221 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

Rubios, I think you might just be a Grognard. You may want to check out our group. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

OK. So, if I want Aveline (say) to focus on defense, I activate abilities for her like Stonewall, Turn the Blade, the ability Shield Defense, or Immovable from her unique Guardian spec. All these abilities increase her defensive capacity and make her more likely to block attacks or reduce incoming damage.

 

However, I still will think she can handle the actual timing of when to block with her shield.   Yes, I can "assist" in this process by choosing what abilities she uses in conjunction with defending herself with her shield, but yes, it's still her that's 'doing' the block when it happens. 

 

And yes, I don't think the PC should be any different, if say he was a Sword & Board warrior/tank. 

Well to me, that feels like I'm a sports coach yelling "Be defensive!" "Be aggressive!" rather than the player in there deciding when to shoot, tackle, intercept etc. Like I said, an RTS.

 

That's what happens when you decide to create something that you call "Action RPG"... at some point one thing has to end and the other one has to begin.

 

I like RPG mechanics on RPGs, but I can see the appeal of playing a H&S / Beat 'em up / Third person shooter with fancy cutscenes instead.

The thing is though these don't really seem like rpg mechanics to me. I understand a lot of old rpgs have used this style of rts play, so in that sense they are "rpg mechanics". But in terms of role playing, it doesn't really feel like I'm playing the role of a character in combat. I could be anybody and I could be nobody, I'm just a pair of eyes in the sky. I do get the fun from using teamwork and tactics, but you shouldn't necessarily have to possess someone to tell them what to do, especially since the game can be paused. And I think that's one thing Mass Effect did brilliantly, you command people but you're always still Shepard.

[Enshaid]

Problem is, Bioware hates toggles. Well, a lot of the time, anyway. They make them push puppies out windows. (Cuz they increase the time for beta testing.) 

 

Players love them, devs hate them. We agree it's good auto attack has a toggle. So I can use it, and you won't. 

 

We don't know much about how combat's going to be done exactly in DA:I yet. All we have are pre-alpha videos from last year, and speculation about them. 

 

I only raise this because there may be other 'combat features' coming soon the 'gaming tribes' will not agree about, and I suspect there may NOT be toggle options for them. We can hope, though, it might save a lot of coming arguments here. 

It would make sense that if auto-attack is a toggle, that turning that on would also automate other actions such as blocking and whatever else they might add. It seems to me that auto-attack with manual blocking or dodging or what have you would feel awkward.

[Enshaid]

But in terms of role playing, it doesn't really feel like I'm playing the role of a character in combat. I could be anybody and I could be nobody, I'm just a pair of eyes in the sky. 

 

This is my problem. It breaks my immersion to see the world through a character's eyes in cutscenes, and then suddenly become some omniscient observer in combat. If anything I should feel the most present when my character's life is in danger.

[CybAnt1]

Well to me, that feels like I'm a sports coach yelling "Be defensive!" "Be aggressive!" rather than the player in there deciding when to shoot, tackle, intercept etc. Like I said, an RTS. (1)

 

The thing is though these don't really seem like rpg mechanics to me. I understand a lot of old rpgs have used this style of rts play, so in that sense they are "rpg mechanics". (2) But in terms of role playing, it doesn't really feel like I'm playing the role of a character in combat. I could be anybody and I could be nobody, I'm just a pair of eyes in the sky. I do get the fun from using teamwork and tactics, but you shouldn't necessarily have to possess someone to tell them what to do, especially since the game can be paused. And I think that's one thing Mass Effect did brilliantly, you command people but you're always still Shepard.

 

(1) I think I have mentioned my favorite game genres are RTS/strategy (Heroes of Might & Magic, King's Bounty, Starcraft, etc.) and CRPGs - yes? 

 

There is a reason for that.   Have I mentioned I also love chess. 

 

But I do play shooters and action games, they're just not my favorites. I also will play both "dungeon crawlers" (I mean, in essence, that's all CRPGs until Fallout came out, like Ultima or Wizardry) and action-RPGs (like Diablo III or Dungeon Siege) -- I just don't like them as much as true RPGs. And yes, IMHO, action-RPGs are less true RPGs than ... true RPGs  , because they begin streamlining and removing 'traditional' RPG features, simplifying combat (from my POV), and most importantly, making character skill matter less. 

 

(2) I understand people don't always agree with my perspective, but action-RPGs create a kind of play which is less like translating tabletop/PnP RPG combat into playing on a computer, and thus from my perspective, "less RPGish". 

[CybAnt1]

This is my problem. It breaks my immersion to see the world through a character's eyes in cutscenes, and then suddenly become some omniscient observer in combat. If anything I should feel the most present when my character's life is in danger.

 

What I find odd, Enshaid, and this is not directed at you, but from other people I've seen, is they will say this about combat, and not bat an eye when I say for me it is terribly immersion-breaking that the dialogue wheel/paraphrase system of DA2 completely disconnects me from what my character is saying and doing in the non-combat portions of the game. 

 

It is weird. I do understand some people feel the way I like to "do" combat makes them feel more "passive". I don't feel that way, though. I want combat to be mentally engaging, not physically/reflex/twitch-engaging. 

 

Yet in many cases some of those same people have no problem with the incredible passivity created in me, the player, when I sit and watch Hawke/The PC say things that I feel I have very little control over. All of a sudden I'm passively watching Hawke the Movie Star say HIS lines in some movie I'm watching, not "mine". THIS BOTHERS ME. 

 

"Auto-dialogue" makes me feel like "auto-combat" makes you feel. 

[Enshaid]

 I just don't like them as much as true RPGs. And yes, IMHO, action-RPGs are less true RPGs than ... true RPGs  , . 

Based on past experience with this forum. It would be unwise to bring up the "What does and doesn't constitute an rpg?" thing. As it doesn't tend to inspire much constructive discussion.

 

(but roleplaying is the defining feature of roleplaying games imho)

[Enshaid]

By that definition every single video game ever created is a RPG.

 

From Pong (where you role-play a racket) to Mario (you role-play a crazy plumber rescuing the stupidest lady ever).

Nope. Nope. This is off-topic and I'm not doing this.

 

(but  the term roleplaying game is a bit of a misnomer then isn't it?)

[CybAnt1]

I know the arguments are endless, the forum members will never agree, and so the subject becomes a taboo one to be avoided.

 

That said, I have a position, and I do believe my position follows from a history of computer/video game role playing games, which after all, is the way in which definitions get established, no? Operationally? If one wants to know what is a CRPG (as opposed to what is a RPG in general), I think one should look at examples. Examples establish definitions. 

 

BTW, it's fine, if you want to argue anything that involves taking a role and playing it is a role playing game, then yes, Call of Duty is a role playing game as you're playing the role of a soldier, and Super Mario Brothers is a role playing game, as it involves you taking the role of Mario and Luigi. 

 

In adventure games like Sierra Online's King's Quest, you do indeed "play a role" of King Graham (and others), and you do make choices, that have consequences. But no, I don't think that's a CRPG, it's an adventure game. 

 

Personally, I think the definition does need to be a bit stricter. Otherwise, as other people have noted, if we ignore salient differences, you could say human beings are basically the same as bananas. 

 

BTW, I absolutely and totally agree with Rubios' definition. A CRPG is an attempt to translate the tabletop RPG gaming experience unto playing on a computer (and gaming consoles are also computers). As always, bearing in mind that aspects of that experience will be more or less difficult to translate. And that certain aspects can and should be radically changed once you do so; for example, there's no need to roll dice (or simulate rolling dice) once you let the computer use its own system of random number generation. 

 

BTW2, personally, I'd rather see six threads on this, even if they go on endlessly and people can't come to agreement, then six threads on 'playersexuality'. As always, MHO. 

[Enshaid]

I know the arguments are endless, the forum members will never agree, and so the subject becomes a taboo one to be avoided.

 

That said, I have a position, and I do believe my position follows from a history of computer/video game role playing games, which after all, is the way in which definitions get established, no? Operationally? If one wants to know what is a CRPG (as opposed to what is a RPG in general), I think one should look at examples. Examples establish definitions. 

 

BTW, it's fine, if you want to argue anything that involves taking a role and playing it is a role playing game, then yes, Call of Duty is a role playing game as you're playing the role of a soldier, and Super Mario Brothers is a role playing game, as it involves you taking the role of Mario and Luigi. 

 

In adventure games like Sierra Online's King's Quest, you do indeed "play a role" of King Graham (and others), and you do make choices, that have consequences. But no, I don't think that's a CRPG, it's an adventure game. 

 

Personally, I think the definition does need to be a bit stricter. Otherwise, as other people have noted, if we ignore salient differences, you could say human beings are basically the same as bananas. 

*Sigh* I did this. I could've let it go but I had to comment and now it's happening again. *war flashbacks*

 

   Yes, definitions are established over time, but I rather think that supports my argument. If a bunch of games are released and they call themselves RPG's, are marketed as such, and the majority of gamers don't challenge the assertion, then doesn't the definition change to become more inclusive? That's how language works. 

   Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that most games involve roleplaying. The determining factor here is choice. I am not roleplaying as Mario. He has a set goal and a set way in which he accomplishes it. I overcome his obstacles in the manner the game dictates and if I deviate in the few ways I am allowed (going backwards etc.) I will either not progess, or I will die. I have about as much agency as I do watching a movie.

   

But that's all I have to say about that sO HOW ABOUT THAT AUTO-ATTACK GUYS?

[CybAnt1]

   Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that most games involve roleplaying. 

   

 

Then we agree, because you clearly saw that I was using reductio ad absurdum. 

 

P.S. choice is central, but I think we still need a bit more for our definition. 

 

After all, in shooters, I can choose the rocket launcher or the mini gun, and I can tell you that in King's Quest, you can make choices, that lead to outcomes and consequences. 

 

Personally, I would say what makes a CRPG a CRPG is character development, that I can choose how to develop a character's skills, attributes, and talents/abilities. It's what King's Quest didn't have - not even the 8th title in the series, released in 1998. 

 

I don't know why people hate having this debate. It's like any other debate on here. Of course we may end up not agreeing. 

 

However, I will argue my positions, and also point out their validity. 

[Enshaid]

Then we agree, because you clearly saw that I was using reductio ad absurdum. 

Oops. Don't mind me. It's extremely late where I live. 

I appear to have lumped you in with another poster.

[Fredward]

Button mashing in DA? **** no.

[Sidney]

Enshaid, at the end of the day, I agree with people that it depends on your gaming experiences. 

 

Many of us come from a background of Bioware (and non Bioware) games like NWN1/2 (though 2 was not per se Bioware's), BG1/2, KOTOR 1/2, and maybe even others like Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc, etc, etc. 

 

All I can say is, for us, no the combat of DAO did not feel too slow, too awkward, or too 'disconnected' (personally I find thinking about selecting abilities and tactics, then sitting back and watching those execute "active" and "engaging") ... neither of us can make the other have the other's experiences, but hopefully as I keep mentioning this point, the two tribes of gamers who argue over the combat in these games can understand the other's perspectives. 

 

I came from BG, Fallout 1/2, XCOM/TFTD, Jagged Alliance and a host of other point n' click plan and watch type things....and DAO's combat still sucked rocks. It remains why I don't play that game again more often. It was ungodly slow and awkward. It made it really hard to plan when your charges acted like they were stuck in mud or incapable of striking unless  they were in juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust the right spot. I say that as a fan of that style of gameplay, I can only imagine people who want a more interactive experience would want to gouge their eyes out.

[CybAnt1]

You know, just like perhaps we can't always agree on what we like, some of us are just not bothered by certain things, either. 

 

I get it. I get you felt that way. I just didn't. I had other complaints, but that just wasn't one. 

 

Many people felt DA2's combat was too ridiculously kinetic and anime-ish. I also get that some others didn't and loved it!

 

So, here's what we do know -- they've said they're aiming for the just-right bowl of porridge with DA:I, not too slow, and not too fast.

 

 As I've said, I hope they reach the Golden Middle that pleases everybody.

[Sidney]

You know, just like perhaps we can't always agree on what we like, some of us are just not bothered by certain things, either. 

 

I get it. I get you felt that way. I just didn't. I had other complaints, but that just wasn't one. 

 

Many people felt DA2's combat was too ridiculously kinetic and anime-ish. I also get that some others didn't and loved it!

 

So, here's what we do know -- they've said they're aiming for the just-right bowl of porridge with DA:I, not too slow, and not too fast.

 

 As I've said, I hope they reach the Golden Middle that pleases everybody.

 

 

They make your people feel more responsive and fix the real problem in DA2 the awful encounter design and then we will have something moving forward.

[Raizo]

That kind of depends on how many standard attacks it takes to kill the average enemy. Anything more 4 or 5 then I will have to vote for auto attack. It also helps break up the monotony if there are different animations for different attacks, so that it looks like your characters are chaining attacks and creating combos as opposed to spamming the same attack over and over again. If however it is the same attack animation over and over and over again then once again I vote auto attack cause then that way I can just shut off my brain and let the AI do all the tedious stuff.

[AlanC9]

 
 As I've said, I hope they reach the Golden Middle that pleases everybody.

Assuming there is one, that is. I think combat speed might have such a point. I'm not sure about other combat issues, like orderly vs. chaotic combat -- is the problem with enemies dropping in just that they look silly, or that this makes it impossible to plan your positioning? I hear both positions regularly.

I suppose we need to have a general combat thread for stuff like this.

[CronoDragoon]

As I keep emphasizing, in a CRPG (at least as I see it; of course, that is the constant proviso), it's the character that's doing the attacking, not me (the player).

 

All I'm indicating is who he needs to auto-attack (if I'm not using a particular ability), he can take care of the rest, including attacking again and again until the enemy is dead. Why on Earth should I need to keep pushing a button? The character already knows his target.

 

My issue in Origins (console here) was that I, the player, did not. Many times combat in Origins is a fustercluck with a bunch of melee enemies crowding around me. So I press X to have him attack and he just stands there. Wait, is he just standing there? Actually it looks like he's stuck. Why is he stuck? Is his target around the mobs blocking his path? How I do I change target again?

 

Button mash is more intuitive. When I press X I know Hawke is going to attack the target that I'm directing him towards, and the one closest in that direction. I know exactly what my character is doing at all times. I didn't feel this way in Origins. YYMV on PC.

[Zack_Nero]

Well button mashing isn't that great, I still prefer that over auto-attack simply because I felt more engage with the battle at hand.

[CybAnt1]

Assuming there is one, that is. I think combat speed might have such a point. I'm not sure about other combat issues, like orderly vs. chaotic combat -- is the problem with enemies dropping in just that they look silly, or that this makes it impossible to plan your positioning? I hear both positions regularly.

 

The answer is yes , but that one doesn't need to be discussed for DA:I because I'm pretty sure they've said the era of the sky-dropping banzai bandits is over.

 

Good riddance.

 

BTW, I get the idea that combat shouldn't be all that orderly, and as several people have pointed out, it's a lot more chaotic than in war movies, there is the fog of war and all that, but if the way you want to simulate the chaos of battle is with a silly mechanic, no, it just doesn't work for me.

 

BTW2, I have no problem being ambushed by enemy rogues who sneak up and sneak attack out of nowhere. That makes sense, and you would expect them to do it. My rogues do.