I want more turnbased rpgs :(.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.
Turn based gameplay can't appeal to today's short attention span gamer. They want action, even if it degrades the RPG experience to naught.Vandalvideo
I know that I'm going to get flamed for this, but this is why FPS games are so popular.
No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.jg4xchamp
I think that turn based RPG's make combat better, and deeper. It actually gives you a reason to equip that resist fire braclet, because there is a very small chance of dodging the fire attack when it comes at you. Where as in a game like oblivion all you have to do is move two feet to the right or left.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.ff7cloudking
I think that turn based RPG's make combat better, and deeper. It actually gives you a reason to equip that resist fire braclet, because there is a very small chance of dodging the fire attack when it comes at you. Where as in a game like oblivion all you have to do is move two feet to the right or left.
But Oblivion is more practical in design(something I would like with combat)...but once again Oblivion sucked.I don't mind turn based Strategy RPGs like Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics. In those games turn based is fun and addicting.
But with Full on RPGs like the main JRPGs ,or WRPG, or any RPG.
I would like combat to be right up there with the top action games, but still have the depth of an RPG.
YOu can always create different add ons to characters that do different effects. To me it just comes out as Devs not trying hard enough. Square tried with FF XII....I will give them that. But that game was not only hurt by bad combat(good try, just it still sucked) but also a terrible story ,and easily the worst characters in any Final Fantasy.
No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.jg4xchamp
This makes even less sense when you include this.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
I don't care for depth when the combat is simpliticKez1984
That makes absolutely no sense
Meaning when there is alot of depth to the combat, but it is simple controls or still easy.As in the depth is there just to so the dev can say "Our game is deep"
DMC for instance is a deep action game(not as deep as NG) but the AI never challanges you enough to really use all that depth.
RPGs like Mass Effect the Witcher aren't shallow by any means, they are actually pretty deep compared to the more action oriented games. But the combat systems are actually simple(such as point and click combat in The Witcher)
That is what I mean....my wording just sucked.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.Kez1984
This makes even less sense when you include this.
I don't see why a game can't have all the speed, flash, and precision of the more traditional Action gamesand still add in the depth you see from an RPG and not turn it into some kind of borefest combat.
Ala Oblivion. It tries to have more action combat, with the depth of an RPG but bethesda's execution on each of those areas was terrible.
[QUOTE="Kez1984"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.jg4xchamp
This makes even less sense when you include this.
I don't see why a game can't have all the speed, flash, and precision of the more traditional Action gamesand still add in the depth you see from an RPG and not turn it into some kind of borefest combat.
Ala Oblivion. It tries to have more action combat, with the depth of an RPG but bethesda's execution on each of those areas was terrible.
Ed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQMBIRipp5A
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo/index.html?tag=result;title;2
?
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Kez1984"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.Kez1984
This makes even less sense when you include this.
I don't see why a game can't have all the speed, flash, and precision of the more traditional Action gamesand still add in the depth you see from an RPG and not turn it into some kind of borefest combat.
Ala Oblivion. It tries to have more action combat, with the depth of an RPG but bethesda's execution on each of those areas was terrible.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo/index.html?tag=result;title;2
?
which is why i will gladly be buying DIable 3....im just saying more RPGs could do that.THis gen
or more often....because even Diablo's combat could get better...
Turn based gameplay can't appeal to today's short attention span gamer. They want action, even if it degrades the RPG experience to naught.Vandalvideo
I disagree. The strong point of RPGs has never been the slow paced "I can spend 6 hours making one move" combat, its the stories that draw you in and characters you connect to. Until other genres start adding this, that will remain the one thing that sets RPGs apart from other genres. Well, thats why I play RPGs at least. Making combat realtime doesn't have any affect on the story or me being able to connect to the characters.
I do think turn based RPGs need a kick in the pants though. I think they all should have timers. You can literally spend weeks making a move as long as your power doesn't cut off. I think you remove the strategy when you give the player infinite time to make a move. Well, I shouldn't say remove the strategy, but you negate it. I mean, if you can spend forever deciding what moves to make, are you ever really going to be in a bad situation? Not really. The only time I did in turn based games isn't when i'm against a major boss. At worst, those just take alot of turns. No, I only die when i'm in a random dungeon and i've totally under estimated the opponents and rather than fight them, I waste turns trying to steal and defend to replenish MP only to get hit with like a whole turn of insanely strong stuff I wasn't expecting the enemies in the area to know. Basically, its only a challenge if I play completely like a fool. That shouldn't be the case. In most other genres, you can die even if you play well. Turn based without a timer is too much freedom. No matter how complex of a turn based system and how many cool rules you put about the battlefield, theres never really a challenge when you can obsess for hours over one move.
Warning: semi-off-topic ranting about real time rpgs
In turn based games the combat is usually "deeper" but I think thats only because real time RPGs haven't moved where they need to be in order to be hardcore. Fighting games give you an INSANE amount of moves, all mapped to various combinations of buttons that you have to either memorize or be satisfied with never using. Its hardcore to me because from stage 1, the game expects you to know all the moves, all the counters, all the timings on a high level. There is no "training level" to walk you through it. Once you're in the game, you're expected to know everything. They need to get rid of everything but the item menu.If realt time RPGs would incorporate the idea of "no menues during battles" and you could map skills/spells to button combinations (or certain spells had their own), you could make real time combat just as deep as a turn based. Not only that, but you could really increase the speed without sacrificing strategy or making it a button masher (like too many real time rpgs end up as). You'd have to know all of your spells and know when to use them properly and the controller moves to pull it all off. At the end of the day, it'd be an RPG with combat eerily similar to a 3D fighting game but with the complexity of something like Guilty Gear where you have all sorts of counters, cancels, blocks, ways of moving that trigger new attacks, etc.
I think Mass Effect is an excellent move towards making a game that embodies everything you expect from an RPG, but really tried to push combat towards other genres, yet still keep the essence of RPG combat. I've only played the demo to Tales of Vesperia for a short amount of time, but I think its a positive step for real time jrpgs. You don't control all the characters directly, but the combat is still fun. If they pull it off right, I think it can open some doors. If you basically only control one character and you switch around, your team mates can all be engaged in some insane fights against opponents and... ehh i'm really ranting now and going off topic. I wish we had a "game ideas" board. But anyways, yeah umm. Looking at the name of the thread i'm not even how I got here, but yeah the more turn based rpgs the better. Even mediocre rpgs usually pull me into the story and get me attached to a few characters way more than most genres do. We need more of that whether turn based or real time.
I want more RPGs in general. gamefreakomega
I want proper RPG's like Baldur's Gate. Fable and Oblivion were awfull games that got over-merited praise.
Thankfully Dragon Age is being built for the pc ground up, even if it gets ported we wont have a console streamlined game.
I disagree. The strong point of RPGs has never been the slow paced "I can spend 6 hours making one move" combat, its the stories that draw you in and characters you connect to. Until other genres start adding this, that will remain the one thing that sets RPGs apart from other genres. Well, thats why I play RPGs at least. Making combat realtime doesn't have any affect on the story or me being able to connect to the characters. I do think turn based RPGs need a kick in the pants though. I think they all should have timers. You can literally spend weeks making a move as long as your power doesn't cut off. I think you remove the strategy when you give the player infinite time to make a move. Well, I shouldn't say remove the strategy, but you negate it. I mean, if you can spend forever deciding what moves to make, are you ever really going to be in a bad situation? Not really. The only time I did in turn based games isn't when i'm against a major boss. At worst, those just take alot of turns. No, I only die when i'm in a random dungeon and i've totally under estimated the opponents and rather than fight them, I waste turns trying to steal and defend to replenish MP only to get hit with like a whole turn of insanely strong stuff I wasn't expecting the enemies in the area to know. Basically, its only a challenge if I play completely like a fool. That shouldn't be the case. In most other genres, you can die even if you play well. Turn based without a timer is too much freedom. No matter how complex of a turn based system and how many cool rules you put about the battlefield, theres never really a challenge when you can obsess for hours over one move. Senor_KamiRole playing games are about a number of different things, and the story isn't the only one. I've played a fairly large ammount of role playing games, and while story takes center role, it providing an indepth experience is right up there with story. Once you start making role playing games more accesible and more akin to action games that become less of RPGs and more of Action-Adventure titles. Theres a finite line that divides these two genres, and that is the sheer complexity and depth of a RPG.
[QUOTE="Kez1984"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Kez1984"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]No...god no
IT is time RPGS stopped sucking at combat. and yes this includes WRPG/MMOs as well
I don't care for depth when the combat is simplitic, point and click, repetitive, or turnbased.
Depth doesn't save bad combat.
I mean mass effect atleast had shooting mechanics which could have finally given me an action RPG with fun combat....but no the shooting sucks
Too Human combat is deep, and offers a nice blend of DMC and Diablo....and then the controls being wierd and the weapons lacking umph hurt that aspect(although I do think it is probably one of the best combats in any RPG)
I know Molyneux is working on combat as something special in Fable 2...but I have no faith in that either.
RPGs have learned to tell fun stories, or give many choices.
Be lenghty adventures
offer some of the best single player gaming experiences out there....But since the dawn of there damn existance they sucked at combat, they still suck at combat...and I will put money on RPG devs of all kind sucking at combat for a long, long time.
Is it to much to ask for the combat to have the RPG depth, but also the flash and fun factor of the action/shooter/etc games.jg4xchamp
This makes even less sense when you include this.
I don't see why a game can't have all the speed, flash, and precision of the more traditional Action gamesand still add in the depth you see from an RPG and not turn it into some kind of borefest combat.
Ala Oblivion. It tries to have more action combat, with the depth of an RPG but bethesda's execution on each of those areas was terrible.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo/index.html?tag=result;title;2
?
which is why i will gladly be buying DIable 3....im just saying more RPGs could do that.THis gen
or more often....because even Diablo's combat could get better...
This gen of RPG's sucked for the most part imo. Even on the pc, the only decent rpg's that come to mind is Mask Of The Betrayer and Mass Effect. (Waiting for Witcher Enhanced before playing)
My only beef with Witcher is the grind....my god the game knows how to drag things.
And agreed the RPGs this gen...wether it is western, japanese, or MMO have been quite dissappointing.
But Dragon Age comes out in February
and CHampions Online to relive the glory of City of Heroes :)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment