WaterStone Productions

To anyone who knows me, it's no surprise I'm a huge fan of RPGs in general (and that I'm a big 2D fan as well ).  So I thought I'd write up a bit on some of the battle system types I've come across before.  I'm no expert in the matter, and I'm probably going to miss some, but I haven't played all RPGs in existence (not yet anyway ), but I'll add stuff later if I need to.  I'm also going to make up some names for these different types, so don't laugh

The thing to remember is that, even though games do share similar battle systems at times, each game usually brings to the table some uniqueness as well.  Even so, you can roughly group them together (or at least I'm going to try).  Anyway, let's begin!

Frontal View Battle System (or Monster View Battle System)

Historical Note:
This is a pretty old battle system type, as I think it was first used in many Computer RPGs.  There are so many of them that I've seen that used it, but I mainly remember the ones that were brought to consoles.

Examples:
Swords & Serpents
Eye of the Beholder
Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest
Lufia
Final Fantasy Mystic Quest
Earthbound

What it is:
Although different games are slightly different on what is presented on the screen, they all have the primary emphasis on the monster graphics, and also displaying your character information at the bottom.  Sometimes, certain games add character sprites that animate with what you are doing (FFMQ or Lufia), and sometimes all you see is the text/stats and maybe a face graphic.  Overall, it's quite a nice way to present your game battles, and can be easily coded.

Advantages:
- The enemy graphics can usually be much more detailed and intricate, and potentially animated more
- It's generally easier to program, since there's little onscreen movement aside from animations, palette swaps, and screen shakes
- It can fit well with your map movement if you're using a pseudo-3D look to the game (like in S&S)

Disadvantages:
- You may or may not get much detail to the characters as they are not the primary focus
- Since it is static and older, it can be boring to those seeking a more modern action filled experience

Static Side Motion Battle System

Historical Note:
Those who have played any Final Fantasy from 1 to 6 should be familiar with this, since it's become a very popular RPG series.  I don't know if they originated it, but whatever game did was probably from the NES (I think )

Examples:
Final Fantasy
Treasure of the Rudras

What it is:
The basic idea is that your characters and enemies are split up across different sides of the screen, and you can see both pretty clearly, with lots of animation on your characters, and often some nice detail for the enemies.  Your characters do their attacks usually into the air, and it gets translated over to the enemy, and vice versa (though there are exceptions of course).  This would be pretty much just like Frontal View (except with different graphics layout), except many games that use this type of system implement a system called Active Time Battle.  Here, you don't get to select commands all at once and then they get sent out, but rather they are sent intertwined with the enemies choices, usually based on stats like speed or something.  Although, even this is not much of a distinction with Frontal View, since some of those games do this as well.  But since it's a popularized format, and the graphical changes make it feel more realistic at times than Frontal, I put it in its own section.

Advantages:
- Graphically it looks more modern than Frontal View, and you can focus on not just the enemy visually.
- It's a popular format (thanks to FF) so there's already a large base of people who will enjoy it
- With something like ATB, it can be much more dynamic
- You can do cut scenes in-battle easier than Frontal, with sprites moving around and interacting

Disadvantages:
- It's still pretty similar to Frontal View so people might not feel it is that modern
- It can be harder to code an ATB system (though not by that much)
- It's still for the most part static (hence the name)

Live Action Side Motion Battle System

Historical Note:
To date, I've seen few games that use this besides Star Ocean, with the Linear Motion Battle System being similar (developed originally by similar people I think too).  The only other thing you could compare it to is Action RPGs.

Examples:
Star Ocean

What it is:
Essentially, it's setup similar to Static Side Motion, except there's nothing static about this type of battle system.  Your characters and enemies are fully movable and animated sprites, traversing the battle field as they need to in order to attack enemies, or staying in the background and casting spells.  Due to the fact that it's very dynamic, you can do things like prevent your enemy from casting a spell by doing an attack while they're vulnerable, making them stop and have to restart (and the enemy can and will do this to you as well).  Since its live action, there's a big strategic nature to it, such as the starting formation of your party members, their walking/running speed, and having your teammates do stuff on their own while you're making a decision with the character you control.  This is probably my favorite type of battle engine due to the versatility and action involved.

Advantages:
- Fully live action battles make the battle system much more dynamic and fun
- Requires the player to think on their feet and form strategies to survive

Disadvantages:
- Definitely some work is involved in programming something like this, even in 2D
- It requires a lot more animation work for everything (though this isn't necessarily bad)

Linear Motion Battle System

Historical Note:
This originated with the Tales series pretty much, and while it's constantly evolved, it remains a great battle system.

Examples:
Tales of Phantasia
Tales of Destiny
Tales of Eternia
Valkyrie Profile

What it is:
The basic gist (at least in the early games, I haven't played the later 3D ones) is that your battle environment is similar to Star Ocean's, except the playing field is a lot like a side scrolling game (so it loses the 3rd dimension a bit).  You still have a dynamic and live action system where strategy and quick thinking are your best friend, but you don't have room to move around enemies and such.  Valkyrie Profile used a similar system in its game, although I don't think it was called this exactly.  Certainly you have to strategize a bit differently in this type of battle, but it is similar to the one above.

Advantages:
- Again, it's a great system because it's dynamic and all the battles are full of action, so you feels more realistic
- Also, it's a very popular format (thanks to Namco)

Disadvantages:
- It's going to be more of a challenge to code just like Live Action Side Motion

Strategic Battle System

Historical Note:
There have been many games that used this in the past, with one of the first ones I remember being Shining Force (though there was probably games earlier that used it).  Different orientations have been used all over, but the basics are still pretty similar.

Examples:
Shining Force
Treasure Hunter G
Tactics Ogre
Final Fantasy Tactics

What it is:
The best way I can put it is that this type of battle system is kind of like a more advanced game of chess that uses RPG rules.  Your position and orientation matter a lot more in this type of engine, similar to the live action ones.  You have to strategize your troops so that you can not get overwhelmed and defeat your foes.  You also usually have limited movement based on your character stats, so you can't just keep moving until you get where you want to go, and typically you can either move a number of tiles, or a certain number of steps, until you have to do an action (though of course you don't have to move).  Like chess, it is highly strategic (hence the name), and unlike the live action ones, you usually have much more time to decide what to do, so you aren't rushed.  Also, in many of them, they let the player make all the choices on what do before the other side decides.

Advantages:
- Requires a lot of thinking and strategy which can make the game very fun still
- Even though its not live action, you aren't using static characters that don't move so it still feels dynamic
- Easier to approximate live action without actually needing to implement it
- Very popular format for battles and is still used in many games

Disadvantages:
- Less action based than others (but not a bad thing I think)
- Can still be difficult to program, though probably easier than fully live action battles
- Graphical assets might be more work to do if using an isometric angle for viewing the game (and the ability to rotate the viewpoint)