Game News Warhorse's RPG Unveiled as Kingdom Come: Deliverance

[Juggie]

While we do have peripheral vision in real life, as you say, have you ever been deeply involved in some activity and had someone you know come up from your side and tap you on the shoulder, without realizing they were even there? I think if you are fighting for your life, there is a very good chance your brain and eyes are so completely preoccupied with your primary opponent that even if some vague movement registers out of the corner of your eye, you will not have enough available resources to deal with it at that time. And even if you tried, what if that happened at the exact moment your primary opponent aimed a savage slash at your head? By thinking about the other guy, you've probably slowed down your reaction time to the first guy, and possibly got yourself killed. I think what muddies the waters here is that most melee combat in games is really simple, and people can just mash some buttons while doing other stuff at the same time, like looking for other threats. With a more realistic combat system that demands your full attention, and where you have to watch the enemy for visual cues and time your stuff, you are not gonna have a chance to do other things anyway.

Also, again, we are not talking about a deathmatch multiplayer game (though as I mentioned earlier, more than half of Chivalry players in the polls I saw preferred first person combat anyway), but a single player RPG designed for realistic combat. The first two Gothic games were like that. Do you know what kind of combat encounters they had? You mostly dealt with a single or a pair of really tough opponents at a time, rather than larger groups. So you would do the whole "parry/counterattack/parry/counterattack" against one to take them down (sometimes two, but in that case, they were both together, and could both be kept in front of you with intelligent movement), and then continue on. There weren't enemies roaming behind you, looking to sneak up on you (as in a deathmatch), and even if that happened occassionally due to the open nature of the games, usually those enemies would make distinctive noises, alerting you to their presence. Because of all this, while I agree the loss of peripheral vision in first person is somewhat of a negative, I just don't see it as a big deal in terms of impacting the gameplay.

Also, if in first person you lose peripheral vision, in third person you gain way more of it than in real life. Whereas in life, you can see vague movement out of the corner of your eye, in third person, you can clearly see everything around you, even things that are happening behind you. So it seems to me neither approach is spot on, and it just might be a matter of personal preference. If some of you guys just said that you prefer third person combat, I wouldn't have any problems with that, it's the definitive way you claim first person melee combat must suck, despite plenty of people, myself included, who are just fine with it.

Proper third person view doesn't give you way more info about your surroundings than you get in real life. Most modern PC screens are wide and are used pretty close to the viewer. This means that the whole screen doesn't fit into the primary field of vision of the viewer. So the stuff rendered at the sides of the screen is only viewed by our lateral vision. When a player is engaged in (thrilling) combat, guess what? As their focus increase, their FOV decrease. This means that as you focus on fighting one dude you drop your awareness level of the surrounding quite naturally. But when the game already offers only 120° (and that's being generous) you can't see shit even outside of focused state.

Another thing is that people use more than just vision for their environmental attention. They can use hearing for keeping track of what's going on around them and to some extent even for orientation. Sounds in games are usually shite and don't help you much. You can also feel the ground and/or objects under your feet, which you can't in games and this adds another source of information.

I'm not saying that third person is perfect, hell I don't even consider it good and prefer first person when that makes sense from gameplay perspective, but melee just doesn't work in first person. And I'm not talking about multiplayer here (I've done quite a lot of TF2 melee and I hate it very much), but even The Elder Scrolls games play better in third person when you have to fight more than one dude in melee (even if in third person you can't aim for shit and can't see your attack/block animations either). But until we get some serious per eye displays (some fancy VR goggles) you won't be able to achieve realistic view or whatever you wanna call it. It's mostly about balancing player's sources of information. And we're talking here about a singleplayer game most likely with psychic AI (every goddamn game has them) so I think this is of little concern. I would rather they give player more information and design combat around that, than use 90° FOV and turn the promised large scale battles into series of scripted duels.

Btw there's lot of stuff about FOV in games on the internet, go and check some papers written by experts if you don't take a word of a random stranger from codex. You'll find out why sprinting in games often increases FOV and what FOVs are appropriate for PC and console games due to the distance between the viewer and the screen and the size of the screen.

P.S. Arma 2 (a very simulation-y game) offers third person precisely because of the reasons I stated earlier and that's a shooter.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Juggie, sorry man, but I am just not buying your overall argument. From the beginning, you argument went something like:

1) First person perspective offers less situational awareness than real life/third person perspective.
2) First person melee combat therefore sucks.

While I agree in general with point 1, I just don't see how it necessarily leads to point 2. I think you'll agree that any system people make has pluses and minuses, so having a particular minus does not necessarily make it bad. More specifically, I offered some detailed points as to why this is not such a big deal in this type of game (single player RPG):

1) Outside of immediate combat, you can use the mouse to quickly rotate the screen and scan as large an angle of your surroundings as you wish, just like you would in real life with moving your neck or eyes. This is how first person games are typically played.
2) Inside demanding combat, your attention is swallowed up by your primary opponent who is inside your primary field of vision, so peripheral vision at that time is not that important anyway.
3) The way single player RPGs with intense combat are (or ought to be) structured is one or two tough opponents at a time, which makes seeing your sides and back less important than in games where you are either swamped with weaker enemies or have enemies roaming around in a deathmatch setting.
4) Even on those occasions where an enemy gets the drop on you in a single player RPG (from side or back), they typically make some distinctive noises to alert you of their danger.
5) When faced with two opponents rather than one, the player can use movement to place them both in his/her primary field of view.

So you have to understand, I am not arguing your point that first person view has a worse FOV or awareness, I just disagree that this somehow makes first person combat inherently terrible. I think you'd be better off by just stating that you prefer third person combat in this case, which is a perfectly valid statement, rather than saying stuff like "melee just doesn't work in first person", when for many people, it clearly does.

 

[cherry blossom]

In real life you can control your head and limbs independently. In games you don't have such luxury and when you want to look to the right side you have to turn the whole character model.

Uhh, ever play ARMA series? I do that all the time in ARMA. And you can do that in plenty of third person games as well.

Seriously, try playing some games before derping around about shit you have no idea of.

 

[Juggie]

Juggie, sorry man, but I am just not buying your overall argument. From the beginning, you argument went something like:

1) First person perspective offers less situational awareness than real life/third person perspective.
2) First person melee combat therefore sucks.

1) I'm saying that first person offers slightly less situational awareness than real life, while third person offers slightly more than real life. I would rather have slightly more awareness which is not even fully processed during combat.
2) I'm saying that most first person melee sucks when you have to face multiple enemies or the combat involves a lot of movement. Static, slow paced melee works just fine in first person, but I don't think this will be exactly that kind of game.

While I agree in general with point 1, I just don't see how it necessarily leads to point 2. I think you'll agree that any system people make has pluses and minuses, so having a particular minus does not necessarily make it bad. More specifically, I offered some detailed points as to why this is not such a big deal in this type of game (single player RPG):

And I agree with all systems having both advantages and disadvantages, I just don't think first person perspective will fit THIS particular game.

1) Outside of immediate combat, you can use the mouse to quickly rotate the screen and scan as large an angle of your surroundings as you wish, just like you would in real life with moving your neck or eyes. This is how first person games are typically played.
2) Inside demanding combat, your attention is swallowed up by your primary opponent who is inside your primary field of vision, so peripheral vision at that time is not that important anyway.
3) The way single player RPGs with intense combat are (or ought to be) structured is one or two tough opponents at a time, which makes seeing your sides and back less important than in games where you are either swamped with weaker enemies or have enemies roaming around in a deathmatch setting.
4) Even on those occasions where an enemy gets the drop on you in a single player RPG (from side or back), they typically make some distinctive noises to alert you of their danger.
5) When faced with two opponents rather than one, the player can use movement to place them both in his/her primary field of view.

I don't see this as your typical RPG. It might as well be, but they were talking about realism, army clashes and mounted combat. I don't see narrow first person perspective as exactly desirable during gameplay similar to Mount & Blade.

So you have to understand, I am not arguing your point that first person view has a worse FOV or awareness, I just disagree that this somehow makes first person combat inherently terrible. I think you'd be better off by just stating that you prefer third person combat in this case, which is a perfectly valid statement, rather than saying stuff like "melee just doesn't work in first person", when for many people, it clearly does.

Yes, you're right, that was too general. What I wanted to say it's worse than properly done third person view in many melee situations, especially when they feature several enemies, lot of movement or are fast paced. I suspect this game might be that kind of game, that's what my argument was trying to be about.

Uhh, ever play ARMA series? I do that all the time in ARMA. And you can do that in plenty of third person games as well.

Seriously, try playing some games before derping around about shit you have no idea of.

Right... How many exactly? Mech Warrior games were based around that and Armas use it to some degree. What else? Either I've somehow missed all those games or there are practically none.
Also I didn't find it exactly practical.
Edit: Or you actually mean the vehicle controls in most games where you control the movement with WASD and camera with mouse? And in case it's a combat vehicle this also aims the guns. If so then I meant something more along the lines of only turning your head, while rest of the body keeps facing the opponent scenario so that when you block with a shield you can turn to a side without exposing your flank.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

2) I'm saying that most first person melee sucks when you have to face multiple enemies or the combat involves a lot of movement. Static, slow paced melee works just fine in first person, but I don't think this will be exactly that kind of game.

...

And I agree with all systems having both advantages and disadvantages, I just don't think first person perspective will fit THIS particular game.

...

I don't see this as your typical RPG. It might as well be, but they were talking about realism, army clashes and mounted combat. I don't see narrow first person perspective as exactly desirable during gameplay similar to Mount & Blade.

...

What I wanted to say it's worse than properly done third person view in many melee situations, especially when they feature several enemies, lot of movement or are fast paced. I suspect this game might be that kind of game, that's what my argument was trying to be about.

Ok, so you think that this game will be similar to Mount & Blade/Chivalry/War of the Roses, with lots of movement and multiple enemies. I don't even think that would necessarily make first person view bad, but I wanna make a different point right now. Like everyone else, I don't know the exact details about the game yet, until they reveal them, but I've seen many people make the same assumption about Mount & Blade, I guess because they both take place in a medieval type world, and feature realistic combat. However, the devs never mentioned Mount & Blade themselves as having any connection to their game, in fact they compared the game to Skyrim. Mount & Blade is a combat simulator crossed with a strategic map, whereas this game is an open world single player RPG, with your character always in first person, and the world being continuous.

On top of that, if you look at the available screenshots (http://kotaku.com/next-gen-rpg-has-no-monsters-magic-or-minotaurs-1485418733), none of them feature the kind of combat you are thinking of. The two swordsmen face each other one-on-one, with both standing and facing each other, rather than strafing or moving around a lot. The bar fist-fight, same thing, you are facing the opponent, he is facing you, both are standing in place. In the siege screen, one side is attacking the castle but doing so in an organized way, so any enemy wouldn't be able to run around in the middle of them, they d have to face someone and fight in place (in other words, your side's soldiers would watch your back and sides, just like in real life, and you can concentrate on the front).

Finally, have you seen this leaked trailer from some presentation they did a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXXfPsjJg8

It was linked to on the codex for a while. The last few seconds of it show the combat. Just like the screenshots, one-on-one, toe-to-toe instead of running around each other. Now, these are only very small sample sizes, so I don't know exactly how it will be, but in this context, I don't see any major problems with first person implementation.

 

[Juggie]

Ok, so you think that this game will be similar to Mount & Blade/Chivalry/War of the Roses, with lots of movement and multiple enemies. I don't even think that would necessarily make first person view bad, but I wanna make a different point right now. Like everyone else, I don't know the exact details about the game yet, until they reveal them, but I've seen many people make the same assumption about Mount & Blade, I guess because they both take place in a medieval type world, and feature realistic combat. However, the devs never mentioned Mount & Blade themselves as having any connection to their game, in fact they compared the game to Skyrim. Mount & Blade is a combat simulator crossed with a strategic map, whereas this game is an open world single player RPG, with your character always in first person, and the world being continuous.

The devs mentioned Skyrim several times, but not as inspirtation, but as an open world game not done right. I'm not saying the game will be similar in gameplay to the games you mentioned, just saying that most slightly more simulation-y sword fighting games tend to have combat like that.

Btw, how do you know that it will always be in first person?

On top of that, if you look at the available screenshots (http://kotaku.com/next-gen-rpg-has-no-monsters-magic-or-minotaurs-1485418733), none of them feature the kind of combat you are thinking of. The two swordsmen face each other one-on-one, with both standing and facing each other, rather than strafing or moving around a lot. The bar fist-fight, same thing, you are facing the opponent, he is facing you, both are standing in place. In the siege screen, one side is attacking the castle but doing so in an organized way, so any enemy wouldn't be able to run around in the middle of them, they d have to face someone and fight in place (in other words, your side's soldiers would watch your back and sides, just like in real life, and you can concentrate on the front).

Most of the screenshots appear to be just scene renders. The only one looking like a gameplay screenshot is the fist fight. Yes, it's in first person perspective, but that doesn't mean you can't toggle between perspectives. The fight between the two swordsmen appear to involve some footwork, but that's hard to tell from a single screenshot. I wouldn't want to base my opinion on 4 screenshots which are used mostly to showcase the environmental design and the detailed graphics.

Finally, have you seen this leaked trailer from some presentation they did a while back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXXfPsjJg8

It was linked to on the codex for a while. The last few seconds of it show the combat. Just like the screenshots, one-on-one, toe-to-toe instead of running around each other. Now, these are only very small sample sizes, so I don't know exactly how it will be, but in this context, I don't see any major problems with first person implementation.

Haven't seen the video before. The combat shown in it is OK for first person, I'm just not sure how well it would work in a 10v10 fight or larger scales.

As players traverse expansive, strikingly detailed locales, they'll grapple with a range of period- accurate fighting techniques, horseback combat, open-field sieges, and large-scale battles, all while developing relationships and a reputation that will inform the greater story. Kingdom Come: Deliverance promises no magic, high fantasy or mythical overtones - it draws its inspiration instead from historically authentic characters, themes, and warfare.

I don't know how you interpret this, but it doesn't sound anything like Skyrim to me. The "horseback combat, open-field sieges, and large-scale battles"part sounds like something that third person view would be more suitable for.
But it's just guesses so yea... We'll probably get more info in about 31 days.

 

[eremita]

As I said before, first person view is limited in case of movement. I also said that movement in any kind of duel is absolutely crucial (again, no deathmatch or multiple enemies, just 1vs1). First statement has nothing to do with Chivalry or me preferring third person view. So by no means I consider these to be support for my statement (sorry If I wasn't clear). That is supported by simple and verifiable fact mentioned by Juggie and me about FOV/perceptual field/sense of your position in enviroment.

Now, devs of this game are claiming that they wanna implement realistic combat. Sure, realistic is quite a vague word. But when I hear realistic melee combat I expect one of the crucial part to be done right - complex. So I expect complex movement mechanics. Not a single game playable in first person view has realistic movement in melee combat, certainly not Chivalry. (Skyrim due to fucking gamebryo - and it is still fucking gamebryo, whatever the new fancy name is - is like a fucking ice-skating. They don't even have simple steps done right.)

So my logic goes like this: This game wants to have realistic melee combat. Movement/footwork is crucial part of melee combat. First person view is very limited in regards to movement (see above). Therefore, I'm sceptical about this game a) having realistic melee combat at all b) having realistic melee combat which is pain in the ass to control (because I can't see shit)...

 

[TyckaMasla]

Dan Vávra was in Czech podcast this week and talked about the game. (Starts at 32:00.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiIeNpMnwpA

Here are bulletpoints from the video:

>The trailer they released is meant just as a teaser. It's supposed to announce the game and uses ingame assets (isn't prerendered). More info will be released next month - 20th January.
>They did a survey and people reacted positively to the idea of an RPG without magic etc.
>Vávra says first person melee combat was never done well (and nice looking) in a mainstream video game. He wants to focus on making it complex, but easy enough to control.
>Talks about hiring quest designers. They hired young people with experience from LARPing and playing tabletop RPGs.
>He knows the game is a risky project.
>He talks about publishers believing games on mobile phones are the future and being suprised PCs and consoles are still popular. (Bubble bursted.)
>Viewer asks if he'll also be able to wander around the game without having to fight enemies all the time. The answer is yes.
>They talk about the word "realistic" not being perfect to use in a teaser, since many people will imagine different things behind it.
>They first wanted to use "Tábor" by Bedřich Smetana (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSWlkI1N_XI) as the music in the teaser, but American advisors said it sounds weird, so they didn't. (Tábor is a name of a small Czech city, which was founded by Hussites as their base.)
>The name "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" refers to the mindset of medieval people, who believed God's kingdom will come to Earth soon.
>Vávra quips the story is about liberation/salvation of someone (no further details).
>Viewers asks if they'll use Kickstater. It's too soon to talk about such things.
>The game will be based on historic facts and will also have real historic characters.
>Vávra recommends Fallout 1&2 and The Witcher 1 as RPGs he liked.

I'm Czech, I have high hoped for the game and I think people here might be interested in more info.

 

[Smejki]

He also said that just the Witcher 2 trailer (i guess this one) cost more than a half of what they spent on developement to this date (year and a half, initially some 15 people, now around 30. I don't remember exact number)

BTW, one Czech fan created a another version of the teaser with different music (Hussites hymn)

As Czechs we are unable to decide whether it is a good choice or not. I am very interested in your opinions outlanders cause you are unbiased.
As the other Czech fellow above me said it was Dan Vavra himself who was considering it using but he was the only who found it fitting (although he had his doubts)

 

[cherry blossom]

Uhh, ever play ARMA series? I do that all the time in ARMA. And you can do that in plenty of third person games as well.

Seriously, try playing some games before derping around about shit you have no idea of.

Right... How many exactly? Mech Warrior games were based around that and Armas use it to some degree. What else? Either I've somehow missed all those games or there are practically none.
Also I didn't find it exactly practical.

Not many first person games that do it but literally every third person action game does it that way nowadays. I think it might challenging to find ones that don't, in fact.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Btw, how do you know that it will always be in first person?

Well, for one thing, that's what the game's official website says: "Realistic open world First Person Medieval RPG".
http://kingdomcomerpg.com/

Most of the screenshots appear to be just scene renders. The only one looking like a gameplay screenshot is the fist fight. Yes, it's in first person perspective, but that doesn't mean you can't toggle between perspectives. The fight between the two swordsmen appear to involve some footwork, but that's hard to tell from a single screenshot. I wouldn't want to base my opinion on 4 screenshots which are used mostly to showcase the environmental design and the detailed graphics.

They might have changed the camera angle to capture more cinematic screens for the others, but those are all from in-game footage and they give important clues about the combat (i.e. that it's usually one-on-one or organized, so that you don't have to worry too much about watching your back, not like in a deathmatch online game).

Haven't seen the video before. The combat shown in it is OK for first person, I'm just not sure how well it would work in a 10v10 fight or larger scales.

First person combat accepts your apology.

As players traverse expansive, strikingly detailed locales, they'll grapple with a range of period- accurate fighting techniques, horseback combat, open-field sieges, and large-scale battles, all while developing relationships and a reputation that will inform the greater story. Kingdom Come: Deliverance promises no magic, high fantasy or mythical overtones - it draws its inspiration instead from historically authentic characters, themes, and warfare.

I don't know how you interpret this, but it doesn't sound anything like Skyrim to me. The "horseback combat, open-field sieges, and large-scale battles"part sounds like something that third person view would be more suitable for.
But it's just guesses so yea... We'll probably get more info in about 31 days.

Traversing expansive locales and fighting sounds very much like Skyrim. When developers or publishers first announce or talk about their new game, they will always mention similar existing games, because that's how you attract your target audience, so the fact that they mentioned Skyrim and single player RPGs and not Mount & Blade or those types of games is very telling. Stuff like horseback fighting, sieges and battles are probably gonna be something that you do once in a while, when the story calls for it, but not all the time. And for those things, third person is also not necessary. As I already mentioned, in realistic medieval battles, you fight in ranks, and have your fellow soldiers watch your back and flanks, while you concentrate on the front, unless you pull a Rambo and run ahead alone, in which case you probably won't last long in the game or in real life. Horseback combat is also pretty different. You will either be charging at someone, in which case seeing your sides isn't very important AND you can rotate the view until you get there, or just fight like on foot but on top of horse, where previous arguments apply.

As I said before, first person view is limited in case of movement. I also said that movement in any kind of duel is absolutely crucial (again, no deathmatch or multiple enemies, just 1vs1). First statement has nothing to do with Chivalry or me preferring third person view. So by no means I consider these to be support for my statement (sorry If I wasn't clear). That is supported by simple and verifiable fact mentioned by Juggie and me about FOV/perceptual field/sense of your position in enviroment.

Now, devs of this game are claiming that they wanna implement realistic combat. Sure, realistic is quite a vague word. But when I hear realistic melee combat I expect one of the crucial part to be done right - complex. So I expect complex movement mechanics. Not a single game playable in first person view has realistic movement in melee combat, certainly not Chivalry. (Skyrim due to fucking gamebryo - and it is still fucking gamebryo, whatever the new fancy name is - is like a fucking ice-skating. They don't even have simple steps done right.)

So my logic goes like this: This game wants to have realistic melee combat. Movement/footwork is crucial part of melee combat. First person view is very limited in regards to movement (see above). Therefore, I'm sceptical about this game a) having realistic melee combat at all b) having realistic melee combat which is pain in the ass to control (because I can't see shit)...

Realistic combat does involve a lot of fancy footwork, but I don't see why you think this is a problem with first person games only. Can any game implement proper footwork without hooking the player up to some kind of virtual reality motion analysis thingie? Do you expect to be able to control your feet with keyboard/mouse or joystick? If anything, third person combat games that involve a lot of movement are typically unrealistic because whereas realistic movement is precise, limited and is used for things like redistributing your weight into a blow, or stepping inside someone's weapon range, gamey movement is all about strafing and running around like a headless chicken because it makes you harder to target. The reason it works in games is because the way you control them, you can run around at fast speeds and still fairly accurately strike with your weapon or parry, which obviously you can't do in real life. That's why in real combat, people generally stand in front of each other and make small effective movements, not run around as in games.

There are many aspects to realistic combat, and since getting realistic footwork is not feasible with current hardware/controls, why not just focus on other aspects that CAN be done, such selecting which stance/strike/parry to use and the timing and aim and possible combinations?

stuff

Thanks for the translation and info.

As the other Czech fellow above me said it was Dan Vavra himself who was considering it using but he was the only who found it fitting (although he had his doubts)

If his team disagreed, that's ok, but he shouldn't listen too much to the marketing guys. That's how you end up with Bethesda games in the first place. And I'd rather not play a Bohemian version of Skyrim, with dragons in Jaromir Jagr jerseys.

 

[eremita]

Realistic combat does involve a lot of fancy footwork, but I don't see why you think this is a problem with first person games only. Can any game implement proper footwork without hooking the player up to some kind of virtual reality motion analysis thingie? Do you expect to be able to control your feet with keyboard/mouse or joystick? If anything, third person combat games that involve a lot of movement are typically unrealistic because whereas realistic movement is precise, limited and is used for things like redistributing your weight into a blow, or stepping inside someone's weapon range, gamey movement is all about strafing and running around like a headless chicken because it makes you harder to target. The reason it works in games is because the way you control them, you can run around at fast speeds and still fairly accurately strike with your weapon or parry, which obviously you can't do in real life. That's why in real combat, people generally stand in front of each other and make small effective movements, not run around as in games.

There are many aspects to realistic combat, and since getting realistic footwork is not feasible with current hardware/controls, why not just focus on other aspects that CAN be done, such selecting which stance/strike/parry to use and the timing and aim and possible combinations?

It's not feasible? And how do you know that? It's not like we've got examples... This, unfortunately, is only my idea vs yours. Well, Severance: Blade of Darkness was pretty close (especially for its age) to what I have in mind. No way that game would be playable properly in first person view and that's because footwork (at least for knight) was crucial. There are steps, sidesteps and even special attacks involving movement (sidestroke, sideswipe). You/enemy would often end up flanking each other; good luck with facing that in first person view - you would spin your screen like motherfucker.

Also, I don't think it's necessarily true that for complex footwork implementation, you have to overkill your game control; control might be pretty basic (easy to learn hard to master) even for quite complex movement (just like in Blade of Darkness)...

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Dan Vavra was on the codex previously, saying that he preferred console controllers to computer controllers because console controllers were harder and since fighting IRL was hard, playing with a console controller is more realistic hence better.

Got zero hopes for this game, luckily it's not gonna be made.

 

[Grunker]

Dan Vavra was on the codex previously, saying that he preferred console controllers to computer controllers because console controllers were harder and since fighting IRL was hard, playing with a console controller is better hence more realistic.

Got zero hopes for this game, luckily it's not gonna be made.

His comments that technology had finally come far enough that RPGs didn't have to rely on stats and stupid die rolls were far more derpy.

 

[Roguey]

That was true though.

Ultima Underworld did not have stellar melee combat.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

It's not feasible? And how do you know that? It's not like we've got examples... This, unfortunately, is only my idea vs yours.

I know that because footwork in terms of combat implies directly controlling each foot's position, something you can do in real life, but not in games with standard controllers, since you can't use individual buttons for each foot, while at the same time controlling weapons and general movement. How your feet are positioned has an effect on many things, such your balance, the power of your attacks, and possible movements.

What you are talking about, on the other hand, is not footwork but general movement, e.g. moving forward, back, sideways, something that can be done in either first or third person control scheme.

Well, Severance: Blade of Darkness was pretty close (especially for its age) to what I have in mind. No way that game would be playable properly in first person view and that's because footwork (at least for knight) was crucial. There are steps, sidesteps and even special attacks involving movement (sidestroke, sideswipe). You/enemy would often end up flanking each other; good luck with facing that in first person view - you would spin your screen like motherfucker.

It's funny that you are criticizing first person melee combat and yet like Severance. I just checked out a couple of Severance combat videos on youtube for the knight, and it looks like a very arcade-like unrealistic hack-n-slash game to me. The only realistic element I saw was the occasional shield block, but pretty much every time the enemy shielded themselves, the player kept button mashing the attacks which eventually sliced the enemy apart anyway, despite the shield. There were combos a player could do, but they seem to be player dependent only (dont depend on the enemy so much), so this again is not what I consider realistic. Realistic melee combat is more about reacting to what the enemy is doing, and picking the right move to counter him, rather than going through some movements to unlock a special move.

Not sure why you think that sort of thing wouldn't work in first person. If your opponent moves to the side at realistic human speed (i.e. not gamey jetpack zooming speed) and is animated smoothly (no jumps, lag), you should have no trouble rotating your screen to follow them, unless of course you just do something very bad, like run past them, but that would be your own fault, and you SHOULD pay some penalty for that, because that's how it works in real life, being too aggressive can leave you exposed.

More generally, as you can tell, I am not a big fan of Severance combat, but I wouldn't use that to say that ALL third person combat MUST suck. Not sure why you guys are so dogmatic about your approach to first person combat.

 

[eremita]

Dan Vavra was on the codex previously, saying that he preferred console controllers to computer controllers because console controllers were harder and since fighting IRL was hard, playing with a console controller is better hence more realistic.


Got zero hopes for this game, luckily it's not gonna be made.

His comments that technology had finally come far enough that RPGs didn't have to rely on stats and stupid die rolls were far more derpy.

Clearly, he doesn't get pen and paper/CRPGs much. I think he just doesn't care. But that's ok because he's not doing either... He's kick ass designer (Mafia is gem) and also understand one of the crucial pillar of RPGs in general - C&C. He mentioned several times that he's very determined to make proper C&C and praised Fallout: New Vegas for doing it well.

So yeah, combat will be more about player's skill and less about character's stats. Frankly, I don't give a fuck, I've got plenty of Kickstarters for that. Actually, realistic combat is something I'm more interested in now because that's even rarer than stat based oldschool games. Same for the setting with no dragons, magic and fucking elves (elves suck).

 

[InspectorRumpole]

He also said that just the Witcher 2 trailer (i guess this one) cost more than a half of what they spent on developement to this date (year and a half, initially some 15 people, now around 30. I don't remember exact number)

BTW, one Czech fan created a another version of the teaser with different music (Hussites hymn)

As Czechs we are unable to decide whether it is a good choice or not. I am very interested in your opinions outlanders cause you are unbiased.
As the other Czech fellow above me said it was Dan Vavra himself who was considering it using but he was the only who found it fitting (although he had his doubts)

It's much better, but not perfect imo.

 

[evdk]

>The game will be based on historic facts and will also have real historic characters.

This could get pretty awkward.

I wonder what they will use as content to make the exploring of 1:100 scaled down map of Bohemia interesting. Will you be able to loot Blaník?

It's much better, but not perfect imo.

Because it is lacking the lyrics.

 

[eremita]

I know that because footwork in terms of combat implies directly controlling each foot's position, something you can do in real life, but not in games with standard controllers, since you can't use individual buttons for each foot, while at the same time controlling weapons and general movement. How your feet are positioned has an effect on many things, such your balance, the power of your attacks, and possible movements.

What you are talking about, on the other hand, is not footwork but general movement, e.g. moving forward, back, sideways, something that can be done in either first or third person control scheme

.

I respectfully disagree. But that's already been settled... There is no definition of general movement in videogames. I have never seen it done right. Blade of Darkness was closest but that's it. So I don't know how much complex (yet easy to control) could it be (and how much close to reality in that case). And you don't either. No one can, because it is a matter of creativity. I don't buy statements like "general movement can't be done realistic" (with controls where you don't have special button for every limb and your dick on top of that!). And if it's done realistic, then I would think that first person view would suck as an option (flanking etc.). And that's because above mentioned reasons by me and Juggie.

BTW, your statements about focusing on each foot separately in case of realistic combat are actually not true. That's not how it works in real life., at least not to my knowledge. Sure, you can focus on one foot in certain situations, but footwork is all about habit. You don't focus on your legs when doing steps in combat. That is not how brain works/works efficiently in most physical activities; you don't focus on each leg separately in boxing for example, you focus on your STEP or your sidestep. You don't focus on hook, then uppercut and then hook again, you do it as a whole combination, as unified movement (if you're not an idiot). That's the only way how brain can work in case of fast, complex movements... Brain representations of specific movements are certain patterns where certain habit (step, combination etc.) is executed by activation of certain brain pattern. So I think that game where steps are synchronized (done by one button only) is actually much more close to reality (because that's how human brain instruct your body: "do a sidestep", not: "put left foot forth first and then right to do a sidestep..." - more infromations, thus longer delay/disconnection between particular movements...) than using different buttons for different leg...

It's funny that you are criticizing first person melee combat and yet like Severance. I just checked out a couple of Severance combat videos on youtube for the knight, and it looks like a very arcade-like unrealistic hack-n-slash game to me. The only realistic element I saw was the occasional shield block, but pretty much every time the enemy shielded themselves, the player kept button mashing the attacks which eventually sliced the enemy apart anyway, despite the shield. There were combos a player could do, but they seem to be player dependent only (dont depend on the enemy so much), so this again is not what I consider realistic. Realistic melee combat is more about reacting to what the enemy is doing, and picking the right move to counter him, rather than going through some movements to unlock a special move.

Not sure why you think that sort of thing wouldn't work in first person. If your opponent moves to the side at realistic human speed (i.e. not gamey jetpack zooming speed) and is animated smoothly (no jumps, lag), you should have no trouble rotating your screen to follow them, unless of course you just do something very bad, like run past them, but that would be your own fault, and you SHOULD pay some penalty for that, because that's how it works in real life, being too aggressive can leave you exposed.

More generally, as you can tell, I am not a big fan of Severance combat, but I wouldn't use that to say that ALL third person combat MUST suck. Not sure why you guys are so dogmatic about your approach to first person combat.

Severance implementation of steps, sidesteps and attacks from different angle is one of the best I've seen so far. It's certainly not perfect. That's all I could say without simply repeat what's already been said...

 

[Smejki]

New screenshot on the Facebook page. Gorgeous filhty shit-covered medieval town street... and folks
Love the authentic architecture
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...41826.235874033111522&type=1&relevant_count=1

 

[Grunker]

hello, recolored model #1, #2 and #3

they're even wearing the same hat.

 

[Smejki]

hello, recolored model #1, #2 and #3

they're even wearing the same hat.

seems so. early stage of development (=not enough character models), I guess.

 

[tuluse]

That was true though.

Ultima Underworld did not have stellar melee combat.

Was that because of technology or design decisions? Anyways, even if the tech didn't support smooth real time first person melee combat in 1992, it did by about 1998. So he could have made his game then, it just would have had Thief level graphics.

 

[Morgoth]