Is turn-based combat objectively inferior to active combat?

Let me guess: Cosmic Star Heroine?

>>375942108

Persona 5.

How's Cosmic Star Heroine, by the way?

>>375941840
Sure.

And any form of RNG destroys a game, as in, if luck is involved in any way, then it immediately deletes any and all values of skill, ergo it's garbage.

No. It's acting quickly under pressure against thinking about your actions for a longer time. They're just different skillsets.

Also, pure strategy/thinking against a mixture of thinking and input skill. Active combat judges your ability with your input device, turn-based only your mind.
>>375942464
RNG is just the unknown variable to any situation. You want a game with perfect information, play chess. That doesn't mean there's no skill to other games.

>>375942742

There's RNG in Chess, when you're deciding who gets which color. There's no logic to who gets each color.

>>375942913
No, you just suck at flipping coins.

>>375941840
No, specially when the action combat is shit, fuck Squeenix.

>>375942464
Turn based combat doesn't always involve RNG.

There are examples of great turn-based combat games and great action combat games. Though the majority of the fun in Turn-based combat is in pre-battle preparation, which is maximally exploited in the frame of the fight, versus Action, where the beauty is mostly being able to perform as well as possible in each individual engagement. The ultimate shame is that Action games don't ever give you beefy enough enemies to test extensive combos with, and when you get to bosses, most of them can't be staggered sufficiently to utilize actually intricate combos.
KH2FM is pretty much the best Action RPG ever made, and nobody will ever know because they look at >Squeenix and ignore the immense depth in most fights.

>>375943343

Tell me TWO (2) turn-based games with combat that don't have critical strikes %, damage range for weapons, hit rate and dodge rate %, percentage based drop rate for items.

>>375943575

>immense depth
>press triangle to win, mash dodge otherwise, heal eventually

wew

>>375941840
No. I don't know what retard come up with this meme but there are plenty of turn-based games that are better than active combat games. I would agree turn-based combat in JRPG's usually isn't that great, but there are plenty of other turn based games that are amazing

>>375943624
Advance Wars
Advance Wars 2

>>375943624
All the Mario and Luigi games

>>375943718
>I know literally nothing about the combat system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVu0Qqosj8

>>375943575
You were completely right until you brought up KH

>>375943575
>Though the majority of the fun in Turn-based combat is in pre-battle preparation
This is why FFT is still the best turn-based JRPG after 2 decades.

>>375941840
Yes, active combat is of course much better than turn-based one, in terms of fun. Every fucking time everyone is like "Huuuh so boring and slow!", active one is liked much more.
However, it cannot be made extremely complex as you cannot check every, single variable in a small fraction of time. Game could be done in that way too, but it would be retarded.
Also active combat games are usually shit when it comes to controlling more units

>>375942464
>And any form of RNG destroys a game, as in, if luck is involved in any way, then it immediately deletes any and all values of skill, ergo it's garbage.

Probability is the backbone of game theory, choosing the optimal course of action based on what is most likely to work is literally the primary skill in every single game you play.

You talk about skill like you have it, but if you're oblivious to the basics of GTO play I guarantee you fucking suck. Professional athletes never roll dice but they still talk about plays in terms of percentages.

>>375941840
>Turn based combat meaning SRPG\TRPG then no
>Turn based combat meaning old CRPG and JRPG then yes

Unironically, yes. Any situation where RNG and static turns are present, the game becomes more about luck than skill, and is thus inferior.

>>375944382
See
>>375944270
You're shit.

Turn based tactics > hack and slash gameplay

>>375944270
This. Even in games with literally zero RNG, like the majority of fighting games, there is a significant degree of randomization and plentiful uncertain variables in regards to what will happen if you throw a single attack out or approach in a specific manner, such that the odds of success in that particular attack can be boiled down to an unknown randomized variable. If you're just bad at strategizing or on-the-fly tactics, you're bad at the game. Turn-based or otherwise.

The only excuse is in games where you have a really shitty early game where you will more than likely just get wiped out because you need an enemy to miss in order to succeed, like Nocturne's earliest points.

>>375941840
Depends on the game. Some turn based games are hindered by being turn based and some real time games are really hurt by not being turn based. A good rule of thumb is that if the game cares about maximizing numbers such as damage it should be turn based. If its more about reacting to what your enemy is doing to cancel out numbers it should be real time. Then if you are controlling more that one or two characters it should be turn based and if not real time is fine.

>>375942464
It really depends on how much actual RNG is involved, blackjack and poker and such are examples of skill based RNG, playing percentages, where as something like slots are pure RNG.

>>375944270
You're right but I still think there are games out there with just too much RNG.

>>375944768

It's not hack & slash though, the best games require you to think tactically and in real-time, accounting for things like cooldown, endlag, i-frames, games like the Souls series. That is legitimate skill.

A game like Darkest Dungeon might be a lot of fun to play and be really cool in style and all kinds of other things, but ultimately it is ruled by RNG and chance, and is thus more about gambling than skill-based gameplay. Your healer will either take a small amount of damage or be brought to 0 HP and at that point any attack could kill them permanently (also chance based). That isn't cool.

>devs couldn't afford real time combat
>still ask full price for their game
LOL

>>375944790
This is true specially in faster fighting games, players just can't react and have to guess if you've ever watched some tournament with commentators even they talk about predictions and that kind of stuff while commentating.

>>375944994
Darkest Dungeon's RNG is utter shit because the positives almost never outweigh the negatives. That's why the game itself is really bad overall. Nothing you do ever makes a lasting positive impact, and your best parties need to be erased in order to complete the game, multiple times at that. You can't make a game that shitty better just by making it Action.

When I was 12 or 13 I tried some turn-based game with movement (sRPG or whatever those are called), I think it might have been some King's Bounty game. I absolutely hated the concept and didn't touch another sRPG for 10+ years
Now I love them though

>>375941840
Yes but I'd say turn based can still be functionally fun. That said you got people like Shadowrun devs that think turnbased by itself is fun. That game was missing quite a few fucking mechanics in order for it to be fun.

What seems better here

>go though menu
>select attack menu
>select your attack
>pick the enemy you want to attack
>attack enemy

Or

>walk up and attack

>>375945835
Both sound terribly shitty when your oversimplify them like that

>>375943624
item drop rate isn't an aspect of combat, and also item drop rate isn't uniquely present in turn based games.

also Paper Mario, has none of the things you hate. whereas Diablo one of your beloved ARPGs has all of the things you hate.

A bad turn based game is still playable, a bad active/action combat system is unplayable.

>>375945835
The first allows you to control a party, the second one doesn't.