Erebus
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 4,774
Combat is a very important part in the vast majority of CRPGs, but it's not always as satisfactory, far from it. What do you think makes combat entertaining or not ? In my opinion :
- The tactical aspect
I'm currently replaying Champions of Krynn, one of the Gold Box games and my first CRPG ever. It wasn't such a memorable game, but it had some nice things... that I was very disappointed not to find in my second CRPG (Bard's Tale 3). The most important one was the ability to move around each of your PCs as you wanted during battles. It really gives combat much more dimension ! But in jRPGs and games that keep first person perspective (Eye of the Beholder, Ishar, M&M...), movement and placement have little to no importance. And some games which allow your PCs to move around don't do a very good job because of poor pathfinding, cramped spaces, artificial barriers, etc.
The tactical aspect also includes the number of choices that are available to each PC (of course, said choices have to be significantly different from each other, which isn't always the case).
The number of PCs also plays an important role. A party of 5 or more definitely seems more entertaining to me. I found The Witcher entertaining enough, but there were times when having a single PC felt pretty frustrating. For similar reasons, I don't like having companions managed by the AI (Fallout, Arcanum...), and not just because the AI is usually pretty dumb.
- Is this battle necessary or in any way useful ?
Combat being nine tenth of many CRPGs, the above question rarely seems to cross the minds of the people who make them. In jRPGs and games like M&M, most areas are crammed with countless foes, whose only goal in existence seems to be your death (they very seldom seem to bother the rest of the world at all). This leads to very repetitive and absurd battles.
Even in CRPGs that don't go quite so far, the number of enemies you'll have to kill is often way too high. Bandits and wolves can't find an easier target than your well-armed party. Criminal guilds and evil cults have ridiculously high numbers of mooks to send against you. Countless evil humanoids have nothing better to do than loiter around places through which you'll have to pass. Etc. These unrealistically numerous and needless battles end up being chores.
Of course, there aren't many CRPGs in which each battle has a logical reason for existing. Mysteries of Westgate is the best example I can come up with. Torment and Fallout are good examples, but they have some unnecessary combat-heavy areas here and there.
- Interesting enemies
A developed personality can be a nice thing for an enemy to have, but it's not enough to make him interesting during combat. Being impressive is nice, but not sufficient. A truly interesting enemy, in my opinion, is one that keeps you on your toes. He's unique and challenging, uses surprising tactics, has several different ways of attacking you, etc.
In fact, I personally tend to prefer groups of enemies, as long as said enemies are diverse and complementary. The BG series has some greatly entertaining fights against evil adventuring parties and other mixed groups. The end fight of SoZ pits you against a dozen of challenging opponents with very different skills and powers. Fighting a group of enemies that are all dangerous but will act very differently requires you to think throughout the whole fight.
Of all the CRPGs I've played, I'd say BG2 and ToB did the best job of having entertaining combat. I remember many of the fights very fondly. Torment and MotB are two of my favorite CRPGs because of their excellent stories, atmospheres and characters, but it's a bit frustrating that they don't have more memorable battles.
I'm waiting for your thoughts !
- The tactical aspect
I'm currently replaying Champions of Krynn, one of the Gold Box games and my first CRPG ever. It wasn't such a memorable game, but it had some nice things... that I was very disappointed not to find in my second CRPG (Bard's Tale 3). The most important one was the ability to move around each of your PCs as you wanted during battles. It really gives combat much more dimension ! But in jRPGs and games that keep first person perspective (Eye of the Beholder, Ishar, M&M...), movement and placement have little to no importance. And some games which allow your PCs to move around don't do a very good job because of poor pathfinding, cramped spaces, artificial barriers, etc.
The tactical aspect also includes the number of choices that are available to each PC (of course, said choices have to be significantly different from each other, which isn't always the case).
The number of PCs also plays an important role. A party of 5 or more definitely seems more entertaining to me. I found The Witcher entertaining enough, but there were times when having a single PC felt pretty frustrating. For similar reasons, I don't like having companions managed by the AI (Fallout, Arcanum...), and not just because the AI is usually pretty dumb.
- Is this battle necessary or in any way useful ?
Combat being nine tenth of many CRPGs, the above question rarely seems to cross the minds of the people who make them. In jRPGs and games like M&M, most areas are crammed with countless foes, whose only goal in existence seems to be your death (they very seldom seem to bother the rest of the world at all). This leads to very repetitive and absurd battles.
Even in CRPGs that don't go quite so far, the number of enemies you'll have to kill is often way too high. Bandits and wolves can't find an easier target than your well-armed party. Criminal guilds and evil cults have ridiculously high numbers of mooks to send against you. Countless evil humanoids have nothing better to do than loiter around places through which you'll have to pass. Etc. These unrealistically numerous and needless battles end up being chores.
Of course, there aren't many CRPGs in which each battle has a logical reason for existing. Mysteries of Westgate is the best example I can come up with. Torment and Fallout are good examples, but they have some unnecessary combat-heavy areas here and there.
- Interesting enemies
A developed personality can be a nice thing for an enemy to have, but it's not enough to make him interesting during combat. Being impressive is nice, but not sufficient. A truly interesting enemy, in my opinion, is one that keeps you on your toes. He's unique and challenging, uses surprising tactics, has several different ways of attacking you, etc.
In fact, I personally tend to prefer groups of enemies, as long as said enemies are diverse and complementary. The BG series has some greatly entertaining fights against evil adventuring parties and other mixed groups. The end fight of SoZ pits you against a dozen of challenging opponents with very different skills and powers. Fighting a group of enemies that are all dangerous but will act very differently requires you to think throughout the whole fight.
Of all the CRPGs I've played, I'd say BG2 and ToB did the best job of having entertaining combat. I remember many of the fights very fondly. Torment and MotB are two of my favorite CRPGs because of their excellent stories, atmospheres and characters, but it's a bit frustrating that they don't have more memorable battles.
I'm waiting for your thoughts !