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

[Cheesepower5]

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.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

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.

 

[Biosophilogical]

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).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

 

[pezwitch]

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?

 

[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.

If the definition of skill is something that requires dexterity and reflex, then yes, turn-based or otherwise paused games require little to no skill. And yes, I compared God of War to Demons' Souls precisely because it is easier as far as action games go. And why does Demons' Souls make you restart a lot if not because it's hard? You're using fairly narrow definitions it seems.

On the other hand, don't even get me started on MGO. That shit is hard.

 

[Levethian]

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.

I think Diablo 2 is pretty popular. They're even making a sequel.

In the olden days there were:

RPG's for Role-playing gamers.

FPS's for Action gamers.

RTS's for Strategy gamers.

Increasingly, there are a bunch of Action games, with aging RPG & RTS fans screaming "WTF have you done with the genre that I enjoyed?" and the answer is that the market has adapted for a massively larger audience, IE: the lowest common denominator - those that seek a quick thrill and perhaps don't want to spend 80 hours feasting on the Lore of the political inner workings of the Land of Kalidor or whatever.

BioWare was a bastion on RPG nerdiness, until DA2 basically signposted that "D&D and old-style RPG's are dead to gaming".

I prefer action-oriented games. Good ones, at least. But variety is the spice of life etc etc.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If the definition of skill is something that requires dexterity and reflex, then yes, turn-based or otherwise paused games require little to no skill. And yes, I compared God of War to Demons' Souls precisely because it is easier as far as action games go. And why does Demons' Souls make you restart a lot if not because it's hard? You're using fairly narrow definitions it seems.

On the other hand, don't even get me started on MGO. That shit is hard.

What I'm saying there is a skill in executing actual moves (like doing combos, aiming in a shooter, dodging, etc.) and skill in being tactical and strategic. Turn-based strategic games or slow paced real-time systems (like a Dragon Age or FFXIII) really only require the tactical skill, there is no skill actually in performing a certain attack, it's all in the when and the where like chess. Some fast-paced action games only require execution skills but the real good ones require both execution and tactical skills, which is why they are harder than straight up tactical games. Not that one is BETTER than the other, just one is harder, that is all.

Take a game that has a save anywhere system or a generous checkpoint system and then only allow saves a certain points or have fewer checkpoints and the game naturally becomes harder. Demon's Souls wouldn't be nearly as hard with more save points or more checkpoints. A game like Demon's Souls isn't really that hard, it's just that you try to run through and get to back to where you died, and you end up dying on the way there because you already got there and you're being careless. Demon's Souls really just ends up wasting your time more than anything.

 

[Cheesepower5]

I would quote you and write some long thought-out argument against it, but there's really nothing for me to argue against. Still to not count the difficulty that's there simply because it's a different kind of difficulty(if that's even what you did) seems rather silly.

 

[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.

For crying out loud, I'm not talking about the differences between DAO and DA2. I've noticed that one of the complaints of DA2 was the action-oriented combat how it supposedly tailored for "gamers who can't think", which led me to believe that most people here are not fond of action games. Because, really, why else would they say something like that.

In short, I'm talking why those of us who like action-style combat are looked down upon and included in that group of "gamers who can't think".

 

[SageRuffin]

A repost, so that some can be reminded of what I'm talking about.

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.

 

[SageRuffin]

To help further illustrate my point about most of the Escapist not liking action-esque and looking dowen on those that do, I came across this statement in a different thread, again related to DA2:

Now its just a mindless button masher half the time.

If anyone is wondering, I got from a thread talking about DA2's sales. Scroll down a few posts and you'll see it.

 

[A Weakgeek]

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.

For crying out loud, I'm not talking about the differences between DAO and DA2. I've noticed that one of the complaints of DA2 was the action-oriented combat how it supposedly tailored for "gamers who can't think", which led me to believe that most people here are not fond of action games. Because, really, why else would they say something like that.

In short, I'm talking why those of us who like action-style combat are looked down upon and included in that group of "gamers who can't think".

Well mayby its just that, mayby we feel devs are cartering to you action oriented gamers. I for one do not hate you for liking something, that would be stupid. But that doesen't mean that I don't think that your kind occasionally have bad influence on games like Dragon age.