Actually, if you look at them - and I mean really look at them, past the surface - most of those are not all that diffent. On the contrary, they are quite similiar to one another. Even disturbingly so in certain cases.
That really,
really is a massive oversimplification of their game mechanics across the board...and same could be even more be said for recent crpg's like Pillars/DOS/Wasteland II or when comparing all the other crpg's from Infinity era.
Problem is when you make an action focused RPG and you start streamlining character skill and stats.. then you add dialog wheel and voice acting... In the end you will deliver a title that have way more less depth than the past...
No...combat based on
mechanics from action games does not immediately make a "lesser rpg". New Vegas or Bloodlines are both, case in point here.
How would having better animation quality, AI, sounds, hit feedback, etc... negatively impact roleplaying aspect in those games? ( Aside from more budget/time allocated to this)
/QUOTE]
Now some people here don't even seem they want an RPG.... They want controller acrobacy... First person shooting as first choice.... A lot of action...
Where exactly anyone said, that this is supposed to be futuristic GTA or CoD? This only relates about combat system and what base mechanics from other games CDPR can look up to.
And you
really should try and play more action games if you think it all comes down to "controller acrobacy"...some of my favorite action games like MGSV puts many rpgs to shame when it comes to number of tactical options they offer. There is no rigid, dogmatic boundary between different genres here that action equates dumb and simple.
Seriously. The idea that modern games sell a ton because they have action-y combat and not because they suddenly have 50+ million dollar marketing budgets and hype campaigns backing them is confusing correlation with causation on a comical scale.
That's like saying World Chess Tournament would be as popular as Football world cup, if it had the same marketing. Publishers simply go where the money is and majority of players prefer real time action games next to turn based...there is no conspiracy here: People know
exactly the difference between them and when it comes down to it, they're simply more enjoyable to play (for most).
making a game like that intrinsically is less complex and shallower than a game targeted for a specific audience with higher expectations
So if in next TES Bethesda brought back stats and medium armor from Morrowind, added more factions, connected quest lines with c&c, better designed skill tree's, etc, etc...average "casual" player's brain would somehow liquify from all this "complexity"?
I don't buy it...true that far more $ goes into world size and graphics than it should( next to gameplay mechanics), but it's silly to think this would be too "complicated" for an average gamer...this isn't quantum physics we're dealing with.
It's not. I would say it's optimal (and to me, most fun) to produce proper high end roleplaying, but the main thing is about how well the characterbuild relfects the gameplay, how well does the game through its systems reflect that you are playing a role instead of just controlling a virtual costume like in, say, Super Mario.
Until they release something concrete, it's pointless to throw around hyperboles of CP turning into another generic action shooter.
Mount and Blade has more in depth rpg mechanics than a LOT of turn based full blown rpg's while still being based on h&s action mechanics along with a high skill ceiling.
You can shape your character through stats and skills and see their impact on your actions in combat while having your own direct skill as player matter as well...win/win in my book.