Front View or Side View?

[Yethwhinger]

My two favorite games are Lunar: The Silver Star, which uses the side view, and Phantasy Star IV, which uses the front (and back) view. So, the combat can be engaging with either view. In both of these games, you can see the party's battlers, which is my preference. I generally do not like feeling as though I am the character (which is why I am not eager to play a VR RPG). I like feeling as though I am controlling the characters. I do have a slight preference for front view, though, because of the sense of depth that it can give to the combat.

 

[ryuugonana]

I think it depends on the style of the game personally and what the developer's intentions are. I feel Front View is really classic if you want that old-school feel. It could also make the player feel more immersed as if they themselves are the ones in battle vs seeing side-view of the characters they're playing. Side-view is aesthetically appealing and you can do a bit more in regards to plug-ins, like fancy animations etc.

I think they're both valid forms of making a game and most people should choose one that suits their preference and vision.

 

[Soeufans]

Hello!

My own game has a CBS in front view, the reason? well, i dont like to do a super epic battle system that tooks time to end one normal battle, i like fast an minimalist systems and enough to make some fast battlas with normal enemies. and also, les work on doing extre sprites

 

[daheji]

I voted front-view.

My main reason is that front-view battles usually require a lot less resources than side-view battle. As a hobbyist game maker, this is very important because I don't have all the time I want to make games.

And I have always been a fan of the battle system from the Pokemon Games of the NDS and GB/GBA with a rear view of your pokemon on the bottom left side and the enemy pokemon on the top right with good looking sprites. My future projects will try to replicate that!

 

[Kyuukon]

Frontview. I find it more immersive idk.

 

[RomVHS]

I chose front view! Although I think side view is pretty neat, it feels more like you're an onlooker in someone else's story (which is usually the case anyway!) With front view, I feel more immersed and focused.

Like with Pokemon battles for example. (LeafGreen, Sapphire, Heartgold- I don't know if they've changed it up in recent games.) Being behind my Pokemon gives me a good sense of control, it's up to me and my decisions to win this battle rather than being a complete omniscient being.

One of my favorite side view examples is what Space Funeral does, because the game is also equipped with a Mystery attack that does random things (like sob or sing Hey Ya- LOL) and that case in particular just brings me in!

 

[zelanius]

Personally, I lean slightly more towards SV, cos there are lots of plugins that can add a bit more strategic elements to SV more easier (like YEP's Area of Effect combine with Row Formation). However, I must also say that FV has it's merits, as it gives a bit more immersive feel and battles go quickly, and in a more straightforward game, you might want to use this, especially if you can do it like Phantasy Star II and IV. I voted SV, but I am maybe 55% SV, 45% FV.

 

[FleshToDust]

Pokemon View.

 

[Tamina]

Side view, absolutely no contest. Front view feels disconnected from the player characters and is generally less exciting. Enter commands, watch flashes appear on enemies or screen shakes when they attack you. Mash button get battle over with quickly, etc.

With side view, you can animate the battlers nicely and show them doing stuff like casting spells, leaping at foes, slashing multiple times, etc. Much more satisfying.

That's how I feel about playing commercial JRPG. But in RM side view is incredible tough to do well due to battle engine limitation. Yanfly Action sequence only drags/mirrors/rotates a character and plays an animation on top of the character. it isn't nearly enough to create quality 2D battle presentation like PS1 classics such as valkyrie profile.

Personally, whenever I see RM side view battle animations, it breaks immersion for me, because it's not good enough comparing with other commercial games.

On the other hand, modern front view commercial JRPG like labyrinth of refrain doesn't need to do that much character animation asides from enemy breathing and special attack animation, and it still looks incredibly good. So a front view battle RM game is more okay because front view battle has lower animation requirements.

I'd prefer seeing no character animation at all than waste a few seconds each turn seeing subpar ones, personally.

 

[Thefirelion]

In my current project I am using a script (Yanfly visual battlers) that with a callout I can change battle perspective with this I do not have to worry about the style of view, but in general I prefer sideview.

 

[Zalzany]

Most prefer side view, can't lie I prefer it but I use custom sprites and idea of making battlers too just makes me cringe so I use front view in my projects that I never finish sadly...

 

[HiddenAlchemist]

I feel like I'm in the minority here. But these days I find I actually prefer front-view battles, or some hybrid of the two, than I do side-view battles. It's a little ironic for me since I used to always prefer side-view when I was a lot younger and first getting into RM. How things change!

I certainly do get why people prefer side-view though. It's able to convey information much more easily and can be a lot more exciting with plugins like Actions Sequences. But I also find that many of the side-view battles in RM look frankly same'ish. They're nearly always on the right-hand side and with the same chibi graphics--and of course I'm not blaming anyone for going with that. It just honestly does get a little tiring after awhile.

Of course front-view battles have their own share of cons and can also be very same'ish. But at least you can also still use different battle huds to change it up and make up for its short comings. Or even display the actors in it.

Just my personal thoughts of course. They all have their pros and cons and I think the right battle perspective really depends on the kind of RPG you're making.

 

[realz012]

i prefer front view battle more....
but its good if we have battler animated model like Fear & Hunger games.

 

[a3xgf]

I voted Front View, but I like both. It just happens that most RPG I liked were Front View. (I guess being a pokemon fan influenced me quite a bit)

Both can be great or terrible depending on the effort put.

Front View with generic RTP Background and the same same enemies on all games, isn't any betetr than Side View with all chracters and animeations looking too similar between games.

At the same time, both can be great with enough customization.

In the end, it always comes down to the effort put on trying to be unique, or at leas that the player feels different than other things he playes, but without stopping being an RPG.

I am still doubting which system I want for my project. It will be quite story focused, but I can't ignore the combat. I admit that making all the battlers makes me lazy, but I don't want to discard it just for that.

Maybe a combo can be a good idea because Side View can be great for groupal battles if both sides have battlers (the sprites on Side View are too ugly, so I would rather make battlers for the enemies too), but I feel that a boss enemy feels far more impressive on a Front Battle. Well, I hope I can decide soon.

 

[Beewo]

Personally I prefer front view for 2 simple reasons. The first is time as its generally faster and depending how many encounters a game got sideview can start feeling stale fast. Especially if it got long sequences it all starts adding up and I can start dreading battles which mechanically got nothing wrong with em.

The second is that it feels odd when the sprites are very small and sometimes more chibi than their character portraits might, well portray. Easier to imagine them fighting in regular size when using front view. At least them are my reasons.

 

[Archeia]

I used to be a Side view fan but after messing with front view, I ended up liking it more.

There's a lot of potential in front view. It just depends on your budget. Just one example:


I also found most of my favorite games have frontview battle systems and how creative they can be. Like I barely look at the animations since RPGs tend to be mech heavy anyway but seeing them presented like 7th Dragon is always a plus:


And to be honest it can feel extremely immersive like this too:


Of course nobody can forget Persona


I guess technically this is one too:

 

[Beewo]

Very good examples Archeia, wonder if those could be translated to rpg maker (not asking a mechanic question just aloud musing). Thanks for the many suggestions you showed.

 

[Aesica]

Very good examples Archeia, wonder if those could be translated to rpg maker (not asking a mechanic question just aloud musing). Thanks for the many suggestions you showed.

Anything can with enough coding talent plus a desire to actually make them a reality. In fairness though, at a glance a few of those really are more like a modern mix of both--a 3d view, if you will. The most important takeaway IMO is that the player characters are visible and active in nearly all of those. In contrast, RM's basic front view is just some static enemy pictures that numbers pop out of until they all disappear, hence why people are (rightly) critical of it. Something fully 3d, like DQ11, would be ideal, and maybe some future version of RM will take us down that path.

 

[Archeia]

Very good examples Archeia, wonder if those could be translated to rpg maker (not asking a mechanic question just aloud musing). Thanks for the many suggestions you showed.

Some of them technically can be. Like Ray Gigant is not impossible at all. If people can recreate smash in Rm2k3...

 

[a3xgf]

Some of them technically can be. Like Ray Gigant is not impossible at all. If people can recreate smash in Rm2k3...

Managing to do something like that would be great. Maybe with dragonbones or frame animation rendered from 3D models, but definetly very hard to achieve.