You shouldn''t have any such complex system--games today have too many controls as it is: a FPS needs one or at most, two weapons/devices, because that''s as many buttons as a standard PC mouse has. It could be argued that a wheelmouse allows controlling more items, but the problem with adding more weapons is that it becomes questionable which is the best for any situation- and then the game becomes one more of luck than strategy. All a "weapon" does in a computer game is serve as a test of hand-eye coordination, and the coordination is potentially the same no matter what the weapon you''re using is.
....
-Or maybe I''m wrong. But if so, then how many weapons is "enough"? How about thirty different weapons? Fifty? A hundred? What would a hundred different weapons do differently? "Arranged" smallest to largest, there probably wouldn''t be a lot of difference from one to the next, so a hundred wouldn''t serve much of any purpose. IF a game is lousy, ading more different weapons isn''t going to really help it much, if at all. And that''s my point: ideally, if you''re going to have different weapons (of any kind, including majic whatevers), they should be easy to control/use (so it''s best if there''s only two!) and each weapon should have one use it succeeds at, and everything else it fails at, or fails enough that it''s obvious the weapon is being used incorrectly.
~
Combat systems in FPS/RPGs
For FPS'', you''re absolutely right. The modern PC FPS player will be mad at you if you try to make them use any keys other than WASD+space regularly. Everything else that happens frequently should be on the mouse.
Things like crouching, weapon selection, and "Use Object" actions are what I would consider secondary actions -- these are all on the keyboard because they are actions that will not need to be used quite as often. Still, they are always easily within the players reach -- his/her palm need never leave the palmrest below WASD. Actually, some of these "secondary" actions are often available on the mouse as well (as in the case of weapon scrolling using the wheel on a modern mouse).
All "twitch" actions -- especially attack actions -- should be immediately accessible on the mouse with ONE CLICK -- no combos, no special moves -- ONE CLICK, ONE KILL (potentially). Hence the word "action" as I said before.
Brian Lacy
Smoking Monkey Studios
Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@smoking-monkey.org
"I create. Therefore I am."
Things like crouching, weapon selection, and "Use Object" actions are what I would consider secondary actions -- these are all on the keyboard because they are actions that will not need to be used quite as often. Still, they are always easily within the players reach -- his/her palm need never leave the palmrest below WASD. Actually, some of these "secondary" actions are often available on the mouse as well (as in the case of weapon scrolling using the wheel on a modern mouse).
All "twitch" actions -- especially attack actions -- should be immediately accessible on the mouse with ONE CLICK -- no combos, no special moves -- ONE CLICK, ONE KILL (potentially). Hence the word "action" as I said before.
Brian Lacy
Smoking Monkey Studios
Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@smoking-monkey.org
"I create. Therefore I am."
Go download the Arx Fatalis demo and you''ll see a system of ''symbol''-based spellcasting, where you have to trace ruins in the air with your mouse to empower yourself with various spells. Rather ingenious, but it can be a tad maddening. Typing combinations of words to cast spells is a completely ridiculous idea as far as I''m concerned. This is a concept that''s been raised at various times over the past year or so, and in my opinion is a huge digression from the current trend in control and interface design...
_________________________
The Idea Foundry
_________________________
The Idea Foundry
quote:Original post by irbrian
All "twitch" actions -- especially attack actions -- should be immediately accessible on the mouse with ONE CLICK -- no combos, no special moves -- ONE CLICK, ONE KILL (potentially). Hence the word "action" as I said before.
Exactly why I all but gave up on the system I described. While I do not there is a problem with combos for more potent attacks, things like blocking would be too difficult. Perhaps if it was not amadextrous, it would work.
I do not agree that there should be no combos or special moves. This severly limits what is possible. What if I want to do something besides shoot or swing? There are not a lot of buttons I can use.
quote:Original post by Lubb
How about thirty different weapons? Fifty? A hundred? What would a hundred different weapons do differently? "Arranged" smallest to largest, there probably wouldn''t be a lot of difference from one to the next, so a hundred wouldn''t serve much of any purpose. IF a game is lousy, ading more different weapons isn''t going to really help it much, if at all.
...
each weapon should have one use it succeeds at, and everything else it fails at, or fails enough that it''s obvious the weapon is being used incorrectly.
I totally agree with not having a lot of different weapons. The more weapons the less the differences and the useless decisions.
I do not think I agree that every weapon should have only one use. In the control scheme I mentioned, one of my goals was to have weapons that could be used in a variety of ways. If you have one sword of orc slaying and one sword of goblin slaying, and one kills orcs the best and the other kill goblins the best, you are eliminating choices that the player can make. Why not have one sword that does lots of damage in general, and is good at close ranges, and can do more damage versus trolls, and also can be use to block projectiles. And, also have a bow that leaves you defensless when its uses, but can hit from a very long range, does more damage versus bandits, but there arrows can be poisoned. This would make the choice more interesting. Where having specific weapons be ther best at specific things would effectively eliminate the choice and make it boring.
Mabye I misunderstand you, but do you see my point?
quote:Original post by DragonWolf
PS: PHRICTION if you ever finish that document I would luv to have a browse through it for ideas to steal if you don''t mind ^^
Sure.
And as for the issues you mention, I already relized those. The camera angles expecialy was something I could not think of how to implement. Having seperate control to move the camera would make it very conplicated I would think. The only thing I could think of was make movements very obvious. Like you can easily tell when you are being slashed at from the left because the enemy brings his arm far back. Not very clever, and Im not even sure it would work. As for the inventory, it isn''t as complicated as I make it sound. Quick-key assignments would be great however. I designed it in that way because another one of my goals was to have zero on screen interface (no stats, or bars or anything). It would all be accesable through (hopefuly) quickly accessed menus.
Sorry for the quotes being out of order
Phriction
quote:I do not think I agree that every weapon should have only one use. In the control scheme I mentioned, one of my goals was to have weapons that could be used in a variety of ways. ...... Mabye I misunderstand you, but do you see my point?
-No and no. No #1: You mentioned two fundamentally different examples right off: a sword that does lots of damage but only at short range, and a bow that does less damage but at farther ranges. ~ No #2: The problem with making all the weapons somewhat like each other is that you move towards the "100 different weapons" situation. It becomes less clear which is best for any situation, and it sounds like you''re adding control complexity just to make the game more challenging. And that''s the reason so many games are poor quality: instead of providing a challengine environment they complicate the controls, because complicating the controls is easier to do.
~
To many FPS/action/RPGs reley on "semi-realistic weapons"...thus you end up with hundreds of relitivly useless weapons, none really better then any others....but I assume this is due in no small part to the general misconception that quantity is better then quality of player choices/actions.
I think it is better to give players weapons that have specific functionality, in that they have a specific purpose, but a wide field of uses....and the most interesting of these are weapons that "change the rules of the game"...er...by useing them the situation changes.
An example is in the old NES game Metroid...players had a "ice" beam...that allowed them to "freeze" enemies and use them as "stepping stones" allowing players to reach new game areas.
here are four simple weapons that, I think, would work great for a multiplayer FPS:
1) basic laser machine gun...unlimited ammo...fires very rapidly but each shot does very little damage...when fired it forces the player to face in subtle random directions, makeing it hard to constantly hit far away targets, or nearby moveing ones....when hit...the blast causes a little bit of a "knock-back" effect...meening it pushes the character in the given direction.
2) big hammer...this does the most damage...but range is very limited, and it takes time to "charge up" the swing...but a good solid hit can dish out the damge...when the hammer is swung...and misses it''s target, it strikes the ground, knocking nearby characters away from the player slightly (but not causeing any damage)
3) grappleing hook...when fired player cannot move...the hook travels at a medium speed (about like a Quake rocket)...when it comes into contact with a wall/character (whatever it hits becomes imobile...er...characters can still turn in place and fire weapons, they just can''t move)...it rapidly pulls the player to it/them (pulls them much faster then it travels by itself)...when the player "lands" it dishes out damage to the attached surface...the further the player was pulled...the greater the damage....this allows the weapon to do near hammer type damage to far away characters.
4) the "freeze" yo-yo...this is like the grappleing hook above but range is limited to about 15-20 feet...it rapidly shoots out a yo-yo...which freezes whatever it makes contact with...it only freezes for a few seconds, and does 1 point of damage...
pretty simple and straitforward...each weapon can complement the other, with none being completely useless...and without any other "rules" the weapons lead themselves to teamplay as is
I think it is better to give players weapons that have specific functionality, in that they have a specific purpose, but a wide field of uses....and the most interesting of these are weapons that "change the rules of the game"...er...by useing them the situation changes.
An example is in the old NES game Metroid...players had a "ice" beam...that allowed them to "freeze" enemies and use them as "stepping stones" allowing players to reach new game areas.
here are four simple weapons that, I think, would work great for a multiplayer FPS:
1) basic laser machine gun...unlimited ammo...fires very rapidly but each shot does very little damage...when fired it forces the player to face in subtle random directions, makeing it hard to constantly hit far away targets, or nearby moveing ones....when hit...the blast causes a little bit of a "knock-back" effect...meening it pushes the character in the given direction.
2) big hammer...this does the most damage...but range is very limited, and it takes time to "charge up" the swing...but a good solid hit can dish out the damge...when the hammer is swung...and misses it''s target, it strikes the ground, knocking nearby characters away from the player slightly (but not causeing any damage)
3) grappleing hook...when fired player cannot move...the hook travels at a medium speed (about like a Quake rocket)...when it comes into contact with a wall/character (whatever it hits becomes imobile...er...characters can still turn in place and fire weapons, they just can''t move)...it rapidly pulls the player to it/them (pulls them much faster then it travels by itself)...when the player "lands" it dishes out damage to the attached surface...the further the player was pulled...the greater the damage....this allows the weapon to do near hammer type damage to far away characters.
4) the "freeze" yo-yo...this is like the grappleing hook above but range is limited to about 15-20 feet...it rapidly shoots out a yo-yo...which freezes whatever it makes contact with...it only freezes for a few seconds, and does 1 point of damage...
pretty simple and straitforward...each weapon can complement the other, with none being completely useless...and without any other "rules" the weapons lead themselves to teamplay as is
I was talking about two weapons. It would be a different situation if yhou had a hundred different weapons that all did diverse things. That would cause confusion because of too many choices. The examples I provided were admitantly poor.
Are you saying something more like a sword that only damages orcs, and one that only damages trolls? Clarify what you mean by "one use it succeeds at, and everything else it fails at".
I am not talking about having dozens of weapons. I am saying something like one sword, one bow, one staff. Not fifty swords with slight variations. So their purpose is obvious (the sword is close combat, the bow is long range combat, etc) but what they do is not bound to one thing (like slaying orcs). So you can shoot the rope that suspends the anvil over the trolls head, to kill him. Or you can hack the chains to release the cyclops. Regardless of my examples, my goal is not to make a weapons with a bunch of tiny little quirks, but rather weapons that reacte with things in a obvious ways. And, to combine those obvious reactions with obvious reactions in the magic system to create more complex reactions. For example: poison magic poisons creatures that are not immune to it, and arrows pierce things from distances, so combining poison magic and arrows, the player can poison a creature from a long distance.
There is no added complexity for the purpose of increased difficulty in normal fighting. But, chalenging moves will yield more rewarding attacks. Such as extreme sports games. On Tony Hawk if you do a 720 method, you get more points than doing a kick-flip, because it is more challenging. They could have assigned 720 method to one button, but that would reduce the verstility of the system 9reducing the amount of actions you can do), and remove a challenge. So the the purpose of my system is to provide versatility (allowing a large amount of actions) and reward the more difficult actions with higher damage, or demobalizing, or something. It differs from Tony Hawk in that the complexity is the side effect of the versatility, and there would be no reason to execute the more difficult actions if there were no reward.
So a large amount of moves that differ in their effect adds a lot of interesting choices in combat. I can play dfensively by blocking until I see an opening, or I can play agressive and try to kill everyone before I take to much damage. Or try to execute a difficult move and behead the guy or play it safe and just jab at him. Or I can try a difficult spin attack to damage several enemies, or I can try a difficult bash attack to completely destroy one enemy.
Phriction
EDIT:
The post by MSW was not here until I finished writting this, but that is what I am trying to say (along with other things). Many purposes, but it only really "does" one thing. Bravo on saying that so much clearer than I could.
[edited by - phriction on October 8, 2002 5:33:38 PM]
Are you saying something more like a sword that only damages orcs, and one that only damages trolls? Clarify what you mean by "one use it succeeds at, and everything else it fails at".
I am not talking about having dozens of weapons. I am saying something like one sword, one bow, one staff. Not fifty swords with slight variations. So their purpose is obvious (the sword is close combat, the bow is long range combat, etc) but what they do is not bound to one thing (like slaying orcs). So you can shoot the rope that suspends the anvil over the trolls head, to kill him. Or you can hack the chains to release the cyclops. Regardless of my examples, my goal is not to make a weapons with a bunch of tiny little quirks, but rather weapons that reacte with things in a obvious ways. And, to combine those obvious reactions with obvious reactions in the magic system to create more complex reactions. For example: poison magic poisons creatures that are not immune to it, and arrows pierce things from distances, so combining poison magic and arrows, the player can poison a creature from a long distance.
There is no added complexity for the purpose of increased difficulty in normal fighting. But, chalenging moves will yield more rewarding attacks. Such as extreme sports games. On Tony Hawk if you do a 720 method, you get more points than doing a kick-flip, because it is more challenging. They could have assigned 720 method to one button, but that would reduce the verstility of the system 9reducing the amount of actions you can do), and remove a challenge. So the the purpose of my system is to provide versatility (allowing a large amount of actions) and reward the more difficult actions with higher damage, or demobalizing, or something. It differs from Tony Hawk in that the complexity is the side effect of the versatility, and there would be no reason to execute the more difficult actions if there were no reward.
So a large amount of moves that differ in their effect adds a lot of interesting choices in combat. I can play dfensively by blocking until I see an opening, or I can play agressive and try to kill everyone before I take to much damage. Or try to execute a difficult move and behead the guy or play it safe and just jab at him. Or I can try a difficult spin attack to damage several enemies, or I can try a difficult bash attack to completely destroy one enemy.
Phriction
EDIT:
The post by MSW was not here until I finished writting this, but that is what I am trying to say (along with other things). Many purposes, but it only really "does" one thing. Bravo on saying that so much clearer than I could.
[edited by - phriction on October 8, 2002 5:33:38 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
