155 réponses à ce sujet

[Atakuma]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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 there 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? 

Auto attack is still very much present in DA2.

[LinksOcarina]

Atakuma wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

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 there 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? 

Auto attack is still very much present in DA2.

I know, but its a cited difference I see all over the place that you need to press A to attack. 

ETA: Changed the wording, realized my mistake. 

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

[Masha Potato]

more like pros and cons of good grammar

[mousestalker]

If it's well written, fun to play and has excellent characters, I don't care what they call it.

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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? 

I'm not going to get into the nuances of what makes one more traditional role-playing than the other. Those have more than sufficiently been covered in the DA 2 forum and even here I believe. Suffice it to say, if you don't recognize those nuances, they are probably unimportant to you.

The fact that DA 2 is an action-RPG is not what made it abhorrable. The reasons I found DA 2 to be so reprehensible are many. They include the usual...poorly done game, rush job, subpar writing, ninja drops, waves, repeated areas, shallow characters, uninspiring PC, horrible design and art direction, etc. In light of DA 2 and Bioware's history pre EA purchase, I personally believe action-RPGs are better handled by other developers. IMO, EA should stick to Bioware's roots and produce traditional RPGs, thereby setting themselves apart from an already cluttered market.

Modifié par google_calasade, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:44 .

[Nashimura]

I always thought Dragon Age was an action RPG series - maybe i misinterpret the term.

[DreamwareStudio]

Nashimura wrote...

I always thought Dragon Age was an action RPG series - maybe i misinterpret the term.

Originally, the DA series was supposed to be a return to traditional, party-based role-playing. That changed rather abruptly with DA 2.

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

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? 

I'm not going to get into the nuances of what makes one more traditional role-playing than the other. Those have more than sufficiently been covered in the DA 2 forum and even here I believe. Suffice it to say, if you don't recognize those nuances, they are probably not important to you.

The fact that DA 2 is an action-RPG is not what made it so abhorrable. The reasons I found DA 2 to be so reprehensible are many. They include the usual...rush job, ninja drops, waves, etc. Action RPGs are better handled by other developers. IMO, EA should stick to Bioware's roots and produce traditional RPGs, thereby setting themselves apart from an already cluttered market.

Actually, that feels like a complete brush off to a question you can't answer. Your reasons for finding Dragon Age II bad are fine and I can't refute tastes, but that does not make it an action RPG since that is just design flaws from the short developer time.

 But again, why is this being categorized as one type of sub-genre over another? That is a question I feel no one can fully answer.

And what do you mean by traditonal RPGs? Do you mean dungeon crawlers?  Turn-based RPGs? 

Got to remember Baldurs Gate was not exactly traditional back in the day. In fact, barring Fallout and Jagged Alliance, which had options for turn based as well, I believe Baldurs Gate was one of the first to use the pause/play style that I can recall. Of course if i'm wrong someone else let me know. But yeah, the way to go was Dungeon crawlers or Turn-based. Some of the best games in the early 90's were that, Wizardry, Betrayal and Krondor, Stonekeep, etc. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:48 .

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Actually, that feels like a complete brush off to a question you can't answer. Your reasons for finding Dragon Age II bad are fine and I can't refute tastes, but that does not make it an action RPG since that is just design flaws from the short developer time. 

 But again, why is this being categorized as one type of sub-genre over another? That is a question I feel no one can fully answer.

And what do you mean by traditonal RPGs? Do you mean dungeon crawlers?  Turn-based RPGs? 

Got to remember Baldurs Gate was not exactly traditional back in the day. In fact, barring Fallout and Jagged Alliance, which had options for turn based as well, I believe Baldurs Gate was one of the first to use the pause/play style that I can recall. Of course if i'm wrong someone else let me know. But yeah, the way to go was Dungeon crawlers or Turn-based. Some of the best games in the early 90's were that, Wizardry, Betrayal and Krondor, Stonekeep, etc. 

I didn't answer because the question has already been answered more than once. I'm not dodging anything, nor will I repeat an oft-repeated pissing contest in regards to definitions between action and traditional RPGs. Simply put, in my opinion, DA 2 fits the former while DA:O better (but not fully) fits the latter. With DA 2, predefined protoganist is one reason, the fact choices had no meaning is another. The list goes on. It's a tired and rather boring argument that is resurrected whenever someone says they did not like DA 2 and would prefer that EA stick to more traditional role-playing.

Modifié par google_calasade, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:56 .

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

I didn't answer because the question has already been answered more than once. I'm not dodging anything, nor will I repeat an oft-repeated pissing contest in regards to definitions between action and traditional RPGs. Simply put, in my opinion, DA 2 fits the former while DA:O better (but not fully) fits the latter.

Well, defend your opinion then by answering the question, because other than those two instances I see very little difference in that regard and I fail to see why I should believe your opinion at all. 

Or at the very least, show me where it has been answered, because I got to be honest, no one has answered that question yet as far as I have seen. 

google_calasade wrote...

With DA 2, predefined protoganist is one reason, the fact choices had no meaning is another. The list goes on. It's a tired and rather boring argument that is resurrected whenever someone says they did not like DA 2 and would prefer that EA stick to more traditional role-playing.

To the first point, the predefined protagonist is something seen in a lot of RPGs back in the day. Bar Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and the Ultima games it was actually the norm from what I recall. Maybe a few others are missing.

Choices having no meaning is wholly subjective as well. We can argue that one all night, suffice to say how do you prove the choices have no meaning when the said consequences have not been seen yet in game 3, if there are any? Plus we can say the same for choices like who is in control of Orzammar or what happened to Connor in Origins. That is not to say those choices won't show themselves again, but the argument can be made they don't matter since their effects have not been seen yet. If you think they had no meaning, thats fine, but I just fail to see a diffence by thinking ahead in terms of the series, basically the promise that choices will matter in future installments in some form.

Or are you talking about the fact that the ending to 2 is always the same point? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:02 .

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

I didn't answer because the question has already been answered more than once. I'm not dodging anything, nor will I repeat an oft-repeated pissing contest in regards to definitions between action and traditional RPGs. Simply put, in my opinion, DA 2 fits the former while DA:O better (but not fully) fits the latter.

Well, defend your opinion then by answering the question, because other than those two instances I see very little difference in that regard and I fail to see why I should believe your opinion at all. 

Or at the very least, show me where it has been answered, because I got to be honest, no one has answered that question yet as far as I have seen. 

Customization, races, origins, choices, the list goes on. You don't have to believe my opinion, for it is my own. As I stated before, if you do not already understand the nuances dividng the genres or the games, they are unimportant to you, so no matter how many differences I type out, they will be dismissed. Such dismissal, like the argument between which game is which and why, is oft-repeated.

It is not unlike the argument between fantasy and sword and sorcery. Some people have trouble grasping the subtle factors that separate them because their vision is blurred by the similarities. That is not a slam, just a fact. Some folk have no issue with the differences and to others those differences mean everything.

Modifié par google_calasade, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:12 .

[The Elder King]

google_calasade wrote...


Customization, races, origins, choices, the list goes on. You don't have to believe my opinion, for it is my own. As I stated before, if you do not already understand the nuances dividng the genres or the games, they are unimportant to you, so no matter how many differences I type out, they will be dismissed. Such dismissal, like the argument between which game is which and why, is oft-repeated.

It is not unlike the argument between fantasy and sword and sorcery. Some people have trouble grasping the subtle factors that separate them because their vision is blurred by the similarities. That is not a slam, just a fact. Some folk have no issue with the differences and to others those differences mean everything.

I don't recall any rpg which had origins like DAO at the moment, and certainly it was never a feature of a Bioware game before DAO. I'm not saying that that not having origins in DA2 or DA3 isn't important to some players, but I don't think it should be used to separate rpg from action-rpg.

[Androme]

 NO

[Killer3000ad]

Streamlining DA3 into an action RPG would be a hideous and probably franchise ending decision. As others have said, the tactical party system is rarely found in Western RPGs nowadays. There's already plenty of hack-&-slash games out there and I am sure ppl have made it clear how bad DA2's combat was.

Going down that route can only bring misfortune to Bioware. Srsly Bioware, you tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator before and it didn't work out, play to your strengths and realize who made DAO such a success in the first place and why ppl hated the changes you did in DA2.

[Bernhardtbr]

I really want to know what exactly is the definition of an action RPG. IMO it´s an RPG where you play the character in first or third-person doing the moves yourself instead of relying on dice rolls, therefore I´d say the Witcher 2 is an action RPG (not implying it´s a bad way of doing things, but not one I´d want to see in DA3).

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I have no idea why anyone would call DA2 an action rpg at all, it's still the standard you-hit-me-and-I-hit-you-while-we-stand-here-and-face-each-other combat. You can't even block, for pete's sake.

There was a single exception that was a shift towards action: The Orgre's charge was no longer a tracking attack that only affects one character. It could be avoided and he'd bowl over any darkspawn in the way.

Does anybody disagree that was really cool? I personally think action game features are always good, it's how it's used that matters. They are additions to the game whereas "traditional rpgs" or whatever are just a very outdated system lacking features like hit detection and severely limited player control. You want stats to matter? Fine, lots of things can't be determined from the player- like the force of an attack or the character's speed. But why can't I jump or at least *try* to block? Taking away these things just makes the PC seem less like the PC and more someone you're ordering around and then boringly watching carrying out tasks.

The party can be continued to be controlled in the traditional means and having more realistic features in no way makes it any less "tactical" or whatever, it would make it more so- you'd be able to funnel enemies, getting surrounded would suck, the player or enemy could fall from high places, etc. Things like the tips from the loading screen- raining arrows from a hill while warriors blocked the passage, simply didn't work because it wasn't "actiony" enough. Instead "tactics" were mostly reduced to unrealistic things like "drawing aggro"




er, wow did I just write all that

The use of "streamlining" is also pretty ironic when you consider that what you want are LESS features to the  game and for the player.

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:53 .

[DreamwareStudio]

hhh89 wrote...

google_calasade wrote...


Customization, races, origins, choices, the list goes on. You don't have to believe my opinion, for it is my own. As I stated before, if you do not already understand the nuances dividng the genres or the games, they are unimportant to you, so no matter how many differences I type out, they will be dismissed. Such dismissal, like the argument between which game is which and why, is oft-repeated.

It is not unlike the argument between fantasy and sword and sorcery. Some people have trouble grasping the subtle factors that separate them because their vision is blurred by the similarities. That is not a slam, just a fact. Some folk have no issue with the differences and to others those differences mean everything.

I don't recall any rpg which had origins like DAO at the moment, and certainly it was never a feature of a Bioware game before DAO. I'm not saying that that not having origins in DA2 or DA3 isn't important to some players, but I don't think it should be used to separate rpg from action-rpg.

Agreed. I was very tired when I wrote that and that short list is a conglomerate of RPG and a comparison between the two games. I should have gone to bed long before typing what I did. LOL

[DreamwareStudio]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

I really want to know what exactly is the definition of an action RPG. IMO it´s an RPG where you play the character in first or third-person doing the moves yourself instead of relying on dice rolls, therefore I´d say the Witcher 2 is an action RPG (not implying it´s a bad way of doing things, but not one I´d want to see in DA3).

One big difference between the two is an RPG is more tactical and does not test a player's skill level (i.e., QTE or button mashing ability).

Probably a decent place to start is here where it talks about the differences between the two. You can also find the definition from this link for both action rpgs and role-playing video games:

http://en.wikipedia....to_other_genres

One of my favorite quotes from the link:

"According to Satoru Iwata, president of Nintendo, turn-based RPGs have been unfairly criticized as being outdated. According to Yuji Horii, creator of the popular Dragon Quest[/i] series and Ryutaro Ichimura, producer of Square Enix, turn-based RPGs allow the player time to make decisions without feeling rushed or worry about real-life distractions. According to Iwata, action-based RPGs can frustrate players if they are unable to keep up with the battles."

Course, a RPG does not have to offer turn-based, but it helps.

Modifié par google_calasade, 31 octobre 2012 - 05:23 .

[anillee]

Look at the facts:

Despite what some people may post on a forum, a gander at most gaming sites will show that overall, DA 2 (their attempt at an action-based RPG) was not as well received as DA:O (their turn-based tactical RPG). That speaks volumes in and of itself.

EDITED: Corrected the post to read tactical.

Modifié par anillee, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:09 .

[DreamwareStudio]

anillee wrote...

Look at the facts:

Despite what some people may post on a forum, a gander at most gaming sites will show that overall, DA 2 (their attempt at an action-based RPG) was not as well received as DA:O (their turn-based RPG). That speaks volumes in and of itself.

DA:O was not turn-based (though it WAS tactical rather than based on physical skill). Still, the above in relation to sales makes the decision to continue down an action-RPG path all the more baffling from a purely business standpoint. Were I on the board, I would be livid  a company in which I invested is going in the face of a proven sales record and greater profitability. I would also insist upon the firing of any who supported the DA 2 direction should DA 3 not sell more than DA:O (less or the same would be a set back perception wise which would in turn hurt future potential profitability). I'm not speaking from a taste or preference point-of-view. I would be the exact same way had they started with a very successful action game and then tried to warp into a more traditional RPG.

Such a move contains virtually no business sense at all, especially when they are using the label of a company once revered for a certain kind of game rather than the genre they're trying to address, a genre already heavily saturated. It's just...well, asinine. Add that to the fact DA 2 was a letdown in regards to sales and damaging in reputation...yeah, it truly leaves me flummoxed.

Modifié par google_calasade, 31 octobre 2012 - 07:44 .

[Wozearly]

google_calasade wrote...

"According to Satoru Iwata, president of Nintendo, turn-based RPGs have been unfairly criticized as being outdated. According to Yuji Horii, creator of the popular Dragon Quest[/i] series and Ryutaro Ichimura, producer of Square Enix, turn-based RPGs allow the player time to make decisions without feeling rushed or worry about real-life distractions. According to Iwata, action-based RPGs can frustrate players if they are unable to keep up with the battles."

Course, a RPG does not have to offer turn-based, but it helps.

I was planning to wade into the "What makes an action RPG?" question on similar lines.

Personally, I see the critical distinction being how much the player's physical level of co-ordination and reaction times affect the ability of their character. Its usually most visible in the combat mechanics, so I'll just talk about combat from here on, but it can appear in other game mechanics as well. In terms of similarities, both types of game can make use of character stats, gear and selection of abilities - so again, I won't dwell on those.

I also don't think its necessarily a case of "you're an action RPG or you're not". I think its more of a scale.

At its extremes, I'd say that a turn-based RPG like the first Final Fantasy is all the way over to the non-action end. The player's co-ordination or 'twitch' skills are irrelevant in combat (apart from being able to correctly select the desired action). Time is not a factor at all - combat success is determined by the abilities and attacks/defences the player decides to make.

On the action-heavy end of the scale are games like Mount & Blade or Jade Empire. In these, the player's physical actions are what determines success, with a mix of keyboard and mouse actions determining positioning, attack types and attack timings. A player with poorer levels of physical co-ordination or who is less effective with their timing, will have a character who is less effective than a player with greater phsyical co-ordination and timing, even with all else being equal.


If people accept that definition, then both DA:O and DA2 were action RPGs, which I think rings true. The difference is that DA2 was further down towards the action RPG line (albeit not as far as other games), having greater emphasis on reaction times both as a result of the increased combat speed and the more widespread use of time-sensitive cross class combos. Different people will have different preferences for where they like games to fall along the scale.

I'm not convinced that some of the other factors quoted (e.g. focus on plot, the amount and methods of introducing combat) are actually very relevant. Final Fantasy was swarming with combat, turn-based games have used wave combat in the past and are not all necessarily story driven. Equally, Jade Empire didn't have a particularly higher than usual amount of combat compared to other RPGs, it didn't rely on wave combat much (from memory) and was very heavily story driven.

Modifié par Wozearly, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:37 .

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

So you're saying DA3 should be like Jade Empire? Ok

[DreamwareStudio]

Here's some irony. Many who like action RPGs call those who prefer more traditional computer RPGs elitist. Meanwhile, EA wants to appeal to as many customers as possible with the DA series so they are going more action.

The rub, the irony?

Not everyone can play action RPGs while I've never met a person who could not play a tactical game (note I did not use the term turn-based because not all tactical games implement that). One of the biggest faults of the Witcher 2 was how challenging the combat and QTEs were. Some could not play it regardless how interesting they found the story or the characters. This is true of almost any action RPG, including DA 2.

So the irony is that action RPGs are actually more elite than traditional and the audience for those games is more limited off the top as well because of the demands made on one's physical skill/coordination.

Is everyone who can play traditional RPGs interested in traditional RPGs?

No.

But the same can be said for action RPGs, just like it can be stated for ANYTHING.

Modifié par google_calasade, 31 octobre 2012 - 09:27 .

[Realmzmaster]

anillee wrote...

Look at the facts:

Despite what some people may post on a forum, a gander at most gaming sites will show that overall, DA 2 (their attempt at an action-based RPG) was not as well received as DA:O (their turn-based RPG). That speaks volumes in and of itself.

DAO was not a turn-based game. Bioware has never made a turn-based game. DAO is tactical. Bioware has always made games that are realtime with pause. 

Turn based games on the PC are like Temple of Elemental Evil and Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor.

[xsdob]

Dragon age 1's combat sucked, it's the reason why I dread playing through it despite the good story.

I would rather get a train run on me and than get run over by a train than have to deal with that type of combat system in DA3.

I would rather even have dynasty warriors combat system than dragon age 1's combat, no joke or troll.

Also, there's nothing tactical in DAO's combat at all, you just click on an enemy and the game does the rest, about the only class that has any true strategy is the mage, and most times their spells are bugged to **** where you can't use half of them at all for no reason, they just are unlickable despite the cooldown ending.

Modifié par xsdob, 31 octobre 2012 - 09:34 .