Comment on Game franchises you like, but wish were anothet genre of video game?
rafoix@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
I feel like a lot of third person action adventure games would be better off as turn based RPGs since the action gameplay usually sucks and smashing the action button 100,000 times is not fun after an hour or so.
Witcher 3 needs a turn based mode more than anything.
Turn base probably won’t save the shallowness of Witcher 3 combat, it need an overhaul for more in depth system. Witcher is introduced in the first one as a methodological monster hunter where he learn, prepare, and hunt the monster, while also deal with politics(which is probably the strongest part of the series). In Witcher 3 Geralt is a ballerina dancing with his blade.
The best witcher combat is in Monster Hunter World.
CDPR gambled for the masses and won with Witcher 3. I agree with you and would prefer the combat to be more methodical, require more preparation and be more visceral. I wish you’d have to actually manually brew the correct potions and oils in preparation, and then see those have a huge impact on whether you win or lose the fight.
At the same time, the super lightweight combat they went with allowed the game to be so approachable by the causal market that it sold millions and millions of copies and singlehandedly catapulted CDPR into a AAA studio. So it’s hard to argue they made a mistake not catering to players like us.
I feels like it’s about time we stop making excuse for how company able to make bank by watering down their product, it actually sound pretty sad, and it kills some of my favorite studio because they thought about doing the same.
At the same time From Soft make bank by making Elden Ring better without having to watering down their product, same stuff happened to Capcom with their Monster Hunter World. It’s about streamlining the clunky gameplay while retaining the identity of what making the predecessor great.
Also we’re in a thread talking about how the game we want could be better if they’re different, so maybe don’t.
I’m the exact opposite, in a different, but similar way that the other commenter is.
I will fall asleep trying to play almost any turn-based/tactical RPG you give me. It’s just too slow for me, and I can’t focus on stats or stacking effects that much. That’s why I like real-time action games. I’ve been playing the hell out of Fallout 4 lately and that is probably the fastest-paced game out of the entire series. There’s snappy gunplay in first- and third-person with a dedicated bash/grenade button, and you can pop out from behind cover when you aim. Also the whole customizing and modification system with the workshop and settlements.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
I feel exactly the opposite.
There are plenty of turn-based RPGs and JRPGs that I fell asleep playing that I probably wouldn’t have if I didnt have to mostly stare at a static screen and menus most of the game.
Turn-based RPGs have repetitive combat loops. Same intro, same enemy lineup, same strategy, same music, same victory jingle. Over and over and over. It least in an action oriented game, I can choose where my character is, how I engage with combat, what terrain features I use, etc.
This is why I like Strategic Turn Based games like Fire Emblem and XCOM way more than standard turn based games.
rafoix@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
JRPGs often don’t have good enough stories for me to continue playing and many have grind as part of their design.
My issue with the better JRPGs like Persona is that there are simply too many battles. If they cut 50-70% of the battles the games would have much better pacing and become less monotonous.