Which makes a better action rpg in your opinion?

Really fast paced but a lot of mindless Button Mashing or slow but strategic?

A prefer the latter but the former seems so much more mainstream and popular.

edited 19th Jan '11 9:30:29 PM by PsychoFreaX

What about fast paced and strategic at the same time? Without the Button Mashing?

The wording of your choices is skewed to favor one over the other.

Indeed, games can be quite fast and action-packed while still requiring great strategy.

Most important is to get the action part done well, and to have much variety, so that many different approaches can work well. The game doesn't have to require Cave levels of action skills, but the players should be encouraged to keep their eyes on the action rather than on the numbers. Seiken Densetsu 3 is fun but you barely have to look at what's actually on the screen in that game. Contrast with Secret Of Mana, in which the action only pauses when you are using the menu to do spells. Dungeons And Dragons Shadow Over Mystara is another good example of a great action "RPG."

For a really wild example: Dawn Of War II's The Last Stand mode can be thought of as an action "RPG." A combination of lag and point-and-click controls make it a bit hard to manage, though, and it basically requires that the party be set up according to one of two specific team setups in orer to win the game.

Slow but strategic for me. My reflexes suck, but I'm good at exploiting game mechanics.

Well of course a mixture of the two would be best. But what I'm trying to ask is which is more important between fast paced and strategic. Like would you rather Kingdom Hearts 2 or The Legend Of Zelda Ocarina Of Time? You know.

Besides, it kind of seems as though you can't have too much of both elements in games anyway. Like the more fast paced a game is the less strategic it can be and vice verse. I mean, how many games can you think of that's both fast paced and clever at the same time.

edited 19th Jan '11 11:23:26 PM by PsychoFreaX

I prefer slow but strategic. Paper Mario, Quest 64, those work well.

I'm okay with Gauntlet, though. It's a lot of fun, but the multiplayer is what helps.

I'd prefer fast-paced, myself.

Strategic. I don't find tests of reaction times to be very fun in general.

You can do both. Fast-paced strategy is usually more about positioning, setup, and making sure you don't get cornered.

Any examples?

And I'm not saying you can't do both. I just feel that you might only be able to have either only to a certain extent to make room for the other. Games can have a balance of both fast pace and strategy but too much of one will limit the other. Get it?

If a game really can have high speed action and amazing cleverness at the same time, then why haven't any producers done so already? So again, examples?

Well, it certainly can be done. It's just rather hard to do so.

The closest I can think of would be Birth By Sleep and Mega Man Battle Network. Both have a lot of strategy involved in creating a deck, and some rather fast paced action in putting that deck to work.

I want mine to be more twitch based, but strategic in the sense that if I don't take the time and care it takes to dodge and counter appropriately, I WILL get punished dearly for it.

What that dude above me said.

I love Kingdom Hearts, so mash away!

The first Kingdom Hearts game was okay. Not way too button mashy. Particularly with bosses like Phantom.

But it's the second one that I'm mainly referring to. Really got me sick of all the X X X Triangle X Triangle Triangle X X Triangle X X X X Triangle X Triangle Triangle X etc at anything in front of you.

I mean, which boss can strategies even be of any help to beat?

The story's still good though. It's just the gameplay really.

edited 20th Jan '11 8:43:40 PM by PsychoFreaX

Strategic. I don't find tests of reflexes to be enjoyable

I dunno, I'd probably be more inclined to go for slower and more strategic, and/or something akin to System Shock, Fallout, etc. Occasional, but careful combat, puzzle-solving, and so on.

I would agree with slow and strategic, if fast and strategic is not possible.

Well, with the Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep example, I might give it a try once I get the chance to see how it balances speed and cleverness. But I'm just still really dissapointed with Kingdom Hearts 2's gameplay.

Hopefully Birth By Sleep 358/2 Days or whatever will be better. But I still have my doubts.

Yes how different are those two gameplay wise? The gameplay is a big reason I dislike the games.

Birth By Sleep is pretty amazing. The command deck means that how you play can and will change drastically depending on what commands you use. It can be challenging at times, and is quite fun.

Days...Well, Days had a good idea with the Panel system, at least. But for the most part you get endless spamming of spells and attacks. Not to mention the fact that half the magic spells are completely useless, and anything based around the ground or long combos is useless, and you have a broken system. Add in all the filler and you have a game that should really only be played by fans of the series.

Ok so Days is on my "Fuck this. I won't try it unless the series is somehow redeemed in my eyes" list and Birth by Sleep will go on my "Try this. It might be good," list along with Chain of Memories. Is my knowing the general gist of what happens in 1 and 2 enough knowledge for Birth by Sleep?

You could play Birth By Sleep with no knowledge of Kingdom Hearts. It's a prequel.

Oh thank god. No indepth knowledge of that...thing...we call a plot...