What makes for good combat?

[MilesBeyond]

An odd thing I've noticed over the years of being an RPG fan is that there doesn't seem to be any sort of consensus on what makes for good combat. I've seen a lot of RPGs, from Fallout (old or new) to BG to Ultima to Wizardry be both praised and condemned for their combat. I feel like even ToEE, which often seems to be the go-to example for RPG combat, has its fair share of detractors (though one has to wonder why you're playing it if you don't like the combat).

Obviously the source of this is that there's a lot of opinions on what makes combat good, and what makes it bad. So I thought it would be cool to get an idea of what people think are games with good combat and why.

I do think it's important to root it in actual games. We can easily have a theoretical discussion of the best possible combat system, but I think this will work better if we're looking at concrete examples.

I've included a poll asking which of the Codex top 10 games has the best combat, but that's more just for fun, as many of them are games where I find it hard to imagine that they'd have the best combat.

 

[CryptRat]

 

[Sigourn]

1. It has to be engaging: it must not be a pointless exercise in repetition. Morrowind fails at this. It's literally "click click click click".
2. It has to be entertaining: you must have fun while fighting. PS:T, Fallout, New Vegas, fail at this.
3. It has to have diversity: you must fight different enemies.
   
4. It has to require strategy: all these enemies require different tactics.
   
5. It has to ask the player whether he should go into a fight.

Gothic 2 wins. Combat requires though before, and in the middle of a fight. It is entertaining and rewards the player. It has different enemies, and all of them have their particular tricks to beat.

 

[an Administrator]

A good combat system relies on both player skills(timing, reflexes, and strategy) and stats of the created character.

 

[an Administrator]

Looking at the top ten, barely half of them have decent combat...

 

[Somberlain]

Turn-based, which is why nips make so much better games these days than baka gaijin moderntards

 

[Jazz_]

Underrail, Jagged Alliance 2.

the combat in Expeditions:Conquistador is pretty enjoyable too, albeit not very complex.

 

[pippin]

timing, reflexes

Fuck that faggotry, give me TB instead

 

[an Administrator]

timing, reflexes

Fuck that faggotry, give me TB instead

I was mainly talking about single player Role-Playing Games. Yeah for party-based games TB is the most suitable system.

 

[typical user]

It has to be simple but deep enough to keep you entartainted (or like they say - "easy to learn, hard to master"). From games in poll I bet on Fallout/Fallout 2. It is simple, you aim and shoot if you miss then you put points in skill the weapon is using. Later on you get your hands on burst weapons, better armor and get more hp, you start speccing into either burst-fire or aimed shots.

But on the other hand your game shouldn't be focused solely on combat or otherwise it will get boring. In Fallout 2 you have location where you mainly talk to people (Vault City, Gecko) and other where you mainly fight things (Raiders, Vault 15).

 

[canakin]

Every combat should be JA2 combat.

 

[Chateaubryan]

I'd say it's a combat system that ask of you to switch strategies regularly - while giving you many opportunities to improvise and show creativity during and in between combats.
My first playthrough of Shin Megami Tensei III did that for me, for example. It asked you to experiment new tactics and skill combination during combats, and to tinker with fusion to find the right team composition.

A strange counter-example of that would be MM6. Combats are simplistic and repetitive and I can arguably call them bad, but raining meteors on your enemies before pillaging their corpse was very satisfying, somehow.

 

[Telengard]

The top 10 Codex RPGs are primarily story-based or explorer-based games.

And that factor plays into the weakness of such polls, since - as with most - it lacks demographics. Even at the bare minimum, you'd want to divide the audience into the traditional alde-school (even older than old school) four groups. Because:

The Tacticians want combat that reflects the tactical complexities of harsh combat.
The Power Gamers want combat where their awesome choices on the character sheet result in awesome splats on the screen.
The Casuals want to be entertained in as unchallenging a way as possible, preferably even as a spectator.
And the Grogs want statistical modeling of the deflection rate of each individual weapon versus each individual armor.

What each group will claim to be fun is thus very different. For instance, a series of combats that can all be won in the same way every time will never be loved by Tacticians, but can be loved by everyone else. If that one way is discoverable only by elite choices on the character sheet, the Power Gamers will love it. If that one way is easy to achieve and entertaining, the Casuals will love it. And the Grogs will love it if it relies on historically accurate weaknesses of the armor the enemies are using, so the Grogs can thus apply their superior knowledge of historical armors without first having to find the "Secret Hidden Info" about the armor in some treasure chest, like a filthy Casual does, while also being viscerally pleased at the historical accuracy of the game.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Good combat. While I enjoy pretty much all of the RPGs on the list, my favorite combat has to be when you really have to ponder and think about every move. My overall favorite system is real-time-with-pause, but all systems can be good if done well.

I think what I enjoy most is the pen-and-paper adaptation. So while Morrowind has a lot of missing involved at very low level weapon skills, it does so because the combat is directly tied to your attributes, stats and dice-roll checks. There are many factors involved in Morrowind's combat, many complex rolls going on under the hood and the combat itself is an abstraction. It's really no different than D&D, Baldur's Gate or something like this, except with the first-person view people subconsciously believe that the combat needs to be "realistic" or real in some way. If the game was isometric or something, it wouldn't be as talked about as a negative trait, IMO. I think a RTWP Morrowind would be cool. One that is balanced and designed for such a system, allowing you access to the huge amount of magic schools, spells and spellmaking, etc. Something that makes you use more of your resources (which is another great trait), etc.

Not saying Morrowind's combat is the best, but overall the best combat has a lot of things going on under the hood, dice rolls, pen-and-paper stat implementations, difficulty, requires you to use your brain and think, and presents new challenges along the way.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

The Tacticians want combat that reflects the tactical complexities of harsh combat.
The Power Gamers want combat where their awesome choices on the character sheet result in awesome splats on the screen.
The Casuals want to be entertained in as unchallenging a way as possible, preferably even as a spectator.
And the Grogs want statistical modeling of the deflection rate of each individual weapon versus each individual armor.

What each group will claim to be fun is thus very different.

get a load of Cpt.Nailed-it over here

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I think difficulty options are a good start to trying to cater to all those groups in a single RPG. Not all RPGs will apply to that model, but things like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland, Divinity: Original Sin and things like this benefit greatly by having many difficulty options, modes and other ways of tailoring the experience to the individual's tastes.

 

[J1M]

I think difficulty options are a good start to trying to cater to all those groups in a single RPG. Not all RPGs will apply to that model, but things like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland, Divinity: Original Sin and things like this benefit greatly by having many difficulty options, modes and other ways of tailoring the experience to the individual's tastes.

No.

The expectation that every person NEEDS to complete EVERY game without putting any effort into overcoming obstacles in it is wrong. Especially with regards to turn-based games, there are usually a wide variety of guides that someone can use to make it through a difficult encounter.

Creating difficulty levels results in combat based around things like HP bloat and other degenerate systems. It also splits resources and testing.

I am totally fine if someone wants to add god-mode cheats to a game so those who are misguided into thinking game stories are worth a shit can skip the combat, but let's not pretend the story is what games are about. It's also fine if those god-mode cheats are called "Easy Mode" in the menu, but let's stop pretending it's a real gameplay alternative.

 

[V_K]

To me it's less about systems and more about encounter design. Games whose combat I enjoy have encounters that a) allow for drastically different ways of tackling them, and 2) require drastically different ways of tackling them. E.g. I enjoyed combat in Dragonfall, even though it's not very mechanically deep or challenging. On the other hand, Serpent in the Staglands had some mechanical depth, but all encounters boiled down to kiting and picking enemies one by one. Blackguards for me was a perfect synthesis of varied encounters and deep systems.
I'm not a combatfag though, I prefer games that have many non-combat opportunities (unless they're realized as binary dialog checks), so feel free to disregard my opinion.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Difficulty levels will benefit hardcore RPG players, too, though. It's not just Story Mode peeps that will benefit. Hardcore/Ironman options should be there, too. The point is that you can select the type of experience you want, thus you can enjoy many RPGs that you normally wouldn't have because they were either too hard or too easy. It goes both ways.

Options to tweak sliders or download slider sets, different modes (Story Mode, Hardcore Mode, Ironman Mode, etc.), even options that limit or implement the stricter rule set options (such as Core Rules in the Infinity Engine games) would go a long way to the end of having many different types of people enjoy your RPG.

 

[J1M]

Difficulty levels will benefit hardcore RPG players, too, though. It's not just Story Mode peeps that will benefit. Hardcore/Ironman options should be there, too. The point is that you can select the type of experience you want, thus you can enjoy many RPGs that you normally wouldn't have because they were either too hard or too easy. It goes both ways.

Options to tweak sliders or download slider sets, different modes (Story Mode, Hardcore Mode, Ironman Mode, etc.), even options that limit or implement the stricter rule set options (such as Core Rules in the Infinity Engine games) would go a long way to the end of having many different types of people enjoy your RPG.

Think about what you are saying. Interesting and challenging difficulty is not the number of rounds you are willing to swing a sword at a goblin adjusted in a slider. It is about giving the player new experiences and the tools to solve those situations in a satisfying way that, by the end of the game, leaves them with a feeling of mastery.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

You are assuming too much based on what I said. Sliders do not have to be simple HP bloat or something. They can get creative. Give you the ability to turn different rules on or off. More options. Limited spell-casting (D&D-style vs. cast as much as you want), saving options, "anywhere", "limited" or "one save Ironman", etc.

The base game should be easy on Normal/Casual difficulty, but the developers should balance the difficulty for the hardest levels and the a la carte options enabled.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

In other words, let the players themselves decide what an RPG should be. Give them the options to tailor it to their liking.

 

[hivemind]

skyrim

 

[Agesilaus]

None. Also, at least half of those listed are total dogshit games that I wouldn't poke with a stick. I hate to say it, but the time is coming when I may need to actually type out a legitimate top 10 list for people like the OP to study.

 

[hackncrazy]

but let's not pretend the story is what games are about.

And yet, when you look at the Codex Top, you see that 85-90% of the games are heavily story based. You can pretty much count on the fingers of one hand the ones that really offer a challenge to the player by requiring different tactics and approaches to combat, thinking outside the box etc.