I think we can all agree that most players want a little more control over combat than targetting an enemy, clicking the "attack" button, and watching the show. At the same time, having an in-game scripting language to control individual synapses from the character's brain to control muscles in the character's arm in order to execute action x, if done correctly, is at the other end of the spectrum. Both extremes produce a snore-fest of a battle. Usually, a game is about fun, but neither of those propositions sound too enticing. What are your ideas about finding the "right balance", so to speak? How much control do players need to have fun? Conversely, how much is too much? I recall reading about the "glyph" system of combat that the game Obi-Wan was originally going to implement. The main stipulation of this system was that it would allow the player to control each and every stroke of the lightsaber manually with the mouse -- meaning there would be no real pre-rendered animations, or "moves".. needless to say, I was extremely excited. The thought of creating my own moves sounded really fun. Unfortunately, they scrapped this idea at the last minute in favor of the usual database of moves snorefest. In my mind, a system like that could either be the Jehovah or it could be a living nightmare. Much of it depends on how well it was implemented. Is it elegant enough, or is it bugged and bog players down? My personal opinion is that you need to strive for elegance with combat. Elegance, to me, means that you take an enormously complex idea, such as creating your own moves, and making it really natural to do for the player. An even cooler expanded idea could be a good hit-detection model, including severed limbs.. not just for effect, but it would serve a purpose. Does the player go for a torso strike, and risk getting blocked, or does he go for the limb, depriving the enemy of his weapon? Anyway, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

From my point of view it would depend on the game genre.

In a role-playing game, the combat skills available (or lack thereof) are those of the character, rather than the player. The player shouldn't need to be dextrous to play an experienced fighter.

In a first person shooter, it would be more acceptable to give greater direct control over where and how hits are aimed.

Strategy games seem to be the most suitable for the intricate control system you're suggesting though.

Quote:

Original post by Kevinator Usually, a game is about fun, but neither of those propositions sound too enticing. What are your ideas about finding the "right balance", so to speak? How much control do players need to have fun? Conversely, how much is too much?

I think that depends on the individual player. Also the amount of control you get in say tactical games would be too much for most people in an RTS, and vice versa.

Quote:

I recall reading about the "glyph" system of combat that the game Obi-Wan was originally going to implement. The main stipulation of this system was that it would allow the player to control each and every stroke of the lightsaber manually with the mouse -- meaning there would be no real pre-rendered animations, or "moves".. needless to say, I was extremely excited. The thought of creating my own moves sounded really fun. Unfortunately, they scrapped this idea at the last minute in favor of the usual database of moves snorefest. In my mind, a system like that could either be the Jehovah or it could be a living nightmare. Much of it depends on how well it was implemented. Is it elegant enough, or is it bugged and bog players down? My personal opinion is that you need to strive for elegance with combat. Elegance, to me, means that you take an enormously complex idea, such as creating your own moves, and making it really natural to do for the player. An even cooler expanded idea could be a good hit-detection model, including severed limbs.. not just for effect, but it would serve a purpose. Does the player go for a torso strike, and risk getting blocked, or does he go for the limb, depriving the enemy of his weapon? Anyway, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Die by the Sword used this concept, you controled the character's position and facing with the keyboard and moving the mouse moved his sword arm. Difficult to control but I think it got easier with time (I didn't play it seriously). Also included severed limbs. I don't think it was particularly elegant, though maybe pros at the game would be. It's an old game (97-98 I think) but there may be a demo floating round if you look.

The thing about a sword/lightsabre is that it's not just its position (decided by the mouse) that's important but also its angle, so even direct mouse control would end up less elegant as you added mouse-wheel control of the angle and so on.

Fulby

Well yea, it all depends on the type of game.
Most people enjoy playing those everquest RPG's because of the complete lack of player involvement in the combat(ie: click on monster, click on attack, wait for hero to kill monsters, move on). This is appealing especially to people who are new to computers, they don't have the hand eye coordination or the experience with a mouse to handle a first person shooter, and on top of probably throwing up within 5 minutes of playing a game like quake they will leave shortly there after from frustration of not being able to do anything because everything is just happening too quickly.

However, there was a game released a while ago called Summoner, now the game had the basic point click style combat at the core of it, however it allowed you to take some control with things like combo's and all sort of stuff, as well as being able to control every member of your party individually if you wanted to at a flick of a switch. Probably the best and most involving RPG I have ever played when it comes to the combat system.. It was one hell of a game(one of my top 5 of all time) even outside of the combat system