The amount of votes the Auto-attack WoW/LotRO/EQ has received makes me want to headdesk. Why would you even look at that option when you have systems like Oblivion available?
I know, right? If only more people would open their eyes and realize that your opinion is correct while their own opinion is wrong.
The core of RPG's popularity as a genre (a huge genre) is offloading twitch skill onto stats/numbers, and providing a more strategic combat experience. That's exactly what auto-attack/Ability systems provide, so no surprise that they're popular.
I thought the core of an RPG was to play the role of a character and adventure through that character. Combat should be a vehicle to facilitate immersion. It should NOT be a handrail for people that can't get out of the fire, or a giant pipe organ's worth of keys and macros, with each of a 100 buttons doing different things.
WoW style combat is just based on other MMO combats, that were based on MUD combat, that were based on D&D P&P turn based combat. I could understand it at first when people used dial up as it made packets small. But this is 2011, can we get out of the 90s?
For you the turn-based nature of the early RPG looks like a limitation while to others it looks like the main feature.
For people who prefer the more strategic and tactical aspects of slower combat, the more actiony and 'twichy' RPGs feel like 'dumbed down' RPGs meant for people who do not like to think as much.
Videogame RPGs have always been about two core things: story and character progression. (Well...story hasn't always been there.)
Add to that the fact that there will always be a market for twitch-lite games, and it becomes very obvious why we still see twitch-lite MMORPGs with a focus on stats and strategic decisions over twitch skills.
Whether or not they actually had "smaller packets" is irrelevant, because the core gameplay is still something players can grok easily and enjoy.
The reason MMOs have character progression in the form of levels is easy. It keeps people playing and is easier to make content for than a story driven MMORPG. It's this way simply because most games are combat oriented. Games like Myst where you don't have to fight are quite rare.
Originally posted by Torik
Originally posted by Daitengu
....
For you the turn-based nature of the early RPG looks like a limitation while to others it looks like the main feature.
For people who prefer the more strategic and tactical aspects of slower combat, the more actiony and 'twichy' RPGs feel like 'dumbed down' RPGs meant for people who do not like to think as much.
It's only percieved as dumbed down because getting the difficulty just right is hit or miss. Tiurn based RPGs tended to have 1 specific set of basic rules to beat a boss. Action based RPGs tended to be easier because there were more ways to do the same thing. Simply because people had more freedom of movement. It's the whole Secret of Evermore vs FF6 argument.
The amount of votes the Auto-attack WoW/LotRO/EQ has received makes me want to headdesk. Why would you even look at that option when you have systems like Oblivion available?
I know, right? If only more people would open their eyes and realize that your opinion is correct while their own opinion is wrong.
The core of RPG's popularity as a genre (a huge genre) is offloading twitch skill onto stats/numbers, and providing a more strategic combat experience. That's exactly what auto-attack/Ability systems provide, so no surprise that they're popular.
I thought the core of an RPG was to play the role of a character and adventure through that character. Combat should be a vehicle to facilitate immersion. It should NOT be a handrail for people that can't get out of the fire, or a giant pipe organ's worth of keys and macros, with each of a 100 buttons doing different things.
WoW style combat is just based on other MMO combats, that were based on MUD combat, that were based on D&D P&P turn based combat. I could understand it at first when people used dial up as it made packets small. But this is 2011, can we get out of the 90s?
For you the turn-based nature of the early RPG looks like a limitation while to others it looks like the main feature.
For people who prefer the more strategic and tactical aspects of slower combat, the more actiony and 'twichy' RPGs feel like 'dumbed down' RPGs meant for people who do not like to think as much.
Except there's nothing particularly tactical about modern MMO combat. Combat is still mostly based on a player's gear/stats, which player choice factoring very little into it. Sure, the player can't be brain dead, but it's still just 1-2-3ing.
Anything with some strategy and where you can move while you fight.
TERA and GW2 both seems fun that way, but any game where I have to think before using an attack is a good system, instead of pushing the same attacks in the same order all the time.
I find it funny when people use this arguement. They seem to forget about all the reactive abilities that trigger after crits, dodging, blocking, parrying, etc. Just because a game is tab-targetting/hotkeys, doesn't mean there isn't any strategy. You can knock people back, heal, or CC them. There are stuns, and some of these things times the right way can turn a fight in your favor. There is just as much skill in that system as there is in an aim based FPS. It's just different. In fact, it's generally harder to play. At the same time, harder doesn't always mean that it requires more skill. It often means that the design is poor and the player is required to do a lot more in even more time to get to where you'd be in one of those 'simplified' combat systems. On the other side of the coin, simplified or easy doesn't always mean that it's bad.
There's a reason why the tab-targetting system is the most popular. It's simply the best.
Anything with some strategy and where you can move while you fight.
TERA and GW2 both seems fun that way, but any game where I have to think before using an attack is a good system, instead of pushing the same attacks in the same order all the time.
There's a reason why the tab-targetting system is the most popular. It's simply the best.
A lot of things are popular, but that doesn't mean they're good.
Anyways, you make good points on how skills used at correct times could turn things around, but that usually revolves around PvP or group fights. With how solo-centric many MMOs are becoming, 99% of the game ends up being repeating 1-2-3, whereas only 1% of the top end raids or pvp end up where team work and real strategy can occur.
I would love to see a UT99 type combat IF it were all about pvp,but imo pvp should take a back seat in rpg's.I don't beleive just becaue you can move or have to aim makes combat any better in a rpg,unlike a fps type combat there is way too many skills to manage.
For example if i was playing pvp in ffxi,i would have to have fast access to 20-30 skills/spells/abilites/buffs/debuffs it is just ridiculous to think i could have that many fast access hotkeys ready.Games like rpg's are better suited with lots of thinking strategies and using macros.You can't operate properly in a rpg combat if you have to maintain 20 or so commands plus move around,it really loses the skill factor like that.
When i play for example ut99,i don't look at my key selection ,i just hit my hotkeys, but when i play ffxi,i have to actually look at which macro i am hitting,that is not feasable in pvp.
The best combat system for rpg's is derived from a game having a huge array of "usefull" spells/abilites/buffs/debuffs.This is strictly speaking from a RPG perspective,fps's are more about map movement and using your surroundings.Rpg's have horrible map design or i should say NO map design for strategic pvp combat.So since the maps are not designed worth a crap,it relegates rpg's to PVE combat,to which you are fighting npc's AI,so really does it matter if you have to move or not,i don't think so.
On a sidenote,i did play a bit of DF and although i thought it was a nice change to have to AIM at my targets,i did see a lot of room for exploits,most people know of the many exploits in fps's.IMO a game that forces aim is 100% guaranteed to have aim hacks and exploits,so no i don't want that in my rpg's.It is hard enough to determine cheats in fps's but at least we can just quit and move to another server,you can't do that in MMORPG's.I actually quit COD altogether because cheating was at ridiculously high levels.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Videogame RPGs have always been about two core things: story and character progression. (Well...story hasn't always been there.)
Add to that the fact that there will always be a market for twitch-lite games, and it becomes very obvious why we still see twitch-lite MMORPGs with a focus on stats and strategic decisions over twitch skills.
Whether or not they actually had "smaller packets" is irrelevant, because the core gameplay is still something players can grok easily and enjoy.
The reason MMOs have character progression in the form of levels is easy. It keeps people playing and is easier to make content for than a story driven MMORPG. It's this way simply because most games are combat oriented. Games like Myst where you don't have to fight are quite rare.
Well I guess "keeps people playing" is certainly an accurate and concise way of shortening the myriad of major and minor ways that progression improves gameplay and keeps people interested and having fun (and therefore playing longer.)
It's not that way because of combat though. A game could be equally stats-heavy without being about combat at all. There are examples out there (like Europa The Guild or ATITD) of RPGs which don't involve combat. Progression still works great in these games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Videogame RPGs have always been about two core things: story and character progression. (Well...story hasn't always been there.)
Add to that the fact that there will always be a market for twitch-lite games, and it becomes very obvious why we still see twitch-lite MMORPGs with a focus on stats and strategic decisions over twitch skills.
Whether or not they actually had "smaller packets" is irrelevant, because the core gameplay is still something players can grok easily and enjoy.
The reason MMOs have character progression in the form of levels is easy. It keeps people playing and is easier to make content for than a story driven MMORPG. It's this way simply because most games are combat oriented. Games like Myst where you don't have to fight are quite rare.
Well I guess "keeps people playing" is certainly an accurate and concise way of shortening the myriad of major and minor ways that progression improves gameplay and keeps people interested and having fun (and therefore playing longer.)
It's not that way because of combat though. A game could be equally stats-heavy without being about combat at all. There are examples out there (like Europa The Guild or ATITD) of RPGs which don't involve combat. Progression still works great in these games.
If you look at the general zombie mass type gamer, you'll find that you get more bang for the buck just making a "kill 10 squirrels" quest vs some thought provoking quest. 1, because kill 10 is faster, and 2. the zombie horde does not read quests. Why make some epic social quest that takes 100 dev hours, when the zombie players skips the all 10 hours worth of story and lore and getis it donein 30 minutes. Dev frusteration causes them to say, "Screw it, kill 40 rats!"done in 1 dev hour.
That stuff aside, I just think it's silly to have artificial stats and flags for social quests to become available. It could make sense in some systems like Vampire tM: Bloodlines, but It tends to be nonsesical flags to allow particular quest. based on lvls. Atleast in VtM:Bloodlines you could access all the social stuff. just doesn't mean you'll get the outcome you want.
Originally posted by DAS1337
There's a reason why the tab-targetting system is the most popular. It's simply the best.
It's so people can raid drunk/stoned instead of actually having to aim. God forbif a MMO that requires hand-eye coordination, timing, and spacing.
Personally, I don't think there is a 'best' combat system. It's good to have a variety in a market as saturated as the MMO one. However, if I were to make an MMO, I would probably go with the auto-attack system. Here's why:
1. I agree with an earlier post that stated that RPGs are more about the system/stats, then twitch reactions. There are a millions FPSs out there that pander to that that skill set. It's nice to have options that pander to other ones.
and
2. I think that auto-attack can have other dimensions that most games with this system don't take advantage of. For instance, Ragnarok Online allowed players to increase their attack speed opposed to generating burst damage. I think, in a system like this, it adds a new level of strategy and customization. I know most games with auto-attack have a form of attack speed, but RO let characters attack up to five times per second if built correctly, and I think it's that type of over-the-top ingenuity that can be fun for customizing a character.
Personally, I don't think there is a 'best' combat system. It's good to have a variety in a market as saturated as the MMO one. However, if I were to make an MMO, I would probably go with the auto-attack system. Here's why:
1. I agree with an earlier post that stated that RPGs are more about the system/stats, then twitch reactions. There are a millions FPSs out there that pander to that that skill set. It's nice to have options that pander to other ones.
and
2. I think that auto-attack can have other dimensions that most games with this system don't take advantage of. For instance, Ragnarok Online allowed players to increase their attack speed opposed to generating burst damage. I think, in a system like this, it adds a new level of strategy and customization. I know most games with auto-attack have a form of attack speed, but RO let characters attack up to five times per second if built correctly, and I think it's that type of over-the-top ingenuity that can be fun for customizing a character.
Thumbs up to both of these points, especially the first one. It's more than just the FPS genre. Other than turn-based strategy games (do these even exist anymore??), RPGs are basically the last remaining refuge for people who don't want twitch skills (and aimbots) to determine who's the best.
Anything with some strategy and where you can move while you fight.
TERA and GW2 both seems fun that way, but any game where I have to think before using an attack is a good system, instead of pushing the same attacks in the same order all the time.
I find it funny when people use this arguement. They seem to forget about all the reactive abilities that trigger after crits, dodging, blocking, parrying, etc. Just because a game is tab-targetting/hotkeys, doesn't mean there isn't any strategy. You can knock people back, heal, or CC them. There are stuns, and some of these things times the right way can turn a fight in your favor. There is just as much skill in that system as there is in an aim based FPS. It's just different. In fact, it's generally harder to play. At the same time, harder doesn't always mean that it requires more skill. It often means that the design is poor and the player is required to do a lot more in even more time to get to where you'd be in one of those 'simplified' combat systems. On the other side of the coin, simplified or easy doesn't always mean that it's bad.
There's a reason why the tab-targetting system is the most popular. It's simply the best.
As to why auto-attack and tab target system is the most popular there are many reasons. Not a chance though that its the best as u suggest.
It could be the best for a lazy player that doesnt like to have his personal skills play a role( aim,block/parry manually etc).
It could be the best for a player doesnt even played/tried aoc /ddo /oblivion / df /m&b etc
It could be the best for a player that after work he wants something easy to play and while watching tv just chat with others mostly etc etc
I have tried ove a month all the games i putted on the list for voting. My conclusion is this.
The best battles i ever gave in wow,can't be compared by damn sight to the simpliest fights i gave in oblivion fighting vampires in a dark catacomb,or the simpliest fight vs brigands in the open fiend in m&b , or with the easiest dungeon crawling in the easier dungeon in ddo. Just can't be compared. And that comes out of my muth after playing 5+years wow mate. The joy u have after having a simple succesfull attack in oppenet armour, or after blocking /parrying manually an incoming blow using manual combat system of the games above i mentioned, just can't be compared with something that is predesigned to miss/hit/crit like the auto-attack target system use. Not a chance.
DAOC which is a variant of auto attack but I want my MMO's to have /stick, /face commands that elimnate the bunny hopping of modern MMO's (I do not play these games to be part of super mario brothers) and I liked the fact casters/archers had to be stationary to cast most spells or attacks.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Wow, I am shocked at how few votes AOC combat got.
Im shocked at how many votes the WoW/Rift/lotr/eq style got.
This really. It seems like people really like the standard mmo combat.
I grew up with action games such as Mortal Kombat, typical mmo combat has never felt right to me.
Which is why I wish MMORPG Developers had never started trying to please your type of player, I totally enjoy the traditional combat model which is why I came to MMO's in the first place and avoided FPS and action style games.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Wow, I am shocked at how few votes AOC combat got.
Im shocked at how many votes the WoW/Rift/lotr/eq style got.
This really. It seems like people really like the standard mmo combat.
I grew up with action games such as Mortal Kombat, typical mmo combat has never felt right to me.
I grew up playing those sorts of action games and played many before coming across MMO's. I've always thought the classic MMO combat suits an MMO extremely well. I love the action combat but not in MMO's.
Wow, I am shocked at how few votes AOC combat got.
Im shocked at how many votes the WoW/Rift/lotr/eq style got.
This really. It seems like people really like the standard mmo combat.
I grew up with action games such as Mortal Kombat, typical mmo combat has never felt right to me.
Which is why I wish MMORPG Developers had never started trying to please your type of player, I totally enjoy the traditional combat model which is why I came to MMO's in the first place and avoided FPS and action style games.
No offense
Must not have played Legend of Zelda, It predates you're 'traditional' MMORPG style.
Wow, I am shocked at how few votes AOC combat got.
Im shocked at how many votes the WoW/Rift/lotr/eq style got.
This really. It seems like people really like the standard mmo combat.
I grew up with action games such as Mortal Kombat, typical mmo combat has never felt right to me.
Which is why I wish MMORPG Developers had never started trying to please your type of player, I totally enjoy the traditional combat model which is why I came to MMO's in the first place and avoided FPS and action style games.
No offense
Must not have played Legend of Zelda, It predates you're 'traditional' MMORPG style.
Yep, you are quite correct, those were on 'console' games (wipes the dirt off his shoes) which I let my kids play (odds are many of you are same age as my children btw)
Back in the 80's I was either playing Dungeons of Daggaroth on my Trash 80 or Bard Tale 1 on my IBM PC with its 4 color CGA graphics, 640K Ram memory (more than anyone would ever need according to Bill Gates) and a state of the art 20 meg (not gig) hard drive. (that I think I had to crank by hand) and forget tab targetting, I think we had to actually type the name of the mob we wanted to hit if more than one was displayed on the screen. (static images only btw)
Yeah, it was done on wooden computers, going up hill in the snow, both ways.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
For you the turn-based nature of the early RPG looks like a limitation while to others it looks like the main feature.
For people who prefer the more strategic and tactical aspects of slower combat, the more actiony and 'twichy' RPGs feel like 'dumbed down' RPGs meant for people who do not like to think as much.
The reason MMOs have character progression in the form of levels is easy. It keeps people playing and is easier to make content for than a story driven MMORPG. It's this way simply because most games are combat oriented. Games like Myst where you don't have to fight are quite rare.
It's only percieved as dumbed down because getting the difficulty just right is hit or miss. Tiurn based RPGs tended to have 1 specific set of basic rules to beat a boss. Action based RPGs tended to be easier because there were more ways to do the same thing. Simply because people had more freedom of movement. It's the whole Secret of Evermore vs FF6 argument.
Except there's nothing particularly tactical about modern MMO combat. Combat is still mostly based on a player's gear/stats, which player choice factoring very little into it. Sure, the player can't be brain dead, but it's still just 1-2-3ing.
I find it funny when people use this arguement. They seem to forget about all the reactive abilities that trigger after crits, dodging, blocking, parrying, etc. Just because a game is tab-targetting/hotkeys, doesn't mean there isn't any strategy. You can knock people back, heal, or CC them. There are stuns, and some of these things times the right way can turn a fight in your favor. There is just as much skill in that system as there is in an aim based FPS. It's just different. In fact, it's generally harder to play. At the same time, harder doesn't always mean that it requires more skill. It often means that the design is poor and the player is required to do a lot more in even more time to get to where you'd be in one of those 'simplified' combat systems. On the other side of the coin, simplified or easy doesn't always mean that it's bad.
There's a reason why the tab-targetting system is the most popular. It's simply the best.
A lot of things are popular, but that doesn't mean they're good.
Anyways, you make good points on how skills used at correct times could turn things around, but that usually revolves around PvP or group fights. With how solo-centric many MMOs are becoming, 99% of the game ends up being repeating 1-2-3, whereas only 1% of the top end raids or pvp end up where team work and real strategy can occur.
Wow, I am shocked at how few votes AOC combat got.
East Carolina University, Computer Science BS, 2011
--------------------
Current game: DAOC
Games played and quit: L2, PlanetSide, RF Online, GuildWars, SWG, COH/COV, Vanguard, LOTRO, WoW, WW2 Online, FFXI, Auto-Assault, EVE Online, ShadowBane, RYL, Rappelz, Last Chaos, Myst Online, POTBS, EQ2, Warhammer Online, AoC, Aion, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Allods, Darkfall.
Waiting on: Earthrise
Names: Citio, Goldie, Sportacus
The questions needs a subjective answer.
I would love to see a UT99 type combat IF it were all about pvp,but imo pvp should take a back seat in rpg's.I don't beleive just becaue you can move or have to aim makes combat any better in a rpg,unlike a fps type combat there is way too many skills to manage.
For example if i was playing pvp in ffxi,i would have to have fast access to 20-30 skills/spells/abilites/buffs/debuffs it is just ridiculous to think i could have that many fast access hotkeys ready.Games like rpg's are better suited with lots of thinking strategies and using macros.You can't operate properly in a rpg combat if you have to maintain 20 or so commands plus move around,it really loses the skill factor like that.
When i play for example ut99,i don't look at my key selection ,i just hit my hotkeys, but when i play ffxi,i have to actually look at which macro i am hitting,that is not feasable in pvp.
The best combat system for rpg's is derived from a game having a huge array of "usefull" spells/abilites/buffs/debuffs.This is strictly speaking from a RPG perspective,fps's are more about map movement and using your surroundings.Rpg's have horrible map design or i should say NO map design for strategic pvp combat.So since the maps are not designed worth a crap,it relegates rpg's to PVE combat,to which you are fighting npc's AI,so really does it matter if you have to move or not,i don't think so.
On a sidenote,i did play a bit of DF and although i thought it was a nice change to have to AIM at my targets,i did see a lot of room for exploits,most people know of the many exploits in fps's.IMO a game that forces aim is 100% guaranteed to have aim hacks and exploits,so no i don't want that in my rpg's.It is hard enough to determine cheats in fps's but at least we can just quit and move to another server,you can't do that in MMORPG's.I actually quit COD altogether because cheating was at ridiculously high levels.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
AoC combat seems to be a love it or hate it type of thing. I love it but I know a lot of people don't like it at all.
Well I guess "keeps people playing" is certainly an accurate and concise way of shortening the myriad of major and minor ways that progression improves gameplay and keeps people interested and having fun (and therefore playing longer.)
It's not that way because of combat though. A game could be equally stats-heavy without being about combat at all. There are examples out there (like Europa The Guild or ATITD) of RPGs which don't involve combat. Progression still works great in these games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Im shocked at how many votes the WoW/Rift/lotr/eq style got.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
This really. It seems like people really like the standard mmo combat.
I grew up with action games such as Mortal Kombat, typical mmo combat has never felt right to me.
one that involves a cross hair. voted Darkfall, but i guess its rather the same as oblivion.
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
Voted M&B Warband
By far the best combat system I've had the pleasure to use in a RPG.
Becouse i grinded more so im better mentality.
If you look at the general zombie mass type gamer, you'll find that you get more bang for the buck just making a "kill 10 squirrels" quest vs some thought provoking quest. 1, because kill 10 is faster, and 2. the zombie horde does not read quests. Why make some epic social quest that takes 100 dev hours, when the zombie players skips the all 10 hours worth of story and lore and getis it donein 30 minutes. Dev frusteration causes them to say, "Screw it, kill 40 rats!"done in 1 dev hour.
That stuff aside, I just think it's silly to have artificial stats and flags for social quests to become available. It could make sense in some systems like Vampire tM: Bloodlines, but It tends to be nonsesical flags to allow particular quest. based on lvls. Atleast in VtM:Bloodlines you could access all the social stuff. just doesn't mean you'll get the outcome you want.
It's so people can raid drunk/stoned instead of actually having to aim. God forbif a MMO that requires hand-eye coordination, timing, and spacing.
Personally, I don't think there is a 'best' combat system. It's good to have a variety in a market as saturated as the MMO one. However, if I were to make an MMO, I would probably go with the auto-attack system. Here's why:
1. I agree with an earlier post that stated that RPGs are more about the system/stats, then twitch reactions. There are a millions FPSs out there that pander to that that skill set. It's nice to have options that pander to other ones.
and
2. I think that auto-attack can have other dimensions that most games with this system don't take advantage of. For instance, Ragnarok Online allowed players to increase their attack speed opposed to generating burst damage. I think, in a system like this, it adds a new level of strategy and customization. I know most games with auto-attack have a form of attack speed, but RO let characters attack up to five times per second if built correctly, and I think it's that type of over-the-top ingenuity that can be fun for customizing a character.
AoC's melee combat system, if only they had found a way to use it on casters too.
Thumbs up to both of these points, especially the first one. It's more than just the FPS genre. Other than turn-based strategy games (do these even exist anymore??), RPGs are basically the last remaining refuge for people who don't want twitch skills (and aimbots) to determine who's the best.
Asheron's Call combat system SO MUCH fun... you can even dodge war spells, arrows and such.
Kain_Dale
As to why auto-attack and tab target system is the most popular there are many reasons. Not a chance though that its the best as u suggest.
It could be the best for a lazy player that doesnt like to have his personal skills play a role( aim,block/parry manually etc).
It could be the best for a player doesnt even played/tried aoc /ddo /oblivion / df /m&b etc
It could be the best for a player that after work he wants something easy to play and while watching tv just chat with others mostly etc etc
I have tried ove a month all the games i putted on the list for voting. My conclusion is this.
The best battles i ever gave in wow,can't be compared by damn sight to the simpliest fights i gave in oblivion fighting vampires in a dark catacomb,or the simpliest fight vs brigands in the open fiend in m&b , or with the easiest dungeon crawling in the easier dungeon in ddo. Just can't be compared. And that comes out of my muth after playing 5+years wow mate. The joy u have after having a simple succesfull attack in oppenet armour, or after blocking /parrying manually an incoming blow using manual combat system of the games above i mentioned, just can't be compared with something that is predesigned to miss/hit/crit like the auto-attack target system use. Not a chance.
DAOC which is a variant of auto attack but I want my MMO's to have /stick, /face commands that elimnate the bunny hopping of modern MMO's (I do not play these games to be part of super mario brothers) and I liked the fact casters/archers had to be stationary to cast most spells or attacks.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Which is why I wish MMORPG Developers had never started trying to please your type of player, I totally enjoy the traditional combat model which is why I came to MMO's in the first place and avoided FPS and action style games.
No offense
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I grew up playing those sorts of action games and played many before coming across MMO's. I've always thought the classic MMO combat suits an MMO extremely well. I love the action combat but not in MMO's.
Must not have played Legend of Zelda, It predates you're 'traditional' MMORPG style.
Yep, you are quite correct, those were on 'console' games (wipes the dirt off his shoes) which I let my kids play (odds are many of you are same age as my children btw)
Back in the 80's I was either playing Dungeons of Daggaroth on my Trash 80 or Bard Tale 1 on my IBM PC with its 4 color CGA graphics, 640K Ram memory (more than anyone would ever need according to Bill Gates) and a state of the art 20 meg (not gig) hard drive. (that I think I had to crank by hand) and forget tab targetting, I think we had to actually type the name of the mob we wanted to hit if more than one was displayed on the screen. (static images only btw)
Yeah, it was done on wooden computers, going up hill in the snow, both ways.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon