Should bad or mediocre combat in rpg's be excused?

I've played a number of rpg's in my day but it seems that the majority of them have mediocre to bad combat mechanics.

This thread will mostly focuses on Western rpg's since I have little knowledge and have played only one JRPG.
Sometimes I wonder whether these developers purposefully did this or they don't put enough time fine tuning the combat of their games.

I find people's reasons and excuses weak because almost every rpg I've played, combat is unavoidable and a lot of times either the controls or the combat itself is a huge barrier for me as a player. I don't think getting used to the combat is a good enough solution nor do I think just waiting for mods to "fix it" is a good solution either.

Bethesda is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to this.

For example, the combat in the two Elder Scrolls games I've played, Oblivion & Skyrim, suck. Skyrim was a big improvement but it isn't what I would call good either. There are other first person games with combat that is comparable to the Elder Scrolls series that Bethesda could have taken inspiration from to improve theirs. The fact that they've been making this series for 20 years and still haven't mastered their own style of combat is disturbing.
Fallout 3 & New Vegas have First person shooter combat and yet both still fail at it. How could Bethesda and Obsidian have gotten combat so wrong when so many FPS's came out the same time as both games?

The Witcher series is also another big offender of this too. Witcher 1's combat is super simple, like a glorified QTE. You just click and wait for the cursor to light up and keep clicking. Witcher 2's was worse and plays like a bad action game.

Now, I have played some rpg's with good enough combat like Jade Empire, Kingdom's of Amalur and Dragon's Dogma but those are rare.

[Blacklash93]

I've often thought that RPGs with action-based forms of combat tend to pale in comparison to actual action games. I'd be interested to know the reasons why ARPGs so often highly lack mechanical polish and balance. Maybe there are technical factors.

I don't think it's always such a bad thing, though. Take Oblivion and Skyrim, for instance. The combat is just kind of there; it's not good, but it's not super-annoying either. The main thing it does is add to the experience of feeling like you're living the life of an explorer and an adventurer in a fantasy world, which is the main draw of those games for a lot of people.

That said, I see no reason to make excuses. Just because I think the combat is serviceable enough to play its part in the overall experience doesn't mean I wouldn't want it to be better. It's fair to criticize them.

[Big_Game_Hunters]

Its mostly western studios, thats not just for RPGs, most western studios make gameplay that puts me to sleep.

[user9950279]

I dont think so. traditional RPGs with hack/slash combat always get so boring so fast. That includes The Witcher 3, which I cant bring myself to finish.

I'm probably the odd man out, but I MUCH prefer the combat in Elder Scrolls games to third person hack/slash. Elder Scrolls combat allows you to approach situations from multiple angles, and you get a lot of control over combat scenarios. Sneeking up on some townspeople, pegging one of them in the head with an arrow, and then retreating into the shadows is so satisfying. Traditional Hack/slash RPGs never allow that kind of freedom.

Testament to how true sandbox design can bring much more life to a game. Games that are absolutely drenched in long, drawn out bullet-sponge combat scenarios need good combat.

[Ezz2013]

Yes
I have a problem with the gameplay of witcher games,souls games,fallout/skyrim

all of them offer what i call "dated gameplay" IMO.

[Fro_xoxo]

I agree with this post. I play games for game-play first and foremost, everything else second. I don't care how good your graphics or story is, if you don't have satisfying gameplay I just can't deal with it.

This is why I don't play a lot of RPGs. . Their combat is unsatisfying and boring. . There are a few exceptions of coarse.

Like the Souls series.. these barely have story in them. Straight up gameplay.

I didn't even bother going near any of the Elder scrolls games.

[TheDivine]

Lots of RPG's get a pass for gameplay and story. Skyrim was one of the best RPGs ever IMO because of the constant discovery, deep lore, exploration, and simple yet engaging combat. It's no Dark Souls but the combat is very open to mold into however you chose to play. It was fine to me. Def not offensive.

Dark Souls nailed everything. Light story but it was intriguing and added more than an in your face story to me. Everything in it from gameplay to music was 10/10. Perfect.

The Witcher 2 had terrible combat. There were great parts of the game but tedium and bad combat are things that I couldn't give a pass to.

A game like Resonance of Fate had one of the best combat systems ever IMO. The characters were among the best ever also. The world was amazing, interesting, and the music rocked. Then again the story was horrible. I gave it a pass because the other things were so good. Same way I overlooked the combat in Skyrim because everything else rocked. The Witcher 2 had boring aspects, terrible combat, a horrible crafting and carry limit. Those I couldn't excuse. I guess it depends on how much you love everything else. Look at Persona 3/4. Horrible dungeon crawling. People love it for the characters and social links.

[isarai]

Depends, is there a ton of other features and mechanics with considerable depth? The thing is RPGs tend to have A LOT more going on then any action game, and no matter how big the studio it still only has so much manpower to go around. So if it offers a lot i can understand some stiff or mediocre combat especially seeing as how there's tons more to get out of the game than just combat. It should at least work though unlike Risen

[Forum_Pirate]

Do action games get a pass for mediocre story?

A game isn't just defined by the gameplay it's more than that, and gameplay isn't necessarily defined by combat. (wanna guess how much time I spend fighting in Morrowind compared to walking around and talking to people?) It's good in an ideal world, but we live in a world with limited time and resources and I'd rather any game let something suffer to make something else great if that's what it takes, and as long as everything else isn't abysmal the great thing can carry the merely good or mediocre aspects.

[King-u-mad]

Subjective and not well thought out enough for me to want to give a detailed answer. As to not waste time on the nonsense of others emotional instability.

[sullynathan]

What isn't well thoughtout in the OP and what is subjective about the games that I used as examples? Will you tell me that Fallout 3, Skyrim, New Vegas and Witcher 1 & 2 had good combat?

If you did not want to waste time, why comment in the first place?

[King-u-mad]

"If you did not want to waste time, why comment in the first place?"

You know in English that every word in a sentence is in reference to every previous word right? The same goes for adjoined sentences.

"Subjective and not well thought out enough for me to want to give a detailed answer . As to not waste time on the nonsense of others emotional instability."

The first sentence gives correct information for the question "Should bad or mediocre combat in rpg's be excused?". Based on the context of the question and what supported it.

The second sentence was supportive information as to why I did not want to give a detailed (In reference to how what you asked and said being subjective and not well thought out enough.) response. Because I knew If I did, you and or some other person would feel offended and immediately spark a defensive ( https://gyazo.com/c59ae26f8... ) argument. Which is a waste of time for me.

So to answer your question, posting the comment was not going to waste my time. Your emotional response was and will be. Therefor unless you can sit back and think as to how and or why your information is subjective and not well thought out, instead of combatively asking me why... There is no reason to discuss anything further.

[sullynathan]

Don't assume that someone is offended or giving an emotional response just because they're asking you a question.

Of course I'm going to argue with you, I want this to be a discussion and want you to further elaborate in your comments and being in points against mine but you came in with a dismissive comment instead. This is why I made this blog after all.

[King-u-mad]

"Don't assume that someone is offended or giving an emotional response just because they're asking you a question."

I have to assume that one would be offended if I "shoot down" their opinion that they believe to be fact. It's kind of like insulting ones intelligence so to speak. Even though in reality it's not. I will continue to assume so long as people react that way. Until I have valid reason not to. It isn't a case of what I should or shouldn't do.

Now on to what I was originally talking about. Based on why I originally had no reason to go into detail.

Your article:

"Should bad or mediocre combat in rpg's be excused?"

The title being a legitimate question. 100% fine.

"I've played a number of rpg's in my day but it seems that the majority of them have mediocre to bad combat mechanics."

In your opening statement you state your opinion. 100% fine. Even though it does not correctly support the question. Which in turn, turns your question into an opinionated statement. Due to it being based on your personal opinion.

You continue expressing your opinion for 2 more paragraphs. Also 100% fine.

Until we get here.

"I don't think getting used to the combat is a good enough solution nor do I think just waiting for mods to "fix it" is a good solution either.

Bethesda is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to this."

You subjectively entwine your opinion to being fact.

Proven by the next statement.

"For example, the combat in the two Elder Scrolls games I've played, Oblivion & Skyrim, suck."

Stating information like this (based on your opinion) as fact is 100% incorrect.

At this point, the rest of the information you wrote is redundant and not well thought out enough to deserve a real response. Why? Because it is fallacious.

You will probably (well you already have) sit here and try to argue with me. But it's (for me) pointless. I would be arguing against your opinion. Which you are 100% entitled to even if it is incorrect.

Is that more understandable? Unless you are legitimately willing to see the situation from multiple angles and formulate a new opinion based on fact. There is nothing to discuss.

Also, I'm not trying to be a dick or anything either. Just giving out information.

[sullynathan]

So what you're saying is that you only had a problem with a specific example I used. So even if I provided reasons to back up my statements, it would still be fallacious?

I'll ask another question, do you think there are no objective standards or proper way for game design? Do you think it's impossible for a game to have bad combat or gameplay?

[King-u-mad]

This is getting more and more pointless the more you cling to that feeling you have of "being right".

"So what you're saying is that you only had a problem with a specific example I used."

English. Learn it. I explained this earlier. I really hate repeating myself.

"every word in a sentence is in reference to every previous word right? The same goes for adjoined sentences."

I don't have a "problem" with that one example you said. Your whole article is factually incorrect due to how you wrote (the entirety) it. Sorry I don't sugar coat stuff...

"So even if I provided reasons to back up my statements, it would still be fallacious?"

Obviously if you bring up factual information that which you base your opinion off of, it wouldn't be (defined as: based on a mistaken belief.) fallacious. It's highly unlikely to be possible to do so for the examples given though.

The best you can do (via the examples given) is sit here and say there are things about certain rpg's combat that you did not like. That would be 100% fine. But to state your opinion as fact will always be fallacious...

"I'll ask another question, do you think there are no objective standards or proper way for game design?"

Are they any objective standards or proper ways for art? The answer is yes. The objective standards and proper way for creation is up to the creator. Does this mean they get everything right in the sense of making sense for their game? No.

[King-u-mad]

"Do you think it's impossible for a game to have bad combat or gameplay?"

No, I don't... Obviously. Pointlessly redundant question... Of course a game can have bad combat. But it has to be in reference to what the game/developer is trying to do via the whole of the game. For example... If I make a boxing game that utilizes absolutely no mechanics for boxing and had a combat system meant for karate. The combat system would be bad for a boxing game.

"Fallout 3 & New Vegas have First person shooter combat and yet both still fail at it. How could Bethesda and Obsidian have gotten combat so wrong when so many FPS's came out the same time as both games?"

Fallout 3 and New Vegas are not First Person Shooters... They are RPG's that blend in FPS Mechanics... For a new type of experience for RPG's... See this is why I dislike conversing with peoples emotions... Just because you personally think/feel something is a certain way. Does not mean it is. Period.

"The Witcher series is also another big offender of this too. Witcher 1's combat is super simple, like a glorified QTE. You just click and wait for the cursor to light up and keep clicking. Witcher 2's was worse and plays like a bad action game."

The logic here is unbearably opinionated... Need I say more? No. But I will... The Witcher 1 Came out in 2007. A lot of things simply were not known nor possible in that time frame therefor what was done was done in effort to make a great experience. Which obviously was the case since The Witcher is a profoundly respected franchise.

On to the witcher 2. Again, the time frame (They are important.) at which this game was developed there were a lot of things not thought about nor possible. Of course if you look at The Witcher 3 and then look at it's predecessors... They have bad combat in comparison to it. But does that mean they have out right bad combat? No...

Why you sit here and legitimately try to argue your opinion as if it's correct is beyond me. But if you continue in your next comment. As in the basis of it being on your opinion. You will not merit a real response from me. I do not have time to waste on arguing against ones opinion of which they are absolutely entitled to. Even if it's incorrect. Thus why I never wanted to go this detailed in the first place. You have already been wasting my time since your first reply and continue to do so.