Support NeoGAF

MrHicks · Dec 25, 2008

this is prob the reason i hate non turn based rpgs
for example

Mass effect....feels like im playing a mediocre GRAW reject
Fallout 3.... plays like an subpar FPS
Untold legends/Too human and its clones....play like shitty action games

in the end all the different weapons and armor you get in these games only really changes the difficulty level (shit gear harder game....good gear easier game) its doesnt change the fact that your playing a shittastic downgrade of another genre

im not buying "the gameplay sucks but its OK its an rpg!!! argument"
discuss

2DMention · Dec 25, 2008

Phantasy Star Universe felt the same way.

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

This is basically, "Is the glass half full or half empty?"

It's just personal opinion. If you play a lot of action games and not RPGs, then action RPGs might seem lame.

Yazus · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
this is prob the reason i hate non turn based rpgs
for example

Mass effect....feels like im playing a mediocre GRAW reject
Fallout 3.... plays like an subpar FPS
Untold legends/Too human and its clones....play like shitty action games

in the end all the different weapons and armor you get in these games only really changes the difficulty level (shit gear harder game....good gear easier game) its doesnt change the fact that your playing a shittastic downgrade of another genre

im not buying "the gameplay sucks but its OK its an rpg!!! argument"
discuss

I agree with Fallout 3 and Too Human. Fallout 3 combat is just a mediocre FPS if you dont use VATS also Too Human is a shitty action rpg that plays shitty. Gear does not count sometimes sometimes the gear is overpowered etc.

Xenon · Dec 25, 2008

Seems like the problem is more you trying to play them like action games to me.

aries_71 · Dec 25, 2008

Yazus said:
I agree with Fallout 3 and Too Human. Fallout 3 combat is just a mediocre FPS if you dont use VATS also Too Human is a shitty action rpg that plays shitty. Gear does not count sometimes sometimes the gear is overpowered etc.

Actually, Too Human plays very well. I don't see any shitness in Too Human. Yes, it's short, but graphics, story and combat mechanism are well above average.

Jive Turkey · Dec 25, 2008

Xenon said:
Seems like the problem is more you trying to play them like action games to me.

Seems like an accurate assessment.

Xenon · Dec 25, 2008

aries_71 said:
Actually, Too Human plays very well. I don't see any shitness in Too Human. Yes, it's short, but graphics, story and combat mechanism are well above average.

true, the problem with Too Human is SK did a shit job of transitioning players into the new control sceme.

DogWelder · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
this is prob the reason i hate non turn based rpgs
for example

Mass effect....feels like im playing a mediocre GRAW reject
Fallout 3.... plays like an subpar FPS
Untold legends/Too human and its clones....play like shitty action games

in the end all the different weapons and armor you get in these games only really changes the difficulty level (shit gear harder game....good gear easier game) its doesnt change the fact that your playing a shittastic downgrade of another genre

im not buying "the gameplay sucks but its OK its an rpg!!! argument"
discuss

If you up the difficulty or, in the case of Mass Effect, play as a class other than Soldier, then no, they don't play like "mediocre ____ rejects" or "shitty action games".

Link1110 · Dec 25, 2008

Try Dark Cloud 2, probably muy favorite game on PS2. The Tales games are great, too but they're RPGs with action battle systems, which I don't really consider action RPGs.

SnakeXs · Dec 25, 2008

You're doing it wrong.

Yaweee · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
Mass effect....feels like im playing a mediocre GRAW reject
Fallout 3.... plays like an subpar FPS
Untold legends/Too human and its clones....play like shitty action games

Kuzunoha Raidou....feels like I'm playing a subpar Action RPG.

Chairman Yang · Dec 25, 2008

I basically agree with the OP. However, there are a few extremely rare games that combine action and RPG elements in such a way that they can surpass pure action games or pure RPGs. Mount & Blade is a good example. The action part is solid by itself, but when you mix in the variation and strategy possible because of the stats, you get something greater than the sum of its parts.

Fast-paced RPGs that are focused on online competition, like Warhammer Online or Guild Wars, might qualify as well.

MrHicks · Dec 25, 2008

Yaweee said:
Kuzunoha Raidou....feels like I'm playing a subpar Action RPG.

the what now?

Flying_Phoenix · Dec 25, 2008

SnakeXs said:
You're doing it wrong.

Pretty much.

Kyoufu · Dec 25, 2008

Xenon said:
Seems like the problem is more you trying to play them like action games to me.

You nailed it.

I'm playing Mass Effect like an action RPG and hey guess what it plays like an amazing action RPG.

Link1110 · Dec 25, 2008

Yaweee said:
Kuzunoha Raidou....feels like I'm playing a subpar Action RPG.

I only played the yet unlocalized sequel, but I loved the battle system. I hear it's much upgraded though.

-MB- · Dec 25, 2008

Action RPGs never have been good imho since the SNES. Secret of Mana and Terranigma FTW!

MrHicks · Dec 25, 2008

Kyoufu said:
You nailed it.

I'm playing Mass Effect like an action RPG and hey guess what it plays like an amazing action RPG.

how does one play something "like and action rpg"
ignore the mediocre gameplay thats done 10 times better by the genres it tries to imitate?

Yaweee · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
the what now?

Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner: Kuzunoha Raidou versus the Soulless Army, the SMT attempt at an action RPG.

Link1110 said:
I only played the yet unlocalized sequel, but I loved the battle system. I hear it's much upgraded though.

I liked the original, but it kind of fits the pattern the OP was going for. ARPG's harp other genres while having distinctly worse gameplay mechanics, while Raidou tries to be an ARPG... badly. I loved the story and music, though, and it kept me enthralled.

lastendconductor · Dec 25, 2008

If they could make a game that was as awesome on the action department as on the rpg one, they'd make two games.
Every game project works like this; you put X work into it, you get a game of X quality, save a few exceptions. So a multigenre game would be of X/Y quality in each genre where Y is the number of genres * it's percentage of weight in the game / 100.

abstract alien · Dec 25, 2008

1cesc said:
If you up the difficulty or, in the case of Mass Effect, play as a class other than Soldier, then no, they don't play like "mediocre ____ rejects" or "shitty action games".

Does upping the difficulty in these games actually do something other than make the enemies take more shots(or become cheap) or nuke your health? Im asking because i havent played either on a higher difficulty simply because the presentation of the action looks pretty crappy.

dfyb · Dec 25, 2008

i agree, especially with fallout 3. i'd love to hear how i'm "doing it wrong" when i actually picked some of the only viable skills in the game. i'd say "doing it wrong" was going more peaceful skills like speech, because just like oblivion, this game is broken as an RPG and you'll get murdered by the super mutants that you are forced to fight. fallout 3 gets too much of a free pass -- it's an FPS with RPG elements, and not the other way around.

mass effect was the same way -- i never finished because the gameplay was so meh. we're spending hours and hours playing these games -- they should make the gameplay worthwhile. i finished fallout 3 because i liked the lore, but i have no motivation to go back and play it again because of the subpar FPS elements that are the meat of the game.

Xenon · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
how does one play something "like and action rpg"
ignore the mediocre gameplay thats done 10 times better by the genres it tries to imitate?

Its not. Mass Effect is not trying to ape Halo and other shooters> It just takes elements from them.

Just accept its not for you and move on. Don't blaim the game.

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
how does one play something "like and action rpg"
ignore the mediocre gameplay thats done 10 times better by the genres it tries to imitate?

If fallout 3 had perfect FPS gameplay, then you would have no reason to increase stats. Your aim would be entirely based on your own skill, rather than how high a level your character is. You can use vats pretty much the entire game. The fps mode just adds a little interactivity. It's optional. idk about Mass Effect, I haven't played it. But I'd guess that this same principle applies.

[edit] To make myself clearer: Action RPGs are pretty much all RPG, they are just disguised as an FPS or shooter. It's only the presentation that makes you think it's an FPS. There is really very little hand eye coordination involved.

Timber · Dec 25, 2008

MrHicks said:
this is prob the reason i hate non turn based rpgs
for example

Mass effect....feels like im playing a mediocre GRAW reject
Fallout 3.... plays like an subpar FPS
Untold legends/Too human and its clones....play like shitty action games

in the end all the different weapons and armor you get in these games only really changes the difficulty level (shit gear harder game....good gear easier game) its doesnt change the fact that your playing a shittastic downgrade of another genre

im not buying "the gameplay sucks but its OK its an rpg!!! argument"
discuss

What a terrible post.

I don't recall GRAW having stat building, inventory systems, conversation wheels, non-linearity, whatever. I can't think of a single FPS that has half the things present in Fallout 3. You're making the classic mistake a lot of people make when judging these kind of RPGs; you're taking games that are about things other than just shooting people and you judge them based on the shooting mechanics alone. RPGs are supposed to offer gameplay experiences beyond just combat, but there's still a lot of RPG aficionados who seem to be under the impression that a game is a combat system and nothing more.
If your train of thought is to be followed, then System Shock 2 and Deus Ex are terrible games. Fact remains that they aren't, busted shooting mechanics and all, because their gameplay involves other things as well.

If you're wandering around the wasteland in Fallout 3 thinking you're playing a downgrade of yr average FPS game, you're playing the game very, very wrong.

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

Timber said:
What a terrible post.

I don't recall GRAW having stat building, inventory systems, conversation wheels, non-linearity, whatever. I can't think of a single FPS that has half the things present in Fallout 3. You're making the classic mistake a lot of people make when judging these kind of RPGs; you're taking games that are about things other than just shooting people and you judge them based on the shooting mechanics alone. RPGs are supposed to offer gameplay experiences beyond just combat, but there's still a lot of RPG aficionados who seem to be under the impression that a game is a combat system and nothing more.
If your train of thought is to be followed, then System Shock 2 and Deus Ex are terrible games. Fact remains that they aren't, busted shooting mechanics and all, because their gameplay involves other things as well.

If you're wandering around the wasteland in Fallout 3 thinking you're playing a downgrade of yr average FPS game, you're playing the game very, very wrong.

This argument actually agrees with the OP. You are pretty much saying that the "crappy shooting mechanics" are not a problem because that's not what the game is really about. If this is true, in the end the shooting is still crappy. My argument is that there really isn't any shooting involved. It's just a regular RPG in real time, disguised as an FPS.

DogWelder · Dec 25, 2008

abstract alien said:
Does upping the difficulty in these games actually do something other than make the enemies take more shots(or become cheap) or nuke your health? Im asking because i havent played either on a higher difficulty simply because the presentation of the action looks pretty crappy.

The problem with the two games on their lower difficulties is that it's easy to play them as straight up TPSes/FPSes and get away with it; you use too little ammo or the enemies are weak or your party is extraneous, etc. However, if you tried playing Fallout 3 on Hard or Hardest without VATS, or Mass Effect on the highest settings without utilizing tech or biotic abilities and controlling your party, I can guarantee you would not be able to do much of anything.

And keep in mind that there are many classes in Mass Effect, several whom are incapable of using firearms or are limited to one weapon.

Shins · Dec 25, 2008

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

1cesc said:
The problem with the two games on their lower difficulties is that it's easy to play them as straight up TPSes/FPSes and get away with it; you use too little ammo or the enemies are weak or your party is extraneous, etc. However, if you tried playing Fallout 3 on Hard or Hardest without VATS, or Mass Effect on the highest settings without utilizing tech or biotic abilities and controlling your party, I can guarantee you would not be able to do much of anything.

And keep in mind that there are many classes in Mass Effect, several whom are incapable of using firearms or limited to one weapon.

I completely agree. Playing fallout or mass effect like an FPS is equivalent to playing a JRPG only using the standard attack the whole game.

(basically just pressing the A button over and over)

Firestorm · Dec 25, 2008

I play a lot of Action games and a few RPGs and action RPGs are my favourite type.

Tales of Vesperia is probably the game I've spent the most amount of time on this gen with maybe the exception of Team Fortress 2. Almost 100 hours now.

SnakeXs · Dec 25, 2008

Shins said:
What exactly precludes these games from having an excellent combat system that'll make you want to play the game all on its own, along with all the rest of that (inventory, stats, etc.)?

It's not an either-or situation. Developers have not had their feet held to the fire about the shitty combat in these games, because its "not the main point." But it is in the game, its a core part of the game, and its something I'm going to be doing a lot of in between all the "important parts."

It should be better. We should be expecting and asking for more. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy what we have, but its easy enough to recognize how much better the experience could be.

The inverse is true. Why do those games have no character development, shitty stories, no weapon upgrading, no currency, no vehicles, completely linear, and so on and so forth.

Realistic expectations, and not picking and choosing what you judge a game based on.

aerts1js · Dec 25, 2008

Shins · Dec 25, 2008

dfyb · Dec 25, 2008

bitq said:
If fallout 3 had perfect FPS gameplay, then you would have no reason to increase stats. Your aim would be entirely based on your own skill, rather than how high a level your character is. You can use vats pretty much the entire game. The fps mode just adds a little interactivity. It's optional. idk about Mass Effect, I haven't played it. But I'd guess that this same principle applies.

[edit] To make myself clearer: Action RPGs are pretty much all RPG, they are just disguised as an FPS or shooter. It's only the presentation that makes you think it's an FPS. There is really very little hand eye coordination involved.

see, this post is laughable. little hand eye coordination involved...? you can't rely on VATS in fallout to take out a group of super mutants, and the game doesn't aim for you outside of VATS (at least not on PC), so how can you come to the conclusion that it doesn't require hand eye coordination just like any other FPS? outside VATS, fallout 3 still has hit detection for different body parts -- i was still aiming at precise locations such as the face or their weapon (i thought it was pretty neat that you could shoot guns out of their hands). face it -- fallout 3 requires just as much hand eye coordination as any straight FPS.

your argument would be valid if you could play fallout 3 in drastically different ways, but the game is weighted toward ranged combat. you aren't going to have fun if you pooled your stats into speech and other more indirect skills because the game forces you into situations that require you to kill tons of super mutants and heavily armored soldiers, where your speech skill doesn't help at all. you act like there's no possible way they could improve upon this, but it could have been as easy as allowing people with high speech to recruit more party members, so they could essentially bring a small squad with them to do the damage. stealth in oblivion was nice but it's not nearly as useful in fallout 3 -- it'd have been cool if you could sneak up on soldiers and knock them out, and then maybe biohack them to be on your side or something (combo of sneak and science skill) or sneak up on them and whisper into their ear, convincing them to commit suicide or whatever (combo of sneak and speech).

the point is that they COULD have made other paths viable, but ranged combat is pretty much the only way to go. and what is ranged combat where you point at enemies and click? an FPS.

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

SnakeXs said:
The inverse is true. Why do those games have no character development, shitty stories, no weapon upgrading, no currency, no vehicles, completely linear, and so on and so forth.

Realistic expectations, and not picking and choosing what you judge a game based on.

If a game includes a shooting mechanic, it ought to be a good shooting mechanic.

FPS games don't have those things because they are FPS games, not RPGs.

The argument he's making is that action RPGs try to include shooting mechanics, but do it poorly. It's not the same as if they didn't include it at all.

(of course I don't actually agree with this argument - read my other posts)

truly101 · Dec 25, 2008

Some people can't adapt. Sucks for them I guess.

flintstryker · Dec 25, 2008

you know i agree with the op i see no reason in making an action rpg if the action is crappy so i am going to hear "but that's not the point" if that's so why not just make it turn base one of the reasons why i love the 3d zeldas so much is because while the combat isn't flashy and deep like most action game its still pretty fun and i am still on a spic journey going through towns, talking to npcc and so likes just like i would in an rpg.

Kill Your Masters · Dec 25, 2008

You're right! And they should!

Work 48 hours a week and release games every 10 years?

What is wrong with GAF? On one side you see MS and Sony strangling the industry, HD failing, and games costing so much and putting devs out of their jobs, and then you demand this?

What kind of expectations do you have? There has to be a balance. That's why a subpar FPS like Fallout 3 is a over 100 hour journey while you can walk through COD in one session.

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

dfyb said:
see, this post is laughable. little hand eye coordination involved...? you can't rely on VATS in fallout to take out a group of super mutants, and the game doesn't aim for you outside of VATS (at least not on PC), so how can you come to the conclusion that it doesn't require hand eye coordination just like any other FPS? outside VATS, fallout 3 still has hit detection for different body parts -- i was still aiming at precise locations such as the face or their weapon (i thought it was pretty neat that you could shoot guns out of their hands). face it -- fallout 3 requires just as much hand eye coordination as any straight FPS.

your argument would be valid if you could play fallout 3 in drastically different ways, but the game is weighted toward ranged combat. you aren't going to have fun if you pooled your stats into speech and other peaceful skills because the game forces you into situations that require you to kill tons of super mutants and heavily armored soldiers, where your speech skill doesn't help at all. you act like there's no possible way they could improve upon this, but it could have been as easy as allowing people with high speech to recruit more party members, so they could essentially bring a small squad with them to do the damage. stealth in oblivion was nice but it's not nearly as useful in fallout 3 -- it'd have been cool if you could sneak up on soldiers and knock them out, and then maybe biohack them to be on your side or something (combo of sneak and science skill).

the point is that they COULD have made other paths viable, but ranged combat is pretty much the only way to go. and what is ranged combat where you point at enemies and click? an FPS.

I just don't agree. I think there are plenty of uses for speech, science, and those other non-combat skills. And you really can use vats for 90% of combat.

Also, you CAN sneak up on robots and use a certain perk to disable them without fighting. And you CAN use speech to recruit other party members.

[edit] And sneak is a really useful skill. You get a big damage bonus for attacking people who aren't aware of your presence.

[doubleedit] Actually I think the amount of vats points you get depends on your Agility and maybe some other stuff. That might be why it wasn't as useful for you.

newusuario · Dec 25, 2008

I agree with Fallout 3, it is not a very exciting game. I was kinda bored while playing it. And i tried to like that game. Besides, it is just not the FPS gameplay, the dialogs are not that great. I like to chose many lines of speech, but i think they are not all that interesting and sometimes it gets so long, that i want to finish the fucking dialog already.

Rolf NB · Dec 25, 2008

I blame 1up.

dfyb · Dec 25, 2008

bitq said:
I just don't agree. I think there are plenty of uses for speech, science, and those other non-combat skills. And you really can use vats for 90% of combat.

did you finish the game? i found VATS useful early on, but as enemies got more armored, VATS became less useful.

bitq said:
Also, you CAN sneak up on robots and use a certain perk to disable them without fighting. And you CAN use speech to recruit other party members.

yeah, and how useful do you think that'd be? why not give us the same sort of things for super mutants or humans? the endgame wasn't fighting robots -- it was all super mutants and soldiers.

bitq said:
[edit] And sneak is a really useful skill. You get a big damage bonus for attacking people who aren't aware of your presence.

yeah, for one guy. maybe it was different on consoles -- on PC, most encounters involved a good number of enemies and my VATS would be empty long before most were dead. i had max stats for VATS, too.

bitq · Dec 25, 2008

dfyb said:
did you finish the game? i found VATS useful early on, but as enemies got more armored, VATS became less useful.

yeah, and how useful do you think that'd be? why not give us the same sort of things for super mutants or humans? the endgame wasn't fighting robots -- it was all super mutants and soldiers.

yeah, for one guy. maybe it was different on consoles -- on PC, most encounters involved a good number of enemies and my VATS would be empty long before most were dead. i had max stats for VATS, too.

Yeah I finished it. I guess we just had different experiences with the game. I dunno...

-ImaginaryInsider · Dec 25, 2008

GAF's opinion of shitty is shitty.

fernoca · Dec 25, 2008

If Fallout 3 plays like a subpar FPS, then change the freaking camera ...

..in now way I was playing the game, while thinking "darn this FPS is awesome"..

Enkidu · Dec 25, 2008

dfyb said:
did you finish the game? i found VATS useful early on, but as enemies got more armored, VATS became less useful.

yeah, and how useful do you think that'd be? why not give us the same sort of things for super mutants or humans? the endgame wasn't fighting robots -- it was all super mutants and soldiers.

yeah, for one guy. maybe it was different on consoles -- on PC, most encounters involved a good number of enemies and my VATS would be empty long before most were dead. i had max stats for VATS, too.

VATS is definitely viable all the way through, in fact it is preferable as not only do you hit a lot more, but you have a way higher chance to get critical hits. And facing several enemies is not a problem since the VATS bar recharges. Usually I'd take my Chinese Assault rifle and shoot as much as I could in the head, then finish with a last shot outside of vats. Wait until another enemy comes running at you and then do the same thing again. So really, I only needed one combat based skill, the speech based ones were the fun skills to have.

Timber · Dec 25, 2008

bitq said:
This argument actually agrees with the OP. You are pretty much saying that the "crappy shooting mechanics" are not a problem because that's not what the game is really about. If this is true, in the end the shooting is still crappy. My argument is that there really isn't any shooting involved. It's just a regular RPG in real time, disguised as an FPS.

My argument doesn't support the OP at all, because my argument is that games as expansive as the ones he mentioned should not and can not be judged solely by their combat mechanics, which is what he's doing. A game like Fallout 3, because of how much it has to offer, feels absolutely nothing like an average FPS, which is what the OP claims. Same goes for Mass Effect and third-person shooters. The only thing that sets these games apart from action genres, he claims, are upgrades to weapons and armor, which is completely untrue because there is much, much more that distinguishes them. My argument is that these games do not play like action games, which is the opposite of his argument. No, it doesn't support it.

Also, I am not "pretty much" saying that poor shooting mechanics aren't a problem. They are a problem. But they don't make up the whole game.

Meanwhile, your argument that there isn't any shooting involved is just silly. Of course there is. These games are obviously hybrids, and they obviously incorporate elements from shooter games. Namely, the shooting. Games like that cannot be judged as either pure RPGs or pure shooters, which is what the OP has failed to understand.

GhaleonEB · Dec 25, 2008

I kind of agree that can happen a lot, though there are plenty of exceptions. I thought Oblivion was a solid hack'n slash writ large, and Fable II has a stellar combat system; it's a great action game in an an action RPG world.

I stopped playing Mass Effect in less than half an hour for the reason in the OP. The combat felt teeerrrrrible.

dfyb · Dec 25, 2008

fernoca said:
If Fallout 3 plays like a subpar FPS, then change the freaking camera ... ..in now way I was playing the game, while thinking "darn this FPS is awesome"..

it's not playable in third person. and they didn't even bother to make an animation for when you walk diagnally.

Support NeoGAF

Action rpg's always feel like a shitty "insert genre here" game

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Member

about the same metal capacity as a cucumber

Member

if he talks about books, you better damn well listen

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Put your snobby liquids into my mouth!

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

about the same metal capacity as a cucumber

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

I got grudge sucked!

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Similar threads