| I've played a number of rpg's in my day but it seems that the majority of them have mediocre to bad combat mechanics. This thread will mostly focuses on Western rpg's since I have little knowledge and have played only one JRPG. Sometimes I wonder whether these developers purposefully did this or they don't put enough time fine tuning the combat of their games. I find people's reasons and excuses weak because almost every rpg I've played, combat is unavoidable and a lot of times either the controls or the combat itself is a huge barrier for me as a player. I don't think getting used to the combat is a good enough solution nor do I think just waiting for mods to "fix it" is a good solution either. Bethesda is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to this. For example, the combat in the two Elder Scrolls games I've played, Oblivion & Skyrim, suck. Skyrim was a big improvement but it isn't what I would call good either. There are other first person games with combat that is comparable to the Elder Scrolls series that Bethesda could have taken inspiration from to improve theirs. The fact that they've been making this series for 20 years and still haven't mastered their own style of combat is disturbing. Fallout 3 & New Vegas have First person shooter combat and yet both still fail at it. How could Bethesda and Obsidian have gotten combat so wrong when so many FPS's came out the same time as both games? The Witcher series is also another big offender of this too. Witcher 1's combat is super simple, like a glorified QTE. You just click and wait for the cursor to light up and keep clicking. Witcher 2's was worse and plays like a bad action game. Now, I have played some rpg's with good enough combat like Jade Empire, Kingdom's of Amalur and Dragon's Dogma but those are rare. |
sullynathanAug 10, 2015 9:15 PM
 |
| Because a lot of the times, the combat isn't everything. In JRPs you have a big story to follow. If people like the characters and story enough, they can excuse mediocre combat. For me when playing Skyrim, I like the level of immersion and exploration enough to forgive its simplistic battle system. |
| I'd say it's excusable since combat isn't the main focus of RPGs. I'd like better combat as well if I'm honest, since as you mentioned, a lot of Western RPGs such as the Elder Scrolls, the Witcher (Witcher 3 did improve the combat quite a bit imo), Fallout, etc. have atrocious combat gameplay. But at the same time, I expect an RPG to focus more on the world/environment, quests, character customization and multiple choices/pathways. If combat has to suffer to make these things better, then so be it. I don't personally think Kingdoms of Amalur had particularly good combat. It was better than most RPGs, but it still got repetitive pretty quickly. Dragon's Dogma had fun combat, but it also had its flaws. Out of all the Western RPGs I've played so far, I'd probably have to say the Souls series (Demon's/Dark Souls & Bloodborne) has the best combat, imo. But I still wouldn't say it's spectacular either, and it has so many glaring flaws such as still taking damage from an enemy attack if you rolled away too late, or somehow being able to stab an enemy in the back (or getting backstabbed yourself) from their side. I've seen this problems in all the Souls games, they haven't improved over the course of the series. But compared to other RPGs, I'd still say Souls has the most fun combat at least, and it's a lot more combat focused than most Western RPGs. |
 |
SnugglyWhuggly said: Out of all the Western RPGs I've played so far, I'd probably have to say the Souls series (Demon's/Dark Souls & Bloodborne) has the best combat, imo. But I still wouldn't say it's spectacular either, and it has so many glaring flaws such as still taking damage from an enemy attack if you rolled away too late, or somehow being able to stab an enemy in the back (or getting backstabbed yourself) from their side. I've seen this problems in all the Souls games, they haven't improved over the course of the series. But compared to other RPGs, I'd still say Souls has the most fun combat at least, and it's a lot more combat focused than most Western RPGs. Aren't the Souls games JRPGs, though? |
Milennin said: Yep.SnugglyWhuggly said: Out of all the Western RPGs I've played so far, I'd probably have to say the Souls series (Demon's/Dark Souls & Bloodborne) has the best combat, imo. But I still wouldn't say it's spectacular either, and it has so many glaring flaws such as still taking damage from an enemy attack if you rolled away too late, or somehow being able to stab an enemy in the back (or getting backstabbed yourself) from their side. I've seen this problems in all the Souls games, they haven't improved over the course of the series. But compared to other RPGs, I'd still say Souls has the most fun combat at least, and it's a lot more combat focused than most Western RPGs. Aren't the Souls games JRPGs, though? Japanese ARPGs |
 |
Milennin said: Aren't the Souls games JRPGs, though? They're Japanese, but they play more like Western RPGs. Most JRPGs are turn-based in my experience (Dragon Quest, Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, etc.). Edit: Someone got me to it. The only other Japanese ARPGs I can think of are the Ys games. Every other Japanese RPG I've played has been turn-based. |
|
SnugglyWhuggly said: Milennin said: Aren't the Souls games JRPGs, though? They're Japanese, but they play more like Western RPGs. Most JRPGs are turn-based in my experience (Dragon Quest, Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, etc.). Edit: Someone got me to it. The only other Japanese ARPGs I can think of are the Ys games. Every other Japanese RPG I've played has been turn-based. How so? I mean it's hard to find actual western RPGs that play like Souls/Borne series. If anything, these games draw inspiration from japanese video games more than they do from Western ones. I mean sure we have the medieval setting, armor, and mythology, but the souls series are full blooded Japanese action rpgs. Edit: if i recall correctly, the japanese were the first ones to implement the action rpg/hack and slash styles into their video games. Anyways, I still don't buy the whole "but it's not just about combat." Yes, OP and many other people are aware of that, but can you honestly deny that combat is a huge part of the gameplay experience for these games? I mean the fact that most of the side side quests and main quests from these require it is a big indication that combat should be given as much attention as its given to other areas such as worldbuilding and lore by studios like Besthesda. |
NudeBearAug 10, 2015 1:01 AM
FGAU1912 said: Dragonslayer franchise most of it was action based Those games are pretty old, I'm not sure if they were ever released outside of Japan...? I also forgot to mention Monster Hunter, I think that series probably also counts as an ARPG. OT: I think the Mass Effect series had some decent third-person shooting if that counts. Dragon Age combat has always been pretty bad though imo, it feels like a gloried MMO combat system. I can't remember Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic combat very well, it's been years since I played that (I only just remembered Bioware's franchises). |
|
| Because it's not important. RPGs are about the systems, progression, economy, worldbuilding, world scope, exploration and adventure. And in some cases character writing and development. Only when those things are perfected does combat come up for polish. I'd rather have 1 Skyrim than 200 Dragon Age 2s. (Though Dragon Age: Origins was good) And I'd rather have 1 Morrowind than the entire history of the rest of RPGs combined. |
 |
NudeBear said: How so? I mean it's hard to find actual western RPGs that play like Souls/Borne series. If anything, these games draw inspiration from japanese video games more than they do from Western ones. I mean sure we have the medieval setting, armor, and mythology, but the souls series are full blooded Japanese action rpgs. Edit: if i recall correctly, the japanese were the first ones to implement the action rpg/hack and slash styles into their video games. Kingdoms of Amalur, Diablo and Dragon's Dogma are somewhat similar imo (I think the last one might actually be Japanese though, I can't remember). If we're just talking about full-blooded Western RPGs here though, then I can't really say that any WRPGs have particularly good combat. The Witcher 3 did a pretty good job imo, but the previous titles in that series had much poorer combat systems. |
|
SnugglyWhuggly said: NudeBear said: How so? I mean it's hard to find actual western RPGs that play like Souls/Borne series. If anything, these games draw inspiration from japanese video games more than they do from Western ones. I mean sure we have the medieval setting, armor, and mythology, but the souls series are full blooded Japanese action rpgs. Edit: if i recall correctly, the japanese were the first ones to implement the action rpg/hack and slash styles into their video games. Kingdoms of Amalur, Diablo and Dragon's Dogma are somewhat similar imo (I think the last one might actually be Japanese though, I can't remember). If we're just talking about full-blooded Western RPGs here though, then I can't really say that any WRPGs have particularly good combat. The Witcher 3 did a pretty good job imo, but the previous titles in that series had much poorer combat systems. Dogma's a jrpg. |
| From early and innovative installments of Legend of Zelda, Castlenavia, to Secret of Mana, to Star Ocean and finally Dark Souls; the Japanese have been pretty consistent when it comes to contributing the action rpg genre, and from my end it looks like they're the ones who are usually pushing and changing the boundaries in the genre. So I still wonder as to why so many people believe that implementing action and role playing is an indicative trait of Western influence when it's in fact, the other way around. A lot of western rpgs have drawn a considerable amount of inspiration from their Japanese brothers. I mean even one of the developers for the Witcher 3 admitted that their game 's combat system drew inspiration from the Souls franchise. People need to stop acting like JRPGs are only about turn based combat. |
SnugglyWhuggly said: Let's please get rid of this preconceived notion that all JRPGs are almost always turn-based.Milennin said: Aren't the Souls games JRPGs, though? They're Japanese, but they play more like Western RPGs. Most JRPGs are turn-based in my experience (Dragon Quest, Shin Megami Tensei, Final Fantasy, etc.). Edit: Someone got me to it. The only other Japanese ARPGs I can think of are the Ys games. Every other Japanese RPG I've played has been turn-based. Here, a list for you of all the Action JRPGs I can think of right now. [*]Secret of Mana [*]Legend of Mana [*]Terranigma [*]Drakengard 1-3 [*]Nier [*]Faxanadu [*]Ys series [*]Lost Kingdoms series [*]Dragon Slayer series [*]Brave Fencer Musashi [*]Zelda II [*]Rogue Galaxy [*]Dark Cloud 1-2 [*].hack series [*]Demon Souls [*]Dark Souls series [*]Bloodborne [*]The World Ends With You [*]Muramasa: The Demon Blade [*]Princess Crown [*]Odin Sphere [*]Dragon's Crown [*]Star Ocean series [*]Tales of series [*]Ni no Kuni [*]Final Fantasy: Crisis Core [*]Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles [*]Final Fantasy: Dirge of Cerberus [*]Final Fantasy: Type-0 [*]Kingdom Hearts series [*]Dragon's Dogma [*]Monster Hunter series [*]Xenoblade Chronicles [*]The Sword of Etheria [*]Radiata Stories [*]The Last Story [*]Akiba's Trip [*]Rune Factory series |
PeenusWeenusCaimAug 10, 2015 1:42 AM
|
| When I think "JRPG", I think of turn-based gameplay. When I think "ARPG", I think action-roleplay. It doesn't matter what their actual countries of origin are. So I apologise for bringing in my own basis into that. I talked about "Western" RPGs (and most Western RPGs, at the most well-known & popular franchises, are ARPGS) in my first post because that's what the OP said this thread would be focusing on, but I'm not even sure what kinds of RPGs we're discussing any more, lol. Let's not turn this into a JRPG debate thread please, I feel like this has already gone off-topic enough as it is. |
|
| Because combat is not what RPG are played for? RPG is played for numbers and roleplaying. And complex systems. As long as an RPG fulfills its purpose, Combat does not matter. In fact in a lot of cases when the developers tried to "up the combat" they happened to sacrifice all that the franchise was good for(ex: Dragon Age and Mass Effect) |
 |
| It is because RPGs aren't primarily combat oriented games. Action games are where that is supposed to happen. In an RPG, the most important thing is that the combat doesn't become a huge chore. You could have a theoretically good system (say Xenosaga II), but if it is a ridiculous time sink then it is bad. On the other hand, you could have a mediocre system (lets say TES), but if it doesn't really break your flow then there isn't much reason to care. I find the same goes for any TBS as long as they're fast and simple enough. |
| Skyrim is more about the open world and exploration. Combat matters little to the game. |
| Hey, this better not be coming from that discussion we had on another thread. But I did admit then, that the few game titles we discussed DO indeed have poor combat. Then again, while combat is something that you'll probably have to partake in most RPGs, it isn't what most people would consider the most important aspect of an RPG. Bethesda's games ares till extremely popular and critically acclaimed not because of the combat (definitely not) but because of the open-world and how the game lets you build your character. I guess people tend to be more forgiving of an RPG's combat mechanics if the other areas are good enough. Euphemistic said: It is not the most important part of the game. PS:T is hailed as one of the best RPGs,if not the best,but the combat is...not that good. Dude is right. Planescape: Torment has poor combat but is considered one of the best games of all time. The story is just that good. As for Bethesda and the future, I think they already learned. Just look at Fallout 4 here, the combat looks more seamless and less awkward this time around, along with the new, extensive weapon-upgrading and building gameplay. Maybe for combat enthusiasts, they'll be able to enjoy a Bethesda game this time. |
 |
| Tales of games have real time combat, albeit a lot different than western RPGs. It's been a while since I played any of them, but I think their combat system was pretty competent. Some of the boss battles were really tough if you didn't grind up levels. |
| Combat isn't everything, people have different tastes. I think the Witcher combat could have been better, but I still enjoyed the game a lot. And the Witcher 3 combat was pretty good in my opinion. Elder Scrolls, well it's a bit basic, but considering that it has improved over the past few games I would say it's a step in the right direction. And different games have different styles, the combat of mount & blade or Dark Messiah, wouldn't work well in the witcher and so on. |
 |
| Because RPGs are about the story and characters, not the combat. (As many others have already said.) Plus your opinion of a combat system being "bad or mediocre" is simply your opinion. Some people might actually like them. I can typically find positive and negative aspects to any combat system. |
| If you went to a fast food burger place that also did pizza on the side and the burgers were great but the pizza was mediocre, you're pretty much just getting what you paid for. It's about what you expect to get. A lot of people who play RPGs are as much in it (if not more) for the character customization, the story, the quests and the world. That's not to say it's wrong to expect good combat in a RPG, a lot of people are just willing to settle as long as they're satisfied with those other elements of the game. You can flip the question on its head and ask why people excuse mediocre storylines in FPS games and the answer would be because it's not what they're expecting to get out of it. A lot of RPG fans also grew up on old school turn based RPGs in which there wasn't really much to say about the combat. That doesn't mean nobody enjoyed turn based combat, I don't dislike it myself, but there really isn't much going on there. It isn't even really "strategy" in most cases. With that said, I can think of a lot of RPGs that had pretty good combat one way or another. Dark/Demon's Souls, Bloodborne, Dragon's Dogma, Dragon Age 1, Tales of series, Star Ocean series, Bastion, Transistor, Kingdoms of Amalur and so on. |
| The satisfaction of leveling up makes some people ignore the actual gameplay |
| You guys are missing the point. You partake in so much combat in these games that you can't just ignore it. It doesn't matter of that's not the focus of the genre but the fact that it's there and it's still not done well is a problem. |
|
| I'd argue and say that combat is a side piece for most JRPGs. Where's the story? How do the characters interact with each other? The reason why the Final Fantasy series got so many iterations wasn't because of the combat system, it was because of the characters, story, music and whatnot. |
 |
| In the 90s? Yes Nowadays. No |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Bad combat is obviously not ideal, but I don't think it matters too much if the game excels in other areas. Some of the best RPGs have bad combat, but great characters/story/atmosphere/customization/etc. |
 |
| I couldn't even go past the first area in the Witcher 1, because of such boring combat. |
 |
| No it shouldn't. Combat is one of the most important aspects in RPGs and it should get as much attention from the devs as every other. I'd say it only deserves to be forgiven is if the game offers way too many positives for it to outweigh the bad combat. (e.g. Planescape: Torment and Fallout: New Vegas) I'm fucking sick of the combat in Bethesda's games. Every single game of theirs has horrible combat. I dislike the combat in Fallout New Vegas (it isn't a Bethesda game but whatever) too, but at least they added iron sights. Seriously, were Bethesda that fucking stupid to not add iron sights into a (primarily) FIRST PERSON SHOOTER?! /rant I agree with you, OP, Bethesda is the biggest offender when it comes to bad combat in RPGs. Fallout 4's combat looks decent but it's way too streamlined for me to be excited about it. |
VoidlingAug 10, 2015 6:05 PM
| It can, somewhat. Everyone seems to be fine with the bad combat and intense focus on story in The Last of Us. I know that's not an rpg, but my point stands. Combat isn't everything. Xenosaga had a pretty average combat system with an insane focus on story. It kinda worked for them. It had a good story ^^ It felt more like a movie than a game. |
 |
| To answer OP's question... No, combat should not be excused. You can have the greatest story of all time with the boldest graphics of the generation... But I will not play it if the actual gameplay sucks dick. If gameplay is seen more as an obstruction rather than as an element that makes the game enjoyable, I will drop it. If I wanted a good story I could go read a fucking book or something. Speaking of which, I never finished the Witcher because of its one-click combat. |
|
OkayCaim said: To answer OP's question... No, combat should not be excused. You can have the greatest story of all time with the boldest graphics of the generation... But I will not play it if the actual gameplay sucks dick. If gameplay is seen more as an obstruction rather than as an element that makes the game enjoyable, I will drop it. To be honest, I never finished the Witcher because of that. How do you feel about David Cage's games? |
|
lucjan said: Mediocre. Indigo Prophecy was his best but even that game isn't special by itself.OkayCaim said: To answer OP's question... No, combat should not be excused. You can have the greatest story of all time with the boldest graphics of the generation... But I will not play it if the actual gameplay sucks dick. If gameplay is seen more as an obstruction rather than as an element that makes the game enjoyable, I will drop it. To be honest, I never finished the Witcher because of that. How do you feel about David Cage's games? |
|
| skyrim combat mechanics are terrible. as for faou 3 and faou nv. there are sniper rifles so you can avoid as much combat as possible. plus the sneaking system although not perfect can make up for that. unless you're really a dedicated hand to hand combat. then there's just no avoiding it. the combat system never took me out of the game. plus the V.A.T.S system is sort of their answer for that. but to answer your question. it doesn't matter to me if the game's lore isn't terrible. i focus more on armor than actual combat and finding a longer range weapons like the anti material rifle in nv and the gauss rifle in faou3 |
scruffsAug 10, 2015 6:53 PM
| RPG is a broad genre, if we took the traditional meaning of what constitute an RPG games, Heroes of Might and Magic also fell into it's domain, and it's combat mechanics are among the best in video games. But to answer OP question, with the larger market today and as their target demographic are getting older (which has lesser time to spent on entertainment) developers toned down their games to casual levels. |
azzuReAug 10, 2015 6:59 PM
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
Red_Tuesday said: Because it's not important. RPGs are about the systems, progression, economy, worldbuilding, world scope, exploration and adventure. And in some cases character writing and development. Only when those things are perfected does combat come up for polish. I'd rather have 1 Skyrim than 200 Dragon Age 2s. (Though Dragon Age: Origins was good) And I'd rather have 1 Morrowind than the entire history of the rest of RPGs combined. If it wasn't important then they should've just done a graphic adventure or a visual novel. I played both and if you ask me, I rather replay DA2 than skyrim. |
OkayCaim said: Here, a list for you of all the Action JRPGs I can think of right now. Why only Zelda II >.> I would consider all the Zelda games to be RPG's, regardless of the use of stats and leveling. You can also include Musashi Samurai Legend (Musashi sequel), and Sword of Mana (even though it's kinda sorta a remake of Final Fantasy Adventure). If we're including Drakengard, then I'd at least include Killer is Dead, No More Heroes, and Lollipop Chainsaw. I hesitate with that since it then has to move on to Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, and Metal Gear Rising. But if we're doing that, that's cool too. There's also Okami, which had imo one of the greatest stories of all time. |
| Fallout 4 will have the same shitty combat like 3 and NV, so boring. But I mean I guess you can use VATs all the time so it's good. The game's are too easy also.. = no fun. Not to mention the stories aren't that great but just like Witcher 3 I guess since the worlds are large and you can apparently do whatever you want, which you can't really then people eat it up. |
sullynathan said: You guys are missing the point. You partake in so much combat in these games that you can't just ignore it. Do you really? How much? 20% of the game? I could argue you could play something like Trails in the Sky with entering combat less than 100 times. Can you really use combat as a measure of gameplay if you spend most of the time doing something else? Also if the said combat isn't actually even bad. Not amazing, just functional. And don't forget than in an RPG preparation is half the battle. |
| Just to be clear again. Is it a problem? Yes. Do we want the combat to be better? Yes, indeed. But is it such a problem that it destroys the game? Most of the time, no. Don't forget, RPGs usually give players freedom to get around obstacles, at least the Western ones do. Deus Ex is one of the best games of all time and it has very awkward combat but most players usually stealth the game and it rewards you for doing so, so they don't complain much about the combat. |
|
| One way Bethesda could improve their combat is to straight up rip off Chivalry Medieval Knights, Mount & Blade, Thief, Dishonored & Lichdom Battlemage. Khaosman-Prime said: Just to be clear again. Is it a problem? Yes. Do we want the combat to be better? Yes, indeed. But is it such a problem that it destroys the game? Most of the time, no. Don't forget, RPGs usually give players freedom to get around obstacles, at least the Western ones do. Deus Ex is one of the best games of all time and it has very awkward combat but most players usually stealth the game and it rewards you for doing so, so they don't complain much about the combat. Deus Ex isn't an rpg or at best it's an ARPG. It also has a strong focus for variety in combat. mecharobot said: sullynathan said: You guys are missing the point. You partake in so much combat in these games that you can't just ignore it. Do you really? How much? 20% of the game? I could argue you could play something like Trails in the Sky with entering combat less than 100 times. Can you really use combat as a measure of gameplay if you spend most of the time doing something else? Also if the said combat isn't actually even bad. Not amazing, just functional. And don't forget than in an RPG preparation is half the battle. The thread focuses on Western rpg's since I've only played one JRPG. In western rpg's, you will get into a lot or a good amount of combat from a lot of quests and just by exploring. Functional is inexcusable for most of the games I had in mind when making this thread since those games' developers have been in the rpg business for decades or almost a decade. |
|
Nourdon said: Maybe it's difficult to improve because of the hardware/input limitation Besides, how should ideal combat mechanism in rpg be? What game have the closest combat mechanism to that ideal? It depends on style of combat that the series chooses. Elder Scrolls has Medieval styled combat, with stealth and magic. Having all three it should do them all well. |
|
sullynathan said: You guys are missing the point. You partake in so much combat in these games that you can't just ignore it. It doesn't matter of that's not the focus of the genre but the fact that it's there and it's still not done well is a problem. It's done well in many games though and even in games where it's not done well, would it be better to omit it? Only in a few cases would I say yes. Honestly, Witcher 1 would have been better as a story than a game, I could agree with that. But that's a rare case. Developers have to choose where to focus their time and consumers need to be self aware enough to understand what they're looking for. You seem to be asking for a game that has the story and character development of a top quality RPG (and if you don't care about this you should be looking for a game that's less RPG and more action to begin with) but with the combat of a top quality action game. And while there's some cases of that, at least subjectively, that's asking for a lot when you want it to be the standard. It'd be nice but it's unrealistic, not just for RPGs but for every genre. Which is why I mentioned before that FPS games often have a pretty generic, tropey story that often isn't too memorable. But usually (I always hope at least) it has better multiplayer infrastructure and balance than most games with exciting and fast paced gameplay. I'm not saying RPGs are only for people who love story and don't care about good gameplay, but an RPG with a 9/10 story and 6/10 gameplay is an acceptable experience for me. But there are still many RPGs where I felt both aspects achieved at least an 8 or higher. A lot of them I named in my first post (Bastion and Dark Souls are two games I'd instantly name for doing both right) . |
More topics from this board
» Ideas for a new PS1?XMGA030 - Yesterday |
2 |
by Shishio-kun
»»
11 hours ago |
|
» What is your prediction for the next upcoming sony pc ports batch for 2026?jacobPOL - Yesterday |
2 |
by Retro8bit
»»
Yesterday, 10:40 PM |
|
» What's the oldest game you have a habit of often replaying?fleurbleue - Sep 26 |
20 |
by MechKingKillbot
»»
Yesterday, 2:26 PM |
|
» WavPackCybercat2000 - Sep 17 |
4 |
by deg
»»
Yesterday, 2:13 PM |
|
» What do you like the most about pc gaming?jacobPOL - Sep 24 |
10 |
by ElderNerd
»»
Sep 26, 10:54 PM |