Should RPGs incorporate more action elements in the future?

[RPGfreak]

As time progresses more RPGs (and other gaming genres) incorporate action features into the game. We see more RPGs where jumping, dodging, parrying and blocking depends not on ingame numbers (dexterity of the character) but on your reflexes.

Do you agree with this trend? Do you think a better game is made where the combat performance of the character is dictated by skills (timing, reflexes, tactics) and numbers (armor value, weapon value)? Do you want future RPGs to rely even more on player skills?

I believe its a good trend, but let me see what you think.

 

[Morrandir]

I don't like combat depending on player's skills like timing and reflexes. I like it best if combat depends on player tactics and character skills only.

 

[Pessimeister]

This shouldn't be an either/or proposition in my opinion: There is room enough in the market for both types of skill oriented games to exist. I wouldn't want either focus to impinge upon the other.

Ideally, I like it a good deal when games manage to balance a pleasant fusion between both character and player skill. However, I enjoy the virtues of both concepts in many different games.

 

[MigRib]

I look at that question on a different perspective. First of all, I don't really think that trend still exists. At least it was temporarily put out of action when independent games started to be crowdfunded, favouring (for obvious reasons of financial means and the known preference of hard-core cRPG gamers for tactical RPGs). Once there was that trend, it will probably come back, but lately it is hard to find a new cRPG whose combat mechanics aren't tactical in nature.
But that's (maybe) beside the point. The trend existed. Usually hard-core gamers equate the cRPGs with combat that incorporate action features with one of my most hated expressions "dumbing down". Of course I don't think there's any dumbing down here. I admit that on of the reasons that made companies (specially big ones) to invest in cRPGs whose combat has action oriented features for a more fluid effect. People who haven't got hundreds of hours to spare in gaming do not have the time, nor the patience to engage in tactical games. Also, tactical games require that the gamer doesn't put the playthrough on hold for days or weeks. If he does, he might not be able to remember anymore what was going on or even how the mechanics of that particular game work. That's not being dumb, that's called having a life outside gaming, and not every gamer wants to be just a gamer. Personal choices... I go with having a life.
Also, tactical games have been backed by hard-core cRPG gamers as being the true version of role playing in a computer, equating action oriented games like Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Deus Ex HR or the Mass Effect Trilogy with shooters. Opinions are varied, and mine isn't better that the other, but I played pen & paper games for a long time and I always hated playing with people that concentrated too much on rules and tactical decisions. For me, the best role playing experience, either sitting at a table with other people or in front of a computer/ console, is the immersion in the character, immersion in the storyline, the exploration of the game setting, the interaction with NPCs. All this is best served by games which don't rely too much in complicated mechanics and rules and, in the computer version of RPGs, by games that are more cinematic: games with voice acting, with first or third person view, with action features, preferably open world (but that's not really required). The moment you take the cinematic style out of the RPG and put in it's place the boring concept of planing tactical maneuvers and managing every bit of detail the immersion changes, you get immersed in game mechanics and not the game setting. What are you a playing? Is it a cRPG or a cBoardgame? I ask the same question about Dungeons & Dragons (probably the great responsible for the birth of tactical cRPG long ago), is it an RPG or a hybrid RPG/ Boardgame? I suppose that it depends on the players and how they get things done. But when we are talking about computer games the matters becomes less manageable by the gamers. It is what it is, and the only way to change it is moding.
This said, I believe that some of the gamers that favour tactical cRPGs do feel emotional ties to their characters and feel immersed in the game setting. I can't. For me the lack of cinematic feel destroys the role playing experience, so, because of everything written before I do prefer the action features (they usually don't rely that much on reflexes as a shooter and, even when they do, there's always the choice of playing an easier mode). Also I would welcome back that trend...

 

[GothicGothicness]

It depends on what kind of games, but for RPG where player is in control of the character, dexterity should make you better at jumping, dodging, running etc. So when player press jump button he'd jump longer/higher and so on. Why have skills otherwise in such a game ?

 

[wolfing]

No+++

 

[MigRib]

It depends on what kind of games, but for RPG where player is in control of the character, dexterity should make you better at jumping, dodging, running etc. So when player press jump button he'd jump longer/higher and so on. Why have skills otherwise in such a game ?

In my previous post I forgot to address this. Of course it isn't always tactical oriented vs action oriented RPGs. If an action oriented cRPG has skills, attributes, powers, advantages/ disadvantages, merits/ flaws, quirks or whatever they are called (and if it is labeled as an RPG it should have some of those) they should affect the control of the character. And not just in action scenes, but also in social activities (e.g. skills affecting the outcome of social interaction or offering different dialogue options).

 

[Deleted User]

I prefer a system like Morrowind's, where it's almost entirely decided by stats and dice rolls. I think a combat system that is as complex, rich and diverse as that one is the ultimate expression of pen-and-paper that we can achieve in video game RPGs.

It's a shame they abandoned that. I really wish a Kickstarter team would study Morrowind and build a new RPG based on its virtues.

 

[Nerevarine]

I am of the same mind as Pessimeister here - there is room for both. I mainly care about whether or not the game is engaging and enjoyable, and this often comes down to execution. More action-oriented, player driven combat can be fantastic for RPGs, and so can more traditional turn-based or "dice roll" combat systems.

What I really don't like is when a developer can't make up their mind, taking too many elements from both sides and not executing either particularly well. There have been several RPGs (sometimes even great ones) that are guilty of this sort of crucial design flaw. This leads to combat that isn't satisfying as an action game, and also lacks the tactical depth of a true "traditional" tactical/dice roll system.

Vampire: Bloodlines is a good example of this, I think (and is also one of my favorite games of all time, regardless of genre). It just doesn't feel right when I fire a shotgun at close range right at an enemy's head and see numbers pop up rather than causing a fatal wound. Even worse is in a game like Morrowind (another favorite) when you can visually see your weapon hitting an opponent and then the game tells you that you "missed." Alpha Protocol also had a poorly designed combat system that was guilty of this sort of "Stuck in limbo" philosophy.

I feel that Fallout 3/ New Vegas with the right balance mods manages to make your character development and skill choices feel like they reallymatter, and yet, as a player-driven combat system, still manages to feel right in the sense that a skilled headshot, for example, will oftentimes be fatal, as it should be.

 

[Deleted User]

What people don't seem to understand or appreciate about combat systems like Morrowind and Vampire: Bloodlines, is that they are approximations of a real-time system. They are abstracts. Just because you physically see the attack hit means nothing in those games.

I don't understand why people can't enjoy abstracts that easily. Everyone complains about Morrowind's system, but in all reality it is one of the most complex, in-depth, rich combat systems we've ever seen in an RPG! Yet because it's an abstraction and you miss your shots even though you see them hit, people scoff at it.

Would these people honestly prefer Skyrim, which has almost no depth to the combat at all? I wouldn't. But hey, if you would, then more power to you. You're in the majority it seems, and I'm a bit saddened by that.

 

[JDR13]

Usually hard-core gamers equate the cRPGs with combat that incorporate action features with one of my most hated expressions "dumbing down". Of course I don't think there's any dumbing down here. I admit that on of the reasons that made companies (specially big ones) to invest in cRPGs whose combat has action oriented features for a more fluid effect. People who haven't got hundreds of hours to spare in gaming do not have the time, nor the patience to engage in tactical games. Also, tactical games require that the gamer doesn't put the playthrough on hold for days or weeks. If he does, he might not be able to remember anymore what was going on or even how the mechanics of that particular game work. That's not being dumb, that's called having a life outside gaming, and not every gamer wants to be just a gamer. Personal choices… I go with having a life.

I disagree that action-oriented combat is the reason you hear people using that term. A lot of old-school gamers complain about newer games being dumbed down because the fact is that they are indeed simplified compared to older games in a lot of ways. Anyone who doesn't believe that is simply in denial or hasn't been gaming very long.

 

[Deleted User]

You cannot honestly compare Morrowind to Skyrim and say that there isn't a massive, overbearing "dumbing down" going on.

Watch this video starting at this point and listen closely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0jiOpD-AQ#t=602

I'm not the biggest fan of the term "dumbing down", but there is no way newer games are even close to the complexity of a game like Morrowind. It's not even close.

 

[MigRib]

I disagree that action-oriented combat is the reason you hear people using that term. A lot of old-school gamers complain about newer games being dumbed down because the fact is that they are indeed simplified compared to older games in a lot of ways. Anyone who doesn't believe that is simply in denial or hasn't been gaming very long.

I said it was a reason, not necessarily the only reason. Yes, games have been simplified, they are now easier to play without having to read a manual, for example. Does that constitute a dumbing down for you? Not for me. The ability to read a cRPG manual does not grant the reader automatic IQ. Having a tutorial that explains in-game how the game is played makes it quicker to understand the mechanics. Although I do like to read, I like to read books, not manuals (I had to read manuals as a game master of pen & paper games, but even in among the p&p players most of them avoid reading the manuals - it's boring writing anyway). Usually, when I'm confronted with some game mechanic that I do not know how to use or forgot about I don't loose my time browsing a game manual, I just google the damned thing, it's quicker...
Other reason, also related with the ammount of of reading material: dialogues and journals, diary entries and similar things. In the past there was an insane ammount of lines to be red, outrareously long dialogues with lines that no one would ever speak. That would look ridiculous if voice acted, because they were not meant to be heard. The same applies to said journal entries and alike. Too much reading. Monitors aren't the adequate support for long text. Not in the news media, not in blogs, neither in video games. Someone who likes reading long stories should try books.
Not wanting to waste time reading text that usually (be it old-school or new games) is slightly better than fan-fiction doesn't dumb people down. Quite the opposite, indeed...

 

[MigRib]

You cannot honestly compare Morrowind to Skyrim and say that there isn't a massive, overbearing "dumbing down" going on.

Watch this video starting at this point and listen closely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0jiOpD-AQ#t=602

I'm not the biggest fan of the term "dumbing down", but there is no way newer games are even close to the complexity of a game like Morrowind. It's not even close.

Morrowind was a difficult game combat-wise. I don't like the game, but that's mainly because I think the setting was made for people who are fantasy fans and, after so many medieval looking high fantasy setting craved for something different. Hence giant mushrooms and weird creatures. As I am not a fantasy fan, and rarely play fantasy games, Skyrim's or Oblivion's settings are much more agreable for me. Anyway, getting to the point, I tried playing Morrowind. Once, just for fun, I tried creating a brutish orc, a bloodthirsty warrior, strong and resilient and who only had combat abilities. Then I started a fight with an old shopkeeper (I think it was a dark elf). She cleaned the floor with my brave strong orc. Does this make the game more clever? It's just more difficult and requires much time to build a character. But this was just ridiculous.
Vampire Bloodlines is much better in that part. If we forget about the bugs, it is probably the best adaptation of a pen & paper to a video game ever made (more recently I think Shadowrun Dragonfall did the same for tactical oriented games).

 

[JDR13]

I said it was a reason, not necessarily the only reason. Yes, games have been simplified, they are now easier to play without having to read a manual, for example. Does that constitute a dumbing down for you? Not for me. The ability to read a cRPG manual does not grant the reader automatic IQ. Having a tutorial that explains in-game how the game is played makes it quicker to understand the mechanics. Although I do like to read, I like to read books, not manuals (I had to read manuals as a game master of pen & paper games, but even in among the p&p players most of them avoid reading the manuals - it's boring writing anyway). Usually, when I'm confronted with some game mechanic that I do not know how to use or forgot about I don't loose my time browsing a game manual, I just google the damned thing, it's quicker…
Other reason, also related with the ammount of of reading material: dialogues and journals, diary entries and similar things. In the past there was an insane ammount of lines to be red, outrareously long dialogues with lines that no one would ever speak. That would look ridiculous if voice acted, because they were not meant to be heard. The same applies to said journal entries and alike. Too much reading. Monitors aren't the adequate support for long text. Not in the news media, not in blogs, neither in video games. Someone who likes reading long stories should try books.
Not wanting to waste time reading text that usually (be it old-school or new games) is slightly better than fan-fiction doesn't dumb people down. Quite the opposite, indeed…

Nope. Being easier to play without a manual is definitely not what I'm talking about. Games are a lot less complex in general. Just look at how the Elder Scrolls has evolved as an example. From Daggerfall to Skyrim, each game has less skills and spells than the previous game. Compare the Bioshock series to System Shock, or look at Bioware's recent games compared to their classics. I could easily go on…

 

[MigRib]

Nope. Being easier to play without a manual is definitely not what I'm talking about. Games are a lot less complex in general. Just look at how the Elder Scrolls has evolved as an example. From Daggerfall to Skyrim, each game has less skills and spells than the previous game. Compare the Bioshock series to System Shock, or look at Bioware's recent games compared to their classics. I could easily go on…

Ok, granted, games have lesser skills, lesser spells. But where does that mean the game itself is dumb? Or the players are dumber just for that streamlining? I never played the "older" elder scrolls (in the past, when I was a pen & paper role player cRPGs didn't quite make it for me, I would rather play with people). I also don't think System Shock is a bad game, graphically outdated, certainly, but not bad. But I prefer any Bioshock, because they feel less like shooters than System Shock. Maybe it's the voice acting, maybe the cutscenes, maybe the music, but they are, to me, much more immersive, even if they have less detailed mechanics. I don't play for number crunching or boring puzzle solving, I play mainly for entertainment. Bioshock and Skyrim are entertaining and immersive, in a cinematic way. System Shock and other classics are immersive only in the way of rules, mechanics. I'm certain that a lot of gamers can really immerse themselves that way, but I can't.

 

[MigRib]

or look at Bioware's recent games compared to their classics. I could easily go on…

This here is not so straightforward. It depends on the classics. I love KOTOR; but I wouldn't touch Baldur's Gate for various reasons, one of them because it is too much fantasy for me (too much Dungeons & Dragons, and that's the worse bit). But I agree that BioWare's more recent games are getting worse. I haven't finished Dragon Age. Inquisition, but it feels like a MMORPG. And that's bad. The Old Republic, being a MMORPG feels even more like a MMORPG, and that's extremely bad. Mass Effect 3 was the worst of the trilogy. But, hey, that's BioWare after EA, they are getting greadier, not dumber. I can't see any dumbing down in recent games, they have worse narratives, the quests feel repetitive, but I wouldn't point that as a sign of dumbness, just a sign of greediness on their part. They haven't invested in their games the same way they did in Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age Origins. But I still hope that something good will come out of that company one of these days.

 

[JDR13]

No one is saying that the games or the people playing them are "dumb". Just that they're simpler and more streamlined than games in the past, and that not everyone is a fan of that.

 

[MigRib]

No one is saying that the games or the people playing them are "dumb". Just that they're simpler and more streamlined than games in the past, and that not everyone is a fan of that.

Maybe that's not what you are saying, but the expression itself is quite clear. Anyway streamlining is not a bad thing, it makes games much more fluid, cinematic and entertaining. Too much rules just slow things down and, in my case, break the immersion completely. Again, comparing with pen & paper gaming, old-school games feel like the rules obsessed game master that interrups the game session for as long as it takes for him to find a certain paragraph that details what happens if are drowning in a tank full of rancid oil. Or the rules lawyer that discusses everything and must have the proof shown to him before accepting the outcome of an action. I'm more for a rules-light game that takes you right into the narrative and the setting.

 

[SirJames]

I wrote this in another thread. Maybe you saw it already? Regardless, it fits in here nicely.

It's all about the classic Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

For years he was seen as an easy class, a boring class. No spells, lots of survivability, exciting front-line action. He was often suggested as a great first class for beginners to the game, but was still a favourite of many veterans.

The question came about, "how do you make fighter more interesting to play?"

The problem is when you give Fighter some active abilities you've actually just created a new spell school for the "Fighter spellcaster". Sure, the spells might be short ranged and martial themed, but they are still just new spells.

Adding these active "powers" is exactly what the Dungeons and Dragons rules have done. Wizards of the Coast have forgotten that Fighter needs to be Fighter to stay Fighter. No one really likes 4th edition rules but they're not really sure why… It's because its not Dungeons and Dragons! It's broken the oldschool rules about the Fighter.

Dark Souls has solved this is problem by keeping Fighter without spells but enhancing the gameplay so that the player is in control of every move. No % based blocking or dodging while standing on the spot allowing yourself to take hits. You can actually control the Fighters moment to moment fighting, parrying and swinging and moving around just like real combat. Boring old D&D Thieves get all the same gameplay enhancements and can acrobatically roll in and backstab. Meanwhile your mages and clerics can continue their classic spellcasting as they always have, picking which spell best suits a situation.

Dark Souls has often been called "oldschool", but mistakenly for the exaggerated difficulty. The oldschool I see was achieved by picking up where the best old D&D rulesets left off and carrying the torch and a Longsword +1 bravely forth into the darkness!