Rykan
Member
That's 'cause it's trademarked.
Do western rpgs tend to lack in engaging combat?
- Thread starter remember_spinal
- Start date
- Opinion
GymWolf
Member
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
I know. But Mordor isnt the only WB game. You can tell they tried to use it in Hogwarts but scrapped it. Whenever an enemy goblin teleports it has the exact same cutscene/animation as when an orc showed up in Mordor.
Touch fuzZy. get BizZay
Member
not counting the ones with good combat, they all have unengaging combat
Umbasaborne
Banned
The witcher 3 combat was always fine, the only reason people gave it a tough time was because it got more game of the year awards than bloodborne and people were salty.
Guilty_AI
Member
RPG systems in video games historically emulated their table top counter parts. The reason so many real-time combat RPGs don't feel so good to play, with the ones that do usually having watered down RPGs mechanics, is because they're trying to translate what are very much tactical systems, designed with many abstractions appropriate to the board game medium in mind, into arcade reflex-based ones.
The level system for example is designed to represent a characters level of experience with combat or something else. If a low level character shoots with a gun at a high leveled one and does little damage, thats just the system's way of saying the low leveled one isn't getting his shots right due to his inexperience when faced with a skilled opponent.
How did devs translate this into FPS real time combat games? Literally shooting your enemy in the head does little to no damage, and somehow having higher level increases that damage despite the gun being the same and the bullet hitting the same place. It makes no sense.
Though its not like its impossible to get them right, its just hard to find the right balance. Even if you don't want to call their games western RPGs, From usually achieves that balance between tactical character building and game-y arcade combat very well.
The level system for example is designed to represent a characters level of experience with combat or something else. If a low level character shoots with a gun at a high leveled one and does little damage, thats just the system's way of saying the low leveled one isn't getting his shots right due to his inexperience when faced with a skilled opponent.
How did devs translate this into FPS real time combat games? Literally shooting your enemy in the head does little to no damage, and somehow having higher level increases that damage despite the gun being the same and the bullet hitting the same place. It makes no sense.
Though its not like its impossible to get them right, its just hard to find the right balance. Even if you don't want to call their games western RPGs, From usually achieves that balance between tactical character building and game-y arcade combat very well.
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Aren't they essentially shooters which most Western developers are quite competent at doing though?
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
IMO most Japanese developers have basically mastered combat and gameplay is typically a top priority for them in the majority of their games. I honestly think most Western developers obviously want engaging, polished combat in their RPGs and other types of games, but they just aren't able to achieve it normally due to talent reasons, lack of knowledge and other specific reasons.
There's a reason 99.4% of Western developers don't go near fighting games. Admittedly I feel GOW:Ragnarok has good combat and I actually enjoy Horizon's combat as well. I don't think Steel Rising is Western developed, but I like the combat in that as well.
There's a reason 99.4% of Western developers don't go near fighting games. Admittedly I feel GOW:Ragnarok has good combat and I actually enjoy Horizon's combat as well. I don't think Steel Rising is Western developed, but I like the combat in that as well.
Last edited:
Henry Panic
Banned
Only for Japanese game fans who only know about western games with above average game coverage.
It's the same in reverse when western game fans generalize Japanese games.
Both have a large pool of games that aren't talked about that go against the mainstream thought.
This proves my point about how limited info makes it easy to generalize.
Also fighting games don't have good "combat" it's a genre, one that isn't very big with a few big names and the rest are niche and arguably, stagnant in their game design
You don't see fighting game "combat" outside of the genre often.
It's the same in reverse when western game fans generalize Japanese games.
Both have a large pool of games that aren't talked about that go against the mainstream thought.
This proves my point about how limited info makes it easy to generalize.
Also fighting games don't have good "combat" it's a genre, one that isn't very big with a few big names and the rest are niche and arguably, stagnant in their game design
You don't see fighting game "combat" outside of the genre often.
Last edited:
Imru’ al-Qays
Member
Revolvers are (often) more powerful than regular handguns because they can chamber higher-caliber rounds because they're more durable.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I see what you are saying, but I thought the majority of gamers felt that Japanese games have better combat in general regardless of the genre. Wasn't necessarily saying all fighting games have good combat, but the fact that they are normally really complicated to create and require specific knowledge and talent to execute properly and Japan seems to have better success with them gameplay-wise.
I played a lot of games in my life and I have rarely played a Western game of a similar genre that had genuinely better combat than a Japanese game. Imo, games like DMC, Ninja Gaiden and Yakuza have fighting game style combat. If there is a Western game that has better and more polished combat than Ninja Gaiden 2, Elden Ring, DMC5, Nioh 2, Tekken 7 or FF: Stranger's Paradise, I like to know about it.
Last edited:
Mozzarella
Member
I'm not sure i agree with the term engaging combat, because to me a game like Skyrim can have engaging combat simply from the fact that you can do a whole lot of things to your enemies, same thing with Fallout New Vegas, despite the jank and despite the flaws in its mechanics these games can be engaging based on the fact that they offer you multiple ways to beat encounters, i find that engaging, but is it polished and mechanically good? probably not.
As others pointed it out, non japanese developers tend to struggle to polish a mechanically complicated and satisfying melee system, when it comes to guns, strategy or hybrid stuff they do it good, but when it comes to swordplay they tend to be more simple/shallow, more janky and more unresponsive and unsatisfying, its like floaty without the flashy stuff.
However with recently more exposure thanks to games like Souls, many of them are beginning to make more fleshed out and better swordplay system like the ones in Ghost of Tsushima (i know its not rpg) so you can probably hope in the future that some of them will come close, but the gap is obvious.
To their defense, many of these games you mentioned in the OP are games that either dont try with making deep combat or have a bunch of other stuff that make up for it, when a game like Morrowind has a lot of RPG mechanics and systems interacting with each other, it becomes hard and very time consuming to create a high tier polished combat formula, especially with the time of its period.
And just as you said, i think the combat shines more in these games when it comes to isometric tactical ones like Divinity Original Sin 2 which to me as of today holds the favorite turn based combat in rpgs.
I also think that a big factor of this problem comes from the enemy/boss design, a lot of the games you mention have lackluster and poorly made enemies and bosses, i think Witcher 3 has good enemy design when you factor both expansions with it, but W3 combat problems imo stem from the character design itself and not the enemies, a rare case in this genre.
I'd be happy with combat improvements, for sure, but honestly its not high on the list for me, there are other factors they need to get right (again) first and then i'll worry about combat, because if im really hungry for combat, i can just fire up an action game.
As others pointed it out, non japanese developers tend to struggle to polish a mechanically complicated and satisfying melee system, when it comes to guns, strategy or hybrid stuff they do it good, but when it comes to swordplay they tend to be more simple/shallow, more janky and more unresponsive and unsatisfying, its like floaty without the flashy stuff.
However with recently more exposure thanks to games like Souls, many of them are beginning to make more fleshed out and better swordplay system like the ones in Ghost of Tsushima (i know its not rpg) so you can probably hope in the future that some of them will come close, but the gap is obvious.
To their defense, many of these games you mentioned in the OP are games that either dont try with making deep combat or have a bunch of other stuff that make up for it, when a game like Morrowind has a lot of RPG mechanics and systems interacting with each other, it becomes hard and very time consuming to create a high tier polished combat formula, especially with the time of its period.
And just as you said, i think the combat shines more in these games when it comes to isometric tactical ones like Divinity Original Sin 2 which to me as of today holds the favorite turn based combat in rpgs.
I also think that a big factor of this problem comes from the enemy/boss design, a lot of the games you mention have lackluster and poorly made enemies and bosses, i think Witcher 3 has good enemy design when you factor both expansions with it, but W3 combat problems imo stem from the character design itself and not the enemies, a rare case in this genre.
I'd be happy with combat improvements, for sure, but honestly its not high on the list for me, there are other factors they need to get right (again) first and then i'll worry about combat, because if im really hungry for combat, i can just fire up an action game.
Last edited:
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Yeah, I have some choice words for Kingdom Come Deliverance combat, and "good" is nowhere near close to that.
Henry Panic
Banned
The majority of gamers with eastern bias sure.
Like I said both sides generalize the other without looking at other games. When that's brought up both, though the eastern side more than the western side, deflect to "yeah but" tactics.
Many games are complicated to create. You're trying to justify personal preference as fact.
Fighting genre is an example of stagnation until someone comes in with a break from the norm which in most cases, results in higher popularity. it's not an example of good combat, it's an example of a club of companies with similar ideas all producing games within the same frame work that most other companies have no interest in due to the lack of variety, too much required imitating of mechanics instead of branching off making your own, in many cases, low sales outside a few major titles.
It's like calling the visual novel genre a sign of better adventure game or rpg design. Which has the same problems, but worse.
When any fighting game breaks out the cult the game isn't considered serious. Fans end up in the same mindset. So you create the view that fighting games require extra talent than other genres and is a genre of superb game design.
Have you ever tried looking for western games with good combat, or did you try some games you saw promoted some places, or pushed into the mainstream? Which outside of gaming boards with users that have a similar preference to you, the Japanese games you mentioned are also not very big, some popular titles being niche.
So unless you are also looking for western games with combat you would personally consider good, across the last few decades of gaming, that aren't big mainstream names, then you're not going to find a western God Hand because you aren't looking for them. Therefore, if you aren't looking for them you were never interested.
This is the generalization I'm talking about. You aren't looking for what you're saying a whole region of gaming doesn't have, or is uncommon to have using different rules then when reversed, fitting your personal preference.
It happens the other way as well, but eastern preference gamers are much more loud and aggressive about it for some reason.
Havoc2049
Member
Kingdom Come Deliverance has an exremely deep midevil mele and projectile combat system that requires a significant amount of training and practice. There is also an RPG "dice roll" going on in the background as well, so the higher your level, the greater chance of success. It may seem unforgiving and janky at first, but how well it flows is based on the skill of the player and character.
kanjobazooie
Mouse Ball Fetishist
Swinging huge swords in Elder Scrolls is satisfying, though.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
I have played the game quite a bit. Combat just breaks down once you get more then couple of enemies, IMO.
GenericUser
Member
No
Thirty7ven
Banned
Very hard to make games be good at everything. It's a give and take in terms of mechanics you are pushing for.
Horizon has great combat but it falters on its more traditional rpg aspects.
The less focused games are the more average its mechanics will be.
Horizon has great combat but it falters on its more traditional rpg aspects.
The less focused games are the more average its mechanics will be.
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
Thats because the nemesis system was patented and can't be used by anyone else.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Fair points, but again I played alot of games from indie, unknown and mainstream from all regions and from my experience, Japanese games generally feel the most polished and fluid. I look for and experience all types of games often. It seems like that is the general consensus worldwide amongst most gamers as well even if they prefer Western games. If there is something from Western developers on par with Ninja Gaiden Black for example gameplay-wise, I'm sure someone would of discovered it by now and praised it significantly for that achievement. Not saying it don't exist, but it's just an observation.
I mentioned fighting games because they are generally very difficult to make and that's why there are so many terrible ones in history compared to other genres. Japan has made a lot of highly rated fighting games for example. The West, not so much. The ratings and reviews for those games are basically proof that most people think Eastern fighters are just better. On the other hand, Western developers are really good at shooters and I think most people regardless of their preferences will agree. Again, I am looking at preferences from other gamers as well and I just feel like different regions excel at different types of games. Sure, there are opinions and partiality with certain types of games of course, but I think there are facts backing it as well.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
It's like hitting people with a soft dick.
Henry Panic
Banned
See your projecting your opinion worldwide which is nonsense considering many people are unattracted to those games specifically because they don't like the combat or find it engaging, at best youre talking about reviewers most of which who review them he really have a bias, but the market and common conversation doesn't generally agree with a single things you said. The same can be said for fighting games as well, which is why the two biggest franchises in the genre are not in the same category as other games, and even before the last 15 years, the western ones even the sports ones, generally sold more despite some neutral lacking reviewers giving the Jap games 9's. Though several reviewers you may notice, not all but many, IF they even tough games like you mentioned, never give the a similar high rating even if they liked the game.
The bott paragraph is interesting because it shows a lack of knowledge. There are way more trash fighting games from Japan than the west because the west barely touches the genre.
It's not because they are hard to make either. When the genre post SFII and MK was selling, a bunch of games were throwing together templates which is why from either region many of the bad games had similar mechanics or played near the same. You're confusing lack of interest and trying to cash in with difficulty.
I repeat, the two biggest franchises in the genre, are outside what you claim is a complex and difficult genre
Like I said before, it's not, it's basically a private club or cult with a bunch of games expected to share at least core mechanics and fundamentals to a specific fanbase so that you can pick up and learn quickly another game. Many of such games don't sell very well and are niche, with some better sellers being heavily discounted quickly or given away.
Saying someone would discover it by now is a worthless statement because how are you going to discover something you are not looking for? You brought up NGB because In your preference it's gameplay selling point is an example of something you can't find in western games, were a western gamer can and does argue the same thing the other way for games you've likely never played. But in that case ai am betting you would take issue with that opinion telling them the same thing I'm telling you now. Like I said both regions have players that come to these absolute conclusions without considering other options and refuse to yield.
As for fighters addressing your 2nd paragraph, Devs have no interest in the genre in the west and even in the east since the 3D fad ended, when you had you have all those cashins. We have seen manly the same major companies in the genre for the last 23 years. Outside the games going away from the usual formula, there's been almost no evolution or overall improvement.
Your mindset is exactly why mainly japanese devs are going heavy on mtx and cashgrabs with releases having shallow content, because many of the games are aiming specifically to the FGC knowing they have guys like you they can get money from without having to have notable jumps in between releases. Very little facts in what your saying, even hardcore fgc guys have been complaint the last several years about everything I just said.
If you're an outsider dev what is the point of jumping in a saturated pile with another games unless you're going to do your own thing, which is risky in any genre, and hope it catches on and attracts a larger audience? What returns are you looking at only making your own slightly different KOF? Those are the main reasons people and devs are not caring much for the genre. If it wasn't for the DBZ brand name, the same fighter from Arc would not have done 4% of the numbers. Before that game no dev would look at Arc game sales without walking 3 steps back.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
It's not just my viewpoint though. I see it even from fans of Western games. Just because someone feels a particular region makes certain games better doesn't necessarily mean they are biased towards that particular region. Everyone including myself really liked Witcher 3 and it was even GOTY for many, but a healthy portion of people criticized the combat in it. Bloodborne and Dragon's Dogma has a plethora of fans as well, yet I barely heard anyone ridicule the combat. I feel this isn't me projecting a bias, but hearing and seeing feedback from numerous gamers. Even in this very thread there seems to be a good amount of gamers who think Japanese games usually feature better combat and I'm assuming that's from experience.
I only used fighting games because the thread was about satisfying combat and fighting games are usually combat-heavy. It was just an example. Judging by the ratings and history, Japanese fighters generally have a better ratio review-wise compared to the West with fighting games to my knowledge. Unless I missed something I don't understand what MTX and cashgrabs have to do with combat and actually, I rarely if ever support MTX in games. As a matter of fact I feel MTX/DLC has ruined fighting games and gaming in general. Didn't DLC start with the horse armor in Oblivion anyway? All regions unfortunately do cashgrabs, milk MTX/DLC and trends are like a domino effect in this industry.
Then again, this topic can be very subjective. It's kind of like debating who makes the best music or movies and yes, sometimes there can definitely be a bias involved with people's opinion as well.
Last edited:
Henry Panic
Banned
Which means nothing without knowing where you saw these. Western fans on a western centric community, or some fans of western games in an eastern biased community? It would be like trusting IGN to help you look for the very games you haven't looked for.
You're only proving my point that you're generalizing based on a few bigger discussed titles, with limited exploration because simply, you're not interested in doing so.
It's no different than Western game fans generalizing and doing the same thing for Japanese games. Creating artificial consent on something they prefer, but never looked to see if there was anything to meet their individual preference.
Both sides do it's but your side is especially devious and smug about it. But try to put a subtle face on so it's not as obvious.
Reviewed by whom? Several western fighters were never reviewed either, most fighting game reviewers are biased, many are even in the communities themselves, but notice of the western ones that are reviewed, the neutral reviewers balance them more evenly with the Japanese ones? Which also have the higher quantity (and the most junk) because it's mostly a niche genre with a few exceptions.
This would be like me making the reverse of your argument using sales numbers the last ten years without adding context. It would be a biased and flawed position, so why is yours not?
You're acting like you're being open but throwing those subtle jabs in the middle of your posts.
Quite simply, I think it's hard to talk about western combat in generalized fashion as if it's absolute, if one of your go to examples is the Witcher 3, and you've never bothered to look at more games. Especially since many of the Japanese favorites are niche. You may find something you like if you did some searching who knows.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I don't remember saying or even implying that Western games cannot have good combat, but imho I feel Japanese developers are better at combat engines and are generally more consistent, that's all really. I know there are better examples than Witcher 3, but I used Witcher 3 and Elden Ring because they are really popular and very similar types of games.
I know you say I'm not exploring enough, but I feel that I do explore this industry a lot. Gaming is mega popular, so if an amazing combat engine from a particular developer is out there I'm sure someone will discover it. Again, I played many games and genres from all regions in my life and my opinion is based on years of experience and yes, I did find Western games with combat I enjoyed as well.
Anyway, once again this can be a very opinionated subject, so I'm not really sure if there is a definitive answer to all of this. I don't think of myself as biased and I enjoy all types of games. Just play what you enjoy and research as you said. Not saying reviewers and gamers from the internet, forums, real life interactions, publications, etc are the authority, but I'm only using them and gamers worldwide because they are playing these games formulating their opinions on them as well as we are. Bottom line is it's all preference. It's like arguing that heavy metal is better than pop music.
Last edited:
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I think it all comes down to preference, personally like how JRPG does combat both action and turn based waaaaaaaay more than WRPGs.
Sygma
Member
I don't think western rpgs have been lacking on the combat front, but then again it depends of which kind of rpgs we're talking about.
On the action rpg end : absolutely not. There's Darksiders ip, Fenyx Rising, Valhalla, God of War's recent iterations, Horizon ip (pretty much best open world combat and its not even close), Bastion, Tunik, Lord of Shadows 2 was kinda decent ! and so and so forth. Plus all of the amazing looters we got since the beginning of the genre (Titan Quest, Diablo, Torchlight, Grim Dawn, PoE, Warframe) We are absolutely lacking in games akin to Dragon's Dogma, Monster Hunter and whatnot and I'm hoping that Wayfarer will be a solid attempt it (more so than Dauntless lol)
Case can be made about Souls games but its the same shit since Demon's Souls, just with harder bosses and now attack delays (adopted by God of War ragnarok on top of that)
On the turn by turn rpg end : We're pretty much lacking on that end. What's interesting is that most good to awesome turn by turn rpgs as of late have been card based roguelites so it makes it kinda confusing (Banners of Ruin / Slay the Spire / Hearthstone). Can put Original Sin in there, 2 literally being in a class of its own
On the tactical rpg end : We have a couple of these which are very good combat wise (Into the breach, Fell Seal, some others) and some hybrid games borrowing the form yet belonging more to the strategy games (Xcom, Jagged Alliance etc) but I don't think we're rivaling in the market there yet
On the first person / dungeon rpg end : way too many good games. Ultima saga, eye of the beholder, lands of lore, Arx Fatalis, Bethesda pre oblivion, Legend of Grimrock ... like are you kidding me ? But what makes the combat good here, particularly in dungeon rpgs is the amount of systems you have to juggle with in real time.
Traditionally dungeon rpgs are on the more demanding side because there's old school systems like hit chance and whatnot AND you gotta manage cooldowns between multiple characters in real time by clicking everywhere on the UI. But once it clicks its a festival of good stuff. Plus, I mean Grimrock, come on.
On the crpg end : I personally think thats where most of the best combat systems from the west are at. Because it manages to combine the dice rolls aspects of pen and paper + having to position and toy with actual skills & builds where everything matters, while giving extremely satisfying feedback from it all
Wrath of the righteous specifically might take a while to get started if you dont play alligned with Evil as a starting character but holy shit from mid to end game the combat is straight up demented. Pillars of Eternity 2 literally enhanced in every single way the gambit system found in FF XII / Dragon Age Origins, while also giving the opportunity to play turn based or as a classic CRPG and it has an amazing combat system with plenty of feedback / elements to toy with. Skill checks in classic Fallout, Planescape, and recently Disco also pretty much never get old. And we have all the D&D based stuff like Neverwinter, ToEE etc etc
And ultimately that's where the question lies in. What makes good combat for people enjoying specific kind of rpgs.
The west doesn't have anything matching Persona or Digimon in the turn by turn end, also most of our 3rd person Fantasy inspired rpgs suck in that. We have nothing akin to Dragon's Dogma, and to start making compelling combat in open world arpgs we pretty much needed Arkham City to be released for Assassin's Creed (between others), to adopt the tenets of it. Later on, Horizon
We have some really good yet clunky ass combat in eurojank rpgs, Piranha Bytes games being the flagship of that category on their own, but really what we're lacking is that triple A classic awesome fantasy rpg with an actual good combat, and a stupid high production value. I dont think these will be done anytime soon given the popularity of well done ATB based combat systems (which really just are borrowing the cooldown based system of Crpgs)
Dark Fantasy is covered by Darksiders. But yeah classic fantasy good and kinda grounded combat hasn't been done since Dragon Age Origins and its been a while I reckon.
On the action rpg end : absolutely not. There's Darksiders ip, Fenyx Rising, Valhalla, God of War's recent iterations, Horizon ip (pretty much best open world combat and its not even close), Bastion, Tunik, Lord of Shadows 2 was kinda decent ! and so and so forth. Plus all of the amazing looters we got since the beginning of the genre (Titan Quest, Diablo, Torchlight, Grim Dawn, PoE, Warframe) We are absolutely lacking in games akin to Dragon's Dogma, Monster Hunter and whatnot and I'm hoping that Wayfarer will be a solid attempt it (more so than Dauntless lol)
Case can be made about Souls games but its the same shit since Demon's Souls, just with harder bosses and now attack delays (adopted by God of War ragnarok on top of that)
On the turn by turn rpg end : We're pretty much lacking on that end. What's interesting is that most good to awesome turn by turn rpgs as of late have been card based roguelites so it makes it kinda confusing (Banners of Ruin / Slay the Spire / Hearthstone). Can put Original Sin in there, 2 literally being in a class of its own
On the tactical rpg end : We have a couple of these which are very good combat wise (Into the breach, Fell Seal, some others) and some hybrid games borrowing the form yet belonging more to the strategy games (Xcom, Jagged Alliance etc) but I don't think we're rivaling in the market there yet
On the first person / dungeon rpg end : way too many good games. Ultima saga, eye of the beholder, lands of lore, Arx Fatalis, Bethesda pre oblivion, Legend of Grimrock ... like are you kidding me ? But what makes the combat good here, particularly in dungeon rpgs is the amount of systems you have to juggle with in real time.
Traditionally dungeon rpgs are on the more demanding side because there's old school systems like hit chance and whatnot AND you gotta manage cooldowns between multiple characters in real time by clicking everywhere on the UI. But once it clicks its a festival of good stuff. Plus, I mean Grimrock, come on.
On the crpg end : I personally think thats where most of the best combat systems from the west are at. Because it manages to combine the dice rolls aspects of pen and paper + having to position and toy with actual skills & builds where everything matters, while giving extremely satisfying feedback from it all
Wrath of the righteous specifically might take a while to get started if you dont play alligned with Evil as a starting character but holy shit from mid to end game the combat is straight up demented. Pillars of Eternity 2 literally enhanced in every single way the gambit system found in FF XII / Dragon Age Origins, while also giving the opportunity to play turn based or as a classic CRPG and it has an amazing combat system with plenty of feedback / elements to toy with. Skill checks in classic Fallout, Planescape, and recently Disco also pretty much never get old. And we have all the D&D based stuff like Neverwinter, ToEE etc etc
And ultimately that's where the question lies in. What makes good combat for people enjoying specific kind of rpgs.
The west doesn't have anything matching Persona or Digimon in the turn by turn end, also most of our 3rd person Fantasy inspired rpgs suck in that. We have nothing akin to Dragon's Dogma, and to start making compelling combat in open world arpgs we pretty much needed Arkham City to be released for Assassin's Creed (between others), to adopt the tenets of it. Later on, Horizon
We have some really good yet clunky ass combat in eurojank rpgs, Piranha Bytes games being the flagship of that category on their own, but really what we're lacking is that triple A classic awesome fantasy rpg with an actual good combat, and a stupid high production value. I dont think these will be done anytime soon given the popularity of well done ATB based combat systems (which really just are borrowing the cooldown based system of Crpgs)
Dark Fantasy is covered by Darksiders. But yeah classic fantasy good and kinda grounded combat hasn't been done since Dragon Age Origins and its been a while I reckon.
Last edited: