First, I just wanted to include my support for the computer control system used in Quest for Glory 4. I think this, slightly altered, could be a welcome addition to many non-action CRPGs. The way I see it, you should choose who your character will attack and also have a selection of fighting styles (ie. a ninja character could choose from different schools of martial arts or a sword fighter would have his choice of different sword techniques (alright, I admit, I don''t know that much about real world combat)). Beyond that, you just pick the target once and the avatar should attack until you say otherwise.

On other idea that came to mind is from my own personal pet project (which I recognize will probably never get completed and royally suck if it did). While it''s more of an action-RPG, I think the mechanic could still hold. The key is that a player character''s health is controlled by three variables: Energy, Pain, and Health. When a character is first attacked, he will defend himself and attack back without any intervention from the player (the player can have the chraracter retreat at any time). As the character continues the battle, he will keep fighting and defending himself until his energy reaches zero. At this point, the character is too tired to successfully dodge and begins to take hits. These hits are manifest in the Pain and the Health, with the pain decreasing more quickly. With the pain, the character becomes weaker, meaning that the attacks do less damage. When the pain gets down to zero, the character passses out and becomes unable to attack or defend. Finally, when health reaches zero, the character is dead.

Another game mechanic that I''ve been playing with in this is the aggressiveness of the attack. You can have the character perform very aggressive attacks, which drain the energy faster but do more damage, or weak attacks that don''t use as much energy. For enemies with strong, slow hits, it makes more sense to save your energy for dodging the powerful attacks ( and possibly reserve it for running away). Enemies that attack rapidly, on the other hand, can drain your energy quickly by forcing you to do a lot of dodging, so it works better to just get them with a few power hits and be done with it (the enemies work on a simple hit point system).

Ingenu-- I just realized my friend has Grandia 2 (DC and PS2), and said I could borrow it. He said that I should borrow the DC version ''cause it looks and runs a lot better than the PS2 version. Zelda''s battle system? I think that''s a little more actiony than we''re talking about...



Boglin-- I''m not familiar with the QfG series, couldja explain what''cha like about it? You got some interesting ideas... A lot of what you''re talking about goes along with my biggest problem with CRPGs-- you have computers with almost infitine power to do calculations, why use systems that were designed simpler for dice & paper play? Not only do I mean lots more calculations when it comes to realistically simulating combat, but why not have many more stats/ability scores (such as your pain/health idea) to more accurately simulate life?


-Desco-

As a general introduction to the Quest for Glory series, it was a mix of King''s Quest style adventure game and an RPG. Each game featured combat elements in the game, but Quest for Glory 4 is the only one that applies here. There were two combat modes: Arcade and Strategy. Arcade was manually controlled by a really poor combination of keyboard and mouse. Strategy mode, on the other hand, was computer controlled. You had four dials marked Attack, Defense, Special Attack, and Magic. The system was not really necessary, since 90% of battles could be won by rapidly clicking on the enemy in Arcade mode. It was also largely ambiguous (If you max out both attack and defend, what is the character expected to do?) However, the idea of the computer controlling a player designed battle strategy always seemed to me like a good idea for RPGs.

quote:

---

Original post by Desco
And what of the visuals? I''d expect with movie successes such as The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (and lesser-successes of Brotherhood of the Wolves and The Muskateer) there would be an interest in more realistic, fast paced, intense combat.

---

The very fact that the effects shown in these movies is considered new and/or groundbreaking should be a hint to you that they''re very hard and/or expensive to do.

Of course, you are focusing on the cosmetics, which a good game designer will rarely do. The underlying system is more important to the gameplay than the direction the sword moves across the screen.

quote:

---

Want the absolute best knowledge of how combat works-- so much more than what you could gleem from watching movies? Go find your local SCA branch or other group that does swordplay. (Please avoid NERO or other "LARP" style groups that do not accurately simulate combat--- I suggest SCA ''cause they''ve worked the hardest to create rules that are both realistic and historically accurate, as well as very safe.)

---

The problem with ''historically accurate'' is that it doesn''t really exist for all periods in history. Most RPGs are set in a pseudo Dark Ages or early Medieval period, yet you''ll be hard pressed to find an authoritative swordfighting reference from earlier than the early 1400s. And even the good sources often contradict each other. Some literature depicts swordsmen holding the blade near the end to bludgeon the opponent with the cross guard of the handle, while other swordmasters consider this to be ludicrous, based on their source texts. Some people think that medieval swords were very sharp and designed for cutting, whereas others emphasis the weight (2-4Kg) means that they wouldn''t need to be sharp to rend flesh effectively, and that keeping them sharp would have been a waste of time. Given this degree of disagreement over what it was ''really'' like, I think that choosing whatever fits your game best makes the most sense.

Personally I''m thinking more about the tactical and strategic options that I can give to the player, and generally finding it difficult to come up with much short of the full Soulcalibur style system.


[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
The very fact that the effects shown in these movies is considered new and/or groundbreaking should be a hint to you that they''re very hard and/or expensive to do.

---

Umm... they''re new and groundbreaking because they''re very hard and/or expensive to do IN REAL LIFE or with actors. We''re talking about CG models that can be bent, lifted, and moved without concerns of things like gravity, physics, and doing something that might kill the person.

Besides, Bruce Lee has been doing a lot of the kung-fu moves that I was saying I want to see in games for decades. Combat has looked good in movies for a lot longer than recent successes like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger. The only thing that was "new and groundbreaking" in those movies were the computer-aided stunts like Bullet Time, which I''m not suggesting (though it would definately be desireable in the current market).

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
Of course, you are focusing on the cosmetics, which a good game designer will rarely do. The underlying system is more important to the gameplay than the direction the sword moves across the screen.

---

A GOOD game designer pays attention to all aspects of the game: underlying system, representation in graphics, sound, realism, playability, lasting appeal, etc. If they didn''t, their game will be passed over. Look at any game review outlet: they rate graphics and sound as independant entities because, while in "good gamers" mind gameplay is most important, the majority of the people buying games are sold on graphics, and will not like a game if it''s poorly presented. If that weren''t true, everyone''d still be playing Nethack.

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
The problem with ''historically accurate'' is that it doesn''t really exist for all periods in history. Most RPGs are set in a pseudo Dark Ages or early Medieval period, yet you''ll be hard pressed to find an authoritative swordfighting reference from earlier than the early 1400s.

---

Actually, judging from the buildings'' architectures, style of clothing and armor, and the level of technology for things like smithing, sea-voyaging, cooking, etc., most RPGs actually include civilizations equivalent to the western European late medieval and renaissance periods, roughly 1500-1700.

See, the SCA make great strives and uses many sources to accurately represent the historical period. Yes, no manuscripts on sword technique was written before 1400s... Very little of any reliable fact was written before then because of a lack of literacy. Writing wasn''t important. Teaching, however, was. These teachings were handed down from person to person and were eventually compiled into manuscripts once literacy became widespread. These manuscripts are, however, collections of knowledge and experience that go far back before the authors were alive.

The SCA also relies on many sources not written during the period. Archeological digs are VERY important to learning the history of our cultures, especially since those of some of those cultures did not find it important to record history... But still we have, with a good and reasonable degree of accuracy, historical records of ancient Rome-- all because of gaining it through other sources than direct historical record, such as archeological digs and writings that, while not a historical record, incidentally give us a good idea of how people lived and how they shaped their cultures, cities, government, etc.

And while there are those sources that contradict each other and the common knowledge, there is an overwhelming amount of information that time and time again back what is considered "historically accurate". Perhaps the literature that depicted swordsmen holding the "wrong end" of the sword were actually describing warriors holding warhammers, which have the same SHAPE as a sword, but the author was too ignorant to know the difference. Or maybe something was lost in the translation. The point is there is no physical evidence that backs up things like that; in fact most physical evidence would contradict it. Basically what you''re saying is equivalent to not believing that the sky is usually blue because, while most everyone says that the sky is usually blue, there is one person saying that it is always green.

But unfortunately, this kind of thing is not what I''m really concerning myself here with, and your comments are misplaced and unappreciated. My complaints with RPG combat transcend "medieval" or "renaissance". The combat systems used in RPGs would be realistic for ANY form of combat-- from two cavemen throwing rocks at each other, to Asian martial arts, to two guys fighting over a girl in a bar:

- Combat is face paced, not slow and uninteresting.
- No person involved in combat will stand in once place, not making an attempt to avoid getting hit.
- No person involved in combat will continually make the same attack over and over again, without regard to what the opponent is doing.


-Desco-

quote:

---

Original post by Desco
Umm... they''re new and groundbreaking because they''re very hard and/or expensive to do IN REAL LIFE or with actors. We''re talking about CG models that can be bent, lifted, and moved without concerns of things like gravity, physics, and doing something that might kill the person.

---

You are aware that a significant proportion of the effects in the latest Matrix film were done using 3D models with the actors texture-mapped onto them, right? Realistic-looking combat is very difficult even with a big budget.

quote:

---

Actually, judging from the buildings'' architectures, style of clothing and armor, and the level of technology for things like smithing, sea-voyaging, cooking, etc., most RPGs actually include civilizations equivalent to the western European late medieval and renaissance periods, roughly 1500-1700.

---

I disagree with this, but it''s not an important point. What is important is the choice of weaponry used in RPGs, and almost without exception they predate most of the literature if not all.

quote:

---

Perhaps the literature that depicted swordsmen holding the "wrong end" of the sword were actually describing warriors holding warhammers, which have the same SHAPE as a sword, but the author was too ignorant to know the difference. Or maybe something was lost in the translation. The point is there is no physical evidence that backs up things like that; in fact most physical evidence would contradict it.

---

Except I''ve seen this technique taught by trained swordmasters, based on old pictures and texts, and used effectively on the training field.

quote:

---

Basically what you''re saying is equivalent to not believing that the sky is usually blue because, while most everyone says that the sky is usually blue, there is one person saying that it is always green.

---

No, all I''m saying is that just because the SCA does something, doesn''t mean it''s 100% accurate, and certainly doesn''t mean it''s 100% relevant to a fantasy roleplaying game.

I agree that combat should be more interesting, but I don''t see the point in wasting developer time in doing something that will not add to the interesting decisions that the player has to make,such as expensive animations. I would be interested in seeing how SCA rules or whatever could be directly applied to a game however.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

First of all Kylotan, and I don''t mean to be condescending if that''s the way this comes off, but thank you for being mature with your response to me... I''ve been banned from forums for being far less punitive to a moderator.

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
You are aware that a significant proportion of the effects in the latest Matrix film were done using 3D models with the actors texture-mapped onto them, right? Realistic-looking combat is very difficult even with a big budget.

---

Yes, yes, yes, I''m aware. I''ve read the articles, seen the makings-of, and wasn''t nearly as impressed with the second one as the first. :-) Last I heard, the entire "Brawl in the Park" scene was done on a computer, even the backgrounds, while the only things that Wheeling and Reaves did was pose for the face shots. The challenge there is to do it and make it look REAL! Not just realistic, but to where you can''t even tell that it''s just Keanu''s and Hugo''s faces on computer models. I''m not asking for photo-realistic combat here...

Computer RPG models are a LOT simpler than Neo''s model, and that''s where the extraordinary amount of computer power was needed for Reloaded. No computer game looks like a movie. They all look like computer games. Don''t bother modelling every aspect of the character''s clothing, hair, skin, etc. as the graphics in the movies do.

But what I am asking is to SEE SOME REACTIONARY combat-- in other words the characters move in relation to each other, react to the movements and attacks of their opponents, and actually look somewhat convincing. Look at games like Enter the Matrix, Wolverine''s Revenge, or any more action-y game like that. The characters definately react to what the other character (the player) is doing. (And again, I''m NOT asking for action-game-style controls in an RPG!) No, not movie-quality special effects... What I am asking for is more interesting combat that atleast tries to (simply) be a bit more realistic, and is inspired (but does not fully emulate) movie effects.

quote:

---

No, all I''m saying is that just because the SCA does something, doesn''t mean it''s 100% accurate, and certainly doesn''t mean it''s 100% relevant to a fantasy roleplaying game.

---

I never said it did. The simple point I made that you initially took issue with was that the SCA has made more of an effort to be historically and realistically accurate than any other group involved in the same activities.

quote:

---

I agree that combat should be more interesting, but I don''t see the point in wasting developer time in doing something that will not add to the interesting decisions that the player has to make,such as expensive animations.

---

I disagree-- No it doesn''t add to the storyline, or effect the decisions made by the player. But again, I point out that RPGs continue to develop-- and in leaps and strides-- the graphics of these games. RPGs have some of the best graphics of any genre. By your logic, why is THAT so important to game developers, when it doesn''t effect the decisions made by the player? Because it matters to the players! They like seeing the graphics. So much so that it''s a huge part of the reviews from every review outfit out there. Like I said, if graphics didn''t matter, we''d still be playing games that look like Nethack or the original Ultimas. Let me quote some game reviews from recent releases:

"The battle and character animations are jerky and lack fluidity, which may have been acceptable in a game seven or eight years ago;" --pc.ign.com on Harbinger

"The combat animation is fairly simplistic and minimal, but it gets the job done acceptably." ---ESCmag on Ascheron''s Call

"Even Thief, which I hold up as the most immersive first-person game I''ve ever played, had pretty dull combat animation. " --hjvault.ign.com


My contention from the very beginning was the same would be true for vastly improved combat animations, especially with the recent attention payed to the combat sequences in movies like the Matrix or Crouching Tiger.

What I was suprised at when I was searching for the above quotes was really the amount of game reviews that praise improvements in combat animations... Though I found quite a few that said that Neverwinter Nights''s combat animations were very good. They''re not! They''re a lot better than most, but it''s still pretty slow and uninteresting.

quote:

---

I would be interested in seeing how SCA rules or whatever could be directly applied to a game however.

---

Now wait, this is a very different position for you... :-) Do you mean how the SCA combat dynamics could be applied to the game system? There''s quite a bit of talk in threads that I''m participating in (the other one about armor class) that talk about this in particular. But what confuses me is your use of "SCA rules"... The rules of SCA combat are all there to ensure safety and historical realism-- Like restrictions on blade sizes and weights to be historically accurate, and mostly rules pertaining to safety such as no hitting on or below the knees, and armor standards.

Could ya give examples of what you were meaning?

-Desco-

quote:

---

Original post by Desco
I've read the articles, seen the makings-of, and wasn't nearly as impressed with the second one as the first. :-)

---

Is there anyone alive who was as impressed with the 2nd one as the 1st?

quote:

---

But what I am asking is to SEE SOME REACTIONARY combat-- in other words the characters move in relation to each other, react to the movements and attacks of their opponents, and actually look somewhat convincing. Look at games like Enter the Matrix, Wolverine's Revenge, or any more action-y game like that.

---

So some games already have this? I wouldn't know as I generally don't buy the really new stuff. In what way are they reacting... is it automatic? Or is it like in a fighting game where you manually choose a defence?

quote:

---

RPGs have some of the best graphics of any genre. By your logic, why is THAT so important to game developers, when it doesn't effect the decisions made by the player? Because it matters to the players! They like seeing the graphics. So much so that it's a huge part of the reviews from every review outfit out there.

---

My personal belief is that graphics only matter a lot because reviewers can show them. You can publish a screenshot but you can't publish a soundtrack. So graphics take priority. Personally I play a lot of plain text games, and although I know that puts me in a tiny minority, I also know I've seen gameplay that far surpasses 99% of the graphical games out there.

quote:

---

"Even Thief, which I hold up as the most immersive first-person game I've ever played, had pretty dull combat animation. " --hjvault.ign.com

---

Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to do good combat animation in the first person? I mean, you can only easily portray your opponent (and maybe your arms/legs) that way.

quote:

---

Now wait, this is a very different position for you... :-) Do you mean how the SCA combat dynamics could be applied to the game system?
...
Could ya give examples of what you were meaning?

---

Sorry, I meant more to do with the dynamics than the 'rules', yes. In fact, I mainly meant that it would be nice to see how you would apply your SCA experience to a game. I've done a lot of research into swordfighting methods but have mainly come to the conclusion that I can only do them justice in a real-time combat game such as Soulcalibur - turn-based games, or even heavy-latency games like MMORPGs, would need serious amendments to get it to work. Admittedly, I was looking more from the tactical side (eg. "How can I give my players more choices in combat?") than the presentational side (eg. "How can I make combat more believable and exciting?").

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

[edited by - Kylotan on June 11, 2003 10:11:32 AM]

I''m guessing everyone failed to notice my post at the bottom of the first page of this thread, I was really hoping people would comment on it because it''s based on the combat system I''m creating that does just what you''ve mentioned, allowing plenty of combat choices and pulls it off realisticaly within a realtime MMORPG

Just a note, the list of choices will be bigger, consist of all learned techniques, and always executes in the same manner for every combat situation even versus multiple opponents :D

Tear it apart if you must but I''d love to hear your opinions!

On the subject of the Matrix Games, I haven''t played them yet either but it seems to me that they use some sort of special triggers for the more exuberant moves (like lunging off the pool table or running along the wall of a hallway and kicking an enemy through a door). It seems very fluid from what I''ve seen but I don''t have hands-on knowledge of the true results.

As for the SCA rules, I don''t see where it would be too hard to implement the rules in a game, even more-so using the combat system I proposed. Mainly a matter of only using the allowed combat techniques to be involved with the actual battling and restricting some rule-breaking choices (like the weapons).

My plea and my two cents

- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus

If someone already mentioned this game and I didn''t notice, just ignore this...

I bought this game of the $5 bargain rack, called "Die By The Sword". It wasn''t RPG so much, more 3D action/adventure. But I''ve never seen the same fighting system in another game that it had. Basically, you''re a guy with a sword. You can run, jump, do front and back flips, the usual stuff. But you move your sword by using the keypad. So if you press ''9'', your sword goes to the upper right, then press ''2'', it goes to bottom middle. But it wasn''t jerky or predictable, it was pretty fluid motion. It made for pretty cool combat, because it took into account how your character was moving to determine how hard you hit.

So you would do stuff like hold the sword high, run, do a front flip, and as you do bring the sword down on the enemy''s shoulder and cut off his arm... which you could then pick up and bash people with it too.

Obviously, doesn''t include magic and other things in an RPG, but I thought it was pretty unique. No predefined moves, just the ability to move (somewhat) like real life.