There's also a point to be made how action combat is contrary to RPG principles because player skills yadda yadda, but I'll let someone else make it.
That does apply to all sub-genres of RPG's except the ARPG's, where the character skill should ideally be of equal influence as the player skill.
It's not an argument, you just like
games with terrible, juvenile combat systems that aside from being unrealistic, are not fun for most mature people, and are the reason why
V_K thinks he doens't like action combat. Games where you spin through the air like a retard in an arcade cartoon, and
the gameplay is about twitch reflexes more than anything.
I, on the other hand, have always claimed that
a good mature action combat (like KCD for example) doesn't have to be so twitch oriented,
it's fairly cerebral. You have to respond in a timely manner, but that's different from having to hit 5 keys in .5 seconds while spinning 3 ways.
The system is more about the technique, understanding moves, defenses, combos, etc. That's what any aRPG should aim for.
So Doom is bad because it's juvenile and unrealistic. So I guess modern military shooters are the true patricians choice when it comes to shooters.
Also bitch please, we're talking about videogames here, "mature" doesn't got shit do with any of it, specially when talking about game design.
I am going to repeat myself. Realism = Good, is a fallacy.
This is true even to other mediums such as books, film (traditional narractive structuring and characterization beats realism every time).
Videogames aren't an imitation of reality, they are an exageration.
You're showing how ignorant you are in this matter by saying that pure action games are mainly about twitch reflexes.
Saying devs of these games have put more cohesive thought in some of the bosses, than the devs of KCD put behind their combat system, wouldn't be far from the truth.
Mastery in these games doesn't come by pressing buttons really fast. In fact mindlessly spaming shit means the player isn't using their abilities in a effective manner, which doesn't get you far in any difficulty above normal (i.e. the training wheels difficulty). Mastery in these games, only comes by a full understanding of the game's systems, the tools it provides you with and the challenges you have to face with, all of which have a purpose. Only them do the fast inputs help you and admittedly give you a satisfying adreneline rush.
Because of their extremely focused design, their mechanics ended up becoming insanely tight, solid and polished. Nothing about them is superfluous, questionable or contradictory to the intended experience.
This is why even decades later, people still play Doom, still make combo videos, still hold competive tournaments for figthing games.
In that regard they are similiar to games like the first 4 Wizardry's, where the dungeon is the entire focus of the game and everything else is just there to complement it (only in these cases, the combat is the focus).
I won't go over why KCD combat is anything above mediocre, that would be far to long a post and this is not the place for that kind autistic analysis.
But I'll say that in end, since KCD is an RPG after all, the combat is just one part of a greater whole and not the focus of the experience. So it's obvious that whatever system they would've done, would never be as good as pure action games. That's why I don't usually bring it up on discussions regarding the game. It's a bit unfair to rip on it too much not to mention unproductive, since there's other more important aspects the game didn't quite get rigth.
Same here with Monomyth.
Even if RatTower doesn't make anything beyond functional or decent, that's totally fine since it's not what the experience is about and there's many more pressing aspects to get rigth.
