Quote:Original post by lonesock
Other than better gadgets, and auto-aiming (which I really don't like, personally), I can't think of any mechanisims for doing character skills in FPS games. Any suggestions?

One word: Daikatana!

Quote:Original post by thedevdan
Yes, it helps consumers find games that they like and yes, if they like one CRPG they wil probably like another. However, my point was that when designing a game, you shouldn't say, "well, this would be fun, but it doesn't fit in with what is expected of x genre, so we better not add it". That kills creativity and innovation.

No, developers don't have to stick to a rigid definition of a genre, but if they do add features from other game types they should make that clear in the game description. CRPG players often have a different idea of what is fun than FPS players, and that can be a problem if a hybrid is created without making that clear.

If you were creating a CRPG/FPS hybrid, then it is fairly obvious that the skill control method would contain aspects from both genres.

Quote:But why does it matter? Take this: in a FPS, you hit a button to jump. Hitting a button does not correspond to the actual action of jumping. And it doesn't need to. How you control in-game actions does not have to be accurate to the real world (why would it?), but it does have to be intuitive (meaning that once you have learned the controls, they should feel natural). A single button press for a jump is intuitive, as is a single button for a sword slash or a combination of the two for a jump-slash. None of those are accurate, but all of them are intuitive. And that isn't a bad thing.

Pressing a key is logically related to the act of pushing a button or key. The action of moving your finger/thumb up and down causes the character to jump up and down. This applies to most movement control schemes. [smile]

Jumping is a bad example though, because it is a very simple action that almost everyone understands as they can do it in real life. Pressing a key to jump also does not give you the control you seemed to be asking for. You're either jumping or not jumping.

I suppose you could set the power of the jump by holding the key down longer and then having the character jump when you release it, but that seems more than a little slow and clumsy to me.

The sword fighting example probably illustrates the differences better. Without moving, there are 3 basic attack methods for a sword: chop, slash and thrust. In an action game you might have 3 separate keys, or 3 different mouse movements that activate them. In a CRPG, one key or button would do the trick, as the character could decide the best attack to use.

Aiming the weapon is also more of an issue in an action game, as hits and misses are more dependant on the player's actions rather than the abilities of the character.

If the combat is in real time, timing becomes an issue.

In summary, in an action game sword fighting might require the player to aim carefully, then implement a specific attack at the right moment. In a turn based CRPG, the player may only need to press a single attack key when it's their turn.

This is fine if sword fighting is the only skill you have to worry about, but giving the same amount of control for dozens of skills would make it more complex than most flight simulators.

Quote:If you have 50 or more distinct ablities (it is important to define "destinct"... I have yet to see a game that truly has that many distinct abilities), it does get harder (especially with a controller) to pull it off in real-time. But it isn't impossible. You could make "families" of abilities (fire-magic, water-magic, light-physical, strong-phyiscal, etc), and put each ability in an appropriate family. Then, you could assign button presses for each ability in a family, and just cycle through the families with one of the control sticks. You could even let the user create the families. It is unlikely that more than 2 or 3 familes would be used often, so it really wouldn't be much of a problem. That is only one solution. Games like Metriod Prime have others. A common one is to assign by menu abililties, which are then used in real time.

However, since that is less intuitive, most real time games aren't set up around that sort of an ability system. They'll have less abilities (and/or make it so you rarely need to use many at a time, like Zelda).

However, if you are trying to cater to an audience that likes turn based games with lots of abilities, then obviously you should make just that. Just realize that's the reason you are doing so, and not because it impossible otherwise.

Daggerfall has approximately 50 distinct skills available. By distinct I mean that they are advanced independantly of each other through different actions, rather than their use being controlled directly (some are used automatically in specific situations, such as swimming).

Most real time CRPGs allow you to set a limited number of hot keys for spells and the like, but changing your weapon usually requires bringing up the inventory screen and equipping it.

The method still doesn't shift the skill from being character based to player based though, as it only allows you to decide what to do and when to do it, not how to do it.

Adding additional control over spell casting (for example) so that the player could decide what incantations to say, what hand gestures to make etc. so they could control the size and power of a fireball would do that, but it would add to the complexity and make real time combat even more difficult.

Imagine adding the same amount of flexibility as discussed in the sword fighting example to every usable skill.

Would it be possible? Yes, probably, with enough effort. But does that mean it should be done, or that a large number of people would enjoy it? Okay, so there are a number of complex flight simulators produced every year, but the most complicated ones with the highest level of control tend not to include combat options, as the player already has enough to worry about.

Quote:That is just cheap. [wink] I gave the one's I did because you gave really lame examples, too. But that last one you gave is really pushing it. Why should recovering from being attacked by a weapon take longer than attacking with it? [smile]

Recovering from being attacked doesn't necessarily take longer than attacking with one. The point is that every action and reaction takes a certain length of time, because you're trying to represent "slices" of real time.

For example, raising a two-handed sword might take 5 seconds, swinging at an opponent might take another 5, regaining your balance and getting ready to parry/block might take another 5 seconds. If "turns" are 5 seconds long, you can only do one of those things per turn, after which your opponent(s) and/or other members of your party take their turns. When everyone has taken their turn(s), a new "round" is started.

Some characters are allowed to take more than one turn per round, based on speed, agility, what they're last action was etc. Some actions also take more than one turn to complete.

The definition of what constitutes a turn and how long a particular action takes varies according to which rules system you're using, but that's the basic concept behind most of them.

Unless you've read a dungeon master's guide, most of it isn't very intuitive, but similar systems have been in use for about 20 years, so most of the wrinkles have been ironed out. There is usually a good reason behind every rule in a role-playing game, even if it isn't always obvious to the players.

Quote:Is hitting a button on the controller to initiate a sword-slash any different that hitting a button on a user interface to iniate a sword slash? Only in that one is real time, and one isn't.

CRPGs don't have to be turn based. I was merely saying that using a single command to initiate a sword attack is simpler and easier than controlling the particular method of attack used and directing the aim specifically. i.e. choosing "attack" rather than "chop", "slash" or "thrust" with the crosshairs in a particular location.

Quote:Most CRPGs have walking in towns in real time. When you walk, do your feet move 5 times as fast? No. Just because days are shorter doesn't mean you have to move any faster.

Of course, I could have just said "but having time go that fast isn't realistic in the first place!" [grin]

Actually, most 3D games scale movement so that it is slightly faster than the real time equivalent. If you create a 3D world where the relative scale of all the objects is 100% accurate and set time to pass as it does in our world, the movement speed seems too slow.

If movement rate wasn't increased along with the passage of time in a gaming environment, then the characters would take far too long to get anywhere.

Quote:Yes, you could make smarter actions. But having it real-time makes it so you have to think fast, which isn't inherintly worse that having to think well. I like the latter in games, you prefer the former. Note how again I could have used the realistic card.

The realistic card wouldn't have worked, as game mechanics limit the amount of realism that can be included.

Even if time passes at the same rate in the game world as it does in ours, the player is still at a disadvantage compared to if (s)he were really in that situation. Unless you have a very large monitor and sit with your face 6 inches away from it, your field of view is much more restricted and/or objects are smaller.

Initiating any action takes longer than normal, as if you were really there you would be less of a delay between your brain issuing the command and your body carrying it out. Even if your finger is already on the right key/button, there's still an additional delay after you've completed the action of pressing it and the game character starting the associated action on the screen.

I really can't see why you would want to add the additional complexity of having finer control of every skill in a real-time environment. I don't dislike real-time action games, but for me part of their appeal is that they are simple. Quick thinking and fast actions are easier if there are fewer available options.

Quote:Having a smaller FOV just means that you should make sure that the battles proportionally easier, make the FOV user changable, or add a third person viewpoint. First person shooters have dealt with this just fine.

Turn based mode is a way of making battles proportionately easier. [wink]

Changing the FOV wouldn't solve the problem, as the player's own FOV is a factor. The reason 90 degrees or so is usually chosen is that is how much of the player's FOV the monitor screen normally occupies when viewed from a comfortable distance. If you try showing a 120 degree FOV, the view is either distorted or too small (or both).

Perhaps this will be solved if/when widescreen monitors become widely available.

In most games I've seen, switching to third person view doesn't help much as the character is standing in the way.

Quote:Can we agree that it all comes down to making a game that is fun? It doesn't matter whether it is realistic, but as long as the player has a good time, you have done your job.

Yes, but fun is relative. [smile]

I only mentioned realism for the purpose of comparison. Most people expect games to be easier than real life situations, otherwise they may as well go off somewhere and learn how to do it for real.

Generally, this means simplifying situations or certain aspects, not making them harder or more complex.

If you blend a CRPG with an FPS, you have to reach some sort of compromise between the two different genres. A CRPG is mostly about strategy, decision making and/or using your cognitive skills at a reasonably leisurely pace (overall). An FPS is about quick thinking and fast action. Having to think fast and hard to make quick decisions about complex situations and carry out an appropriate action from a wide range of options whilst under almost constant pressure would have limited appeal.

Slowing down the pace of the FPS aspects and reducing the complexity of the CRPG elements would be the way to go.

Quote:Original post by thedevdan
Action games generally have a more action-oriented approach, hence the name. Therefor, there might not be 3 different ways to use each item, just one.

If there is only one way to control an item that can be used in multiple ways, then the game cannot be player skill based. Whether the usage is decided by the computer/character or the actions are simplified into one action, the player is still not using the skills (s)he would in reality.

Quote:And even if there were 3 ways, it wouldn't make it as complex as a flight sim. Just assign keys for the different ways to use each item. For example, 'j', 'k', and 'l' can be the three ways to use each item, and whether you are using a sword, magic attack, or spear, it would have the same consistent interface.

Even if the same 3 keys were used for all skills, you'd need some way of controlling which skill you are about to use (which one they apply to).

Even with as little as 20 available skills, that would make it much more difficult to learn and use the controls.

Quote:Your arguement against that has been that the skills needed to use a sword shouldn't be the same skills needed to use a fireball. Now, that doesn't need to be true for a game, but even if you chose to have so, you could still have action involved.

If all the character skills are based upon 2 or 3 player skills, then the character's abilities would increase too rapidly and too evenly.

Quote:You could still have, for example, growing stats for each item: the more you use a certain sword, the more its stats go up, and the more damage you inflict with it.

That would make the skills character based. [smile]

Quote:IF ANYTHING, READ THIS: Again, it comes down to what your target audience wants. If your target audience wants a turn based game, you can give it them. If they don't want one, don't give it to them. but realism has very little involved. Both ways, real-time and turn based, don't really make sense (controlling all of your possible actions in real-time with a 10 button controller, versus having time to think when you really wouln't (in a sword fight).

Actually, many CRPGs allow you to switch between real-time and turn-based modes whenever you wish.

In terms of realism, some type of "slightly-slower-than-real-time" feature would be better, to counteract the delays inherent in the control system. However, it would be annoying outside of combat situations.

Quote:You hit someone with a broad sword, inflict damage on them, yet they are able to attack you back before you can attack them again.

Yes, most systems are designed to work that way, unless a critical strike or some type of stun restriction is in effect. Combat rules have to apply equally to both sides. If an enemy hit you, and kept on hitting you, without you being able to retaliate until (s)he missed, how fair or realistic would that be?

Considering that people don't (usually) get seriously hurt in fencing, the closest everyday example I can think of off the top of my head is boxing. The person who gets the first punch in doesn't automatically win the round merely by continuing to hit his opponent, as the act itself lowers his guard slightly, leaving an opening for retaliation.

You also have to take into consideration that in many turn-based systems, each turn is supposed to be happening at the same moment in time, or staggered at very small intervals (certainly smaller than it takes to complete an action).

Quote:If whole game is 5x faster, then to truly be consistent (which isn't important) you need to have all of the animations faster, too.

Many of them do, but as mentioned before, the reduced scale and the narrow FOV make it less noticeable.