF X's cutscenes once and it was so disconnected compared to actually playing through the game. Yes, the game required a lot of repetitive battles. That is an issue of having the right mix of battles to story, and fixable without doing away with battles completely.

I gave examples of games that use other mechanisms just because they are ones where battles are replaced by some other required thing that people who are only interested in the story might dislike (puzzles in Layton) or lots of dialogue options (visual novels) or only boss fights (SotC). The logic behind needing to solve puzzles to progress the story is a gimmick. By being just a sequence of multiple choice options, visual novels provide nowhere near the interactivity of a game. And SoTC is just learning new tricks to beat each boss, and if all JRPGs did that, I bet we'd all be sick of the hunt-for-the-environmental-cue mechanic quickly.

"@Koggit: One reason why I can see why they do that is because many people play games for the story. It's really a pain when you want to see the next scene in the story and you have to fulfill some gameplay challenge. For me, it's okay because the story is the icing on the gameplay cake, but some other people don't even wanna bother with learning basic skills to advance."

yeah, i agree that that's the most reasonable explanation, but the people who don't want to play games should be reading books or watching movies. games aren't "push a button to advance the story" -- that's an ebook. too many RPGs think they're supposed to be like an ebook.

@gunm: JRPGs have gotten a *little* better with the random battles and sometimes they're avoidable, like in Tales of Vesperia. I think more and more, they're trying to get away from it being random, but it's still a bit confusing over why I have to beat up random monsters in the first place.

@surak: Well, on one hand you have the DQ series, in which random battles and growing your character are linked to you having an influence in character growth. The story is tightly woven in with the gameplay. On the other hand you have a game like Mass Effect 2, which said "screw you and your battle system, let's just make a shooter out of it." I feel like if we're going to make a movie/story, we need more influence in how things happen so that we can carve our own story... and really, most battles in a lot of RPGs usually have nothing to do with it.

I get what you're saying with FF X, and it was one of my gripes with Suikoden 5 in that there's a lot of history and conversation that you learn just through exploring towns and talking to people which were kinda meant to be part of the story and atmosphere.

It's really something that crossed my mind since I started wondering why most JRPG developers keep trying to innovate the battle system, making me wonder, what's so important about having battles and their systems?

@Koggit: Yeah, it really sucks for the audience. A game will try to be a story, and some people just want the story, but it's not supposed to be like that.

I have a suggestion! There is no need for random invisible monsters! Event based battles or ones that are triggered when you touch a certain spot and can be avoided (like Chrono Trigger) work great. I am actually surprised that CT has rarely been mimicked.

A lot of us here have been playing these games for 20+ years and I know that I sigh in disgust when running into 16 invisible monsters then reach the end of an empty hallway and fight 24 monsters to walk back. Just slows things down and doesn't really offer anything interesting. If the encounter rate is too high you end up over-leveled and things are too easy.

Here's an idea: put the enemies on the field. In a game like Persona 3 half the fun is ambushing weak enemies or avoiding strong ones. I love a good turn-based battle, but it has to be fast with quick animations. Streamlined menus are good too. I like the "plus" battle menus with up, down, left, right and neutral leading to different commands.

It's just like any genre... you want something with arcade-responsiveness, strategy, fun and challenge. Some RPGs treat encounters like a drawn out chore.

My personal favorite idea: your turn comes up, you control your character a la an action RPG. You can run to the enemy and swing, shoot it with an arrow or cast a spell. All still command-based but making things more intuitive.

Press X Press X Press X
Press A Press A Press A