Karellen
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 327
third-person melee combat is, on the whole, better than first-person melee.
First-person melee permits true fencing and free-aimed blows due to its close, focused view of the opponents' bodies and each weapon in play. In contrast, third-person melee whose camera is detached from the pawn and too far away from the subjects to allow even decently accurate free aiming, and certainly accurate enough to enable hit-detection between weapons, is limited to movesets and thus lose a wast amount of complexity, control, and fluidity. Compare e.g. Chivalry's hit-detected parries with Dark Souls', which only requires the player to face the enemy and press a button within the correct time-frame.
That's all true, so if those features amounted to better gameplay, one would expect there to be a large amount of superior first-person melee games, but there aren't. One might even expect actual fighting games with that perspective, but first person modes have never amounted to more than an easter egg in fighting games, and the entire genre is still built around the side-view perspective. The reason for this is the same reason why there are few good first-person platformers; the dynamic of those games is based on precise gauging of distance and range and its interplay with timing, and simply put the first person view is worse at communicating range with the precision that's needed. Of course, third person view is a step back from side-view as well, but at least you see where your character is.
At any rate, if you make a sacrifice in range-based gameplay for the sake of free aiming, one had better do something special with it, but so far there's not a whole lot to show for it. I think part of the problem is that whereas you can adequately represent the aim-and-shoot mechanic of shooting with a mouse, mouse aiming is pretty distant from, say, sword fighting. So it's hard to get it to feel even remotely natural, and even if a mechanic like different types of executable blocks has something going for it, there's a serious risk that the game devolves to a Simon Says struggle with the controls. Ultimately, though, I feel that even if you could do it well, range would still be a more interesting and important mechanic for representing melee - with a sword, there are only so many ways to attack efficiently due to physiological reasons, so people tend to drill a limited number of efficient maneuvers until they become instinctive, and the trick is in knowing what to do when, which is a combination of reflexes and strategy. In that sense, the fighting game system of having different predetermined moves is a pretty sound base to build melee combat on.
Of course, all of this is theory. The main thing is that the melee in Prey doesn't seem to be very good, and I was wondering if it's a good game in spite of it.