My problem is that people seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why does adding action to the RPG formula usually involve throwing away most of the storyline and dialogue? Can we not have that and real time combat as well? Deus Ex was fantastic and I'd love to see the direction it took expanded (in fact I am working on this game... ;) ) but the rest of the so called Action RPG genre seems to centre around a slot machine type gameplay mechanic that does very little for me. The elder scrolls games lean in that direction, but they have their own problems.
 

I agree that a lot of the story line has been replaced with fast action in many of these games. Of course, some I could complain about it taking to long to get to play any of the game. I like dialog, but it really needs to be meaningful. I also like to get into the action fast. One thing I liked about Wizardry 7 was that the first of the game was all action and exploration. They slowly lured me into the depths of dialog and politics.

Action RPG's are nice. In fact, there are a handful of action RPG's I really enjoy. Diablo I and II were to me the best action RPGs ever made. There was a bit of freedom, the linear gameplay was not that annoying, I could experience harvest, increasing stats did give me an edge and I could tell, there was a good atmosphere, good music, good NPC's, little wasteful dialog, and a handful of other "little things" that went right about these games.

Now, on the flip side of action RPG's, I love party based turn based RPG's. I love character creation. When I am bored in a game, I may start a new one and experiment with party configurations and individual stats, play a few hours into the game and see if I noticed any improvements. It took me 6 parties in Wizardry 8 before I found a party I really enjoyed playing. I like options. Parties allow for more options while specializing than an Action RPG does with just one or two characters.

Another thing I enjoy about turn based RPG's is that I am not being rushed. I can relax, think, and enjoy the game. I am basically trying to either outwit the game, or build up strong enough characters so I don't have to outwit anyone.

I am pro and con about monster scaling. Monster scaling done right I have no complaint with. By done right I mean that I can walk into certain areas and get it handed to me, while at the same time I can walk into older areas and just skip along moving my sword from side to side as enemies fall over.

I enjoy random encounter and monster repopulation. What I don't enjoy is the aggressive way the Final Fantasy series has done it, that is just too much. I rather enjoy the Wizardry 7 approach. Where random encounters are a bit rare in most places, but if I want them I can get them.

Probably my last favorite part of a turn based RPG is that fact that many of them have such simple controls that I can play the game with one hand while sipping coffee with the other. Now that is magical. :-)
 

@gareth - Story and Dialog don't an RPG make, though - they may be strengths of ANY genre. Half Life 2, anyone?

But yeah, I agree with your point. There's no reason an RPG has to follow D&D conventions, but there's a lot of good stuff in traditional RPGs you may not want to throw out in pursuing the fabled mass market.

As I posted in the comment to the linked article, for me it comes down to what kind of itch I need to scratch. Action RPGs can be a lot of fun, but sometimes they just don't satisfy. But if you take a look at my favorite RPGs, many of them - perhaps most of them - lean in the "action" direction: Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, the Elder Scrolls games, Baldur's Gate II... So I probably have leanings towards the action-RPG category even as I two-facedly proclaim my appreciation for turn-based.

But I do get nervous about seeing my genre getting TOO "arcade."

@Code Ugly - Looks like you wrote an article making a case for turn-based. :) And you are totally correct. Those are some areas where the action-RPGs often just don't satisfy.
 

Perhaps I should have added an "etc" in there. Choices, consequences, ability to affect the outcome of situations etc, those things also seem to get thrown out with action-RPGs. I don't just want to "complete an objective for a reward", I want to influence how it plays out.

And perhaps story and dialogue aren't unique to RPGs Jay, but IMHO an RPG without those things barely deserves the title. When I play P&P it is much closer to cooperative storytelling than it is a tactical simulator, and those are the aspects that are most important to me. Some of my favorite sessions of roleplaying involved no dice rolling, combat or rule checking at all.
 

True enough. And I probably get too hung up on the "playing a role" thing - meaning playing someone who's abilities and life situation are different from your own.

And thank you for bringing up the cooperative storytelling idea. When we get talking about action vs. turn-based or whatever, we end up getting wrapped around the axle about combat --- which IMO is only one aspect of the RPG. Usually a critical aspect, but I submit not even a necessary one.

I played in an online World of Darkness game with one Mage character for years without EVER being directly involved in lethal combat. Now, stats and dice-rolling did come into play frequently enough, but mostly it came down to playing the character as statted / conceived, and letting things go.

That kinda renders the whole argument moot.