8 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

I do not agree with rule 4 or rule 5.
Should i leave the group?

[CybAnt1]

They're not rules, they are principles. Rules are "things must be this way". Principles are "this is a good vision/concept". 

 

I certainly don't want you to leave, but I also can't make you stay.

 

Perhaps now is a good time to tell me what you dislike about principles 4 and 5.

 

BTW, as I said at the onset, they are subject to modification. 

 

But I can't modify them if you don't tell me what bothers you about them. 

 

Nothing about 5. suggests the Mass Effect games are bad, or that people shouldn't like them, just that the company should be trying to keep the series separate - in terms of vision. Because I think they were initially, but with DA2 those lines got blurred.

[fchopin]

The only thing i disagree with is that it makes no difference to me if combat is twitch or turnbased as both can be tactical and i play both kind of games and as long as the combat is good then i am fine with this.

[CybAnt1]

K. Well, let me explain it as I see it.

 

I would prefer if DA:I were less of an action-RPG, which would also mean less like Mass Effect.

 

If all you agree with the rest of us Grognards on is the dialogue system, I guess you can ignore it when we "lobby" on combat related issues ... since you don't care one way or the other.

 

It's up to you whether or not you want to leave. I think most of us would prefer if the combat were more similar to DAO than DA2, though there were certainly areas where DAO could have been improved (so it's not that we want things exactly the same.)

 

As for dialogue, well, the thread we've recently had makes it fairly clear we are at an impasse. We can't even comment further on the dialogue system, apparently, until we receive it, then ask for changes to DA4, if there is to be one.

[fchopin]

Ok that’s fine, I don’t want to leave but I thought we had to agree on everything that is why I asked.

[CybAnt1]

I hate dogmatism. 

 

You're welcome to like more action mechanics in (action-)CRPGs - I just happen to hate them. 

 

You can disagree with me that action-RPGs are "less" "true" CRPGs than other kinds, but that won't change me from thinking so.   They have become less like "true"/"traditional" CRPGs and more like action games. (P.S. I'm not saying that wasn't already true when they moved from turn-based to pause-and-play back in the early Aughts ... it's just a question of where the "enough" line should be.) 

 

Give me a toggle to turn action mechanics on/off, and we can both be happy. 

 

In the end, I think the Grognards are here not to make sure everybody plays games the same way we do, just to give us the chance to play them the way we want to. 

 

Let those who prefer twitch-based play that way; I prefer thought-based. 

[bEVEsthda]

To me, this is a matter of the mental state I want to play the games in.

 

I play action games, and, by Jove I've played ACTION GAMES, until I had thick calluses on my thumbs. We're talking things like Speed Ball, and japanese fighting games, Tekken, DOA and Soul Calibur series.

And I've played a lot of PC-FPS.

But I've kinda grown away from much of that. Overblown, constant action, like the Quake games, for instance, doesn't really have much fascination to offer. To me, The change mainly came with Morrowind and Far Cry (the original).

Yes, they're sort of action games, but it's not the focus of the games. I seriously though Far Cry would become the new master-mold, for how shooters should be made. It was just so superior, full tactical freedom. And Morrowind is of course a massively singleplayer cRPG, that just plays like a FPS.

Unfortunately, instead of leading the way, the industry decided to focus even more on consoles and typical, old fashioned console genre kind of games.

 

That's just the other point. If we lose the focus on Space Invaders -action, the games will - must - become interesting instead. I much prefer that. When I want to play a cRPG, I don't want to play God of War, Bayonetta or Dynasty Warriors. I feel insulted when cRPGs try to be that. And that doesn't only go for the gameplay, but also for the animations.

 

But the first point is that I want to have an intellectual experience when I sit down with a cRPG. Why should I have to fire up and be intense? And, it defeats a fundamental property of what a RPG should be, a game where the role character fights, not the gamer.

 

But yeah, I also play "action" RPG when I have no choice and the rest of the game makes up for it, Like Morrowind or Skyrim. But I'd rather I didn't have to.

[Remmirath]

The main way I measure how much of a roleplaying game a certain game is has to do with how well I can play whatever character I want to make. Combat does enter into that to some degree, but it's not the primary focus. Not being able to properly control the dialogue is a far worse strike against an RPG than not poor combat, although poor combat does grate on me.

I'm actually rather fond of many fast paced or twitchier games. Unreal Tournament 2004 remains one of my favourites, and I've spent countless hours on various FPS and platform games as well as RPGs. RPGs are my favourite genre, yes, but I hardly dislike action games.

I don't like the two to mix. I like Morrowind quite a lot, but I always play it and other Elder Scrolls games in third person, because to me first person and RPGs don't mix. I don't really want that much direct control over the character, or that much seeing through the character's eyes. It's a very different thing. If I had to pick a different genre for RPG combat to take more after, I'd pick strategy games, not shooters.

And, it defeats a fundamental property of what a RPG should be, a game where the role character fights, not the gamer.

Yes. This is what I mean. This is my main problem with it. I do very much enjoy more tactical and thoughtful gameplay in RPGs just on its own merit, but I believe that an RPG should always focus on the character fighting, and the player only making decisions as to how to build the character and how they fight, and then who and when. Controlling their ever move doesn't work very well, because then it's you fighting, not the character.

Combat has also never got to the point of realism where I feel I can make actual realistic decisions about where to strike and when to block and so forth, but that's another matter. Even if it was, I still wouldn't want that in an RPG -- maybe some other game.

[CybAnt1]

I've played plenty of shooters and action games. I like them for what they are. They're not my faves, but yes I've played Unreal Tournament, and others. 

 

It's just that to me there's genre blurring/mixing that works (like, for example, strategy or adventure and CRPG), and the kind that doesn't (action and RPG, producing the famed 'action-RPG'.) 

 

And you all have nailed what doesn't work about it, bringing action mechanics into a CRPG takes away (IMHO) one of the things that defines the genre (character development). 

 

So now I'm playing Diablo 3. Do I like it on a visceral level? I suppose. But it just reminds me of playing   Gauntlet in the arcades. That's what it is, a fancy version of Gauntlet. No time ever to think, plus the game rewards you for "massacres" (i.e. killing the most things in the shortest period of time). Heck, it even rewards you for smashing lots of containers in a short span. So many boss battles are basically dependent on you doing a lot of constant running to and fro. So weird. So not like what I want a CRPG to be. 

 

There's no doubt about it, for the prime gaming market/demographic, (young males 18-25 playing on console), action games outsell all other types. By incredible factors of 10, usually. I get the market pressures forcing every game developer to move in the action direction. 

 

And I did not fall off the Ferelden turnip truck; I know Mass Effect was outselling Dragon Age Origins which is why it got "mass effected" in DA2. 

 

Still, every once in a while, something noodles developers upside the head that other kinds of games can do well (if not the best). Sims 3, anyone? There can be rewards for not doing what everybody else is doing.

 

Which is why I sometimes pray to the mods they will. 

 

Sorry, but I'll say it again - I recognize the need to go where the market is, but that is NOT "innovation".