As some of you may be aware, I previously created a prototype of a direct-control combat mechanic. I was overall rather pleased with it--it had its issues, but I found it fun and had feedback on it that was positive overall, I believe.

However, I had a few reports that indicated that the control mechanism for attacking was unintuitive; specifically, that people were confused by the fact that attacks ended on hitting something (whether parried or striking home). Given that one generally has rather direct control over the character's movements, I've come to agree that the control mechanism was poor in this.

I spent a little time on attempting to keep full control after contact, but without more work on how damage is dealt and without a fair bit of work on the physics involved, that doesn't seem likely to work out.

So, I went back and built a new prototype. The gameplay is similar, but where the controls from the previous approach borrowed most from Die By the Sword, those in this mechanic borrow most from Quest for Glory (specifically, the first three games): there are three pre-set attacks and defences, and the focus is on timing and openings. Control is still primarily handled by the mouse, and defence is very similar to defence in the previous prototype. Dodging to the left and right remains much as before, but back-stepping has not been implemented in this version.

This prototype borrows a lot from the previous one, so expect similarities!

Two notes:

- Difficulty levels have not yet been implemented, so the difficulty selection in the options menu should have no effect.

- While "random" enemies are still available, at the moment this should only affect which weapon the AI has, and not its behaviour.

As per usual, I'd appreciate feedback!

Downloads:

Win32 installer (~30MB.)

Win32 zip (~37MB. Simply unzip to the desired directory. This should work, but no guarantees.)

Screenshot:

I enjoyed it and died a lot, a lot. It doesn't restart on its own.

This is a very realistic type of combat and won't work in games where the player is overpowering, I can't see any one battling more than two opponents at once.

Luckily in real life fighting multiple opponents is hard, and involves using the terrain a lot.

There is a lot that needs refinement and as a player it took a lot to adjust to my opponent. Also the opponent can use different weapons with no real effect, there was a large amount of advantages and disadvantages to each weapon.

This combat needs a lot of focus so it acts as a stop and battle system, the same as turn based combat so you should offer a chance to flee.

I think you will be able to learn a lot from this:

I enjoyed it and died a lot, a lot.

I'm very glad to read that! (The bit about enjoying it perhaps more than your dying a lot, but the latter at least speaks to the challenge. ;P)

It doesn't restart on its own.

That's true--it is just a prototype. As the in-game instruction should say, you can just press the 1, 2, 3 or 4 to restart the combat.

This is a very realistic type of combat and won't work in games where the player is overpowering, I can't see any one battling more than two opponents at once.

This seems like pretty much what I'm going for: one of my models is the old game-books, especially Fighting Fantasy, in which individual encounters can be dangerous and enemies are fewer but more differentiated. This isn't a game in which one carves through legions of foes.

Luckily in real life fighting multiple opponents is hard, and involves using the terrain a lot.

I've considered including some degree of terrain in this--or at least walls and props; on the one hand, it opens up some opportunities, especially for more variety in enemies and encounters (one might have, for example, a foe that every so often runs to a table of alchemical vials and throws random substances at the player). On the other hand, I'm not sure that asking players to be aware of their surroundings won't prove a little overwhelming on top of this combat system.

There is a lot that needs refinement and as a player it took a lot to adjust to my opponent.

Regarding adjusting to the opponent, in all fairness, the final game would probably start players out with easier opponents, who telegraph their attacks to a grater degree, and who are less effective at defence.

Regarding refinement, are there any elements that you feel call for refinement and that you haven't yet mentioned here?

Also the opponent can use different weapons with no real effect, there was a large amount of advantages and disadvantages to each weapon.

Hmm... There should have been some effect from the different weapons--the axe and mace should be both a bit slower than the sword, and the mace should eat up more of the opponent's stamina in attacking, as I recall--are there other effects that you're inclined to suggest?

(I do hope to have some variation in the actual attacks, and in how often they're used, but that might be implemented in the enemy, rather than being associated with the weapons.)

This combat needs a lot of focus so it acts as a stop and battle system, the same as turn based combat so you should offer a chance to flee.

Hmm... That's not a bad idea--although I would imagine that including this would result in players simply fleeing when they get low on health (presuming that they don't miss the danger).

It also leaves me with an uncertainty in terms of AI: the player would presumably have encountered the foe in question while exploring a level, and running would presumably drop the player back into the level where they left off--with the enemy still in position. I can make the foe pause and prevent an immediate resumption of the combat encounter, I suppose... My main concern here is that I want to keep the in-level enemy AI fairly simple for the most part.

One way or another, it's worth thinking about further, I do feel.

I think you will be able to learn a lot from this: ...

Heh, funnily enough, I believe that I watched that a few weeks ago (shortly after it was posted, I think), and found it rather interesting! Thank you for the link, nevertheless.

I don't want to go quite as far into exaggeration as did that game--what I have in mind is rather less cartoony than Punch Out--but at the least I do think that my "being hit" animations might benefit from being more visible.

Thank you very much for your comments!

[edit]

That's weird: it would seem that including a link to a YouTube video in a quote causes that video to be embedded within the quote, even though it wasn't embedded in the original post... o_0

I've considered including some degree of terrain in this--or at least walls and props; on the one hand, it opens up some opportunities, especially for more variety in enemies and encounters (one might have, for example, a foe that every so often runs to a table of alchemical vials and throws random substances at the player).

This is a good start, but a simpler effective system would be to allow the player to walk backwards and move around the enemy.

If the player can move around thy can backup into a doorway and limit the amount of opponents and swinging space.

If you add things like water or walls, the player could manoeuvre a opponent into it for effect. Adding weapons on a wall can allow the player to switch to a needed weapon in battle but force there backs against the wall.

Something else you could do is allow a player a kick or shove mechanic, this will open a whole list of new possibilities. Dark messiah used kicking very well, it was the best thing about the whole game.

Stuff like this mean the combat will never get old or boring, you will have players returning to your game when the graphics no longer have any appeal.

Its why I still from time to time play Pirates of the Caribbean, the old non movie one, and your combat is already better than there's ever was.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that asking players to be aware of their surroundings won't prove a little overwhelming on top of this combat system.

Yes it will be overwhelming, that is why you ease player into it.

Remember that the original purpose of a games is to teach, many games use learning skills as a micro economy.

Mario is a good example, first you learn to run then to jump and then you combined them. Now add a fire pickup and you can jump and shoot, run and shoot, stand and shoot and even run and jump while shooting.

This keeps players hooked and returning for more.

Regarding refinement, are there any elements that you feel call for refinement and that you haven't yet mentioned here?

I feel you should make the combat a bit more cinematic, you have a clear shot of both players use this to make the battle feel alive.

Remember real movements are boring, it's why we invented acting. Even motion capture animations is refined and exaggerated by an artist before use.

Hmm... There should have been some effect from the different weapons--the axe and mace should be both a bit slower than the sword, and the mace should eat up more of the opponent's stamina in attacking, as I recall--are there other effects that you're inclined to suggest?

(I do hope to have some variation in the actual attacks, and in how often they're used, but that might be implemented in the enemy, rather than being associated with the weapons.)

Changing values are subtle changes, these are the changes you make as a developer to guide players often with out them knowing.

A player won't notes that the mace costs the enemy more stamina, thy will however wait for the mace wielder to wear out and brutally attack the swords man. Never reallising the difference in there behavior.

This varies combat with out feeling like it does, only the most hardcore players will know you did this.

Because players experiences the game from the opposite end, often not realising that things like gravity and walking need programming, thy will need some clear indication of what is happening.

If you want the axe to feel draining and slow you need to show it.

(Not real animation time, just a example.)

Sword attack: Anticipation 1-7 Flow 8-15 Recover 16-24

Axe attack : Anticipation 1-4 Flow 5-10 Recover 15-24

Sword:

PullBack ->2->3->4->5->6->7->Swing ->9->10->11->12->13->14->Hit ->16->17->Pullback ->19->20->21->22->23->24

Axe:

PullBack ->2->3->4->Swing ->6->7->8->9->10->Hit ->12->Pullback ->14->15 ->16->17->18->19->20->21->22->23->24

Here we have the same timing but he axe feels blunter and like it is heavy, in the players mind heavy means slow and harder to use.

If you add a grunting sound the player will think that the opponent is at a disposition and use it.

Visual and sound is how you inform the player, code is how you make it happen.

Hmm... That's not a bad idea--although I would imagine that including this would result in players simply fleeing when they get low on health (presuming that they don't miss the danger).

It also leaves me with an uncertainty in terms of AI: the player would presumably have encountered the foe in question while exploring a level, and running would presumably drop the player back into the level where they left off--with the enemy still in position. I can make the foe pause and prevent an immediate resumption of the combat encounter, I suppose... My main concern here is that I want to keep the in-level enemy AI fairly simple for the most part.

One way or another, it's worth thinking about further, I do feel.

Fleeing when low on health is kind of the point, it prevents the player from dying and gives them a chance to explore other options.

Using guards that stay in one place means that the player will need to find a way past them no matter how much thy run.

Fleeing also allows for the player to ambush enemies, Assassin's creed and Shadow of mordor does this well. If you are overwhelmed by enemies you run around a corner, climb and wait for the first enemy to make the turn and jump him.

I don't think thy made the games to work like that, its more of a "art imitates life" kind of thing. In real life chasing after someone means thy can lead you into traps and ambushes.

For your game engaging in battle should be as simple as locking on to a target and fleeing, locking off.

Remember that fleeing isn't always a good thing for a player, it gives a opponent a chance to stab them in the back, the player can run into other kinds of danger and most players would rather fight than flee.

Fleeing when low on health is kind of the point, it prevents the player from dying and gives them a chance to explore other options.

In that case, what about going further and make "fleeing" the result of losing, rather than death? That is, when the player is defeated, instead of throwing up a "you're dead" screen and offering the opportunity to reload, send the player back to the level to approach again. Since combat is, at the moment, entirely self-contained, not even health carrying over, that should have much the same effect.

(Which, for the sake of clarity, would go alongside having a player-selectable "flee" button.)

For your game engaging in battle should be as simple as locking on to a target and fleeing, locking off.
Remember that fleeing isn't always a good thing for a player, it gives a opponent a chance to stab them in the back, the player can run into other kinds of danger and most players would rather fight than flee.

Hmm... As things stand, that doesn't hold in my current design quite as I gather that you're imagining.

As I mentioned just above, combat is currently entirely self-contained: it takes place in a space separate from the game-world. In short, the player approaches (or is approached by, or stumbles upon, or is ambushed by) an enemy; once within range, the enemy plays a short animation, and the combat environment is entered. Once combat is done, the player is returned to the level and may move about again. As a result, "locking on and locking off" takes a little more time than in a game like Dark Souls, for example.

On top of that, I don't intend to have a large number of enemies per level: I don't expect to have large groups for the player to kite individuals out of, as in Shadows of Mordor, nor to have enemies as common as in Dark Souls, which might increase the probability that running off blindly might land the player in another combat, perhaps with an enemy still following behind.

This is a good start, but a simpler effective system would be to allow the player to walk backwards and move around the enemy.

Well, you can dodge around the enemy as things stand (use "a" and "d"). Back-stepping isn't currently in, but is worth considering; I'm mainly uncertain of whether it would likely provide much advantage that side-stepping doesn't already.

If the player can move around thy can backup into a doorway and limit the amount of opponents and swinging space.

Honestly, I doubt that I'll ever have players face more than one enemy at a time (although they may face more than one in sequence).

If you add things like water or walls, the player could manoeuvre a opponent into it for effect. Adding weapons on a wall can allow the player to switch to a needed weapon in battle but force there backs against the wall.

Hmm... An interesting idea...

Yes it will be overwhelming, that is why you ease player into it.

The thing is, I feel that some mechanics can be too overwhelming, or have too steep a learning curve, for many players.

For example, did you ever play an old game called Die By the Sword? As I recall, that game allowed the player to manually control their character's sword arm (in a fashion somewhat similar to my previous prototype--indeed, it was an inspiration for that prototype). However, this was done on top of moving the character about, and I, at least, found the end result to be just too difficult to be worth it: there was too much to control all at once. Thankfully there was also a simpler attack-input mechanism provided that used canned attacks, which allowed me to get through the (otherwise somewhat fun, as I recall) game.

Something else you could do is allow a player a kick or shove mechanic, this will open a whole list of new possibilities. Dark messiah used kicking very well, it was the best thing about the whole game.

That's an interesting idea! I intend to look up a video or two showing Dark Messiah, and hopefully see how kicking worked there.

I do already have the thought in mind to allow the player access to "special attacks/actions"; these would likely have a limited number of activations per battle. For example, the player might acquire a spell--perhaps one that blinds the opponent, or allows the player to flash-step behind them--which can then be used some number of times during each combat. These would be selected outside of combat, and would not be changeable within combat.

I feel you should make the combat a bit more cinematic, you have a clear shot of both players use this to make the battle feel alive.

Remember real movements are boring, it's why we invented acting. Even motion capture animations is refined and exaggerated by an artist before use.

I don't want to go overboard on that end--I don't want to turn this into Punch Out, Infinity Blade or Dark Souls; while I like their respective aesthetics, that's not what I'm going for here.

That said, I do think that a little more movement might be helpful indeed.

For what it's worth, I do hope to have more variety in the attacks used by enemies.

Changing values are subtle changes ...
...
If you want the axe to feel draining and slow you need to show it.
...

Hmm... I see what you're saying, and I do agree, but I don't really want my animations to be tied to individual weapons, and again, I really don't want to go too far into cartoony exaggeration. That said, bear in mind that the enemy shown here is just a stand-in (indeed, it's a copy of the player), and each enemy can have its own set of animations, which could be designed for its intended weapon. As a result, a golem wielding a hammer might have very different--and more ponderous--animations than a lithe serpent-folk warrior wielding a knife.

I suppose that I could do away with the idea of "weapons" entirely, leaving everything in the enemy--indeed, it might make life somewhat easier. It does slightly complicate the business of changing the player-character's weapon (as I do want to do at least once), but not terribly so, I think.

As I mentioned just above, combat is currently entirely self-contained: it takes place in a space separate from the game-world. In short, the player approaches (or is approached by, or stumbles upon, or is ambushed by) an enemy; once within range, the enemy plays a short animation, and the combat environment is entered. Once combat is done, the player is returned to the level and may move about again. As a result, "locking on and locking off" takes a little more time than in a game like Dark Souls, for example.

If switching to a separate space is a large part of the game mechanic and style then keep it that way, that is if it ties into the plot, it adds atmosphere or if walking around is like walking on a map.

Consider swapping separate space combat for open world combat, even Die by the sword used a open world.

You can still get the look and feel of separate space combat by using a focus combat system.

For a focus system you navigate normally then when combat starts you blur out the back ground or, what I believe will work with your game, pull in the clipping range and fog.

In that case, what about going further and make "fleeing" the result of losing, rather than death? That is, when the player is defeated, instead of throwing up a "you're dead" screen and offering the opportunity to reload, send the player back to the level to approach again. Since combat is, at the moment, entirely self-contained, not even health carrying over, that should have much the same effect.

This is just a checkpoint system in disguise.

If you intend to use the separate space combat then a flee button will work, you can even make it harder to flee based on the players current health.

The thing is, I feel that some mechanics can be too overwhelming, or have too steep a learning curve, for many players

True Die by the sword was hard. You could add a easy to use one button attack as a fallback, but keeping it simple would be best.

I don't want to go overboard on that end--I don't want to turn this into Punch Out, Infinity Blade or Dark Souls; while I like their respective aesthetics, that's not what I'm going for here.

I suggested animation because learning the principles is easy, but you could look into the advantages and disadvantages of each weapon.

Swords where common because amateur and sword masters could kill with them effectively, but axes where common during sieges because thy could be used for foraging and constructing.

With the focus of wait at the top of a axe it delivered more damage, but would get stuck and was easily directed by a well balanced sword.

Sword fighters often struggled against axe and hammer because a sword needs a lot of dexterity to use, axe and hammer users would keep hitting the hands of a sword fighter to brake there fingers.

Sphere fighters would always win if it was two swords vs two spears, or one sword and a spear fighter and a wall. Spear fighters would instantly lose against a sword in large open spaces.

The above examples are take outs from medieval war books, you will find a lot more with a simple search on each weapon and there basic tactics.

The basic idea that I get from what I have seen and read, gives me the idea that you are tempting to capture the concept of man vs monster.

Instead of using insane difficulty like Dark souls, your using the players limited amount of attacks and movement to show there limited strength and disposition.

If this is what you are attempting then using the environment would be a great way to show how people would have to use there minds to overcome such a monstrous feat.

There is nothing like killing a giant flame breathing monster with a stick that it set a light itself, to show the concept of using a opponents strength against them.

With out the need to spoon feed the concepts to players, like the cliché idea of using mirrors to deflect attacks.

This is just a checkpoint system in disguise.

If you intend to use the separate space combat then a flee button will work, you can even make it harder to flee based on the players current health.

I'm honestly not seeing much difference between the effects of allowing players to flee and auto-fleeing instead of death: in both cases the player ends up in the same situation, back where they started, with the enemy still in place to be dealt with or avoided.

And is a checkpoint system a bad thing?

Come to think of it, when a player fails at a puzzle, they return to the world with the puzzle still unsolved and waiting, rather than being told that they're required to reload a saved game; why should combat be different?

If switching to a separate space is a large part of the game mechanic and style then keep it that way, that is if it ties into the plot, it adds atmosphere or if walking around is like walking on a map.

...

You can still get the look and feel of separate space combat by using a focus combat system.

For a focus system you navigate normally then when combat starts you blur out the back ground or, what I believe will work with your game, pull in the clipping range and fog.

Hmm... It's worth thinking about, at least.

(To be honest, it's been long enough since I settled on this design that I don't recall my original reasons for choosing this design, especially since I think that it came in part from other, previous ideas.)

Consider swapping separate space combat for open world combat, even Die by the sword used a open world.

Yes, and Die by the Sword was overwhelming.

True Die by the sword was hard. You could add a easy to use one button attack as a fallback, but keeping it simple would be best.

In fact, I'm not sure that a "one-button attack" would really work in this system--it would call for switching to something more like standard combat mechanics, a-la Dark Souls, I think. But otherwise yes, this is more or less what I'm getting at: I'd rather keep the environment simple than overwhelm players or sacrifice depth in the core combat. If I can introduce some degree of environment without incurring either of those, then it might still be worth considering, however.

I suggested animation because learning the principles is easy ...

It's not, I think, that I don't know those principles--I feel that I do, somewhat at least--but rather that I'm disinclined to exaggerate in this project as much as was done in games like Punch Out. I do agree that the animations--the animations for being hit especially--call for being more visible, but then these are prototype assets, not final.

As to different weapons, I'll probably not have the player change weapons more than once in a while (I do intend to have one plot-related acquisition of a magic weapon). As I see it, this is less a mechanic about picking the weapon for the job than about player skill with the combat mechanics. As for enemies, again, I think that I'm more inclined to place the variation into the enemies than into the weapons: the Black Knight has two downward strikes, one faster than the other, and has a shield that renders him effectively invulnerable unless the player moves around him (he's slower to turn when holding up his shield); the serpent guard is fast, but doesn't do much damage and has little health, and has a weakness against ripostes; the undead warrior never gets tired, so watch your own stamina--he'll punish you as soon as you slow down too much; etc.

The basic idea that I get from what I have seen and read, gives me the idea that you are tempting to capture the concept of man vs monster.

Hmm... To some degree, I suppose: I want combat to be dangerous, and most enemies or encounters to be at least somewhat individual; I don't want "trash mobs" that the player carves through and forgets.

The proximal inspiration, however, is that I want to create a flow similar to that of the old Fighting Fantasy game-books: you're exploring an ancient tomb (or dark castle, or broad desert, etc.). A dastardly puzzle bars your entry through a door; you solve it eventually and explore the room beyond: you find an interesting potion, and the wand that you were sent to retrieve. You turn to leave--only to find your way blocked by a snarling orcish captain! You must fight! -And so on.

Instead of using insane difficulty like Dark souls, your using the players limited amount of attacks and movement to show there limited strength and disposition.

Actually, the limited number of attacks is more a solution to an interface problem than anything else. In my previous prototype (which took a lot of inspiration from Die by the Sword) the player had much more flexibility in how they attacked. But, as mentioned above (and simplifying a bit for brevity's sake), I ran into a problem with the sword's response to impacts; my original solution involved automatically exiting the "attack state" on impact, but some players found this counter-intuitive, and I came to agree.

As a result, I went back and took inspiration instead from another of my major sources: the Quest for Glory series, or the first three games, at least. Indeed, if you try one of those games (there's a free VGA remake of Quest for Glory 2 here, and a free spiritual successor in Heroine's Quest here, I believe), you should see similarities between the combat systems. Here the player has a specific set of "moves", as does the enemy; the trick is to use cunning in which moves to use when, and to identify the enemy's attacks in time to defend against them, and to choose the correct defence for a given attack. There's a degree of tactical thought intended.

If this is what you are attempting then using the environment would be a great way to show how people would have to use there minds to overcome such a monstrous feat.

...

Hmm... That is true, admittedly.

New version! You should be able to download it via this link.

I've made several changes in this version, perhaps the most notable being that there are now three different enemies, of varying difficulty levels and with at least some variety of attacks:

[attachment=25671:fighter.png][attachment=25670:knight.png][attachment=25669:spectre.png]

An unskilled fighter A competent knight A deadly spectre

You should start facing the fighter; press 1, 2 and 3 to start combat against the fighter, knight and spectre respectively; press 4 to face a random foe picked from the three.

The fighter should be fairly easy to defeat once you're accustomed to the combat system. The knight should be a bit more challenging. The spectre is intended to be more or less boss-level.

The following are some of the other changes implemented:

• I've reworked stamina-usage a little, both in terms of its consumption and regeneration and in terms of its effects.
• I've changed how attacks work, and how defences counter them. This now allows for such things as unblockable (but dodgeable!) attacks, magical attacks, charged attacks and knockback.
• Further work on the AI, hopefully closing off some of the cheesier methods of defeating the AI opponents.
• Back-stepping has been reintroduced.
• Dodging now moves the character further per usage.

Known issues:

• The animations aren't wonderful, and can be a little buggy at times (the spectre seems to be particularly problematic); my apologies for this! :/
• Difficulty levels are still not implemented.

As usual, feedback is requested.