First Person RPG Combat

[Twinfalls]

And yeah, I'm sure you could put together a first-person-perspective turn-based combat engine...but why bother when an isometric or configurable third-person camera will be much more user-friendly?

Because even though you may not share it, you shouldn't write off the appeal that 'you are there' audio-visual simulation has to a very significant portion of rpg players.

 

[elander_]

In games like Bloodlines (first person view) i actualy prefer the game to be real-time combat but with as little combat as possible. Or better yet with freedom to choose when to fiht and when not to fight, with "self-service" areas where we can go to beat someone whenever we want. Daggerfall was bit like that, guilds were designed as "self-serving" quest feeders to serve char progression in any way the player had mood for. The player could almost choose the quests knowing what skills he wanted to raise. Later they replaced this freedom with going anywhere and doing anything and it sucked.

Bloodlines was cool until later when the game become just one fight after another. My point on this is that real-time combat rpgs should have as little combat as possible (or be self-served) and rely more on puzzles, diplomacy and investigation. While turn-base combat can be more tactical and provide more inteligent combat.

 

[suibhne]

even though you may not share it, you shouldn't write off the appeal that 'you are there' audio-visual simulation has to a very significant portion of rpg players.

But do you think they'd still get that impression in first-person perspective with TB combat dependent on character skill?

And no, I don't really share that viewpoint, because RPGs are already highly abstracted. In an FPS title like PREY, yeah, absolutely - I love the first-person perspecitve and anything else would be stupid. Otoh a first-person Fallout, even with brilliantly-executed TB combat, would already lose a lot in the IMMERSHUN DEPT. because of stat/skill//inventory management and the combat system's firm grounding in character skill rather than player reflexes. If we're talking about a good TB system predicated on character skill, as I was, I don't see any big advantage to first-person perspective, and there are some obvious disadvantages. Doesn't mean it couldn't work - I was just commenting that I'm not sure there's a point to trying, when the commonly-accepted strengths of first-person perspective are counteracted by other parts of your game design...and the weaknesses remain intact.

If we're talking about RT combat, tho, it's a different ball of wax, and it brings us right back to problem of the derogation of character skill relative to player reflexes.

 

[Roqua]

I don't think there's any valid basis to say an RPG simply cannot have real-time combat, or even FP combat. That's the stuff of rpg extremists like Roqua, the firebrand wahabbi Imam of RPG boards. Daggerfall not only had real-time first-person combat, you actually controlled your weapon with 'virtual' real-time analogue mouse movement. Yet there can be no argument whatsoever that Daggerfall is 'not an RPG' - it still has the best chargen to date.

RPGs appeal to people who appreciate depth, decision making, consequences. These are also key aspects of combat, which are reduced in direct proportion to how much player speed and reflexes are factored in. So TB makes for better RPGs generally.

Listen, fancypants, you stupid fucking pansy ass retard, I never once claimed that RT made a real rpg any less an rpg. I said twitch combat does. Daggerfall had an option to remove any twitchyness required of their combat by the way, you fucking brainiac cocksucking fucking pussy.

I don’t know how many times I have to say the same shit to the same ignorant, retarded fucking shitheads. In an rpg, (rpg stands for role-playing game) you play the role of a character whose physical abilities are not tied to your own. The character’s whose role you are playing skill and abilities decide if he successfully lands a blow in melee combat, not your own personal physical timing, dexterity, mouse clicking, button mashing skill. As soon as your character’s physical abilities is dependant on your own physical abilities you stop playing a role-playing game and are merely playing a game like any other; such as Mario Brothers, Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden, Sonic the Hedgehog, Oblivion, Gothic, etc.

Stephen Hawking, who is not known for his physical prowess, could and can play an rpg, because in real rpgs you do not need to have a whole body or engage in any physical activity. He could even play as a bard with a beautiful voice, with massive strength that allows him to uproot trees, and the agility of a mongoose, allowing him to dance a pretty jig.

Steven can do that when he plays an rpg, and he can play any rpg. He cannot play Mario brothers or any other game that requires physical demands.

In an rpg your character is the master swordsman, not you. It is more feasible to have fire-ice, or a bright darkness, than it is to have a twitch rpg.

Use your fucking little brains you fucking stupid fucks.

 

[Twinfalls]

Oh hello there Roqua, I thought for a moment you weren't talking to me again! How's Mrs R?

Daggerfall had an option to remove any twitchyness required of their combat by the way

It did? What precisely was this option?

I never once claimed that RT made a real rpg any less an rpg. I said twitch combat does.

And how do you define 'twitch combat'? How do you distinguish this from any type of RT combat in which mouse-wielding speed is relevant to any degree?

 

[Roqua]

I can't think of any with RT rpg that didn't have a pause option for commands. I think RtwP sucks, but that doesn't diusmiss the IE games, NWN, Kotors, lionheart, etc from being rpgs.

Diablo and sacred are not and have never been rpgs.

 

[elander_]

" In an rpg, (rpg stands for role-playing game) you play the role of a character whose physical abilities are not tied to your own."

I would say that if your combat depends only on your player skills meaning there are no char skills regulating combat it would certainly not be apropreate for an rpg. However there is so much about rpgs that do not depend on combat skills. All the other skills related to the major groups like crafting, non-offensive magic, leadership and diplomacy, stealth and thieving, survival, lore and investigation. Then there is roleplaying for different gameplay: dialog and social gameplay (leadership, collection of influences), stealth and hacking, crafting, puzzle solving and knowledge building. And theres also the structure and non-linearity of the game and the world dynamics. Combat is only a drop on an ocean of possibilities to create role-playing that unfortunatly aren't used much anymore.

 

[denizsi]

Daggerfall not only had real-time first-person combat, you actually controlled your weapon with 'virtual' real-time analogue mouse movement. Yet there can be no argument whatsoever that Daggerfall is 'not an RPG' - it still has the best chargen to date.

With all the skills and rolls involved during the combat which did matter greatly and the simple interaction, it is sweet. I've a problem with the second arguement though. While I'll probably agree with most facts you will point out about Daggerfall, I still refrain from saying 'not an RPG'. I'm a Daggerwhore.

I have a feeling this thread is addressing first-person-perspective combat for a single character, tho, not for a whole party.

Indeed. Something else I should've mentioned before.

A year or two later, I still can't imagine first-person RPG combat based on character skill rather than player skill.

If we're talking about RT combat, tho, it's a different ball of wax, and it brings us right back to problem of the derogation of character skill relative to player reflexes.

What do you think about Daggerfall's combat? The controls didn't really allow it to be a twitch-based game though you could run forward and backwards while attacking but it didn't offer such a great advantage. Nothing reflexive really, unless you are compelled to think for at least a few minutes before doing anything in an encounter.

but why bother when an isometric or configurable third-person camera will be much more user-friendly?

A matter of preference apparently. Not that I don't like isometric 3rd person. Doesn't have anything to do with adoring the graphical masturbation.

My point on this is that real-time combat rpgs should have as little combat as possible (or be self-served) and rely more on puzzles, diplomacy and investigation. While turn-base combat can be more tactical and provide more inteligent combat.

I don't agree with the 'as little combat as possible' part, but yes, should definitely have more diplomacy, investigation and that kind of activities.

And how do you define 'twitch combat'?

That's actually a good point. For example, I don't consider Daggerfall combat to be twitchy at all. There was just enough time between an enemy's attack to do anything. You didn't have to be fast to respond. If you thought it was fast anyway, you could change the combat speed, though this option was given only at the end of the character creation. Other than that, movement response to control keys was just right. However if all it takes for you to label something as twitchy is the requirement to have both of your hands occupied, or press more than just one key, then anything but turn-based isometric games is twitchy. I wonder what others consider twitch combat to be.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Shadows of Colossus had character progression, stat (health, strength, stanima) increases, exploration, boundaryless environment, inventory and plot.

What it did not have was choice, skills or dialog. So it wasn't an rpg. And sure you could argue it was tomb raider meets conan. It was still pretty dope.

With real character progression you choose how to develop your character. Getting a hundred coins in mario to get an extra life or a mushroom to get big do not count. I never would have even known that fruit or lizards tails helped you if I hadn't read it on gamefaqs, and I wasn't patient enough to hunt down more than about two of each so the game could be easily beaten without any. General rule: upgrading with items does not make for an rpg. Choice and skills are essential for an rpg. Exploration and a boundaryless environment are not. The inventory in that game does not deserve the word. You have a sword and bow. That's it. Wolfenstein had more than that. There was barely a plot to the game (not that plot/dialog is all that essential, imho, to an rpg although in general good plots/dialog and good rpgs go together), even the creator admitted that he hadn't really thought out the plot, developed it without a real plan in an ad-hoc matter and didn't explain much to the player because he hadn't come up with much to explain. "Your princess is in another castle" is not much of a plot, and neither is SotC's.

 

[Kraszu]

However if all it takes for you to label something as twitchy is the requirement to have both of your hands occupied, or press more than just one key, then anything but turn-based isometric games is twitchy

How is pressing two buttons at once twitchy? It is not like you have to press them on the same time just one of it press and then other (gothic), you can do copy & paste whit keyboard or is it too twitchy? What the fuck is hard in that.

 

[denizsi]

How is pressing two buttons at once twitchy? It is not like you have to press them on the same time just one of it press and then other (gothic), you can do copy & paste whit keyboard or is it too twitchy? What the fuck is hard in that.

I don't know. I was asking that

 

[Kraszu]

Sorry my head pain is killing me.

 

[Twinfalls]

You know, I've always wanted to start a bakery called 'House of Pain'. That's a reference to a 90s Irish hip-hop group. Oh yeah? stuff you all.

you could slow down the speed of monsters in combat in Daggerfall"

I'd forgotten about that. I take it back Roqua, I STILL LOVE YOU! you coked-up rhesus monkey

Daggerfall is still a first-person real time action combat based rpg.

And it's still something of a red herring to go on about twitch-combat being what makes rpgs 'not rpgs'. What's lacking from all major so-called RPGs of today is the choices and consequences, the genuine differing options and paths for different character types to take.

It's not like we're deluged with awesome rpgs that are all letting us down because OMG tHE COMBAT IS TWITCH, oh.... if ooooooonly!

 

[denizsi]

Imagine we are, but all of them are real-time non-party FP action RPGs and combat in everyone one of them unexceptionally sucks.

 

[Roqua]

You know, I've always wanted to start a bakery called 'House of Pain'. That's a reference to a 90s Irish hip-hop group. Oh yeah? stuff you all.

you could slow down the speed of monsters in combat in Daggerfall"

I'd forgotten about that. I take it back Roqua, I STILL LOVE YOU! you coked-up rhesus monkey

Daggerfall is still a first-person real time action combat based rpg.

And it's still something of a red herring to go on about twitch-combat being what makes rpgs 'not rpgs'. What's lacking from all major so-called RPGs of today is the choices and consequences, the genuine differing options and paths for different character types to take.

It's not like we're deluged with awesome rpgs that are all letting us down because OMG tHE COMBAT IS TWITCH, oh.... if ooooooonly!

Did you read my Betrayal at Krondor example? It had everything I love about rpgs minus the role-playing. It had a preset script, everychoice was premade and prescripted. It is a great game, one of my favorites, but will never be an rpg.

So there are two requirements for an rpg to be an rpg. A complete divide between player and character physical attributes and skills, as well as roleplaying (or more than just a passing attempt to throw meaningless choices in the game). So, on one hand we have Betrayal at Krondor, which has everything but roleplaying, and on the other hand we have Gothic, which has almost everything but a total divide between player skill and character skill.

Both are great games with heavy rpg aspects, but neither are rpgs.

It's not like we're deluged with awesome rpgs that are all letting us down because OMG tHE COMBAT IS TWITCH, oh.... if ooooooonly

I disagree. This is the direction the market is headed in. Gothic 3 is on every "rpg" fan's most wanted list, the witcher, hellgate, etc.

 

[sheek]

I agree with Roqua. I'm the only person on these forums who apparently liked Return to Krondor for it's combat. Rejecting RtK is where the 'hard core' gamers went wrong and the reason why we are getting Gothic 3, Drakensang, Bioshock and $2 Oblivion add-ons today.

 

[Roqua]

I agree with Roqua. I'm the only person on these forums who apparently liked Return to Krondor for it's combat. Rejecting RtK is where the 'hard core' gamers went wrong and the reason why we are getting Gothic 3, Drakensang, Bioshock and $2 Oblivion add-ons today.

I don't think you agree with me because I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Paraphrase my two points back to me, and I'll decide if you agree with me or not.

I liked RtK as a game and its combat, but it still isn't an rpg since like BaK it had zero choices. You are provided zero chance to roleplay.

In Gothic you are provided millions of chances to roleplay the pregeneratated character the game gives you.

This is easy shit guys. It doesn't matter if you are "hardcore" or not. Do only hardcore people understand if a tomato is a fruit or vegetable? Do only hardcore scientists agree that male sea cows give birth? Definitions are there for a reason. Things are categorized for a reason. Things are what they are for a reason. No amount of wishing or wanting will change what something is or isn’t. You can say your mobile home is a royal palace and that you are the fucking king of Oz, but you aren’t. Your mobile home is a mobile home and you’re just some dickhead.

A game can be fucking fantastic and not be an rpg. I really like bloodlines, arx fatalis, etc, and they aren’t rpgs. I love BaK and it isn’t an rpg. Those games are great without being rpgs. Who gives a fuck? Stop being stupid you fucking monkeys.

 

[Kraszu]

Well you can only argue if gothic is more of an rpg then RtK. Tb combat for me is more rpg then rt but rpg element in gothic and mostly in g2 are too strong to don't label it as an action rpg it sound like oxymoron but it have action elements and rpg elements so there is no better name for it. You have to label games.

 

[Roqua]

Well you can only argue if gothic is more of an rpg then RtK. Tb combat for me is more rpg then rt but rpg element in gothic and mostly in g2 are too strong to don't label it as an action rpg it sound like oxymoron but it have action elements and rpg elements so there is no better name for it. You have to label games.

More or less an rpg doesn't matter, since neither are. If it is a good game or not is a mtter of opinion, but arguing about the rpgness of a game that isn't an rpg doesn't make sense to me. What is a better rpg? NWN or ToEE? Thats an opinion question and valid. What is more of an rpg? BaK or Gothic? That is an invalid question because neither of them are and never will be for diferent reasons. What is a better game or what aspects of each game would need to change for them to become rpgs are valid questions.

 

[Kraszu]

So how would you label them? I think action rpg for gothic is best. Gothic have rpg elements and arguing about them is valid.

 

[Roqua]

An action game with strong rpg elements for Gothic, I want to say an adventure game with rpg elements for BaK, but adventure is an established gaming genre. So how about calling BaK an interactive story with strong rpg elements

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Did you read my Betrayal at Krondor example? It had everything I love about rpgs minus the role-playing. It had a preset script, everychoice was premade and prescripted. It is a great game, one of my favorites, but will never be an rpg.

So there are two requirements for an rpg to be an rpg. A complete divide between player and character physical attributes and skills, as well as roleplaying (or more than just a passing attempt to throw meaningless choices in the game). So, on one hand we have Betrayal at Krondor, which has everything but roleplaying, and on the other hand we have Gothic, which has almost everything but a total divide between player skill and character skill.

I don't think the "complete divide between player and character skills" makes sense as a defining criterion for CRPG's, neither historically (because a genre is defined by the games that were released in it, and there is plenty of examples for varying degrees of player input) nor in practical terms, because at the very least a players intelligence always plays a role, even in the slowest turn based RPG. It doesn't even make sense as an ideal, a character that was entirely reliant on its own skill would not require any input by the player, hence it would not even be a game. Whenever you require a decision by a player, you somehow involve his skill. therfore wether you have a turn based tactical combat system, or a button mashing action model, or a "click once and watch your character kill the enemy" system, its just varying degrees of player input, and employing different aspects of player "skill". Therefore it's really a matter of preference, not one of principle.

The whole it's a RPG / it's not a RPG debate is entirely assinine, because it's just discussing peoples personal thresholds in a continuum of games that share certain characteristica. It makes much more sense to discuss what makes a good role-playing gaming experience than trying to impose a clear-cut definition.

 

[elander_]

A game can be fucking fantastic and not be an rpg. I really like bloodlines, arx fatalis, etc, and they aren’t rpgs.

Bloodlines is certainly an rpg and a very good one. All the great quests that were made for role-playing are more important than the lack of tb combat. But still Bloodlines make it so your skills weight in combat.

The game is hub based and there is a main quest that needs to be done to access the other hubs but hey if all modern rpgs were like Bloodlines id don't think we had anything to complain about.

The whole it's a RPG / it's not a RPG debate is entirely assinine, because it's just discussing peoples personal thresholds in a continuum of games that share certain characteristica. It makes much more sense to discuss what makes a good role-playing gaming experience than trying to impose a clear-cut definition.

At least we could divide rpgs in two categories and call one action-rpgs and the other tactical-rpg. The problem is that some games provide the action but no role-playing in any other way. So these are just action-adventure games or simply action games.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

A game can be fucking fantastic and not be an rpg. I really like bloodlines, arx fatalis, etc, and they aren’t rpgs.

Bloodlines is certainly an rpg and a very good one. All the great quests that were made for role-playing are more important than the lack of tb combat. But still Bloodlines make it so your skills weight in combat.

The game is hub based and there is a main quest that needs to be done to access the other hubs but hey if all modern rpgs were like Bloodlines id don't think we had anything to complain about.

The whole it's a RPG / it's not a RPG debate is entirely assinine, because it's just discussing peoples personal thresholds in a continuum of games that share certain characteristica. It makes much more sense to discuss what makes a good role-playing gaming experience than trying to impose a clear-cut definition.

At least we could divide rpgs in two categories and call one action-rpgs and the other tactical-rpg. The problem is that some games provide the action but no role-playing in any other way. So these are just action-adventure games or simply action games.

Agreed.

 

[sheek]

I don't think you agree with me because I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Paraphrase my two points back to me, and I'll decide if you agree with me or not.

And that's why I said "I'm the only person on these forums who apparently liked Return to Krondor for it's combat.".

An RPG can have good or bad combat and that is one factor out of many in the overall quality of the game. 90% of the time TB beats RT-variants.

N]ow how bad is crappy combat? Depends how much combat there is. In an theoretical RPG like Zomg wants to make where you're the Mayor of SimCity it wouldn't matter... in reality all RPGs are very combat heavy.

Bad role-playing with good (TB) combat = average RPG (Return to Krondor)
Good role-playing with bad (RT) combat = bad RPG (Gothic, Morrowind etc)
(Exact same) Good role-playing with great (TB) combat = classic RPG (Temple of Elemental Evil)