243 réponses à ce sujet

[Rob Sabbaggio]

Just to add my tuppence, I remember in the original KOTOR sidequests involving dancing with a twi-lek, solving a crime and identifying a murderer and finding a kid a home. I enjoyed them all and wished for more. I still do.

I love the genre, but so many RPGs, be they open world like Skyrim or party based like Dragon Age, all seem to have a default rhythm of speak to X, go to location Y, kill everything, recover artefact, and return to X.

We roleplay different classes, but the basic classes all end up carrying out the same objectives. A warrior uses physical attacks, a mage spells, a rogue stealth attacks, but all end killing everyone! The stealth sections in MOTA were a nice change, but they were still just a way to get to location x. To paraphrase Aerosmith, the journey changed a little, but not the destination.

So what I would like to see are quests, objectives and goals that can all be completed in different ways, such as diplomacy, disputes, research, crime solving. Maybe get away from pure quests, and have higher level objectives e.g. world population wealth, happiness. Almost Civ like. With metrics that can be affected by specific quests? I dunno, just rambling now.

I'd also like the possibility of non-combat classes able to complete the game without actually killing anyone. Obviously just one way of doing it, I dont want a straightjacket. It would just be nice to have the option to be well, nice. At the moment you can be nice, but still have to fight umpteen battles.

I just think it would be nice to have the option to be the healer, monk, politician, professor, diplomat, spy etc, and actually roleplay those roles, rather than just fight the same battles in different ways.

[Lithuasil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Having fun with either system does not require logic.

That... is an unfortunate fallacy. Every single piece of entertainment that any of us enjoy is (more or less) carefully constructed. And those structures should be visible, even to someone on a pure consumer standpoint.

More importantly - in a day and age, were there's (rather vocal) people that deem a game or franchise ruined forever, when creating a character is easier then doing your taxes - the question needs to be asked, why anyone would want that particular kind of complexity. Especially since many of the people would enjoy a better game just as well, if not more - but their demands are being taken seriously (to a point, anyway), which hinders the progress towards better games, that could be made.

[Riknas]

simfamSP wrote...

Why is it a mislable? Is it because it really isn't called 'tactical' or does it not match your opinion on it? Fair enough, it does seem logical that it was done because of technologies limitations but does that mean it's flawed?

This is what I've learnt when it comes to 'simulated combat' and 'DA combat.' In RPGs they both work fine, but the reason that simulated combat detracts from it is because it requires player skill.

This means that no matter how well you've developed your character, no matter how much you've done to make it powerful you'll never get the benefits from stats because if you happen to be a player that sucks at it then it is no longer roleplaying, it's simulation. Where as in Roleplaying you develop a character, your own skills should not take any part of that role, since your developing [/i]someone not you.

A flawed logic. There are two schools of thought, and contrary to what you might think, it's  not actually the "right" one or the "wrong" one. It's not that one involves skill, and the other involves tactics, because that implies that by not being reflex focused, you're not skilled. That's a discredit to any intelligent person who sets up excellent teams and uses the "Tactic" systems accordingly.

One of the key ideas was supposed to be that Dragon Age isn't supposed to Action Vs Tactics, but that you could use both, or just one. Indeed, on the other side of the coin, if you're extremely "skilled" in reflexes, it doesn't really matter because you have no idea how to allot points accordingly, or best distribute your attributes. You may have any idea of how you want your character to play, but apparently you would impose a restriction that they only get there by careful use of tactics and attributes.

Think of the handful of people that have actually beaten Nightmare playthroughs of Dragon Age: Origins...solo. These people are both tactically oriented and skilled.

You are in no position to tell someone how they should be roleplaying. I know people who play RPGs and act how they think. What Bioware has been trying to do is let people choose how they play, both in terms of character development, and moment to moment game play.

Indeed, it's also worth pointing out that there are also multiple difficulties for a reason. Any "skill" you might feel is required to play through the game now, or in the future of either Bioware or Mass Effect can most certainly be accomodated by playing on an easier difficulty.

When you talk about developing "someone" you still have to play that character, and use him appropriately.. Don't be foolish enough to decide what's the [i]right way to design or play a character. 

simfamSP wrote...
It's a bit hard to explain without Sylvius here hehe xD


P.S I've adopted this logic from Sylvius the Mad.

Be mindful of the fact that argument is really just the other half of a coin, rather than the "misunderstood, no one else gets it even though it's true," argument.

I've adopted this from trying to play a variety of games in different ways, and thoughtful discussion between people of differing opinions.

Modifié par Riknas, 22 décembre 2011 - 01:21 .

[Riknas]

simfamSP wrote...

You are right, forgive my ignorance.

But onto the original topic and that is as you say 'the other side.' What you have just said makes sense and is without a doubt correct. Lithuasil however brings this other side and ignores the other (much like I did.)

I should point out that I don't agree with Lithausil said either, you were simply the last person to point it out, and I try to avoid quote pyramids. Even then, it's not like all the action playing individuals are a series of hyperactive nitwits while the tactical players are amazingly slow poindexters. A lot of the attributes can involve number crunching that may not appeal. There's nothing stopping a man from playing Chess and then Call of Duty, or for a fast fingered guitarist to sit down and play Dungeons and Dragons (and these are in fact, real people).

Would you agree that combat immersion should be implemented into Dragon Age? Or should they do what they have been doing since Baldur's gate?

Indeed, I think combat immersion would be nice, but hopefully not at the expense of people's ability to play either way. Also, I should point out that I don't agree with Lithausil said either, you were simply the last person to comment that way, and I try to avoid quote pyramids.

Even so, I don't know what you think would be "better" combat immersion. The animations were more fluid and I found to be more entertaining than the original. And to those who say it was more realistic, that's hardly the case, rather it was more ineffectual over realistic. People do not shuffle, nor do they actually attack so slowly, otherwise France and England would still be at war if we were playing on Hard difficulty.

At the very base of the topic though, I like quests that don't involve fighting (Even if fighting is fun at times). The detective quests from KOTOR were cool, I can enjoy (simple) puzzles, though I find those to have a distinct lack of replay value (Let it be known, one of the most downloaded mods for the PC was "Skip the fade"). Persuasion is cool, and stealth elements can be interesting. The "city building" aspect of Dragon Age: Awakening was also fun, along with the aspects of ruling. Finding other ways to implement stuff like that would be great. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood went another step from there, allowing you defend your city, and being able to use resources to help you with either fortification or forces to aid you.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution has an excellent implementation of both persuasion of stealth aspects, and using their version of levels, "augmentations" you can use it in that tactical/rpg factor, to get what you want done. Just the same, if you're in a tight situation, skill can help you get past what your augmentations might not be able to handle. On the flip side, those augmentations can compensate for something you might not be good at.

A question though, albiet out of topic, still I'm curious.

How would you say that combat based on reflexes (i.e Skyrim) does not detract from roleplaying as a whole?

Well, that's an interesting question (bear wtih me for a bit). But that's the thing I think we're really missing about a role playing. What detracts from role playing isn't having reflex combat, but only having reflex combat. A Turn Based Strategy game can be fun to people who like strategy, Real Time Strategy players like real time strategy games, and then there's an overlap between people who generally like strategy games. (This is an oversimplification of course, because then there are people who like a variety of games genres, but bear with me for the sake of the example.)

But the thing is, it's still just a strategy game. No matter what, if you want to continue the story or playing the game, you need to build resources and troops to eliminate your enemy, or survive X amount of time.

RPGs are something special in this case. As you mentioned, Skyrim. Yes, there is reflexed based combat in it. A more defensive person might return, "Well, what would turn based combat add?". That said, I don't think reflex based combat is better, but neither would I say that turn based combat is. One thing about Skyrim is that while it first throws you in with a weapon and tells you to start swinging it, it's pretty forgiving to get started, but more importantly, it gives you the power of choice. Of course, it's not a party RPG, so that's not really an option, but you have other ways to compensate. If you think strictly reflexed base melee (or ranged) combat is too much, you can try something else. Your first option is to see if you can accomplish what you want using stealth, with the damage bonuses of sneak attacks, or strictly avoiding confrontation entirely.  You can also try some of the many different kinds of magic to either replace the need for direct combat, or supplement it (like with stealth). You can craft weapons and armor, or potions. These also can help you, or you might actually enjoy it yourself. If someone were to ask, "Why should I have all these crafting abilities that only slow me down" you could just present this backwards to them and it would make just as much sense. You don't actually need those things. If you're good enough, you can just take gold and buy what you want, because hey. That's how you can play. 

Simply put, "if you like reflex based combat, it doesn't detract from your roleplaying experience, it's just an option that can add to the roleplaying experience, if you like that." If someone really likes playing a warrior, wouldn't it make sense that they would want reflex based combat to help them capture that feeling?  If you don't like that, it's nothing gained, but nothing really lost either, it's just not your cup of tea. The question is then, if it's a really good RPG, you'll ask, "Is there something else I can do to avoid that?" And if the answer is, "Yes" then you know you have something great on your hands. "I don't want this melee stuff, it's too frantic and crazy," you say, "Okay, I'll hold back with magic and boost myself with potions," or, "I'll turn down the difficulty so I can get used to this."

But that's what makes RPG's great, the idea that you should be able to expand that. How do you want to play the combat, and can you do anything beside combat? Do you rely on your party's tactics, or do you micro-manage them every step of the way? You can much better capture the tactical experience on Hard and Nightmare, but you can also rely mostly on your main character when playing on normal, maybe switch around characters as opportunities present themselves.


Note: Oh god this post was larger than I thought, it just came to me as I was writing it. Feel free to skim as you like it. I'll make some underscores and lines to separate coherent thoughts. I've also heavily edited it to remove unnecessary information

Modifié par Riknas, 22 décembre 2011 - 05:46 .

[Lithuasil]

simfamSP wrote...

A question though, albiet out of topic, still I'm curious.

How would you say that combat based on reflexes (i.e Skyrim) does not detract from roleplaying as a whole?

I'll just quote this, to make the whole thing easier to read.

In Skyrims case - this might surprise you, but I don't say it doesn't detract from roleplaying - it does, in a number of ways, even beyond the obvious (like time-freezing inventories where you can chug fifty potions). It just does it much less, then say Nwn2, because the arbitrary barrier between me and my avatar, while there, is much thinner in Skyrim. (For the record - a better example would be Dark Messiah of Might and Magic - a game that was never really intended to be an rpg, and still manages to be one of the most immersive roleplaying experiences I ever had on the pc)

More importantly - I applaud you, for doing what very, very few people in this discussion have the honesty to do - voicing the concern that in a skill-based game, you might not be able to keep up. 
But here's the thing - While I do think that many modern games could do with a tad more difficulty, I don't want to turn rpg-combat into Call of Duty, heavens no. What I want, is to treat combat realistically - that does mean it has to be short, adrenaline filled, frantic (and very, very dangerous)
But above all else, that means combat has to be a last resort. In a real encounter, no matter how good you are, no matter how well trained - both sides will be reluctant to dog it out with blades, because the chances of getting hurt rather badly are high. 
And this, above all else, it's this effect, that we can't have under the old numbercrunchy systems - In a system were victory is largely dependant on dice and numbers, the enemies have to be balanced, and the player can disregard any information they have about a situation or enemy, knowing that every fight they enter will either be winnable, or unwinnable on purpose. A realistic combat system (with a sufficiently sophisticated AI) does not need to go through such length, and can instead balance enemies based on what skill they could reasonably be expected to posess. (Also adding an element of nonlinearity, since a sufficiently skilled or smart player might still prevail).
And also - realistic combat means not only that there should be a plethora of mechanics to avoid it - there should also be the ability to cheat, based on how well you exploit terrain etc to your advantage - In Dark Messiah which I mentioned earlier, it's entirely possible to complete the plot, leaving a huge pile of corpses - without crossing blades with an enemy more then two or three times - since the game allows you to win an encounter with your own cunning (like say, hacking the ropes of a bridge, then luring enemies on it etc) just as well - which is what *I*d call tactical combat.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Lithuasil wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Having fun with either system does not require logic.

That... is an unfortunate fallacy. Every single piece of entertainment that any of us enjoy is (more or less) carefully constructed. And those structures should be visible, even to someone on a pure consumer standpoint.

More importantly - in a day and age, were there's (rather vocal) people that deem a game or franchise ruined forever, when creating a character is easier then doing your taxes - the question needs to be asked, why anyone would want that particular kind of complexity. Especially since many of the people would enjoy a better game just as well, if not more - but their demands are being taken seriously (to a point, anyway), which hinders the progress towards better games, that could be made.

Let me get this straight... You assume that if a game is simplified then it can be played by more people and thus progress will be made towards making it a better game. Sigh. Even if that logic made sense (which it doesn't) then you clearly have no idea what fun is. Currently I am enjoying one of the most complex flight sims out there (DCS: A-10C), but I also happen to adore Magicka and its DLCs. I would be pissed if the first dev would simplify the flight sim to that of a Battlefield 2 level (which I enjoy too, BTW) and I would also be pissed if the Magicka devs made their game more complex than Rise and Decline of the Third Reich (a high end board game by Avalon Hill). Fun is not being limited by either complexity or simplicity. It's much like how I enjoy music. When it makes my feet move I consider it to be great. I like to keep it that way. Thank you.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 décembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[Lithuasil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Let me get this straight... You assume that if a game is simplified then it can be played by more people and thus progress will be made towards making it a better game.

No I don't.

I'm all for complexity. The good kind. "In-World" complexity. And as a general rule of thumb, that is always better then the alternative, the "menue-complexity". The game world should be as diverse and complex as adequate to realistically (or stylistically) portray the setting. Interacting with the world, should be as easy as possible.

Pro: Dark Messiahs "basic fps + kick" controls are as straightforward as you can get - but the world that you interact with is fairly complex, allowing for lots and lots of clever ways to manipulate your surroundings to your advantage.

Contra: Any "old school" rpg with fifty billion character stats and zero ability to interact with parts of the world that aren't quest-npcs, chests or doors.

Currently I am enjoying one of the most complex flight sims out there (DCS: A-10C), but I also happen to adore Magicka and its DLCs. I would be pissed if the first dev would simplify the flight sim to that of a Battlefield 2 level (which I enjoy too, BTW) and I would also be pissed if the Magicka devs made their game more complex than Rise and Decline of the Third Reich (a high end board game by Avalon Hill).

You're mixing several things into this discussion, that don't belong here. My cause is one of adequacy - a flight sim should have the gameplay of a simulator - that's what it is, and therefore it's adequate to be as complex as it needs to be to simulate flight controls sufficiently.  Might and Magic: Heroes 6 was a close second on my Goty list - and it's not exactly the simplest game either - but it's a turn based strategy game - so it's supposed to have the gameplay of a strategy game.

My problem now is - the selfproclaimed old school crowd rages against rpgs, if they don't have strategy combat - when they should be adequate (i.e immersive) gameplay instead.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Lithuasil wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Let me get this straight... You assume that if a game is simplified then it can be played by more people and thus progress will be made towards making it a better game.

No I don't.

I'm all for complexity. The good kind. "In-World" complexity. And as a general rule of thumb, that is always better then the alternative, the "menue-complexity". The game world should be as diverse and complex as adequate to realistically (or stylistically) portray the setting. Interacting with the world, should be as easy as possible.

Pro: Dark Messiahs "basic fps + kick" controls are as straightforward as you can get - but the world that you interact with is fairly complex, allowing for lots and lots of clever ways to manipulate your surroundings to your advantage.

Contra: Any "old school" rpg with fifty billion character stats and zero ability to interact with parts of the world that aren't quest-npcs, chests or doors.

Currently I am enjoying one of the most complex flight sims out there (DCS: A-10C), but I also happen to adore Magicka and its DLCs. I would be pissed if the first dev would simplify the flight sim to that of a Battlefield 2 level (which I enjoy too, BTW) and I would also be pissed if the Magicka devs made their game more complex than Rise and Decline of the Third Reich (a high end board game by Avalon Hill).

You're mixing several things into this discussion, that don't belong here. My cause is one of adequacy - a flight sim should have the gameplay of a simulator - that's what it is, and therefore it's adequate to be as complex as it needs to be to simulate flight controls sufficiently.  Might and Magic: Heroes 6 was a close second on my Goty list - and it's not exactly the simplest game either - but it's a turn based strategy game - so it's supposed to have the gameplay of a strategy game.

My problem now is - the selfproclaimed old school crowd rages against rpgs, if they don't have strategy combat - when they should be adequate (i.e immersive) gameplay instead.

You are still missing the message. Fun is not limited to complexity or simplicity. You can write a lot, but it doesn't make my feet move.

[Heimdall]

Lithuasil wrote...
And this, above all else, it's this effect, that we can't have under the old numbercrunchy systems - In a system were victory is largely dependant on dice and numbers, the enemies have to be balanced, and the player can disregard any information they have about a situation or enemy, knowing that every fight they enter will either be winnable, or unwinnable on purpose. A realistic combat system (with a sufficiently sophisticated AI) does not need to go through such length, and can instead balance enemies based on what skill they could reasonably be expected to posess. (Also adding an element of nonlinearity, since a sufficiently skilled or smart player might still prevail).

I agree wih some of your points, but I don't really understand why we can't have this in the more more number crunching system (For lack of a better term since I'm not sure what to call it.  I like many genre's of games and wouldn't be terribly worried about keeping up with more reflex based combat, but I'm not sure what you describe here is actually true.

[Lithuasil]

Lord Aesir wrote...
I agree wih some of your points, but I don't really understand why we can't have this in the more more number crunching system (For lack of a better term since I'm not sure what to call it.  I like many genre's of games and wouldn't be terribly worried about keeping up with more reflex based combat, but I'm not sure what you describe here is actually true.

It can to a point - in a fairly mixed bag, like DAII it's possible (not fun, not pretty, not immersive but possible) to defeat Legacy's unpronouncable final boss alone, with a lvl8 mage. It took me well over an hour, granted - but it worked.

Point is, this system doesn't please the crowd that demands strategic combat. More importantly though - a number-heavy system might begrudgingly tolerate, that at times a skilled player can get more out of his characters then he should, via cleverness, stubbornness or exploit.The more numberheavy it becomes, the rarer this happens.
A system were the combat (as one of many solutions mind you) is balanced around player skill, can safely leave all balancing to the story, rather then formulaic progression - in other words, it could overcome the usual segregation between gameplay and lore/cutscenes. And that's what rpgs *should* do.

[Realmzmaster]

Lithuasil wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
I agree wih some of your points, but I don't really understand why we can't have this in the more more number crunching system (For lack of a better term since I'm not sure what to call it.  I like many genre's of games and wouldn't be terribly worried about keeping up with more reflex based combat, but I'm not sure what you describe here is actually true.

It can to a point - in a fairly mixed bag, like DAII it's possible (not fun, not pretty, not immersive but possible) to defeat Legacy's unpronouncable final boss alone, with a lvl8 mage. It took me well over an hour, granted - but it worked.

Point is, this system doesn't please the crowd that demands strategic combat. More importantly though - a number-heavy system might begrudgingly tolerate, that at times a skilled player can get more out of his characters then he should, via cleverness, stubbornness or exploit.The more numberheavy it becomes, the rarer this happens.
A system were the combat (as one of many solutions mind you) is balanced around player skill, can safely leave all balancing to the story, rather then formulaic progression - in other words, it could overcome the usual segregation between gameplay and lore/cutscenes. And that's what rpgs *should* do.

The problem with any reflex based system is that it trumps accessibility because the players skill and not the character's skill is at the fore front.. A turn based numbercrucnchy  or real time with pause game eliminates the reliance on how fast you can push the button. It makes the game more accessible to a larger number of people.

Now this can be mitigated if there are other ways to solve situations that does not involve combat. 

Combat is the hallmark of most cRPGS, but it can be done in a way that is accessible to more people. Bioware has found the balance between turn based combat and reflex oriented combat especially on a PC. I can control Bioware games with a mouse. You cannot do that with Skyrim or TW2.  The left hand has to be used for movement with Skyrim and TW2. I cannot map movement to the mouse in Skyrim or TW2 because it is used for combat.

You can say what you want about turned number crunchy based games, but they are designed so any one can play them without worrying about I did not press the button fast enough. All of Bioware's games can be played just by using the mouse. Which means I can continue to enjoy them even though I have arthritis in my left hand and my reaction time has slowed due to aging.

Which is why CDProjectk and Bethesda no longer get my money. If Bioware goes that route their will be one less customer for them.

[Realmzmaster]

simfamSP wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
I agree wih some of your points, but I don't really understand why we can't have this in the more more number crunching system (For lack of a better term since I'm not sure what to call it.  I like many genre's of games and wouldn't be terribly worried about keeping up with more reflex based combat, but I'm not sure what you describe here is actually true.

It can to a point - in a fairly mixed bag, like DAII it's possible (not fun, not pretty, not immersive but possible) to defeat Legacy's unpronouncable final boss alone, with a lvl8 mage. It took me well over an hour, granted - but it worked.

Point is, this system doesn't please the crowd that demands strategic combat. More importantly though - a number-heavy system might begrudgingly tolerate, that at times a skilled player can get more out of his characters then he should, via cleverness, stubbornness or exploit.The more numberheavy it becomes, the rarer this happens.
A system were the combat (as one of many solutions mind you) is balanced around player skill, can safely leave all balancing to the story, rather then formulaic progression - in other words, it could overcome the usual segregation between gameplay and lore/cutscenes. And that's what rpgs *should* do.

The problem with any reflex based system is that it trumps accessibility because the players skill and not the character's skill is at the fore front.. A turn based numbercrucnchy  or real time with pause game eliminates the reliance on how fast you can push the button. It makes the game more accessible to a larger number of people.

Now this can be mitigated if there are other ways to solve situations that does not involve combat. 

Combat is the hallmark of most cRPGS, but it can be done in a way that is accessible to more people. Bioware has found the balance between turn based combat and reflex oriented combat especially on a PC. I can control Bioware games with a mouse. You cannot do that with Skyrim or TW2.  The left hand has to be used for movement with Skyrim and TW2. I cannot map movement to the mouse in Skyrim or TW2 because it is used for combat.

You can say what you want about turned number crunchy based games, but they are designed so any one can play them without worrying about I did not press the button fast enough. All of Bioware's games can be played just by using the mouse. Which means I can continue to enjoy them even though I have arthritis in my left hand and my reaction time has slowed due to aging.

Which is why CDProjectk and Bethesda no longer get my money. If Bioware goes that route their will be one less customer for them.

So you basically avoid a TONNE of games then? Why don't you use a controller? The controls might no appeal to you, but it looks like your missing out on some pretty good games.

I don't have that problem because I'm left handed. Thus I use my left hand for the keyboard and right for the mouse.

It does not matter if you are left or right handed if you have arthritis in the hand that uses the keyboard. A controller is a non-starter since the buttons to control movement are on the left side. No I do not avoid a ton of games, because the games I play fall into cetain categories like RTS, wargames ( no not COD or MW or Battlefield, more like Hearts of Iron, HPS simulations and Talonsoft) and cRPGs not FPS.  The games I play make excellent use of the mouse  and have very good UIs.

Bioware games have been my favorites because of the good UIs and use of Mouse. TW1 (The Witcher 1) made use of the either mouse, or mouse and keyboard. There was a choice. TW2 gives you no choice.

I use to play TES games having finished Morrowind and Oblivion some years ago. I tried Skyrim on a friends PC. All I got for the effort was pain shooting through my left hand. Now if Bioware wishes to lose my business they can adopt a control system like Bethesda or CDProjectk. I will simply spin my money with indepedents who understand the limitations that growing older imposes.

Note that some people have these limitations and have not reached my age but are in  their twenties or early thirties.

If game companies do not want my money, I still have a lifetime of games to replay.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 23 décembre 2011 - 04:49 .

[Icinix]

Yes. More interesting quests / story lines etc / with different choices and outcomes would be awesome.

I can't remember the 18 groups of random auto hostile bandits I killed.

But like simfamSP, I remember dancing with the Twilek and deliberately stuffing it up for her in a reload save because after helping her she became a snobbish cow.

[Realmzmaster]

@simfamSp.

Almost forgot I loved TitanQuest and TitanQuest Immortal Throne by Ironlore which also made excellent use of the mouse and had a great interface and was an Action-cRPG.

[Heimdall]

Lithuasil wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
I agree wih some of your points, but I don't really understand why we can't have this in the more more number crunching system (For lack of a better term since I'm not sure what to call it.  I like many genre's of games and wouldn't be terribly worried about keeping up with more reflex based combat, but I'm not sure what you describe here is actually true.

It can to a point - in a fairly mixed bag, like DAII it's possible (not fun, not pretty, not immersive but possible) to defeat Legacy's unpronouncable final boss alone, with a lvl8 mage. It took me well over an hour, granted - but it worked.

Point is, this system doesn't please the crowd that demands strategic combat. More importantly though - a number-heavy system might begrudgingly tolerate, that at times a skilled player can get more out of his characters then he should, via cleverness, stubbornness or exploit.The more numberheavy it becomes, the rarer this happens.
A system were the combat (as one of many solutions mind you) is balanced around player skill, can safely leave all balancing to the story, rather then formulaic progression - in other words, it could overcome the usual segregation between gameplay and lore/cutscenes. And that's what rpgs *should* do.

Well, it would be a simple enough matter to implement multiple ways to resolve a situation besides combat, regardless of the combat system involved.

I'm still not entirely sure what you want to get out of skill based combat.

[ladyofpayne]

Yes. Too much fights but no social elements. This is bad- there is no intrigues and evil plottings. 

Modifié par ladyofpayne, 23 décembre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Realmzmaster]

simfamSP wrote...

It does not matter if you are left or right handed if you have arthritis in the hand that uses the keyboard

Really? Ouch sorry man. But to be honest, if I switch hand styles (using my right hand on the keyboard and left with the mouse) it's like trying to write right handed... weird. I assumed most people had that problem.

It seems your more in favour to the isometric point of view games due to your athritis, no problem. Though it's stange, how did you manage Oblivion and Morrowind but not Skyrim?

I played both Morrowind (2002) and Oblivion (2006) when they were first released before I developed arthritis in my left hand.  There is a five year span between Oblivion and Skyrim.

[Realmzmaster]

Sorry, you are too young ( I assume)  to have senior moments.  But, I understand.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 24 décembre 2011 - 05:52 .