It's Time to Rewrite the Narrative About Turn-Based RPGs
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and Final Fantasy XVI present a dichotomy of turn-based combat. FF XVI represents a complete abandonment of the turn-based combat that made Final Fantasy a household name in order to widen appeal, whereas Expedition 33 celebrates the unique capabilities of turn-based combat and has seen great success because of it. // Image: Sandfall Interactive, Square Enix
On this blog, I talk a lot about narratives. Specifically, I like to focus on the narratives presented in games and movies that aim to illustrate journeys that characters embark upon. For many people, myself included, narratives are a large part of what makefs engaging with art so appealing in the first place. Discovering what story is being told in a piece of art, discerning what meaning there is in such a story, and creating a takeaway for how that narrative can inform how you think about the world and live your day-to-day life are all essential parts of what make experiencing narratives in media so fun and important.
But these aren’t the only types of narratives that we see unfold in the media landscape. Just as storytellers craft narratives to be explored in the art they create, storytellers and audience members alike craft narratives about the overall media landscape they engage with. They recognize patterns, trends, strengths, and weaknesses in their media of choice, and these recognitions ultimately give way to the formation of narratives. These narratives aren’t inherently good, bad, correct, nor incorrect - but they can lead to warped perceptions of reality. Oftentimes, pre-conceived narratives muddy good-faith conversations about broader topics like genre, meaning, and what aspects of media are outdated and need to be modernized.
The video game space is no stranger to this phenomenon. Whether you’re a developer or just a person that enjoys playing games that bring you joy, you’ve doubtlessly encountered a narrative about games. The amount of narratives that you see about the games landscape will largely depend on how into games you are, but if you consider playing video games to be your primary hobby, it’s pretty hard to not see the various narratives that populate gaming culture. From in-game monetization, to the discrepancy between AAA games, AA games, and indie games, to whether Souls games should have difficulty options, there’s a lot of topics that developers and players, for better or worse, like to chirp about. Discussions about these topics inevitably result in a dominant, more popular opinion and recessive, less popular opinions. Put another way, opinions that fall in line with the dominant opinion of a narrative are the “normal takes” while the opinions that fall out of line with the dominant opinion of a narrative become are “hot takes”.
The relative temperature of one’s take goes farther than just that of the topic of the week about an ever-fluid industry, though. Narratives ultimately inform the collective culture of video games to determine what the popular opinions, interests, and values within the video game community are. Such things go on to inform what developers take into consideration when making their games.
In the late 2010s, for example, the games industry saw a significant rise in monetization in not only free-to-play games, but premium-priced games as well. Games like Overwatch, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, and Star Wars Battlefront II all featured paid loot boxes that offered players the chance of acquiring in-game goodies when opening a box containing a random assortment of items in exchange for either in-game resources or real money. Whether the player received anything they actually wanted from opening one of these boxes was entirely up to chance. This caused many people within the games community recognize this phenomenon as a form of gambling - something particularly troubling considering that many loot boxes appeared in games considered by the ESRB to be appropriate for minors to play. Not only was this practice predatory, it was potentially introducing younger players to the dangers of gambling. In time, this narrative became widespread throughout the games space to the point where it’s resulted in legislation and bans in multiple countries. Now in the 2020s, game publishers and developers have pivoted to other forms of in-game monetization, knowing of the negative backlash they would receive from players if they included loot boxes. The emergence of a narrative among players and developers created genuine change with regard to how games are created (or in this case, monetized).
My point with this is that narratives can and do have substantial impact on the path that the video game medium and culture walks down. Narratives craft the perception that we collectively build towards certain types of games, genres, mechanics, and just about any aspect of a game’s design or development. With that said, though, narratives are just that: narratives. They only carry as much weight as the people engaging with the narrative allow it to have. If you are drawn to open world games because you’ve convinced yourself of the narrative that such games are inherently the most ambitious and content-rich, therefore the “best” types of games to play, then your perception and takeaways from such games are ultimately informed by your believed narrative. Put another way, your opinion is informed by a narrative, not reality. The issue with this instance is that having your opinion informed by a narrative you believe inherently creates blind spots in your judgement. Allowing a narrative to dictate your personal feelings toward a topic within games will inevitably make you fail to take absolutely everything into consideration when assessing a topic. It will make you prone to bias, cherry-picking, and ignorance.
Narratives are not reality - they are merely attempts to understand reality.
It’s with this in mind that I posit the intrigue and dangers of this type of narrative-building. On one hand, building narratives can generally inform what types of features, mechanics, and innovations are received well by players and thus make for future games that inherit such features. This often leads to games that feel better to play and theoretically appeal to more people. Narratives can be constructive and informative as to the future of the industry - something I find to be ultimately healthy. On the other hand, though, building narratives can often lead to false, misleading, and/or harmful perceptions of certain games, mechanics, and innovations that inhibit developers from making certain creative decisions over how they build their games. It’s this aspect of narrative-building that I find to be a particularly important topic to discuss.
Lately, I’ve found myself thinking a lot about the current state of Role Playing Games (RPGs) and how the perception of the genre has shifted throughout the last few decades. Earlier this year, we saw the return of classic JRPG franchises via remastered collections of Suikoden and Lunar titles. Both of these franchises come from an era where turn-based RPGs were the dominant type of RPG - especially in the JRPG space, a genre specifically focused on catering to the console market. While it could be argued that turn-based games were, to some extent, born out technical limitations when early video game RPGs came to market in the early 1980s, they gradually grew into something greater. As time went on, and hardware gradually became more powerful, turn-based RPGs only became more complex, more popular, and more important to the overall industry. While action-oriented RPGs like Ys, Tales of, Star Ocean, and Western offerings like The Elder Scrolls certainly existed during the ‘80s, ‘90s, and 2000s, they were never perceived to be inherently worse nor better than turn-based RPG titles. Turn-based RPGs and Action RPGs simply coexisted alongside each other and harnessed different design approaches. Fast-forwarding to the 2010s and 2020s, though, one can see that the perception has shifted. Somewhere along the way, turn-based RPGs fell out of favor as more action-oriented RPGs became the dominant, superior form of RPG.
Or, at least, that’s what a certain narrative would lead you to believe. Sometime during the last few decades, we’ve seen the rise in a particular narrative that implies that action-based RPGs inherently have more appeal than their turn-based counterparts. Therefore, if a game wants to sell more copies and thus make more money, then that game needs to be action-based.
The primary issue with this narrative about turn-based RPGs versus action-based RPGs is that it oversimplifies the very dichotomy between the two flavors of RPG. Moreover, this narrative artificially invokes a hostile relationship between the two types of RPGs. Under this perception, one type of RPG is inherently better and has more potential than the other, which has a ripple effect of creating a needless sense of tribalism within the overall RPG fandom. As I’ve started before, though, narratives are not reality. This idea of one type of RPG being superior to another is not reality - it’s just a made-up narrative that certain people have chosen to believe. And yet, this very made-up narrative is one that still purveys through the video game culture and has made a genuine impact in the way certain games have been built.
To make my own opinion clear: I think all genres have unique strengths and weaknesses. Instead of creating an artificial hierarchy of genres that are better than others, I think we, as both video game players and as developers, should be having a different conversation altogether. Instead of saying that certain genres are doomed to be niche, to not sell as well as other genres, or not see as much critical acclaim as other types of games, we should instead be celebrating the strengths that different types of games bring with them. We should wonder how games of certain types can be improved and what design innovations can be entertained to facilitate such change. We should be cheering for games to choose to take risks and be different, instead of conforming to whatever is perceived to be the most popular and therefore the most potentially successful type of game. Turn-based RPGs and action-based RPGs are equally incredible genres of games that carry different strengths and weaknesses with them and there’s nothing with that being the case.
We need to combat and rewrite the narrative about turn-based RPGs being perceived as weaker types of RPGs. That said, how do we do such a thing? Put simply, we need to prioritize looking at reality and the very real effect that recently released RPGs are having on people and how they inform the next generation of RPG developers. Let’s look at various releases over the last couple years that show that turn-based RPGs are heading towards a brighter, healthier direction despite the dominant gaming narrative pushing them down. Looking at these games will not only help us realize how incorrect narratives can be, but it will also remind us that turn-based and action-based RPGs coexisting with each other is only a good thing. Empowering and allowing developers to make different types of games will only lead to a more creative, ambitious, and healthier industry. In an age where it’s easy to become cynical about how developers and publishers are only interested in doing whatever will bring in the most dollar bills, it is more important now than ever before to be looking at narratives such as this and reminding ourselves of the discrepancies between perceived narratives and reality.
Final Fantasy XVI’s entirely action-oriented combat system symbolizes an abandonment of the JRPG franchise’s origins not out of creative integrity, but seemingly out of fear that conforming to the series’ tradition of turn-based (or turn-based-adjacent) combat will lead to fewer players and sales. The result is a game that left some series fans feeling alienated. Final Fantasy fans looking for the turn-based strategy the series was once known for must turn elsewhere. // Image: Square Enix
The impetus for this conversation comes from a quote from Naoki Yoshida, otherwise known as Yoshi-P, during a 2023 Game Informer interview promoting the then-upcoming release of Final Fantasy XVI. Perhaps more than any other franchise in the industry, Final Fantasy has built a reputation of constantly reinventing itself with each new installment. As early as Final Fantasy II, each new game in the series contains different battle systems, progression systems, and possibilities for players to consider while in combat. There are different approaches to combat in each of these RPGs, and many Final Fantasy games incorporate different styles of taking turns or fusions of action and turns to create battle systems distinct from one another. Gradually, though, the series became less interesting in offering traditional turn-based combat in favor of hybrid or full-on action-combat systems. Final Fantasy XV had the main series’ first fully action-oriented combat system. XV’s combat system is ripe with issues and delivers nowhere near as much strategy as the series’ older offerings. Despite the slight disappointment from XV, there was still hope that the series would once again reinvent itself and offer a more strategy-focused combat system in the series’ next entry.
When Final Fantasy XVI was announced, fans had their wish granted in the sense that the series was, in fact, reinventing itself once again, but it also became evident that Square Enix was doubling down on making Final Fantasy move towards being an entirely action-focused RPG franchise. In many ways, Final Fantasy XVI seemed like a departure when it was making its marketing rounds leading up to its 2023 release. Not only was its M-rating and tone massively different from previous entries, but XVI’s emphasis on combos, cooldowns, perfect dodges, and parries made it seem a lot more interested in being a Devil May Cry successor than a new Final Fantasy installment. It became quickly clear that Final Fantasy XVI wasn’t going to be a game that rewarded smartly developing characters’ stats and abilities and planning out attacks and spells during challenging fights. Rather, it was going to be a fast-paced “roller coaster ride” action game focused on moment-to-moment decision-making with light RPG elements dashed in. This didn’t necessarily doom Final Fantasy XVI to being despised by the series’ fanbase - the game was ultimately received fairly well when it released in the summer of 2023 -, but many longtime Final Fantasy and JRPG fans lamented that the series had practically abandoned the strategic, slower-paced gameplay that had made the series become beloved by so many in the first place.
Naoki Yoshida, the game’s producer, made comments that certainly didn’t help fans’ feelings of abandonment by the series they had once loved. In this interview, Yoshida suggests that the decision to make Final Fantasy XVI an action game was primarily driven by the idea that an RPG with an action-oriented combat system would be far more likely to recoup the game’s $100+ million budget.
“When creating FF XVI, you can’t ignore the data that’s been taken from the fan base, from Final Fantasy I to XV. …a numbered Final Fantasy has become such an endeavor to the point where your development costs can go upwards of $100 million, just to create one game. And so to recoup that development cost, you need as many people playing your game as possible. And while a lot of the older fans are used to what Final Fantasy had in the past, a lot of younger players have never played a Final Fantasy game. They grew up playing first-person shooters, they grew up playing games like Grand Theft Auto, where basically you press a button and something happens immediately. …You have this whole generation of gamers that grew up with this, and you need to get those generations to come in and also play FF XVI, which has this image of not being that type of game. You have to make it appealing to that group as well. And so to get that group to come in and introduce them to the series, we decided to go down this route - action was pretty much the only way.”
Final Fantasy XVI director Hiroshi Takai adds on to Yoshida’s comments, implying that turn-based combat would only feel out of place in a game with greater graphical fidelity. “…there was always an option to possibly make this a turn-based game. But when thinking of the graphical fidelity and the realism that’s provided by the PlayStation 5 technology, to have a game where people just stopped and not do anything in that type of high quality graphics is going to create something that is going to feel off and we wanted to avoid that. And to make something where you have two people in the middle of a battle but they’re both just kind of sitting there looking at each other, waiting for somebody to implement a command, is going to be kind of jarring.”
These comments raised lots of eyebrows from the dedicated Final Fantasy and greater JRPG communities. It seemed like Square Enix had justified going fully action-based for its flagship JRPG franchise because they saw no other way to bring in new people to their games. Yoshida specifically suggests that data was the very metric they used to justify to themselves that they couldn’t go forward with making an RPG with deep systems and strategic combat. However, I and many of the JRPG crowd that raised their eyebrows to this interview understand that Square Enix’s perception of turn-based RPGs and their popularity is one that’s built on a narrative they’ve convinced themselves to be true. In reality, Square Enix’s decision to forgo turn-based, strategic combat is largely based off of their inability to sufficiently market and promote their few modern turn-based offerings.
While mainline Final Fantasy has opted to go with either action-oriented or hybrid combat systems over the last ten years, there are still several Square Enix titles that continue to feature turn-based combat. More specifically, turn-based combat has primarily been reserved for Square Enix’s comparatively lower budget efforts. Games like Octopath Traveler and its sequel, Triangle Strategy, the Bravely Default series, and recent SaGa entries still implement combat systems that find clever ways to innovate and build upon the foundations of turn-based combat. Octopath Traveler specifically implements a smart system where players can use different weapon and magic types to break enemies, significantly weakening them. Alongside this mechanic, players have access to use Boost Points that accrue every turn. Players can either use their Boost Points to attack multiple times in a single turn to break enemies quicker, or they can hold onto their Boost Points to power up a skill that can inflict massive damage on a broken enemy. Through these two primary mechanics, Octopath Traveler and its sequel both deliver exciting, strategic, and often difficult combat situations that feel unlike any other game on the market.
The issue with Octopath Traveler, in the eyes of Square Enix, is the fact that the games in this franchise don’t sell nearly well enough compared to Square Enix’s larger, more well-established IP. To Square Enix, they see the low sales and the fact that Octopath’s gameplay is primarily built around turn-based combat, and they’re able to connect all the dots that they need to. Octopath Traveler isn’t a mega-successful franchise because it features turn-based gameplay. However, this conclusion isn’t reality - it’s merely an attempt to understand reality.
It isn’t untrue that games like Octopath Traveler II and SaGa: Emerald Beyond haven’t sold an incredible amount of copies - but there’s no reason to ascertain that these games’ turn-based natures are the single reason why they didn’t sell over ten million copies. Put simply, there are various factors that impact how well a game sells. How much a game is marketed, how widespread that marketing is, the general style and appeal of the game, how and where the game is announced and promoted, what price it is released at, how well it reviews, and many other facets play a role in determining how well a game financially performs. To rationalize a game’s performance down to merely its subgenre is a massive oversimplification over the complex nature of games appealing to mass audiences. Put simply, games like Octopath Traveler II and SaGa: Emerald Beyond are niche titles and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. With proper fostering of an IP, initially small franchises can grow to be massive. From Software’s 2009 release, Demon’s Souls, is the perfect example of a niche cult classic beloved by a small number of dedicated players slowly but surely becoming something bigger. Through fostering the gameplay systems and ideas started with that game, From Software eventually turned out bigger hits with more and more appeal, ultimately leading to the sales juggernaut that is 2022’s Elden Ring.
My point is that blaming a game’s subgenre for low sales performances is both incorrect and unproductive towards developing greater titles. Octopath Traveler II and SaGa: Emerald Beyond were primarily victims of below-average marketing that limited how many eyeballs were placed on them. In truth, Square Enix themselves are most likely at fault for limiting the sales performance of both titles due to their uneven marketing strategies for their titles. In Square Enix’s eyes, however, they only see turn-based games selling poorly and use that as a reason to justify their decision to forgo making turn-based entries in their “bigger” games and franchises.
Perhaps I’m being too cruel and presumptuous with this critique of Square Enix - after all, Yoshida only specifically calls out the “data” from previous Final Fantasy games. Even when looking at such a thing, mainline Final Fantasy games haven’t been turn-based since 2001’s Final Fantasy X - each installment afterward has implemented action-based, hybrid, or MMO-style approaches to combat design. Final Fantasy X stands among the best-selling titles in the franchise, selling significantly more than the action-based Final Fantasy XV - the best-selling Final Fantasy game of the 2010s. I fail to see convincing data that points towards turn-based Final Fantasy games selling worse primarily due to their turn-based nature. I think it’s clear to see that Square Enix’s financial justification to forgo making turn-based games in their biggest IP is entirely informed by a false narrative that discounts the effect of marketing, release schedule, and the many other factors that go into determining whether a game is a financial success.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 stands as a stark contrast to the prevailing narrative about turn-based RPGs. It’s bold, innovative, and has taken the world by storm. As a result, the game has garnered impressive word of mouth. Expedition 33 proves that there’s plenty of life left in the turn-based genre and that such a game can perform well both critically and commercially. // Image: Sandfall Interactive
But fine - let’s allow Square Enix to have their way and put their money where their mouth is. Final Fantasy XVI pivoted to an action-based combat system and the Final Fantasy VII Remake trilogy pivoted to a combat system blending action and command issuing for the sake of appealing to more people and therefore selling more copies. Although Final Fantasy XVI, VII Remake, and VII Rebirth have all reviewed generally quite well and were heavily marketed and promoted, they have all failed to meet Square Enix’s sales expectations. Square Enix has put so much effort into pivoting their flagship JRPG franchise away from turn-based combat for the sake of sales, only to flub their very goal of acquiring such sales. There are a couple reasons to explain why games like XVI and Rebirth underperformed, much of which can be attributed to their exclusivity to a single platform at launch. It remains to be seen whether Square Enix will admit that the invalidity of their presumptions about turn-based games being the cause of lower sales, but it’s clear from a consumer standpoint that their abandonment of making large turn-based games has largely backfired on them.
Final Fantasy XVI director Hiroshi Takai specifically mentions that the very nature of turn-based RPG gameplay will only become jarring for games with high-fidelity, realistic graphics. However, as we’ve seen throughout the last few years, such a conclusion is yet another example of a made-up narrative independent from reality. A perfect illustration of this arrived only a few months after Final Fantasy XVI’s release in the form of Baldur’s Gate III. The game adapts a lot of elements from the IP it’s adapting, Dungeons & Dragons, and thus features combat meant to provide the same feel as tabletop role-playing games, but the point still stands - Baldur’s Gate III lit the world on fire and it did so proudly bearing the fact that it was a turn-based RPG. BG3 ultimately went on to win various game of the year awards and is believed to have sold at least 15 million copies in less than two years. Contrary to Takai’s narrative, Baldur’s Gate III implements a high-fidelity, realistic, yet unmistakably stylized visual identity that hardly makes the game’s turn-based combat ever feel jarring to the point of being to the game’s detriment.
In 2025, we received yet another case against Takai’s narrative about turn-based RPGs with the release of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. A new IP coming from a newly formed studio primarily composed of junior developers and former employees of Ubisoft, Expedition 33 is a love-letter to JRPGs of the ‘90s and 2000s. Guillaume Broche, the director of Expedition 33, specifically cites Final Fantasy VIII as one of his favorite games - one that unmistakably inspired certain aspects of Expedition 33. Announced less than a year before its release, Expedition 33 has garnered so much attention and praise because of its innovative shake-ups to turn-based RPG conventions. The game borrows the timed-button presses for attacks and parries not unlike older JRPGs like Paper Mario and The Legend of Dragoon, and enhances these features by making them essential to overcome challenging fights. Moreover, the game carries massive levels of customization that opens the door for players to compose a wide variety of builds. This gives a degree of freedom in player expression, particularly with how they navigate different aspects of the game’s turn-based combat. This innovation built upon a turn-based foundation has been enough to turn heads all throughout the video game space, to the point where the game has sold over three million copies in two months and has become a front-runner for end-of-year accolades - a particularly impressive feat for an independent developer’s freshman release.
Beyond its gameplay innovations and flexibility, Expedition 33 tells a remarkably mature, thoughtful story featuring a visually distinct world with incredibly detailed graphics - the very same things that Takai and Yoshida implied would be “jarring” to see for a turn-based game. Put simply, games like Baldur’s Gate III and Expedition 33 fly directly in the face of Square Enix’s attitude towards turn-based games. Both Baldur’s Gate and Clair Obscur have offered deeply tactical experiences through utilizing turn-based gameplay, and they didn’t see financial strain because of it. If anything, their turn-based nature only gave way to players realizing different gameplay opportunities and strategies in ways that feel entirely unique to them. Turn-based gameplay leads to emergent gameplay just as much as action-based gameplay does - the way that looks is just different. Instead of making different moment-to-moment decisions in the heat of battle in action-based games, turn-based games often require the player to think more critically buffs and debuffs they can apply, how they can optimize their characters for certain situations, and how optimally they can prepare for a certain battle ahead of time. That’s not to say that these aspects are absent in action-based or hybrid combat systems, but a turn-based game naturally forces its players to approach and think about combat differently. That difference is the very recipe that makes for fun experiences only possible from turn-based RPGs. That difference is the primary reason why, even after over 40 years, we’re still seeing new innovations and style of turn-based combat in RPGs, Japanese or Western.
While it’s impossible to deny that turn-based RPGs aren’t as common as they used to be, I think it’s likely that we’re going to see a shift in that over the next couple years and decades as future developers become inspired by the innovations in turn-based combat that games like Baldur’s Gate III and Expedition 33 provide. Just like how 2009’s Demon’s Souls ultimately led to an explosion in Souls-like games in the late 2010s and 2020s, I think it’s entirely plausible that we’ll see even more turn-based games populate the games landscape in the future. That’s not to say nothing of the existing amount of turn-based games coming out today that are still often finding new, exciting ways to present turn-based gameplay.
The reality is that Square Enix’s narrative about turn-based games yielding less financial return is one that’s proving to be blatantly incorrect. That said, the narrative about turn-based RPGs didn’t come from nowhere. Developers like Naoki Yoshida and Hiroshi Takai are far from the only ones that hold opinions dismissing the potential and appeal of turn-based titles. Even despite the success of games like Baldur’s Gate III and Expedition 33, there remain many that hold onto the idea that the turn-based RPG is an inherently dated subgenre with limited room for growth, innovation, experimentation, and appeal. There are still many that continue to believe that turn-based games are merely a holdover from older generations of hardware that made creating turn-based games more technically viable compared to making action-based games.
While I’ve illustrated the faults in the narrative that Square Enix and many others carry about turn-based RPGs, I still haven’t touched much upon what we can do to address changing this narrative and how we can head towards an industry that equally respects RPGs regardless of how they implement combat systems. I think a large part of addressing and changing narratives starts with genuine conversations - not unlike the one I’m creating with this very blog post. Conversations are integral to shifting any culture’s ideas about any subject. Perhaps this is my optimistic nature coming through, but I earnestly feel that conversations about turn-based RPGs have been shifting towards a more positive direction, both from players and developers. Let’s examine how the presence of turn-based games in the industry has been changing and how the discussions of those changes are making a real difference in the games we’re seeing release.
AUTHOR’S NOTE:
To some extent, I feel that there is another narrative parallel to this entire discussion. The relationship between action RPGs and turn-based RPGs is often equivalated to that of Japanese RPGs and Western RPGs. Historically, JRPGs have been turn-based while Western RPGs have embraced experience-driven action systems for their combat mechanics. Narratives about JRPGs and Japanese games in general go into a direction that’s a bit out of scope for this particular discussion. I wanted to address this, though I feel that a broader conversation about the historical narrative about JRPGs from Western audiences is a topic best explored another time.
Metaphor: ReFantazio is another example of a turn-based RPG finding excellent success thanks to its innovations and particular strengths as a turn-based video game. Atlus, Metaphor’s developer, have historically been conservative in the sense that they’ve mostly stuck to their RPGs being turn-based throughout their history, and yet Metaphor proves that they can still find new ways to make turn-based battles feel fresh, exciting, and appealing to those new to the genre. // Image: Atlus
Let’s take a step back and unpack why people like Naoki Yoshida may have this narrative about turn-based games in the first place. When turn-based RPGs ruled the genre, the games industry was in a different place. From the 1980s to the mid-2000s, role playing games were often limited in scale because they had to be. Often used abstractions to represent large aspects of these games in relatively small ways in order to accommodate for limited hardware capabilities. For example, when Cloud runs around the World Map in Final Fantasy VII, he’s represented by a giant version of himself that’s nearly the same size (or sometimes bigger) than entire towns. This depiction of Cloud isn’t meant to be interpreted literally. Square doesn’t intend for the player to genuinely believe that Cloud grows 30 feet tall specifically when he walks through the fields of the world. Rather, this visual design choice is an abstraction used to represent the player in relation to the greater world that they’re inhabiting in-game. The original PlayStation hardware wasn’t powerful enough to render a full, detailed world for the player to run through. There was no reality where a world of the size of Final Fantasy VII could be realistically represented to scale. The use of the abstraction of a giant Cloud representing the game’s party running through the massive world is a clever way to illustrate the feel of exploring a vast world while still being realizable on 32-bit hardware. Likewise, the implementation of random encounters is another instance of an abstraction. Although the player doesn’t see any enemies while roaming the World Map, random encounters illustrate the ever-present danger of running through the world and running into threats. These abstractions are stylistic ways to represent information about the game’s world and ecosystem while still being visually simple to understand. Abstractions are used quite consistently in games like this, and turn-based combat is but one of many instances of these types of abstractions.
Turn-based combat allows games like Final Fantasy VII to illustrate the feel of battles featuring party members and enemies attacking each other in a way that, while admittedly unrealistic and very video game-y, works in a way that conveys the spirit of a battle filled with large weapons, flashy spells, and otherworldly creature designs. Conveying battles through this turn-based method, once again, makes the complex battles depicted in Final Fantasy VII become realizable on 32-bit hardware. Put simply, the use of turn-based combat allows games to realize their intended scale and make focused encounter designs in a way that works for what the game is trying to accomplish for itself while also on hardware that has certain restrictions. An added side-effect of using turn-based combat is that developers are given unique room to implement gameplay systems and potential strategies specific to the very nature of turn-based combat. Final Fantasy VII makes for a good case study on this, given that many Materia in the original game are not present in the FF VII Remake series, because of the remake’s mix of action combat and command issuing. Materia like 2x Cut allows the player to attack twice in a single turn in Final Fantasy VII, which allows the player to construct certain builds and strategies around such an ability. Due to Remake’s lack of turn-based combat, Materia like 2x Cut simply can’t exist in the same way. This illustrates how turn-based and action-based RPGs inherently bring different potential for strategies that make the two types of RPGs feel equally valid and desirable to players looking for different types of experiences.
The implementation of abstractions in role-playing games can be traced back to tabletop role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. Combat in D&D is often chaotic and features a lot of moving parts depending on how many party members are present, how many enemies there are to fight, what the layout of the encounter arena is, and how much the Dungeon Master wants to manage. The turn-based nature of D&D combat is an abstraction not meant to be literally interpreted as party members or enemies patiently waiting for each other to finish attacking, but rather, to give order to the frantic chaos and adaptation that regularly takes place during D&D encounters. If all party members and enemies attacked, moved, cast spells, and performed counter-play to other party members/enemies all at the same time, the game would be pure chaos and completely unplayable. The use of turns helps ensure that all players and the DM are on the same page over what is happening, the order in which it’s happening, and how such actions affect what can and will happen in future turns. Additionally, in the context of a game played by a couple people huddled together over a table, the abstraction of turn-based gameplay makes the overall pacing of the game be in line with (and therefore be as accessible as) other types of board, tabletop, and card games people play.
Many video games may have borrowed the use of turn-based combat for technical reasons, but a large aspect of so many video game RPGs using turn-based combat is also because of the unique experience inherent to the turn-based format that was first introduced in games like Dungeons & Dragons. The use of abstractions giving order to situations that would otherwise be chaotic allows turn-based systems to create situations that are thought-provoking, demand strategic decision-making, and offer satisfaction when overcoming particularly challenging fights. As decades pass and hardware has continued to improve, we no longer see technical limitations necessitating relatively simpler visuals and processing for turn-based combat. Yet, we continue to frequently see turn-based RPGs because of the prevailing nature of the unique capabilities that turn-based games continue to provide.
The argument and perception from many players and developers have in response to turn-based games, however, is that turn-based games are merely “old-fashioned” and are relics of an era where abstractions such as turn-based combat were necessary to make technically limited games realize ambitious scales. Since the days of turn-based RPGs’ dominance, hardware has significantly improved, and developers are now able to fully depict vast, detailed worlds with no compromises and no need for abstractions to illustrate things that the hardware may not be able fully render. Games like Elden Ring and Cyberpunk 2077 can render fully detailed worlds that players can freely explore. These games feature vast landscapes with large degrees of verticality and density. The level of detail in these games allowed by significantly more powerful hardware makes developers feel little-to-no need to rely on abstractions. So why, then, should developers have to rely on abstractions like turn-based combat if hardware no longer requires them to do so?
I think this is the primary question that developers like Naoki Yoshida and Hiroshi Takai have found themselves asking when developing games like Final Fantasy XVI. Why rely on the abstractions afforded by turn-based combat, a World Map, and random encounters when Square Enix can now create worlds with high visual fidelity, detail, realism, and believability? Why not just create a combat system that simply takes place in the game’s detailed environments? If the game has realistic-looking characters and a realistic-looking world, wouldn’t the switch to something very video game-y like turn-based combat feel suddenly unrealistic and therefore out of place?
These are questions that I can imagine developers and players often asking. I think questions like these are the main contributors to the narrative of turn-based RPGs being an inherently outdated concept. However, if you stop and think about it, any genre is an outdated concept if you allow it to be. The 2D platformer is a genre born out of an era when hardware could only display graphics with pixels. As hardware like the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation became available, 3D platformers began dominating the platformer genre. By the mid-1990s and 2000s, 2D platformers could be seen as an “inherently outdated” genre. And yet, 2D platformers have been a massive video game genre throughout the 2010s and 2020s - especially in the indie space. Games like Super Meat Boy, Shovel Knight, and Celeste are all modern interpretations of the “outdated” concept of the 2D platformer, and through smart, genuinely innovative design, these games pushed the genre forward and helped modernize the 2D platformer, growing the genre’s community and garnering countless accolades. There’s no reason why turn-based RPG developers can’t accomplish the same thing - and that’s precisely what we’re seeing in spite of the narrative placed against turn-based gameplay.
In a Game Developers Conference presentation, Kenichi Goto, battle director for Atlus’ 2024 hit Metaphor: ReFantazio, explains that Atlus had once considered making Metaphor more action-oriented out of fear of this very narrative of turn-based games being “old-fashioned”. However, after testing their original concepts for the game, Atlus decided that “turn-based battles are the heart of the game, and action should only help out”. With this in mind, Atlus focused on modernizing their take on turn-based combat through adding quality of life features such as a Retry option that lets player immediately restart a battle with no consequences, a generous auto-save system, and implementing an online system that helps players share strategies and recommend build possibilities for certain battles and side quests. This, on top of Atlus’ industry-leading animation that keeps turn-based battles interesting to look at, made for an RPG that was destined to garner attention across the industry. The result of these modernizations and visual flairs to turn-based combat was Atlus’ fastest-selling game of all time. Moreover, Metaphor: ReFantazio quickly received accolades for its innovation and originality, proving that turn-based games still have plenty of room for fresh ideas.
Best of all, Goto’s experience with working on Metaphor: ReFantazio seems to have reignited his faith in the genre - fully believing that turn-based RPGs and action-based RPGs can and should coexist alongside each other. Speaking to PC Gamer, Goto states, “I don’t think it’s a matter of which one’s better than the other: I think both turn-based battles and action battles can coincide and live in the same atmosphere. […] I believe it’s possible to keep even an old-school game genre fresh by identifying what modern users want and not losing sight of what you want to achieve. I personally believe turn-based games have a long future ahead of them”.
Certain franchises, such as Shin Megami Tensei, have remained turn-based throughout their history. Shin Megami Tensei V: Vengeance represents 35 years’ worth of refinement and modernization in the turn-based RPG space and feels remarkably polished as a result. // Image: Atlus
This is the perfect instance of reality being different from the narrative that attempts to explain reality. Atlus could have easily decided to turn Metaphor: ReFantazio into an Action RPG for the sake of conforming to this narrative and making a game that could theoretically appeal to more players. However, by refining what they do best as well as smartly implementing modernizations to make the genre more welcoming to newcomers, Atlus was ultimately rewarded by releasing a game that saw levels of financial success unprecedented for the developer and publisher. Metaphor has since been lauded by fans and critics (and even myself!) as a modern classic for the genre thanks to its deep combat system ripe for build experimentation and degree of customization that makes combat filled to the brim with player expression. Most vital to this conversation, though, is the fact that, when you hear anyone talk about Metaphor, you’ll rarely hear anyone talk about the game’s combat feeling dated. While I would argue that the game feels limited in terms of dungeon design, Metaphor’s combat is some of the most inventive, strategic combat I’ve encountered in any game over the last few years - and most of Metaphor’s players would echo the same thought. Simply put, Metaphor: ReFantazio is as incredible of a game as it is because it’s a smart utilization of the turn-based framework and stands as a fantastic illustration of how turn-based battles can and do still feel modern, dynamic, and challenging when approached properly.
Atlus is an interesting company to look at in the context of this discussion given that most of the company’s RPGs throughout the last 35 years have remained in turn-based form. Although the Shin Megami Tensei franchise has had a few spinoffs that have dabbled in action-oriented RPG gameplay, including Persona 5 Strikers and the Devil Summoner Raidou Kuzonoha duology, Atlus has primarily developed turn-based RPGs throughout their nearly 40-year-long history. An advantage of Atlus’ dedication to the genre throughout the decades is that we can see how their turn-based games have evolved and modernized throughout the decades. Shin Megami Tensei titles were once niche JRPGs that seldom got released outside of Japan. With the release of Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne in 2003, the series became modernized with the innovative “Press Turn” system, as well as getting an international release that made the series explode in popularity. As the years have gone on and more titles and more spinoffs have gotten released, Atlus’ flagship IP has maintained its identity while refining itself to facilitate more polished RPGs that have more and more mechanics that take advantage of the unique capabilities inherent to the turn-based RPG genre. This extends to the many Shin Megami Tensei spinoff franchises, including Persona. In the last decade, Atlus has put out some of their most popular games ever in the form of titles like Persona 5, Metaphor: ReFantazio, and Shin Megami Tensei V: Vengeance. A lot of this popularity has been the result of Atlus remaining committed to refining what they do best while also finding room to innovate turn-based gameplay and push the genre forward however they can.
Atlus has never given the implication that they feel creatively limited by the turn-based RPG genre nor have they ever implied that they’ve considered switching genres for the sake of appealing to a wider crowd. They’ve continued doing what they’re particularly talented at, and they’ve been rewarded by their turn-based RPGs selling gradually better and better. This stands in stark contrast to Square Enix - a company that has an unhealthy if not inconsistent relationship with the turn-based RPG genre.
While Final Fantasy has long been a franchise with very few turn-based titles over the last twenty years, the same can’t be said for Square Enix’s other flagship IP, Dragon Quest. Like Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest has been a remarkably conservative franchise with regard to its long-term identity. Unlike Final Fantasy’s commitment to redefining itself with each new entry, Dragon Quest has been mechanically consistent and evolutionary throughout its life. While the franchise has struggled to break into the mainstream in the West the way it has in Japan, the series has consistently offered a gameplay vibe that feels classic. 2017’s Dragon Quest XI was a refreshing release from Square Enix, in that it was a turn-based JRPG built on a massive scale that made modernizations that added freshness to its combat system while being still undeniably classic Dragon Quest in its feel. Dragon Quest XI is frequently in the conversation when it comes to discussing the best game in the franchise, and I think the game’s tightrope walk balancing classic tradition and modern innovation is what makes the game achieve its prestige.
Even while considering Dragon Quest XI’s fantastic critical and sales reception in addition to the franchise’s conservative nature as a whole, the Dragon Quest IP still isn’t safe from its creators considering turning away from its turn-based roots in order to appeal to a wider demographic of players. To be fair, we only know that Dragon Quest XII will “feature a new combat system”, which makes it unclear whether XII will be turn-based or more action-oriented. Given Square Enix’s track record with how they treat turn-based titles in addition to the fact that Yuji Horii and his team have still not clarified what XII’s combat system will be over four years after its announcement, fans have reason to be concerned over the direction the series may be going in.
The fact that we’re having this type of conversation about Dragon Quest, of all IPs, even after the incredible success that Dragon Quest XI had, illustrates a disconnect that some developers and publishers have with the overall video game market and vice versa. The existence of this narrative has given developers tunnel vision over what players want to see from games. Likewise, players that perpetuate such narratives create misrepresentations of what types of games have appeal and sell well. To combat this, the video game community simply needs to do a better job of creating dialogue between creators and players. When developers are empowered to ignore narratives and simply make what they want to make, they’re capable of making some of the greatest games available. Larian Studios and Sandfall Interactive didn’t make Baldur’s Gate III and Expedition 33, respectively, because they wanted to conform to ongoing narratives about certain types of games and genres. They made these games because they wanted to make these games in the way that they did. Baldur’s Gate III and Expedition 33 defied the narratives placed against them and now, they both serve as antitheses to the very narratives that, if accepted, would have prevented these games from existing.
Simply put, game creators should be fully empowered to make the games they want to make without ever having to fear that they have to modify their game and their ambitions for the sake of appealing to the elusive masses. The greatest successes in the games space come from courage. Developers having the courage to make the very games they wish to see more of in the world is often precisely what leads to some of the most beloved games of all time. Healthier, more transparent dialogues can help us navigate towards an industry where this becomes the norm. Likewise, more conversations around this topic will prevent prevailing narratives from controlling the creative courage and integrity of video game development.
Turn-based RPGs are steadily becoming more common in the independent video game space, including indie darlings like Sea of Stars and Chained Echoes. This indicates that, like many other genres, turn-based RPGs is a style of game that developers, indie or AAA, still have a drive to push boundaries for. This genre is in a position to thrive in the future - why uphold a narrative that only seeks to prevent this brighter future? // Image: Sabotage Studio
To combat the narrative placed in opposition to turn-based RPGs, we need to listen to the stories told by the developers, such as Kenichi Goto, when in these situations. When tasked with creating a new game, developers like Goto are confronted by the challenge of the perception that turn-based RPGs are outdated. They acknowledge this perception and aim to create gameplay systems that feel fresh despite that perception. Through remaining committed to innovating within their genre’s framework, developers can make any genre feel fresh and up-to-date. Making a genre feel modern, accessible, and “cool”, for lack of a better term, merely depends on a developer’s willingness to try to make such a thing happen. A 1v1 fighting game may feel “old-school” or even “outdated”, but a game like Street Fighter 6 can introduce new ideas, mechanics, and character gimmicks that make such a type of game feel entirely new and unlike anything else that has come before. Street Fighter 6 only accomplished this because it was built by a team committed to making something that innovated and pushed its genre forward. The very same situation is possible with any genre - including turn-based RPGs. That’s why no one should be dismissing turn-based RPGs as a genre incapable of change or growth.
To be candid, I really don’t think there are many people opposed to the idea of playing a turn-based RPG. The narrative of the “inherently outdated” turn-based RPG simply scares certain developers from making games that extend an invitation to those players open to the genre. Through rejecting that narrative, such as was the case with Atlus and Metaphor: ReFantazio, developers can create great experiences while bringing new people into the genre because of the buzz that great experience naturally brings about.
The explosion of the indie scene and the rise of crowdfunding throughout the 2010s and 2020s is also a great illustration of this. It’s pretty hard to argue that turn-based RPGs like Sea of Stars and Chained Echoes don’t have an audience waiting to play them when these games crowdfunded hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. In the era of Kickstarters and independent development, we also see an increase in transparency and communication from indie developers when promoting their game. It isn’t uncommon for indie developers and publishers to have official Discord servers where developers engage directly with their community. In these environments, they often give frequent updates, Q&As, and even opportunities for feedback. This increase in communication between creators and players creates a greater product in the end - one that’s unimpeded by the likes of unproductive narratives holding the game back from what it can be.
We need to rewrite the narrative about turn-based RPGs. Instead of being a genre often obstructed by the scary possibility (as perceived by some publishers, at least) that turn-based games inherently sell less because they’re perceived as outdated by the gaming masses, we should instead be celebrating and empowering developers for having the courage to make the games they truly want to make. Video games are at their best when games are given permission to be weird, when they’re given permission to challenge pre-conceived norms about games, when they’re given permission to be themselves. No game creator should feel pressured to change their game for the sake of appealing to a wider crowd - when they do, disaster is seldom far away. Video games are great because every single type of game brings with it its own strengths, quirks, strategies, and vibes that make the experience of playing any game feel inherently unique. Games are great because they can deliver experiences unlike what’s possible in any other medium. Games are great because of the incredible variety of play styles that different genres and types of games beget.
The wider variety of games that exist in the world, the greater the diversity of experiences players will encounter when playing any given title. All players of video games deserve to have an experience that sticks with them long after they’ve put the controller down. We can’t allow narratives to take such a thing away from us. We don’t simply need to rewrite the narrative about turn-based RPGs or any other genre that is perceived as being less popular than others. We need to rid ourselves of the notion that such narratives should exist in the first place. As a community of video game players and developers, we need to shift the types of conversations we have about games. We can and should never conform to what the most popular opinion of a broad topic like what the best genres or types of game mechanics are. Such broad topics deserve nuanced discussions and dialogue between players and developers. Only when we’re free of conforming to narratives will we see a games industry that’s entirely unafraid to produce games confident in being themselves. We deserve to see the industry become that way, but the only way we’ll get there is if we openly reject the narratives we tell ourselves or hear from others.
Narratives are not reality - they are merely attempts to understand reality. To fully engage with reality, one needs to fully inform their own opinions and become unafraid to have conversations with others that have different opinions. That’s how we come to understandings. That’s how we come to accept differences of opinion and different perspectives. Most of all, that’s how we create a more nuanced, thoughtful future for the industry. This future is what I think fans of all genres deserve, and it’s one I truly know we’ll realize if we become willing to take a step forward and refuse to engage with the narratives that the collective consciousness builds for us.
The narrative we truly need to rewrite is the one in which we tell ourselves there is a “correct” or “widely accepted” opinion to have about games. That narrative is ready to be written right now - all we need to do is put pen to paper.
Thank you very much for reading! What are your thoughts on turn-based combat and its presence in the modern RPG space? Are turn-based games truly niche compared to action-based games, or do recent successes clash with that narrative? As always, join the conversation and let me know what you think in the comments or on Bluesky @DerekExMachina.com.
