Preview Gothic 3 details at WoG

[Visceris]

So you kept playing Morrowind because it had good controls and excellent combat?

It had good controls and adequate combat as well as I was pretty much bored with NWN and Fallout.

 

[Transcendent One]

So you kept playing Morrowind because it had good controls and excellent combat?

It had good controls and adequate combat as well as I was pretty much bored with NWN and Fallout.

Hahaha, Visc, you just made my day

 

[dojoteef]

Stark, I think you are confusing complex with fun. A game can have super complex combat, while still not being fun. I believe Blade of Darkness found that happy medium, that Die by the Sword couldn't. Not that Die by the Sword wasn't a decent game, it's just the control scheme, while it sounds great, actually turns out to be quite a chore for most people to figure out well. That's always been the problem with melee fighting games. How much freedom of movement do you allow? The problem is I think Die by the Sword allowed too much, the learning curve was extremely steep. That could be why there hasn't been another game with that same type of control scheme since it was released. Ultimately the problem with Die by the Sword, is people knew what sort of move they wanted to do, but were unable to figure out how to execute the move using the control scheme.

Blade of Darkness took a lot of the fun things from Die by the Sword, such as location damage and dismemberment and added an interface that was easier for people to understand. Also in Blade of Darkness, different moves were better against different enemies, despite your claims otherwise.

Your comment about combat only being good if it's TB or uses the same scheme as Die by the Sword just doesn't make sense to me. If you used a scheme similar to Die by the Sword in an RPG, suddenly your success is solely dependent on your ability to control your character's sword arm. If instead you use a combo system, you can make it so different combos have different advantages/disadvantages, such as using different weapons in RPGs deal different types of damage. That adds depth to an RPG. I think that's the idea Obsidian is hoping for with their different lightsaber stances in KOTOR2.

Also, I see no contradiction in Otaku's comments. He didn't like the control scheme and combat in Gothic, but thought Blade of Darkness had very good combat and controls. I think it has to do more with being able to make it intuitive for a person to engage in combat the way the expect to. I'm actually playing Bloodlines now with a Gangrel that has full Protean. I find the combat to be extremely annoying when I'm using the Protean Discipline; it's just so hard to actually hit anyone. I aim at the person (the person is directly in my sights), though when I attack, the attack goes to the left or right of the enemy. So in order to attack someone, I have to aim away from the center of the person, which is not intuitive. Similar problems could be the cause of people's dislike of Gothic's control scheme. Like I said though, I can't really gauge that sort of thing since I've never played the game, it's just an assumption.

 

[Stark]

Hi dojoteef, I'm at work here so i'll need to keep my replies here short. it is not meant to be blunt though.

Stark, I think you are confusing complex with fun. A game can have super complex combat, while still not being fun. I believe Blade of Darkness found that happy medium, that Die by the Sword couldn't. Not that Die by the Sword wasn't a decent game, it's just the control scheme, while it sounds great, actually turns out to be quite a chore for most people to figure out well.

I'm not confused. I think the word I used is depth/strategy, not complexity. I found BoD combat to be shallow. I did not say it's not fun, nor poor, nor anything like that. As for Die by the Sword's control scheme merit... another discussion some other thread.

Also in Blade of Darkness, different moves were better against different enemies, despite your claims otherwise.

I disagree. all the combos, if you manage to pull off, are inherently no different from one another other than dealing different amount of damage. certainly there's no situation that call for one combo over another. if there're subtle differences, I doubt it's even the intention of the developer. in mathematical terms, one or two combo dominate over the other combos (in terms of practicality) so much there's little reason to use the others.

Your comment about combat only being good if it's TB or uses the same scheme as Die by the Sword just doesn't make sense to me.

sigh. for the second time, please do not put words into my mouth. what i wrote and how you interpret is so different. it boggles the mind.

If you used a scheme similar to Die by the Sword in an RPG,

where did i say i want such a scheme in rpg?

Also, I see no contradiction in Otaku's comments. He didn't like the control scheme and combat in Gothic, but thought Blade of Darkness had very good combat and controls.

you will. go play Gothic, and you will see my point. If he didn't like Gothic's simplistic twtchy combat, I seriously doubt the combo thingy in BoD will work for him.

I think it has to do more with being able to make it intuitive for a person to engage in combat the way the expect to.

Press ctrl-left to swing left, ctrl-right to swing right. press left and right to dodge occationally. it doesn't get any more intuitive than that in Gothic. there's no combo thingy like left-right-up-up-down to pull off a combo like BoD (oh, I pressed "left" too early. gotta redo while getting slashed at by enermy.). I believe that type of control is the last thing Otaku want in rpg.

Similar problems could be the cause of people's dislike of Gothic's control scheme. Like I said though, I can't really gauge that sort of thing since I've never played the game, it's just an assumption.

people didn't like control scheme in Gothic not because it is unintuitive, but because it is unconventional, and occationally unresponsive. to attack you need to press ctrl-direction key. by the way I've explained all the moves to you in Gothic. Does it sound uninituitive to you at all? ctrl-left for left swing, ctrl-right for right swing, ctrl-up for forward swing (moving forward), ctrl-down for block. do a series of these as and when necessary, and dodge when needed. is it complex? unintiutive?

 

[dojoteef]

Sorry if you believe I'm misinterpreting your words, I'm only going by what you said.

In discussing combat you state:

The one in BoD really is simplistic.

According to that quote you say BoD had simplistic combat, the direct antonym would be complex, would it not?

You also stated:

in all seriousness, the best combat is either TB, or the one found in Die by the Sword.

I don't think there are two ways to interpret this. You state combat is best if it's either TB or similar to the type found in Die by the Sword. I think we are just typing our responses so quickly we aren't reading word for word. Sorry if there has been miscommunication, it is unintentional, I am not deliberatly trying to misquote you.


Now for the actual argument instead of clarifications.

Also, I see no contradiction in Otaku's comments. He didn't like the control scheme and combat in Gothic, but thought Blade of Darkness had very good combat and controls.

you will. go play Gothic, and you will see my point. If he didn't like Gothic's simplistic twtchy combat, I seriously doubt the combo thingy in BoD will work for him.

If re-read my example when I discuss the combat in Bloodlines using the Protean discipline you can see how Otaku might dislike combat in Gothic, while enjoying it in Blade of Darkness. I loved the combat in Blade of Darkness, but I find the combat in Bloodlines to be awkward at times. I believe this seems to be the main gripe with Gothic's combat since most people who said they disliked Gothic's combat seemed to mention that Bloodlines' combat was just slightly better than Gothic's.

Press ctrl-left to swing left, ctrl-right to swing right. press left and right to dodge occationally. it doesn't get any more intuitive than that in Gothic. there's no combo thingy like left-right-up-up-down to pull off a combo like BoD (oh, I pressed "left" too early. gotta redo while getting slashed at by enermy.). I believe that type of control is the last thing Otaku want in rpg.

Inevitably when you have real time combat there is some degree of having the mental and physical acumen to pull off the moves you want. Often times for games such as Blade of Darkness, they introduce timing as a mechanism for two reasons. It helps ensure the game is pulling off the move you meant to pull off, i.e. you don't want the game to accidently pull off a combo when it isn't appropriate. If you happened to walk forward for a while then strafe left around a corner, meet an enemy and start an attack, the result shouldn't be a forward+strafe left+attack combo. The second reason is to introduce an element of skill.

The thing is, when you convert such a system to an RPG, you would try to remove as much of the player skill and instead replace that with your character's skill. Maybe you can't pull of a move with consistency despite pressing the correct buttons until your character has reached a certain skill level, or whatever.

people didn't like control scheme in Gothic not because it is unintuitive, but because it is unconventional, and occationally unresponsive. to attack you need to press ctrl-direction key. by the way I've explained all the moves to you in Gothic. Does it sound uninituitive to you at all? ctrl-left for left swing, ctrl-right for right swing, ctrl-up for forward swing (moving forward), ctrl-down for block. do a series of these as and when necessary, and dodge when needed. is it complex? unintiutive?

Once again, read my blurb regarding combat using Protean discipline in Bloodlines. It doesn't seem that Bloodlines would have an unintuitive control system, but in this case it feels unintuitive. In fact in Bloodlines the control scheme is even simplier than in Gothic. If you are holding down forward while you attack you do a forward combo, right you do a right combo, left a left combo, and back a back combo. That's all there is to it, yet it can still feel and play in a manner inconsistent with the player's intentions.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Whoa. Didn't mean to start a war.

What I meant by BoD combat is the fun. Gothic's combat to me just isn't fun. Not in the least. Sure it may be simple to pull off, but it's just jerky and droll compared to BoD's combat. And I see no reason why BoD's combat style could not be translated into an RPG.

For instance, you could have two different factors.

Firstly your skill with the weapon. As it goes up, you deal more damage (yes, when it comes to action RPGs, I feel as long as you swing at a monster and hit, you should hit). Your skill versus their defense will determine how much damage you do. (Edit: Weapon type would be a factor as well. What weapon you choose to use would determing attack speed and damage rating. Also, you could rig it up where the different weapon types have their own skills and certain weapons work best against certain enemies. However, in the end, any weapon will do. Just that you would get a bonus for say, using a blunt weapon against skeletons rather than a sword.)

Secondly, once you reach a certain skill level in your weapon of choice, you could be given the choice of combos to spend your XP on, giving you a chance at more attacks in a shorter amount of time.

Personally, this is the way I would love to see action RPGs handled. It would make the experience much more fun for me. Besides, being able to lop your enemy's head off and chuck it at his friends makes for great roleplay.

"Yeah! That's right! You're fucking next!" :D

 

[dojoteef]

Don't worry Otaku, you didn't start a war. Discussing the merits of different RPGs and what can be done to improve them or what they did right is the main reason I post here. All the intermediate stuff, like bitching and moaning only adds to the enjoyment :D.

I agree with you on the combat, and I think that's what I was trying to get across. The problem is most RPG developers don't spend enough time on refining combat. They tend to put such a heavy emphasis on combat in the game as a means of gaining experience, but don't try to improve on the combat (or do a very poor job of implementing new combat schemes). That's why I think action RPGs could stand to learn from melee fighting games, since most RPGs tend to have melee combat.

 

[Stark]

The one in BoD really is simplistic.

According to that quote you say BoD had simplistic combat, the direct antonym would be complex, would it not?

...while keeping in mind nowhere in my posts did I say combat in BoD is bad. So, if we move from there, simplistic !=bad, so nowhere in my post did i say complexity is good (which you assumed i implied), and that is the crux of your misinterpretation of my post.

Sorry if there has been miscommunication, it is unintentional, I am not deliberatly trying to misquote you.

is ok. there're times people (that includes me) only look for sentences that they want to read at.

I loved the combat in Blade of Darkness, but I find the combat in Bloodlines to be awkward at times. I believe this seems to be the main gripe with Gothic's combat since most people who said they disliked Gothic's combat seemed to mention that Bloodlines' combat was just slightly better than Gothic's.

I can't comment on BL, since i've yet to buy it and play it. I can, however, comment on Gothic. Using the description i gave you, does it sound awkward? or unintuitive for that matter? (more on this later)

The thing is, when you convert such a system to an RPG, you would try to remove as much of the player skill and instead replace that with your character's skill.

So, would replacing Gothic combat with a BoD combat system (that depend even more heavily upon player skill) make more sense?

In anycase Gothic is not a "true" rpg in the strictest sense. it's an adventure/rpg/action hybrid. Also, you might be surprised to discover alot of success in Gothic's combat depend heavily upon character stats.

Once again, read my blurb regarding combat using Protean discipline in Bloodlines. It doesn't seem that Bloodlines would have an unintuitive control system, but in this case it feels unintuitive. In fact in Bloodlines the control scheme is even simplier than in Gothic. If you are holding down forward while you attack you do a forward combo, right you do a right combo, left a left combo, and back a back combo. That's all there is to it, yet it can still feel and play in a manner inconsistent with the player's intentions.

I really can't comment on how awkward the scheme is in BL, since i do not have it. At the same time it's hard for me to convince you otherwise since you never tried Gothic either.

Rarely the moves in Gothic turn out differently from what player intended, since if you want to move you just need to release the control key. (you may think of Ctrl key as action key.)

there are control issues with Gothic, but it's not the combat part. It's the inventory trading/selling/buying/getting/dropping that feels awkward, and a chore to use. I believe most people were put off by that. Coupled with the fact that you die easily in the first few hours of play (they either resort to button smashing --which is not how it is suppose to work--or they ventured into more dangerous areas than they can handle) people just lump all the grievances together and say it's a bad/unresponsive control scheme.

 

[Stark]

Whoa. Didn't mean to start a war.

haha. not at all. I didn't think it's a war or anything like that.

What I meant by BoD combat is the fun. Gothic's combat to me just isn't fun.

well... it's really up to personal tastes then. I personally prefer an elegant scheme where i press left and it swings left, as oppose to memorising some key strokes to pull off some combo, in a rpg. However, I have no problem playing BoD style game in an action game.

Besides, being able to lop your enemy's head off and chuck it at his friends makes for great roleplay.

be fair. the control scheme and ability to chop off enermy's head are two different independant matters.

 

[dojoteef]

Rarely the moves in Gothic turn out differently from what player intended, since if you want to move you just need to release the control key. (you may think of Ctrl key as action key.)

Are you saying that if you are attacking you can't move at the same time because you are holding down the Ctrl button? If that is the case, I can see how people would dislike such a control system, I know I would. Anyway, I guess you have a style of gameplay that you enjoy that's different than mine. That's fine, I just probably wouldn't bother picking up Gothic 3 if it keeps that same combat control scheme.

 

[Stark]

hmm... yeah, you can't move when ctrl key is held, but you can turn around using the mouse.

it feels very intuitive to me though. it may boil down to a personal preference thing though I'm inclined to think people are giving too little chance for Gothic control scheme to prove itself after failing to get past the initial fustration with the controls.

 

[Elwro]

I liked Gothic's combat. For me its only fault was fighting more than one opponent. You can only have one monster as your target, so while you're hacking him, the rest happily take away your hps; there's no way to hit multiple opponents or block many blows with your shield. I hope they change it in Gothic 3.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Only being able to attack one opponent at a time definitely sucked. That's why I would love a BoD style fighting system. I could be completely surrounded by enemies in that game and one or two combos later I'm completely surrounded by body parts; theirs.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well, I've had the chance to play Blade of Darkness and the combat is pretty decent, as you can attack multiple enemies at once with the use of combos, whirlwind slashes and the like. However, the game still feels terribly sluggish, especially turns and movement. Beats the heck out of Gothic, though. But Gothic 2 has a more responsive movement scheme, even if the combat isn't as good.

I just don't like how everyone in the game looks like a dwarf, especially the warrior with his stubby arms and legs. It's irritating to look at him walk and not be able to move at any great distance.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

But don't you think if they could improve the response time, that fighting style would just rock? Especially if they added the rpg elements to it that I listed above. Man that would just be the ultimate for an Action/RPG title, IMO.

 

[Stark]

the fighting styles... maybe. it's cool.

having to press a set combination of keys to pull it off? no. NEVER!!! :evil:

they can probably put that in another game. To have suddenly BoD style of combo in Gothic game... it'll not feel like a sequel but more like a different game altogether.

 

[dojoteef]

the fighting styles... maybe. it's cool.

having to press a set combination of keys to pull it off? no. NEVER!!! :evil:

Would you agree that having different combos that have strengths and weaknesses depending on the type of enemy you are attacking would be nice? Wouldn't that add more tactics to action RPG melee combat? I think it would.

If you agree with me, then why would using key combinations be a bad thing? Remember, we're talking about real time combat here, trying to select a combo from a list would probably take too long. In fact I can't think of a more reasonable method than key combinations, especially if there is a large list of possible combos. I'm not saying the key sequences have to be as tempermental as most Action games, but if done in an easy consistent manner I think it would add tremendously to the level of depth in combat.

 

[Stark]

Would you agree that having different combos that have strengths and weaknesses depending on the type of enemy you are attacking would be nice? Wouldn't that add more tactics to action RPG melee combat? I think it would.

yeah. i agree with you there.

If you agree with me, then why would using key combinations be a bad thing?

it probably come down to a personal preference thing then. I dislike having to memorize some keystrokes for one combo and another set for another combo. Going by your earlier statement different combo are used for different situations, so i end up having to memorize a set of these key strokes just to play a melee fighter!

add that to the fact i generally sucks at combo style fighting (I always got beat up in streetfighter... those were the days...) you can probably see why I dislike the idea.

now, if it is a pure action game where melee fighting is the main course, i can see them implementing it. but in a rpg?

a sort of hybrid/middle ground may be reached though. the keystrokes may be kept simple (at most 3 keys, and timing relaxed, like you said), or one can just bind it to a single key but make it expensive to execute (drain lots of mana, whatever... damn I think I just described Diablo).

by the way my objection (in earlier post) was implementation of such a system in Gothic game. It's probably a personal thing but I feel it'll not work within the setting of Gothic game.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Actually, I'm not really saying they should use it in Gothic 3. Would be nice, but I seriously doubt it. What I am saying, however, is I would love to see a system as I described used in some future Action/RPG. I just think it would work so well and add to the genre.

As far as key combinations go, yes it is a matter of personal choice. But if you read what I was suggesting, you could skip combos altogether. Let me detail it a bit further:

A.) You spend XP to buy combos. Now you have multiple attacks in shorter time that can hit multiple enemies. Standard damage is dealt.

B.) You don't buy combos and just pump up your weapon skill even more. Or, you do buy a combo or two, but rarely use them. When not using combos, you get a bonus to damage with your weapon because you are not flurrying around and instead focusing all your skill into one blow.

So, you have a choice of dealing standard damage to multiple enemies, or dealing massive damage to one enemy. Also, another thing that could be implemented is that when doing combos, your defense goes down slightly and stays down for a short time after the combo to simulate your character gaining his balance once more.

 

[Stark]

As far as key combinations go, yes it is a matter of personal choice. But if you read what I was suggesting, you could skip combos altogether. Let me detail it a bit further:

A.) You spend XP to buy combos. Now you have multiple attacks in shorter time that can hit multiple enemies. Standard damage is dealt.

B.) You don't buy combos and just pump up your weapon skill even more. Or, you do buy a combo or two, but rarely use them. When not using combos, you get a bonus to damage with your weapon because you are not flurrying around and instead focusing all your skill into one blow.

I may be wrong, but don't Sacred have some ideas like that? (I didn't play it but i recall I read something like that).

the combo idea there is nice, though a scheme where player can be creative in dictating the combo moves would be even better.

personally i favour a system where player is still the one dictating the moves as he go along (rather than pressing a pre-set key/combination of keys to execute out a flurry of moves). imagine the system that has all keys to the following combination of moves: high/low attack, left/right/center attack, slash/chop/parry attack. depending on your level the probability of chaining moves together to form your very own combo fluidly as you go along, increases, would be quite nice. So, imagine i go for a high-left-slash, followed by a low-right-parry, and so on...

the pace of the combat must be necessarily slower, to avoid it turning into a mad click feast.

but going by the above it's 2*3*3 = 18 keys for user to keep track of. Yeah, pretty impractical.