Do RPGs with responsive gameplay exist?
By that I mean:
>ones where the player character doesn't feel like they're walking through sludge from all the inertia
>there are no long drawn out animations for everything
>there is no excessive smoothing of every element (movement, combat, actions, animations, dialog, UI, etc)
>controls aren't taken away from the player every so often
>conversations and looting and crafting and other activities don't bring the game to a halt and disrupt the flow
>there are no delays between pressing a button and the action happening
>the combat is satisfying and responsive and depends on mechanical skill as well
>etc
A vague example of what I'm talking about would be Counter Strike 1.6, or early Source games in general, I've always felt they were designed tightly and gameplay was enjoyable even in the event content wasn't. Or maybe World of Warcraft's weightless feel or Blizzard games in general.
Most big RPG devs like Bethesda and BioWare are not only guilty of unresponsive gameplay, but are notorious for it, and show no signs of improvement.
The problem here is that you're trying to mix two different schools of game design.
RPG's were originally made because player control was limited back in the pen and paper days. You needed stats, skills etc etc, to make up for player agency. As more and more APRG's get made you run into the problem of player control VS stats and numbers. For example, if you headshot somebody with a bow in an ARPG, should it be an instant-kill? Or should numbers and stats still play a role? An action game says yes, it should be an instant kill, but an RPG says no, numbers should affect the final outcome.
There are some ARPG's that feel quite satisfying, like Dragon's Dogma; but I would argue even this game suffers from this problem.
>>376206452
>dark messiah
>responsive gameplay
kek dark messiah's gameplay was amazing on paper but polish is so ridiculously inexistant it doesn't matter
>>376206452
I've also thought about that, OP. I really like the idea of RPGs but the good ones are always uncomfortable to play.
I think Skyrim has good movement with air control and no inertia, albeit you can't turn well while running, but that's not a very good RPG.
>>376207527
Maybe he meant it as an example of bad controls. The movement is very floaty and unresponsive. I sadly gave up after an hour after a guy swung their sword behind himself and killed me.
>>376206452
>>376207527
>sprint is completely broken, idk how you fuck up sprinting
>stealth meter is completely non-functionnal
>stealth itself is simply unrelyable
>jump is completely unfuckingrelyable
>every attempt to climb anything will result in camera going up and down frantically with the caracther going UMPH UMPH UMPH UMPH UMPH for minimum 5 seconds
>ennemy hitboxes are awful (goblin's range is like 3 times the size of their club)
>only somewhat relyable attack is the kick, even then the animation itself can start getting really glitchy
>ropebow can fuck you up easily, 2 ropes too close to one another can seriously get you stuck between the two
>jumping from rope sometimes just flat-out doesn't work for no reason
could go on and on. this is one of the worst exemple of a game with responsive gameplay i could think of
Mount and Blade.
Dark Souls.
And soon-to-be Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
>>376207527
>>376207729
Did we play the same game?
>>376207527
>>376207935
>>376207729
>pic related as exemple
of unresponsive gameplay
yeah good point, didnt think of that
>>376206452
Do Action RPGs count? Then Final Fantasy XV.
>>376206452
Eye divine cybermancy is exactly what you're looking for
>>376206714
What about having stats affect mechanics instead of other numbers like damage and health? For example increasing skill in archery steadies the PC's hands, gives arrows slight auto aim, increases their hitboxes, slows down time when aiming, decreases time necessary to draw an arrow etc.