[color:"orange"] Your character should be the one who knows when to attack, and should be able to execute the strategy indicated when instructed to attack. [/color]
I also want a more active role in the game. If my character knows how to do everything they could call the game: "spectator" and let us see a complete walkthrough movie.
[color:"orange"] What is the point of your character having an agility stat if your button pushing timing is what counts? Why have combat skills in the game if the fighting system is based on your own hand-eye coordination? [/color]
for example: you can swing alittle bit faster or the recovery time between attacks is smaller. your second sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
Thats like saying to people who play FPS games that they don't need different guns with different power and speed.
[color:"orange"] I would much, much rather do that by developing my character and choosing the best skills and weapons, than by hitting keys in the right combination at the right time. [/color]
It does not have to be that complex, this isn't mortal combat I'm talking about you only need few actions:
run + attack would result in a powerfull blow, nothing hard about that, or am I wrong?
this has been my point all along. It shouldn't become that hard, just hard enough to be able to keep the fights challenging.
[color:"orange"] The problem here is the differing definitions of 'good'.
Also, I don't want the combat system to add atmosphere to an RPG; that is what the story, dialog, music, books, graphics etc are for. The combat system should fit the setting and not get in the way, or become the focus of the game. [/color]
Again something that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you describing a movie ?
Offcourse the fighting shouldn't become the focus of the game. noone in this thread ever claimed it should...
Exactly why can't the fighting be positive ? So should it either be neutral or bad ?