Larian Studios Forums General Chat RPG Chat *****ALL TIME BEST RPG`S EVER*****

Now you see the influence of "Action-RPGs" on the whole genre : They ALL call RPGs nowadays "Action-RPGs", because everyone appears to assume that a "non- Action RPG" just wouldn't sell !

What I love of Drakensang 2 is the scenery, and that it is "old schiool" and "non-action".
I must admit that the scenery is very much like the first village of Ego Drakonis (never went too much past it because the game's difficulty was too hard for my taste - and that's why I lost interest for so long).

I want to play - so to say - games where the story is king, not the action, and not the combat ... And this comes because I just love adventure games (which are almost ALWAYS called "action-Adventures" nowadays ! - Due to the influence of Lara Croft et. al. - I'm glad that at least here in Germany "non-action adventures" are still being produced ...

And in gaming, I follow rather two "rules" :

- gaming is for relaxing, for entertainment, or pure escapism from real life affairs ...
- gaming should be fun, not work

"Gaming should be fun" is also the reason why I don't like parts o Dragon Age. This "bloody mess" and all of this drama ... This just isn't funto me. It's rather rather ... Yes, almost into the direction of a theatre play.

But fun ... Fun is something different to me. Fun is like ... playing a session of board games with friends ... Or the card game I know as "Uno" ...

Shooters aren't "fun" to me. Especially not what I see in magazines about them. They're too much real-life related for my own taste.

And combat ... I believe that comvbat in games should never be "combat for the combat itself", like in "art pour l'art". A game that includes combat only for combat's sake just isn't a "game" to me anymore ... It might be something different, but a "game" is in my opinion only a "game" if that what constitutes it to be a "game" is still retained ... And contained ...



I don't want games that are closer to reality, or at least what I wrote wasn't intended to be so.

This "more to reality" thing is ... so that I want a game to focus more on a story, more on a living, breathing world, as a background for a story ... Even in games like in ... Quest For Glory, for example, the world seems to be *living* to some extend ... And it just doesn't act as a background-filler for several combat-scenes.

The direct opposite is to me what Blizzard did - their Action-RPGs.
The social interaction and especially *the whole background* are minimized to the greatest extend possible - so, tht the town just stands there just like a filler for lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of combat scenes ... "combat for the combat's sake", so to say. And itm-collecrting, of course.

This might be a design decision, but in my eyes a story-driven world *demands* a living world - if the story wants to be plausible, so to say. Or otherwise you'll get something like this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

That's my intention. I just don't want any Potemkin Village.

But to create a living world means costs bbecause of the needed richness of detail ... - And that's somthing companies often shy away from, especially because of the costs.