They did patch in auto attack in all camera modes as well, at least on PC.
Although I'm not a big fan of the "how much clicking/button pressing am I doing" as a metric, as it makes it sound like a "true" RPG is a game that you barely even need to play.
You also have to define just how much makes it an ARPG. Baldur's Gate can require quite a bit of micromanagement because you have 6 party members with no tactics menu. Does that make it an ARPG?
It's always tempting to encode your own preference hierarchy into a supposedly neutral taxonomy. I often do this myself if I'm not paying attention. In addition to doing it deliberately for rhetorical purposes, of course.Fair enough. I guess that comes from my bias that those properties disqualify it from being an RPG, instead of "graduating" it to an ARPG, but YMMV.
There are changes; apparently some just hit today, though I haven't tried patch 6 yet. I don't know if you'd find them significant or not.Have they made significant improvements to the Tac Cam since release? In theory it eliminates these items. In practice, it looked more cumbersome and required more fighting against the controls than the button mashing aspect of the gameplay.
Although I'm not a big fan of the "how much clicking/button pressing am I doing" as a metric, as it makes it sound like a "true" RPG is a game that you barely even need to play.
You also have to define just how much makes it an ARPG. Baldur's Gate can require quite a bit of micromanagement because you have 6 party members with no tactics menu. Does that make it an ARPG?
I agree, it makes a 'true' RPG sound more like is should play like a visual novel, which would mean that no 'true' RPG that people sight in debates like this is really a 'true' RPG.
I've no issue with visual novels, I enjoy them and I think they have their place in gaming, but their gameplay is very different from the likes of Baldurs Gate, the RPG that all RPGS must be measured by........... 
They did patch in auto attack in all camera modes as well, at least on PC.
Although I'm not a big fan of the "how much clicking/button pressing am I doing" as a metric, as it makes it sound like a "true" RPG is a game that you barely even need to play.
The only system fit for a RPG is Final Fantasy Tactics (and others like that), you have a menu, you choose your action, you see it happening. No action, just decisions.
The perfect RPG have no timeframe for anything. It is all about you building a character and a story. It is the writting of a character and a tale by choosing options. Since RPG became such a mess where everything is called RPG now, I wish they invented another game genre, something like CMSTALG - Character Maker StoryTelling ActionLess Game. Before you say it already exists, novels where you don't create your own character and have quick time events are pretty much the opposite of what I would like in a game.
The only system fit for a RPG is Final Fantasy Tactics (and others like that), you have a menu, you choose your action, you see it happening. No action, just decisions.
The perfect RPG have no timeframe for anything. It is all about you building a character and a story. It is the writting of a character and a tale by choosing options. Since RPG became such a mess where everything is called RPG now, I wish they invented another game genre, something like CMSTALG - Character Maker StoryTelling ActionLess Game. Before you say it already exists, novels where you don't create your own character and have quick time events are pretty much the opposite of what I would like in a game.
The entire problem with this discussion is that everybody has their own definition of RPG and they know a RPG when they see one, but most people can't really give an actually written definition that doesn't have a bunch of exceptions to it .
Unless you're okay with Baldur's Gate not being a RPG under your definition.
Half the reason why I keep mentioning XCOM is that the game is actually a turn based strategy game, but can still fit into most definitions that focus entirely on gameplay mechanics.
Similarly if it focuses too much on story I can start pulling in those visual novels filled with QTEs, and nobody want to have to admit that just claimed David Cage is making RPGs.
The entire problem with this discussion is that everybody has their own definition of RPG and they know a RPG when they see one, but most people can't really give an actually written definition that doesn't have a bunch of exceptions to it .
Unless you're okay with Baldur's Gate not being a RPG under your definition.
Half the reason why I keep mentioning XCOM is that the game is actually a turn based strategy game, but can still fit into most definitions that focus entirely on gameplay mechanics.
Similarly if it focuses too much on story I can start pulling in those visual novels filled with QTEs, and nobody want to have to admit that just claimed David Cage is making RPGs.
BG is whatever. I couldn't care less. There is no RPG out of PnP, but there are some that approach in specific aspects, when it comes to combat FFT and other tactical turn based games. When it comes to decisions there are a lot, Origins is a good one. When it comes to story, none, PnP is a lot less hollywood writters and a lot more raw imagination+desire. Electronic RPGs started right but like 2 decades ago they went the wrong way, all the way down. They could have become good games, more options and complexity to get closer to offering "freedom of choice", but instead they went on developing graphics, action combat and hollywood script.
No single electronic RPG features what is needed to be called RPG but sometimes they go right in one or other feature. The problem is that they are not trying anymore. They are more interested in other things like expanding the setting, the franchise, the sales and so on. While 99% people I know play PnP RPG because they offer the ability to create your character. I know one or two that would play whatever character you gave them, but most like the idea of filling the character sheet even more than playing the game, sometimes we fill the sheet even knowing it won't go beyong 3 or 4 sessions, it is worthy, mostly because while we fill it we talk about the character building and the system.
So that's it, Baldur's Gate was interesting somehow, but deffinetly not RPG, fixed starting point and a lot of other problems. When it comes to story and decisions Origins offered me the best mix and match, I'd say the right amount of story to allow a good amount of decisions which DA2 and DAI removed. In this particular case it is better than any previous RPG because of the different Origins. On other characteristics I wouldn't say the game was particularly good or better than other, but deffinetly better than DA2 and DAI.
When it comes to story, none, PnP is a lot less hollywood writters and a lot more raw imagination+desire. Electronic RPGs started right but like 2 decades ago they went the wrong way, all the way down. They could have become good games, more options and complexity to get closer to offering "freedom of choice", but instead they went on developing graphics, action combat and hollywood script.
I'm not convinced that the early CRPGs got this stuff right; what games are you thinking of? From where I sit Bio games come closer to delivering a PnP experience than early CRPGs, precisely because they are focused on story. We may have participated in different PnP styles, of course.
Yeah, to a large extent this varies from DM to DM, but a lot of my PnP experiences were similar. Side quests practically didn't exist. There was not an overemphasis on loot, as seen in typical cRPG's. And character control was often restricted to a single party member. PnP may have taken place within the context of a party, but my actions in combat never went outside that single character.
BG is whatever. I couldn't care less. There is no RPG out of PnP, but there are some that approach in specific aspects, when it comes to combat FFT and other tactical turn based games. When it comes to decisions there are a lot, Origins is a good one. When it comes to story, none, PnP is a lot less hollywood writters and a lot more raw imagination+desire. Electronic RPGs started right but like 2 decades ago they went the wrong way, all the way down. They could have become good games, more options and complexity to get closer to offering "freedom of choice", but instead they went on developing graphics, action combat and hollywood script.
No single electronic RPG features what is needed to be called RPG but sometimes they go right in one or other feature. The problem is that they are not trying anymore. They are more interested in other things like expanding the setting, the franchise, the sales and so on. While 99% people I know play PnP RPG because they offer the ability to create your character. I know one or two that would play whatever character you gave them, but most like the idea of filling the character sheet even more than playing the game, sometimes we fill the sheet even knowing it won't go beyong 3 or 4 sessions, it is worthy, mostly because while we fill it we talk about the character building and the system.
So that's it, Baldur's Gate was interesting somehow, but deffinetly not RPG, fixed starting point and a lot of other problems. When it comes to story and decisions Origins offered me the best mix and match, I'd say the right amount of story to allow a good amount of decisions which DA2 and DAI removed. In this particular case it is better than any previous RPG because of the different Origins. On other characteristics I wouldn't say the game was particularly good or better than other, but deffinetly better than DA2 and DAI.
99% of the people I know want to actually play their characters for a decent length of time and develop an actual story with those characters through many sessions of playing. What our individual PnP groups want is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Other than that I'd disagree with the idea that a RPG needs to offer total freedom in order to be a "true RPG". PnP games certainly offer the best opportunity for roleplaying, but many of what is traditionally considered RPGs in video games offer enough in my opinion. Usually in PnP there is still some restriction placed on you by the group/GM anyway. If you're insistent on playing as a complete psychopath who goes around murdering every person that they see including the other PCs, then you're probably not going to be a part of that RP group for very long.
I would also say that expanding on the setting can help enhance both the story and RP opportunities and shouldn't necessarily be viewed as a bad thing.
Other than that I'd disagree with the idea that a RPG needs to offer total freedom in order to be a "true RPG". PnP games certainly offer the best opportunity for roleplaying, but many of what is traditionally considered RPGs in video games offer enough in my opinion. Usually in PnP there is still some restriction placed on you by the group/GM anyway. If you're insistent on playing as a complete psychopath who goes around murdering every person that they see including the other PCs, then you're probably not going to be a part of that RP group for very long.
Good point. It's also something I find a little odd when people talk about how DA:I disallows "evil" characters. They're not wrong. But said players will often cite other games, like KotOR, whose attempt at inserting evil characters into a light side playthrough was extremely questionable.
cRPG's may be a great place conceptually to let players create evil characters, since they don't have to worry about pissing off someone else's PC and causing them to leave the room. On the other hand, the types of evil characters some people want to play would still result in their own character murdered by the town guard.
Well, the measurement I proposed is based off the number of times I click or bang the mouse or keyboard in a given time period. If the interface is completely garbage, would you count banging my head against the keyboard as a click?Anyway, the quality of the experience shouldn't change the genre.
I'd say it goes beyond it being played better... it was designed that way. The Tac Cam was additional feature added onto the core game, not the other way around. As can be seen by the necessity to struggle with the control scheme to use it consistently for most of the game.But I can see it making sense to say that DAI is better when played as an ARPG than when played as a -- "traditional" RPG, I guess. (Anyone else remember a couple of games back in the 90s that tried to simultaneously implement action and turn-based combat systems?)
It's not too hard to come up with a definition of "RPG" that excludes XCOM. The trick is to find one that rules XCOM out but still rules IWD in.
If I was a game developer, I'd be tempted to have good and evil options in my games, where the good choices end in rainbows and sunshine and the evil choices end in death and bitter tears. And then create sequels where a canon is set for the events of the previous game... and always use the evil choices.Good point. It's also something I find a little odd when people talk about how DA:I disallows "evil" characters. They're not wrong. But said players will often cite other games, like KotOR, whose attempt at inserting evil characters into a light side playthrough was extremely questionable.
cRPG's may be a great place conceptually to let players create evil characters, since they don't have to worry about pissing off someone else's PC and causing them to leave the room. On the other hand, the types of evil characters some people want to play would still result in their own character murdered by the town guard.
If I was a game developer, I'd be tempted to have good and evil options in my hands, where the good choices end in rainbows and sunshine and the evil choices end in death and bitter tears. And then create sequels where a canon is set for the events of the previous game... and always use the evil choices.
Now that is cruel. And I absolutely love it. 
That would have improved KotOR 2.
The only system fit for a RPG is Final Fantasy Tactics (and others like that), you have a menu, you choose your action, you see it happening. No action, just decisions.
I guess every other Final Fantasy game that isn't turn-based, Kingdom Hearts, Dragon's Dogma, every Dragon Age game, Kingdoms of Amalur, every MMO to ever exist, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and every single Elder Scrolls game aren't RPGs.
I guess every other Final Fantasy game that isn't turn-based, Kingdom Hearts, Dragon's Dogma, every Dragon Age game, Kingdoms of Amalur, every MMO to ever exist, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and every single Elder Scrolls game aren't RPGs.
Pretty much, yeah. Except the Fallouts and DA:O, which let you give commands while paused.
But those can also be played in full real-time. At least, DAO can be, as well as Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I can't say for the older Fallout games.
Well, the measurement I proposed is based off the number of times I click or bang the mouse or keyboard in a given time period. If the interface is completely garbage, would you count banging my head against the keyboard as a click?I'd say it goes beyond it being played better... it was designed that way. The Tac Cam was additional feature added onto the core game, not the other way around. As can be seen by the necessity to struggle with the control scheme to use it consistently for most of the game.
One feature does not change the genre of a game. So I'd still advocate it would mark DA:I an ARPG, even with the added Tac Cam feature.
Yeah.Dragon Age:Origins was marketed as an Action RPG with tactical elements, as well.Wasn't it explicitly marketed as an ARPG? "With tactical elements".... Whether or not it nailed the addendum is a matter of perspective, I suppose, but Bioware were pretty upfront about the "A" in front of "RPG".
A role-playing game is a game about playing roles, which you do in Inquisition with great aplomb. The dice-rolling, card-shuffling tabletop mechanics are simply facilitators of the playing of roles, and their ubiquity in classic examples of the genre does not invalidate examples that lack them.
But those can also be played in full real-time. At least, DAO can be, as well as Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I can't say for the older Fallout games.
ME2 was nearly BioWare's worst game. I hated it.
ME was better in every respect. With ME2 it was like the devs were going out of their way to ruin it. Every decision was anti-roleplaying and anti-coherence.
Yes ME was better, ME2 is still an incredible game.
Retour en haut