So while I do agree with you that it is a hybrid title ...
You could have simply left it at the above bolded and been done with it. These "caveats" you speak of ... they ARE, in fact, what define ESOs hybrid Action Combat system. No amount of mountains worth of muddying, or word salad tossing, is going to change the fact.
Does ESO feature a hybrid Action Combat mechanic?
Yes!
Period.
Full stop.
If you wanna define and talk about it in such a vague and weak way fine. That doesn't exactly help parse what aspects of any given system might be more or less valuable in creating or enhancing it though.
You call it vague and weak, I call it specific and to the point. Its a game forum. Writing a thesis length document full of word salad tossing to try and explain or prove a point borders on the desperate and doesn't exactly help parse or "more or less" instill value in creating or enhancing anything either. On the contrary, all it does is muddy up the conversation to the point of illegibility. Sometimes being succinct and to the point serves its purpose. And such was the case in this instance.
The issue as it pertains to your quoting my post was whether or not ESO features a hybrid Action Combat mechanic. And the answer to that is a simple and resounding yes. Its a logical common sense conclusion based on easily discoverable empirical evidence not requiring extensive research and a thesis like explanation. Any attempts to explain that away is simply an exercise in futility as exemplified by your posts so far in this thread.
So while I do agree with you that it is a hybrid title ...
You could have simply left it at the above bolded and been done with it. These "caveats" you speak of ... they ARE, in fact, what define ESOs hybrid Action Combat system. No amount of mountains worth of muddying, or word salad tossing, is going to change the fact.
Does ESO feature a hybrid Action Combat mechanic?
Yes!
Period.
Full stop.
If you wanna define and talk about it in such a vague and weak way fine. That doesn't exactly help parse what aspects of any given system might be more or less valuable in creating or enhancing it though.
You call it vague and weak, I call it specific and to the point. Its a game forum. Writing a thesis length document full of word salad tossing to try and explain or prove a point borders on the desperate and doesn't exactly help parse or, "more or less," instill value in creating or enhancing anything either. On the contrary, all it does is muddy up the conversation to the point of ineligibility. Sometimes being succinct and to the point serves its purpose. And such was the case in this instance.
The issue as it pertains to your quoting my post was whether or not ESO features a hybrid Action Combat mechanic. And the answer to that is a simple and resounding yes. Its a logical common sense conclusion based on easily discoverable empirical evidence not requiring extensive research and a thesis like explanation. Any attempts to explain that away is simply an exercise in futility as exemplified by your posts so far in this thread.
I don't agree, while i haven't played it for a month or so, the last time i played ESO it was a tab target combat styled game, admittedly i am comparing it to BDO which is an action combat game, though its possible that if you compare ESO to WoW then it might seem to be more 'actiony' but honestly, i don't see it as it doesn't match with my own experience of the game.
So while I do agree with you that it is a hybrid title ...
You could have simply left it at the above bolded and been done with it. These "caveats" you speak of ... they ARE, in fact, what define ESOs hybrid Action Combat system. No amount of mountains worth of muddying, or word salad tossing, is going to change the fact.
Does ESO feature a hybrid Action Combat mechanic?
Yes!
Period.
Full stop.
If you wanna define and talk about it in such a vague and weak way fine. That doesn't exactly help parse what aspects of any given system might be more or less valuable in creating or enhancing it though.
You call it vague and weak, I call it specific and to the point. Its a game forum. Writing a thesis length document full of word salad tossing to try and explain or prove a point borders on the desperate and doesn't exactly help parse or, "more or less," instill value in creating or enhancing anything either. On the contrary, all it does is muddy up the conversation to the point of ineligibility. Sometimes being succinct and to the point serves its purpose. And such was the case in this instance.
The issue as it pertains to your quoting my post was whether or not ESO features a hybrid Action Combat mechanic. And the answer to that is a simple and resounding yes. Its a logical common sense conclusion based on easily discoverable empirical evidence not requiring extensive research and a thesis like explanation. Any attempts to explain that away is simply an exercise in futility as exemplified by your posts so far in this thread.
I don't agree, while i haven't played it for a month or so, the last time i played ESO it was a tab target combat styled game, admittedly i am comparing it to BDO which is an action combat game, though its possible that if you compare ESO to WoW then it might seem to be more 'actiony' but honestly, i don't see it as it doesn't match with my own experience of the game.
You have made that perfectly clear. No one is taking that away from you. You are one of the few in that opinion. One of which you are entitled. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. Even Limnic, to his credit, agrees that ESO features a hybrid Action Combat mechanic, albeit with "caveats." I can disagree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west till my face turned blue as well. My disagreement, while well noted, would not make it so.
More so to me that succinctness misses a lot of valuable elements. Like how the differences in ESO's approach of using a tab/soft lock system coupled with timers to emulate the action elements stands up against a game that uses a physics/collision based model or an expressly raycast model instead.
Such choices affect things rather directly in games, and it is a big factor to the feel of many shooters even. Like how the Battlefield titles have traditionally done much more bullet physics based gmeplay as opposed to the CoD or CS series which has relied on raycast, and the manner it affects how players aim at targets and even approach environments.
It affects MMOs quite directly as well as there is greater weight on these mechanics thanks to the latency of large server interactions. The soft-locking and timed action skills and how they are synced on the server versus how a raycast/zone or collision based model for an MMO has a large amount of difference, and we can see some of the effects of such things across titles like Planetside 2 that uses bullet physics versus it's predecessor that was raycast, or how ESO uses a fundamentally tab based system and soft-locking versus a title that approaches it with more collision detection based mechanics such as Mortal Online.
It's hand-waving the features making a game what it is, and moreover misses some distinct points with some of the general claims made that end up needing correction as a result of said vagueness (which was actually the primary point of my original comment to you regarding some comments you made about ESO's features).
Part of the reason I felt this type of clarification was necessary was that as your argument stood, the ultimate component of the "action gameplay" really just revolved around the fact that the tabbing could be handled by soft locks. The other features you talked about needed correction, as they stood in a manner where you could point to a game like even WoW and note that it's bubble, interrupt skills, and other abilities feature basically the same fundamental mechanics, but not generalized into every classes core combat feature set, and they operate on the same fundamental mechanics as ESO's system does.
Your statement created a very loose border between what defines an action game and a tab game, more or less. Which it could be said that the border between the two is rather thin, as a good chunk of it is obviously something that boils down to how the features of a game are presented rather than a matter of what the features and mechanics governing them truly are.
I'm not here to disagree with you or bicker, as I do agree with several basic points you make. But I do take issue with certain elements of what you've said and I do feel those elements need more clarification and/or correction to get a decent conversation surrounding such aspects of MMOs and games in general. So I'm not exactly appreciative of your turn towards unnecessary derision either.
Comments
You call it vague and weak, I call it specific and to the point. Its a game forum. Writing a thesis length document full of word salad tossing to try and explain or prove a point borders on the desperate and doesn't exactly help parse or "more or less" instill value in creating or enhancing anything either. On the contrary, all it does is muddy up the conversation to the point of illegibility. Sometimes being succinct and to the point serves its purpose. And such was the case in this instance.
The issue as it pertains to your quoting my post was whether or not ESO features a hybrid Action Combat mechanic. And the answer to that is a simple and resounding yes. Its a logical common sense conclusion based on easily discoverable empirical evidence not requiring extensive research and a thesis like explanation. Any attempts to explain that away is simply an exercise in futility as exemplified by your posts so far in this thread.
You have made that perfectly clear. No one is taking that away from you. You are one of the few in that opinion. One of which you are entitled. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. Even Limnic, to his credit, agrees that ESO features a hybrid Action Combat mechanic, albeit with "caveats." I can disagree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west till my face turned blue as well. My disagreement, while well noted, would not make it so.
Such choices affect things rather directly in games, and it is a big factor to the feel of many shooters even. Like how the Battlefield titles have traditionally done much more bullet physics based gmeplay as opposed to the CoD or CS series which has relied on raycast, and the manner it affects how players aim at targets and even approach environments.
It affects MMOs quite directly as well as there is greater weight on these mechanics thanks to the latency of large server interactions. The soft-locking and timed action skills and how they are synced on the server versus how a raycast/zone or collision based model for an MMO has a large amount of difference, and we can see some of the effects of such things across titles like Planetside 2 that uses bullet physics versus it's predecessor that was raycast, or how ESO uses a fundamentally tab based system and soft-locking versus a title that approaches it with more collision detection based mechanics such as Mortal Online.
It's hand-waving the features making a game what it is, and moreover misses some distinct points with some of the general claims made that end up needing correction as a result of said vagueness (which was actually the primary point of my original comment to you regarding some comments you made about ESO's features).
Part of the reason I felt this type of clarification was necessary was that as your argument stood, the ultimate component of the "action gameplay" really just revolved around the fact that the tabbing could be handled by soft locks. The other features you talked about needed correction, as they stood in a manner where you could point to a game like even WoW and note that it's bubble, interrupt skills, and other abilities feature basically the same fundamental mechanics, but not generalized into every classes core combat feature set, and they operate on the same fundamental mechanics as ESO's system does.
Your statement created a very loose border between what defines an action game and a tab game, more or less. Which it could be said that the border between the two is rather thin, as a good chunk of it is obviously something that boils down to how the features of a game are presented rather than a matter of what the features and mechanics governing them truly are.
I'm not here to disagree with you or bicker, as I do agree with several basic points you make. But I do take issue with certain elements of what you've said and I do feel those elements need more clarification and/or correction to get a decent conversation surrounding such aspects of MMOs and games in general. So I'm not exactly appreciative of your turn towards unnecessary derision either.