Problem I find with some aciton RPG's

Such as Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity, is I get bored of the combat long before the games finished. This wasn't the case with Fallout 3/New Vegas or Skyrim however, where the combat is much more action then RPG.  I have a feeling it's not just about the action but what ties it together, where in Fallout and Skyrim your able to explore your world with more interaction and you have a world which changes from your moral decisions. Where games like Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity your pretty much on rails going about doing the quests then engaging in hands on combat, I found it very tiresom because i could never relax into the game since it requires my twich based skills and timing, but games like Final Fantasy which is on rails and repetative, I could at least chill with it and although I may be grinding and 'uberlizing' my characters the relaxed strategic combat meant I didn't tire of doing it so early.

Did this make any sense?

Such as Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity, is I get bored of the combat long before the games finished. This wasn't the case with Fallout 3/New Vegas or Skyrim however, where the combat is much more action then RPG.  I have a feeling it's not just about the action but what ties it together, where in Fallout and Skyrim your able to explore your world with more interaction and you have a world which changes from your moral decisions. Where games like Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity your pretty much on rails going about doing the quests then engaging in hands on combat, I found it very tiresom because i could never relax into the game since it requires my twich based skills and timing, but games like Final Fantasy which is on rails and repetative, I could at least chill with it and although I may be grinding and 'uberlizing' my characters the relaxed strategic combat meant I didn't tire of doing it so early.

Did this make any sense?

Evil_Saluki

I've never enjoyed action rpgs, especialy action jrpgs.

And that's alright, it;s why they have differentiations in gameplay, different strokes for diffrent folks.

[QUOTE="Evil_Saluki"]

Such as Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity, is I get bored of the combat long before the games finished. This wasn't the case with Fallout 3/New Vegas or Skyrim however, where the combat is much more action then RPG.  I have a feeling it's not just about the action but what ties it together, where in Fallout and Skyrim your able to explore your world with more interaction and you have a world which changes from your moral decisions. Where games like Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity your pretty much on rails going about doing the quests then engaging in hands on combat, I found it very tiresom because i could never relax into the game since it requires my twich based skills and timing, but games like Final Fantasy which is on rails and repetative, I could at least chill with it and although I may be grinding and 'uberlizing' my characters the relaxed strategic combat meant I didn't tire of doing it so early.

Did this make any sense?

Black_Knight_00

No I got to the point where you can turn into a dragon which was suppose to be the games pitch, then after a couple hours more gameplay i threw it away. Was annoyed it was being recommended to me. The character animaitons when they were talking were way over the top, worse then Captain Scarlet puppets.

The point i was trying to make with this thread, was that action RPG seems like a difficult fusion genre to make and a lot of games seem to get it wrong, it takes some serious AAA backing to make something of it.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Evil_Saluki"]

Such as Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity, is I get bored of the combat long before the games finished. This wasn't the case with Fallout 3/New Vegas or Skyrim however, where the combat is much more action then RPG.  I have a feeling it's not just about the action but what ties it together, where in Fallout and Skyrim your able to explore your world with more interaction and you have a world which changes from your moral decisions. Where games like Kingdoms of Amalur and Divinity your pretty much on rails going about doing the quests then engaging in hands on combat, I found it very tiresom because i could never relax into the game since it requires my twich based skills and timing, but games like Final Fantasy which is on rails and repetative, I could at least chill with it and although I may be grinding and 'uberlizing' my characters the relaxed strategic combat meant I didn't tire of doing it so early.

Did this make any sense?

Evil_Saluki

No I got to the point where you can turn into a dragon which was suppose to be the games pitch, then after a couple hours more gameplay i threw it away. Was annoyed it was being recommended to me. The character animaitons when they were talking were way over the top, worse then Captain Scarlet puppets.

The point i was trying to make with this thread, was that action RPG seems like a difficult fusion genre to make and a lot of games seem to get it wrong, it takes some serious AAA backing to make something of it.

You are gonna need more examples then KoA and Divinity cause those were 2 very flawed games. I managed to beat KoA and the problem it had was life less characters and the enemies were way to easy. I can see how you could get bored with that game because of the low difficulty.

However, look at an action RPG like Dragon's Dogma. Flawed as well, tedious travel system and not enough unique weapons to name a few. But the combat was so damn good, it was a joy to play.

You are gonna need more examples then KoA and Divinity cause those were 2 very flawed games. I managed to beat KoA and the problem it had was life less characters and the enemies were way to easy. I can see how you could get bored with that game because of the low difficulty.

However, look at an action RPG like Dragon's Dogma. Flawed as well, tedious travel system and not enough unique weapons to name a few. But the combat was so damn good, it was a joy to play.

Diablo-B

I found Deagon's Dogma combat to be boring at not good. I would rate it as one of the worse I seen in a RPG.

i see it more as a matter of intent.

combat in the elder scrolls is a result of not wanting to take the player out of the world. bethesda makes these big fantasy worlds as a context and doesn't want to break it. they would rather appeal to the fantasy than the mechanical tropes of whatever genre tags get stuck on it. if the combat doesn't grab you, they hope that the world will.

the combat in kingdoms of amalur is meant to be comparable to devil may cry or ninja gaiden on top of the expectations that come with contemporary rpg's. it's really hanging its hat on the combat rather than the world. the thing is, combat in specialized games like DMC and NG has the benefit of unfolding over a shorter amount of time. they can be paced so that the player is always picking up new additions and quirks to the mechanics. however, that simply isn't going to be done as well over the dozens and dozens of hours KoA is meant to last.

the action rpg's that i tend to enjoy the most are the ones that build on the context.

i see it more as a matter of intent.

combat in the elder scrolls is a result of not wanting to take the player out of the world. bethesda makes these big fantasy worlds as a context and doesn't want to break it. they would rather appeal to the fantasy than the mechanical tropes of whatever genre tags get stuck on it. if the combat doesn't grab you, they hope that the world will.

the combat in kingdoms of amalur is meant to be comparable to devil may cry or ninja gaiden on top of the expectations that come with contemporary rpg's. it's really hanging its hat on the combat rather than the world. the thing is, combat in specialized games like DMC and NG has the benefit of unfolding over a shorter amount of time. they can be paced so that the player is always picking up new additions and quirks to the mechanics. however, that simply isn't going to be done as well over the dozens and dozens of hours KoA is meant to last.

the action rpg's that i tend to enjoy the most are the ones that build on the context.

LoG-Sacrament

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

Depends on the game.  some ARPGs are great, others aren't.  If done right, I enjoy them.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i see it more as a matter of intent.

combat in the elder scrolls is a result of not wanting to take the player out of the world. bethesda makes these big fantasy worlds as a context and doesn't want to break it. they would rather appeal to the fantasy than the mechanical tropes of whatever genre tags get stuck on it. if the combat doesn't grab you, they hope that the world will.

the combat in kingdoms of amalur is meant to be comparable to devil may cry or ninja gaiden on top of the expectations that come with contemporary rpg's. it's really hanging its hat on the combat rather than the world. the thing is, combat in specialized games like DMC and NG has the benefit of unfolding over a shorter amount of time. they can be paced so that the player is always picking up new additions and quirks to the mechanics. however, that simply isn't going to be done as well over the dozens and dozens of hours KoA is meant to last.

the action rpg's that i tend to enjoy the most are the ones that build on the context.

wiouds

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i see it more as a matter of intent.

combat in the elder scrolls is a result of not wanting to take the player out of the world. bethesda makes these big fantasy worlds as a context and doesn't want to break it. they would rather appeal to the fantasy than the mechanical tropes of whatever genre tags get stuck on it. if the combat doesn't grab you, they hope that the world will.

the combat in kingdoms of amalur is meant to be comparable to devil may cry or ninja gaiden on top of the expectations that come with contemporary rpg's. it's really hanging its hat on the combat rather than the world. the thing is, combat in specialized games like DMC and NG has the benefit of unfolding over a shorter amount of time. they can be paced so that the player is always picking up new additions and quirks to the mechanics. however, that simply isn't going to be done as well over the dozens and dozens of hours KoA is meant to last.

the action rpg's that i tend to enjoy the most are the ones that build on the context.

wiouds

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

the elder scrolls is absolutely about playing the role you created. the role is just something you can react to based on the world. that is why the games are so flexible. they give you the option to be a ridiculous role like necromancing hand-to-hand, heavy armor archer, or whatever. they aim to make those actual roles beyond fighting sty|es by building on the lore in the gameplay (although admittedly, the success here is sometimes arguable).

as for this little gem: "In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend." i'll leave this for you.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i see it more as a matter of intent.

combat in the elder scrolls is a result of not wanting to take the player out of the world. bethesda makes these big fantasy worlds as a context and doesn't want to break it. they would rather appeal to the fantasy than the mechanical tropes of whatever genre tags get stuck on it. if the combat doesn't grab you, they hope that the world will.

the combat in kingdoms of amalur is meant to be comparable to devil may cry or ninja gaiden on top of the expectations that come with contemporary rpg's. it's really hanging its hat on the combat rather than the world. the thing is, combat in specialized games like DMC and NG has the benefit of unfolding over a shorter amount of time. they can be paced so that the player is always picking up new additions and quirks to the mechanics. however, that simply isn't going to be done as well over the dozens and dozens of hours KoA is meant to last.

the action rpg's that i tend to enjoy the most are the ones that build on the context.

Lulekani

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

Get out of this thread, Lukelani. You are in the minority here.  

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i see it more as a matter of intent.

combat in the elder scrolls is a result of not wanting to take the player out of the world. bethesda makes these big fantasy worlds as a context and doesn't want to break it. they would rather appeal to the fantasy than the mechanical tropes of whatever genre tags get stuck on it. if the combat doesn't grab you, they hope that the world will.

the combat in kingdoms of amalur is meant to be comparable to devil may cry or ninja gaiden on top of the expectations that come with contemporary rpg's. it's really hanging its hat on the combat rather than the world. the thing is, combat in specialized games like DMC and NG has the benefit of unfolding over a shorter amount of time. they can be paced so that the player is always picking up new additions and quirks to the mechanics. however, that simply isn't going to be done as well over the dozens and dozens of hours KoA is meant to last.

the action rpg's that i tend to enjoy the most are the ones that build on the context.

LoG-Sacrament

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

the elder scrolls is absolutely about playing the role you created. the role is just something you can react to based on the world. that is why the games are so flexible. they give you the option to be a ridiculous role like necromancing hand-to-hand, heavy armor archer, or whatever. they aim to make those actual roles beyond fighting sty|es by building on the lore in the gameplay (although admittedly, the success here is sometimes arguable).

as for this little gem: "In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend." i'll leave this for you.

In the end there is no different between being an archer and a wizard in the elder scroll games since the enemies. There is no real impact of what you do. At the end you just putting on different makeup and the enemies still react the same. You are just pretending that your character have a role. There is no meat behind it. It just the illusion. There no deep game play behind it.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

wiouds

the elder scrolls is absolutely about playing the role you created. the role is just something you can react to based on the world. that is why the games are so flexible. they give you the option to be a ridiculous role like necromancing hand-to-hand, heavy armor archer, or whatever. they aim to make those actual roles beyond fighting sty|es by building on the lore in the gameplay (although admittedly, the success here is sometimes arguable).

as for this little gem: "In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend." i'll leave this for you.

In the end there is no different between being an archer and a wizard in the elder scroll games since the enemies. There is no real impact of what you do. At the end you just putting on different makeup and the enemies still react the same. You are just pretending that your character have a role. There is no meat behind it. It just the illusion. There no deep game play behind it.

[QUOTE="Lulekani"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

turtlethetaffer

Get out of this thread, Lukelani. You are in the minority here.  

Because great mechanics does not equal great gameplay.

Gameplay is a combination of the mechanics, the level/encounter design, the pacing, the enemies themselves, the depth, the difficulty, and the balance all working in harmony. Gameplay itself is the game, it is the game design. The problem with a lot of action rpgs(or really action games in general some times) is that they work so hard on the mechanics side sometimes they forget the other stuff around it.

That and RPGs are notorious for padding things out with filler because the RPG fanbase consists of people that go "I need x amount of hours for it to even be considered worth my time".

Because great mechanics does not equal great gameplay.

Gameplay is a combination of the mechanics, the level/encounter design, the pacing, the enemies themselves, the depth, the difficulty, and the balance all working in harmony. Gameplay itself is the game, it is the game design. The problem with a lot of action rpgs(or really action games in general some times) is that they work so hard on the mechanics side sometimes they forget the other stuff around it.

That and RPGs are notorious for padding things out with filler because the RPG fanbase consists of people that go "I need x amount of hours for it to even be considered worth my time".

jg4xchamp

Because great mechanics does not equal great gameplay.

Gameplay is a combination of the mechanics, the level/encounter design, the pacing, the enemies themselves, the depth, the difficulty, and the balance all working in harmony. Gameplay itself is the game, it is the game design. The problem with a lot of action rpgs(or really action games in general some times) is that they work so hard on the mechanics side sometimes they forget the other stuff around it.

That and RPGs are notorious for padding things out with filler because the RPG fanbase consists of people that go "I need x amount of hours for it to even be considered worth my time".

jg4xchamp

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

I enjoy RPG where you create the combat role for the character(s) and the game make those roles important in combat.

The problem I have with elder scrolls and Kingdom of Amalur is that there is very little to the combat. They are more about fighting the enemies the way you want to and not about fighting with the role you created. Other than the few ideals like bone enemies can only be hurt by blunt weapon, there is not much to them.They mostly just become attack it until it is dead.

In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend.

wiouds

the elder scrolls is absolutely about playing the role you created. the role is just something you can react to based on the world. that is why the games are so flexible. they give you the option to be a ridiculous role like necromancing hand-to-hand, heavy armor archer, or whatever. they aim to make those actual roles beyond fighting sty|es by building on the lore in the gameplay (although admittedly, the success here is sometimes arguable).

as for this little gem: "In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend." i'll leave this for you.

In the end there is no different between being an archer and a wizard in the elder scroll games since the enemies. There is no real impact of what you do. At the end you just putting on different makeup and the enemies still react the same. You are just pretending that your character have a role. There is no meat behind it. It just the illusion. There no deep game play behind it.

mages and archers play pretty differently.

in skyrim, fire magic does the most base damage and causes additional lingering damage to cancel health regeneration, making it ideal against anything that regenerates health. ice magic also damages stamina, making it ideal against somebody without a shield that would have to rely on power attacks. electricity damage also damages mana, making it the choice against mages. also, that's only really accounting for destruction magic. other schools have magic shields for their off hand that can completely change their approach. other schools have stuff that doesn't even apply to combat.

archers don't have AoE attacks so they can struggle if they are noticed by groups. they can do burst damage with critical hits and they are a better match for stealth. later perks with reliable paralysis can be a good counter to all melee fighters though. also, they obviously don't have the kind of elemental play that mages do.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

the elder scrolls is absolutely about playing the role you created. the role is just something you can react to based on the world. that is why the games are so flexible. they give you the option to be a ridiculous role like necromancing hand-to-hand, heavy armor archer, or whatever. they aim to make those actual roles beyond fighting sty|es by building on the lore in the gameplay (although admittedly, the success here is sometimes arguable).

as for this little gem: "In other words I want to role play in the game and not pretend." i'll leave this for you.

LoG-Sacrament

In the end there is no different between being an archer and a wizard in the elder scroll games since the enemies. There is no real impact of what you do. At the end you just putting on different makeup and the enemies still react the same. You are just pretending that your character have a role. There is no meat behind it. It just the illusion. There no deep game play behind it.

mages and archers play pretty differently.

in skyrim, fire magic does the most base damage and causes additional lingering damage to cancel health regeneration, making it ideal against anything that regenerates health. ice magic also damages stamina, making it ideal against somebody without a shield that would have to rely on power attacks. electricity damage also damages mana, making it the choice against mages. also, that's only really accounting for destruction magic. other schools have magic shields for their off hand that can completely change their approach. other schools have stuff that doesn't even apply to combat.

archers don't have AoE attacks so they can struggle if they are noticed by groups. they can do burst damage with critical hits and they are a better match for stealth. later perks with reliable paralysis can be a good counter to all melee fighters though. also, they obviously don't have the kind of elemental play that mages do.

I just release fire balls until the monster dies or release Arror until the monster dies.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

In the end there is no different between being an archer and a wizard in the elder scroll games since the enemies. There is no real impact of what you do. At the end you just putting on different makeup and the enemies still react the same. You are just pretending that your character have a role. There is no meat behind it. It just the illusion. There no deep game play behind it.

wiouds

mages and archers play pretty differently.

in skyrim, fire magic does the most base damage and causes additional lingering damage to cancel health regeneration, making it ideal against anything that regenerates health. ice magic also damages stamina, making it ideal against somebody without a shield that would have to rely on power attacks. electricity damage also damages mana, making it the choice against mages. also, that's only really accounting for destruction magic. other schools have magic shields for their off hand that can completely change their approach. other schools have stuff that doesn't even apply to combat.

archers don't have AoE attacks so they can struggle if they are noticed by groups. they can do burst damage with critical hits and they are a better match for stealth. later perks with reliable paralysis can be a good counter to all melee fighters though. also, they obviously don't have the kind of elemental play that mages do.

I just release fire balls until the monster dies or release Arror until the monster dies.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

In the end there is no different between being an archer and a wizard in the elder scroll games since the enemies. There is no real impact of what you do. At the end you just putting on different makeup and the enemies still react the same. You are just pretending that your character have a role. There is no meat behind it. It just the illusion. There no deep game play behind it.

wiouds

mages and archers play pretty differently.

in skyrim, fire magic does the most base damage and causes additional lingering damage to cancel health regeneration, making it ideal against anything that regenerates health. ice magic also damages stamina, making it ideal against somebody without a shield that would have to rely on power attacks. electricity damage also damages mana, making it the choice against mages. also, that's only really accounting for destruction magic. other schools have magic shields for their off hand that can completely change their approach. other schools have stuff that doesn't even apply to combat.

archers don't have AoE attacks so they can struggle if they are noticed by groups. they can do burst damage with critical hits and they are a better match for stealth. later perks with reliable paralysis can be a good counter to all melee fighters though. also, they obviously don't have the kind of elemental play that mages do.

I just release fire balls until the monster dies or release Arror until the monster dies.

like most games nowadays, you can also set the game to very easy and close your eyes. if you play it at least on adept (normal), you have to either do something more than fire away or have a mountain of potions (which is honestly a lame way to decide to play the game).

but i'm sure personal, unrepeatable experience will trump actual lists of the game's features.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

mages and archers play pretty differently.

in skyrim, fire magic does the most base damage and causes additional lingering damage to cancel health regeneration, making it ideal against anything that regenerates health. ice magic also damages stamina, making it ideal against somebody without a shield that would have to rely on power attacks. electricity damage also damages mana, making it the choice against mages. also, that's only really accounting for destruction magic. other schools have magic shields for their off hand that can completely change their approach. other schools have stuff that doesn't even apply to combat.

archers don't have AoE attacks so they can struggle if they are noticed by groups. they can do burst damage with critical hits and they are a better match for stealth. later perks with reliable paralysis can be a good counter to all melee fighters though. also, they obviously don't have the kind of elemental play that mages do.

LoG-Sacrament

I just release fire balls until the monster dies or release Arror until the monster dies.

like most games nowadays, you can also set the game to very easy and close your eyes. if you play it at least on adept (normal), you have to either do something more than fire away or have a mountain of potions (which is honestly a lame way to decide to play the game).

but i'm sure personal, unrepeatable experience will trump actual lists of the game's features.

I was talking about fighting on normal after I reduce the level after finding it does not adds anything.

No I got to the point where you can turn into a dragon which was suppose to be the games pitch, then after a couple hours more gameplay i threw it away. Was annoyed it was being recommended to me. The character animaitons when they were talking were way over the top, worse then Captain Scarlet puppets. The point i was trying to make with this thread, was that action RPG seems like a difficult fusion genre to make and a lot of games seem to get it wrong, it takes some serious AAA backing to make something of it.Evil_Saluki

It makes total sense. I had the same issue with Kingdoms of Amalur. It's a great game, however the combat became tedious as the game progressed. Whereas games like Skyrim, or Fallout give you substantial additional content besides simply combat.Mogzsnet