Quite frankly- FF combat is some of the most horrid, ugly, nasty combat I''ve ever seen.

I recognize your point, but (1)Turn-based is so awful, it should have disappeared with DOS, (2)You ARE the character, your skills ARE the character skills.

Have you ever played Jedi Outcast ?
That''s got a reasonably good combat system.
No, its not a RPG, but consider- it has spells(the Force), and weapons(lightsaber and guns).
(They might have a demo out I dunno)

And I do tell you, it is outright cool to watch good saber fighters duel- you see them jump, twist in mid-air, etc.

Now, it is much less complex than a full-fledged RPG, but still the kernel is there to take that system and expand it into something that is very quality.

~V''lion

Bugle4d

I don't like Morrowind at all, it's slow (poor engine performances), there's little action, no interesting story, bad battle system, and ugly chars (no skinning), but beautifull landscapes...

As you said NWN battle system is no better than Morrowind or FF, but I know a game which I really like, with a really interesting, simple, good, efficient, and elegant battle system, allowing you to break attacks, defend, move... it's the Grandia 2 battle system.

The game has been released on PC (First on the DC, the platform I have it on), and if you can find it for a low price, it's worth buying it, if not for the game itself (best computer RPG IMO), for the battle system, which is truly dynamic and involving.

Note that many CRPGamers are not very skilled with the controls, contrarily to the FPS gamers (wonder why ), so it's unlikely that a dev will make such a game require good control skills due to the targeted public. (like Jedi Outcast controls)
Great freedom = many choices = hard to master controls most of the time.

Still you'll see that between Grandia 2 and FF/NWN/Morrowind there's a ocean. (yep that big difference)

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-


[edited by - Ingenu on May 28, 2003 3:14:38 PM]

Anyone who wants an RPG that battles like a fighting game should
definitely check out the "Tales of.." series of SNES/PSX console
games.

Tales of Eternia(Tales of Destiny 2 in the US ~.~) is one of the
most fun games I''ve played. Tales of Destiny was also really
really good(gets just a slight knock down for having battles show
up just a ''little'' too fast for my taste).

I have yet to play Tales of Phantasia, however.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

Hey, I''m with you on this one Desco. I quite like the combat system in Dungeon Seige. Depending on the weapon, you attack in different ways (a dagger leaves you stabbing, a pole gets you swinging, etc). Shame about the actual gameplay, but the combat animation is good. Could be more varied for a given weapon, but they certainly made an effort.

You don''t have to do anything other than point & click, but the character does a number of different moves that relieve the tedium.

(1)Turn-based is so awful, it should have disappeared with DOS,

Some people do like to issue combat orders at their own peace, without striving to hit that exact on-screen icon/ key combination they have on mind before they''re hit by computer opponent who doesn''t have to wrestle with the user interface.

(2)You ARE the character, your skills ARE the character skills.

This leads to ridiculous connections where my ability to quickly hit buttons determine my in-game character''s ability to say, fly or cast a healing spell. Or even worse, where all the abilities of the whole party of in-game characters are determined by the same single factor -- my hand-to-eye coordination. Which in turn leads to things like novice knight being as effective in combat as the world''s most famous paladin, because i can issue commands for both of them equally fast...

Hey, please, this isn''t an MW discussion.. please stop all discussion on it ''cause I don''t want this thread to get off topic.

Vlion-- Sorry, but that''s about as ignorant as saying "2d games are so aweful, they should have disappeared once 3d games came around." Besides, if you''ve played any of the more recent FF games (>=7) they''re not turn based. The game prompts you to decide the character''s next action, and you input it, but the character doesn''t necessarily "do" that action right away. Also while you''re decided what to do, the characters and enemies are still fighting and carrying out combat. So it''s a lot like NWN''s combat instead, where you queue up commands. FF just chooses to only let you queue one command at a time, whereas NWN allows you to queue many.

And your point (2) is just plain wrong. In a ROLE playing game (narrative, LARP, or computer) YOU are assuming the ROLE of a character. It''s the character''s skills, it''s the character''s abilities, and the character''s body. It''s just that you are makign the decisions for him/her. Your skills don''t matter. As the last Anonymous Poster said, it doesn''t make sense (in an RPG) that your ability to jam buttons should determine your character''s ability to fly or fight; just as MY skill as a swordfighter means beans to an RPG. If you''re talking about an action/adventure game like Diablo, that''s a different type of game, and hence, NOT what I''m talking about.

SoaringTortoise-- never actually played Dungeon Seige, but I''m sure I''d have something to complain about w/ it''s combat too :-D.

-Desco-

quote:

---

What I want is your typical RPG interface where you tell your character who to attack, how to attack ''em, what weapons to use, when to use potions, etc. (Like all the greats such as Final Fantasy, Ultima, etc) The only difference is I want to SEE really good animated sequences of them advancing, retreating, slashing, thrusting, blocking, spinning, flanking, parrying, riposting, circling, stagering from a really strong hit, clutching their wound, limping, getting backed into a corner, etc. You get the idea. Like I said, it''d be like watching good movie combats (Crouching Tiger or The Muskateer), only now you have input into who they attack and how.

---

Quite my intentions

You see, in Infinity you will be in charge of ''effecting'' decissions for the character, what attacks they will most likely use and when it''s best to use them, and the decision on what target to attack...

They will mostly do the rest! The most you (might) have to do is determine when the character should be advancing or defending an opponent (or group of opponents and most likely movement in the area. There will also be the direct option to alter their fighting in different ways as well, especially if they go from ''only melee'' to ''only magic'' offenses, but it could also be left to the character.

All sorts of strategy will be accounted for and even some creative dynamic dialogue that you''ll just have to wait and see! But it will happen, very soon maybe!

Any thoughts?

- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus

ok I'll describe Grandia 2 battle system (still should play the game it's easier to understand it that way)

The timeline

As you can see on the image above, you've somekind of timeline in the lower right corner, with an icon per character.

First you travel along the line in the blue area, the speed at which you travel in this area depends on your character speed, the place where you enter the blue area depends on your previous action. (some actions are not as exhausting as others)

Upon entering the red area, you choose an action, you can move, attack, use item, use magic, defend, use special attack, or break an attack.
Given your character traits and the action you've chosen, you'll move more or less fast on the red area, but always at a constant speed. Special attacks are slower than many other actions, and the 'break' action (don't remember it's true name ingame) is the fastest.

The intent an purpose of the 'break' action, is to attack your ennemy to slow him down, or cancel his action. (either it'll move backward in the timeline, or it'll restart at the beginning with a penalty [that is not even on the blue area])

Now what's usefull, is that 1st you can now when each creature (and characters) will act, and so plan ahead.
Knowing that most powerfull attacks do take more time (you travel slower on the red part) you'll try to select them when no ennemy is close to entering the red part (at the 'COM' word), to avoid being canceled.
You can know the ennemy attack power by seeing on fast it moves on the red part of the timeline, the slower the more powerfull.
So when you see an ennemy slow on it, you'd better try to 'break' its action.
Your character can move across the battlefield, which is very usefull when your ennemy has area of effect spells, you'll prolly want to surround your ennemy to avoid being caught in area of effect spell, and have bonus (attacking from behind helps).
Also you can put some characters behind the others to cast spells, they are unlikely to be targeted, except if they do much damage ^^

you can see the action selection menu here


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-


[edited by - Ingenu on May 29, 2003 10:01:32 AM]

Ingenu-- yup. That''s pretty much how all FF''s have worked since 7. ''cept intstead of one timeline for all players (incidentally, I''m getting a 403 for the first pic you linked to, but not the second), Final Fantasy 7 had a small meter for each character next to their health, magic, etc meters. When the character makes an attack, it empties. It''ll fill up (also at a constant rate) during combat, all while the action is taking place. When it gets to a certain point, the character can make another attack. I believe (but I don''t remember ''cause it''s been a while) that if it got completely full, a few more "super attack" options were available.

This is system works well for a game ''cause it works like turn-based combat, but also accounts for the characters'' speeds and other time factors that turn-based combat doesn''t handle well... however... realism takes a back seat, but atleast it''s still in the car. The thing I totally hate about these kind of methods is NO ONE EVER STANDS STILL DURING COMBAT!!! I realise that these are simulations of combat, not real combat, and like I said it is a good system. However, they could atleast make the combat LOOK realistic instead of just standing there looking at each other from a distance.

Sure, in one-on-one combat (or small-team, like two-on-two) there''s a lot of circling, feigning, and watching the other guy, waiting for a good time to attack and attempting to psyche-out the other guy. However, once an attack is made, it is NEVER just one attack (maybe a counter attack) and the two combatants seperate. Melee combat (ATLEAST 5 per side) is a different story. Small team combat tends to break up into a few one-on-ones, or the occasional two-on-one or two-on-two, whereas when melee combat teams tend to stick shoulder-to-shoulder. There''s a LOT more defensive movements, letting the combatants with the longer blades (in fencing) or the spears (in armored combat) do most of the work, while everyone else blocks the other side''s spears attacks.

Here''s another clue that I think a lot of game developers need: WHEN A COMBATANT MAKES AN ATTACK, THEY RARELY "MISS"!!! All these games (as with D&D, which most games are based on) you miss atleast 50% of the time, or a lot more. EVEN NEWBIES RARELY "MISS"! Most attacks are BLOCKED by the opponent, dodged, or parried. A "miss" means that if the opponent does not attempt to evade or stop the attack, it wouldn''t have connected anyway. (Fencing has a bit more missing for newbies ''cause they haven''t properly learned their distance yet.) This leads me to another problem I have with RPGs, which I will not spend more than one or two sentances on: Dodge and block are NOT skills that some characters do not have, they are INSTINCTS that every living thing has! (Don''t believe me? Swing a stick at your best friend and tell me they don''t try to avoid getting hit.) But yes, they can be honed and improved like skills.




Ronixus-- Quite... Yep, that''s what a real RPG should be-- players make the decisions for their character, and no skills (other than perhaps strategic or logic) of the player should effect the effectiveness of the character. I do, however, see the supposed-problem with that and the reason why developers are tempted to involve the player more in the actual skills part of the fighting: Just making the decision who to attack and watching the characters act that out can be boring! Kinda like "Coach Mode" in Madden ''98 for the Genesis. Especially if all the on-screen characters are doing is stepping forward, hitting, and then stepping back and waiting for the opponent to do something. If the combat animation was a lot more realistic or Matrix/Muskateer like, players would be a lot happier just to sit back and watch the proceedings.

However, ideally, the player should have a LOT more ability to effect combat. Actually it should be optional. The newbie player should be allowed to basically treat the character as an attack dog-- the player clicks the enemies and says "Attack!" and the character does it''s best to dispatch of them... However, the player who chooses to should be more involved-- making decisions on which enemy to attack, what body part to aim for, which style of attack to use, when to advance/retreat, take a more offensive or defensive stance, switching weapons, using spells or magic items, etc. And yes, by doing these things, the player should make the character more effective than if the character is allowed to make most of these decisions.




Basically, what it all boils down to (and this goes all the way back to D&D) is this is what happens when computer-oriented, not combat-oriented, people try to design a combat system.

-Desco-

quote:

---

Original post by Desco
Ingenu-- yup. That''s pretty much how all FF''s have worked since 7.

---

nonono, I''ve played FF too The only common thing is that you have to wait before attacking, no counter, no different action speed... far less involving.

quote:

---

NO ONE EVER STANDS STILL DURING COMBAT!!!

---

Indeed, anyone having practiced martial arts now this.
In grandia2, the characters move a lot, they don''t stay where they are, they move to strike the ennemy, then either go back to their previous place, or in another. And since many creatures can act at once, you see a lots of things going on at the same time, nothing like FF "I''m stuck to the ground and jump to strike my ennemy".

quote:

---

WHEN A COMBATANT MAKES AN ATTACK, THEY RARELY "MISS"!!!
...
EVEN NEWBIES RARELY "MISS"!

---

Well... he''ll hardly put the master into troubles, the simpler dodge move would probably suffice... in pen & paper games, you don''t want to roll dices all the time, so a simple miss 50% of the time makes it easier... But for a computer...
BTW in Grandia 2, you don''t miss that often, in fact, you miss rarely.

quote:

---

Dodge and block are NOT skills that some characters do not have, they are INSTINCTS that every living thing has!
But yes, they can be honed and improved like skills.

---

Yes, at the basics they are instincts, but to make them efficients, you need some training, so they are skilled, skills that each and every character automatically get, obviously.

quote:

---

...player...should be making decisions on which enemy to attack, what body part to aim for, which style of attack to use, when to advance/retreat, take a more offensive or defensive stance, switching weapons, using spells or magic items, etc. And yes, by doing these things, the player should make the character more effective than if the character is allowed to make most of these decisions.

Basically, what it all boils down to (and this goes all the way back to D&D) is this is what happens when computer-oriented, not combat-oriented, people try to design a combat system.

---

That''s exacly what happens in most games, with some knowledge you know which strategy to use against which monster, and it shorten the fight...

A real fight is something really exhausting, so you can''t ask your players to put that much energy into a game, not counting that he''ll prolly have to fight many times.
You need to analyse a fight and decide of an atomic set of actions, which, in your opinion, it can be divided into, then make rules around those actions, how they interact... before giving the players the options.
Many people build games over previous games experience, this is clearly cutting innovation.

Now that you said all that was wrong, what about designing something that would be good ?


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-