Jayce F wrote...
Then maybe you should have said it that way.
I thought it was clear that I did. In fact, one other person pointed out this is exactly what I did. So it seems that some people did understand my claim. You might not have, but as of right now we have one for and one against, so that says nothing about the clarity of my post.
That's still an inventory in terms of being able to equip items even if its simplistic. If you could acess the weapon menu mid mission with needing to stop at a weapon locker I would argue ME2 had an inventory too.
ME2 also has an inventory, if you choose to define it as "being able to equip items even if it is simplistic."
Why are you introducing some kind of arbitrary "you need to
always be able to access it for it to be an inventory" condition?
Moreover, in JE you are not able to equip items, unless you count insert gems into an amulet "equipment". In which case if you do, being able to
physically carry more than one weapon and switch it ought to be sufficient to say you have an inventory system.
In fact, by your standard,
any game that lets you equip weapons has an inventory system.
Yes it does have point and click and party control =/= party based combat.
It doesn't have point and click. You can't click to move or click or click to attack.
As for party control =! party based combat, well, Upsettingshorts already made the claim I would have. Most people on this forum that want to praise BGII as some kind of gold standard of what an RPG is would disagree.
I personally consider
all these games RPGs, and think they're brilliant (except for NWN - that game was bad, if it wasn't for the excellent SP modules available later). I'm just making the counter-point that DA:O is somehow representative of the kinds of games that Bioware designs and DA2 is not, when this is clearly silly.
And that is where you're fudging to score points. Party based combat is any combat where the player character is not solo. Either by having AI or multiplayer controlled character companions.
Party-based combat = more than one character.
I would search this forum for references to party based combat. Like Upsettingshorts said, ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL (man, I love Harbinger
so much; my pet theory is that the Reapers harvest all galactic life because they're really just playing an MMO in the real world) is the accepted definition on this forum, so I'm rolling with it.
Err no.
Seriously,
did you play JE?
From the review of the game (
http://xbox.ign.com/...2/602787p1.html)
Blocking can also be used in conjunction with the analog stick to
initiate diving rolls, backflips, and an awesome vault move that flings
your character directly behind oncoming enemies. Dodging is so much fun,
that many players will find themselves bounding across the screen just
for kicks. If this was the extent of the battle system, it would already
be the best action-based RPG on Xbox. It is the core of a
rock-paper-scissors combat routine that encourages quick thinking and
punishes the button masher.
The main character can target one enemy at a time, and the triggers are
used to cycle through any threats on the battlefield. By pulling both
triggers, players can enter a free-run mode and interact with objects in
the environments, or simply reposition themselves in the battle. When
pitted against numerous opponents its easy to assume that the main
character would constantly be overwhelmed. This is handled expertly by
subtle changes in the enemy AI. Non-targeted enemies become less
aggressive, and will hang back on the outskirts of a battle. This keeps
battles manageable. It also mimics the classic scenario in Kung-Fu films
where the hero is impossibly outnumbered, but only suffers attacks from
one enemy at a time. Also, since damage is contact based, anyone who
gets in the way of a confrontation is going to pay the same price as the
intended target. Players can learn to take advantage of this system by
rolling into a crowd of enemies and unleashing damaging area attacks.
Retour en haut
