S3: Modernized Heartbeat
Tales of Arise is an action game that respects the heck out of its ancestors.
"naive art paintings Modern People Sculpture Design Artworks City England WatercolorFlowers Houses Portrait Naif Artists Woman Pattern Mixed Media" by Raphael Perez Israeli Artist is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Tales of Arise, released 2021, developed by Bandai Namco, available on Xbox, PlayStation, and PC. You control a single character at a time in a third person perspective. Combat occurs in real time, with your other three party members being managed by the game.
I swing my knight’s sword. I carefully alternate attacks, with the occasional dodge, to whittle away at my opponent’s health and preserve my own. The game rewards me for not repeating attacks, so flexibility and improvisation are essential. These basic attacks are the kick and snare of the experience.
When I dodge perfectly in sync with the rhythm of the fight, I’m rewarded with a nasty counter-attack. These are the bold notes of the horn section that rip and reward at the same time.
In time, my allies indicate they can jump in with a boost attack. But, if I wait until we’re both ready, we can use a superior boost strike. For now, I wait. The tempo builds.
I switch control to my brawler. This enemy is particularly vulnerable to the brawler’s special attacks, which consume a finite, but rapidly replenished resource. It’s like a steady, funky disco beat that doesn’t run, but strolls with confidence.
I enjoy the thump. I strike and dodge. The knight beckons me back, so I take control of him once more to initiate a blaring boost strike between him and the archer. A spectacular scene plays out, like a short impromptu duet between musicians in peak form.
There’s more to this ensemble, but I’ll spare you burdensome terminology. Tales of Arise supports a deep combat system filled with nuance and constant choice that keeps the game interesting over a 50 hour span. It should be overwhelming, but it isn’t, because it is all turn-based.
Actually, that is a lie. The game is real time and like the music in my tortured metaphor, never stops. But, it respects its predecessors and many Japanese Roleplaying Games which are turn-based. In some ways if you were to close your eyes and listen, the rhythms of the turn-based classics and Tales of Arise are indistinguishable.
Tales of Arise is driven by a Modernized Heartbeat that translates the nuance and rhythms of the turn-based genre for real-time combat. In this post, I want to identify what it preserves, what it changes, and how to use this methodology for another genre (real-time strategy).
Note: I am not an expert on the Japanese roleplaying game and this isn’t meant to be a comprehensive analysis of the form. But, the nature of this post sends me tip-toeing towards that so I just want to say bear with me.
Preservation
The studio preserved core tenets of the turn-based experience in their real-time game. There are a few really essential items.
Firstly, every character is a fully developed entity. In game terms, this mean every member of the party has a broad range of abilities, equipment, meaningful progression, and narrative depth. Every member of the party is fully viable. Unlike many action RPGs, Tales of Arise is not “overt protagonist and friends.”
There is a critical corollary to this first item, which is that the game is overwhelmingly focused on party synergy. As the vignette above hopefully implies, what you do with one character affects another. Solo attacks are never as powerful as collaborative or even party attacks. While you only control a single entity at once, you’re responsible for a party of warriors.
Secondly, combat tropes of the genre are fully embraced. This is manifest in the classic archetypes (knight, mage, archer, guardian) and an elemental damage model. By elemental, I mean that frost is vulnerable to fire, and so forth. When making a change as massive as turn-based to real-time, you need to provide a comfortable landing with a familiar (and intuitive!) space.
Thirdly, there is a steady cadence of splendor. Essentially, and I think this is really critical, cool stuff happens in every fight, no matter how small, with a pay off of a regular cadence. The splendor pays off in the form of visual treats, including battle cries, over-the-top animations, and booming fire effects. It pays off when a huge chunk of the foes’ health bar disappears, or the foe is defeated entirely. Finally, it pays off by reminding you why these things happen: your actions!
A standard contemporary feature in turn-based games is the ability to disable combat animations, because it is less interesting to see the 10 second dragon wind-up for the 400th time. Tales of Arise both preserves this feature in a way that feels warm and delightful, but because the game never stops, you also aren’t frustrated by the repetition. Cool stuff just occurs.
Changes
While preserving key features, Tales of Arise augmented the game with new elements to make a modern experience.
The first change is the introduction of automated behavior, which aligns with our first preserved item (every character is a fully developed entity). For many, the value proposition of a turn-based tactics game is controlling every facet of every fight. While many contemporary games provide a “speed” version where characters use obvious moves against minor opponents, many players still prefer a precise level of control to optimize a character’s skill set or progression.
This isn’t feasible in real-time. Tales of Arise makes your companions incredibly competent without a single second spent on babysitting. You can define which powers they use, so that your healer only heals, or heals while also dealing damage. You can give them high level direction to control when they heal, or when they should fight.
If you want, you can even switch control to find that each character is a fully realized entity. But, you can also play like I did, which is focused on a single-character the entire experience. Tales of Arise recognizes the numbers nerd’s need to min-max every facet, while respecting that most people in real-time don’t have that same desire.
The second change, additional feedback, is in support of the second preservation (combat tropes of the genre). The action is easy to follow in a turn-based experience as it literally doesn’t progress without your input. These games often provide a combat log that details every move and consequence, but honestly, with no moving parts, merely comparing the results of alternative combat choices helps you refine your strategy.
In Tales of Arise, the developers recognize that everything is moving, so the characters tell you what they are doing with consistent phrases. Once a fight begins, flavor and variation are left out, and the vocal cues are easy to track. Furthermore, the elegant interface comes alive with clear indicators that both tell you that something can be done, while reminding you what button to press to do it.
Thirdly, the game overtly rewards skillful play. This is the largest, and most obvious change. In a turn-based experience you can experiment with elemental vulnerabilities, how to optimize buffs, or pick the right armor set. Those things still exist, but Arise brings its experience forward by rewarding players who vary their attacks, block, and dodge successfully. This isn’t Elden Ring, but the game recognizes that if you do not need to do these things, you will be bored, but also questioning why it is in real-time.
In addition to not taking damage, or dealing more damage, players who successfully vary attacks, block, and dodge will gain access to their bonus attacks more quickly. Therefore, one of the most satisfying preservation elements (steady cadence of splendor) is fed directly by the new feature (real-time combat). It is a beautiful alignment between product and design.
To conclude, to modernize a classic, one must identify that which you must preserve, while identifying the related items to change. The new elements must reinforce the preserved items.
Methodology Re-Applied
I wanted to see if these techniques could apply to a different genre that has also declined in popularity like turn-based tactics (in terms of sales, number of titles in development/being released). The real-time strategy (RTS) genre seemed like an obvious choice. Plus, it’s a cousin, arguably, in terms of managing individual entities in tactical engagements to build towards a strategic outcome.
To follow the model, we need to first identify three things to preserve from the RTS genre.
Firstly, a tension between strategic and tactical choices. The titans of the genre force you to balance your time between building a base and directing scouts. One must allocate finite resources to front line units or a research budget to empower future units. The now versus later, aggression versus home front is critical to preserve.
Secondly, a satisfying sense of scale must be delivered. There are extremes of the genre, including Dawn of War II with its almost Diablo-like experience and a few units, all the way up to Supreme Commander, which has so many units you must employ macro functions to manage the battle. But, most exist around the middle ground established by Starcraft or Command and Conquer, in which you build a base and lead dozens of units in 2-3 engagements at a time. There is a healthy compromise between a full Napoleonic corps and a SEAL team that you must support.
Thirdly, rock-paper-scissors is the framework of combat. A cliché English teachers love to wield is that you need to know the rules before you can break them, from the basics like grammar to things like the three-act structure. By respecting a rock-paper-scissors template, you can experiment with tuning differences (air power versus infantry) or bold, asymmetrical choices (hive minded aliens versus a small number of autonomous elite humans) without overwhelming your players with complexity.
Now that we know what to preserve, we can identify the possibilities for change, which should be related to the preserved elements.
Too many modern RTS games eliminate the strategic layer (base building, technology improvements) to focus and simplify the game. But, I argue doing so eliminates a critical part of the genre. This is why I argue to preserve the tension between strategic and tactical choices. But, the pace of this tension, and complexity of it, bears scrutiny.
In Starcraft, there are no limitations on how to invest your resources, which makes it incredibly deep, but also incredibly overwhelming. Without fully eliminating the strategic layer, can there be a window in which the player can choose to invest?
Furthermore, the literal math of resources is highly variable. Consider the following:
Each harvester will bring in X quantity of crystal every Y seconds.
The above is multiplied as players add additional harvesters.
The above is varied based on the distance harvesters must travel between the crystal field and the base.
The above is varied further still as the distance grows as the field is diminished.
I assure you professional players know that 5 harvesters on this map will generate roughly 427 crystals per minute in the first 10 minutes of the game. But, most of us are not professional!
Therefore, I argue the first change is to limit strategic decisions and simplify the income model. I think the genre can still deliver on the genre tenets without requiring constant, complex opportunity cost evaluations from its players.
The second change, which is a companion of a satisfying sense of scale, is to adjust the standard unit of control. This is already a change I see taking place, but it’s a good one. In Starcraft, you can select each Marine, Tank, and alien monster individually. Like its strategic element, such choice allows for precision and mastery, but can be alienating to many.
The Total War series is all about scale. Its standard unit of control is not a single French rifleman, but an entire regiment of riflemen. Relic’s Dawn of War and Company of Heroes both shifted from recruiting a single Marine to recruiting a squad of Marines, which can be further enhanced and bolstered.
The key is remembering that humans can only process so much complexity. We only have so much room in our brains. I think shifting from Individual to Squad is the correct direction, but doing so in a way that drives home the impact of the tactical decisions (to support a sense of scale and importance) is critical. Furthermore, moving away from the classic RTS interface of “draw a square around the units I want to select” towards something more akin to managing from a central hub might also help. Perhaps inspiration can be drawn from the Lieutenant’s armored vehicle in Aliens?
The third and final change, which is keeping in theme with my other recommendations, is to give players a large pool of viable options within the rock-paper-scissors framework, but restrict armies to a subset. Again, I am averse to removing choices, but I am quit a fan of constraining choices.
Removal is boring. Constraint both simplifies while also forcing difficult and fun choices. It also supports player creativity, flexibility on the battlefield (“no plan survives contact with the enemy”), and one of my favorite elements in a game - having a secret. Consider this: In Starcraft, I know everything my opponent might build. Think about how much more fun it is if I know everything that’s possible, but not what’s impossible (ex: There are 10 possible Units, but you can only use 6 in each game). Mind games are delightful!
Many games do this already, including Clash Royale (8 units), Marvel Snap (12 cards), and of course, Magic: The Gathering.
To refresh:
Tension between strategic and tactical choices + Limit strategic decisions & simplify the income model
Satisfying sense of scale + Adjust the standard unit of control
Rock-Paper-Scissors is the framework of combat + Restrict armies to a subset
The One Cool Thing
Tales of Arise only changes a few things, but the end result is both incredibly different, yet shockingly familiar. It has a Modernized Heartbeat I argue you can feel with the button presses that mimics the steady waltz of its turn-based tactical predecessors.
While you may disagree with my analysis, or my application of this model to the RTS genre, it’s always a useful exercise to consider the “essentials” versus the “flexibles” when crafting something new.
Now that walking simulators are standard, open-world games are prevalent, and card battlers are commonplace, it may be useful to consider what else can use a tweak of the old ticker.
What three things should open-world games preserve, and what related three things should they change? Let me know in the comments!
Preview for Next Time
The next game for Season 3 is Olli Olli World by Private Division. This game is nothing short of rad and is available on PC, Switch, PlayStation, and Xbox, if you want to shred a little and join us in skateboarding harmony.
Edited by Joshua Buergel
This makes me think of so many other ideas.
When you talk about the modernized heartbeat of this game I am reminded of how much I love Magic. Magic is so much about tempo-the back and forth-the staccato beats and swings of the game. It is a push and pull dance where you have to know when you lead and when you follow. Legends of Runeterra has a more mechanical detailed tempo. It’s like the industrial beats to Magic’s Aaron Copland.
You also talk about how ToA takes in the turn based elements of jrpgs and brings them into real time. I am convinced that that is why I love souls game. Because they are secretly the fastest turn based combat games out there. There is a dance, a symphony to the combat. And perhaps nowhere it is better seen than in Sekiro. DS2s combat is poked at as slow because nowhere in the series is the “your turn, my turn” of the combat more evident and it can feel very solvable and overused.
I also want to talk about the only controlling one character at a time piece and every character being fully realized. I have really enjoyed games like Pillars of Eternity 2 and FFXII that offer clear algorithms to create for your non controlled units. I have found that this form of party/deck building is something I love. Sometimes I prefer to create the strategy and see how it performs—piloting it is less essential. This reminds me of Teamfight Tactics and other Auto Chess games—though I do not so much enjoy the slot machine of rolling units.
Lastly—this is more of a complaint of the RTS genre—particularly for PvP. I love these games. Warcraft 1 on Mac was the first computer game I ever played. However, as you climb the ladder the game becomes so much about multitasking and high APM. Which I believe is a detriment to the approachability for the pvp portion of the game. What I find interesting is that your proposed fix of changing the unit of control could address this