69 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

bussinrounds wrote...
1 -  It's a different type of skill, more a mental skill.  Like chess.  When i was talking about player skill,  I was referring more to the skills used for the common video games, such as (hand to eye coordination, twitch type gameplay...)    In a fully turn based game, there COULD be no difference in 80 year old grandma playing and someone else. That's what I meant when i said it's more about character skill >player skill for RPGs.  Of course there's mental skill involved.  

A reflex is still a mental skill. There's no such thing as a purely physical skill.

That nitpick aside,I'm not drawing a parallel between the two types of games. I'm just saying, it's not about "character skill" and "player skill". It's just about the type of skill. I don't like reflex games as much as paced games, and I like turn-based combat. It's fun.
 

2) I have tried real time strategy games and It's not my thing.  I don't like being rushed either. Plus, i like the slower pace of turn based, having control over everything that's going on, and being able to get all feedback. (example- see who hit who, how, for how many pts of damage ?)   I get to watch and enjoy each characters action as they perform it.  There's too much going on at once in real time, i feel like I'm missing out on alot.  In BG, I'm scrolling back in the battle log constantly to see wtf just happened, instead of being able to see and enjoy everything while it happenes.

My point, though, is that this is all quite tactical. It's mental in the sense that you describe above, and it adds the challenge of physical coordination to it.

Take JA2, for example. say you want to split up your squads.  You want to keep precise control of each squad. But they're far away from each other. In turn based it is effortless to control each one. In
real time with pause it is incredibly frustrating as you are constantly
pausing and scrolling, pausing and scrolling. It doesn't feel anything
like real time at this point, and you would have to sacrifice control or rely on an the AI .  What if you got into 2 battles at once ?  You wouldn't even be able to watch them !

In RT games, your forced to limit your
tactics due to the interface.

You're forced to adapt your tactics. Just because it's not "effortless" to control and micromanage every aspect doesn't mean it's less tactical. It's just more challenging.

My point is only that all of this boils down to preference, but it's not about the kind of skill involved.

[Storm Farron]

everything in an "RPG" is action. walking is action. turn-based combat is action. upgrading skills is action. looting is action. etc. this thread is just another excuse for flaming Bioware

[bussinrounds]

Gimmie a break, you know damn well what we're talking about. No need for the retardation.

[ErichHartmann]

bussinrounds wrote...

Gimmie a break, you know damn well what we're talking about. No need for the retardation.

You know an argument is weak when a person resorts to personal attacks. /fail

[bussinrounds]

I'm not even trying to argue any thing with that poster. Just look at what they said, "everything in a RPG is action" Ok now.

[slimgrin]

I think both Mass Effect games get the formula just right. Deus EX:HR and TW2 also strike a great balance. While I enjoyed DA:O the combat got tiresome at times because it wasn't purely twitch based and was very time consuming. I still can't get into turn based combat.

Modifié par slimgrin, 04 janvier 2012 - 02:13 .

[horacethegrey]

Storm Farron wrote...

everything in an "RPG" is action. walking is action. turn-based combat is action. upgrading skills is action. looting is action. etc. this thread is just another excuse for flaming Bioware

Jeeesuus... How the hell did you come to this conclusion? How am I flaming Bioware when I explicitly said in my OP that I enjoyed Jade Empire and Mass Effect 2? Get a clue.

Modifié par horacethegrey, 04 janvier 2012 - 02:21 .

[KingJason13]

NOT what DA2 did...

[Costin_Razvan]

bussinrounds wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And you think there are no tactics, planning and understanding the game mechanics in a game where there is action? Lol.

  Depends on the game.  Some more than others.   Dark Souls ?  I would say so.   God of War ?  No.  You can get away with just button mashing.

God of War on it's hardest difficulty is just button mashing? Yeah sure, continue believing that.

[eroeru]

bussinrounds wrote...

None. Turn based FTW !! Character skill > Player skill. If i want action, I'll play a damn action game. (where the action is actually good, like Dark Souls or Blade of Darkness)

RPGs should of just stuck with what they did well, not try to be both (jack of all trades), and ultimately being weak and watered down in both aspects.

This. There is not enough good strategy and/or control in today's games, too much of that fast-paced soul-less competitive play. (tongue-in-cheek... )

A smart and beautiful game would be a niche, imo, it's a description of a game that I would become a fan of instantly (and will throw my money towards it). But I guess developers are put off by the difficulty, or rather ingenuity of making one. Plus that there would not be such masses behind you, as with MW3.

Anyways, it would make for great reputation, if big-time developers try to do something originally captivating as seem to try the Shadow of the Colossus, Indigo Prophecy, The Last Guardian, Heavy Rain... and return to roots again for inspiration, e.g. to Baldur's Gate, Heroes of Might and Magic first three titles, or the sorts, and try to make something genuinely new and high-standard, adding their own personal love or interest.

I certainly want to give my full support to a game that has no focus on action, but rather adds it in iff it fits the whole. Making an action-game from the get-go will certainly not yield such results as would one of artistic vision, then following with how gameplay should be created, as dictated by this vision.

[eroeru]

In Exile wrote...

My point is only that all of this boils down to preference, but it's not about the kind of skill involved.

But you can have your explanations why you don't enjoy the more action-oriented gameplay...

I could bring out that clicking or pushing a button is not so mentally stimulating as chess - and be backed by proof of my own. E.g. "I feel not at all so bright after playing "X - the action-packed game" than I do after I've spent time planning my actions in "Y - the strategy game". Or I could point out that a clicking-reflex is not very useful in a natural environment, or at all for that matter - at least for common goods or effects that hold more possibility for self-awareness, and much more "actual" value.

Fact is, the "mental" category (at least this is what is commonly and throughout history it's name) is a clearly different one than that of automatic reflexes. My giving the explanation, i.e. judgement between the two (that of preference) some truth-value can be better or worse, depending on how much I bother with all relevant info, and on my biases. (to say it short - there are different explanations for which is better - and some of them are actually better than others, subjectivity aside... albeit it is a problem that we're just not all so knowledgeable in this matter).

So I myself, for this point, have acquired the conclusion or explanation similar to the one above with the X and Y. But from a meta stand-point it's this: that the most important aspect in the preference is actively judging your actions - and as long as you don't contradict yourself (i.e. your "actual" desires, in contrast to your biases) and don't contradict or hinder your knowing of the situation (e.g. "if I do x and don't do y, my eyes or ability to plan or health or whatever certainly won't get better..." or "if I do this, I'll bother others - and so will make life somewhat more difficult" etc... simply put, "I have better things to do"), it's all good.

I didn't mean to write most of this when I started the comment, but as I don't really like the sentence that seemingly has the ability to quell all discussions ("it is all subjective or only a matter of preference, so all you said was nonsense"), I did have to post in answer and explain myself carefully.

Modifié par eroeru, 04 janvier 2012 - 10:51 .

[horacethegrey]

 I'm sorry, but your post strikes me as nothing more than pointless rambling. Rather than giving us useless fluff, why don't you contribute something useful to the discussion at hand?

[RPGamer13]

Non-stop, in your face, over the top, the missile riding action. Like The Twin Snakes remake of Metal Gear Solid. I don't know what people's complaints were because in MGS4 especially, it had the same kind of stuff and people say that one is the best in the series. Hypocrits...

Anyway, there are various ways one can do that.

1. Special Effects: A game can be turn-based and as long as the attack animations are interesting, they can feel just as intense as real time combat.

2. It doesn't have to be tied to combat.  Action in cutscenes goes a long way too.  There's just so much you can do with them that either would be a nightmare to program or just wouldn't work with the battles you control.

I hate QTEs, I'd rather they just play you a cutscene. What's the point if I can't focus on what's happening on the screen?

horacethegrey wrote...

Just so you know, I like it when an rpg allows me to mix it up. I don't mind turn based affairs or point and click fests, but real time combat adds a whole new dimension that can make an rpg more enjoyable. Jade Empire was the first game I played like this, I thought it was good if a bit primitive.

Later games though (particularly of this gen) have been more successful. I think Mass Effect 2 is the perfect blend of third person shooter and rpg, and from what little of played of The Witcher 2, I thought it perfected the formula Jade Empire started of melding hack and slash combat with rpg elements. Currently I'm playing Skyrim, which has some decent (if a bit iffy) real time combat.

I think you're playing the wrong kind of RPGs with real time combat. But that's just me.

Western PC suggestions:
Fable III (if you're not a rabid fan this game is fine on its own, and the combat is better than Skyrim)
Sacred II
Divinity II: The Dragon Knight Saga

Japanese RPG Suggestions:
Tales of The Abyss
Star Ocean III: Til The End of Time
Radiata Stories
Lord of Arcana
Phantasy Star
The Legend of Zelda
A Link To The Past
Twilight Princess
Oracle of Seasons
Oracle of Ages
Wind Waker

Modifié par RPGamer13, 04 janvier 2012 - 01:37 .

[eroeru]

horacethegrey wrote...

 I'm sorry, but your post strikes me as nothing more than pointless rambling. Rather than giving us useless fluff, why don't you contribute something useful to the discussion at hand?

Useful??:happy:

Anyways, that was just me waking up in the morning. Oh well...

edit: I can be somewhat awkward with my English sometimes. It's not my native tongue. Sorry if that was a bit of a bother.
double-edit: that stuff about action in my first post would sum up how I deal with the "more or less action" topic. I say it's not at all important. The most if not all of the emphasis should go on the starting-point of an aesthetic/artistic/narrative vision. That makes the question irrelevant. From this stems that I cannot answer further... And what exactly is a useful comment to such a topic I'd ask you? Cause maybe I'm not getting something.

Modifié par eroeru, 04 janvier 2012 - 04:37 .

[HiroVoid]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And you think there are no tactics, planning and understanding the game mechanics in a game where there is action? Lol.

  Depends on the game.  Some more than others.   Dark Souls ?  I would say so.   God of War ?  No.  You can get away with just button mashing.

God of War on it's hardest difficulty is just button mashing? Yeah sure, continue believing that.

XD  I was just thinking that.  Just press square, square, square......WHY IS THIS CYCLOPS KILLING ME!?

[In Exile]

eroeru wrote...
I could bring out that clicking or pushing a button is not so mentally stimulating as chess - and be backed by proof of my own. E.g. "I feel not at all so bright after playing "X - the action-packed game" than I do after I've spent time planning my actions in "Y - the strategy game". Or I could point out that a clicking-reflex is not very useful in a natural environment, or at all for that matter - at least for common goods or effects that hold more possibility for self-awareness, and much more "actual" value.

You can certainly believe these things. As a matter of how things actually work, there's the kind of information proccessing involved in physical actions is actually far more complex. The subjective experience is different, but "self-awareness" is not the same thing as value.

Anyway, chess is a particularly bad example as it's far more about experience than intellect. It's, funny enough, a lot more like basketball than it is like (for example) debating.

Fact is, the "mental" category (at least this is what is commonly and throughout history it's name) is a clearly different one than that of automatic reflexes. My giving the explanation, i.e. judgement between the two (that of preference) some truth-value can be better or worse, depending on how much I bother with all relevant info, and on my biases. (to say it short - there are different explanations for which is better - and some of them are actually better than others, subjectivity aside... albeit it is a problem that we're just not all so knowledgeable in this matter).

The mental category was historically put on a pedestal because it's were we consciously operate, but as (for example) AI research has come to show, solving the problem of (for example) how to play chess is very easy, and solving the problem of how to catch a ball (much less fine movements like we make when we move a controller) are not.

I didn't mean to write most of this when I started the comment, but as I don't really like the sentence that seemingly has the ability to quell all discussions ("it is all subjective or only a matter of preference, so all you said was nonsense"), I did have to post in answer and explain myself carefully.

My argument isn't that subjectivity makes it nonsense. It's that the viewpont is itself, based on what the words mean, actually nonense, i.e. a contradiction of terms.

[horacethegrey]

eroeru wrote...
edit: I can be somewhat awkward with my English sometimes. It's not my native tongue. Sorry if that was a bit of a bother.
double-edit: that stuff about action in my first post would sum up how I deal with the "more or less action" topic. I say it's not at all important. The most if not all of the emphasis should go on the starting-point of an aesthetic/artistic/narrative vision. That makes the question irrelevant. From this stems that I cannot answer further... And what exactly is a useful comment to such a topic I'd ask you? Cause maybe I'm not getting something.

A useful comment would be one that contributes to the discussion of the subject at hand. You made an inane post that I found  a bit nonsensical and a bit pretentious to be honest.

And regarding your first post on action shouldn't be important to a game's design. You're seriously wrong. These are games. Interactive entertainment. What makes or breaks a videogame is gameplay. All that stuff you mentioned about the 
aesthetic/artistic/narrative vision are secondary to how well a game plays. A title could have the most beautiful visuals or a stunning narrative, but if the gameplay is crap? It's a failure.

[eroeru]

In Exile wrote...
[snipsnip]

The mental category was historically put on a pedestal because it's were we consciously operate, but as (for example) AI research has come to show, solving the problem of (for example) how to play chess is very easy, and solving the problem of how to catch a ball (much less fine movements like we make when we move a controller) are not.

[snip]

Thanks for the answer - it gave more insight regarding your view.

And I agree with most of it, it's just that consciousness itself and that fact you brought up about mental properties make such "mental properties" more important in my opinion. Try to reach conscious AI (we'll certainly reach "smart" movement before this imho)... even if you're at a point where it's behavior is similar to that of a human, can you expect it to develop consiousness? The answer is not clear, and I doubt it will be.

(while I didn't equate self-awareness with value in the sentence you brought up - they were different things I found important in the explanations given to "why I like X more"; the explanations refer to value and the aware and felt logic that is, imo, not so easy to develop for a human being - I do however feel the category different and often more useful than that of the motoric system; and more personally, more important)

edit: So basically I'm saying that people could use more logic - and that being logical is a thing I value quite much in human beings.
And as logic is the core of strategy gaming, this is also a reason for my preference.

Modifié par eroeru, 04 janvier 2012 - 08:21 .

[eroeru]

horacethegrey wrote...
A useful comment would be one that contributes to the discussion of the subject at hand. You made an inane post that I found  a bit nonsensical and a bit pretentious to be honest.

And regarding your first post on action shouldn't be important to a game's design. You're seriously wrong. These are games. Interactive entertainment. What makes or breaks a videogame is gameplay. All that stuff you mentioned about the 
aesthetic/artistic/narrative vision are secondary to how well a game plays. A title could have the most beautiful visuals or a stunning narrative, but if the gameplay is crap? It's a failure.

Well, it's a shame you don't like my opinion nor get anything from it. I actually do write this awkwardly, it's less pretentiousness at work here, more grammatics' habits.

edit: to paraphrase - I do like turn-based games more, and action less. but I don't find them to be at the core of the game. so the starting-point or most prevailing feature would certainly have to be the artistic vision. So prevailing, in fact, that the action/non-action duality loses its meaning... (and many others have a similar opinion with saying "I like both")

Modifié par eroeru, 04 janvier 2012 - 06:04 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
You can certainly believe these things. As a matter of how things actually work, there's the kind of information proccessing involved in physical actions is actually far more complex. The subjective experience is different, but "self-awareness" is not the same thing as value.

I read a military study a while ago that concluded certain types of gaming could increase brain plasticity, and could have applications for aging, for instance.  I got the idea they meant mostly developing reflexes and problem solving, which definitely are "action" skills.  The problem is finding a balance between challenge and frustration.  That's a tricky thing when we're talking about what people do in their free time and have to pay for.  What is relaxing to one person because will be tedious and trying to another.

I have far more objections to puzzling in RPGs than action, for instance.  Puzzles drive me up a freaking wall.  To other people, this sort of challenge is a buzz.

In both cases, I don't mind something being in games that I'm not very good at, as long as it doesn't prevent me from advancing the game.  Also, variety.  This is why I don't play shooters- they are nonstop, relentless pewpew.  That's just tedious to me, not relaxing.

Modifié par Addai67, 04 janvier 2012 - 10:07 .

[blothulfur]

It's funny that I can play a level on Severance and kill perhaps a dozen opponents in tight, enjoyable and thrilling combat. I'll be left either cursing whichever bastard knobbled me, showing the decapitated foe on the monitor my hairy buttocks or letting out a big exhalation of relief. Whereas with the endless waves throwing themselves on my sword in DA2 I just quickly grew bored, it did not help that Hawke was throwing ridiculous shapes on the battlefloor like a less manly Madonna vogueing on pcp.

Make the combat good, whether it be twitch or turn based. Oh and drop the oversized weapons and over the top animations, it's not big and it's not clever.

[Damariel]

Well I don't have anything against action but for me it's not what is needed to make good RPG... there can be action but it's not part which will have my attention.... Unless it will be really bad.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Hard to really say how much, sure i want action but not as much that it overshadow everything else in the game.

[Jonp382]

Addai67 wrote...

]I have far more objections to puzzling in RPGs than action, for instance.  Puzzles drive me up a freaking wall.  To other people, this sort of challenge is a buzz.

I think puzzles are alright, if it makes sense within the setting and uses the mechanics of the game rather than being disconnected like the tower of hanoi in KotOR or ME. A better puzzle is what U7 does, with stacking items. Or PS:T with TNO's tomb. Otherwise they mostly just hurt the integrity of the game/setting to me and are an annoyance.

[Freddo]

Not much. I love it in RPGs when the charisma/personality stat can make a difference, and help you avoid violence. And in games with a sneak skill I use it as much as possible to sneak past enemies, well, if the sneaking gameplay is good enough to allow that sort of thing.

Action can be fun though, but many RPGs make the mistake of simply adding too much action, especially near the end. The most recent game example of this that I can think of is Divinity 2 where you fight armies by yourself near the end and slay hundreds upon hundreds of enemies without any story progression award to speak of, it just gets annoying. Another example would be the end of KOTOR2.

If you get a quest from a guy in the game that ask you to go and kill 2000 enemies spread out on various camps and then get a peice of cheese as a reward it's far worse game design than being asked to kill 20 enemies in some dungeon and be rewarded with dialogue that move the plot forward. The plot should always move forward instead of just stomping at the same place for hours and hours collecting experience points.

Addai67 wrote...
I have far more objections to puzzling in RPGs than action, for instance.  Puzzles drive me up a freaking wall.  To other people, this sort of challenge is a buzz.

I generally dislike puzzles in games too. Especially so in Half-Life 2, although it's obviously not an RPG. The puzzles aren't hard to figure out or anything, it just takes time to put enough stuff where it's supposed to be and then you can go and continue to kill enemies. For me they just felt like an unnecessary obstacle to make a game seem longer than it actually is. Sort of a game designer cheat or something

Modifié par Kazutoyo, 05 janvier 2012 - 06:34 .