Are Action RPGs Dull?

[Azrael the cat]

Most modern Arpgs have considerably less complexity to their combat than the not-particularly-complex-yet-awesome-fun-at-the-time Amiga game 'Barbarian'.

An action game that even just gave you the rather limited tactical control of Barbarian would still be miles ahead of Diablo.

 

[circ]

Reactive combat in Derp souls.

Never having seen in depth gameplay vids of this I have to ask - people consider these animations good? Because to me it looks like something from a 90's indie game, along with the limited, no make that extremely limited amount of them. BAWRING as hell.

 

[abija]

Did you just watch a 15 min movie talking only about parry + riposte and commented about the limited (no make that extremely limited) amount of animations?

 

[circ]

Yeah. Are you saying there's an alternate parry and thrust or maybe slash animation? Because I didn't see it. Plus it wasn't very good either.

 

[Multidirectional]

I like that when I click on "show ignored content" to make sense of a thread it confirms I was right to ignore someone. Fuck you Shrek.

 

[abija]

Yeah. Are you saying there's an alternate parry and thrust or maybe slash animation? Because I didn't see it. Plus it wasn't very good either.

I'm saying there's something really wrong with expecting it.

 

[circ]

Ok final personal opinion piece on this subject. Why is it wrong to expect variety in animations in a game which consists of combat pretty much exclusively, when games not that reliant on combat and being older too, have had no problems implementing such little details which add to immersion and keep the boredom away.

 

[Average Manatee]

Different animations would mean different attacks determined by the RNG. That is shitty and every action game that has implemented that has been shit.

If the animations "bore" you and ruin your "immersion", fuck off and gtfo. Your opinion is invalid.

 

[abija]

Ok final personal opinion piece on this subject. Why is it wrong to expect variety in animations in a game which consists of combat pretty much exclusively, when games not that reliant on combat and being older too, have had no problems implementing such little details which add to immersion and keep the boredom away.

You sound like an exec for some retarded AAA company. The game has a considerable number of animations, having 2-3 alternatives for each to help your immersion is not "little" detail.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Different animations would mean different attacks determined by the RNG. That is shitty and every action game that has implemented that has been shit.

If the animations "bore" you and ruin your "immersion", fuck off and gtfo. Your opinion is invalid.

This pretty much. Having your character attack randomly when inputting the same command in a game where timing and precision are important would be fucking retarded. It's not like an elder scrolls game where you're just mashing a generic attack that is going to always hit and do X damage.

And as has been mentioned before, judging the combat on the basis of a parrying tutorial video is fucking retarded. One might as well judge Torment or Fallout exclusively on a minimum int/cha score run and bash the low variety in dialogue options.

 

[circ]

Alright since other people joined in on the conversation I'll respond quickly. I'm not after randomness. Let's take an old game like Barbarian for C64, if you remember that. It had animations that stand up to today's standards, and it had variety. Now I spent 30 minutes looking at Dark Souls combat videos and ok, it's a difficult and challenging game I get that. But the animations in combat and in general look like something by an indie developer with no resources. And not that immersion is everything by any means, but having sub-par animations can really dull the experience and I'm not sure if y'all is trolling or what not to agree with that. But hey, no skin off my dick.

 

[abija]

Not sure what you watched but DS has quite a large variety of animations. In fact I suspect animations are one of the top reasons melee combat in DS recieved such high praise. And you asked for different animations for a single move, kinda like blaming Conan that you don't roll in 3 different ways.

As for quality, DS animations are better than most AAA titles unless you have access to some secret gems.

 

[Machocruz]

The only melee games with better animation are other Japanese melee games and some old 2D games.

Barbarian is pretty good considering, but flow, extension, and impact are still poor in comparison. Variety is cool when the characters don't move like they're holding back a deuce.

 

[Telengard]

C64 Barbarians is a fighting game, and has much a deeper moveset than Dark Souls, and the combat animation reflect that. At heart, Dark Souls uses the standard console rock/paper/scissors action game system - light attack beats heavy attack, heavy attack beats parry, parry beats light attack. There's a few kinks in there, but that's what it is in the main. And the animations reflect that. There are different animations for each weapon, but the moveset for a particular weapon is quite narrow.

Which is one of the major differences between a fighting game and an action game. And it's also why watching Barbarians is more exciting (especially when peoples heads get chopped off). There's just a lot more going on in a fighting game.

The challenge of DS lies not in its combat, which is pretty basic, but in the steep eastern old-school power curve of the enemies, which the level gains of your character do not match. You can counter the enemies' power curve with sheer player skill or experience in old-school eastern games, by grinding for superior equipment in proper Asian game tradition, or by knowing where everything is (speed runs are under an hour now).

 

[Damned Registrations]

Thats not even close to what the DS system is like. It has light and heavy attacks sure- it also has light and heavy two handed attacks, running attacks, counter attacks after a dodge, parries, backstabs, ripostes and leaping attacks. Oh, and follow up attacks for some of those. And it has all of those for a ton of different weapons, many of which have slightly different movesets from other weapons of the same class (Velka's rapier, for example, has a slashing attack unique to it, not used by any other rapiers or other weapon types) and on top of that, they have different speeds, with a ~20% difference between the fastest and slowest weapons of the same class using the same attack animation in many cases. The game probably holds the current title for widest variety of attack animations. I certainly can't think of any game that comes even close.

 

[Metro]

This is crazy. I have various critiques of Dark Souls but complexity of combat is certainly not one of them. I don't know how anyone could mock the combat in this game. Personally I'm not a fan of the strategic/slow/telegraphed/choreographed action but that doesn't make it bad.

 

[shihonage]

Diablo2 made me feel a tinge of strategy when playing Paladin and Necromancer. I loved choosing proper auras, attacks, and damage manipulation spells depending on situation, cutting off enemy flow with bone walls, putting golems inside isolated pockets of enemies, using mage skeletons in Act 3 to counter the spitters, etc etc.

Diablo3 gave me no such feeling. It felt like a disconnected jumble of crap Jay Wilson wrote on a napkin once.

IMO action RPGs can be fucking great, if only they reward the player for dynamic adaptation in combat. Give me skills which are strategically and intuitively applicable in varying situations, give the attacks a crisp reaction time and a sense of power, let me play coop with other players, a steadily rewarding loot system, and I will play the shit out of your ARPG.

Unfortunately, such a game hasn't come out since the beginning of this century. As much enthusiasm as I have for Torchlight2, I can never make myself play it. Path of Exile looks kind of promising though...

 

[abija]

C64 Barbarians is a fighting game, and has much a deeper moveset than Dark Souls, and the combat animation reflect that.

Only on codex...

 

[General Maxson]

Grim Dawn seems like the most promising and interesting of the bunch to me...

 

[Minttunator]

Unfortunately, such a game hasn't come out since the beginning of this century. As much enthusiasm as I have for Torchlight2, I can never make myself play it. Path of Exile looks kind of promising though...

Path of Exile is very good, it's rather similar in tone to Diablo 1 and 2 (more 1 than 2, I'd say) and it's in open beta right now - give it a try!

 

[Telengard]

Dark Souls
R1 Right-to-left horizontal swing.
R2 — R2 Heavy overhead chop into overhead chop.
Roll — R1 Fast overhead chop.
Backstep or Run — R1 Fast running chop.
Forward + R1 Kick. Useful for breaking guard.
Forward + R2 Jumping overhead chop.
L1 (left hand) Guard.
L2 (left hand) Left-to-right horizontal swing.
+ Fast Roll
Then you've got same again on 2-handed, but what you do as the Player is the same.

C64 Barbarians

= kneel
= jump

= roll to the left/right
= Sword defense (horizontal)
= Sword defense (vertikal)
= Kneeling sword blow, knee height
= Standing sword blow, neck height
= Sword blow in chest
= Player rotates, sword blow at neck height (can be fatal)
= Sword blow on the head
= Kick
= Sword defense (sword swinging)
= Head butt


Keeping in mind we're talking a C64 game here, and the moveset lists for the genre soon exploded.

But what I said was apples and oranges are being compared here. Action games aren't about having a deep moveset list and lots of animations to describe that moveset. You don't memorize large movesets in an action game, or have various states like crouched or cat stance that cause your character to act completely differently. They're twitch games, with very little separating you from the action. That's their goal, to give you that immediate sense of action and power. Click->kill.

Exploration and basic combat. That's pretty much the definition of action gaming. From Diablo to The Witcher to Dark Souls. Whether the end results are challenging and fun, that is a separate issue.

 

[DeepOcean]

Are Skyrim and Oblivion action RPGs? They barely have mechanics that justify them being called a traditional FPS/RPG hybrid like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex ( Morrowind is kinda different because it still have some elements of a RPG). The combat is on the level of Diablo I but kinda worse, spam left mouse to win, very easy difficulty, potion spamming and lack of decent loot. Played Skyrim with Requiem and holy crap! Bethesda isn't even trying anymore.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Dark Souls
R1 Right-to-left horizontal swing.
R2 — R2 Heavy overhead chop into overhead chop.
Roll — R1 Fast overhead chop.
Backstep or Run — R1 Fast running chop.
Forward + R1 Kick. Useful for breaking guard.
Forward + R2 Jumping overhead chop.
L1 (left hand) Guard.
L2 (left hand) Left-to-right horizontal swing.
+ Fast Roll
Then you've got same again on 2-handed, but what you do as the Player is the same.

C64 Barbarians

= kneel
= jump

= roll to the left/right
= Sword defense (horizontal)
= Sword defense (vertikal)
= Kneeling sword blow, knee height
= Standing sword blow, neck height
= Sword blow in chest
= Player rotates, sword blow at neck height (can be fatal)
= Sword blow on the head
= Kick
= Sword defense (sword swinging)
= Head butt


Keeping in mind we're talking a C64 game here, and the moveset lists for the genre soon exploded.

But what I said was apples and oranges are being compared here. Action games aren't about having a deep moveset list and lots of animations to describe that moveset. You don't memorize large movesets in an action game, or have various states like crouched or cat stance that cause your character to act completely differently. They're twitch games, with very little separating you from the action. That's their goal, to give you that immediate sense of action and power. Click->kill.

Exploration and basic combat. That's pretty much the definition of action gaming. From Diablo to The Witcher to Dark Souls. Whether the end results are challenging and fun, that is a separate issue.

You're ignoring the fact that Dark Souls has context for it's moves. R1 doesn't do a right to left horizontal swing if you're running at the time, or if you use it after a parry (which you only use with certain weapons and shields) or from behind an opponent, or after a roll, or as a second hit in a string of attacks (but only for certain weapons.) If you compared the number of unique animations, even for a single weapon, Dark Souls crushes pretty much any action game out there. On top of that you have secondary weapons for each hand, and can wielding anything in your right hand as a two handed weapon instead, which can change the moveset considerably. A character can easily have dozens of different attacks to make with a single set of equipment. Then there are additional animations for the character hitting a wall, and another for hitting a shield that is far too sturdy in comparison to the grip/weapon you are using (i.e. hitting a tower shield with a one handed rapier thrust.)

What you're doing is the equivalent of judging a fighting game by how many buttons it has to press, without regard for what the combinations of those buttons do. On top of that you're comparing it to a fighting game. Why not just go whole hog and compare it to dwarf fortress. Oh noes! Dwarf fortress has more hotkeys! Clearly this combat is inferior!

 

[Telengard]

Dark Souls
R1 Right-to-left horizontal swing.
R2 — R2 Heavy overhead chop into overhead chop.
Roll — R1 Fast overhead chop.
Backstep or Run — R1 Fast running chop.
Forward + R1 Kick. Useful for breaking guard.
Forward + R2 Jumping overhead chop.
L1 (left hand) Guard.
L2 (left hand) Left-to-right horizontal swing.
+ Fast Roll
Then you've got same again on 2-handed, but what you do as the Player is the same.

C64 Barbarians

= kneel
= jump

= roll to the left/right
= Sword defense (horizontal)
= Sword defense (vertikal)
= Kneeling sword blow, knee height
= Standing sword blow, neck height
= Sword blow in chest
= Player rotates, sword blow at neck height (can be fatal)
= Sword blow on the head
= Kick
= Sword defense (sword swinging)
= Head butt


Keeping in mind we're talking a C64 game here, and the moveset lists for the genre soon exploded.

But what I said was apples and oranges are being compared here. Action games aren't about having a deep moveset list and lots of animations to describe that moveset. You don't memorize large movesets in an action game, or have various states like crouched or cat stance that cause your character to act completely differently. They're twitch games, with very little separating you from the action. That's their goal, to give you that immediate sense of action and power. Click->kill.

Exploration and basic combat. That's pretty much the definition of action gaming. From Diablo to The Witcher to Dark Souls. Whether the end results are challenging and fun, that is a separate issue.

You're ignoring the fact that Dark Souls has context for it's moves. R1 doesn't do a right to left horizontal swing if you're running at the time, or if you use it after a parry (which you only use with certain weapons and shields) or from behind an opponent, or after a roll, or as a second hit in a string of attacks (but only for certain weapons.) If you compared the number of unique animations, even for a single weapon, Dark Souls crushes pretty much any action game out there. On top of that you have secondary weapons for each hand, and can wielding anything in your right hand as a two handed weapon instead, which can change the moveset considerably. A character can easily have dozens of different attacks to make with a single set of equipment. Then there are additional animations for the character hitting a wall, and another for hitting a shield that is far too sturdy in comparison to the grip/weapon you are using (i.e. hitting a tower shield with a one handed rapier thrust.)

What you're doing is the equivalent of judging a fighting game by how many buttons it has to press, without regard for what the combinations of those buttons do. On top of that you're comparing it to a fighting game. Why not just go whole hog and compare it to dwarf fortress. Oh noes! Dwarf fortress has more hotkeys! Clearly this combat is inferior!

Reading failure! I wasn't the one who first drew this comparison, and I already stated that it was an improper comparison to draw. Twice now. But, I will state it a third time, for the sake of convenience. While the early poster's comparison is true - fighting games do offer a lot more types of attacks than action games do, even fighting games from the C64 - it is comparing apples and oranges. A deep moveset list isn't what action games were designed to be. They were made to have basic combat that brings the player directly and easily into the action.

Or to use the Diablo team's term - the Mom Test.

 

[abija]

But that's the thing, what you say there doesn't apply to DS. It has a lot more varied moveset and a lot more depth than a basic fighter game.

That's their goal, to give you that immediate sense of action and power. Click->kill.

This doesn't apply in the slightest. It's not Skyrim or freakin DA2. And I really doubt it gets anywhere close to passing the mom test.