583 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

You joke, but FIFA can easily be classified as an Action RPG.

 

I personally reserve action-RPG for games that have the basic elements of an RPG yet put gameplay mechanics way ahead of story. Stuff like Diablo and Path of Exile, and Borderlands for instance, hell you could even add Icewind Dale 1 and 2 even if the very thought probably gave a heart attack to a few people.

 

By this, I don't see how Inquisition is an action-RPG at all, since it clearly puts story ahead of gameplay. Or is it yet again the whole ''it has no To Hit stat, thus we put ''action'' in front to differienciate it from our incredibly selective pure blooded True RPGstm''?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I personally reserve action-RPG for games that have the basic elements of an RPG yet put gameplay mechanics way ahead of story. Stuff like Diablo and Path of Exile, and Borderlands for instance, hell you could even add Icewind Dale 1 and 2 even if the very thought probably gave a heart attack to a few people.
 
By this, I don't see how Inquisition is an action-RPG at all, since it clearly puts story ahead of gameplay. Or is it yet again the whole ''it has no To Hit stat, thus we put ''action'' in front to differienciate it from our incredibly selective pure blooded True RPGstm''?

It has action (twitch) oriented gameplay and control schemes over abstract systems that prioritise character skill over player skill when it comes to determining the success of actions . Elements such as but not necessarily To-Hit percentages. That makes it an Action RPG to me. Doesn't make it a lesser game or anything. It's just an identifier. A very popular game amongst RPG enthusiasts like Bloodlines is also an Action RPG. As are games like New Vegas, the Gothic series and System Shock 2.

All of which I'd consider better than any of the Dragon Age games, including Origins, even with it's OFFICIAL "TROO" RPG status amongst certain groups. Well, maybe not Gothic 4. But still.

Something that's annoyed me since Dragon Age 2 discussion has been the conflation of genre and quality.

"I like RPGs, therefore games I like ("good games") are RPGs and games I don't like ("bad games") aren't RPGs."

It doesn't work like that.

An example. Morrowind and Daggerfall with their To-Hit type mechanics were more of a traditional RPG than Oblivion and Skyrim because those mechanics emphasised the skill of the character over the skill of the player. However, as a combat experience, removing those mechanics did a world of good. The game was improved in that sense, even if it meant more of a transition towards an Action RPG.

The idea of gating by emphasis on story seems a bit weird. Deus Ex games being more of a traditional/classic RPG than Neverwinter Nights is a concept I can't ever agree with. But Deus Ex was all about the story, whereas Neverwinter Nights was based around the engine, the game mechanics/ruleset and the Persistent World concept. The story was there, but not the main reason you bought the game.

[Lebanese Dude]

*snip*

Any squad-based game will prioritize player skill in character skill because there's a lot of interactions that need to be handled by the player to maximize the efficiency of the party.

 

Comparing it to single player action RPGs is wholly unfair. Skyrim and New Vegas have very different combat approaches from DAI.

 

Also the twitch gameplay in DAI is a direct result of lack of bot healing. It's a system that's different from other RPGs as well. It's also mostly required by tanks (which can be automated) and melee characters ( get out of AOE ). The former is definitely reactionary (if only to make tanking actually fun as opposed to being a meatshield) but the latter is as reactionary as most RPGs are when it comes to boss ability threats.

 

Frankly, I don't think DAI (or any modern BioWare game for that matter) can be pigeon-holed into any standard sub-genre of an RPG.

They're in a league of their own.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Any squad-based game will prioritize player skill in character skill because there's a lot of interactions that need to be handled by the player to maximize the efficiency of the party.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but Baldur's Gate, KotOR, DA:O, DA 2, NWN. These are literally the games that BioWare has been known for and built their reputation on, none of them are Action RPGs like DA:I is, despite being squad-based.

Let alone RPGs like Ultima, Darklands, PS:T, Wizardry, M&M, IWD, Drakensang, or Divinity: Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity and Shadowrun Returns for some modern examples. Etc etc etc.
 

Comparing it to single player action RPGs is wholly unfair. Skyrim and New Vegas have very different combat approaches from DAI.

It's still an action RPG for the reasons listed. It plays somewhere in-between Diablo and an MMO. Action RPG territory for me. It's just easy to rattle off games like Deus Ex, Fallout and Skyrim because everyone knows them.
 

Also the twitch gameplay in DAI is a direct result of lack of bot healing. It's a system that's different from other RPGs as well. It's also mostly required by tanks (which can be automated) and melee characters ( get out of AOE ). The former is definitely reactionary (if only to make tanking actually fun as opposed to being a meatshield) but the latter is as reactionary as most RPGs are when it comes to boss ability threats.

I didn't say there weren't reasons for it, you're probably right. But it is what it is. And what it is, is an Action RPG. It doesn't make it a lesser game, I don't know why people feel like it does. I don't consider JRPGs to be 'lesser' RPGs for example, it's just what they are.
 

Frankly, I don't think DAI (or any modern BioWare game for that matter) can be pigeon-holed into any standard sub-genre of an RPG.
They're in a league of their own.

Lol okay well if that's how you feel, then I won't try and change your opinion.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It has action (twitch) oriented gameplay and control schemes over abstract systems that prioritise character skill over player skill when it comes to determining the success of actions . Elements such as but not necessarily To-Hit percentages. That makes it an Action RPG to me. Doesn't make it a lesser game or anything. It's just an identifier. A very popular game amongst RPG enthusiasts like Bloodlines is also an Action RPG. As are games like New Vegas, the Gothic series and System Shock 2.

All of which I'd consider better than any of the Dragon Age games, including Origins, even with it's OFFICIAL "TROO" RPG status amongst certain groups. Well, maybe not Gothic 4. But still.

Something that's annoyed me since Dragon Age 2 discussion has been the conflation of genre and quality.

"I like RPGs, therefore games I like ("good games") are RPGs and games I don't like ("bad games") aren't RPGs."

It doesn't work like that.

An example. Morrowind and Daggerfall with their To-Hit type mechanics were more of a traditional RPG than Oblivion and Skyrim because those mechanics emphasised the skill of the character over the skill of the player. However, as a combat experience, removing those mechanics did a world of good. The game was improved in that sense, even if it meant more of a transition towards an Action RPG.

The idea of gating by emphasis on story seems a bit weird. Deus Ex games being more of a traditional/classic RPG than Neverwinter Nights is a concept I can't ever agree with. But Deus Ex was all about the story, whereas Neverwinter Nights was based around the engine, the game mechanics/ruleset and the Persistent World concept. The story was there, but not the main reason you bought the game.

 

See, this is where I disagree. If you base the genre on gameplay, you're going to have all sorts of inconsistencies. Morrowind, Deus Ex, Icewind Dale are RPGs, while Gothic 1&2, New Vegas, DA:I are ARPG, despite that the latter games allow for far more opportunities for the player to affect their world (sans Deus Ex)? I'm not comfortable with this, it seems like a really arbitrary distinction.

 

Does this mean Mass Effect is an RPG (since it has accuracy partly based on character stat) while ME2 and 3 are ARPG? And like I pointed out upthread, does this mean any game with a To Hit stat and some story is an RPG? So World of Warcraft, Company of Heroes, Diablo 1&2, FTL Faster than Light, those are more RPG than Dragon Age is?

 

I just think gating genres by emphasis on story is far less complex and prone to the ''if I don't like it it's not an RPG'' syndrome you accurately describe. People will find all sorts of gameplay related nitpicks to say that X game is not a True RPGtm and thus sucks, and the Action RPG monicker is often used to that end too (not by you, in general I mean). This thread is proof enough of that.

[Lebanese Dude]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but Baldur's Gate, KotOR, DA:O, DA 2, NWN. These are literally the games that BioWare has been known for and built their reputation on, none of them are Action RPGs like DA:I is, despite being squad-based.

Let alone RPGs like Ultima, Darklands, PS:T, Wizardry, M&M, IWD, Drakensang, or Divinity: Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity and Shadowrun Returns for some modern examples. Etc etc etc.
 

It's still an action RPG for the reasons listed. It plays somewhere in-between Diablo and an MMO. Action RPG territory for me. It's just easy to rattle off games like Deus Ex, Fallout and Skyrim because everyone knows them.
 

I didn't say there weren't reasons for it, you're probably right. But it is what it is. And what it is, is an Action RPG. It doesn't make it a lesser game, I don't know why people feel like it does. I don't consider JRPGs to be 'lesser' RPGs for example, it's just what they are.
 

Lol okay well if that's how you feel, then I won't try and change your opinion.

 

You continue to categorize DA as an action RPG with the only reason cited being some twitch gameplay that's a result of a different health system.

 

What's entirely funny is that I even told you that the twitch gameplay is only limited to tanks. Unless you're playing on Nightmare where micromanagement is required, or unless you're playing one yourself, it's just as automatic as tanking in any previous game. No twitching necessary. Having some movement abilities for damage-dealers makes it an action RPG? Are you going to tell me that a requirement of traditional RPGs is being immobile?

 

Wouldn't backstabbing then be considered "action" since it requires re positioning behind the target? What about healing? Don't you "react" to low health by healing? Not all RPGs have tactics. Don't you react then? 

 

Where's the line? When do you stop being a "true" RPG and start being an action RPG?

 

What the hell is an MMO combat anyway? They're as varied as it gets. Tera plays differently than Guild Wars which plays differently than Runescape which plays differently from WoW. 

 

And seriously...putting DA between Diablo and WoW (The MMO I assume you're referring to)?

 

It shares literally nothing with Diablo's design scheme (hack'n'slash) and DA games have always had a WoW-esque flavor in their interface design. Nothing to see here.

 

I'm simply saying that using an umbrella term to categorize DA is pointless, because it does many things differently from other games in its field.

How many RPGs are squad-based with attrition-based combat systems in a fantasy environment?
 

Literally none.
 

Whatever. Call it an action RPG. Let's start calling it a shooter while we're at it because you can roll for cover, troll AI with explosive mines, and shoot arrows.

[Ravenfeeder]

Calling it an action RPG assumes you aren't using the tactical view. It can be both action and non-action. Personally all my combats are in the tac view and I pause often. That's not 'action' to me. Plays much the same as DA:O, although the DAI camera controls are worse.

[AlanC9]

Right. One might best say that DAI can be played as an action game, not that it necessarily is one.

[AlanC9]

See, this is where I disagree. If you base the genre on gameplay, you're going to have all sorts of inconsistencies. Morrowind, Deus Ex, Icewind Dale are RPGs, while Gothic 1&2, New Vegas, DA:I are ARPG, despite that the latter games allow for far more opportunities for the player to affect their world (sans Deus Ex)? I'm not comfortable with this, it seems like a really arbitrary distinction.

I can see the usefulness of such a distinction. "Action" just means that the game has action combat. If you need to know that -- say, your reflexes are bad or you just plain hate action combat -- then this is something you want to know.

The story aspect is a separate criterion, isn't it? I wish we did have a way to distingush games on this basis, but I don't think "action" is the way to get there.

[Lilithor]

It has action (twitch) oriented gameplay and control schemes over abstract systems that prioritise character skill over player skill when it comes to determining the success of actions . Elements such as but not necessarily To-Hit percentages. That makes it an Action RPG to me. Doesn't make it a lesser game or anything. It's just an identifier. A very popular game amongst RPG enthusiasts like Bloodlines is also an Action RPG. As are games like New Vegas, the Gothic series and System Shock 2.

All of which I'd consider better than any of the Dragon Age games, including Origins, even with it's OFFICIAL "TROO" RPG status amongst certain groups. Well, maybe not Gothic 4. But still.

Something that's annoyed me since Dragon Age 2 discussion has been the conflation of genre and quality.

"I like RPGs, therefore games I like ("good games") are RPGs and games I don't like ("bad games") aren't RPGs."

It doesn't work like that.

An example. Morrowind and Daggerfall with their To-Hit type mechanics were more of a traditional RPG than Oblivion and Skyrim because those mechanics emphasised the skill of the character over the skill of the player. However, as a combat experience, removing those mechanics did a world of good. The game was improved in that sense, even if it meant more of a transition towards an Action RPG.

The idea of gating by emphasis on story seems a bit weird. Deus Ex games being more of a traditional/classic RPG than Neverwinter Nights is a concept I can't ever agree with. But Deus Ex was all about the story, whereas Neverwinter Nights was based around the engine, the game mechanics/ruleset and the Persistent World concept. The story was there, but not the main reason you bought the game.

100% Disagreement with your opinion

1000% Agreement on you definitions of RPG and Action RPG

[TevinterSupremacist]

Where's the line? When do you stop being a "true" RPG and start being an action RPG?

 

If it's impossible to be locked out of progress and become unable to continue the story due to failure in combat again and again, due to having a very bad build and bad equipment, because real time action combat is enough to overcome any challenge in difficulties other than the very hardest one, it's not a "true" RPG and it is an action RPG at best.

[AlanC9]

Hmm.... so, "true" RPGs require the player to apply skill before combat to win in combat, rather than just applying skill in combat itself? Of course, I'm using "skill" there very loosely -- if you know that 3 is greater than 2 that's generally enough skill to handle your equipment upgrades, and stats are usually just about as simple. But we need to keep it that simple if we don't want to start ruling out lots of RPGs.

This definition might actually be workable. Note that this means that Skyrim isn't an action RPG, since you really can gimp your character with a bad build and bad equipment.

Can Mass Effect 2 be won on anything but casual without buying any upgrades or spending any character points? I've heard people claim to do it, but I've never tried myself.

[Cyonan]

Hmm.... so, "true" RPGs require the player to apply skill before combat to win in combat, rather than just applying skill in combat itself? Of course, I'm using "skill" there very loosely -- if you know that 3 is greater than 2 that's generally enough skill to handle your equipment upgrades, and stats are usually just about as simple. But we need to keep it that simple if we don't want to start ruling out lots of RPGs.

This definition might actually be workable. Note that this means that Skyrim isn't an action RPG, since you really can gimp your character with a bad build and bad equipment.

Can Mass Effect 2 be won on anything but casual without buying any upgrades or spending any character points? I've heard people claim to do it, but I've never tried myself.

 

It depends on how strict you want to be about it.

 

A lot of games you can overcome having a bad build with bad equipment, but it becomes very tedious and in some cases you need to exploit something. You could beat ME2 without upgrades, but it would just feel tedious because you'd deal a lot less damage.

 

It also means WoW is a "true" RPG, because if your build/gear is not good enough you cannot down certain raid bosses and progress further.

 

and of course you can also fail at XCOM due to being bad at equipping and setting up your squad/base =P

[AlanC9]

I'm fine with calling XCOM an RPG, myself.

[katokires]

Hmm.... so, "true" RPGs require the player to apply skill before combat to win in combat, rather than just applying skill in combat itself? Of course, I'm using "skill" there very loosely -- if you know that 3 is greater than 2 that's generally enough skill to handle your equipment upgrades, and stats are usually just about as simple. But we need to keep it that simple if we don't want to start ruling out lots of RPGs.

This definition might actually be workable. Note that this means that Skyrim isn't an action RPG, since you really can gimp your character with a bad build and bad equipment.

Can Mass Effect 2 be won on anything but casual without buying any upgrades or spending any character points? I've heard people claim to do it, but I've never tried myself.

If your character building decides everything including, combat, quests and interactions with NPCs, game is RPG and is good. Arkanum makes you talk like a retarded Bioware developer if your int is too low, it should be like this in ALL RPGs. It is like that in real life, makes game more immersive, like having negative int values makes your create a game like Inquisition.

[NextGenCowboy]

I'm curious if a low Int score also determines how many times someone has to use the same lame insult in a single thread.

[blahblahblah]

Nope, human kind got rid of all intelligence standards the only thing to set apart gods of intelligence from brainless things is liking Inquisition or not.
If you like Inquisition you are not even a person, not even an animal. If you hate Inquisition you are god.

Cut that elitist BS, will you? If you hate Inquisition then fine but calling people who like the game idiots that's too idiotic and immature.

[o Ventus]

It has action (twitch) oriented gameplay and control schemes over abstract systems that prioritise character skill over player skill when it comes to determining the success of actions . Elements such as but not necessarily To-Hit percentages. That makes it an Action RPG to me. Doesn't make it a lesser game or anything. It's just an identifier. A very popular game amongst RPG enthusiasts like Bloodlines is also an Action RPG. As are games like New Vegas, the Gothic series and System Shock 2.

All of which I'd consider better than any of the Dragon Age games, including Origins, even with it's OFFICIAL "TROO" RPG status amongst certain groups. Well, maybe not Gothic 4. But still.

Something that's annoyed me since Dragon Age 2 discussion has been the conflation of genre and quality.

"I like RPGs, therefore games I like ("good games") are RPGs and games I don't like ("bad games") aren't RPGs."

It doesn't work like that.

An example. Morrowind and Daggerfall with their To-Hit type mechanics were more of a traditional RPG than Oblivion and Skyrim because those mechanics emphasised the skill of the character over the skill of the player. However, as a combat experience, removing those mechanics did a world of good. The game was improved in that sense, even if it meant more of a transition towards an Action RPG.

The idea of gating by emphasis on story seems a bit weird. Deus Ex games being more of a traditional/classic RPG than Neverwinter Nights is a concept I can't ever agree with. But Deus Ex was all about the story, whereas Neverwinter Nights was based around the engine, the game mechanics/ruleset and the Persistent World concept. The story was there, but not the main reason you bought the game.

 

You haven't played very many video games if you think that DAI's combat is twitch-based.

 

Also, "abstract systems that prioritize character skill over player skill"? How is '+1 chance to hit' or '+2 fire damage' a skill, by any stretch of the word?

[Giantdeathrobot]

I can see the usefulness of such a distinction. "Action" just means that the game has action combat. If you need to know that -- say, your reflexes are bad or you just plain hate action combat -- then this is something you want to know.

The story aspect is a separate criterion, isn't it? I wish we did have a way to distingush games on this basis, but I don't think "action" is the way to get there.

 

I guess what I don't like is the stigma that is very often associated with action-RPG. The whole ''dumbed down'' talking point because of different mechanics. Even if having action-based combat does not equate simple mechanics at all (hello Dark Souls). 

 

I mean, I wouldn't consider DA:I an ARPG anyway because even on Nightmare, so long as you use good tactics, assign the correct priorities to companon skills and build your characters decently enough, the game still mostly plays itself like most other RPG. No need for any twitch skills unless you never pause for some reason.

[StanojeZ]

Calling DA:I a twitch game is ridiculous. You have literally as much time as you want to make decisions and assign actions in combat. There is no ticking clock; you can pause combat at any time and leisurely decide what to do next.

 

Show me how you do that in Rez.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I personally reserve action-RPG for games that have the basic elements of an RPG yet put gameplay mechanics way ahead of story. Stuff like Diablo and Path of Exile, and Borderlands for instance, hell you could even add Icewind Dale 1 and 2 even if the very thought probably gave a heart attack to a few people.

This makes a lot of sense. When the original Dungeon Siege came out, it was typically classified as one of two things:

1. An action-RPG
2. A Diablo-clone

Now, Dungeon Siege didn't have twitch mechanics. Its combat was rather derisively referred to as "click-and-watch". Personally, I really liked it. Since Diablo was the gold standard of ARPGs at the time, everything was compared to it, but Dungeon Siege's only real similarity to Diablo was that is was light on plot and heavy on combat.

Dungeon Siege didn't have click-to-attack. All movement was move-to-point. There were no twitch mechanics at all, save the (possibly not intended) ability to move out of the way of some kinds of projectiles.

If Dungeon Siege was an ARPG, then I'm inclined to label IWD as one, as well.

But that means that an ARPG doesn't require twitch mechanics. That's a bit of a problem, as it leaves us without a label for games that do require twitch mechanics but are otherwise roleplaying games.

[Fast Jimmy]

This makes a lot of sense. When the original Dungeon Siege came out, it was typically classified as one of two things:

1. An action-RPG
2. A Diablo-clone

Now, Dungeon Siege didn't have twitch mechanics. Its combat was rather derisively referred to as "click-and-watch". Personally, I really liked it. Since Diablo was the gold standard of ARPGs at the time, everything was compared to it, but Dungeon Siege's only real similarity to Diablo was that is was light on plot and heavy on combat.

Dungeon Siege didn't have click-to-attack. All movement was move-to-point. There were no twitch mechanics at all, save the (possibly not intended) ability to move out of the way of some kinds of projectiles.

If Dungeon Siege was an ARPG, then I'm inclined to label IWD as one, as well.

But that means that an ARPG doesn't require twitch mechanics. That's a bit of a problem, as it leaves us without a label for games that do require twitch mechanics but are otherwise roleplaying games.

I can agree to the idea of "an ARPG focuses on combat," in theory. But where does the line get drawn on if something focuses on story or not?

I'd prefer it be based on an average clicks per minute count or something. How many times am I banging on a mouse or keyboard when I'm in combat or just walking around? Do I need to pause to give myself a break from all the click/banging? Then I'd argue it is an action game.

By that metric, DA:I would fail, as it requires hitting the keyboard to change movement direction all the time, it requires hitting the attack button all the time, it requires clicks to pick up each individual item... it requires a lot of action on the part of the player on a regular basis.

[Sylvius the Mad]

By that metric, DA:I would fail, as it requires hitting the keyboard to change movement direction all the time, it requires hitting the attack button all the time, it requires clicks to pick up each individual item... it requires a lot of action on the part of the player on a regular basis.

Two of those things cease to be true in the Tac Cam.

[AlanC9]

By that metric, DA:I would fail, as it requires hitting the keyboard to change movement direction all the time, it requires hitting the attack button all the time, it requires clicks to pick up each individual item... it requires a lot of action on the part of the player on a regular basis.

In addition to what Sylvius said, is "fail" the right way to phrase that? Surely DAI passes the criterion for being an ARPG. Or rather, would pass if the Tac Cam didn't exist.

[Fast Jimmy]

In addition to what Sylvius said, is "fail" the right way to phrase that? Surely DAI passes the criterion for being an ARPG. Or rather, would pass if the Tac Cam didn't exist.

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.

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.