I think the real reason that RPG combat systems are so ''bland'' is due primarily due the fact (as it was mentioned earlier) that there is only 2 options in a fight... Kill or be killed... You can throw in all these different ''techniques'' / ''maneuvers'' / ''skills'' or what ever you want to call them, but you are still down to the same senario... Kill or be killed... Those are the only real options for combat resolution.
RPGs are about more than just killing, it is about playing a character... But most games that call themselves RPGs are more like FPSs with character stats instead of player stats and become kill fests. What about mentally breaking an opponent (both NPC and PC?), forcing those mental and social stats to actually mean something? Providing non combat experience?
I''ve noticed a small improvement on this in some of the MMORPGs, but it seems for every step foward, the industry as a whole takes two steps back. Part of this is due to limited AI, but I think more of it is due to a true lack of major interest in that kind of game... It seems to be a small market that is interested in a true RPG and the size of the market doesn''t justify the time and money it would take to develop that kind of system.
Why are RPG combat systems so boring?
Check out Planetside (SOE, http://planetside.station.sony.com). They claim to be RPG & FPS. Unfortunately, purists at either extreme tend to hate the game.
Compelling engine based combat lends itself to human skill/action and by definition takes you a bit further away from the role playing element (Anon Mike nailed it above).
I would think the purest role playing games require you to just make decisions to support the role and that ultimately the system plays the game for you. Some might call it a simulation though.
Diablo for example is an action game with RPG elements. Albeit horribly boring and redudant action. (Somebody noted click-fest above).
Personlly, the most "RPG" accurate game I''ve played, is a MUD named Realms of the Dragon. Granted, you could stick to bland npc killing, but there were unique opportunities in quests and a buttload of fun to be had in player vs player battles that typically revolved around in-game politics and racial hatred. That is what "role playing" is all about. Miss that game
--Eric
Compelling engine based combat lends itself to human skill/action and by definition takes you a bit further away from the role playing element (Anon Mike nailed it above).
I would think the purest role playing games require you to just make decisions to support the role and that ultimately the system plays the game for you. Some might call it a simulation though.
Diablo for example is an action game with RPG elements. Albeit horribly boring and redudant action. (Somebody noted click-fest above).
Personlly, the most "RPG" accurate game I''ve played, is a MUD named Realms of the Dragon. Granted, you could stick to bland npc killing, but there were unique opportunities in quests and a buttload of fun to be had in player vs player battles that typically revolved around in-game politics and racial hatred. That is what "role playing" is all about. Miss that game
--Eric
Let''s see if I can give you some more ideas-- I don''t know, these guys are doing pretty well referencing other games, but I''m sure you''d like something a bit more original.
Firstly, adding an RTS element to RPG battle systems is always a safe bet. If you can control the entire party at once using a simple interface, you''d have quite an invention. Commands wouldn''t have to do so much with picking a spell os much, but giving each hero AI as to the best possible action to take would make things more interesting. At that point you can have the player devise a "battle plan" using very general commands, and then switch to precise actions when needed. You can add different formations to the team, have the players attack with different things in mind(I didn''t explain that well, so let me add the Runescape allows the option to attack with a boost to Accuracy, Defense, etc.).
Another idea is that, instead of rolling dice, why don''t you add a rock-paper-scissors element to the attacks? For example, Fire beats Water, Water beats Earth, Earth beats Fire.
And a few more random ideas:
Basing the battles in a sort of playing field mixes things up a bit. Have mages stand back and cast support magic, have your fighters move right in there, pincer attack the enemy so it has to use valuable time turning around to attack each person, etc.
Have timing affect a few properties. In Final Fantasy X-2, if you unleash attacks in quick succession, damage accumulates by a percentage. Timing a powerful attack to come right after a barrage by the other characters makes it absolutely devastating. Not that you should use that as a template, but you can definitely play with the effects of timing in your battle engine. For example, if a few characters'' turns come up at the same time, you have a .5-second window to select a powerful attack.
Best of luck with your project.
B. Bradley: The number 2 mind
www.numbermind.com(coming soon)
Firstly, adding an RTS element to RPG battle systems is always a safe bet. If you can control the entire party at once using a simple interface, you''d have quite an invention. Commands wouldn''t have to do so much with picking a spell os much, but giving each hero AI as to the best possible action to take would make things more interesting. At that point you can have the player devise a "battle plan" using very general commands, and then switch to precise actions when needed. You can add different formations to the team, have the players attack with different things in mind(I didn''t explain that well, so let me add the Runescape allows the option to attack with a boost to Accuracy, Defense, etc.).
Another idea is that, instead of rolling dice, why don''t you add a rock-paper-scissors element to the attacks? For example, Fire beats Water, Water beats Earth, Earth beats Fire.
And a few more random ideas:
Basing the battles in a sort of playing field mixes things up a bit. Have mages stand back and cast support magic, have your fighters move right in there, pincer attack the enemy so it has to use valuable time turning around to attack each person, etc.
Have timing affect a few properties. In Final Fantasy X-2, if you unleash attacks in quick succession, damage accumulates by a percentage. Timing a powerful attack to come right after a barrage by the other characters makes it absolutely devastating. Not that you should use that as a template, but you can definitely play with the effects of timing in your battle engine. For example, if a few characters'' turns come up at the same time, you have a .5-second window to select a powerful attack.
Best of luck with your project.
B. Bradley: The number 2 mind
www.numbermind.com(coming soon)
Here''s my 2 cents
I think the next step for RPG is the marriage of a fighting system like Soul Caliber 2 with a game like Everquest.
Its obvious that its the next step. The question is who will do it balanced and well.
Its similar to the situation 8 or 9 years ago when I was playing MUDS. Everyone knew that adding graphics to it was the next big thing. The question was who would do it well and who would do it first
The formula is pretty clear
The content and difficulty of Everquest + the fighting system of soul caliber 2 + mix in the skill system of the new D2 1.10 and viola the next Generation of MMPORG is born.
The question now is who will do it first in a balanced and well polished form.
By the way does anyone remember the name of the MUD everquest was based upon. And yes it was a single MUD I remember playing it. It was star... something I think.
I think the next step for RPG is the marriage of a fighting system like Soul Caliber 2 with a game like Everquest.
Its obvious that its the next step. The question is who will do it balanced and well.
Its similar to the situation 8 or 9 years ago when I was playing MUDS. Everyone knew that adding graphics to it was the next big thing. The question was who would do it well and who would do it first
The formula is pretty clear
The content and difficulty of Everquest + the fighting system of soul caliber 2 + mix in the skill system of the new D2 1.10 and viola the next Generation of MMPORG is born.
The question now is who will do it first in a balanced and well polished form.
By the way does anyone remember the name of the MUD everquest was based upon. And yes it was a single MUD I remember playing it. It was star... something I think.
Who says fighting games are future of RPGS? I sure don't think so. There was one made years ago for the psx and it wasn't that great. Mixing an RPG and a fighting game is only going to weaken the rpg. Altough I would like to see more rpg elements introduced into Fighting games. I don't know if anyone else played the dragon ball Z tournment game for PS2. But had a feature that allowed you to buy moves and accessories with prize money in order to customize your favorite fighter. Altough the game itself was rather lacking and had the worse fighting system I have seen, but sadly that pretty much the norm for dragonball z games.
-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document
[edited by - TechnoGoth on December 9, 2003 12:38:10 PM]
-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document
[edited by - TechnoGoth on December 9, 2003 12:38:10 PM]
I think that a full-on tournament fighter combat engine would absolutely destroy an RPG. I think that it would annihilate the role of character stats in combat. Rather than using huge amounts of kung-fu and crazy Matrix-style fighting, I cast my vote for more strategy.
Make it so that a weaker character can beat a stronger one by having an advantageous position, or using concealment and stealth well. In Fallout, if I could have grabbed some cover and sliced the pie around corners and used objects as rests to steady my aim, I''d have had a much easier time of most of those fights. So get your character stats on, but let the player issue more sophisticated commands. The engines needed are already around. Metal Gear, Kill.Switch, and even True Crime: Streets of LA and Mark of Kri already have the basic commands for shimmying along walls and peeking around corners.
Perhaps Splinter Cell, lamentable game that it is, is the best example of this. You''re virtually useless in straight-up combat against more than one baddy, so you have to run around and hide from them until an opportunity presents itself to give them the works from behind. If necessary, you can totally bypass the threat and move on. An interesting feature of Splinter Cell is that some tricks only work on certain difficulty levels. For instance, when you''re hiding in a shadow, an enemy on Normal won''t see you, but on higher difficulties, he''s more likely to. Same thing with running or climbing, and the sound you make.
In a 3D interpretation of Fallout, the success of these moves would be influenced, not by the difficulty level, but by your character''s skill level. A 20% sneak skill would make you loud and clumsy, but at 135, you''d be a ghost. Equipment would modify this, of course, but the idea is there. In MMO contexts, you could have things like sound and sight represented as they are in Manhunt (another lousy game). In manhunt, you have a "radar" in the corner of the screen, which shows the location of enemies. But they only appear on the radar when they''re either visible or making noise (footsteps, speech, whistling, etc.). In an MMO, you could have your sensory range shown like that, and sounds, weird movements, or psychic hunches could be shown on the "radar".
So, I have two suggestions: First, take into account cover and concealment in combat. I don''t know how systems do it now, but if only 5% of my body would be visible around a corner or behind a forklift, then everyone shooting at me should take a 95% hit to their accuracy. Shooting through a crevice or from behind cover, I would have all the accuracy to which I am entitled.
Second: Make skills other than chopping salient in-game. Sneaking, stealing, and perception should be factored into the gameplay experience, not just the to-hit formula.
Make it so that a weaker character can beat a stronger one by having an advantageous position, or using concealment and stealth well. In Fallout, if I could have grabbed some cover and sliced the pie around corners and used objects as rests to steady my aim, I''d have had a much easier time of most of those fights. So get your character stats on, but let the player issue more sophisticated commands. The engines needed are already around. Metal Gear, Kill.Switch, and even True Crime: Streets of LA and Mark of Kri already have the basic commands for shimmying along walls and peeking around corners.
Perhaps Splinter Cell, lamentable game that it is, is the best example of this. You''re virtually useless in straight-up combat against more than one baddy, so you have to run around and hide from them until an opportunity presents itself to give them the works from behind. If necessary, you can totally bypass the threat and move on. An interesting feature of Splinter Cell is that some tricks only work on certain difficulty levels. For instance, when you''re hiding in a shadow, an enemy on Normal won''t see you, but on higher difficulties, he''s more likely to. Same thing with running or climbing, and the sound you make.
In a 3D interpretation of Fallout, the success of these moves would be influenced, not by the difficulty level, but by your character''s skill level. A 20% sneak skill would make you loud and clumsy, but at 135, you''d be a ghost. Equipment would modify this, of course, but the idea is there. In MMO contexts, you could have things like sound and sight represented as they are in Manhunt (another lousy game). In manhunt, you have a "radar" in the corner of the screen, which shows the location of enemies. But they only appear on the radar when they''re either visible or making noise (footsteps, speech, whistling, etc.). In an MMO, you could have your sensory range shown like that, and sounds, weird movements, or psychic hunches could be shown on the "radar".
So, I have two suggestions: First, take into account cover and concealment in combat. I don''t know how systems do it now, but if only 5% of my body would be visible around a corner or behind a forklift, then everyone shooting at me should take a 95% hit to their accuracy. Shooting through a crevice or from behind cover, I would have all the accuracy to which I am entitled.
Second: Make skills other than chopping salient in-game. Sneaking, stealing, and perception should be factored into the gameplay experience, not just the to-hit formula.
The Problems with Modern Computerized RPG''s and NuHuGs (Number-Humper Games: Where you stroke the numbers until they get bigger) are simply explained with the history of RPG''s and their digitized cousins.
In the Beginning
Before we started playing our Nethack clones, most people did their dungeon crawling via pen&paper. There was no such thing as realtime combat then because the poor game master would be overwhelmed by the number-crunching: Combat encounters were organized into turns for logistical reasons. Insofar as table-top games is concerned, this was a good move.
Introducing the 1 and 0
The dice-tossing RPG''s had high concentration of general-purpose nerd in it. Nerds liked nerdy toys -- like computers. It was only natural evolution that a nerd try to hybridize his two favorite passtimes: D&D and his personal computer (or Apple/Commodore/whatever). The translations of the RPG from pencil form to 5.25" Floppy form were literal (straight-across): The hardware limitations and attention span of the developer meant that very little innovation happened. In the end, geek/nerd/dweeb-folk had a version of D&D that they could play without having to schedule with other humans. Minimal human interaction is a good thing for these people.
The Last Fantasy and Hometendo Entertainment
Of course, when business men get their hands on this happy little tidbit of gamer subculture, they''re going to clone it, slap-on prettier sprites, and call it profit. Thus began the production of every Squaresoft game ever made (any one of which is almost identical to another). The formula for the CRPG had emerged into the professional game development world.
Cutting, Bleeding, Buzzwordy-Edge
As things usually go with us Yankees, we had to throw a newfangled edge into stuff. Game companies, in a desperate attempt to draw market attention to themselves, decided to tinker around (ever-so-slightly) with ways they could make their Final Fantasy clone sell as well as (if not better than) the competition''s. They think things like: "If Quake sold so many millions and Everquest sold so many millions, all I gotta do is splice the two and I''ll sell as much as both of them combined!" Often times, the short attention span of modern gamers (a group that does not necessarily include the 70''s/80''s Nerd stereotype anymore) will find itself feeling stirr-crazy when couped up in a turn-based combat system. So, cheap attempts at real-time RPG combat have been made.
Randomly Shooting in the Dark
I, myself, am promoting of the Dawrin-Theory approach: Combine two parent games to make a single, beefier game. The problem is that people are breeding the wrong pairs of games. Blizzard came close with Warcraft 3 but a proper design element is missing. This may turn out to be a quest for the Holy Grail, of sorts. Game design splicing is certainly lest time-consuming than trying to develop a game from the ground-up. This isn''t to say that ground-up design is a bad idea but I don''t recommend it for the casual game designer/developers.
It''s Not Design, It''s Delivery (or is it Digiorno?)
Many of the elements that make any RPG''s combat entertaining hive little to do with the way the combat is designed and more to do with the actual delivery. Powerful visuals can make a game more entertaining no matter how weak/spiffy the design is. Many RPG''s make the mistake of clunky/loose visual connections between attacks and death. Adequately illustrating "This Blow Killed Him" requires a bit more attention to detail than most people are willing to invest in the game: Simply playing the "he swings his sword" animation and "the monster dies" animation in mechanical succession.
Little details like that prove the difference between sincere craftsmanship and factory assembly lines. Everyone wants a mastercraft game.
- = - = - = - = -
Good is the enemy of excellence.
In the Beginning
Before we started playing our Nethack clones, most people did their dungeon crawling via pen&paper. There was no such thing as realtime combat then because the poor game master would be overwhelmed by the number-crunching: Combat encounters were organized into turns for logistical reasons. Insofar as table-top games is concerned, this was a good move.
Introducing the 1 and 0
The dice-tossing RPG''s had high concentration of general-purpose nerd in it. Nerds liked nerdy toys -- like computers. It was only natural evolution that a nerd try to hybridize his two favorite passtimes: D&D and his personal computer (or Apple/Commodore/whatever). The translations of the RPG from pencil form to 5.25" Floppy form were literal (straight-across): The hardware limitations and attention span of the developer meant that very little innovation happened. In the end, geek/nerd/dweeb-folk had a version of D&D that they could play without having to schedule with other humans. Minimal human interaction is a good thing for these people.
The Last Fantasy and Hometendo Entertainment
Of course, when business men get their hands on this happy little tidbit of gamer subculture, they''re going to clone it, slap-on prettier sprites, and call it profit. Thus began the production of every Squaresoft game ever made (any one of which is almost identical to another). The formula for the CRPG had emerged into the professional game development world.
Cutting, Bleeding, Buzzwordy-Edge
As things usually go with us Yankees, we had to throw a newfangled edge into stuff. Game companies, in a desperate attempt to draw market attention to themselves, decided to tinker around (ever-so-slightly) with ways they could make their Final Fantasy clone sell as well as (if not better than) the competition''s. They think things like: "If Quake sold so many millions and Everquest sold so many millions, all I gotta do is splice the two and I''ll sell as much as both of them combined!" Often times, the short attention span of modern gamers (a group that does not necessarily include the 70''s/80''s Nerd stereotype anymore) will find itself feeling stirr-crazy when couped up in a turn-based combat system. So, cheap attempts at real-time RPG combat have been made.
Randomly Shooting in the Dark
I, myself, am promoting of the Dawrin-Theory approach: Combine two parent games to make a single, beefier game. The problem is that people are breeding the wrong pairs of games. Blizzard came close with Warcraft 3 but a proper design element is missing. This may turn out to be a quest for the Holy Grail, of sorts. Game design splicing is certainly lest time-consuming than trying to develop a game from the ground-up. This isn''t to say that ground-up design is a bad idea but I don''t recommend it for the casual game designer/developers.
It''s Not Design, It''s Delivery (or is it Digiorno?)
Many of the elements that make any RPG''s combat entertaining hive little to do with the way the combat is designed and more to do with the actual delivery. Powerful visuals can make a game more entertaining no matter how weak/spiffy the design is. Many RPG''s make the mistake of clunky/loose visual connections between attacks and death. Adequately illustrating "This Blow Killed Him" requires a bit more attention to detail than most people are willing to invest in the game: Simply playing the "he swings his sword" animation and "the monster dies" animation in mechanical succession.
Little details like that prove the difference between sincere craftsmanship and factory assembly lines. Everyone wants a mastercraft game.
- = - = - = - = -
Good is the enemy of excellence.
who says dice-based systems are boring?
anyone play Dungeon Siege? There is nary a mouse click (compared to Diablo1/2), but I''d have to say that its at LEAST as fun! When the battles are fun to watch, its not boring.
I think systems that leave the fighting up to the avatar can be just as entertaining as RPG''s that are really ACTION games with stats attached.
Part of what needs to be done to make this better, is to make the Avatar''s actions more fun to watch! When my little level 9 dwarf fighter is up against a dragon, I dont want to see him walk up and start hitting Smog on the knee with his whappy stick. I want to see him climb up the dragons back and shove a xplody potion down the wyrm''s throat!
If we can make the Avatars'' actions more fun to watch, dice-based systems will never be boring. In fact, we can arrange the system to have cooler animations than any action-based RPG battle could have-- so it could actually cooler than any typical button masher.
anyone play Dungeon Siege? There is nary a mouse click (compared to Diablo1/2), but I''d have to say that its at LEAST as fun! When the battles are fun to watch, its not boring.
I think systems that leave the fighting up to the avatar can be just as entertaining as RPG''s that are really ACTION games with stats attached.
Part of what needs to be done to make this better, is to make the Avatar''s actions more fun to watch! When my little level 9 dwarf fighter is up against a dragon, I dont want to see him walk up and start hitting Smog on the knee with his whappy stick. I want to see him climb up the dragons back and shove a xplody potion down the wyrm''s throat!
If we can make the Avatars'' actions more fun to watch, dice-based systems will never be boring. In fact, we can arrange the system to have cooler animations than any action-based RPG battle could have-- so it could actually cooler than any typical button masher.
quote: who says dice-based systems are boring?
They''re not boring as much as they lack a certain intensity that people usually associated with combat.
- = - = - = - = -
Good is the enemy of excellence.
I'm with keless on this one. I think that avatar fighting is the way to go. It isn't a replacement for existing systems, but I think it's a good frontier that deserves some work. After all, it's the hybrid offspring (read: bastard child) of RPGs and Sim games. Perfect.
Ogre Battle had it years ago: The squads, trained, equipped and organized by the player, battle autonomously, bringing to bear their skills and powers in brief encounters. Variables for morale, team solidarity and partner familiarity were factored in. The game was a little weak, but it had a really neat feature. It's even better in Ogre Battle 64, but that game was also a little weak. The best part was the (limited) player interaction: you could give them simple directives, like "target leader" or "attack weakest enemy", and their decisions would be slightly modified by that.
Majesty had a neat take on it. AI NPCs populated your Sim Kingdom. Some were merchants or tax collectors, others were guards or farmers, but the most important ones were heroes. Different classes, etc. were available, and the heroes levelled properly, but they were autonomous. They'd wander around farming XP or buying new gear or getting their swords enchanted, and you had little to say about it. You could entice them with bounties on exploration or monster-slaying, but they were free to do as their alignment and levels inclined them to do. minotaurs could be burning your marketplace, and all your soldiers would be getting drunk or sleeping.
I think that the Ogre Battle system of "coaching" is a good idea. maybe some more sophisticated commands, like those found in Roque Spear and the like, would be more effective. Give them objectives and orders, like "Archers, keep an eye on that wizard and thwok him if he starts mumbling" or "Knight, keep that barbarian busy, and kill him if you can" or "Cleric, do your best to keep the knight at 100% combat effective status, even if it means letting someone else bleed for a while."
Such sophisticated commands might require a sort of pseudo-turn-based system, but would result in great variety and very good hand-to-hand. A "round" of combat could be more than each guy attacking and blocking once. It could be a fairly intense encounter, with numerous attacks and combos used, and several minor injuries (or major ones) sustained before the next "round" began.
EDIT: Besides, this is a way to make video game fight sequences look like The Matrix. No human player could do that with just a controller unless it was some kind of tournament fighter, and even then it's tough. Let the avatars apply more sophisticated pugilism, and you'll have a deeper, more satisfying combat event.
[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on December 10, 2003 3:58:55 PM]
Ogre Battle had it years ago: The squads, trained, equipped and organized by the player, battle autonomously, bringing to bear their skills and powers in brief encounters. Variables for morale, team solidarity and partner familiarity were factored in. The game was a little weak, but it had a really neat feature. It's even better in Ogre Battle 64, but that game was also a little weak. The best part was the (limited) player interaction: you could give them simple directives, like "target leader" or "attack weakest enemy", and their decisions would be slightly modified by that.
Majesty had a neat take on it. AI NPCs populated your Sim Kingdom. Some were merchants or tax collectors, others were guards or farmers, but the most important ones were heroes. Different classes, etc. were available, and the heroes levelled properly, but they were autonomous. They'd wander around farming XP or buying new gear or getting their swords enchanted, and you had little to say about it. You could entice them with bounties on exploration or monster-slaying, but they were free to do as their alignment and levels inclined them to do. minotaurs could be burning your marketplace, and all your soldiers would be getting drunk or sleeping.
I think that the Ogre Battle system of "coaching" is a good idea. maybe some more sophisticated commands, like those found in Roque Spear and the like, would be more effective. Give them objectives and orders, like "Archers, keep an eye on that wizard and thwok him if he starts mumbling" or "Knight, keep that barbarian busy, and kill him if you can" or "Cleric, do your best to keep the knight at 100% combat effective status, even if it means letting someone else bleed for a while."
Such sophisticated commands might require a sort of pseudo-turn-based system, but would result in great variety and very good hand-to-hand. A "round" of combat could be more than each guy attacking and blocking once. It could be a fairly intense encounter, with numerous attacks and combos used, and several minor injuries (or major ones) sustained before the next "round" began.
EDIT: Besides, this is a way to make video game fight sequences look like The Matrix. No human player could do that with just a controller unless it was some kind of tournament fighter, and even then it's tough. Let the avatars apply more sophisticated pugilism, and you'll have a deeper, more satisfying combat event.
[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on December 10, 2003 3:58:55 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
