155 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

[challenger18]

I only played the demo of DD, but from what I did play it was pretty cool. If we could get a hybrid of crisp fighting gameplay and still keep the pause feature then I would be all for it.

[Maria Caliban]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

This is the type of thoughtful, even-handed discussion that's made the BSN what it is.

[Guns]

Maria Caliban wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

This is the type of thoughtful, even-handed discussion that's made the BSN what it is.

This is the type of biodroning that's made Bioware the company it's devolved to. 

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Maria Caliban wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

This is the type of thoughtful, even-handed discussion that's made the BSN what it is.

Thank you.

[ioannisdenton]

NO. just play another game. there are tons of action games out theere. Plus loose rpg mechanics does not make the game rpg.
Diablo is not Rpg. never was.

[the_one_54321]

Tack a leveling system on any game and suddenly it's an RPG.

[BouncyFrag]

DD gets combat and boss fights down pretty well. Thats about all though. The story is bad (it even has the most random romance that even the most diehard romance fan here would consider ridiculous), you have to run everywhere, and the pawn system, though somewhat innovative, suffers from a lack of tactics to get them to do stuff when you need it and their mindless repetitive banter makes Merrill look intelligent.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 30 octobre 2012 - 06:50 .

[LinksOcarina]

Guns wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

This is the type of thoughtful, even-handed discussion that's made the BSN what it is.

This is the type of biodroning that's made Bioware the company it's devolved to. 

Man, you are really petty huh?

As for this topic, the only thing I will say is that there is no definition of an Action RPG fully. As someone pointed out before, the colloquial terms used are kind of undefined, because what people define as action is all in their heads.

For example, Skyrim is an action RPG since all attack is done in real time, while Final Fantasy VII is not because it is turn based. Baldurs Gate uses a dice rolling autoattack mechanic which you can manipulate for special moves in between. MMO's follow more of a number based, real time system that is reliant on cooldowns, and games like Borderlands are more about teamwork and coordination of attacks to get the job done.

So this boils down to an RPG question that, as always, can't be definied. There will be no pro's and con's because everything is a pro and con in something wholly subjective. 

[Xewaka]

Explain me how to retain the ability micromanage the whole party when using a twitch-based single-character based gameplay, please.

[terdferguson123]

I highly doubt they will rid the game of the party system if that's what you mean by an action RPG. Characters are kind of Bioware's forte.

[alex90c]

Guns wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

This is the type of thoughtful, even-handed discussion that's made the BSN what it is.

This is the type of biodroning that's made Bioware the company it's devolved to. 

LOL.

[coldwetn0se]

I am playing DD right now. I am enjoying it, but not for the same reasons I love and play DA. That being said, I have to chuckle a bit on the idea that the more action the combat mechanics get, the easier it gets. I am absolutely atrocious at DD...heh! I spend more time running away from fights, and have had a number of quest failures because of it. DOH! XD I admit to not being particularly good at DA when I first played it, but the mechanics (pause and play) felt more intuitive in the end. I guess because I could command my companions (hell, switch to them if need be), it was easier to figure out what to do to win certain battles. In DD, I'm just shooting from the hip (almost literally....archer here. *smirk*).

So from my point of view: DA, stick with established combat (some tweaks are expected/understandable). DD and others like it, should do as they see fit. Room enough for both.

[Malanek]

Action RPG with pause would be fine. That is sort of what DA2 was anyway. I do think the pause should remain, it just gives people the option to play the game tactically.

[Uccio]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything.

Quoted for Truth.

[SirGladiator]

Im enjoying DD, it does a lot right. The combat is a lot of fun (and quite challenging), I like the team-based combat, the DA2 style romance system that lets me romance anyone I want, and I like that the side-quests are a lot of fun, maybe even more fun than the main quest, which is great because, like Skyrim, you can just keep playing on and on for hours on the side-quests before deciding to continue the main quest, which makes the game last a lot longer, and more fun. Obviously there's room for improvement, the romance system could be made deeper, the main storyline could be stronger, it would be nice to be able to control other party members from time to time, etc. but that's where Bioware comes in. They can make the weak points stronger while keeping the strong points, maybe making them even stronger also. Obviously the worst part of the game is the lack of fast-travel, which can get REALLY REALLY annoying at times, thats got to be the easiest thing of all to fix, so assuming they do that, I wouldn't mind if DA3 bore a certain resemblence to DD, it sure is a lot of fun.

[Elohim_07]

SirGladiator wrote...

Im enjoying DD, it does a lot right. The combat is a lot of fun (and quite challenging), I like the team-based combat, the DA2 style romance system that lets me romance anyone I want, and I like that the side-quests are a lot of fun, maybe even more fun than the main quest, which is great because, like Skyrim, you can just keep playing on and on for hours on the side-quests before deciding to continue the main quest, which makes the game last a lot longer, and more fun. Obviously there's room for improvement, the romance system could be made deeper, the main storyline could be stronger, it would be nice to be able to control other party members from time to time, etc. but that's where Bioware comes in. They can make the weak points stronger while keeping the strong points, maybe making them even stronger also. Obviously the worst part of the game is the lack of fast-travel, which can get REALLY REALLY annoying at times, thats got to be the easiest thing of all to fix, so assuming they do that, I wouldn't mind if DA3 bore a certain resemblence to DD, it sure is a lot of fun.

Hitting the nail hard! Good comments! I ^

[The Night Haunter]

This thread is pointless since DA will NEVER become an action RPG.


If it does then we know Bioware will have finally succumbed and I will have lost all respect for them.

Note: A SPIN-OFF that is an action RPG (i.e. playing Cassandra's story or Lamberts) would be acceptible. But if a main title is anything but a traditional (ish) rpg like DAO then it will be the end of the world of dragon age.


Note 2: I dont hate action rpg's. Loved D2 (not D3 so much), but I like different types of games, i like variety. There is absolutely no reason all games should become any single type of game. I want Action RPGs, I want JRPGs, I want 4X, I want RTS, I want Tactical Strategy games (turn based or otherwise), I want a few FPS. Bioware makes good RPGs (despite some small setbacks in recent titles) and they should continue that trend. Blizzard made awesome RTS's they should keep it up. Bethesda makes cool open-world RPG(ish) games, they should keep it up. Firaxis makes some pretty cool 4X games (civ) and should definitely keep it up. Creative Assembly makes superduper Total War games and should continue until eternity ends.

Don't try to make other studios make your favorite variety of game, just cause it is your favorite variety.

[The Elder King]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

This thread is pointless since DA will NEVER become an action RPG.

:huh:Isn't DA2 already being an action-rpg? I thought even Bioware labeled it as such.

Modifié par hhh89, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:41 .

[Montana]

Wulfram wrote...

Con: It wouldn't be dragon age.

This

[tishyw]

Do we really need another action-rpg? There are already so many to choose from, I'd much prefer Bioware keep Dragon Age unique with it's party based combat and no twitch, PC only combat.

[The Night Haunter]

hhh89 wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

This thread is pointless since DA will NEVER become an action RPG.

:huh:Isn't DA2 already being an action-rpg? I thought even Bioware labeled it as such.

Diablo is what I would consider an action rpg. DA2 was NOT anything like Diablo. Bioware may have mislabeled it, but calling your cat a rose doesnt make him/her flora.

[DreamwareStudio]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

This thread is pointless since DA will NEVER become an action RPG.

DA 2 is an action-RPG, still narrative driven, but an action game nonetheless.

[The Elder King]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

This thread is pointless since DA will NEVER become an action RPG.

:huh:Isn't DA2 already being an action-rpg? I thought even Bioware labeled it as such.

Diablo is what I would consider an action rpg. DA2 was NOT anything like Diablo. Bioware may have mislabeled it, but calling your cat a rose doesnt make him/her flora.

I doubt that Bioware mislabeled their own game. It's more likely thant people have a different opinion of what is an action-rpg, and what games should be included in the category (you can see this very thread to find at least one other definition). Diablo and DD are both action rpg, but they're not much alike. The fact that Diablo is an action rpg doesn't mean that only game like Diablo could be defined action-rpg.
I'd say that DA2 is an action rpg, though I agree with you of not having a DA game similar to Diablo though..

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

This thread is pointless since DA will NEVER become an action RPG.

DA 2 is an action-RPG, still narrative driven, but an action game nonetheless.

And Origins wasn't, because the mechanics called for slower combat due to dice rolling in the background? 

Not to be a gross exaggeration on what the Origin mechanics were, but let's be honest, the system in Origins was crunchy and only interrupted by picking special moves. You do the same thing in Dragon Age II, the only difference is auto-attack is not the default and everything is sped up a bit.

So yeah, the mechanics are different through design, but since they play fairly similar to each other, minus two major differences that I can see, what makes it an action RPG then? Is it really just those two differences?

And if that is the case, why is it so abhorrable? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:32 .