Does Square-Enix own the ATB battle system? How NOT to respond to a closing inside!

I have been thinking lately that there isn't too much for me to look forward to regarding the future of console RPGs because too many action RPGs seem to come out. Those usually aren't as creative as turn-based, conditional turn-based or ATB to me. Not even close.

So I got to thinking "Why aren't there at least 200 ATB RPGs out now that its 2008 and 17 years have passed since FF4, the first ATB game?"

To me, it is bar-none the best system there is. Then I did some digging...

"Square Co., Ltd. filed a United States patent for the ATB system on March 16, 1992, under the title "Video game apparatus, method and device for controlling same" and was awarded the patent on Feb. 21, 1995."

Does this mean Square owns the ATB system and no other company can even attempt to make an ATB RPG?

If so, thanks a lot Square for not allowing the RPG genre to become everything it could have been in the last 17 years. As a result, my favorite games of all time have been from the 80's & 90's as Square totally changed the gaming world from something it could have been.

Discuss.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

(Assuming that it is the case that ATB is Square-Enix's) I'm sure that if they didn't, some asshole would have and the whole gaming industry would be under his thumb.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I was about to say why turn-based games don't have a patent but if they did, then heck, even a game of cards could theoritically require one to pay a royalty or whatever.

I dunno if they really hold a patent over the ATB exactly although I am straining to think of other games like it. Even if they didn't, then we'd most likely get tons of clones save for a few talent and innovative developers who'd advance the ATB system.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Would the first Grandia count as having a sort of ATB system? I remember it reminded me of one when I played it, though that was years ago, so perhaps my memory of it is a bit foggy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Square-Enix seems to have used every type of battle system (with respect to time) in their many games. If you look up the Wikipedia entry, it looks like the only one they actually "own" is ATB. The thing is, ATB is a tad bit too generic nowadays (it was quite groundbreaking back then).

Quote:

On the battle screen, a status summary of each character is displayed. These encompass HP levels, MP levels (where applicable), and an ATB gauge.

The ATB gauge determines when a character can take action. When the gauge is filled completely, the player can issue an order to that character.

Fully Turn Based battle takes us back to around Final Fantasy I when you issued all of your commands at once and watched your party and the enemy duke it out that round. That would be the most basic definition of "Turn Based". Some games still use this (ala Fire Emblem), so there's no copyright/trademark issue on this.

Then you have games that use a system sometimes called "Conditional Turn Based" (or CTB) which adds a crude time element into the system. Characters go based on their speed (how often they go) and as they go, time momentarily stops. I think this is the system used for Final Fantasy Tactics (and many other strategy games) and Final Fantasy X. This one I'm pretty sure nobody has a hold on since every turn-based strategy game (well, most of them) use it.

Then Active Time Battle (ATB) is basically the same as above, except time moves even when a player's turn occurs. This usually means you can be hit when selecting your action. This is my interpretation of it, and I don't think any other game has used this system, outside of Square games. I would have thought they dropped this system somewhere around the time of Final Fantasy IX, since everything above it used something else.

As far as Grandia goes, apparently, that's much like the ATB system conceptually, but it just wasn't called ATB.

So pretty much, Square just owns one branch of the Turn-based group. There could definitely be more turn based games coming out.

I was speaking idiomatically.

So, wait. Because every game doesn't have a battle system like FF4's, the last two decades of the genre's been merely a shadow of it's own potential?

There are no words for the idiocy you display, Borg. NONE. Do you WANT change or innovation? in any title you play, or would you be happy if everything played exactly the same as your Cecil and Rosa fapfest? We get it, you like the damn thing, but fuck.

There have been other, similar systems in many games, and hell, there have been some that are completely different. This innovation sure didn't result from the genre being HELD BACK. And to go so far as to say that affects the whole "gaming world" as you put it is just the very height of retarded.

This whole statement and question is some of the most ridiculously fanfaggot shit I've ever had the mispleasure of reading. By the way, what IS the whole gaming world to you? I'd love to know just how many developers and genres this encompasses.

Fuck you, there is nothing to "discuss" about this. Closed.

Edit: Here's the PM I got shortly after closing this tripe. Protip, this is what NOT TO DO.

Quote:

1. It's just a thread.
2. It's on topic with the RPG board because its about RPGs.
3. We are in America.
4. My thread doesn't waste gigabytes of bandwidth.
5. It generated discussion before you closed it.
6. You can ignore the thread if you personally don't like it.
7. I'm not sure if you are just immature or it is all of gamingforce that is nitpicking threads like a surgeon to only allow ones that can possibly generate tons and tons of pages. Why are threads that may perhaps only have 10 replies total frowned upon? See number 3 again.
8. Why is being mod-happy more important than just letting it flow and die? So I have an opinion that differs from you-- so what!?
9. See #1 again and realize it's not the end of the world.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?