72 réponses à ce sujet

[Eudaemonium]

DA2 was really not that actiony. It *looked* actiony because of the speed, but the only really remotely actiony elements was that Rogue backflip/dodge skill and some of the boss fights did (Ancient Rock Wraith was basically it in the main game).

[Apollo Starflare]

Eudaemonium wrote...

DA2 was really not that actiony. It *looked* actiony because of the speed, but the only really remotely actiony elements was that Rogue backflip/dodge skill and some of the boss fights did (Ancient Rock Wraith was basically it in the main game).

Yep.

[areuexperienced]

DA2 does it about right - it isn't too slow and hence boring and clunky like DA (imo) but it also isn't "just ME with swords and magic". Bar the enemies jumping out of nowhere (not the wave mechanic itself, mind you, that's actually, I think, pretty cool, makes you think on your feet) and the teleporting (not a problem for me personally but I can understand why it's disliked), I'd say you don't need to change much for DA3.

[sickpixie]

Eudaemonium wrote...

DA2 was really not that actiony. It *looked* actiony because of the speed, but the only really remotely actiony elements was that Rogue backflip/dodge skill and some of the boss fights did (Ancient Rock Wraith was basically it in the main game).

The ability to dodge melee attacks by moving out of the way before the swing connects would be another action game element. Not even Diablo 3 has that (to the dismay of many).

[philippe willaume]

Hello
Any collision based game does dodging by sheer virtue of definition.
Well I think it is not so much as DA2 is too "action" it is that it is not enough "RPG".

As opposed to areuexperienced, I find DA2 combat mind boringly repetitive. Not that it makes his argument wrong or less valid. For certain game style DA2 is much less clunky than DA:0

For me DA2 was a succession of exactly the same process.
Ultimate build+rune and potion up to the wazoo+kitting during cooldown. How well I did was how much potion I burned up and difficulty only change the time it takes to bring the boss down and an increase in the number of potion I used.
I used the companion only at the beginning of the fight to indicate who they should go after, never customised the tactics

In DA:0, you could scout head, use the natural choke points, staggered defence and actively use the companions and I could develop the companion in a way I liked regardless if the build was optimum or lame.

phil


PS
I think the wave and the paratroopers-ninjas are actually good if used with moderation. as areuexperienced said it makes you think and get you out of set plays.

Modifié par philippe willaume, 24 juin 2012 - 12:19 .

[FedericoV]

Imho, the problem of contemporary action RPGs is that they look and play like the "poor man" version of true action games. They want to look/feel cool and sexy but their mechanic will allways seem clunky and unresponsive if compared to a true action game based on player input and context physics. At the same time modern aRPGs lack the depth, scope and pure addictivness of "old school" RPGs.

In that sense, I think that aRPG of the current generation live in a sort of limbo made of compromises that will never completely achieve the broad appeal they want and will allways fail to satisfy both action and rpg gamers (and even the people like me who like both genres for different reasons): most developers should decide what kind of gaming experience they want for their players, what are the chore features and what are the unnecessary ones and develop organic/holistic experiences based on that premises.

PS: Before you mention it. Skyrim is different. Combat has never been the strong point of TES series. The point of those games is immersion, customization and exploration. Skyrim is loved by a lot of players because it is build organically around those chore features.

[AkiKishi]

FedericoV wrote...

Imho, the problem of contemporary action RPGs is that they look and play like the "poor man" version of true action games. They want to look/feel cool and sexy but their mechanic will allways seem clunky and unresponsive if compared to a true action game based on player input and context physics. At the same time modern aRPGs lack the depth, scope and pure addictivness of "old school" RPGs.

In that sense, I think that aRPG of the current generation live in a sort of limbo made of compromises that will never completely achieve the broad appeal they want and will allways fail to satisfy both action and rpg gamers (and even the people like me who like both genres for different reasons): most developers should decide what kind of gaming experience they want for their players, what are the chore features and what are the unnecessary ones and develop organic/holistic experiences based on that premises.

PS: Before you mention it. Skyrim is different. Combat has never been the strong point of TES series. The point of those games is immersion, customization and exploration. Skyrim is loved by a lot of players because it is build organically around those chore features.

I don't think that needs to be the case. FIFA has very good RPG "combat" but it never gets in the way of playing football.
The problem of clunkiness arises when the game tries to emulate something PnP based. It then becomes a simulation of a simulation, rather than a simulation of the real thing.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Finally. Someone else that recognises that Sports Games are in fact, Action RPGs.

[Fallstar]

CrustyBot wrote...

Finally. Someone else that recognises that Sports Games are in fact, Action RPGs.

This will play during the opening of DA3.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 25 juin 2012 - 09:24 .

[FedericoV]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I don't think that needs to be the case. FIFA has very good RPG "combat" but it never gets in the way of playing football.

I have not played FIFA in years so I don't know in what sense you could consider it an RPG. To discuss that topic we should find a common definition for RPG and that alone could cause a lockdown of the thread so I will avoid going down that path. Let me just say that I guess I understand what you mean in general terms and I respect your view. But I do not agree: for me it's not a proper example.

The problem of clunkiness arises when the game tries to emulate something PnP based. It then becomes a simulation of a simulation, rather than a simulation of the real thing.

Everything is PnP based in one way or the other. Anytime a game use a rule-set (even if the rule-set is my book of physics) the game is making a simulation of a simulation. Art and games are a simulation of a simulation and that's one of the reason why they are so interesting. So, more simply, for me the problem arise when the presentation of the experience does not match in an organic way the mechanics running underneath. But even there I respect your view, I guess we can simply agree to disagree.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[Dakota Strider]

Now that the comparison of Action Games/ Action RPG's are the equivelant to Sports Games has been made, it is time to level another complaint about the integration of Action Games with Role Playing Games.

Role Playing Games are meant to be intellectually challenging. They are not meant to be fast paced, as they are supposed to allow you to weigh your options and make the best one, or if a player chooses, to make the decision that they believe is how their character would behave (you know, roleplaying). Success is usually attained by how well a player can think.

Action Games try to simulate real life physical activity, by how skilled a player can operate a joystick/mouse, and push the appropriate buttons in the right sequence and speed. Reaction time, and practice is what usually determines success.

Perhaps I am not a huge fan of Action Games, because as a former athlete, and Marine, I have done most of those activities in real life, and a computer game facsimile does not hold a candle to the real thing. And I am a fan of Role Playing Games, because I never find it tiring to be mentally challenged. Games that are dumbed down, so that they can move at fast action speed, by necessity hurt what makes Role Playing Games appealing.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 25 juin 2012 - 03:08 .

[Rawgrim]

I`d say an action-rpg is usually an action game, with a few rpg elements thrown in to cater to a bigger crowd.

[AkiKishi]

FedericoV wrote...

I have not played FIFA in years so I don't know in what sense you could consider it an RPG. To discuss that topic we should find a common definition for RPG and that alone could cause a lockdown of the thread so I will avoid going down that path. Let me just say that I guess I understand what you mean in general terms and I respect your view. But I do not agree: for me it's not a proper example.

I would not call it an RPG per se, although some of the FIFA games do have a career mode. I was using it as an example of stat based "combat".

Teams are stat based so a good team will beat a bad team if the players are of equal skill level. That's all an RPG does, it amends the skill level of the person playing either positively or negatively via the medium of the character.That is what seperates an RPG from an action adventure when it comes to game mechanics.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Was serious about comparing Sports Games to Action RPGs. In the Career Modes of a game like the 2k NBA games, you create a Character whose interactions with the game's systems are defined through a series of stats that relate to relevant concepts.

As part of this character generation, you can customize these stats to your liking, with certain limitations and caps on the stats, based on things like body type, height, weight and the position they have been trained to play in.

i.e Too much weight and your character won't be able to reach the maximum Speed. Or, you have a "Passing" stat that dictates how well you handle passes on the court, and a Point Guard would be better at it than a Power Forward. You know, you have certain Positions that excel at certain things. You can also customize them visually, to levels that would put most RPGs to shame.

Once you create your character and start getting games into them, your performance is ranked according to various KPIs which then allow you to allocate more skill points as you string together good performances. Good ol' character progression.

Sure, it doesn't have an epic story, swords, magic or romances but the core gameplay of Sports Games in this vein is as much of an Action RPG as Skyrim or Mass Effect.

Lots of hubbub about RPGs turning into "casual" Sports Games, but if RPGs were truly turning into Sports Games, there's a chance they'd be gaining more stat based depth, not losing it. The one thing I love about Sports Games in this respect is because they are so narrowly focused in scope (it's a sport, defined rules and all), they don't faff about making nonsensical or illogically arbitrary character systems. It's all about how to simulate characters with rules and stats that make sense for the setting, then allowing the player to create/customize a character using that foundation.

i.e What a lot of PnPs do.

Also, emergent storytelling. No two seasons (or games) are going to unfold exactly the same.

Then again, I liek sports, so I may be overselling the RPG-ness a bit.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 25 juin 2012 - 04:08 .

[Dragoonlordz]

CrustyBot wrote...

Finally. Someone else that recognises that Sports Games are in fact, Action RPGs.

Ever played football manager games back on commodore, amstrad and atari they were more Strategy games than RPG's. Ones where you picked your teams, could fiddle with line up and such then the moment you pressed enter key the game played itself and you had to watch the computer vs computer in a speeded up version of the 90minute matches. Though it pre-dates your reference picture shown above this post by about a decade.

In the end it comes down to having RPG elements, then again these days seems most games do. I buy games which have enough of those elements to peak my interest. Ones that have few or lack them I leave on the wayside and pass right by. But you are right in that some sports games these days do have RPG elements.

They are however still sports games first and foremost. Just like Mass Effect to me is first and foremost a 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. Dragon Age Origins is a fantasy action RPG, it has enough of those elements present for me to attach the RPG as part of the brand not just limited to added elements, I tipping point of my own personal opinion but different probably for each individual where that line is in the sand. It's user defined not industry defined.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 25 juin 2012 - 09:03 .

[sickpixie]

FedericoV wrote...

Imho, the problem of contemporary action RPGs is that they look and play like the "poor man" version of true action games. They want to look/feel cool and sexy but their mechanic will allways seem clunky and unresponsive if compared to a true action game based on player input and context physics. At the same time modern aRPGs lack the depth, scope and pure addictivness of "old school" RPGs.

In that sense, I think that aRPG of the current generation live in a sort of limbo made of compromises that will never completely achieve the broad appeal they want and will allways fail to satisfy both action and rpg gamers (and even the people like me who like both genres for different reasons): most developers should decide what kind of gaming experience they want for their players, what are the chore features and what are the unnecessary ones and develop organic/holistic experiences based on that premises.

Though it's been a bumpy road, developers have made a lot of progress these past few years. Dark Souls has some of the most fun melee combat of any game. I'm not a fan of the genre, but what I've played of Mass Effect 2 and 3 is more enjoyable than any Gears of War because of the customization and abilities. Deus Ex Human Revolution is a more enjoyable stealth action game than Splinter Cell Conviction. I wouldn't call them a  "poor man version" of anything and all three have been very successful.

[FedericoV]

sickpixie wrote...
Though it's been a bumpy road, developers have made a lot of progress these past few years. Dark Souls has some of the most fun melee combat of any game. I'm not a fan of the genre, but what I've played of Mass Effect 2 and 3 is more enjoyable than any Gears of War because of the customization and abilities. Deus Ex Human Revolution is a more enjoyable stealth action game than Splinter Cell Conviction. I wouldn't call them a  "poor man version" of anything and all three have been very successful.

I've not played DXHR (I bought it on Steam but I never had the time to try it). I never played Dark Souls (I'm waiting for the PC release). I agree that ME2 and 3 are a step in the "right" direction (considering the aim of the design team, I still prefer old school RPG in general) and do not feel the poor version of anything. But that's basically because they removed most RPG elements from the combat. ME is an adequate action game/shooter because at the end... it's an action/shooter game.

Progressive Skills/Powers do not define RPG (not anymore at least). They are a staple of most games when combat is concerned.

Modifié par FedericoV, 26 juin 2012 - 05:53 .

[esper]

Sports game are for the most part management games where you manage a team, but the role of a maneger doesn't appear in universe thus you are not taking up a role and thus it is not a roleplaying game.
Complicated skills and skill progression does not make a role playing game.
But then again, labels a to what kind of game is role playing does seem to be pretty subjective... for me it comes down to being able to get into a role which means that there must be a character of some kind.

[AkiKishi]

esper wrote...

Sports game are for the most part management games where you manage a team, but the role of a maneger doesn't appear in universe thus you are not taking up a role and thus it is not a roleplaying game.
Complicated skills and skill progression does not make a role playing game.
But then again, labels a to what kind of game is role playing does seem to be pretty subjective... for me it comes down to being able to get into a role which means that there must be a character of some kind.

Most sports games have a career mode. Even if that is not the case, everyone on the team is a character.

[esper]

BobSmith101 wrote...

esper wrote...

Sports game are for the most part management games where you manage a team, but the role of a maneger doesn't appear in universe thus you are not taking up a role and thus it is not a roleplaying game.
Complicated skills and skill progression does not make a role playing game.
But then again, labels a to what kind of game is role playing does seem to be pretty subjective... for me it comes down to being able to get into a role which means that there must be a character of some kind.

Most sports games have a career mode. Even if that is not the case, everyone on the team is a character.

Yes, but you are not playing those characther you are mananging them which means that you are under no circumstances taking up any of their roles.
As I said for me to have it be a role playing game there has to be at least one character who I role play as.

Stats evolutions of one kind and another is not role playing for me.

[sickpixie]

FedericoV wrote...

I've not played DXHR (I bought it on Steam but I never had the time to try it). I never played Dark Souls (I'm waiting for the PC release). I agree that ME2 and 3 are a step in the "right" direction (considering the aim of the design team, I still prefer old school RPG in general) and do not feel the poor version of anything. But that's basically because they removed most RPG elements from the combat. ME is an adequate action game/shooter because at the end... it's an action/shooter game.

Progressive Skills/Powers do not define RPG (not anymore at least). They are a staple of most games when combat is concerned.

The progression elements are there and they do make a difference when it comes to combat (compare playing the entire thing normally versus not leveling up anything), they're just no longer at odds with what they're trying to accomplish.

[AkiKishi]

esper wrote...
Yes, but you are not playing those characther you are mananging them which means that you are under no circumstances taking up any of their roles.
As I said for me to have it be a role playing game there has to be at least one character who I role play as.

Stats evolutions of one kind and another is not role playing for me.

Not familiar with what career mode is ?