Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Is the new "action oriented" combat the future of the MMORPG genre?

13

Comments

  • Neo_LibertyNeo_Liberty Lufkin, TXPosts: 429Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Reklaw
    Originally posted by killion81

    Many of the new MMORPGs are releasing with more action oriented combat.  Some will say this new brand of combat is more skill based.  In my opinion, it feels like a new sub-genre, Multiplayer Online Action Roleplaying Games or MOARPGs.  I think there is plenty of room for a well designed MMORPG with traditional MMORPG combat.

    How does everyone else feel about this?  Is this the future of the MMORPG genre?  Do you enjoy traditional MMORPG combat?  Is one type of combat better than the other in your opinion (and why)?

    To be honost I love current MMO combat, it's much more exciting but at the same time I also dislike that this genre has become this mainly combat oriented online games. It's the RPG aspect is what I miss in today's MMORPG. But not the singleplayer RPG parts brought into this genre, but the RPG where what you see NPC's doing in singleplayer games should be optional and things players should be able to do in a MMORPG.

     

    This..

     

    games revolve around combat.. its only natural that they try to make it as exciting and enjoyable as possible. as i said in my original post action combat isn't about the combat mechanics.. its the speed of the combat.. point and click can be just exciting when the fight doesn't  take 1-5 minutes for normal mobs. you still have to pay attention and time your skills...

    that being said... the combat speed is not relevant to what you do outside of combat.. ppl complain about interaction... but if the only time you interact is during combat... than its not much of an mmo.

    image
  • Trudge34Trudge34 Stevens Point, WIPosts: 392Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Neo_Liberty

     

    you are exaggerating.. with gw2/ idk about tera's mechanics.. all you have to do is disengage the enemy and start typing... I have done it before myself...

    How am I exaggerating? You even said with the very next sentence that you don't know how Tera's mechanics worked. Sure, you may just be able to back off a mob in GW2 and type, but that's because most of the harder mobs are just decent sized zergs. You can just pawn off aggro to someone else if you're getting hit.

    Maybe you looked over in my post where I said I was the tank? Because in Tera you had to be actively hitting / blocking / whatever was on your hot button to maintain aggro or all the other squishy classes were done for? So if I wanted to move the mob, but couldn't because everyone was beating on it, I'd have to drop my shield or whatever other aggro technique I was using to type it out. Doing so opened myself up to attacks that could down you, or at the very least put a significant dent in your hp. So more often than not we went into fights without really knowing the ins and outs of it because no one wanted to take a little bit of downtime to explain the fight a bit.

    You can read all the online guides you want, watch all the YouTube videos, maybe it's just me but those things don't explain it like having someone else who's done it explain a few of the bigger nuisances of the fight. Blows my mind that people don't want to take a few minutes before the boss after spending 45 minutes to an hour in a dungeon to explain the encounter a bit to someone who hasn't done it before and then flip out when that person screws up.

    For many of us, combat is one way for us to advance towards a bigger goal. It's not the end all to the enjoyment of the game, but one of many pieces of the puzzle of why we enjoy this genre. It's shown with TERA that there needs to be more than just combat to keep people around.

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • killion81killion81 A City, MIPosts: 985Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zekiah
    Originally posted by strangiato2112

    I hope not.  I hate it.  

     

    Bring back strategic combat.  Sick of GCD clickfests and the new 'action' trend on top of that.

    Agreed.

    The cooldowns in Rift were so horrible that I quit 15 mins. into beta 2. I'd like to watch the game, not the cooldown bars, thank you very much.

     

    The concept of cooldowns and global cooldowns are not bad ones.  However, like all game mechanics, they can be implemented well and not so well.  Both of these can add significant depth to combat, from a strategic standpoint, if implemented well.  If not, I agree, they tend to make combat drag and feel boring.

  • ZekiahZekiah Aurora, COPosts: 2,499Member
    Originally posted by killion81
    Originally posted by Zekiah
    Originally posted by strangiato2112

    I hope not.  I hate it.  

     

    Bring back strategic combat.  Sick of GCD clickfests and the new 'action' trend on top of that.

    Agreed.

    The cooldowns in Rift were so horrible that I quit 15 mins. into beta 2. I'd like to watch the game, not the cooldown bars, thank you very much.

     

    The concept of cooldowns and global cooldowns are not bad ones.  However, like all game mechanics, they can be implemented well and not so well.  Both of these can add significant depth to combat, from a strategic standpoint, if implemented well.  If not, I agree, they tend to make combat drag and feel boring.

    I haven't seen a global cooldown system that isn't a constant bar-watching PITA of a mess. Ever.

    I'd rather see some kind of chain system with multiple variables per level, at least then you wouldn't have to sit there and constantly watch a stupid freakin' cool-down bar.

    "Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  • XarnthalXarnthal Landenberg, PAPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by killion81

    Many of the new MMORPGs are releasing with more action oriented combat.  Some will say this new brand of combat is more skill based.  In my opinion, it feels like a new sub-genre, Multiplayer Online Action Roleplaying Games or MOARPGs.  I think there is plenty of room for a well designed MMORPG with traditional MMORPG combat.

    How does everyone else feel about this?  Is this the future of the MMORPG genre?  Do you enjoy traditional MMORPG combat?  Is one type of combat better than the other in your opinion (and why)?

    I don't mind the old style of combat, but I prefer the 'action-style' combat. Personally I prefer the first person style of combat that Darkfall1.0 had, and not the combat that TERA and GW2 had.

    Sennheiser
    Assist
    Thage

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by killion81
    Originally posted by Zekiah
     

     

    The concept of cooldowns and global cooldowns are not bad ones.  However, like all game mechanics, they can be implemented well and not so well.  Both of these can add significant depth to combat, from a strategic standpoint, if implemented well.  If not, I agree, they tend to make combat drag and feel boring.

    Agreed. Like D3 has very exciting combat mechanics even with CDs and stuff. You actually have to watch where you step, and use your abilities accordingly, and dying is very possible.

    Marvel Heroes is going to have Diablo type combat .. so that is the MMOs i am most eager to get my hands on.

     

  • Neo_LibertyNeo_Liberty Lufkin, TXPosts: 429Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Trudge34

     


    Originally posted by Neo_Liberty

     
    you are exaggerating.. with gw2/ idk about tera's mechanics.. all you have to do is disengage the enemy and start typing... I have done it before myself...

     

    How am I exaggerating? You even said with the very next sentence that you don't know how Tera's mechanics worked. Sure, you may just be able to back off a mob in GW2 and type, but that's because most of the harder mobs are just decent sized zergs. You can just pawn off aggro to someone else if you're getting hit.

    Maybe you looked over in my post where I said I was the tank? Because in Tera you had to be actively hitting / blocking / whatever was on your hot button to maintain aggro or all the other squishy classes were done for? So if I wanted to move the mob, but couldn't because everyone was beating on it, I'd have to drop my shield or whatever other aggro technique I was using to type it out. Doing so opened myself up to attacks that could down you, or at the very least put a significant dent in your hp. So more often than not we went into fights without really knowing the ins and outs of it because no one wanted to take a little bit of downtime to explain the fight a bit.

    You can read all the online guides you want, watch all the YouTube videos, maybe it's just me but those things don't explain it like having someone else who's done it explain a few of the bigger nuisances of the fight. Blows my mind that people don't want to take a few minutes before the boss after spending 45 minutes to an hour in a dungeon to explain the encounter a bit to someone who hasn't done it before and then flip out when that person screws up.

    For many of us, combat is one way for us to advance towards a bigger goal. It's not the end all to the enjoyment of the game, but one of many pieces of the puzzle of why we enjoy this genre. It's shown with TERA that there needs to be more than just combat to keep people around.

    that doesn't make my post any less significant..

    the point is action combat overall.. its capabilities. every iteration of action combat isn't going to be the same.. in tera.. u may be forced to take a lick.. but every game isnt the same.. and you can't generalize based on one game... and u said it yourself u were the tank.. that means that someone else should pick up the slack... and if they can't.. its sad that you were the only person who had any clue about what to do.. games are not THAT complicated... maybe you should take a support role since your the only person smart enough to figure out how to fight...

    and i wasn't talking about watching videos.. i was talking about thinking on your feet and noticing how effective another person is against the mob...

    i've been praised many times in games based on my effective use of skills and positioning.. it doesn't take much to play better or be successful.. the fact that it seems like ppl dont "get it" is very disappointing.

     

    also.. with your statement about needing more than combat... i never disagrred.. every game "should" have more than combat.. but that doesn't mean you take away from combat mechanics.. it means you involve housing/crafting/markets....

    it doesn't mean dumb down combat so i can have a friendly chat about the weather.

    image
  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Just because an option comes out doesn't mean its the future of anything. 
  • CelusiosCelusios Denver, COPosts: 340Member Uncommon

    This new style of combat is the future I hope. There is no skill whatsoever involved in the combat of the past (such as WoW) in which the game is aiming for you, leaping to people for you, dodging for you, blocking for you, and most importantly you're just spamming abilities hoping to wipe one another out.

    Some could argue "well this is just a more skilled clickfest!" however many of the newer titles have downsides to you spamming the keys. For instance a loss of stamina is what I see a lot of new games doing. Stamina also goes into your dodging and etc.

    In short, I hope they continue to produce more action oriented games. The market doesn't need any of that themepark hold your hand style you all want.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by madazz
    Just because an option comes out doesn't mean its the future of anything. 

    And it does not mean that it is not the future. We just simply don't know until the market sort it out.

    But we can venture guesses of how popular action combat is, can we?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Celusios

    In short, I hope they continue to produce more action oriented games. The market doesn't need any of that themepark hold your hand style you all want.

    But course, it boils down to whether there are new games in this direction. I see Marvel Heroes as one of these action combat games. Anything else (in the MMO genre)?

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by madazz
    Just because an option comes out doesn't mean its the future of anything. 

    And it does not mean that it is not the future. We just simply don't know until the market sort it out.

    But we can venture guesses of how popular action combat is, can we?

    Absolutely.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

    Sadly, probably true. No doubt an attempt to attract console gamers to MMOs. I like MMOs where you can talk/joke during most fights.

    This is one reason Vanguard suffered. So many buttons to press during combat, that no one talked. Add in the out-of-combat regen and voila; no one talked...ever. Boring. Quit.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • centkincentkin Asbury, NJPosts: 944Member Uncommon

    Open world vindictus would be a good beginning for a game.  I played tera, C9, Dragon's Nest, BUT the best combat was the simplest combat...  Vindictus.  It was all timing and a couple of buttons. 

    I also liked Cabal's combat system, at least the combos as opposed to where it ended up. 

    ---

    OTOH I also like strategic combat systems but not 123456789 systems.  I liked the disciple class of vanguard from early beta before they changed it.  It was a flowing combat system that did not rely on mana etc.  You chose the ability you were going to use thinking about what ability you wanted to be able to use three combat ticks down the line. 

    The swordmaster in warhammer was interesting that way as well as what you did now could influence what you could do later.  Plus I loved some of the special moves etc.

    Before that I liked my shaman from everquest 1.  There were times when I literally saved the party from what would have been a wipe had they had a different shaman.  There were just so many things you could do in a clutch situation.

    I think that is the point though -- people want the ability for talent of one sort or another to be able to win over equipment.  Other people at least want the illusion of such. 

  • killion81killion81 A City, MIPosts: 985Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Celusios

    This new style of combat is the future I hope. There is no skill whatsoever involved in the combat of the past (such as WoW) in which the game is aiming for you, leaping to people for you, dodging for you, blocking for you, and most importantly you're just spamming abilities hoping to wipe one another out.

    Some could argue "well this is just a more skilled clickfest!" however many of the newer titles have downsides to you spamming the keys. For instance a loss of stamina is what I see a lot of new games doing. Stamina also goes into your dodging and etc.

    In short, I hope they continue to produce more action oriented games. The market doesn't need any of that themepark hold your hand style you all want.

     

    I disagree with this.  There is skill in executing perfect PvE rotations while changing positions throughout a fight.  There is definitely skill in knowing when to counter and pop cooldowns in PvP encounters.  I will agree that there is not the same hand eye coordination required as most console games and FPS games.  However, I also believe that is part of what sets the whole MMORPG genre apart.  

    Traditional RPGs gave us turn based combat with simple target selection.  MMORPGs evolved this combat into a 3D space through tab targetting and global cooldowns.  Also, at least half of the results of combat of more traditional RPGs were decided prior to combat even occurring, through specialization and gear.  Essentially the build of your character determines what they are capable of in combat.  Sometimes they run into a hard counter, sometimes they are the hard counter.

    There is another genre, the Action RPG genre, that takes the development of RPGs and attaches action oriented gameplay.  ARPGs should certainly evolve into their own MOARPG or MMOARPG genre, but they are a different sort of game designed for a different audience.  

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by killion81

    There is another genre, the Action RPG genre, that takes the development of RPGs and attaches action oriented gameplay.  ARPGs should certainly evolve into their own MOARPG or MMOARPG genre, but they are a different sort of game designed for a different audience.  

    The action RPG genre is already doing that. Diablo 3 has MMO features like persistent characters and auction houses.

    Marvel Heroes is calling itself MMO action RPG.

    While these are slightly different genre than traditional MMOs, i doubt the audience is very different. There is a large overlap. 1.2M WOW players bought annual pass to get D3. The actual number of overlap players is probabyl much bigger. Everyone in my old WOW guild played D3.

     

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

    Was just thinking.... action combat belongs in FPS. In RPGs, character effectiveness is based on character skill and equipment. The player cannot get better results by rolling the dice a certain way.

    As tempting as action oriented combat is, I just don't think it fits RPG. Implementing it is an attempt at merging genres. But you will lose more RPG players than you will gain FPS players, I think.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

    Was just thinking.... action combat belongs in FPS. In RPGs, character effectiveness is based on character skill and equipment. The player cannot get better results by rolling the dice a certain way.

    As tempting as action oriented combat is, I just don't think it fits RPG. Implementing it is an attempt at merging genres. But you will lose more RPG players than you will gain FPS players, I think.

    Obvious not.

    Dead Space series has action combat done quite well .. obviously not a FPS. Many action RPG is of 3rd person view, obviously not FPS. There are a tons of action adventures (like Devil May Cry) that action combat is the focus, but obviously not FPS.

    And if you think action combat does not fit RPG, why is action RPG like Diablo so popular? In fact, it has its own sub-genre.

  • Inf666Inf666 DarmstadtPosts: 508Member

    I do understand that you classic MMORPG players want to keep the game mechanics you are used to.

    Please understand though that a lot of us would like to play the same MMO games we have played until now (GW2, etc.) but with a different combat model. Yes I am willing to live with the consequences of making a voice tool mandatory. I am also OK with having a smaller population because of the required high player skill factor. I am also willing to die again and again because of my own failings (blocking, dodging, etc.).

    But for all that I will get a high satisfaction when I achieve a goal. The direct control of my char gives me a high immersion factor and allows for combos and movement that are not seen in classic MMOs. I simply feel more involved. Being at the top of a PvP / PvE scoreboard will have meaning. Killing a hard PvE boss will have meaning especially if things went wrong during the fight.

    A fight where I have time to read guild chat, browse the internet on my second monitor and occasionally press 1/2/3 is not a fight I want to be in. It's boring to the point that I quit that game soon, even if I am in an active guild.

    ---
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
         I guess it depends on what the people want..  To me action (eye candy) combat is just too arcade for me..  If I want to play games like that, I'd go play my PS3 or go drop quarters at the local arcade..  I like strategic combat myself, which is what we had with EQ moreso then action.. I like people to use the grey matter in the head and less on twitch.. Who do I mez? Who do I kite? Who do I heal? etc etc..  For me eye candy combat just causes more problems with game mechanics then anything.. Group, dungeon and raid size have to sized down, because you can't have 40 people in a local area doing their fansy dansy eye candy moves.. That stresses video cards to much and you end up with lag issues..   I would rather have 40 people in a raid with minimal combat graphics, then 10 people dancing around like some Disney glow show.. LOL
  • killion81killion81 A City, MIPosts: 985Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Inf666

    A fight where I have time to read guild chat, browse the internet on my second monitor and occasionally press 1/2/3 is not a fight I want to be in. It's boring to the point that I quit that game soon, even if I am in an active guild.

     

    WoW combat could be considered "traditional MMORPG combat".  Yes, there are rotations.  Typing is still generally inefficient, unless you are a REALLY fast typist (it does happen).  I've had my time with WoW and have left without intentions of ever returning, but if you have ever played a WoW raid or arena match, it's hard to say the combat is boring because it's slow.  You may have other reasons for calling it boring, but I don't think it being too slow is a valid one.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    As an example, last night me and this TR guy were having this stalingrad (the movie) like stand off in the middle of nowhere for half an hour, during a shot then hiding and moving to new cover, trying not to give away position and stuff. Then later was a massive 3 way fight that was chaos people dieing left right and centre. You just can't replicate that sort of emergent behaviour in combat from old fashioned wow style turn based combat.

    All mmos should use 1st or 3rd person real time combat. We have the technology to deliver it now.
  • Inf666Inf666 DarmstadtPosts: 508Member
    Originally posted by Rydeson
         I guess it depends on what the people want..  To me action (eye candy) combat is just too arcade for me..  If I want to play games like that, I'd go play my PS3 or go drop quarters at the local arcade..  I like strategic combat myself, which is what we had with EQ moreso then action.. I like people to use the grey matter in the head and less on twitch.. Who do I mez? Who do I kite? Who do I heal? etc etc..  For me eye candy combat just causes more problems with game mechanics then anything.. Group, dungeon and raid size have to sized down, because you can't have 40 people in a local area doing their fansy dansy eye candy moves.. That stresses video cards to much and you end up with lag issues..   I would rather have 40 people in a raid with minimal combat graphics, then 10 people dancing around like some Disney glow show.. LOL

    Please hava a look at this youtube video of some dark souls pvp matches:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzzWdq8Mslk

    Do you consider that to be "arcade action" ? I think it is quite slow and very tactical. Thats the type of combat I would like to see in an MMO. Please do not confuse it with something like this from vindictus:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcSwauNa8aY

    I do not want to see high speed no-brainer hack and slash either.

    ---
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  • TjedTjed Baltimore, MDPosts: 162Member

    I'm getting tired of twitchy combat.  I prefer the older style of combat.  I like when there are a lot more things going on than just the surface hitting things with weapons and spells.  I like when there is a need for CC.  I like when buffs are very powerful, to the point that there are classes that are centered around bringing buffs to the fight and not much else.  Haste, slow, regen, damage shields, levitate, invis, and much more. 

    The key is to have a large variety of diverse classes that overlap these abilities so that a group can achieve these goals in many different ways.  In my opinion that is still related to combat, but a little deeper than killing everything in front of you as fast as possible. 

    As always, my view is that there is lots of room for both types of games.  I'm having fun playing GW2 right now, because the combat is so twitchy.  It's cool and it's fun for now, I just don't feel that it is something that I'm going to spend years playing. 

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,927Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    I would rather have 40 people in a raid with minimal combat graphics, then 10 people dancing around like some Disney glow show.. LOL

     

    Somewhat OT with this, but "Disney glow show" hit a point with me.  I know it's all the rage, but I really think some of the combat graphic effects in action combat are to the point of being over done.  I realize this is just personal preference, but some are quite gaudy.

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
Sign In or Register to comment.