The "I liked the combat better when it sucked" phenomenon

[Infinitron]

Something I've noticed. A sequel or spiritual successor to a beloved classic that had a simplistic combat system attempts to remediate that by adding complexity the the formula. We've seen this happen at least three times already:

1) Age of Decadence. Took the single character control, turn-based formula of Fallout and made it much harder and more complex, instead of just "improve weapon skill, get best weapon, aim for eyes".

2) Might & Magic X. Took the simplistic click-click-click-until-they're-gone blob combat formula of World of Xeen and made it more involving and Wizardry-esque, with ability usage and tougher enemies.

3) Pillars of Eternity. Takes the often brainless "select all and attack the nearest enemy" combat of the low-level Infinity Engine games and makes it more complex, with engagement, DT, more active abilities, and less overpowered crowd control.

In all three cases, a significant number of people on the Codex and elsewhere ended up rejecting it. They prefer the simplistic combat of the classics.

In other words, this maxim: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,3339.0.html

We should be designing games for people who want to play them, not for people who want to skip through them. Combat designed for people who like combat, conversations designed for people who like conversations, explorable areas designed for people who like to explore.

...rings hollow for them. Basically, they want the combat to be designed for people who don't like combat.

Two observations on this:

1) If you ask most of these people "Well, if you want the combat to be automated/simplistic, why not just remove it altogether? What's the point?", they'll disagree. They do want combat, they do still want that feeling of going through the motions - mindless as it might be.

2) It's interesting that in all three cases, the game in question does not use the "standard model" turn-based/isometric/full-party-control formula for combat. Perhaps there's a belief that that is the only type of combat that is "allowed" to be complex?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I think the problem is more about failure to meet expectations. Sequels/spiritual sequels that don't play like the others that came before it will usually annoy those who wanted something similar. We seem to have this problem with that game, what's the name...the one where you're looking for your father...bah, I don't remember, it's been so long ago.

 

[Pope Amole II]

1. I haven't played the latest versions of AoD beta, only the one that initially came two (?) years ago, but I clearly recall that the combat there wasn't being bashed because it was too complex - it was bashed because it was lolrandom (and all the different maneuvers, with their highly lowered to-hit chance, made it even more lolrandom) and with plenty of broken stuff (some weapons being too weak, some stuff, like nets, being too freaking strong - wanna win an encounter, throw nets everywhere).

2. Haven't played the X.

3. Also haven't got any time to invest into PoE beta, but low-level combat in BG was often just filler and, well, you don't want to go all out on each and every trashmob encounter or it becomes tedious rather quickly.

So it's not about people not wanting complex combat (Underrail, for example, has a much more complicated combat than the Fallout series and I've yet to see someone to bash that), it's about people not wanting bad combat. Which may be either simple or complex.

 

[Infinitron]

So it's not about people not wanting complex combat (Underrail, for example, has a much more complicated combat than the Fallout series and I've yet to see someone to bash that), it's about people not wanting bad combat. Which may be either simple or complex.

OK, but that's still a remarkable thing to observe on a forum which is known to be very forgiving towards games (ie, Troika) that prioritized complexity over polish.

So, I don't think it's that simple.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Fuck's sake we've been over it countless times already.

Combat designed for people who like combat, conversations designed for people who like conversations, explorable areas designed for people who like to explore.

...rings hollow for them. Basically, they want the combat to be designed for people who don't like combat.

Combat designed for people who like combat should also probably be designed BY people who like combat and KNOW WHAT IT TAKES to make combat FUN. Earlier Might and Magic's combat was shit, but it was non-intrusive enough to be over with quickly and thus not stand in the way too much. MMX's combat is also fucking garbage, but this time it's with added """"""complexity"""""", which boils down to doing the exact same shit in every fight anyway, and making every fight last ten times as long compared to earlier games. Shit combat that's resolved quickly > "complex" shit combat that is annoying as fuck.

PoE can go suck a dick.

And AoD would be fine if it was party based. But as it is, all the complexity of an upgraded Fallout combat engine is wasted on single character combat because it is, as the good Pope said, too lolrandom.

 

[FeelTheRads]

If you ask most of these people "Well, if you want the combat to be automated/simplistic, why not just remove it altogether? What's the point?", they'll disagree. They do want combat, they do still want that feeling of going through the motions - mindless as it might be.

Indeed, why don't people enjoy spending half an hour killing a couple of beetles for no fucking reason at all.

 

[shihonage]

There are plenty of complex combat games that combat fans love. The implication that all those games use Fallout's combat system "but improved" is retarded, however. None of them do. Their systems are written from scratch, use different calculations, and rely on different sets of stats and item properties and abilities and game timings, different audiovisual styles, UI, etc.

And of course there's the elephant in the room - a proper RPG is far more than one of its gameplay systems.

Trying to get the point of the OP...

... failing.

 

[Ulminati]

Fuck. Brofisted a Roxor post. There goes my street cred.

Combat wasn't better in old games. It was just over with quickly and thus less annoying. The games that get praised explicitly for their combat (ToEE and JA spring to mind) didn't have simplistic combat. Most combatfag players get their combat fixes in strategy games.

 

[Pope Amole II]

OK, but that's still a remarkable thing to observe on a forum which is known to be very forgiving towards games (ie, Troika) that prioritized complexity over polish.

But man, if you'll look at the rpgcodex top-70, you'll see that storyfag games absolutely dominate the top-10. So I'm not sure if Codex is that combatfag at the moment.

And no one was really forgiving to the Troika - everyone said that the combat in both VtMB and Arcanum was shit. It's just that the story & atmosphere there were so good that you didn't really care, even if you had to slog through some black mountain mines or hollywood sewers. And ToEE was quite the contrary.

Not to mention that it all was 10-15 years ago and, well, now is now. We really want to see all those self-proclaimed oldschool connoisseurs & design virtuosos to improve on the old formulas in any significant way. What was forgivable then (where there wasn't that much stuff to learn from), isn't really tolerable now.

 

[Gozma]

Gonna be epically lazy and self-quote:

Combat was still central to Torment even though it sucked because it made you behave like it was an RPG so you gave a shit about loot and XP and getting +1 CON or whatever. That tidal force is part of RPGness, seeking all those permanent power-ups. Go play Quest for Glory with all the shitty combat removed and you play it like a normal adventure game - it will be completely gutted because you won't give a damn about raising your vitality and melee skill or finding the golden shitfucks to buy the armor.

The elemental fear and/or driver of RPG power upper is that there will be a thing you can't get around because you didn't get enough XP from getting around other things previously. That would be losing an RPG, if they were structured like "real games" you could lose (which some are, namely Roguelikes, but the "game" part of regular style save and load RPGs or MMOs or whatever is you pretending they're structured that way between reloads). Combat is about the only thing that RPGs will ever make you pretend-lose to. So, combat that fulfills that role without being crushingly slow or tedious is useful for RPGs that can't make combat fundamentally interesting, which is almost all of them. In this way instantaneous combat like Xeen is a huge asset.

Edit - Also I liked the AoD combat demo a lot, although that's a compressed game unto itself where each fight is pretty distinct IIRC; avoiding the beta 'cause spoilers. I think if that system in the real game has a lot of samey fights that take their sweet time showing me crappy animations that I have to mechanically click through with rote tactics the attraction will disappear very quickly.

 

[Sensuki]

The people who dislike the PE combat who haven't yet played it are probably just being silly or put off by comments/videos.

The majority of people who have played it and dislike the combat dislike it because it doesn't feel right yet. It's not smooth, requires too many pauses and is hella confusing compared to the IE games - but it's getting there with every patch.

 

[DraQ]

In all three cases, a significant number of people on the Codex and elsewhere ended up rejecting it. They prefer the simplistic combat of the classics.

There is only one solution.

Spoiler

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php

Spoiler

And it is final.

Basically, they want the combat to be designed for people who don't like combat.

Two observations on this:

1) If you ask most of these people "Well, if you want the combat to be automated/simplistic, why not just remove it altogether? What's the point?", they'll disagree. They do want combat, they do still want that feeling of going through the motions - mindless as it might be.

Combat for people not liking combat, games for people not liking games, etc.

Basically, the key to understanding the .

 

[Angthoron]

I don't think it's really appropriate to lump AoD, MMX and PoE together because the issues in them are actually different.

AoD has what strikes, at first at least, "difficult combat". You will get your ass kicked until you know your shit. This might not resonate with many people that prefer autopilot fights.

MMX has a lot of filler combat, which, mixed with FPTB makes for some parts where autopilot would help avoid the tedium. Instead you just expended your mana pool and need to camp. Woo. Also, lots of MM fans come from the MM6-8 line (I do, originally), and for them, the move to TB might feel strange, despite the series' root being TB.

PoE alpha combat sucks dick. There's no better way for me to put it at the moment. It just fucking sucks. Didn't play the new build, maybe it'll attach giant tits to the ceiling and they'll rub against me whenever I have my jimmies rustled, but a million things to micro in RTwP, with fast char movement, tons of friendly fire AoE, and a lot of what seemed menial encounters really didn't do a whole lot for me. I actually still enjoy low-level BG1 combat right out of Candlekeep (decline, I know), but this? This needs a lot of work.

I don't see people complaining about complex combat in Blackguards, or the more interesting (or hell, even the menial) fights in D: OS; S2 and S3 are much-loved, it's really not that people don't like complex combat, it's just that some games have design features that can rub the audience the wrong way. Or suck ass, like a certain alpha's combat does.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

LOL, as soon as I saw the thread title I knew Infinitron is the author- "Codexers don't like my hero's brilliant combat system because it's too complexxxx!! They just wanna roflstomp everything with overpowered commando bows"

1) I vastly prefer AOD combat compared to Fallout for numerous reasons.

2) The only blobber I ever liked was Wizardry., don't give a shit about M&M.

3) Played very little of early PoE's beta (at friend's), it felt off in many ways but not gonna draw conclusions until the game's finished (RTWP needs polish to work as intended). However concerns like:

-Every class having a myriad of abilities/options might work better in a turn-based system, especially given 6 men party size with zero incentives to go lower than that.

-Aoo suck in RTWP

Are certainly valid, even if you disagree with them to some degree, dismissing them completely is stupid.


On top of that, #3 is (perhaps delibarately) missing the point that most Codexers (rightly or wrongly) compare PoE's combat to BG2, not first BG.

 

[Infinitron]

But man, if you'll look at the rpgcodex top-70, you'll see that storyfag games absolutely dominate the top-10. So I'm not sure if Codex is that combatfag at the moment.

Yeah, although another way of looking at it is that if the Codex is willing to compromise on everything BUT combat ("either make it perfect or streamline it the fuck away"), then maybe it's more combatfag than you think.

I don't see people complaining about complex combat in Blackguards, or the more interesting (or hell, even the menial) fights in D: OS

Yeah, see my second observation - those games belong to the isometric/turn-based/full-party-control subgenre, where people seem willing to accept more complexity/"tediousness". (Although to be fair those games have gotten some complaints as well)

 

[ZagorTeNej]

There are plenty of complex combat games that combat fans love. The implication that all those games use Fallout's combat system "but improved" is retarded, however. None of them do. Their systems are written from scratch, use different calculations, and rely on different sets of stats and item properties and abilities and game timings, different audiovisual styles, UI, etc.

And of course there's the elephant in the room - a proper RPG is far more than one of its gameplay systems.

Trying to get the point of the OP...

... failing.

If you're not amazed by PoE's combat (even in its current, very raw state) that means you must want simpistic, autopilot, shoot-a-gibberling combat in your RPG, so said Sawyer's #2 and mind reader extraordinaire.

 

[Haba]

Congrats, this is the dumbest thread in a long while.

Keep up the good work.

 

[FeelTheRads]

shoot-a-gibberling

Hah, perhaps a new term to replace popamole which has gotten a bit stale?
Something to roll off the tongue a bit better, though. Pop-a-gibberling? Pop-a-gib?

 

[RandomAccount]

simplistic combat system

Simplistic in that a complete n00b will get ass raped by the first pack of Goblins?

Or

Simplistic because a complete n00b wouldn't have a clue how to fully utilise the UI?

Or

Simplistic because each character has completely different strengths, weaknesses, skills and use?

Or

Simplistic because someone's made a few 'more complex' systems at some point (still leaving the 'Simplistic' one well in the top-three-quarters of less-simplistic games)?

Or

Simplistic because the OP wanted to immediately trigger people before writing an unfathomable wall of nonsense?

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Not to mention that it all was 10-15 years ago and, well, now is now. We really want to see all those self-proclaimed oldschool connoisseurs & design virtuosos to improve on the old formulas in any significant way. What was forgivable then (where there wasn't that much stuff to learn from), isn't really tolerable now.

To improve, you first have to be able to execute the formula as well as those old games. Nail the basics, then add more complexity, then test to see how the game experience changed on the whole.

For example, pathfinding issues aside (and even those are/were even worse in PoE beta) IE games were slick (especially BG2) in terms of auido/visual feedback, responsiveness, movement etc. If you fumble up the basics, adding more complexity is gonna end up messy.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Something to roll off the tongue a bit better, though. Pop-a-gibberling? Pop-a-gib?

Nah, gibberling doesn't roll off the tongue as popamole (and isn't descriptive of console shooters) and "gib" is always gonna be associated with Doom (don't know if it appeared earlier).

 

[Nikaido]

1/ AoD had that "everything is a hard check" feeling that you could only really win combat if your character was a dumb retard who could only do combat, which goes against the grain of the majority of RPG that let you enjoy both the narrative and combat system with more balanced, less stereotypically focused characters.
2/ Don't know anything about that game, hadn't been reading gaming news when it was released. It's on my "to buy" list though now.
3/ PoE introduces more micro management in a combat system (RTWP) that absolutely didn't ask for it. More micro management, more pausing, more pausing, less point to the game being RTWP. If you're really going to adopt the abomination that RTWP is, it should at least have the few advantages that RTWP has. If you're pausing more often and spending more time on combat than you would in a good turn based game with configurable animation speed, houston, we've got a problem. The dumb point and click nature of classes like fighters, paladins, rangers is what helped make this bad combat system tolerable when you had to deal with a certain amount of trash encounters like the various street bandits in Athkatla. Since the combat system wasn't very much fun to begin with it better not make you play it like a fucking party moba on steroids.

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

As for me, I really like PoE combat even at the moment. Because, while being complex, it doesn't last for long. I might be in the minority here but I don't enjoy turn-based combat just because it's turn-based: in a lot of games I feel that it takes too much time.
Maybe that's because I'm kinda storyfag, but still.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

But man, if you'll look at the rpgcodex top-70, you'll see that storyfag games absolutely dominate the top-10. So I'm not sure if Codex is that combatfag at the moment.

Yeah, although another way of looking at it is that if the Codex is willing to compromise on everything BUT combat ("either make it perfect or streamline it the fuck away"), then maybe it's more combatfag than you think.

In that case, the top of the list should be dominated by the few games with good combat. Looking at it, there's Wizardry 8...JA2 (but laptop guy has no stats)...ToEE...and I got bored of scrolling down.

 

[DraQ]

I agree that shitty and complex/time consuming combat < "shitty, but at least it's over quickly" one, but both are, of course, << awesome and complex combat.

Something to roll off the tongue a bit better, though. Pop-a-gibberling? Pop-a-gib?

Nah, gibberling doesn't roll off the tongue as popamole (and isn't descriptive of console shooters) and "gib" is always gonna be associated with Doom (don't know if it appeared earlier).

Gib-a-gib.