Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 took the gaming world by surprise when it became one of the best reviewed games of 2025 so far, and sold over 3.33 million copies. It hit levels of online conversation and praise often reserved for the Elden Rings and Legend of Zeldas of the world. Part of that praise has described Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 as revitalizing the turn-based genre, something that isn't really true unless you only play Final Fantasy games. But with the high praise from critics and positive reception from fans, it seems likely that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 will influence future RPGs, and that can have both positive and negative repercussions. There are some aspects that maybe shouldn't be taken for other games, but there are systems in here that other RPG developers absolutely should learn from.
On paper, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's use of character-specific combat mechanics just feels like a different version of classes or jobs in turn-based combat, but it goes beyond that. While a knight will excel at different aspects of combat than a mage, the flow of combat for each is typically either the same or has small differences, like the type of buffs and debuffs you can apply to each character.
The combat differences in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 go far beyond class differences, and allow for great class building as a result. For example, the way that Maelle's stance changing works encourages far different Lumina builds compared to Monocco or Lune, creating five characters that feel like distinct individuals, and not just class archetypes.
Parrying is fundamental to both Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's combat and success, as it offers an engaging way to actively participate in turn-based combat. Yet part of the reason that it works is because it's fundamental--the entire game is built around parrying enemies. Enemy movements, combat difficulty, and entire aspects of character builds are designed entirely around this system.
Due to the popularity of Sekiro and other FromSoftware games, parrying has become fairly commonplace in video games of late. This not only makes the mechanic feel far more stale than it should, but it has also made it easy to identify the two types of parry games. There are parry games like Sekiro and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, that are built around parrying, and there are games like The First Berzerker: Khazan, that have parrying, but aren't reliant upon the mechanic.
Sekiro and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 require parrying, and are designed around that. Enemies attack in ways meant to confuse your ability to parry, but always follow the same attack patterns, so they can be learned. In other experiences, parrying is a tool in your tool belt, and because you don't have to use it, enemy attack patterns can't be built with that in mind. It often becomes the most powerful move in that kind of game, since parrying deflects away attacks and will offer an opening for a strong attack. In those cases, parrying actually takes away from the other aspects of combat.
What RPG makers should take from Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is that they should invest in combat systems that feature aspects that add depth and dynamism to turn-based games, and build around those features--not that they should just copy Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's homework. Turn-based RPGs have been utilizing active elements for decades with games like Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and the best examples share that purposeful use of active elements. Another turn-based game could use parrying successfully, but if it's just being tacked on because it's popular, the results won't be anywhere near as successful.
Weapons, Luminas, and Pictos are some of the more underrated aspects of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, as those systems allow for creative (and busted) combat builds. While I don't need these specifically lifted, nor do I need every RPG to allow me to break the combat with a busted build, I find that many RPG's equipment feels so simple that it's not worth thinking about beyond the numbers getting bigger.
Weapons in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 all have unique passive abilities that drastically change how you play. For example, the weapon I used with Sciel always applied the maximum amount of Foretell, instead of the amount listed on a skill. That allowed me to use skills with lower costs to apply Foretell, since I would always get the max, so I could use the savings to afford higher-cost abilities that apply extra damage based on Foretell, maximizing my damage. If I used a different weapon, I would have had to completely change my battle strategy. The way these aspects can drastically change your approach even to a single character offers so much more depth than many RPGs.
The pushback against game world maps covered in objective markers has been going strong, reaching a fever pitch with the release of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in 2017, which opted to have few objective markers on its massive map. People against objective markers argue that they turn any amount of story-telling or exploration that could happen into you just going from one objective to the next, not engaging with the spaces in between.
The argument has been that not having map markers encourages exploration and discovery, and when implemented well, like in Elden Ring, it works wonders. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 does not have level design, nor overworld design, that works well with a lack of objective markers. The most successful examples are open-world games, but Clair Obscur features small, mostly linear levels. Even the side areas are usually short, winding areas, so instead of a lack of map markers leading to engaging exploration, it leads to you getting lost in these areas, as you can't always identify which way leads forward and which leads back once you get turned around.
The overworld map suffers not because it's easy to get lost, but because so many areas are best left to come back to. But once you reach the point where you want to go back, you'll realize you aren't sure which areas you've explored, and which ones you haven't. Without an in-game tracker, or even something as simple as stamps for the map, you're left to your memory or a checklist outside of the game, which can take you out of the story.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 has received high praise for its shorter runtime, clocking in somewhere between 24-60 hours, shorter than other high-profile turn-based RPGs, like Metaphor: ReFantazio and Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth. While I think there is a place for RPGs of all lengths, there is an aspect of Clair Obscur's shorter run time that I do think other RPGs should steal.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 hits the ground running. You get a brief but really effective walk around the city of Lumiere at the start that provides tons of world-building to chew on, before quickly sending you out into the world. Turn-based RPGs can often spend a ton of time at the start, front-loading a ton of world-building, resulting in it taking a few hours to actually get into the rhythm of the game. Clair Obscur's fast intros not only provide a more enticing hook to stick around, but the faster pace also means that it doesn't have the time to overwhelm you with backstory and proper nouns. The slow introductions in other RPGs are often used to do a large amount of exposition and world-building, which can not only make for a slow start to the story, but can also overload you with information, making it difficult to actually digest.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 will continue to be a hot topic when it comes to games, especially in conversation with other RPGs. It has a great shot at making an appearance in many outlets' game of the year conversations, so it's likely to be on the mind of other developers for a while, too. But while there are plenty of great aspects of Clair Obscur to take inspiration from, hopefully not every element will make an appearance in future turn-based RPGs, and developers will put ingenuity first.
Source
RPGs should steal character-specific combat mechanics
Sciel's foretell system creates a simple loop to build more complicated builds around.On paper, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's use of character-specific combat mechanics just feels like a different version of classes or jobs in turn-based combat, but it goes beyond that. While a knight will excel at different aspects of combat than a mage, the flow of combat for each is typically either the same or has small differences, like the type of buffs and debuffs you can apply to each character.
The combat differences in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 go far beyond class differences, and allow for great class building as a result. For example, the way that Maelle's stance changing works encourages far different Lumina builds compared to Monocco or Lune, creating five characters that feel like distinct individuals, and not just class archetypes.
RPGs should avoid parrying (yes, really)
Parrying is fundamental to both Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's combat and success, as it offers an engaging way to actively participate in turn-based combat. Yet part of the reason that it works is because it's fundamental--the entire game is built around parrying enemies. Enemy movements, combat difficulty, and entire aspects of character builds are designed entirely around this system.
Due to the popularity of Sekiro and other FromSoftware games, parrying has become fairly commonplace in video games of late. This not only makes the mechanic feel far more stale than it should, but it has also made it easy to identify the two types of parry games. There are parry games like Sekiro and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, that are built around parrying, and there are games like The First Berzerker: Khazan, that have parrying, but aren't reliant upon the mechanic.
Sekiro and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 require parrying, and are designed around that. Enemies attack in ways meant to confuse your ability to parry, but always follow the same attack patterns, so they can be learned. In other experiences, parrying is a tool in your tool belt, and because you don't have to use it, enemy attack patterns can't be built with that in mind. It often becomes the most powerful move in that kind of game, since parrying deflects away attacks and will offer an opening for a strong attack. In those cases, parrying actually takes away from the other aspects of combat.
What RPG makers should take from Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is that they should invest in combat systems that feature aspects that add depth and dynamism to turn-based games, and build around those features--not that they should just copy Clair Obscur: Expedition 33's homework. Turn-based RPGs have been utilizing active elements for decades with games like Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and the best examples share that purposeful use of active elements. Another turn-based game could use parrying successfully, but if it's just being tacked on because it's popular, the results won't be anywhere near as successful.
RPGs should steal more impactful equipment
Weapons having such impactful passives makes each one feel more unique than equipment in some other turn-based RPGs.Weapons, Luminas, and Pictos are some of the more underrated aspects of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, as those systems allow for creative (and busted) combat builds. While I don't need these specifically lifted, nor do I need every RPG to allow me to break the combat with a busted build, I find that many RPG's equipment feels so simple that it's not worth thinking about beyond the numbers getting bigger.
Weapons in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 all have unique passive abilities that drastically change how you play. For example, the weapon I used with Sciel always applied the maximum amount of Foretell, instead of the amount listed on a skill. That allowed me to use skills with lower costs to apply Foretell, since I would always get the max, so I could use the savings to afford higher-cost abilities that apply extra damage based on Foretell, maximizing my damage. If I used a different weapon, I would have had to completely change my battle strategy. The way these aspects can drastically change your approach even to a single character offers so much more depth than many RPGs.
RPGs should avoid a complete lack of map markers
The pushback against game world maps covered in objective markers has been going strong, reaching a fever pitch with the release of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in 2017, which opted to have few objective markers on its massive map. People against objective markers argue that they turn any amount of story-telling or exploration that could happen into you just going from one objective to the next, not engaging with the spaces in between.
The argument has been that not having map markers encourages exploration and discovery, and when implemented well, like in Elden Ring, it works wonders. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 does not have level design, nor overworld design, that works well with a lack of objective markers. The most successful examples are open-world games, but Clair Obscur features small, mostly linear levels. Even the side areas are usually short, winding areas, so instead of a lack of map markers leading to engaging exploration, it leads to you getting lost in these areas, as you can't always identify which way leads forward and which leads back once you get turned around.
The overworld map suffers not because it's easy to get lost, but because so many areas are best left to come back to. But once you reach the point where you want to go back, you'll realize you aren't sure which areas you've explored, and which ones you haven't. Without an in-game tracker, or even something as simple as stamps for the map, you're left to your memory or a checklist outside of the game, which can take you out of the story.
RPGs should steal fast intros
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 has received high praise for its shorter runtime, clocking in somewhere between 24-60 hours, shorter than other high-profile turn-based RPGs, like Metaphor: ReFantazio and Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth. While I think there is a place for RPGs of all lengths, there is an aspect of Clair Obscur's shorter run time that I do think other RPGs should steal.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 hits the ground running. You get a brief but really effective walk around the city of Lumiere at the start that provides tons of world-building to chew on, before quickly sending you out into the world. Turn-based RPGs can often spend a ton of time at the start, front-loading a ton of world-building, resulting in it taking a few hours to actually get into the rhythm of the game. Clair Obscur's fast intros not only provide a more enticing hook to stick around, but the faster pace also means that it doesn't have the time to overwhelm you with backstory and proper nouns. The slow introductions in other RPGs are often used to do a large amount of exposition and world-building, which can not only make for a slow start to the story, but can also overload you with information, making it difficult to actually digest.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 will continue to be a hot topic when it comes to games, especially in conversation with other RPGs. It has a great shot at making an appearance in many outlets' game of the year conversations, so it's likely to be on the mind of other developers for a while, too. But while there are plenty of great aspects of Clair Obscur to take inspiration from, hopefully not every element will make an appearance in future turn-based RPGs, and developers will put ingenuity first.
Source