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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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)

arragonder:
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:

arragonder:
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?

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, 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)

arragonder:
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, 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?

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.

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.

Is that why action gamers are frowned upon? Or am I reading that wrong?

This isn't just about RPGs having action-oriented elements. This is about people who happen to like action games. Sure, I can understand a bit of skepticism when a game undergoes major changes to the gameplay (ME vs ME2 for instance), but how do us who prefer action game elements become any less of a gamer just because of that?

Correction: Had to alter the wording there.

Silent Biohazard Solid:
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.

It changed its genre from a Turn-Based RPG to "Dialogue Wheel". The current generation is primarily 25-30 year olds who enjoyed the traditional RPGs and who still do.

Dragon Age 2 is shit because it has been dumbed down for the console generation.
Mechanically - apart from the waves and the dialogue wheel - it's fine.
But characterisation is hollow, setting is hollow, recycling of areas is hollow. Dialogue wheel and waves are hollow. Empty padding with no substance.
And prima-consolers are loving it.

And it's now system of combat is fucking simplistic and easy as shit.
It requires tactics and management, but unlike Origins where buffs and potions and placement all mattered, 2 just requires you to run around like a bitch while you wait for ability cool downs.

SageRuffin:

Dexter111:
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.

What exactly don't you get? There are enough Action RPGs out there to last decades and there's going to be more. Noone has anything against Hack&Slash games... in fact some of them like Diablo 2 are my favorites and I'm looking forward to Dungeon Siege III and Torchlight II a lot (especially cause of Co-Op). But if you only like Action RPGs then play them and don't get into tactical RPGs or TBS (Turn-Based-Strategy/Tactics like Fallout or King's Bounty) games and complain that they aren't action-y enough. There's few left of them anyway as I tried to spell out above and there were a lot of people that liked DA:O for what it was and are naturally pissed about DA2.

Dexter111:

SageRuffin:

Dexter111:
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.

What exactly don't you get? There are enough Action RPGs out there to last decades and there's going to be more. Noone has anything against Hack&Slash games... in fact some of them like Diablo 2 are my favorites and I'm looking forward to Dungeon Siege III and Torchlight II a lot (especially cause of Co-Op). But if you only like Action RPGs then play them and don't get into tactical RPGs or TBS (Turn-Based-Strategy/Tactics like Fallout or King's Bounty) games and complain that they aren't action-y enough. There's few left of them anyway as I tried to spell out above and there were a lot of people that liked DA:O for what it was and are naturally pissed about DA2.

And again, I'm not talking about the qualifications of an action-RPG or other sub-genre thereof. Hell, I'm not even talking about DA, I just used the games in reference to the current times and relaying my own experiences. If you enjoy the games for what they are, cool. I'm certainly not gonna try and persuade you otherwise.

What I'm saying is that there are some of us, like myself, that prefer that DA2 plays more like an action game, and as such we get labeled as idiot fuckheads by those who think of themselves as "true Dragon Age fans", whatever the hell that means.

In regards to DA itself, I said in my opening post that I can acknowledge what made the games as great as most people revere them in terms of the combat mechanics. Hell, I didn't even say Origins was bad. I simply said I didn't like the combat since it often put me to sleep (amongst other things). I merely have personal gripes that you obviously don't agree with, nothing more.

I enjoyed the actual combat itself in DA2 more than I did in Origins, however I felt that the way they changed actually encountering enemies wasn't so great. They pop up all over the place in wave after wave. You call the waves, wait a few seconds for the battle stances to cease and move about exploring as normal, only to find out that you're not exiting battle mode because a few enemies were camping in a room that you didn't bother to open the door of. The way you encountered enemies in DA2 drove me nuts, but I enjoyed it because the actual combat itself was faster and more engaging. At least, for me. I know I loved Dual Weapon Rogues with Haste from both Anders and Bethany at once. x3

I feel the need to reiterate myself. It seems the original message was lost when I was comparing Dragon Age 2 to its predecessor...

This is not a discussion about Dragon Age and how it's different. This is more a discussion about how some people like myself actually like action-oriented RPGs as well as action games by extension, but are labeled as idiots simply because we happen to have some different tastes in video games. DAO and DA2 were used as references to help illustrate my point of how one can be bored by the mechanics of one and enthralled by those of the other, and be unfairly ridiculed for doing so. Now I realize I may have done so incorrectly, and for that I apologize.

Hell, I could easily say that those who prefer turn-based or pause-and-play games are a bunch of pansy-ass high-and-mighty bookworm dorks who have the reflexes of a slug, and would probably get slaughtered if he or she were to play a relatively easy action game like TMNT (or some such) since they couldn't plan ahead. Some others may do that, but I don't. But if I did, best believe I would get some very angry statements from a few people.

Hopefully that clears a few things up now.

Silent Biohazard Solid:
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.

The problem is it's entirely opinion based. You can't really say "It's better," because to some people, it's not. I can "improve" my cheeseburger by adding Tabsco, but some people won't appreciate my "improvement" on their sandwich.

Personally, I think the DA2 flaming (on both sides) is a little ridiculous. Both sides seem to take it as a personal insult that not everyone agrees with them. I know that's basically par for the course on the internet, but come on.

People who hated it need to understand that it hit all the right buttons for some. People who loved it need to understand there are a number of legitimate complaints about it.

From my point of view, rpg people have more complained about the waves, and the reused caves, and the lack of customization (armor for companions, lack of toolsex for modding) then for the combat itself.

That's why everytime you ask why rpg people hate combat so much, they reply you with different things: they are much more pissed off about the consolization than the combat itself.

I, for example (and I am an old rpg player since Baludur's Gate, only using PC), do like more the DA2 combat system (much more creative than the usual "Storm of the Century" win in DAO), while I absolutely hate the lask of toolset for PC gamer.

Another thing why we hate so much DA2 is because of expectations: DAO was the only good rpg out there, while rts players have only to choose between 1000 titles (especially from bioware). And what worries us the most, is that the more bioware goes on, the more the game are "simplified" (for example the inventory from ME to ME2)

And even more: why do for release the frigging toolset! It would have not changed anything for the console players, but it would have been sooooo much better for the PC player! It had no downsides! (In fact that's the thing which makes me most angry... grrrr....)

SageRuffin:
I feel the need to reiterate myself. It seems the original message was lost when I was comparing Dragon Age 2 to its predecessor...

This is not a discussion about Dragon Age and how it's different. This is more a discussion about how some people like myself actually like action-oriented RPGs as well as action games by extension, but are labeled as idiots simply because we happen to have some different tastes in video games. DAO and DA2 were used as references to help illustrate my point of how one can be bored by the mechanics of one and enthralled by those of the other, and be unfairly ridiculed for doing so. Now I realize I may have done so incorrectly, and for that I apologize.

Hell, I could easily say that those who prefer turn-based or pause-and-play games are a bunch of pansy-ass high-and-mighty bookworm dorks who have the reflexes of a slug, and would probably get slaughtered if he or she were to play a relatively easy action game like TMNT (or some such) since they couldn't plan ahead. Some others may do that, but I don't. But if I did, best believe I would get some very angry statements from a few people.

Hopefully that clears a few things up now.

Maybe they just don't have a good reason for that specific behavior. It could be a case of anger about the changes from Origins to Dragon Age 2 being generalized to the point where they also lash out at people who express enjoyment of the changes. That's just my guess, though.

You're being perfectly clear about what you're asking, by the way.

Well we have been over this thousands of times: the fight mechanics are just the tip of the iceberg, the game suffers from alot more issues.

As for combat, well on nightmare setting it's about the same as Origins(and I wouldn't call that all too tactical) but the problem comes with non-stop swarms of spawning enemies, all you tactics become meaningless because they just flood you with enemies to the point it's all just your standard MMO grind-fest.
So it's not even the fight mechanics themselves, just how this game was put together -> yearly stamp-out rush-job.

The sad part is many people have a preference for this rushed low quality production... EA will be pleased

Ha! If only DA2 and also many other "action-RPGs" really had been made into proper action games instead of half-assed crap.

DA2 takes the cake though.
I can dig a good action game, but a game requiring you to press only the attack button repeatedly, without any concearn for timing or what the opponent is doing, is NOT a good action sequence.

The sad thing is that a big part of the audience here gets more enjoyment out of mashing A button without thought and watching some sped up animations, than playing pure squad based tactics.

The end result is not a good action game, nor a better tactical game.

It's all about (mis)communication.

I can sit here and say "by forcing developers to limit some aspects of their design while streamlining gameplay, the success and longevity of this console generation has negatively impacted the type of games I like to play on my PC".

What do a lot of console-only gamers read? "You'd have to be an idiot to enjoy the dumbed down gameplay and shit graphics of a console, you retarded mouth-breathers. Go fuck yourselves." Bit of a disconnect there. Why can't I simply express my disappointment with the state of things without someone taking it as a personal attack?

More specifically, with respect to DA2, I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with a good action game. I do think it's lame when a company takes one of the only games of its kind and dresses it up for mass consumption at the expense of an existing fanbase. It's not innovation because there are already sooo many "combat leads to cutscene leads to combat..." action games on the market. It's more like homogenization - all the games becoming the same in order to maximize sales. That's all well and good for a lot of industries, but I don't think it's healthy for creative ones like music, movies, comics, or video games. These industries thrive on variety, originality, and quality. Those are the things that speak to us as a collective people over the long haul.

Another thing: DA2, as a raw action game, isn't very good. Next to a legitimate action/rpg like Demon's Souls or Darksiders, DA2 plays like shit. It's the tactical play that makes DA games somewhat interesting, and that aspect was pretty well toned down for the sequel. It obviously plays much better on consoles now, but the PC experience is just meh.

If you've never played Origins on nightmare on a decent gaming PC, it's kind of hard to quantify the difference. I played the first 15 or so hours on 360 before switching to the PC version, and it was like night and day. Going from 1 to 2 on a console was nothing but good times. Making that same transition on PC felt like losing something that's relatively rare nowadays. That's sad.

Anyways, TLDR version: people get wrapped up in the things they like to the point where consoles and franchises are somehow integrated directly into their egos. It's pretty clearly insecurity manifesting itself as aggressive behavior; "if someone prefers things be different, he or she is making a declaration of war against my own preferences".

SageRuffin:

TAGM:
Well, RPG's are deeper then action games, generaly. And... Well, stupidity is in comparison to yourself.
In other words - RPG players may be thinking something along the lines of "Well, Action games are shallower then RPG's, so clearly any action fan must be dumber then me! that makes them dumb! Har har."
Course, action games nowadays are pretty popular for people to make a quick buck out of, so they make crap ones, hence the assumption that all of them are dence, as are the fans.

Zhukov:
For the most part you're just looking at good old fashioned snobbery.

Goddamn... we gamers are more a bunch of entitled jackasses than I thought. D:

Um...

I'm sure whether you just agreed with me or called me an entitled jackass.

Zhukov:

SageRuffin:

TAGM:
Well, RPG's are deeper then action games, generaly. And... Well, stupidity is in comparison to yourself.
In other words - RPG players may be thinking something along the lines of "Well, Action games are shallower then RPG's, so clearly any action fan must be dumber then me! that makes them dumb! Har har."
Course, action games nowadays are pretty popular for people to make a quick buck out of, so they make crap ones, hence the assumption that all of them are dence, as are the fans.

Zhukov:
For the most part you're just looking at good old fashioned snobbery.

Goddamn... we gamers are more a bunch of entitled jackasses than I thought. D:

Um...

I'm sure whether you just agreed with me or called me an entitled jackass.

More over I'm agreeing, but if it helps alleviate the confusion I called myself an entitled jackass as well.

I probably could've worded that better, so I apologize. :P

veloper:
Ha! If only DA2 and also many other "action-RPGs" really had been made into proper action games instead of half-assed crap.

DA2 takes the cake though.
I can dig a good action game, but a game requiring you to press only the attack button repeatedly, without any concearn for timing or what the opponent is doing, is NOT a good action sequence.

The sad thing is that a big part of the audience here gets more enjoyment out of mashing A button without thought and watching some sped up animations, than playing pure squad based tactics.

The end result is not a good action game, nor a better tactical game.

Exactly, DA:O needed more strategy not less. If they wanted to add action they could have followed FSW's lead.


Thats statbased and it looks and feels like a shooter.

If one more person tries to tell me dragon age 2 is an action game, im going to slap them right in the testicle

seriously, everyone keeps calling it a hack and slash, ive played have the game, and i would kill for it to be a hack and slash, instead of the boring ass autoattack WoW bs it is now.
what is wrong with you people? you (for some stupid reason) right click an enemy, and then sit back to wait for its death, ive tried spamming the mouse button, and it doesnt cut any faster.

hcig:
If one more person tries to tell me dragon age 2 is an action game, im going to slap them right in the testicle

seriously, everyone keeps calling it a hack and slash, ive played have the game, and i would kill for it to be a hack and slash, instead of the boring ass autoattack WoW bs it is now.
what is wrong with you people? you (for some stupid reason) right click an enemy, and then sit back to wait for its death, ive tried spamming the mouse button, and it doesnt cut any faster.

Hey, chill out with that. We're not talking about DA2 here. We're talking about how fans of action-oriented games are looked down as "thoughtless idiots who can barely breathe correctly".

Not sure about Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 differences in their core combat, but I do know that Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 felt different.

Some people complained the complexity and choices had been dumbed down. I felt that the combat had been stripped of bloated choices and more refined into a fun experience. No need to wade through shitty inventory screens to get the ammo that does more damage to Geth, just hit a hotkey and ya done! The only downside I felt was the limited ammo system, which made certain classes on higher difficulty levels a colossal pain in the backside to play when fighting enemies with regenerating health/shields/barriers.

SageRuffin:
snip

So there is no space for different games? All games must be made the way that is slightly more popular. DA:O was an exellent game, too long though. Then comes DA2, switching to more action oriented gameplay. Why? Why not make it like the fans of the first one preferred? Why make it a sequel, if you want to take all the improtant elements away? If they want to make medieval Mass effect, make one. But don't call it Dragon age and decline the series a true sequel.

hcig:
If one more person tries to tell me dragon age 2 is an action game, im going to slap them right in the testicle

seriously, everyone keeps calling it a hack and slash, ive played have the game, and i would kill for it to be a hack and slash, instead of the boring ass autoattack WoW bs it is now.
what is wrong with you people? you (for some stupid reason) right click an enemy, and then sit back to wait for its death, ive tried spamming the mouse button, and it doesnt cut any faster.

A lot of the hate surrounding that is from people who played it on Xbox, where auto-attack was turned off by default, rather than on. Of course it can be easily turned on/off Dependant on your preference, but the people who have gotten this furious about DA2 are too busy spewing nerdrage on the internet to do anything like that.

OT I also liked the Combat mechanics in DA2 over DAO, The tactical aspect of the game remained fully intact (contrary to what foaming-at-the-mouth RPG purists may lead you to believe), the only difference now was that I was no longer bored of what I was watching when I unpaused the game. And when I didn't want to be tactical and just dive on in? Well DA2 managed to make that fun, where DAO simply failed. Seriously I felt like I was watching drunk people fight with swords whilst playing DAO.

Though really, I find that most of the loudest criticism of DA2 can be boiled down to "It is neither boring, nor complicated, enough! I demand that combat be returned to rolling a 20 sided dice and that my inventory start resembling a large Microsoft excel document"

TAGM:
Well, think of it this way: If people wanted to play an action game, They would play an action game. The people who are complaining about Dragon Age 2 probably played Dragon Age 1 and enjoyed the shit out of it. A chance that makes the game feel like a different genra alltogether isn't going to please them.
Some people like RPG's, some people like Action, some people like both, some people like neither. If you try and impress an RPG fanatic and Action Game hater by making your RPG play (at least in combat) more like the latter then the former, you're going to piss them off. Simple, right?

While I'm not loving your lax typing, I completely agree with your point. I myself am quite a fan of RPGs and what you might call "Action" games, but I am not a fan of recent trends to blend (or more accurately blur them, like a person with poor eyesight taking off their glasses) these genres. I like my RPGs just fine without sweaty, fist-bumping "Action" mechanics showing up in my party; the same as I prefer to play "Action" games that don't arbitrarily include some form of leveling so that people reviewing the game can claim it has "RPG elements."

Phoenixmgs:
I really don't think one style is better over the other. Taking action away to add to the tactical-ness of combat is great if done well. If it's not done well then combat just seems boring, and you feel uninvolved in combat. When Dragon Age first came out my friends compared it to FFXII's battle system (the gambits) when explaining it to me, and I'm like I already experienced that battle system so I really didn't have an interest in playing Dragon Age plus I hate the typical D&D setting, it bores me to death. Adding action also has the same problem as if it's not done well. I tried the DA2 demo as a rogue, and it just felt like a bad hack and slash game to me. Why is the dodge move a skill that has to recharge? Why can I only hit X to attack and that's it, no combos or anything? It might as well just have been auto-attack as I felt no reason why I should just keep mashing X to attack over and over again. I'm sure it gets better as you get more skills and stuff but at it's core, it's not that good. On the other hand, Mass Effect 2 plays great, you really feel like you are very active in combat, and there's a good amount of strategic play with your teammates. Combining attacks with a teammate in Mass Effect 2 really feels great.

With the argument that RPGers feel they are better than "action" gamers is really just the RPGers defensive-ness more than anything. IMO, it's a lot harder to adjust from playing slow moving strategic games to fast-paced action oriented games than the other way around. I play all kinds of games and to say RPGs take more skill than "action" games in pure bullshit. Almost every RPG is easy as hell to play once you gain a good understanding of the system (most RPGs have some broken or overpowered skill or whatever to exploit), and almost every JRPG is even easier as you can just overlevel and the enemies are pushovers. Action games (like Bayonetta or Vanquish) require fully understanding the system plus executing great skill on your end as well.

But there are easy strategy games and hard strategy games, you can't tell me that Fallout is as easy as Pokemon in the same way you can't say God of War is on the same level of challenge as, say, Demons' Souls. And even for Pokemon, if you go into competitive gameplay expecting to get by on overlevelling and fire blast spam, you're going to get your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

And knowing an efficient skill pattern is essentially the same thing as committing a difficult jump to muscle memory. Just some people are better at the tactical approach, others the reflexive one. Neither is inheritely the better one.

Zhukov:
Eh. I'm fine with both.

I enjoy the immediacy of action-y games as well as the tactical management in the DA games and their ilk. Also, I love "tactical pausing". I would have found both Dragon Age games nearly unplayable without it.

However, RTSs tend to bore me. I can't get invested in what inevitably ends up looking like a fight between funny-shaped insects.

Also, I think you'll find that quite a lot of people here play action games. At least half of us, probably more.

Hm. This fits my stance on the matter perfectly. Especially the tactical pausing. Love it. That's part of the reason I prefer the Mass Effect games over other third-person shooters.

SageRuffin:

TAGM:
Some people like RPG's, some people like Action, some people like both, some people like neither. If you try and impress an RPG fanatic and Action Game hater by making your RPG play (at least in combat) more like the latter then the former, you're going to piss them off. Simple, right?

I get that much, but I'm wondering why those who prefer action games are frowned upon. Also, if they even like action games at all, or think they're all "frantic button mashers for console idiots".

I have heard this 'it's just button mashing' criticism of monster hunter tri, and it pisses me off. So what if you spam attack buttons? Would your prefer where you press attack once then go make yourself a cup of tea while the game plays itself? Personally, the best team-combat system I've ever played was KH2, because you didn't manually control other party members (it's an RPG, where you Play a Role, why is it so freakishly important that you also play every other role in the game?). You could set what abilities they ahd available, you could perform team-attacks, but beyond that you set their battle style. I mean, if they'd given it more behaviour options, or at least shown a 3-star move priority rating or something (so they can have cure as 3* during healing behaviour, but it doesn't specify that Donald will always heal the slightest injury, or if he'll always heal when it's appropriate, or something else entirely, just gives an indication of how highly prioritsed that move is in that attack pattern).

But yeah, the first guy has it. And the 'anti-action' vibeis probably them just venting their disappointment at the closest thing to their actual target (you can't vent at a combat genre, you can vent at those who like it).

immovablemover:
OT I also liked the Combat mechanics in DA2 over DAO, The tactical aspect of the game remained fully intact (contrary to what foaming-at-the-mouth RPG purists may lead you to believe), the only difference now was that I was no longer bored of what I was watching when I unpaused the game. And when I didn't want to be tactical and just dive on in? Well DA2 managed to make that fun, where DAO simply failed. Seriously I felt like I was watching drunk people fight with swords whilst playing DAO.

Though really, I find that most of the loudest criticism of DA2 can be boiled down to "It is neither boring, nor complicated, enough! I demand that combat be returned to rolling a 20 sided dice and that my inventory start resembling a large Microsoft excel document"

But it really, really isn't... i'm not sure what your definition of "tactical" is but there were a lot of actually "tactical" RPGs a decade ago (Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale/Fallout/Jagged Alliance etc.)

And heck, Demon Stone and those Lord of the Rings Action games that didn't even pretend to be RPGs were more "tactical" than DA2 cause you actually had to think what spells/weapons to use against what enemies at what time and when you want to unleash your special attacks, not to talk about being able to use your surroundings and the combat scenes being scripted a lot better...

In DA2 aside of the actual boss fights where you grind down a bosses HP bar by repeating a certain pattern there really isn't that much to do... autoattack and spam skills because on anything below nightmare even friendly fire is off... heck you even said it yourself "when I didn't want to be tactical and just dive on in? Well DA2 managed to make that fun", but a game CAN NOT be considered "tactical" if just "diving on in" produces the same results and there's absolutely no point in positioning (aside of when you want to abuse the game mechanics and run away out of the room or from the spot all the enemies are spawning in) or "blocking a door" etc. when the enemies appear out of nowhere...
DA:O had you considering careful positioning of your party to maximize damage and minimize health loss while using AoE and CC spells effectively, combining spells and keeping your squishies out of the enemy lines or positioning your rogues etc. right for certain skills like Backstab, while DA2 mainly has you controlling one character, running into an enemy horde and pressing 1-2-3-4 (there are also cinsiderably less active skills)...

Cheesepower5:
But there are easy strategy games and hard strategy games, you can't tell me that Fallout is as easy as Pokemon in the same way you can't say God of War is on the same level of challenge as, say, Demons' Souls. And even for Pokemon, if you go into competitive gameplay expecting to get by on overlevelling and fire blast spam, you're going to get your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

And knowing an efficient skill pattern is essentially the same thing as committing a difficult jump to muscle memory. Just some people are better at the tactical approach, others the reflexive one. Neither is inheritely the better one.

If the combat is slow (turn-based or real-time but not very "action-y") and the strategy required is low, then it's a bad battle system because it's boring since there's not much strategy and it's slow. Demon's Souls isn't really hard as long as you're careful, it's only considered "hard" because it makes you redo a bunch of stuff you already did. Great fast-paced action games like Bayonetta and Vanquish have a lot more strategy going than you think at first glace whereas God of War is not very strategic at all. Hell, Heavenly Sword has a lot more going on in it's battle system than God of War. Fast-paced action games are harder because the great ones require a lot of strategy (and you don't have forever to contemplate your next move) plus you have to have great gaming skill to execute the right move at the right time. Shooters like Metal Gear Online require great strategy, pre-planning and quick split-second strategy plus a huge amount of pure execution skill like great aiming and mastering of the control scheme (which takes longer to master than a COD campaign takes to play). Slow and very tactical games are awesome as well but the skill required is lower because there's really no execution skill going on, it's just pure strategy. It's like chess, it doesn't matter how you move that rook (as there's no skill in actually moving it) but where you move it and when.

Dexter111:
snip

Firstly, I'm sorry, my definition of "Tactical" is "making use of tactics"; it seems you fall into the "This game isn't complicated enough" category of gamers I mentioned.

Choosing which enemies to prioritize, when to use certain skills, when to revive team mates knowing I won't be able to use the skill for a while, setting up each character so they buff at the right time and in the right order/heal at the right time, making sure that characters don't burn through stamina/mana without needing too...These things are tactical considerations beyond "Move AI character out of doorway".

So of all the things you listed, the only thing missing is "Choosing which weapons to use", which sounds eerily like the, frankly superfluous, system they had in "The Witcher". I'm quite glad they didn't go down that route because it was bloody boring, included seemingly for the reason of making a combat system unnecessarily tedious.

I used no more, nor less, tactics in DA2 than I did in DAO and you had, in fact, pretty much exactly the same tactical options in both too.

Also, point of error. You seem to of read me saying that DA2, or DAO, are considered tactical RPG's at heart, when in fact I said that the tactical ASPECT remained intact from one to the other.

Secondly, you're assuming that when I said "when I didn't want to be tactical and just dive on in? Well DA2 managed to make that fun" that I meant this applied across the board, in any battle, in any context and that i've somehow implied that the results are identical. It's quite amazing how you keep reading things I haven't written.

I played through most of the game tactically - Using Tactics, relying heavily on the pause button - But occasionally, mostly in later levels when my character was all kinds of bad ass and lower level enemies would go down in one hit, I would just spam the auto-attack button because Watching my character tear through 20 enemies without effort is a very satisfying spectacle. HENCE - "when I didn't want to be tactical and just dive on in? Well DA2 managed to make that fun"

But would the results be the same? No. Of course not. I would take more hits whilst spamming auto attack, i'd be less efficient, My team would take more hits (in fact, on numerous occasions, when I decided to spam attack half my team would die as i'd be having too much fun. Do you remember what fun is?) and it would take longer. Had I entered EVERY battle with a tactical eye, I would, and consistently did, fare far better.

tl;dr

1. It is tactical in the sense that you use tactics to win and the game is set up for you to use tactics. QED
2. I said that the Tactical ASPECT of DA2 remained in tact from DAO, not that it is the most complex Tactical game since Risk fucked a rubix cube.
3. I didn't say the results would be the same. You did. What I said is that I found both Tactical play, and auto-attack play, satisfying and fun.
4. Finish with a ZP quote from his "The Witcher" review - "If disliking [overly complicated gameplay mechanics] makes me stupid then call me retard mcspackypants, but I'd rather be stupid and having fun than bored out of my huge, genius mind"

SageRuffin:

arragonder:
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?

Maybe what you need to take from this is those of us who did not like DA2 do not look down on Action Games or Action Gamers. Maybe some of us even watched the video explaining the nanosuit and are excited about Crysis 2. Or we played much, too much, L4D and L4D2.

I don't like this "us against them" mindset that has become prevalent on these boards. Why do I have to chose a game genre to play above others? Console or PC? Why can't it be both? Hardcore or Casual? What does that even mean anymore?

Why can't we all just get along in the pass time we enjoy?

immovablemover:
tl;dr

I'm not sure what game you played, but for me DA2 played exactly like this all the way through on Hard difficulty (aside of the very few scripted boss encounters).

e.g. run up to enemies and hit 1-2-3-4 (this guy isn't even using any skills at all to prove a point and is still breezing through, including the boss kiting at the end which worked on 60-70% of them)... the only times where I had to reload were the cases where mages or assassins dropped in out of nowhere and killed the squishies and I couldn't see it cause of the friggin camera. After the Arishok fight in Act2 that took about half an hour of mindnumbingly boring kiting around him while replenishing Health and Stamina I dropped the difficulty down to Normal and haven't had to Reload a single time during the entirety of Act3.

Now I'm sorry to say this but going from enemy group to enemy group pressing the same 4 buttons over and over again is what I find bloody boring, I really like having to use my brain every now and then or running into an encounter where I fail horribly and beat it 3-5 tries later after I've analyzed what I did wrong...

Aside of using the Tactics Menu every now and then and setting the conditions for NPCs to use certain skills there really weren't very much "Tactical considerations" to take into account...

Yeah I like Dragon Age 2's combat too, I just replayed Origins and realized how wrong I was for criticizing it.

Mind you I still dislike the wave system (somewhat) and don't like how they changed some of the Rpg things like missing hits and blocking hits and stuff like that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked