My beef against modern real time combat systems

[SkeleTony]

Your first problem is in seeking satisfying and/or realistic REAL TIME combat in a RPG. it does not exist. RPGs by definition should never base CHARACTER'S physical aptitude on PLAYER'S reflexes. That is as wonky as basing a FANTASY strat's "magic" systems on what can be achieved in REAL WORLD physics...actually it is probably much worse than that.

I don't see what the big deal is. Your intelligence is crucial to a TBS game even if your character is a retard who would never come up with the same plan you did on his own. As long as you're not role-playing a peg legged midget who dodges shit like a professional ninja at the press of a button, it's perfectly fine. I want to play a game, not watch a movie where you just click on your enemy and your character does everything on his own. That's how we got modern day Bioware games.

The problem is that with strategy and tactics games(including RPGs), we accept that YOUR MIND is the one driving the characters in the game. As much as 'roleplay-fags' want to make it otherwise, it cannot be otherwise. To strip our own minds from the activity leaves us with NO GAME and certainly nothing interactive.

Same applies to arcade/platform/fighting/shooter games and our PHYSICAL(and to a much lesser extent mental) abilities. The point of Quake is not to simulate the "What would I do if I were a space marine facing hordes of interstellar demons?". It is to test your reflexes and(primarily physical) gaming skills.

The point of RPGs is that YOU, as in your physical body, have no place in the game world. it is to simulate "What if I were a 350 lbs. barbarian Orc...?". That orc should not have his skill at swinging an axe rooted in YOUR skill at button mashing and mouse clicking.

Now if someone comes out with a new RPG wherein your character IS somehow modeled after your actual self then so be it(but at that point it is not a RPG anymore...it is a shooter or some such).

 

[SkeleTony]

So what do you think? And more importantly, do you know of any RPG that has really satisfying combat?

JA2

JA2 IS NOT RPG

But chzr is right, it has really satisfying combat. Well worth a playthrough if you haven't.

Mass Effect 2 has pretty satisfying combat, especially because you can score some awsum headshots, bro.

FALSE. JA2 is one of the better RPGs ever released. You seem to not know what an RPG IS.

 

[ironyuri]

So what do you think? And more importantly, do you know of any RPG that has really satisfying combat?

JA2

JA2 IS NOT RPG

But chzr is right, it has really satisfying combat. Well worth a playthrough if you haven't.

Mass Effect 2 has pretty satisfying combat, especially because you can score some awsum headshots, bro.

FALSE. JA2 is one of the better RPGs ever released. You seem to not know what an RPG IS.

JA 2 Box art calls it "The Role-Playing strategy of 1999"

I always treated JA like a character driven turn-based strategy/tactical game, I'd forgotten it called itself a Role-Playing strategy game....

SkeleTony you have shown me the light!

 

[waywardOne]

real combat is boring. unless it's between two equally skilled and equally armed combatants, it takes about 20 seconds to resolve a 1v1. the typical 1v4 would result in the hero dying in the tutorial.

 

[laclongquan]

Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels and Hammer Sickle, they are the answer for the pleas of gamers in search of good combat system in a RPG (well, rpg-ish game).

Turn based, Squad based, WW2 weaponry, they should satisfy your requirement, da?

 

[Radisshu]

Demon's Souls' RT combat is actually pretty great,
but I wouldn't call the game an RPG. It really manages to feel like a desperate struggle at times, though.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Your first problem is in seeking satisfying and/or realistic REAL TIME combat in a RPG. it does not exist. RPGs by definition should never base CHARACTER'S physical aptitude on PLAYER'S reflexes. That is as wonky as basing a FANTASY strat's "magic" systems on what can be achieved in REAL WORLD physics...actually it is probably much worse than that.

I don't see what the big deal is. Your intelligence is crucial to a TBS game even if your character is a retard who would never come up with the same plan you did on his own. As long as you're not role-playing a peg legged midget who dodges shit like a professional ninja at the press of a button, it's perfectly fine. I want to play a game, not watch a movie where you just click on your enemy and your character does everything on his own. That's how we got modern day Bioware games.

Retard doesn't understand the difference between RPG gameplay and Bioware cutscenes.

 

[Suchy]

Mount & Blade, best realtime melee combat there is. Followed by Blade of Darkness. M&B also has proper RPG combat, defined by character stats, while BoD is just an action game.

 

[Achilles]

Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels and Hammer Sickle, they are the answer for the pleas of gamers in search of good combat system in a RPG (well, rpg-ish game).

Turn based, Squad based, WW2 weaponry, they should satisfy your requirement, da?

I've played all of these games to death, as well as JA2 and almost every other turn-based tactical game there is. I was referring specifically to fantasy RPGs with real-time combat.

Mount and Blade has a great combat system, but it suffers from the same problem: Your opponents seem to be non-corporeal beings, since your swings pass right through them. You never feel like you've actually hit something. Here's a video from Excalibur to show what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYknSS0h-5Y

See how these knights hit each other. Their swords hit the armor and recoil back, they don't pass through the enemy. Why isn't it the same way in games?

 

[Archibald]

Because it would take effort.

 

[Mangoose]

Your first problem is in seeking satisfying and/or realistic REAL TIME combat in a RPG. it does not exist. RPGs by definition should never base CHARACTER'S physical aptitude on PLAYER'S reflexes. That is as wonky as basing a FANTASY strat's "magic" systems on what can be achieved in REAL WORLD physics...actually it is probably much worse than that.

I don't see what the big deal is. Your intelligence is crucial to a TBS game even if your character is a retard who would never come up with the same plan you did on his own. As long as you're not role-playing a peg legged midget who dodges shit like a professional ninja at the press of a button, it's perfectly fine. I want to play a game, not watch a movie where you just click on your enemy and your character does everything on his own. That's how we got modern day Bioware games.

The problem is that with strategy and tactics games(including RPGs), we accept that YOUR MIND is the one driving the characters in the game. As much as 'roleplay-fags' want to make it otherwise, it cannot be otherwise. To strip our own minds from the activity leaves us with NO GAME and certainly nothing interactive.

Same applies to arcade/platform/fighting/shooter games and our PHYSICAL(and to a much lesser extent mental) abilities. The point of Quake is not to simulate the "What would I do if I were a space marine facing hordes of interstellar demons?". It is to test your reflexes and(primarily physical) gaming skills.

The point of RPGs is that YOU, as in your physical body, have no place in the game world. it is to simulate "What if I were a 350 lbs. barbarian Orc...?". That orc should not have his skill at swinging an axe rooted in YOUR skill at button mashing and mouse clicking.

Now if someone comes out with a new RPG wherein your character IS somehow modeled after your actual self then so be it(but at that point it is not a RPG anymore...it is a shooter or some such).

This.

More importantly, strategic and tactical gameplay bases itself on the characters' stats, which is an important aspect of RPGs. While your intelligence can affect how well you play tactically, you can never exceed what your characters stats allow you to do. On the other hand, in an action game, while you are still privy playing strategically and tactically, you also have the ability to perform feats outside the bounds of your characters' stats such as being able to avoid damage completely if your personal reflexes are deft enough. You may bring up the example of action RPGs such as Diablo, where you can't 100% rely on your physical reflexes, but that's why it's considered a RPG hybrid and not a pure action game.

 

[mpxd]

Your first problem is in seeking satisfying and/or realistic REAL TIME combat in a RPG. it does not exist. RPGs by definition should never base CHARACTER'S physical aptitude on PLAYER'S reflexes. That is as wonky as basing a FANTASY strat's "magic" systems on what can be achieved in REAL WORLD physics...actually it is probably much worse than that.

I don't see what the big deal is. Your intelligence is crucial to a TBS game even if your character is a retard who would never come up with the same plan you did on his own. As long as you're not role-playing a peg legged midget who dodges shit like a professional ninja at the press of a button, it's perfectly fine. I want to play a game, not watch a movie where you just click on your enemy and your character does everything on his own. That's how we got modern day Bioware games.

The problem is that with strategy and tactics games(including RPGs), we accept that YOUR MIND is the one driving the characters in the game. As much as 'roleplay-fags' want to make it otherwise, it cannot be otherwise. To strip our own minds from the activity leaves us with NO GAME and certainly nothing interactive.

Same applies to arcade/platform/fighting/shooter games and our PHYSICAL(and to a much lesser extent mental) abilities. The point of Quake is not to simulate the "What would I do if I were a space marine facing hordes of interstellar demons?". It is to test your reflexes and(primarily physical) gaming skills.

The point of RPGs is that YOU, as in your physical body, have no place in the game world. it is to simulate "What if I were a 350 lbs. barbarian Orc...?". That orc should not have his skill at swinging an axe rooted in YOUR skill at button mashing and mouse clicking.

Now if someone comes out with a new RPG wherein your character IS somehow modeled after your actual self then so be it(but at that point it is not a RPG anymore...it is a shooter or some such).

So, what happens if a game tests both your intelligence and your reflexes? It can't be an RPG 'cause it relies on player reflexes, and it can't be a fighting game because it relies on player intelligence? Can't you have a game that's both a fighting game (when it comes to combat, with your stats being used as the 'character selection screen' and determining your moves) and an 'RPG' in all other (noncombat) situations? Hell, why is there even a rule that RPGs must measure intelligence with "what is the best choice you can make given infinite time" rather than "can you think on your feet"?

Sure, games that rely on speed often measure how fast you can click or how quick your reflexes are. This doesn't mean it's impossible to make a game where making your decisions faster helps a lot more than clicking faster -- you can play chess without clocks, and you can play chess with time limits so short that the person with the faster hand wins, but for some reason most people who play with time limits aren't winning because of their 'physical skills'.

 

[Mangoose]

Your first problem is in seeking satisfying and/or realistic REAL TIME combat in a RPG. it does not exist. RPGs by definition should never base CHARACTER'S physical aptitude on PLAYER'S reflexes. That is as wonky as basing a FANTASY strat's "magic" systems on what can be achieved in REAL WORLD physics...actually it is probably much worse than that.

I don't see what the big deal is. Your intelligence is crucial to a TBS game even if your character is a retard who would never come up with the same plan you did on his own. As long as you're not role-playing a peg legged midget who dodges shit like a professional ninja at the press of a button, it's perfectly fine. I want to play a game, not watch a movie where you just click on your enemy and your character does everything on his own. That's how we got modern day Bioware games.

The problem is that with strategy and tactics games(including RPGs), we accept that YOUR MIND is the one driving the characters in the game. As much as 'roleplay-fags' want to make it otherwise, it cannot be otherwise. To strip our own minds from the activity leaves us with NO GAME and certainly nothing interactive.

Same applies to arcade/platform/fighting/shooter games and our PHYSICAL(and to a much lesser extent mental) abilities. The point of Quake is not to simulate the "What would I do if I were a space marine facing hordes of interstellar demons?". It is to test your reflexes and(primarily physical) gaming skills.

The point of RPGs is that YOU, as in your physical body, have no place in the game world. it is to simulate "What if I were a 350 lbs. barbarian Orc...?". That orc should not have his skill at swinging an axe rooted in YOUR skill at button mashing and mouse clicking.

Now if someone comes out with a new RPG wherein your character IS somehow modeled after your actual self then so be it(but at that point it is not a RPG anymore...it is a shooter or some such).

So, what happens if a game tests both your intelligence and your reflexes? It can't be an RPG 'cause it relies on player reflexes, and it can't be a fighting game because it relies on player intelligence? Can't you have a game that's both a fighting game (when it comes to combat, with your stats being used as the 'character selection screen' and determining your moves) and an 'RPG' in all other (noncombat) situations? Hell, why is there even a rule that RPGs must measure intelligence with "what is the best choice you can make given infinite time" rather than "can you think on your feet"

Um, then you get an action RPG.

I do understand the point you're making, but with the current way we interface with computers, with mouse and keyboard, a game that requires quick decisions will require practiced dexterity. I'm playing DoW2 online right now, and while it is quite slow for an RTS, I still have to train my fingers to the correct hotkeys and click relatively accurately in order to present any sort of a challenge. If, perhaps, voice recognition becomes much more technologically advanced, or you can directly interface your brain to the computer, then that would be a different story.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels and Hammer Sickle, they are the answer for the pleas of gamers in search of good combat system in a RPG (well, rpg-ish game).

Turn based, Squad based, WW2 weaponry, they should satisfy your requirement, da?

I've played all of these games to death, as well as JA2 and almost every other turn-based tactical game there is. I was referring specifically to fantasy RPGs with real-time combat.

Mount and Blade has a great combat system, but it suffers from the same problem: Your opponents seem to be non-corporeal beings, since your swings pass right through them. You never feel like you've actually hit something. Here's a video from Excalibur to show what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYknSS0h-5Y

See how these knights hit each other. Their swords hit the armor and recoil back, they don't pass through the enemy. Why isn't it the same way in games?

Yeah, it's fucking pathetic, especially with the system requirements of these games. Clipping blades and, people walking through tall grass without bending it look seriously pathetic with these super-duper photorealistic graphics, for fucks sake, if if you can't do decent animations, stick to Exile-level graphics.

 

[Zeus]

Mount & Blade, best realtime melee combat there is. Followed by Blade of Darkness. M&B also has proper RPG combat, defined by character stats, while BoD is just an action game.

Well, it's not STRICTLY defined by RPG stats. Player skill (reflexes) is just as important as character skill (Agility stat). It's not one of those real-time RPGs where you just click on an enemy and watch the battle animation play out, powered by stats alone. If you can't handle the timing of a gallop-by-beheading, you're going to have some trouble.

But stats do have a significant impact on weapon damage, and they do affect the accuracy of arrows (unlike melee swipes, which depend entirely on positioning and timing), so it's a nice mix of player and character skill.

Mount and Blade has a great combat system, but it suffers from the same problem: Your opponents seem to be non-corporeal beings, since your swings pass right through them. You never feel like you've actually hit something. Here's a video from Excalibur to show what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYknSS0h-5Y

See how these knights hit each other. Their swords hit the armor and recoil back, they don't pass through the enemy. Why isn't it the same way in games?

Yeah, it's fucking pathetic, especially with the system requirements of these games.

Er... for a 3D game released in 2008, Mount & Blade has REALLY low requirements.

Minimum Requirements: Pentium II 300 MHz, 64 MB RAM, Windows 95/98, DirectX 7.0a, DirectX-compliant 3D accelerated video card, DirectX-compliant sound card, 4x CD-ROM drive, and 150 MB hard-drive space.

Wait, you're right. A PII 300 with 64MB of ram? With THAT kind of computing power, the graphics should rival the visuals of Excalibur!

 

[mpxd]

Um, then you get an action RPG.

I do understand the point you're making, but with the current way we interface with computers, with mouse and keyboard, a game that requires quick decisions will require practiced dexterity. I'm playing DoW2 online right now, and while it is quite slow for an RTS, I still have to train my fingers to the correct hotkeys and click relatively accurately in order to present any sort of a challenge. If, perhaps, voice recognition becomes much more technologically advanced, or you can directly interface your brain to the computer, then that would be a different story.

Yeah, i guess i'm just saying that the categorical "ACTION RPG IZ NOT RPG" is a stupid argument (not that you were saying that, just the general codex attitude).

I agree that interfaces are generally pretty horrible, but i think that careful choice of game mechanics can get around the problem -- it's not like the interface to chess, even on a computer, is terribly advanced. It's not like the majority of combat actions in, say, JA2 are that much more complex -- movement and shooting could be handled by a couple of hotkeys and a mouse. More complicated stuff like inventory access is a problem, but it's much rarer and might be abstractable (pausing or slowing the timer but obscuring the screen, and maybe subtracting a set amount of time as a penalty?).

To be fair, this is still (mostly?) a turn-based system -- one side sits around while the other moves. It's possible to do the same thing in full realtime, but you'd have to somehow reduce the effectiveness of twitch responses -- adding some sort of input lag (2sec before your character responds) might help (and would be annoying as fuck until you got used to it), but it wouldn't be enough. Maybe something like a "reflex" stat that is very costly (so people don't just invest in fast characters) that controls the length of the input lag?

 

[Mangoose]

Well if you wanted a fully strategic system that rewards quick thinking rather than planned thinking, then one simple implementation is assigning shorter timer on turns, just like in chess.

 

[SoupNazi]

People don't like to admit it, but I would say Assassin's Creed. Hitting people and getting hit does a lot of damage, like it should in real life. Your character moves at a reasonable speed, so he's not chaining massive combos. And you have to block attacks until you get a good opening.

I disagree. In both installments of this game, you can just press a series of buttons to win, with clear combinations working everytime, just on different types of enemies. I mean, while it's true that every hit hurts, there's no big deal in parrying or blocking and it's not impressive at all, you don't feel the hits. If you block or parry, it doesn't feel very powerful, and if you hit the enemy, it doesn't feel glorious at all.

The only way to make AC combat satisfying - at least in the second game - is to fight everybody unarmed, disarm them and then kill them with their own weapon. That was probably the only fun thing to do.

 

[King Crispy]

In most games you swing a sword and you see it passing through your opponent. Some blood might come out or another type of effect to let you know that you've scored a hit, but it doesn't feel like you've just brought down a massive weapon on a foe with plate armor. After a hit like that, your opponent should be struggling to retain his balance while you bounce back from the "recoil".

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Oblivion yet. I guess I'm the only one here stupid enough to do so.

But honestly, going strictly based on what Alexandros is clamoring for, I think Bethesda made a semi-admirable attempt at the whole visceral combat thing. The game wasn't consistent enough at it, but I feel like they got the basics down. Upon first playing it, I was quite pleased with the feeling I got of bashing the shield-bearing guy with my sword, having him reel back, and getting the impression that if I did that enough I would wear him out. It worked the other way around, too; I can't recall another game that simulated the effects of trying to block an incoming blow with your shield better.

If enough time had been given to perfecting the system and expanding it with increasingly greater effectiveness as the battle wore on, Oblivion might have been remembered a little better in terms of its combat.

You may hate the game, but tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

@SoupNazi: The templars in AC had much better AI, they would counter most combos and send you flying with a kick. Shame they didn't make every enemy as smart / capable.

 

[Dogffdog]

I'm going to attempt a weird comparison, but bare with me. Melee combat should be more like Street Fighter 2. Two adversaries deflecting blows, trying different moves until one of the connects. When it does, the one who got hit is knocked back while the attacker recovers from the move. No button mashing, no hacking away like crazy.

While it could be good if done properly, there's also the problem about the frequency/amount of combat, can you imagine having such a combat system in a game with as much combat as the recent action rpg's?: 5.000 fights, 5-6 enemies a piece, X minutes each enemy of precision blocking/deflecting/dodging/etc. Might as well play some console fighting game or some shit. So a game with such a combat system would need to have different design than today's action rpg's; a lot less filler combat. And a lot less filler combat means more non-combat content, which is not easy to do and therefore not "AAA/mainstream enough" for mainstream action rpg devs of today.

So, theoretically, it sounds good if done properly, but it's never gonna happen unless it's indie devs. And in that case might as well drop the real time crap and make it turn-based.

 

[Serious_Business]

I wonder why rpgs just don't go with "evade points" instead of hit points. You get evade points / endurance - your char blocks and dodges, your points lower accordingly, and when at a certain point, you get a change to get hit and loose hp - which should be very dangerous, etc. You even have justified healing because endurance points would go up after a fight. Doesn't really change the gameplay, but it would make more sense, and you wouldn't need the potions / healing mechanics. Seriously, fuck them little conventions

 

[Clockwork Knight]

HP is pretty much evade points already, no? Getting hit with a warhammer to the face should kill you, but instead it takes X HP, which I interpret as "didn't hit full on, but still hurt a lot and you're losing stamina and hope and courage and everything else", just so suddenly dropping dead once your HP goes from 1 to 0 makes some sense.

 

[Mastermind]

The problem is that with strategy and tactics games(including RPGs), we accept that YOUR MIND is the one driving the characters in the game. As much as 'roleplay-fags' want to make it otherwise, it cannot be otherwise. To strip our own minds from the activity leaves us with NO GAME and certainly nothing interactive.

No argument.

Same applies to arcade/platform/fighting/shooter games and our PHYSICAL(and to a much lesser extent mental) abilities. The point of Quake is not to simulate the "What would I do if I were a space marine facing hordes of interstellar demons?". It is to test your reflexes and(primarily physical) gaming skills.

Reflexes are not a physical ability, they are also a mental ability. The only physical ability any game, action or tactical requires, is your ability to tap keys and move the mouse. What you are doing is saying one type of mental skill is OK in a RPG while the other is not, but inexplicably refer to it as a physical ability. Good reflexes means you can make a good decision with very little time to think it through. Your actual physical attributes (strength, speed, stamina) are no more relevant than they are in a tactical rpg. Unless you are suffering from severe physical disabilities, the physical effort required to play a reflex based RPG is no different from a tactical one.

The point of RPGs is that YOU, as in your physical body, have no place in the game world. it is to simulate "What if I were a 350 lbs. barbarian Orc...?". That orc should not have his skill at swinging an axe rooted in YOUR skill at button mashing and mouse clicking.

That's odd, because button mashing and mouse clicking is what you are essentially requesting. The player just mashes buttons and the skills take care of the rest.

Seriously, that big dumb orc will know which target to pick based on the player's knowledge of the enemies, even if a "real life"dumb orc wouldn't be able to decide what the best target is to save his life. I don't see what the problem with also allowing the player's reflexes to be of use as long as the player's character creation decisions or character background play a role (IE: you should not be able to dodge as a wizard if your character does not have a dodge skill, but if he does, allowing the player's reflexes to use that skill to keep his wizard safe is well within acceptable parameters).

 

[Mastermind]

Mount & Blade, best realtime melee combat there is. Followed by Blade of Darkness. M&B also has proper RPG combat, defined by character stats, while BoD is just an action game.

Well, it's not STRICTLY defined by RPG stats. Player skill (reflexes) is just as important as character skill (Agility stat). It's not one of those real-time RPGs where you just click on an enemy and watch the battle animation play out, powered by stats alone. If you can't handle the timing of a gallop-by-beheading, you're going to have some trouble.

But stats do have a significant impact on weapon damage, and they do affect the accuracy of arrows (unlike melee swipes, which depend entirely on positioning and timing), so it's a nice mix of player and character skill.

Mount and Blade has a great combat system, but it suffers from the same problem: Your opponents seem to be non-corporeal beings, since your swings pass right through them. You never feel like you've actually hit something. Here's a video from Excalibur to show what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYknSS0h-5Y

See how these knights hit each other. Their swords hit the armor and recoil back, they don't pass through the enemy. Why isn't it the same way in games?

Yeah, it's fucking pathetic, especially with the system requirements of these games.

Er... for a 3D game released in 2008, Mount & Blade has REALLY low requirements.

Minimum Requirements: Pentium II 300 MHz, 64 MB RAM, Windows 95/98, DirectX 7.0a, DirectX-compliant 3D accelerated video card, DirectX-compliant sound card, 4x CD-ROM drive, and 150 MB hard-drive space.

Wait, you're right. A PII 300 with 64MB of ram? With THAT kind of computing power, the graphics should rival the visuals of Excalibur!

He was referring to other games, not M&B