toryoom's forum posts

Avatar image for toryoom
toryoom

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 toryoom
Member since 2004 • 26 Posts

Psh! Mario doesn't have *traction* on the Wii because the idiots who designed his latest game don't understand the concept. ...I don't recall ever seeing someone trying to walk ending up running in place like Fred Flintstone for 10 seconds every single time they try to move, so whoever thought that kind of middle finger to motion physics was a good idea to include in Mario Bros. Wii needs to be beaten. Game is annoying and frustrating rather than fun in oh so many ways because of that crap! REMAKE!

Avatar image for toryoom
toryoom

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 toryoom
Member since 2004 • 26 Posts
Hi, all.
I'm not up on the available games out there as I used to be so I was wondering if anyone could garner a list of rpg or action-adventure games worth looking into that feature real-time combat. Though I respect the long-standing 'indirect combat' that a lot of pc RPG games tend to lean toward, I'm not personally a fan of it. I like my combat more visceral and directly controlled (eg: the character movement is controlled directly rather than by mouse clicks, and each swing of a character's weapon or shot of a character's gun/magic fire is controlled manually by the player ...all in real time). This, of course, limits me somewhat in what games with an "RPG-like" mechanic (eg: good non-linear story with engaging quests, interacting with NPCs, stat building, treasure hunting/selling, etc.) I have to choose from.
I know that this kind of thing has been discussed at length before, with points like "...but many RPGs offer several different options for controlling your character," and "that's not a real RPG then. What you're looking for is an action-adventure," etc. Truth is, there are quite a few 'hybrid' games out there that have just enough RPG elements in them to qualify (ala Oblivion...but hopefully with better combat mechanics and deeper story).
However, I'm not posting this to get into another one of those type of discussions (no offense to anyone or anything, I've just been there and done that plenty of times already). I'm just looking to see if anyone out there can make a proper list of these types of games that fit the above criteria in the hopes that the gaming community here at Gamespot might have a better handle on what games are available in this category than I might not know about, leading me to find some new games to try out that fit my needs in this area. I don't mind if they are first-person or third-person, so long as the combat is real-time. Nor do I mind if they are single player or MMO (though It'd be nice if there was a distinction in the list showing what games are MMO and what games are not).
Anyway, thanks in advance guys for your expertise in this area.

Avatar image for toryoom
toryoom

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 toryoom
Member since 2004 • 26 Posts
I think another dimension that needs mentioning is whether or not the game is played "solo" like Elder Scrolls, Gothic, Dark Messiah, Fable, etc. or "party-based" like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Wizardry, Might and Magic games that are not Dark Messiah, many if not most "old school" RPGs. If you only have one character to worry about controlling, real-time or, "twitch-based" as you put it, combat is a possibility while it'd be nearly impossible to effectively play say, Neverwinter Nights 2 without pausing between turns to issue commands to different party members.AlphaHumana
That's a good point. Though it could be mentioned that there are action-combat games (mostly tactical shooters) with several playable characters that solve this issue by having the rest of the party being controlled by AI most of the time, then allowing you to switch between them at will to control the other characters. ...Of course, for this to work in any type of game would require really good AI and a smooth transition structure for switching between them. That seems like it's asking to 'have it all' along the same principle that eo12601 brought out, though. But with continuing advancement in this hybrid genre (most importantly improving on depth of story and character development, of course), maybe we can hold out hopes for those sort of features in future games of this type. After all, it only takes one really breakthru game that just hits bullseye on so many levels that it inspires everyone else to follow suit, which does happen from time to time.
Avatar image for toryoom
toryoom

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 toryoom
Member since 2004 • 26 Posts
pokletu called out one of the points I was thinking about a lot when I wrote the initial post. I wonder if, had the originiators of the RPG genre had access to advanced enough technology to implement manual action-style combat in their games when the genre was first created (when the video game versions came out, obviously), whether or not they would be at a level of refinement by this day and time to better balance all elements on the points you refer to, eo12601.
Avatar image for toryoom
toryoom

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 toryoom
Member since 2004 • 26 Posts
Yeah, I agree with you that they're killing off the lore part in too many games. That was actually what I had in mind when I said that there aren't enough of these games. I didn't mean flat-out that there were not enough "twitch combat" RPG-style games in general (though I hate using the term "twitch" to describe manual combat in those type games because that word is associated more with FPS fast-paced run and gun than anything else). That thought was connected to my earlier comment about really liking the deep story and such of traditional RPGs, so the thought in the end was intended as there are not enough of these type of games that keep with the whole RPG package (including the deep history of the world and engaging story) but also use manual combat mechanics. I don't mind the lighter hybrid RPG games for those who just want a quick experience in that genre, but that doesn't mean I want the deep story-based games to die off because I like them too, when I'm in the mood or have the time to play them indepth.
Avatar image for toryoom
toryoom

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 toryoom
Member since 2004 • 26 Posts
I apologize in advance for a pretty long post, but it's tough to say what I want to say in a short summary of paragraphs. Please bear with me, and thank you. I've been thinking a lot about RPG combat mechanics lately. There are many different elements of combat in RPG-style games, with all sorts of variables in between that makes each one somewhat different from the other. But from what I can see, the two most distinctive extremes in this category would be combat that is what people call "twitch-based" (relying on manual player control for each swing/firing of the character's weapons), and combat that is essentially automated (where the player highlights which enemy he wants the character to attack and basically watches the character automatically do his thing, along with maybe telling them which spells or techniques to use in a certain order, etc). Historically, RPG video games use some kind of turn-based system for combat, based as they are on the old pen and paper board games (like D&D) from back in the day, when a die was used to determine things like level of damage inflicted or how many strikes were delivered with a given weapon, and so on. The very first RPG *video* games had combat that therefore functioned in a similar turn-based manner, primarily because they were intended to be spinoffs of those types of games, just presented on a screen instead of using a game board. However, it could be theorized that another reason for this was because the technology available in those days was more conducive to that kind of combat mechanic due to its low processor requirements, which might have influenced why the originators of the RPG video game decided to borrow that type of play mechanic from its board-game counterpart in the first place. In recent years and with great forward-strides in technology, this persistent combat mechanic has evolved into a sort of hybridized real-time/turn-based system. Most RPGs today no longer function on an actual turn by turn basis, trading that off with an automated combat system where the character attacks at automatic intervals while the player gives specific commands on exactly *how* they should attack, while the battle rages on between character and enemy in real time. Of course, there are many variances on this system (some with a little more "twitch" thrown in here and there than others), but the basic foundation of automation pulling the fight along remains. However, what has also come to light in recent years are more and more games from other genres that have incorporated many deep gameplay elements from RPGs into their own play systems, while maintaining a combat mechanic that is decidedly far and away from automated. Things like complex NPC (non-player-character) interaction, free-roaming non-linear storylines, character stat development (this is the big one), in-depth character inventory, and more, are all things that were either developed similar to or lifted outright from RPG video games. This is all very good, IMO, because it definitely makes those games more immersive, rewarding and enjoyable, but some of these games have become so similar to RPGs in every other respect but combat that it is beginning to be a common thing for people to lump them into the RPG category along with more traditional RPGs. Some effort has been made to categorize these types of RPG-esque games that feature more manual "twitch-based" combat as "action adventure" games, though this category has been used almost too broadly at times, even encompassing games that are so linear (lacking many of the above listed elements) that they qualify more as 3D platform games rather than action adventures, and yet are rarely billed as such (Tomb Raider comes to mind). This does begin to create a bit of an issue though, since, while it is true that the two most noted things that make a true RPG are story and character development, because of the evolution of action adventure games, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what is and is not an RPG by those two aspects alone. Thus, it becomes necessary to turn to one of the other more prominent differentiators between these two game types, which is combat style. Talstin (in this thread: ww*w.dark*andlight.ne*t/forums/showth*read.php?t=14170 --remove * symbols to activate), discussing the combat mechanics of an upcoming MMORPG called Dark & Light, listed how combat mechanic is a cornerstone of what defines a traditional RPG, basing his definitions on dictionary and wikipedia, which I will briefly list here: ::::QUOTE:::: role-playing game n. A game in which players assume the roles of characters and act out fantastical adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance, as by the roll of dice. MMORPG A massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game or MMORPG is a multiplayer computer role-playing game that enables thousands of players to play in an evolving virtual world at the same time over the Internet. MMORPGs are a specific type of massive(ly) multiplayer online game (MMOG). computer role-playing game Computer role-playing games (CRPGs), often shortened to simply role-playing games (RPGs), are a type of video or computer game that traditionally use gameplay elements found in paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Modern RPG games encompass a wide range of styles and types of engines and have significantly branched out. RPG gameplay elements can be found in real-time strategy games, first-person shooters, third-person shooters, and some other types such as massively multiplayer online games. However, games that are actually called just 'RPG', are usually limited to top-down perspective point-and-click and some third-person perspective types. So: 1.a) Role-playing requires acting out the adventures in the role of your characters via the aid of dice. 1.b) CRPG's are an RPG that typically use the traditional methodology of 1.a but replace the dice with an automated system of chance and offer the player the oppertunity to no longer just imaging the world, but to see it. 1.c) MMORPG's are a form of CRPG's that follow much in the same light of the CRPG with the two major changes being the evolving world and masses of players. In no step of this evolution, did the concept of acting out the adventure in the role of your character via the aid of either, dice, or mechined chance calculations stop being a part of the system. ::::ENDQUOTE:::: I am inclined to agree with this line of reasoning (though he/she did go on to say that Zelda was a form of CRPG, which strikes me as against the grain of the above line of reasoning, as Zelda seems to fall more into the category of RPG-styled action adventure, IMHO). The point is, though, that traditional RPGs seem to be defined by their combat, when all else fails to narrow down the category enough (and these days, that's kind of becoming the case). Being a person who used to classify a broad spectrum of evolved action adventure games as RPGs, I've come to accept this after all my research (I really enjoyed finding and reading the discussion in the above thread). And many long-term RPG players have very strong unyielding feelings about this point, as illustrated in the sometimes heated discussion in the above cited thread. Along those lines too is the issue that many long term RPG fans do not simply accept that there's no "twitch" in their games' combat system, but they actually strongly do not like the idea of having such a thing incorporated, save maybe on very subtle levels (like choosing the what, when and how, but without having to manually aim anything themselves). Some don't want it just as a matter of preference or because they are justifiably attached to the existing combat system as a matter of tradition, while others don't like the idea of adding too much manual-based combat control because they do not feel they have the skill to battle it out in a game where the combat is as fast-paced and "twitch-based" as an FPS game. These are all valid opinions and should be respected. There should be a place for every game category and style preference, to suit everyone's tastes. That's part of what gaming is all about. Adding to this the fact that the traditional RPG has a long history dating back to before video game versions of RPGs every came into existence, and you can see why old-skool RPGers want their opinions to be respected. But this truth applies equally for the emerging hybrid categories as well, that have adopted a great deal of in-depth gameplay from RPGs, but with a more manual-based combat mechanic. There is an ever growing fan-base for these, and I happen to be among them. While I personally respect the traditions of RPGs and have come to appreciate the validity in how they are categorized, traditional automated combat mechanics are not really part of my personal tastes (don't get me wrong, I like them ok, I just don't like them as much as manual combat games). But at the same time I LOVE everything else about RPGs, like the stat building, the free-roaming non-linear story, and character interaction, etc. I really appreciate seeing games like Oblivion that take all of these elements and roll them into an RPG-style game featuring manual rather than automated combat. It doesn't matter what camera perspective the game is in for me (doesn't have to be first-person like Oblivion), I just like this kind of character control. Not to digress too much, but I think the Elder Scrolls games have done a really nice job in balancing the two concepts --they do not have the same uncanny run-and-gun skill requirement that FPS games have (that so many RPGers are concerned with when they start thinking about manual combat in an RPG-style game), but they still give a visceral immersive gaming experience on the combat side of things, balancing manual attacking that the player controls with dependencies on various skill developments that acts as a sort of checks-and-balances system to players that might otherwise be able to beat an opponent based on realtime FPS run-and-gun skills alone. So the system forces there to still be a sense of character growth and development, no matter how good at FPS-style reflex action a player might be in real life. There may be a few edges to smooth out in this type of gameplay and I'm sure it will continue to evolve for the better, but I think overall that this is a great example of what gamers who want all the features of an RPG but with more immersive fully player-controlled combat are looking for --it's definitely not Quake or something, but it's not just Tomb Raider (or even Zelda) either. It's deeper than that, but on a more tactile level. I like the idea of more visceral immersive gaming that is just one bit closer to virtual reality. The problem comes in the categorizing of that type of game. If you lump it in with action adventure games, because of how people have sort of a throw-away broad definition for those and because of the more linear way that the majority of those games are designed, you'll find that it ends up being sat alongside the likes of Tomb Raider and such when it doesn't belong there. But to label it as an RPG of any of the pre-defined kind seems to lump it in with games that don't share the same penchant for manual combat control, which, I'm sorry, is a BIG feature that should not be overlooked as differentiating these type of games from that category. Having talked to a lot of RPG gamers, I've found that many of them are so turned-off by the idea of manual combat in an RPG setting that they tend to callously scoff at my concern in this area (sometimes misunderstanding my perspective, I think) and dismissively tell me to "go play something else since RPGs just aren't for you," or something like that. But when you look at the growing tastes for these hybrid RPG-style games with manual combat, it is an issue worth thinking about. Personally, I don't think there are enough games out there that pander to those of us with that level of taste in gaming (story/character development and interactive environment that is as deep as that of an RPG, but with manual player controlled combat). I guess maybe that is why they don't have as much representation when it comes to categorizing them, or even properly labeling them on gaming sites (look here at Gamespot, for example, and you will see that games like Fable or Oblivion seem to be randomly listed under one of the sub-RPG categories, even if, by the definitions cited previously, they may not really fit). It's something to think about, although I know some people out there don't really care, either because they're satisfied with their traditional automated RPG combat and aren't concerned with any other emerging RPG-esque manual game styles like Oblivion, or because they're the type of person that can play either/or, so they don't see a need to distinguish these types of games from traditional RPGs because of their different combat mechanic. Personally, though, because I'm the type of person that prefers these hyprid RPG-like games over automated combat, I'd really appreciate seeing a bit more attention paid to distinguishing them from the pack. Of course, I'd also like to see more of these type of games made, period, but if there's no distinguishing them from traditional RPGs, their popularity can't easily be gauged apart from them, so game manufacturers might not be able to easily tell whether lots of people are playing them because they like these style of games, or because they just like any type of RPG in general. Just some of my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for listening. (though it was not exactly feasible to request permission to quote him/her, I offer my thanks and apologies to Talstin [and wikipedia] for the research and quotes on RPG definitions)