Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Rant: Modern technology is making modern RPG combat unbearable

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
Ah, cooldowns, best running incentives that there are! Great innovation, helped keep many a character in tip-top shape!
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,538
Location
Nottingham
What combat system would you find acceptable though? There seems to be a lot of shitting on different games but no one is pointing out a system that they actually think is good.

I understand Dark Souls has its fair share of flaws but I think it managed to do what so many '' modern rpgs '' fail at repeatedly , its a combat system that more or less successfully marries real time action with some classic RPG elements.

As for TW2 criticism , i completely agree. Combat in this game is absolute trash, especially on Dark difficulty. Maybe this was a bug when EE first released but i remember Letho was 1 shotting me in act 1 even though I had the best gear possible, I beat him by running around him for 30 minutes waiting for igni to come of cooldown.

The Letho fight in act 1 was a tad tough, but it still only took me a few attempts so I didn't see any real prob with it.
As for good combat systems I think there are a lot out there, and many have their merits. It's just, like a lot if things, some take a bit of getting used to and then after a while familiarity means folk pick the apart.
Plenty of fun to be had. The issue often isn't with the system, it's with the impatient and over-critical disposition of some gamers.
 

Namutree

Savant
Joined
Jun 3, 2015
Messages
250
I think Morrowind, NWN and combat systems like this have more potential than a straight real-time action combat system. But Morrowind shows that a lot of people don't like abstractive combat. "I'm swinging and it looks like my sword is hitting the enemy but they aren't taking damage! This sucks!" But really it was just a heavily abstracted combat system that wasn't all that different from Baldur's Gate or any RPG that is dice and stat-based, i.e. pen-and-paper style mechanics. The "problem" was that the first-person view combined with the pnp mechanics confused people.
Some basic indicators would have helped a lot. Like when you miss a somewhat transparent MISS text could appear on the enemy, slowly fade up, and after about 1.2 seconds fade away. Readjusting the Hit-to-Miss ratio could help too. For example; an auto 1/10 chance to hit would've made combat a lot better.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
What combat system would you find acceptable though? There seems to be a lot of shitting on different games but no one is pointing out a system that they actually think is good.

Joined 2017, but I'll bite. On the 'Dex there seem to be but degrees of shit with just a few exceptions. Basically, Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm and maybe ToEE with Temple+ when it comes to combat. Not that they're perfect, but yeah.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
The problem with RPG combat has never been about "realism" or the like, it has always been a gameplay issue. And in this regard the gameplay issue can largely be gauged by the prevalence of this fucking thing in the underlying mechanics:

UqdUrae.png

Bottomline is that random chance that is not properly limited is detrimental to any type of gameplay. Any fighting game would be ruined by a Morrowind style random chance to hit. Chess would be shit with a random chance to capture. The dice are the mortal enemy of skill, tactics and strategy.
 

Namutree

Savant
Joined
Jun 3, 2015
Messages
250
The problem with RPG combat has never been about "realism" or the like, it has always been a gameplay issue. And in this regard the gameplay issue can largely be gauged by the prevalence of this fucking thing in the underlying mechanics:

UqdUrae.png

Bottomline is that random chance that is not properly limited is detrimental to any type of gameplay. Any fighting game would be ruined by a Morrowind style random chance to hit. Chess would be shit with a random chance to capture. The dice are the mortal enemy of skill, tactics and strategy.
I think chance can be good so long as it's positive. Maybe it can help you when you're in trouble, but will never sink you when you should win. Would be interesting though to see some deterministic turn based combat in CRPGs.

Telepath Tactics is an SRPG that is mostly deterministic, and is pretty good.
 

Black

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,872,592
If dark souls is an example of good "modern rpg combat" then the genre is in even shittier situation that I had thought.
 
Last edited:

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
The problem with RPG combat has never been about "realism" or the like, it has always been a gameplay issue. And in this regard the gameplay issue can largely be gauged by the prevalence of this fucking thing in the underlying mechanics:

UqdUrae.png

Bottomline is that random chance that is not properly limited is detrimental to any type of gameplay. Any fighting game would be ruined by a Morrowind style random chance to hit. Chess would be shit with a random chance to capture. The dice are the mortal enemy of skill, tactics and strategy.
I think chance can be good so long as it's positive. Maybe it can help you when you're in trouble, but will never sink you when you should win. Would be interesting though to see some deterministic turn based combat in CRPGs.

Telepath Tactics is an SRPG that is mostly deterministic, and is pretty good.
Well, there are degrees, but overall random chance must be mitigated so it can never interfere with skill, tactics, and strategy. Positive chance would be something like randomized events and encounters that present the player with a self-contained situation to solve. Negative chance is something where doing something is a question of chance, ie ultimately I would say skill checks checking a value rather than value+random number is a better way of doing things.

In terms of the question at large, the issue of chance needs special consideration. The issue of chance in combat is probably best presented by visualizing the hit chance (ie the standard expanding/contracting reticles). Usually a deviation-size-reticle is based around the game's decided optimal combat state (the difference between a normal classic shooter and an RPG-sort with a reticle like this would be that the reticle in Doom or Duke3d is unchanging regardless of your state) and represents I'd estimate at most 5-10% deviation in optimal conditions. Now let's picture having this visual representation of random factor on a scale similar to a 50% chance roll (lamentably common in RPGs): It would be a completely nonsensical and frustrating gameplay. This is where the reason why most RPGs have shit combat originates from. Games like Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm, and Valkyria Chronicles do not revolve around chance, they revolve around tactics to reach the optimal fighting state while minimizing the enemy's fighting ability via the use of cover or specific advantages like snipers. Attacks outside of optimal conditions are only just something done because of limited or zero cost in doing so, most of the time your skill-tactical-strategic challenge is in removing random chance. Souls and Bloodborne leave random chance to a minor variation in damage for the most part. Whereas most d20 type combat systems revolve around random chance as constant. That is the essence of shit combat problem.
 

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
Some basic indicators would have helped a lot. Like when you miss a somewhat transparent MISS text could appear on the enemy, slowly fade up, and after about 1.2 seconds fade away. Readjusting the Hit-to-Miss ratio could help too. For example; an auto 1/10 chance to hit would've made combat a lot better.

Indicators. Brilliant! That would definitely help and should have been a toggle option in the game.

1/10 chance to hit, hmm. I guess that wouldn't hurt too much, but I would just prefer they just explained the system before making a character. A short tutorial that basically tells a new player that a low skill score in weapons or magic could mean a lot of misses in combat, so build accordingly.

I think in general RPGs that use complex stat systems would have survived and been more common today if they were explained better in-game. Not just a huge text wall, but maybe some interactive or even fun way of explaining the stat system concepts to the player would really help.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
795
I think the real underlying issue with all these terribad action combat systems is that the publishers/developers are so damn afraid of making anything that requires practice to get good at, or has some complexity that might scare off people. Anything with more than 2-3 actions to learn.

It is conceptually very easy to create an interesting action combat system. You just have to look at realistic medieval styles and simplify them for games. The core principle would be countering. You would watch the opponent and respond to his actions with counters. He goes high guard, you go low guard, he thrusts, you parry to the side, he slashes, you parry vertically, etc. The opponent would counter what you are doing offensively. The difficulty of the opponent would determine the complexity of his attacks and the quality of his counters. This alone would already create an excellent system with maybe just 8-10 different attacks/counters. If you want to get fancy, you could also introduce chaining, where certain attacks/counters flow into others quicker/easier.

But almost no one wants to do this because they are so afraid of losing players due to learning being involved. So everything is dumbed down until there is no fail state.
It also takes more work to make the systems deep AND fun AND bug free. More work is more money. You yourself should understand this. You mentioned in hte DF thread about how it avoided graphical development to focus on its world simulation. Everything takes time to make. Most games struggle mightily to meet their design goals and usually fall far short on release.

But you're partly right, you have to be. When you make for a mainstream, you necessarily are making something watered down.

I have this pinned to my wall--though I wonder if I ever look at it:
"Fast, Cheap, Good: Pick two." And some of us can only pick one, I'm sure of it.

Developing games is not as easy as it looks. What we see are the best of the best. Thousandfold more perish before we see them. History is the same. It's replete with famous names and events, but there're so many more things never famous or desirable.

Even games I don't like I still respect their makers because they've more than earned some.
 
Last edited:

Grampy_Bone

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
3,640
Location
Wandering the world randomly in search of maps
Eh, combat realism is not a goal worth striving for. If you had it, you wouldn't like it.

-Fighting more than 1 or 2 opponents = death

-Best weapons would be spears, halberds, and pikes. Longswords would be a backup weapon

-Plate Armor would make you functionally invincible

-The first attack in a duel would usually decide the winner

-Arrows would be super inaccurate

-Rapiers would cause no damage, and then your target would die from blood loss 10 minutes later. Same for guns/pistols


Doesn't sound very fun to me. I know For Honor was supposedly based on HEMA fighting styles and has half-sword attacks and such, but for a story- and tactics-based games, such things are overkill and unnecessary.

Games should strive to make combat tactically meaningful and mechanically deep. Failing that, it should at least look cool and feel good. Nioh and Dark Souls work pretty well.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
tldr: Writers research their topic before writing about it, otherwise they look pretty stupid. Game designers need to research the stuff they design as well.
Neal Stephenson tried this with Clang and failed pretty hard.

it's been said a million times how Dark Messiah's combat could have salvaged Skyrim.
But then the level designers would have had to think about combat, and the combat designers would have had to think about level design, and in a project that large it's just too many cooks in the kitchen! You've got to keep your developers separated into groups, each with their own lead, or how will you manage everyone's 401k's and stuff?
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
A short tutorial that basically tells a new player that a low skill score in weapons or magic could mean a lot of misses in combat, so build accordingly.

I'd like to think ppl don't need a tutorial to tell them that sort of thing.

I think in general RPGs that use complex stat systems would have survived and been more common today if they were explained better in-game. Not just a huge text wall, but maybe some interactive or even fun way of explaining the stat system concepts to the player would really help.

RTFM is all ppl need. Failing that, experiment. RPGs that use complex stat systems are not common today because the devs themselves are dumb, the players dumber.
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
RTFM is all ppl need. Failing that, experiment. RPGs that use complex stat systems are not common today because the devs themselves are dumb, the players dumber.

The average age of RPG players is getting older, so people have less time to read a manual

I'd like to think ppl don't need a tutorial to tell them that sort of thing.

The RPG market is what it is.
 
Self-Ejected

vivec

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,149
But then the level designers would have had to think about combat, and the combat designers would have had to think about level design, and in a project that large it's just too many cooks in the kitchen! You've got to keep your developers separated into groups, each with their own lead, or how will you manage everyone's 401k's and stuff?
I get the sarcasm, but this is important. Level design and Combat are an integrated problem. Even in Dark Messia, probably due to lack of resources the only way they could exploit the kick+spikes combo. I wonder given a full reign to the developers how that game would look :( .
 

Iznaliu

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
3,686
Manuals are read on the crapper. No time to take a dump these days?

Unless you have bowel trouble, I don't think reading an actual manual (opposed to a 5-page booklet) is a quick enough process to be done on the toilet. I say this as someone who reads quicker than most.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,103
Unless you have bowel trouble, I don't think reading an actual manual (opposed to a 5-page booklet) is a quick enough process to be done on the toilet. I say this as someone who reads quicker than most.

There, we have found the REAL reason modern RPGs suck. People are eating too healthy. :smug:

Neal Stephenson tried this with Clang and failed pretty hard.

Clang failed because the people behind it had zero game development experience. Actual game developers having to do some research is not the same as saying HEMA types should make games.
 

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it might derail the thread quoting it, so here's a /salute for valiant effort.
In the off chance it's irony, to my recollection, both ways of typing it are considered appropriate. Daikatana / Dai-Katana.

edit: never held one.. have a katana though, proper one too. Light as a fucking feather.
I don't even remember I posted that.

This is what happens when you have zero moderation on an internet forum. You posted shit and forgot that you did.
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
RTFM is all ppl need. Failing that, experiment.

Fucking this. When I didn't have any internet connection and the only games came from pirated CDs (cuz I lived in a post-communist apocalyptic shithole), it meant no manual. If the game had a tutorial, great, if not you would experiment and figure it out. And I still remember the experimenting most fondly, now I actually kinda feel lazy if I read the manual... meaning for an old game, of course, not some new popamole that plays itself for 90% of the time.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom