I was just thinking of an idea for a fighting game which i spose is a bit more of a simulator than anything. Ok, so its like a kung-fu type game, with locks, moves, breaks, rolls etc. Heaps of them. But the trick is that the game moves in turn based mode, allowing the player to select what attack they would like to use next. The moves work on a paper-rock-scissors approch, and everything has a trade off. Once the fight is over, the player can go back and watch the whole thing in real time, and see the characters in fights that would normally be so fast paced it would be impossible to play. I suppose instead of turnbased the game could also be super-slow-mo, and as the game progresses it gets faster and faster. Just my 2c.

Sounds good, though a bit too simple, system-wise. RPS can only offer so many possibilities, and the fact it doesn''t require any player-based skills (precognition?) makes it a major turn-off to the target audience of most combat games.

Fast reflexes and good strategies are what people are after, for the most part. Not sheer luck.

Perhaps a setup at slightly less-than-average speed where character control is much greater (ie, moving individual limbs, maybe; therefore, more complex and requiring faster and better reaction) could work well, IMHO. You could move your left arm in an arc to knock your opponent''s punch out of the way while coming in with your other arm to deliver a punch of your own, for instance.

Perhaps the whole fight could be reanimated at full speed when it''s over. Sounds like a good idea that needs a bit of fleshing out, though.

You could also make it so this is not so much as a "game" but a fight designer. You create the fight move by move, then play it in real time and see 2 people kick the crap outa eachother. That would also be very fun and have almost unlimited replay value.

The problem with a rock-paper-scissor game mechanic is that it boils down to arbitrary decisions. A game that does not require decisions (even decisions that are un-informed) has no real player interaction. A rock-paper-scissors game is effectively not even a game. How interesting would a game be if you decided your player''s moves by flipping a coin? It''s the same premise.

I like the idea of a turn-based fighting system, but the decision-making is non-existant. The sum of the gameplay in a turn-based game in which no SKILL is required (by which I mean no dependency on the player''s ability to press buttons or create patterns on a physical input device) is entirely made up of the choices that the player makes. Relying on those choices to be dictated by a random occurance outside of the realm of the player''s control is no more of a game than picking a prize between door number 1, 2, and 3.

Perhaps a decision-making pattern that is influenced by the previous move. For example;

Player 1 and player 2 begin with the R-P-S format. If a player wins the first "event" by hitting player 2 (one event is equivalent to each player picking one attack/defend option), the player has new options to choose from. Instead of being able to low punch, high punch, block, low kick, etc. - the player can now followup, duck, sidestep, etc. Player 2 is now given a new set of options: attempt to block again, counter -attack, etc.

If player 1 tries to "followup" and player 2 "counterattacks", player 2 wins the event and in turn receives a number of points.

This adds interaction between the two players (or a player and a computer) and forces the players to pay attention to the opposing players'' style.

Haha, that''s a unique challege! Love it.

I could see this game as something like an RPG/Fighting game. The game would play like an fighting game focusing on grappling, when the characters come into a grappling range, slow-mo (bullet-time) activates, and a more intricate system of controller button combinations, similar to fireball in streetfighter2, but more quirky, where slight changes equal different moves. The game could build up slowly, where the player goes through training with masters, until thier skills are ready to enter small street fights,building your way up to tournaments. There could be random fights, where the player is strong enough to defeat parties (2-6) opponents at once. In fact, I''d enjoy playing a game that let me be a bad-ass fighter and selectively rip through a group of fighters, snapping necks, etc. :þ
You could have a lot of secret moves taken from classic kung-fu films, walking on blades, flying guillotine, flying?! :D

Ever heard of Spellcast? It''s a similar premise, but with a much greater degree of planning and strategy.

---

"Sneftel is correct, if rather vulgar." --Flarelocke

quote:

---

Original post by dgaf
The problem with a rock-paper-scissor game mechanic is that it boils down to arbitrary decisions. A game that does not require decisions (even decisions that are un-informed) has no real player interaction. A rock-paper-scissors game is effectively not even a game. How interesting would a game be if you decided your player''s moves by flipping a coin? It''s the same premise.

---

Almost every fighter has a rock-paper-scissor aspect to it. Even with rock-paper-scissor you can anticipate to beat your opponent.

quote:

---

Original post by tieTYT
Almost every fighter has a rock-paper-scissor aspect to it. Even with rock-paper-scissor you can anticipate to beat your opponent.

---

But not every fighter is fundamentally a rock-paper-scissors game.

There''s a level of uncertainty inherent in a fighting game (or combat, for generalization purposes), but the core play cannot revolve strictly around the roll of a dice or the flipping of a coin. Such activities are anti-interactive.

quote:

---

Original post by Smirnoffka
You could also make it so this is not so much as a "game" but a fight designer. You create the fight move by move, then play it in real time and see 2 people kick the crap outa eachother. That would also be very fun and have almost unlimited replay value.

---

There are plenty of games out there that award points for finesse and style rather than victory or domination. Think of a hybrid between a fighting game and Tony Hawk, with a little bit of Hooper(Burt Reynolds movie) thrown in. You''re a stuntman, or an action star, or a professional wrestler, but instead of actually trying to win a fight, you''re trying to meet certain goals (break the plate-glass window, fall down the stairs, crash through the bannister, and then get kicked of the ledge by the "hero") with style, finesse and minimal injury. You smash props without damaging the more expensive set pieces or film equipment, and you get paid based on great moves, complex combos, and safety.

That could be turn-based, or you could even use a choreographic system, where you plot out all the moves and the characters'' skills or the placement of objects decides whether it fails or succeeds. Harder scenes take longer to get right, but are worth more to the movie''s producer, and so you, as the choreographer, get paid more. Better casting choices, better training programs, and better fights would be the meat of this system, and when it works well you could watch the little movie and be proud, and maybe put it online for peer review.

quote:

---

Original post by dgaf

quote:

---

Original post by tieTYT
Almost every fighter has a rock-paper-scissor aspect to it. Even with rock-paper-scissor you can anticipate to beat your opponent.

---

But not every fighter is fundamentally a rock-paper-scissors game.

There''s a level of uncertainty inherent in a fighting game (or combat, for generalization purposes), but the core play cannot revolve strictly around the roll of a dice or the flipping of a coin. Such activities are anti-interactive.

---

But a rock paper scissor game is not that way either. I''m sure it is the first time, but if you end up playing long enough you will be able to anticipate your opponent.

I think we may be thinking of different things. The rock paper scissor aspect in Soul calibur 2 is that mids hit people ducking and lows hit people standing. And you have that horizontals track, but verticals can break through horizontals, and that B''s break A''s, but you can avoid them by stepping.