The Last Action Gamer (Dragon Age 2 related, first post edited)

[Ace of Spades]

Dragon Age II is still an RPG. It's just not a boring point and click Diablo style RPG, anymore. When it comes to gameplay, Western RPGs are better now that they're more action oriented.
Dragon Age II didn't change its genre. It just upgraded its gameplay to current generation.
Yes, these statements will probably piss some people off, but I'm not trolling. I honestly believe this.

I was going to post on this thread, but I think you've said exactly what I was planning to.

 

[SageRuffin]

(NOTE: In the below post I am purely talking about combat mechanics since they're the topic at hand).

Is that really such a bad thing in this day and age?

No, but the thing is, action games are made all the time,they aren't a popluar as FPS's true but we still get plenty of Fighting games, Beat em ups and all the other action heavy games. RPGs on the other hand are lying dead in the dust, Bioware's other main franchise is a cover based Third Person Shooter, Alpha Protocol was a mess of twitch mechanics and even the Fallout series has been reincarnated as a dodgy FPS. So sure nobody is saying that action games are bad but surely you can understand why RPG fans aren't happy when another franchise becomes more action-orientated?

Good points. But even then, you gotta admit that saying that something that happens to be action-oriented being for no one but unintelligible fuckheads is a little extreme, don't you think?

What's with all the complaints of "no autoattack" in DA2? Just click an enemy once and your character continues attacking him (hit quickkeys for spells/abilities, obviously). It's not that different from DA:O.

The main difference is that it's a bit more fast paced, so you might not be able to position that cone of cold the way you want it. Also, it's way too easy. But if Bioware makes DA3's combat a bit harder while maintaining the same combat system, I'd love it. What I'd really like to see is a general reduction of action and more investigative/thinking related sidequests, like KOTOR or BG2.

DA2 has some major flaws (repeat dungeons, no character interaction, crappy ending), but combat really isn't one of them.

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I think you missed what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the combat in DA2 per se, but rather how some look down on the rest of us who prefer games that are action-oriented, DA2 being the most recent example.

 

[SageRuffin]

I don't mind action games, but i like my party based rpgs to be tactical like Baldurs Gate.

They do require more thought, like a game of chess, say.

I could tolerate DAO ( though it doesn't compare to Baldurs )

I knew way before DA2 even came out that it wasn't the game for me.

But ppl like me are def in the minority, so i'll stick with the old school rpgs, thank you.

And that's fine with me. But answer me this: those of us that prefer action games and their ilk, how do you look at them? Fellow gamers albeit with different tastes, or teenage jackasses with self-diagnosed ADD who wouldn't know a good game if it knocked their teeth out?

People complain because dragon age was supposed to be a reboot of the tactical and old school RPG methodology.

Quite simply, the game shouldn't BE an action RPG. If you want an action RPG, then you can play several of the dozen that release every year.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that there seems to be a sudden influx of people who look down those of us who prefer action-style gameplay. DA2 was just the best and immediate example that came to mind.

 

[CoL0sS]

My only problem with Dragon Age 2 was the amount of work that went into it, and by that I mean the lack of it. Game just felt inadequate in most of the fields, and it desperately needed some variety. It was rushed piece of shit that somehow managed to be fun (well fun enough that I put 50hrs into it) and Bioware should be congratulated for that at least.

 

[Weaver]

I don't mind action games, but i like my party based rpgs to be tactical like Baldurs Gate.

They do require more thought, like a game of chess, say.

I could tolerate DAO ( though it doesn't compare to Baldurs )

I knew way before DA2 even came out that it wasn't the game for me.

But ppl like me are def in the minority, so i'll stick with the old school rpgs, thank you.

And that's fine with me. But answer me this: those of us that prefer action games and their ilk, how do you look at them? Fellow gamers albeit with different tastes, or teenage jackasses with self-diagnosed ADD who wouldn't know a good game if it knocked their teeth out?

People complain because dragon age was supposed to be a reboot of the tactical and old school RPG methodology.

Quite simply, the game shouldn't BE an action RPG. If you want an action RPG, then you can play several of the dozen that release every year.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that there seems to be a sudden influx of people who look down those of us who prefer action-style gameplay. DA2 was just the best and immediate example that came to mind.

Ah, I see. I think this stigma generally started with games like Call of Duty 4 and the massive casual fanbase it picked up.

I personally love action games, I don't hate anyone who plays them and they can require a VERY considerable amount of skill and timing. A well balanced and made fighter has an amazing amount of complexity to it. Likewise something like, say, Bayonetta requires absolute percision timing and mastery of your control input, as well as a full undersatnding of the games combat mechanisms.

In short, a good action game will take practice, memorization and a very good understanding of the game. I see nothing wrong with this

 

[Axolotl]

(NOTE: In the below post I am purely talking about combat mechanics since they're the topic at hand).

Is that really such a bad thing in this day and age?

No, but the thing is, action games are made all the time,they aren't a popluar as FPS's true but we still get plenty of Fighting games, Beat em ups and all the other action heavy games. RPGs on the other hand are lying dead in the dust, Bioware's other main franchise is a cover based Third Person Shooter, Alpha Protocol was a mess of twitch mechanics and even the Fallout series has been reincarnated as a dodgy FPS. So sure nobody is saying that action games are bad but surely you can understand why RPG fans aren't happy when another franchise becomes more action-orientated?

Good points. But even then, you gotta admit that saying that something that happens to be action-oriented being for no one but unintelligible fuckheads is a little extreme, don't you think?

It is extreme (and somewhat incorrect) but it is understandable. 20 years ago great RPGs were released all the time, 10 years ago less were coming out but the ones that were made had amazingly deep and complex game play. Now? The best things a hardcore cRPG fan has to look forward too are indie titles, grapihcs mods and the opccasional jRPG. It's just not a good situation and any step that takes the genre even futher away is something they're going to fight as much as they can.

 

[dyre]

What's with all the complaints of "no autoattack" in DA2? Just click an enemy once and your character continues attacking him (hit quickkeys for spells/abilities, obviously). It's not that different from DA:O.

The main difference is that it's a bit more fast paced, so you might not be able to position that cone of cold the way you want it. Also, it's way too easy. But if Bioware makes DA3's combat a bit harder while maintaining the same combat system, I'd love it. What I'd really like to see is a general reduction of action and more investigative/thinking related sidequests, like KOTOR or BG2.

DA2 has some major flaws (repeat dungeons, no character interaction, crappy ending), but combat really isn't one of them.

I may be jumping to conclusions, but I think you missed what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the combat in DA2 per se, but rather how some look down on the rest of us who prefer games that are action-oriented, DA2 being the most recent example.

I know what you were saying...I was just sortof going off on a tangent

 

[darth.pixie]

It wasn't meant to be an action game...it's an RPG. It's been a while since a good one's been done, but generally that means getting away with as little combat as possible if you want to.

They completely tore into the use of out of combat feats and skills and instead added a random encounter every 5 minutes.

If this would have been your average wannabe Diablo, no one would have said anything. When it claims to be the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate, you bet people are going to get pissed.

And yes it's a bad thing for those of us who actually want our tactical games. It's just different tastes. I won't even tell how many hours I poured into growing my Baldur character into the broken uber god it was and I enjoyed it. There are some of us who like doing the complicated stuff like 3.5 edition of D&D or 3rd edition or 1st edition. Not the 4th. It's the same thing.

I also enjoy action games...when I want to play an action game. DA2 just stretched itself too thin and it ended up not being an RPG...not being proper action...it was just a "meh" on most levels.

 

[Continuity]

Western RPGs are better now that they're more action oriented.

Just keep saying that and one of these days you'll be stoned to death with D20

 

[Kaanyr Vhok]

No, I haven't, and I understand how that can be a deciding factor in whether or not one would find the combat in DAO as visceral and bone-crunching as the back summary explained.

http://www.amazon.com/Interplay-Baldurs-Gate-Compilation-Pc/dp/B000PSRN6Q
Play that then tell me what you think. Action games and strategy games are just alike. One is just slower than the other. A good action game requires just as much if not more thought. So as someone who is 35 years old and has played everything I dont look down at action gamers. I am one. I just got down in a few games of NBA 2k11 online. Just because things are moving fast doesnt mean it has to be a button masher to keep pace. Its like the Blues and Rock and Roll. Action games are just faster in the same way that Rock and Roll is faster however great Blues beats shitty Rock and Roll any day.

Bioware was much better with the harmonica. If you compare BG to DA:O and Mass Effect it is the musician that went pop and lost a lot of what made them.

Like I said in the opening, the game isn't without it's problems. I'd say it plays like a weird mix of Origins, Jade Empire, and Dynasty Warriors. Best believe, when I first played the game I thought it was odd that I couldn't dash, dodge, or even block. But for what it is, I like it.

Its not odd they just arent good at it. A good action game would have dodging, blocking, by you and who or whatever you fight.

 

[SageRuffin]

Snippage

You completely missed my point. I'm not talking about how there are or should be more action-RPGs. I'm talking how some of us who prefer action-RPGs are looked down upon and lumped together with punk-ass juvenile Blops fanboys.

So no, not really.

 

[Wolfram23]

Yeah I agree with the OP. Played DA:O on PS3 and the combat was terrible.

However I'm playing DA2 on PC and it has auto attack so... yeah. But the combat is significantly better, anyway.

 

[DustyDrB]

Maybe it's because I played as an archer, but Dragon Age 2 plays nothing like an action game to me. I was pressing buttons quite a bit, but I was much more conscious of what attacks I wanted/needed to use in certain situations than I ever am playing God of War, Bayonetta, or anything like that (games which are very fun in their own ways).

The change in combat may be a step towards action games, but it's just a step.

So on the continuum from Origins combat to Action combat, it's like....

Action|------------------------X----|Origins

Anyway, call the game what you will. I enjoyed it no matter what descriptors you put on it.

And yes, people have been making asses of themselves by looking down on those who enjoy Dragon Age 2's style. Try keeping your rage focused on the developer instead of treating the rest of us who love the game like half-wits.

 

[SageRuffin]

Do you know why we're pissed about Dragon Age's changes? Because it's supposed to be a FUCKING RPG. If I want to play an action game I'll go play an action game like Devil may cry, most shooters, darksiders, beat hazard, shmups, etc. If I want to play an RPG I want to play an RPG not an action game. With that out of the way DA2's story is bad, the combat boring, and the characters not that interesting. (though the same's true for DA:O ME and ME2)

And here is another person misinterpreting what I wrote. It's all good, I'm flexible.

You don't like DA for your various reasons, and that's cool. Different strokes and all. All I'm saying is that while some, such as yourself, favor DAO style of combat, there are some, such as myself who favor that of DA2. I've noticed that the former camp has a recent tendency to look down on the latter camp, saying that the game is "dumbed down for console retards who think 2+2=cheeseburger" and that the latter camp is automatically a bunch of idiots for playing the game past the title screen.

Feel me?

 

[SageRuffin]

oh right that. well I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this but the game WAS dumbed down for the mass market, and the mass market happens to be on consoles (and that's how consolification was born). so yeah it was dumbed down and a very simple example of that is I can't change my fucking armor (the armor of my dudes I mean, but that was a way easier sentence to read) I can't change their weapons either that's blatant unambiguous dumbing down. there is no explanation for that except that it was dumbed down for the mass market, and the mass market is more or less idiots (as per Surgeon's Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law], you it's just as likely I'm pissed off that my niche hobby is being watered down with piss to appeal to the masses while leaving me out in the cold)

And you're still misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not arguing the mechanics - well, I am, but not in the same way you are.

By the way, going purely off your exact words, you can change your armor as well as you companions' weapons.

Proofreading, god, it does wonders.

I'm not talking about how the game was changed. I'm talking about those who like the changes and the ones who think the people who favor said changes are stupid based solely off that.

Now do you get what I'm saying?

 

[Gill Kaiser]

There are already too many action games. Making an action game is easier and more profitable than making a deep, lengthy RPG. Action gamers don't need any more games, whereas RPG gamers are grasping at what they can get, desperate for it not to be taken away.