Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
You will never convince me that an archer acting like a machine gun constitutes decent combat. Or a dude with a giant hammer swinging around ten times in three seconds to kill everything.
Alex, they have and they did!
So far, as an Archer, I've had to time and aim attacks. I even downloaded a mod that changes my Reticle.
^ You're kind of simplifying it, I feel. The Archer can also kick stuff
Also there are barrels to break open!
^^ Your definition of "decent combat" is really arbitrary then.
Well, I'm endorsing the game. I'm gonna recommend it on Steam.
Incidentally, Alex, what is your name?
I know how the Archer plays; I didn't form my opinions by listening to people talk about the game.
As I said, I looked at it once and wasn't particularly enthused. The paths were all linear and unexciting, combat got boring and repetitious very fast, the attacks were flashy for no particular reason other than 'it looks cool', and it had nothing there to draw me in.
Depends if you mean "realistic" by "decent". Most really good combat systems are based on realistic principle anyway... even those as ridiculous as Monster Hunter. As ridiculous as the weapons are in those games, they hold very true to principles of timing, distance control and relative positioning in a way many games don't.
So having an archer who fires like a machine gun is... okay by me. That could be a factor of balance and a mechanical necessity at points. And a spin attack is obviously meant to dominate the immediate area of the horizontal plain around the user, but it looks like this game uses the vertical plain pretty significantly, too.
Right now, I don't have one because I can't complete registration.
Anyway, I'm actually kind of interested in this game but really I don't like playing F2P games very much. I'm not going to spend any money on them and their entire business model is based around making me feel bad for not spending money on them.
That said, I do still want to play PSO2 when that comes out... >.>
I'm going to play a more close-range Archer, because I think the Acrobat appeals to me.
^Nexus does have problems with it, but I usually get by by just not spending any money in the cash shops.
No, I don't.
I've mentioned before that I really, really like Monster Hunter (I just can't get far into it because I get freaked out by underwater combat). I can get behind the idea of making swords bigger than you out of some iron ore and dinosaur bones, or guns that shoot poisoned bullets made out of frogs, or whatever.
However, what Monster Hunter didn't have was flash-stepping forwards to deliver attacks, or spin attacks that knock everything back, or rapid-fire arrows.
Dragon's Dogma is an example of a game which does these type of flashy attacks actually well. You can flash step forwards with Blink or whatever; you just have to use TP to get the attacks and then stamina or whatever it's called to use it. You can't spam it ad nauseum, it's not mutually exclusive with other options but it is somewhat exclusive, etc.
Basically I just dislike the way the game's made everything look really flashy because it wants itself to look cool rather than making it look flashy because it actually serves the game in some manner.
But it actually did have all of these. Well, except for rapid-fire arrows. Even with rapid fire your shots were still pretty slow.
The animations are part of the aesthetic of the game, which is a very important part of your experience. So it does serve the game in some manner.
How can a game be "flash to serve the game in some manner"?
I mean...isn't the only point of a game looking flashy to...look cool?
^ This.
I might be slightly more interested in PSO2 because sci-fi and animesque. Maybe.
Technically the f2p business model is supposed to be built around making you feel invested in the game and feeling bad for not spending money on yourself.
That said, I wonder how much money the "feel bad so I'll spend some money" is worth.
Well, not in what I've played.
It also influences gameplay. The aesthetics aren't particularly served by it; the animation for the machine gun arrows is, for example, the Archer sitting stationary and plucking at their bow several times a second. It's supremely boring to actually see. Not particularly an example of the flashy gameplay; just an example of something which isn't particularly necessary.
Regardless, this discussion is kind of setting my opinion in stone anyway, so... whatever.
Did you never use a katana or a hammer?
Well yeah but the end result is the same. The point is that I feel bad that I can't dress up my cute animu girl avatar unless I spend a considerable amount of real money. And on top of that they tend to lower experience and drop rates and such so that you have to buy stuff with real money to get them up to a reasonable level.
Sword and shield.
These things aren't mutually-exclusive. Combat aesthetic in games is usually used to support a game's overall aesthetic and experience, and when used mindfully, is used to reinforce the mechanical considerations the game throws at you.
In any case, an MMO with a real-time combat system has a significant advantage in this case for reasons already discussed. If anything, the format of its combat system delivers a lot more potential than the combat systems of most MMOs, which are compromises designed with older internet technologies in mind, and meant to facilitate a sense of mutual contribution rather than actually be much good.
The short version of it is that when a player controls a single character in first or third person, a game is usually best served by a real-time combat system. There are exceptions, but not enough to explain standard MMO combat design. In a genre of games dominated by controlling a single character in third person, there's one hell of a lot of combat systems where you have to wait for timers to resolve. And that's understandable on a technological basis, but those games generally work that way because of a limitation rather than inherent designer preference.
Well, there's your issue. The sword and shield combo is meant to introduce new players to the experience in a forgiving, inoffensive context rather than actually be any good. The other weapon types are harder to use and punish you (often severely) for miscalculations, but are several degrees more powerful in just about every way. And more interesting, too. Such as the switch axe, which doesn't allow you to block but has two different attack modes, placing an emphasis on forward-evasive play and consistent damage dealing.
No, it doesn't. But I don't like it.
You stated that Australians here should play it with you; I declined and gave a reason that makes me, personally, not want to play it.
I never said it was a bad game or anything. I never said nobody else should play it.
Gah. Whatever.
Just play MechWarrior: Online, it solves (most) problems.
But Western mechs are always clunky and ugly and MechWarrior is no exception.
I'll play Armored Core though... or for MMO-ish games... I dunno... Cosmic Break.
Alex, one word: Lag. If any player has any lag, real-time simply doesn't work.
I just like it because it is real-time. When I'm in the combat parts, it doesn't feel like an MMO, it just feels like a game, and that's cool.
^I thought I was having lag earlier, but it turns out my arrows just weren't in range.
I told you already that I considered it, but ended up not because it just didn't feel like my type of game, didn't I?
Or was that Barcode?
I was being facetious, and obviously I don't want to make anyone play anything they don't want to.
But I really disagree with your reasoning on this one. This isn't an effort to get you to play the game, but a matter of reacting to your perspective on combat design. The other thing is that you typically don't mind it when games have severely flawed and/or limited combat (such as Skyrim), so you saying that the combat in this looks really bad is puzzling, because you don't really play many twitchy, combo-happy games in the first place (at least as far as I know).
Except lots of real-time multiplayer games have lag and they work just fine. An MMO is kind of different due to the amount of players going at once, but I'm really surprised it's taken this long to start getting MMOs with real-time combat systems out the door.
I'm with Alex on this one.
I might be biased because I love the flashy, combo-happy stuff. I mean, look at me, I love Kingdom Hearts combat.
THAT'S what this game is like. It reminds me of Kingdom Hearts, just a little bit though.
I don't play those games for the combat. The combat is all Dragon's Nest has to offer.
Skyrim, I play for the ability to invent a narrative and for the lore in it, with the combat being a necessary evil.
In that case, can you give an example of a comparable (i.e. close-combat oriented) game you do play for the combat? I'm not sure how you're contextualising the quality of a combat system here.
^Depends what things you judge to be "of worth" in an MMO.
Liiiiike TOR. I haven't played it, but from what I can tell it's for people that like Star Wars, but don't care about sucky combat.
Thematically? Totally on board.
The City? Awesome.
Blinded By Light Remix? Of course!
Everything else? Um...
Demon's Souls.
Also:
Nope. People play it for the narrative contained within it as well as lightsabers pew pew.
It's one of the best narrative-focused MMO's out there. (It's also one of the only narrative-focused games out there, but it's not the best because of a lack of focus on it.)