166 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The definition of an rpg falls under the no true scotsman fallacy.

Absolutely this.

I mean you could attempt to make a serious thought exercise about it.  But even then discussion goes down such a  reductionist path that it fails to be a useful term in a genre categorizing sense.  Like "uses character stats to determine rate of success" would include Dragon Age, Skyrim, and... Madden.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The definition of an rpg falls under the no true scotsman fallacy.

Absolutely this.

I mean you could attempt to make a serious thought exercise about it.  But even then discussion goes down such a  reductionist path that it fails to be a useful term in a genre categorizing sense.  Like "uses character stats to determine rate of success" would include Dragon Age, Skyrim, and... Madden.

Madden is the ultimate RPG, only true gamer fans know this.

[Renmiri1]

Domecoming wrote...

If this indeed is how it works (and I think I got that right), then rolling is not an "action" ability, because it is entirely independent of how skillful at bashing a keyboard you are, as a player.

You just described a combat as interesting as watching paint dry for me I love the challenge of havng to have quick reflexes.

You guys want limited potions and no health regen ? I want no pause during combat and making my skill and reflex matter.

But here is the thing, I have all this on the multiplayer / MMO games I play. RPG games I play to relax. so as long as I can get an extra easy mode where I  insta kill my enemies and move on, I'm not fussed about you guys having all the slow, tactical, excruciatingly nitpicky combat you love.

If only you guys were as easy going as me when it comes to romance in game. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Everyone who seems to want less action rpg elements seems to really want MMO's, but without the online part.

And the fetch quest, but than again, everyone hates fetch quest.

[upsettingshorts]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The definition of an rpg falls under the no true scotsman fallacy.

Absolutely this.

I mean you could attempt to make a serious thought exercise about it.  But even then discussion goes down such a  reductionist path that it fails to be a useful term in a genre categorizing sense.  Like "uses character stats to determine rate of success" would include Dragon Age, Skyrim, and... Madden.

Madden is the ultimate RPG, only true gamer fans know this.

And if you go down the other path and reduce it to "an absolute tabula rasa where you have the freedom to craft your emergent narrative within a game world" then the best RPG of all time is Football Manager.   You can type in your own responses at press conferences.  You can start your career running a bottom-tier club in Iceland whose clubhouse is a shack in a public park, with players who work at McDonalds for a living, and go on to win the World Cup with a squad full of millionaires.   In other words, I'm not kidding about how "what is an RPG" discussions can go down the rabbit hole, so to speak.

People's prefereces and expectations tend to influence game category terminology a LOT more than folks' posturing that asserts objectivity would imply.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 septembre 2013 - 07:50 .

[Twisted Path]

Zanallen wrote...

Is there a good reason to not have them?

Action RPGs are focused on the player character constantly doing stuff (pressing buttons to attack, constantly moving during combat, going sneaky and slipping past people Sam Fisher-style,) and that kind of gameplay makes companions kind of pointless. It's why in a lot of action RPGs you tend to have a single henchman who does extra damage and carries your stuff if you aren't solo for the entire game.

I like a good action RPG but it just seems like it runs counter to the whole party-and-character-based dungeon crawling RPG thing games like Baldur's Gate 2 and Dragon Age: Origins had going for them.

[upsettingshorts]

That's where the tactics system comes in though.

I'm very comfortable switching between over the shoulder third person and the tactical overhead camera because if I'm going to rely on one (or the other) it guides how I build my party.

If I'm going to be using tactics a lot, I tend to spec into a lot of crowd control and debuffs, and almost no AOE (hard to optimize these without pausing/overhead). I also tend to have a dedicated healbot. This allows me to principally control one character (generally the tank or primary DPS) and still do exceptionally well in difficult fights because I front-load the tactical planning. By that I mean, I set up the tactical flow chart in advance of actual engagements, then play the fights in real time.  If a character levels up or I get an item that gives me a unique advantage or disadvantage, I update the tactic.  Sounds simple, can get complicated by the time you really hit te midgame and start compiling a cool list of things your party is capable of, and what your enemies can do, and you figure out how to prioritize everything.

When I'm relying on overhead tactical cameras, I might take any number of routes with my teams' spec, and aside from bare minimum tactics ("if you are low on health, take a potion") I pause and engage in tactics in the moment, reacting to the situation as it develops.

The former is really good if you like seizing the initiative and exploiting it. It really shines in the way it makes clearing trash go by fairly quickly, but tends to lose some of its effectiveness in the most difficult fights, where pause and play necessarily tends to get mixed in due to the increased variables involved.

But really, I don't foresee significant problems with doing both as I've always done both, even in DAO. Wasn't a concern in any sense to me. Even DAO was fine over the shoulder (effectively) and I played it about half and half.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 septembre 2013 - 08:00 .

[Fredward]

Ugh, are we really going down this semantic rabbit hole again? Even if there was a solid definition of what makes an RPG an RPG definitions aren't immutable, they change. And as much as some people might like to believe that their idea of what makes an RPG coincides with some universal actuality it doesn't. The "casual" gamer who has only ever played Skyrim's opinion counts just as much as the guy who still has a shrine dedicated to Torment and/or Baldurs Gate in his closet.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just as a bit preemptive measure (which is silly as I'm going to bed after this... don't make me come back to tears), I am pretty much in the camp of "RPGs have a rather looseish definition that many of us feel share larger scale elements, but some of the finer details can be disputed forever."

As such, I'd prefer we not go too far into defining what is or is not an RPG (or action RPG), as I find the precision of the definition is somewhat pliable and quite personal.

[MrMcDoll]

On the topic I suppose, my one concern is that the game will be like fable or something, where I have to click to swing my weapon.
I just wanna right click a dude then let my stats and abilities sort them out.
Kinda like Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights and ... Dragon age!

[Raging_Pulse]

MrMcDoll wrote...

On the topic I suppose, my one concern is that the game will be like fable or something, where I have to click to swing my weapon.
I just wanna right click a dude then let my stats and abilities sort them out.
Kinda like Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights and ... Dragon age!

Precisely.

[upsettingshorts]

So basically your question is: Will there be autoattack?

It wasn't specifically addressed at PAX that I heard, though it may be discernible through carefully watching the demo video. Or not.

[Renmiri1]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Everyone who seems to want less action rpg elements seems to really want MMO's, but without the online part.

And the fetch quest, but than again, everyone hates fetch quest.

Huh ?

Since when pausing before combat and during combat to move your little manequins called "Action" ?

Action is real time combat. With people behind the little manequins And that you only get on multiplayer and MMOs. Not a little manequin doing a few instructions with diligence but a scrub that is texting the girlfriend instead of healing you or a tank that is not holding aggro and not turning the monster  making the entire raid get cleaved.

And my point is just that. MMO and multiplayer is real combat for me  and that thing you guys do in DAO is akin to playing chess. Wouldn't call it "Action"  

But is combat in your view and you like it ? Fine by me I get my combat fix elsewhere. There isn't a monster or a companion AI invented yet that can come up with the surprises and the thrill of doing the dungeon with your friends and guildies.

So go ahead and have fun... I'd rather fetch 1 million bear bladders instead of that but to each his own,,  I'll juts wimp out and skip combat as much as i can, getting the "baby bunny" difficulty while you get the "Chuck Norris" setting. Go get them monsters and bosses tiget, I'll be on the tavern with my li 

[devSin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It wasn't specifically addressed at PAX that I heard, though it may be discernible through carefully watching the demo video. Or not.

I don't think it would be, not without getting close video of the person playing the game (even then, it probably still wouldn't be possible to reliably determine if it's actually twitch or not).

This is probably the one question I most want an answer to, as nothing we've yet seen is really definitive as to what sort of gameplay we can expect.

Modifié par devSin, 04 septembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Raging_Pulse]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So basically your question is: Will there be autoattack?

It wasn't specifically addressed at PAX that I heard, though it may be discernible through carefully watching the demo video. Or not.

More or less, yeah.

I enjoyed combat in both DA games (DAII significantly less, but because of encounter design more than anything else).
I do also enjoy, and am pretty good at ME3 MP and other action games, but the current combat design philosophy for DA games, while not perfect, works for me the way it is.

I can't possibly say that switching for action combat will be a 100% DEAL BREAKER for me yet, it's just that I would strongly prefer the foundations of it to stay the way they were in DA:O and DAII (automatic regular attacks with manually activated talents and spells).

[upsettingshorts]

Encounter design WAS specifically addressed at PAX and rest assured, they know DA2's sucked.

Hell there was even a joke at its expense in one of DA2's DLCs.  "It's always an ambush" or something.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 septembre 2013 - 09:15 .

[Renmiri1]

Gaaahhh.. DAO was awful for me. DA2 was fun.

Still played in "normal mode" because I cba to break a sweat going through my day but loved the animations and the new stone armor

[Raging_Pulse]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Encounter design WAS specifically addressed at PAX and rest assured, they know DA2's sucked.

Hell there was even a joke at its expense in one of DA2's DLCs.  "It's always an ambush" or something.

I know, the presentation absolutely blew me away. But, then again, I figured they'll fix combat encounters for DA:I a long time ago, since they adressed many of it already in Legacy DLC ;-)

Modifié par Domecoming, 04 septembre 2013 - 09:21 .

[MrMcDoll]

I think my perfect solution would be:
Thou canst have action mode - which is basically fable/tw2 kinda combat, that's what it looked like from the PAX vids, what with the rolling and stuff.
Thou canst have Black Isle mode - basically the pc version of Origins, like BG, PS Torment etc

The main thing for me though is that both options be offered, but with a combination. Thing is, I like running round in over-the-shoulder mode, but I like combat to be like DA:O. I reckon it looks like the rolling etc if in the over the shoulder view will be fable style - that is, you have to press a for aweso- i mean, to not get hit.
But what would be legitimately AWESOMEBALLS would be if your stats actually dictated whether your character rolled and ducked etc in auto-attack mode.
High Dex? Rolly mcGeraltofriviainthewitchertwo
High armour? Stand there and take it like a man, (or empowered modern day woman or [insert gender identity here])

Thoughts?

Modifié par MrMcDoll, 04 septembre 2013 - 09:24 .

[Wulfram]

Action gameplay takes away from tactical gameplay because if the player is focused on dodging and whatnot they're not going to be focused on controlling the party.
If the designers see full party control and the tactical view as an optional way of playing, then the combat encounters must be designed such that exercising control over the whole party is unnecessary, meaning that they'll have to be kept simple.
Skillful execution of action gameplay tends to limit or remove the need for tactics because the enemies can then be overwhelmed by simple skill.

Of course the reverse of my arguments is equally true - tactical gameplay takes away from action gameplay.

[upsettingshorts]

The question of balancing to accommodate two approaches was asked at PAX. They recognized it was a challenge but they aren't necessarily in the kind of conflict you're implying. I think in essence it would depend on how actiony the action "approach" even is.  

(Which is... not very.  There was a lot of talk in the panels about how
they bumped up the abilities of the party to make difficult fights end
faster.  In the demo shown, Cassandra's shield bash does something like
15000 damage, and the AOE at the end that Vivienne (I think)
lays down does something like 100000.  Because they needed to move on
from those things and show other stuff.  Obviously they wont be that OP in
the main game, and fights wont be designed around demonstrating certain
features, or powers be buffed to facilitate a short demonstration.)

I believe they said that ideally you could use either approach for any fight, but they anticipate that at a bare minimum the hardest fights (and some elements of a lot of other fights) will probably require at least some use of the tactical overhead view even if you generally stick with third person.

That would mirror my experience with say, Origins, which I probably played 70/30 over the shoulder.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 septembre 2013 - 09:48 .

[Qyla]

Because it's the only thing that many people didn't **** around about DA2

[Plaintiff]

Is there a good reason for videogames at all?