Rant: Modern technology is making modern RPG combat unbearable

[Arthandas]

Gameplay > realism

You can't parry with 2h swords in DS because you're sacrificing defense for damage and reach. If you could parry there would be no reason for using 1h weapons.
Imagine realistic DS combat where every weapon type has the same exact moveset including parries. It would be boring as shit.

It's the same for the roll. The roll is a whole mechanic where you create distance, use invulnerability frames, deal with the recovery etc.
Swap it with a quick simple dodge and many of those mechanics would be gone.
Everything DS does is for a reason and complaining about unrealistic game mechanics despite them working perfectly gameplaywise is fucking stupid.

Though I agree that copying DS's moves without backing them up with solid gameplay mechanics (like rolls in the witcher) should be illegal.

Look for your answers in realistic historical combat. 2H weapons had more reach and "power" in RL, yet most people still used 1H swords/axes. Why? Because then you can use a shield in your other hand, which was great for missile weapons and offered much better protection against weapons than a parry. Also, some 1H weapons actually have better reach than some 2Handers, for example the rapier was very long and because you can extend one hand much farther from the body than both, a rapier had longer reach than a longsword.

It's like you didn't understood a single fucking word...

 

[vivec]

Would you play something like this?

Fun fact. Would be too clunky with Mouse-keyboard/controller. This is the same reason why simple dogfight sims are better than real flight sims.

 

[vonAchdorf]

The mention of "constantly rolling around" in Witcher 2 reminds me of fight scenes in many movies, where they do a pirouette before attacking with a sword. Is it actually useful to leave yourself wide open that way?

If it gives you invincibility frames, then yes.

 

[Excidium II]

master of the obvious thread

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

Things have gotten so bad that Dark Souls, which is itself deeply flawed in its combat system, seems like a paragon of light unto the unwashed masses.

 

[AlexT]

Real life is boring, that why games exist in the first place. People play games to experience something they can't in reality, if you create a batlle system that's complicated enough to feel real, it would be as hard to master as in real life - meaning years of training. Nobody would play such game.

 

[Excidium II]

idiot

 

[Shinji]

Well, this is why we have "games" and "simulators" (serious simulators, not satirical ones)

Compare Ace Combat to any flight simulator, for instance.
You don't need to know how to fly a plane to be able to play Ace Combat, because that's really not the point. This game focuses on being fun in a simple way, without overburdening the player with tons of rules before he can actually have some fun.

Simulators, on the other hand, require the player to memorize a lot of information about the behavior of a system beforehand, because the point is to simulate a system in the most realistic way that a computer allows. So fun is not really the priority here.

In other words:

• In a game what matters is the resulting behavior of specific system (i.e. planes fly, how they fly doesn't matter. Replace a plane for a pony in GTA, same result)
• In a simulator, what matters is how that resulting behavior came to be, what caused and how it caused it (i.e. in a flight simulator, fuel, engine's condition, weight, weather (to name a few) have to be taken into account. )

Now, simulators allow for some pretty complex and unique experiences, because there are a lot of variables to take into account. But they do take a lot of time and have a very steep learning curve. Usually, people that enjoy simulators also enjoy the real-life counterpart experience.

People just want to have fun, in the most stress-free possible way. That's why games simplify a lot of real-life systems. And this happens not only because of their complexity, but because there is a limit of how many things you can do with the input systems we have.

Game controllers have buttons and analog sticks. Usually each element of the controller has a specific function. You can create combinations, but there's a limit on how many combinations of buttons a human being can memorize and remember, especially in games where you have a very short amount of time to react (e.g. fps games).

With a mouse and keyboard it's the same thing. You have one hand in the mouse, and another (hopefully) in the keyboard, and you only have five fingers on each hand.

That's why some games/simulators create specific input systems for their games. Racing games have steering wheels and pedals, for example, to help make the experience feel as close as possible to the real one. But creating an input system for each game is far from being a viable option.

So in the end, thare are some developers that really want to create a game that is as realistically AND fun as possible, but there are many limitations to take into account, it's not just a matter of laziness.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The issue isn't realism (or lack thereof) but rather game developers replacing stats-based real-time combat with action-based real-time combat but failing to design combat mechanics to make action-based combat both complex and challenging. This is an intentional lapse on the part on the developers, who are seeking an audience that wants action-based combat rather than having to deal with RPG-ish character/party creation, stats, etc. but that also wants combat to be simple and easy ("press the awesome button to win"). A game like the original Witcher, where combat at least isn't aggravating and character progression/customization matters, is about the best that can be expected. More often, combat descends into silly popamole (in games with guns) or into Witcher 2 style rolling-around-on-the-ground silliness.

There are two notable exceptions: first, the Souls series created a combat system that is exceptionally action-based and dependent on the player's physical skills but that also demands the player learn the combat mechanics, is fair but unforgiving, and has a relatively high bar for the physical skills needed to be successful. Second, Dragon's Dogma is far more of an RPG than the Souls series, with party composition, levels, and tactics mattering in combat and far less emphasis on player's physical skills, but it similarly managed to create a real-time action-based combat system that works well by taking inspiration by a variety of other games (e.g. Shadow of the Colossus, Devil May Cry, the Souls games) and adding their own designs to create a harmonious whole.

 

[Aenra]

Do you fucking think that makes any degree of sense? You think plate armor is fucking cardboard?

As i keep telling the children here, knowledge really is free nowadays, ergo no excuse.
The kind of swords "Saracens" used for example could cut through a knight's armor like a knife through butter.
Likewise did Katanas and Dai-Katanas.
Won't even mention spears, or good longbows. Talk about target practice..
Your 'idea' of plate armor never translated to what you think it did.

A bit of hint though (Codex lore), careful whom you mention Katanas to ^^

 

[vivec]

Real life is boring, that why games exist in the first place. People play games to experience something they can't in reality, if you create a batlle system that's complicated enough to feel real, it would be as hard to master as in real life - meaning years of training. Nobody would play such game.

Although I agree in spirit, I am forced to say that the closer a game to reality the better it is in general. This is despite my earlier comment that simulators are not as much fun as games. There is a mysterious line somewhere along the simulator/game axis which when crossed makes the game too complicated to be enjoyable.

On the other hand, if you were speaking about the story, then yeah, I would agree that fantastic (read, larger than life) stories are more interesting. I don't want a soap opera RPG (although as a one off it might work ).

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Would you play something like this?

Yeah, I would love to. Obviously, it wouldn't be 100% exactly like that, since RL is different from a computer display in some ways, but something close to it would be awesome. Tactical and down to earth, technique driven, less stupid flash, more substance. The difference between this and typical game-y melee combat is the same as between a serious shooter (ARMA, Tom Clancy's games) and some run-n-gun FPS.

I played it during Alpha and they had a little dueling section and the combat was interesting but the lock on system was a bit annoying and it seems focused entirely on dueling so I'm not sure it will work out very well in the large battles they promised.

That's the sign of a great system, ie dueling. Emphasis on dueling means that opponents are challenging and even 1v1 will test the player. Crappy combat systems, on the other hand, always have to rely on getting mobbed by trash, since 1v1's present no challenge whatsoever, and only some massive monstrosity of a boss with magic out of its arse will test the player.

Real life is boring, that why games exist in the first place. People play games to experience something they can't in reality, if you create a batlle system that's complicated enough to feel real, it would be as hard to master as in real life - meaning years of training. Nobody would play such game.

It's not that black and white. The choice is not between 100% realistic combat that would take years to master OR full retard circus combat they have now. You can make a reasonably realistic system based on real principles, just somewhat simplified.

 

[*-*/\--/\~]

When was real-time combat in RPGs worth any attention anyway?

 

[YM2612]

Maybe another issue involved is AI programming. Games have been pretty depressing that way; it's another face of the decline. So like the less complexity to the combat system the simpler to program all NPCs. There are tons of third persion ARPGs like Assassin's Creed or Dynasty Warriors where enemies just kind of crowd around and wait for you to mess up the combo sequence so they can whittle your health away, and more or less that's how most realtime combat systems feel. The only challenge is just repeating a pattern of button mashes and eventually it's just mind numbing. Even if the combat were more realistic it wouldn't make things much more fun unless the programmers knew how to make the AI react and how to go on the offensive, nor if only the main player had complete abilities and the NPCs were stuck being simplistic in their approach.

In any case it seems like there are some things most realtime systems could always do well to incorporate:

1. Basic attacks more varied than fast/slow. Adding directional strikes automatically improves the system and leads to

2. Blocking/parrying that is timing based and/or directional based. By timing I mean that more is involved than just holding block forever (for example pressing block as a timed response to enemy movement). At the very least a stamina pool tied to blocking adds something and stamina pools are also good for

3. Dodge system that isn't just nonstop random rolling. I'd like to see in an RPG with realtime combat a system where stamina/endurance determines how frequently dodges occur but higher agility/dexterity stats enable better manoeuvres (low agi dodge could be a short hop or turning spin, higher agi would be rolling, highest agi could be cartwheels or leaping rolls through the air). As for modern tech and combat it would also be great to get more environmental physics based reactivity in the dodge system (environment props and hazards like in the best swashbuckling scenes, think walls, ceilings, pillars, tall candlestick lamps and chandoliers, chairs and tables, suits of armor and tapestries, ropes and chains, etc)

4. If the game has magic, don't hide the combat spells behind menus; the more hotkeys or whatever the better to keep it accessible and seamless. Not exactly on topic I guess but I hated in Skyrim and TW3 how changing spells in combat worked.

5. More realisticish damage. HP bloat is just a crutch for bad combat design to make battles longer/difficult. It just totally feels gamey and cheap when a only after a ridiculous amount of strikes does a flesh and blood enemy expire. Locational damage and related incremental debuffs are good additions too.

And finally, still kind of related to realistic damage: less gamey healing. Unlimited potion spam is lame and breaks any system that has it.

Not a totally coherent post and a very simple way of looking at gameplay but just thought I'd write a couple possible improvements.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I think the real underlying issue with all these terribad action combat systems is that the publishers/developers are so damn afraid of making anything that requires practice to get good at, or has some complexity that might scare off people. Anything with more than 2-3 actions to learn.

It is conceptually very easy to create an interesting action combat system. You just have to look at realistic medieval styles and simplify them for games. The core principle would be countering. You would watch the opponent and respond to his actions with counters. He goes high guard, you go low guard, he thrusts, you parry to the side, he slashes, you parry vertically, etc. The opponent would counter what you are doing offensively. The difficulty of the opponent would determine the complexity of his attacks and the quality of his counters. This alone would already create an excellent system with maybe just 8-10 different attacks/counters. If you want to get fancy, you could also introduce chaining, where certain attacks/counters flow into others quicker/easier.

But almost no one wants to do this because they are so afraid of losing players due to learning being involved. So everything is dumbed down until there is no fail state.

 

[Falksi]

The issue isn't realism (or lack thereof) but rather game developers replacing stats-based real-time combat with action-based real-time combat but failing to design combat mechanics to make action-based combat both complex and challenging. This is an intentional lapse on the part on the developers, who are seeking an audience that wants action-based combat rather than having to deal with RPG-ish character/party creation, stats, etc. but that also wants combat to be simple and easy ("press the awesome button to win"). A game like the original Witcher, where combat at least isn't aggravating and character progression/customization matters, is about the best that can be expected. More often, combat descends into silly popamole (in games with guns) or into Witcher 2 style rolling-around-on-the-ground silliness.

There are two notable exceptions: first, the Souls series created a combat system that is exceptionally action-based and dependent on the player's physical skills but that also demands the player learn the combat mechanics, is fair but unforgiving, and has a relatively high bar for the physical skills needed to be successful. Second, Dragon's Dogma is far more of an RPG than the Souls series, with party composition, levels, and tactics mattering in combat and far less emphasis on player's physical skills, but it similarly managed to create a real-time action-based combat system that works well by taking inspiration by a variety of other games (e.g. Shadow of the Colossus, Devil May Cry, the Souls games) and adding their own designs to create a harmonious whole.

Think you're right about Souls & Dragons Dogma. But have to say I really enjoyed TW2 combat on Dark Mode. Everything carried weight, and the stat aspect of the game affected things significantly (I mean, just look how punishing taking damage from behind was).
Personally I'd just like to see a further evolution to TW2&3 combat, where actual RPG elements weigh heavy.
So for example, there's simply no way you can kill X monster without X potion/oil. Or Y monster has armour simply too tough to penetrate, so use of explosives is simply a must. Or Z monster is only weak whilst a certain incantation or ritual being performed, thus the first part of the battle solely consists of avoiding being hit or even seen (maybe even covering your tracks). Just a bit of actual Roleplaying other than level up to kill bad guy. I know these games have skimmed the surface with that, but there's far more that can be done Imo.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I think Morrowind, NWN and combat systems like this have more potential than a straight real-time action combat system. But Morrowind shows that a lot of people don't like abstractive combat. "I'm swinging and it looks like my sword is hitting the enemy but they aren't taking damage! This sucks!" But really it was just a heavily abstracted combat system that wasn't all that different from Baldur's Gate or any RPG that is dice and stat-based, i.e. pen-and-paper style mechanics. The "problem" was that the first-person view combined with the pnp mechanics confused people.

Skyrim has a good real-time combat system, IMO. You can pause the game and bring up the quick menu with a button press, so it's sort of like RTWP in a way. It's intense at times, running around trying to fight a dragon while it's flying and breathing fire, blocking attacks and activating Perks that change the combat. For a first-person system that they still want to try and sell a lot of copies, it's probably the best we've got. I went back recently and watched my dad play the game a bit, and there are quite a few options in the game of how to change combat, develop your character and do different neat things in combat (blocking arrows or elemental magic, sprint attacks, slowing down time while you aim an arrow and much more.)

If I were designing an RPG it would be a Morrowind + NWN hybrid combat system. Morrowind-style exploration, first-person view, but NWN/Baldur's Gate "rounds" in combat, RTWP and combat encounters that require tactics and are balanced to be a bit longer than the current Morrowind encounters (they are very short and over before you can really use the tactics you have at your disposal.) Make a mixture of the Morrowind and D&D 3.5 ruleset, add a ton of stuff from the two magic systems so you get a lot of creativity in the spell system, keep Spellmaking and Enchanting, and you'd have a pretty insanely creative and fun "playground" to develop your character. It would confuse people, no doubt, and would be a niche title probably, but I think it could be interesting.

So who wants to help me make the game?! I can design it, but I would need someone with talent for doing the hard work of making it while I just shout orders and tell you what to do. Any takers?

 

[Haplo]

I think Morrowind, NWN and combat systems like this have more potential than a straight real-time action combat system. But Morrowind shows that a lot of people don't like abstractive combat. "I'm swinging and it looks like my sword is hitting the enemy but they aren't taking damage! This sucks!" But really it was just a heavily abstracted combat system that wasn't all that different from Baldur's Gate or any RPG that is dice and stat-based, i.e. pen-and-paper style mechanics. The "problem" was that the first-person view combined with the pnp mechanics confused people.

Skyrim has a good real-time combat system, IMO. You can pause the game and bring up the quick menu with a button press, so it's sort of like RTWP in a way. It's intense at times, running around trying to fight a dragon while it's flying and breathing fire, blocking attacks and activating Perks that change the combat. For a first-person system that they still want to try and sell a lot of copies, it's probably the best we've got. I went back recently and watched my dad play the game a bit, and there are quite a few options in the game of how to change combat, develop your character and do different neat things in combat (blocking arrows or elemental magic, sprint attacks, slowing down time while you aim an arrow and much more.)

If I were designing an RPG it would be a Morrowind + NWN hybrid combat system. Morrowind-style exploration, first-person view, but NWN/Baldur's Gate "rounds" in combat, RTWP and combat encounters that require tactics and are balanced to be a bit longer than the current Morrowind encounters (they are very short and over before you can really use the tactics you have at your disposal.) Make a mixture of the Morrowind and D&D 3.5 ruleset, add a ton of stuff from the two magic systems so you get a lot of creativity in the spell system, keep Spellmaking and Enchanting, and you'd have a pretty insanely creative and fun "playground" to develop your character. It would confuse people, no doubt, and would be a niche title probably, but I think it could be interesting.

So who wants to help me make the game?! I can design it, but I would need someone with talent for doing the hard work of making it while I just shout orders and tell you what to do. Any takers?

I think you're looking for DDO.
They have a nice DnD real-time hybrid combat system, where both stats and twitch skills matter a lot. to this end they have inverted the classic DnD attack progression and extra attacks (earned every 5 levels) are made at a +5 Attack BONUS per extra attack - rather then malus (to promote full attack action chain combos).

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I played DDO a bit. Liked it quite a bit, too. But I wasn't implying that I wanted twitch skills to matter more. A party-based Morrowind with NWN's combat would be what I was going for. It would be in first-person with AI companions and the like. I'm actually in favor of twitch skills mattering a bit less in RPGs like this. Maybe with the exception of avoiding Attacks of Opportunity or the like, or getting proper positioning. But I think things like Dodge chance and everything else should be stat-based.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

tldr: Writers research their topic before writing about it, otherwise they look pretty stupid. Game designers need to research the stuff they design as well.

Sadly, almost no writers and pnp RPG designers actually research the topic of combat. Most of it is stupid bullshit. Medieval and Renaissance combat is usually treated horribly by game developers, writers and movie makers :/ .

 

[Neanderthal]

Witcher were kinda straitjacketed by Sapkowski into havin weird illogical combat wi pirouettes, slashin attacks when a simple thrust'd be far more efficient, swords on back an all that shit. If you get into Witcher 3 combat it can be alright but you never feel like a super fast mutant, an its no Blade of Darkness.

 

[adrix89]

tldr: Writers research their topic before writing about it, otherwise they look pretty stupid. Game designers need to research the stuff they design as well.

Sadly, almost no writers and pnp RPG designers actually research the topic of combat. Most of it is stupid bullshit. Medieval and Renaissance combat is usually treated horribly by game developers, writers and movie makers :/ .

If they really researched combat I hope you don't expect any kind of armor in any kind of game ever again. Also leather armor is a joke.
What you think of as "realistic" is a complete joke to HEMA.
And there has never been a wrestling game(other then DF) that I heard of so there will never be "realistic" in games ever when it comes to melee.

 

[Lilura]

Turn-based combat foreva. It's so fun piling up bodies in Jagged Alliance 2, which I'm currently covering in ridiculous detail on my blog. The things you can do in tactics mode leave pure cRPGs in the dust.

This game came out in 1999 and only Silent Storm followed in its footsteps. ToEE was solid, but not really on the same lvl. Meanwhile, the foul stink of RTwP and popamoles continues to choke us out.

 

[Sensuki]

OP should have installed Rise of the Sword instead of Combat Rebalance.

 

[Jokzore]

What combat system would you find acceptable though? There seems to be a lot of shitting on different games but no one is pointing out a system that they actually think is good.

I understand Dark Souls has its fair share of flaws but I think it managed to do what so many '' modern rpgs '' fail at repeatedly , its a combat system that more or less successfully marries real time action with some classic RPG elements.

As for TW2 criticism , i completely agree. Combat in this game is absolute trash, especially on Dark difficulty. Maybe this was a bug when EE first released but i remember Letho was 1 shotting me in act 1 even though I had the best gear possible, I beat him by running around him for 30 minutes waiting for igni to come of cooldown.