Support NeoGAF

[bitq]

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.

Of course Fallout 3 is a fantastic game even if it has crappy shooting mechanics. But that doesn't mean that the shooting couldn't be better. It's ok to complain about the shooting being crappy. But yeah, that doesn't make Fallout a crappy game.

 

[fernoca]

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

Well, I guess my Limited Edition was ultra limited then....

Guess I like shitty games..which is no wonder, since according to GAF I'm also a casual gamer..

 

[bitq]

Well, I guess my Limited Edition was ultra limited then....

Guess I like shitty games..which is no wonder, since according to GAF I'm also a casual gamer..

The 3rd person was pretty bad... It was like you were constantly on roller blades :lol

 

[jett]

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.

Considering that Dark Cloud 2 controls like shit, I would not recommend it to him.

 

[fernoca]

The 3rd person was pretty bad... It was like you were constantly on roller blades :lol

Yeah, but is not like the game was subpar, mediocre, shitty..and neither played like a subpar FPS.

 

[Timber]

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.)?

Don't ask me.

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."

Mass Effect has a pausable combat system where you can choose your (special) attacks in all peace and quiet just like in a turn-based game. There aren't enough hit boxes on enemies and their AI can be lacking, but because of the pausability and special powers I liked its combat more than I like the combat of the majority of TPS games. Fallout 3 has VATS which, again, combines FPS and RPG combat setting it apart from other games, and making it much more enjoyable. Both games have combat that goes beyond just shooting mechanics.

I don't feel that bad shooting mechanics should be excused, in fact the promise of better shooting is part of why I'm looking forward to Alpha Protocol. But that's not really what this thread is about. The OP claimed that action-RPGs play like bad shooters, which is a gross misrepresentation of their gameplay and what these games are about.

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.

I agree with you, and I never claimed otherwise.

 

[AwRy108]

Great topic, OP.

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.

Well said. Dark Cloud 2 had a ton of great RPG elements and a pretty solid combat engine. Like the OP said, most games in the genre only get one of these two thing right, but Dark Cloud 2 nailed them both. However, being a Level 5 game, it definitely was a bit too laden with monotony.

To be honest, are the Ratchet & Clank games sort of solid Action-RPG's? I mean, they combine fun, satisfying combat with lots of stuff to upgrade through grinding.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

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 have the opposite problem.

If I wanted to make choices from a menu, I'd go to Taco Bell.

Not play a video game.

RPG's are video games for the hand-eye coordination impaired.

 

[AppleBlade]

It's hard for me to relate with the OP and some of you as Action-RPGs are my favorite genre and some of my favorite games of all time are Bethesda's and Bioware's games. I love them because they give me great stories, imaginative worlds, and also manage to be action-packed as well. Adventure games have great stories but usually have lackluster gameplay, JRPG's are too linear and random turn-based battles is probably my most hated gaming convention.

 

[Easy_D]

Lemme just tell that if you're playing Fallout 3 as an FPS you're doing it completely wrong, learn to use VATs and embrace them!

 

[Mr_Appleby]

sounds like op needs to play stalker.. it's the other side of the fps/rpg fence to fallout3.

 

[avatar299]

I swear to god, some people will refuse to admit fallout is anything but perfect.:lol

The range based combat of fallout 3 shows the stupidity of the concept behind action rpgs. You can't take one template, completely fuck it up and then say it's okay because it's trying to be something else.

If you give the player an option to play the game a certain way, than you have to refine it. What's the point of having freedom if the game forces you to play it a certain way?

 

[tino]

I love them, they feel like easy action/prg games to me. And they attention to the characters and narration, which are what I want out of a game more than tight game play.

FF12 doesn't feel like turn base to me either. I love it as well.

 

[dollartaco]

Western ARPGs are my favorite, so they always feel like a shitty blowjob from Phoebe Cates.

 

[freddy]

OP, you are so full of it you're bursting.

Oops sorry. You can add Avatar228.5 to the above group as well.
Poster below as well VVV.

 

[TTG]

The OP is correct for the most part and this is coming from a fan of Morrowind, Fallout 3 and the original KOTOR to name some recent examples.

I'll keep it to Fallout 3 in this case. The combat is worthless:

- The actual "gunplay" is a couple of generations back from the modern FPS, this is a given, I know. Why? The controls feel like a poor pc port from the 90s. The AI is piss poor. The world was designed as a Bethesda RPG world, thus as levels designed for shooting, it is shit. Guns feel like crap bla bla bla... moving on.

-The world levels with you, it's not as obvious as it was in Oblivion, but it's certainly in full effect again. Why is this bad? Because it means all item collecting and stat chasing is largely useless. You started the game shooting a rabid dog with a hunting rifle, somewhere in the middle you were shooting a Yoa Guai with an assault rifle and you finished against a Deathclaw with a Plasma rifle. This means you're in a perpetual state of challenging enough to make you waste some stimpaks but not so challenging that you will have to use any skill or strategy. There is never a dungeon that you can't explore because you are too weak or a challenge to overcome by using an especially rare and cool weapon you got.

-There is no strategy involved. Getting close enough to an enemy so your percentage of shooting them in the head in VATS is high is not strategy. Keeping a big enough stock of ammo and stimpaks is not strategy either. You could argue that stats and perks are, but unless you're making a severely unbalanced character on purpose there are not many changes to the core gameplay.

These factors and more add up to a mediocre combat system by "action RPG" standards and a shitty one by normal videogame standards. And it's also the best game I've played this year. I don't know why people feel the need to make excuses for these games of which, btw, Fallout 3 is better than most.

To the OP, I would recommend games like Bioshock and HL2. It seems that the high points of these "action RPGs" don't appeal to you, so if you are looking for a competent FPS with a great story, world and atmosphere those are much better games.

 

[segarr]

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 to an extent. It's obvious when playing ME of FO that Bioware and Bethesda are not developers who focus on shooting games.

However, I don't play these games solely for their shooting mechanics, what they lack in polished combat, they make up for with dialogue trees, character building, open ended worlds, player choices, and non-linear gameplay.

I haven't played a game that has perfectly balanced the two yet, most of the attempts have been made by developers who focus on RPG's and have only added shooting later. I would LOVE to see the outcome of an Action RPG created by Valve. They have shown that they can create strong NPC's, and a strong narrative, I bet they could make a great FPS/RPG hybrid.

Bioshock is close, however, it didn't really have that many RPG elements...and some people don't even like the combat (I disagree completely, I loved the mechanics).

I don't really see why it can't be a give and take. Fallout 3 has shitty gunplay? Fucking Gears of War is too linear, and you don't even get to control what your character says, what the fuck?!?!?! (I don't really believe this, I'm just showing how you can go either way with it).

 

[Prine]

I much prefer Mass Effect gunplay to GRAW.

GRAW was so realistic that it was not fun to use your gun.

Basically disagree with everything the OP said. And turn based fighting is one of the worst style of fighting for me. Waiting in line to strike, what is this shit?

 

[S1lentTwo]

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.

Thank you. OP is clueless, just because RPGs have shooting mechanics that aren't up to par with the best FPS games does not mean that they are suddenly "fps-lite" games. There's a helluva lot more to them than that.

 

[No_Style]

You can have an action RPG without crippling the action.

Regarding Fallout 3 and Mass Effect, they should have left the basic gunplay mechanics free from the influence of statistics. You can involve stats in other ways such as increase accuracy while shooting from the hip or faster reload time. Or how about having stats play into which weapons you could use?

Hopefully one day we'll see an action RPG with the gunplay of a Call of Duty 4 and the conversation system of a Mass Effect.

Bioshock is close, however, it didn't really have that many RPG elements.

I agree. I hope the sequel will involve a bit more the RPG elements.

 

[dark steve]

The world was designed as a Bethesda RPG world, thus as levels designed for shooting, it is shit.

what the fuck does that even mean?

 

[TTG]

what the fuck does that even mean?

There is a big difference between creating an open world RPG game and a first person shooter when it comes to level design. Like The Silent Cartographer vs subway stations.

 

[jeremy1456]

I have the opposite problem.

If I wanted to make choices from a menu, I'd go to Taco Bell.

Not play a video game.

RPG's are video games for the hand-eye coordination impaired.

One of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard on the forum, bravo.

It's like saying that platforming games are for the reading impaired.

Or that traditional adventure titles are games are for those with slow reflexes.

But seriously, just don't post next time.

 

[dark steve]

There is a big difference between creating an open world RPG game and a first person shooter when it comes to level design. Like The Silent Cartographer vs subway stations.

Newsflash: the real world is not an FPS level!

Guess what Fallout 3 is at least vaguely based on?

 

[TTG]

You can have an action RPG without crippling the action.

Regarding Fallout 3 and Mass Effect, they should have left the basic gunplay mechanics free from the influence of statistics. You can involve stats in other ways such as increase accuracy while shooting from the hip or faster reload time. Or how about having stats play into which weapons you could use?

Hopefully one day we'll see an action RPG with the gunplay of a Call of Duty 4 and the conversation system of a Mass Effect.



I agree. I hope the sequel will involve a bit more the RPG elements.

Have you played Far Cry 2? If they hadn't failed so badly at telling a story or making any of the "choices" count for anything, that would be the closest example. It's still a great game though.

 

[rbenchley]

Personally, I love both turn-based and action RPGs. If the OP is open to the idea that not all action RPGs are "shitty", he should look into some of the Japanese action RPGs. I would recommend the following developers and games:

tri-Ace (Star Ocean series, Infinite Undiscovery, Valkyrie Profile series, Radiata Stories)
Tales Studio (the Namco Tales series with Vesperia and Abyss being the standout games)
Level 5 (Dark Cloud 2, Rogue Galaxy and the upcoming White Knight Chronicles)

 

[TTG]

Newsflash: the real world is not an FPS level!

Guess what Fallout 3 is at least vaguely based on?

joke post? :lol

I guess a COD level has a lot more to do with the real world than Fallout 3, but it's a ridiculous argument either way.

 

[dark steve]

joke post? :lol

I guess a COD level has a lot more to do with the real world than Fallout 3, but it's a ridiculous argument either way.

Last I checked, Call of Duty basically bounced you from scripted scene to scripted scene in the middle of a warzone, with no freedom to move around in a non-linear fashion like real life.

 

[TTG]

Last I checked, Call of Duty basically bounced you from scripted scene to scripted scene in the middle of a warzone, with no freedom to move around in a non-linear fashion like real life.

Which goes to prove my point, that the world in Fallout 3 is not at all made to be shooter friendly. There's also the problem that when Fallout forces you down a linear level, it's just as bad as the main world. Like subway stations, or caves, or buildings... so your excuse doesn't hold up so well.

BTW, the fact that you walk from scene to scene instead of a loading screen does not make it more "realistic" than what COD is doing.

 

[dark steve]

Which goes to prove my point, that the world in Fallout 3 is not at all made to be shooter friendly. There's also the problem that when Fallout forces you down a linear level, it's just as bad as the main world. Like subway stations, or caves, or buildings... so your excuse doesn't hold up so well.

it does prove your point, but your point is idiotic. of course it's not shooter friendly. it'd be stupid if it was.

BTW, the fact that you walk from scene to scene instead of a loading screen does not make it more "realistic" than what COD is doing.

really now.

 

[akachan ningen]

Go play Brave Fencer Musashi. Still the best ARPG I've played.

 

[Ramenman]

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

No kidding.

I had this same problem with Mass Effect, played it like a 3rd person shooter. I sucked at it, like, I had a really hard time fighting this Krogan's guys when you try to escape from the collapsing grotto after you've rescued Liara. I just couldn't get past it.

Then for some reason I put the game back in someday (think it was when I got my new monitor) and I kill them all on my first try.

 

[TTG]

it does prove your point, but your point is idiotic. of course it's not shooter friendly. it'd be stupid if it was.

Oh, well if you say it would be stupid if they executed on one of the things that would make the combat in their games better, then sure. :lol

 

[eastside49er]

I agree some what. Some of those action RPGs I can get into (Fallout 3, Fable 2, KOTOR). Others I couldn't (Mass Effect, Obilivion). I guess it depends on the game.

 

[Kintaro]

I'm curious when "Action RPGs" became so twisted that it now includes Mass Effect, KOTOR and Fallout 3. These aren't Action RPGs.

 

[RockmanWhore]

You should look at them as action games, of course they suck, they're designed to last long, so they're repetive, not to scripted (so boring, not spectacular, etc...), most time they're pretty open too. You have to see them as RPG with nice action instead of austere menus.

Or you can get the best of both world and play games like FFXII, no shitty boring action, no shitty menus, but all the tactics and fluid gameplay

 

[NG28]

OP is right to a degree. Of course the action in an ARPG won't be as good as an action game, and the RPG elements of and ARPG won't be as good as a straight up RPG game. However, if an ARPG does have great action, the RPG elements will suffer and vice versa. I wouldn't say that makes them shitty, but they have to reach a balance. I always wanted an ARPG with combat as good as ninja gaiden and really deep RPG elements, but it won't happen. It would be too hard to balance the gameplay. Action games are all about skill and RPG's are about thinking. You can't make a game with a ridiculous amount of depth in both, because u wouldn't be able to balance the difficulty.

 

[Aaronology]

I'm curious when "Action RPGs" became so twisted that it now includes Mass Effect, KOTOR and Fallout 3. These aren't Action RPGs.

S'bit sad that you're the first person to point this out in the thread.

 

[Kintaro]

S'bit sad that you're the first person to point this out in the thread.

I came down with the flu today so I thought I was hallucinating things in this thread. Turns out I wasn't. =/

 

[dark steve]

Oh, well if you say it would be stupid if they executed on one of the things that would make the combat in their games better, then sure. :lol

Are you even listening to yourself?

It would be stupid to design the levels like an FPS game, because the real world is not an FPS game. Can you name an FPS game of comparable non-linearity and attempt at realistic world portrayal?

What you're suggesting is simply dumb. It's like saying GTA needs to take more cues from Gears of War level design.

 

[TTG]

Are you even listening to yourself?

It would be stupid to design the levels like an FPS game, because the real world is not an FPS game. Can you name an FPS game of comparable non-linearity and attempt at realistic world portrayal?

What you're suggesting is simply dumb. It's like saying GTA needs to take more cues from Gears of War level design.

Do you read what you quote? I was listing why the gun play in Fallout 3 is bad as a part of a larger post. Did I say that Fallout 3 world should of been like COD? No. Did I say I wanted Fallout 3 to play as well as the top FPS games? No.

How do you improve on the level design in Fallout to make shooting better? You take some notes on what shooter heavy, open world games are doing. Games like Far Cry 2. The other part of it is to polish the linear "dungeons" in Fallout 3, of which there is a ton of, into something more than "oblivion with guns". If you have any more problems understanding my first post, I'd suggest trying to read it again instead of starting a long back and forth argument over nothing.

 

[dark steve]

I don't think it would be in any developer's best interests to take cues from Far Cry 2.

 

[tino]

Basically all it comes down is people are saying Sean Connery is not a great actor because his body is not rip, nor can he do accent.

It's just a bunch of non senese.

 

[Timber]

I'm curious when "Action RPGs" became so twisted that it now includes Mass Effect, KOTOR and Fallout 3. These aren't Action RPGs.

KotOR isn't, the other two most definitely are. Although Fallout 3 can be classified as FPSRPG as well, but that's not used much. What disqualifies them from being action RPGs?

 

[Prime crotch]

Why can't we just call them RPGs with shitty combat mechanics? I don't see the need to further segregate the genre, if their backbone is an RPG that's what they are, if they're something else with some RPG elemens they're something else, (like GTA:SA for example)

Bloodlines for example is an RPG with very shitty melee combat and no one makes excuses for it, STALKER and Deus Ex on the other hand got the firing mechanics with stats right, as far as I'm concerned, and one is an RPG and other not.

 

[PantherAttacks]

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.

Exactly. There's no reason to put up with bad combat mechanics just because another feature is present. I would certainly enjoy Bethesda's work more if the basic fighting was higher quality. There would be a joy in doing the combat instead of it being a chore you go through to achieve the RPG things.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Or you can get the best of both world and play games like FFXII, no shitty boring action, no shitty menus, but all the tactics and fluid gameplay

FFXII is a shitty hack n slay, where you control just the camera most of the times, Madden NFL replay camera is better, Ninja Gaiden II has the better fighting mechanics.

 

[RockmanWhore]

FFXII is a shitty hack n slay, where you control just the camera most of the times, Madden NFL replay camera is better, Ninja Gaiden II has the better fighting mechanics.

FFXII has a better camera, so it's a better action game than Ninja Gaiden, but not as good as Madden

 

[Darkpen]

First of all, the OP's post (as far as Mass Effect is concerned), sounds like Dean Takahashi redux.

And second...

I have the opposite problem.

If I wanted to make choices from a menu, I'd go to Taco Bell.

Not play a video game.

RPG's are video games for the hand-eye coordination impaired.

Any respect I had for you just dropped. You can say that for just about any videogame outside of peripheral-related games like lightgun shooters, or physical arcade-y things.

Its like some sort of backwards insult.

The genre is defined by number management and character choices, though not exclusively both together. Yakuza is a great action RPG, and I don't see it being an inferior version of an "insert genre here" game at all. Sure, its not as polished as I'd like it to be, but its not like I'm not playing it right by not upgrading my stats with the exp I gain.

FFXII is a shitty hack n slay, where you control just the camera most of the times, Madden NFL replay camera is better, Ninja Gaiden II has the better fighting mechanics.

...what?

Joke post?

 

[Blackace]

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.

if you don't use the system that is there to make the combat great in Fallout 3 then yeah it does play like an ok FPS...

God and really Mass Effect and Fallout were 2 of the best RPGs we have seen in years,,,