• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

FPS Hand-to-hand Combat

This topic is 3843 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I don't think there has been a fps game so far that has featured a well working HtH system. Most of the time it devolves into a Half-Life crowbar fight. Any ideas on what would be a good fps HtH system? An idea I thought might work is simplifying the whole thing a bit. Perhaps the only commands are attack, block and a special action. And instead of having complex combos it is up to the timings of these 3 commands that decides the fight. Say an enemy swings his sword at you, if you hit the block command at the right time you could parry his sword and create an opening for an attack command, which depending on how well you time that will succeed or not. Mistimings could result in a failed block or a weak attack. Also a string of well timed or mistimed actions could swing a 'momentum' factor, which might make it harder or easier to time actions or perhaps effect the characters psychologically. Then there's the problems of whether you have to 'lock-on' to an enemy and how to deal with multiple characters fighting each other simultaneously and a ton of other things I'm sure. Anyway I thought that basic idea might be fun. Hopefully look more realistic or at least cooler than a Half-Life crowbar fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
HtH combat is hard in an FPS, since depth perception is distorted within FPS systems (IMO). It's getting better as technology improves, but I think for now we should stick to third-person HtH, since you actually get a perspective on the scene and the relation of distance between characters.

Alright, now this part is if you're already chosen to make an FPS:
If you're looking at the system itself (i.e. moves and combos etc), then what you've got going sounds OK, but you'll need to have some kind of training module within the game; I don't think there's a lot of people that could just jump into it. Also, if you're thinking of doing some kind of swords/fencing thing, then all I can say is good luck. I don't know a lot about swordplay, but I think there's a lot more to it than what it looks like. There's probably several different kinds of blocks and parries for different kinds of attacks. Eventually it'd come to a point where it's too confusing to learn how to play it.

Your point about Half-Life crowbar fights should be well taken. While still fun (to some people); Crowbar fights, Knife fights (for counter-strike fans), and the like always seem to boil down to the same tactic: "Jump forward, Attack, Jump back," which is hardly realistic.

Good luck with this, but I think you're going to have to go with a "more fun" approach, instead of a "more realistic" idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at Breakdown(Xbox). This is a good example for HtH, you have almost no weapons in this. I played it a long time ago, so i can't remember details. But i'm sure some reviews of game explain the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think when it comes to melee most people just want to see there avatar pull off some awesome kung fu kicks and such and lay the bad guy out. It doesn't really matter how it works if it looks real good. I mean you bash a guy with a crowbar in half-life because of what? You ran out of ammo or you just started the game. Ultimately your decision to smash your enemy comes out of desperation or boredom in that type of game. It's a shooter for chris' sakes.
You could pull it off in a slower paced game that uses dice rolling type calculations to decide if a hit is scored.. Just make it a hit vs dodge numbers game with a large variety of animations to show hit or dodge moves. Player does a high kick and misses so the enemy ducks to show it. I mean the calculation is done long before the animation. You could tie every attack move to an equally cool looking dodge move and end up with a flurry of fists and feet until someone gets knocked out. Then take your pistol back out and put one in them for flair. I don't know of any other way it could be done with fun in mind. It's got to look good no matter what you do. Kids these days know a good HtH fight when they see one.
Your idea of a basic timing system would work best for a fast FPS. Maybe a small set of icons in front of the enemy to tell you what he's about to do so that you can take the appropriate defense. I would suggest slowing down the moves so that strategy could still play a role. If you could incorporate balance into it you could make it a contest to knock the opponent down thereby giving you a good opening for a killing thrust from a sword or knife. Isn't alot of martial arts based on keeping your balance? I know when I fight I'm screwed on the ground (No wieght to throw around). You really just need to take the repetitive look out of HtH in FPS games. If it is only fun to see it play out isn't that still having fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Messiah of Might and Magic has a well-regarded first-person melee system.

I played the beta demo about a trillion times, and found that it devolved quickly into tactical kicking and the lobbing of boxes once you got the mechanics figured out well enough to exploit them, but if you restricted your use of the overpowered features (I think the retail version was patched to "nerf" the kick, at least) and used your sword/bow/daggers (Daggers were especially cool, although the shield had merit) you could have a very good time battling multiple adversaries with a variety of strokes, a reliable block and interactive environments.

Fire, hanging ropes, loosely stacked lumber and of course your omegaboots factored into the fighting in very interesting and novel ways, so the "block/thrust/slash" swordplay didn't seem as dry as it actually was. Flying heads and arms added to the fun, although the "slomo" effect when you get a critical hit was more a nuisance than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the input guys. I agree that any FPS HtH game would need to have a training component, but this could be done in a fun way. For some reason I've always enjoyed the training levels at the start of a fps game.

One thing that I don't like about more complexed fighting systems is that you have to think about what controls you need to use. In real life if someone overhead swings at you you will instinctively move to block or dodge it, you don't really think about it. But in a game you have to recognize the type of attack coming, then think what combination of controls you have to press to counter it and then press them in time. It's like an extra step you have to make that clutters things up and haves you fighting the controls. Unless you spend a lot of time practicing, which usually isn't fun. Or maybe I'm just not very skilled hehe :P

What your suggesting Randomnature sounds like the combat from KOTOR, which is basically what I have in mind, except with more player input. The player would decide when to strike, when to defend and when to perform a special action. Which depending on the situation, or an opportunity presented could be a variety of things. Depending on how well you time these actions the computer will play the appropriate animations.

Here's a simple example of what I have in mind,

Player is charged by enemy. Enemy swings at player. Player hits the defend button, but doesn't time it perfectly. The enemy swing is blocked but player is put off balance and is open to be attacked again. Enemy swings again. Player is off balance from the previous attack so it'll be even harder to time this defend perfectly. Player mistimes the defend action and is wounded, falling to one knee. Enemy gets an 'opening' for a special action which he times successfully and delivers a deathblow, lopping off his head.

A very one sided battle :D But I'm gearing this for a medieval set game so fast brutal fights is what I have in mind. Also if a fight can end so quickly and decisively, I think it could add a lot of excitement and tension. Especially if a fight does drag on a bit longer, knowing that a string of poor timings can spell doom.

And being set in the middle-ages with hopefully somewhat realistic or believable
fighting, I wouldn't have to worry about flying through the air matrix stuff, wild kicks and other complex or fancy moves.

In the end though any HtH system will require and be decided by tons of playtesting. Especially when it's the main aspect of the game.

Still love to hear any ideas people have!










Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If timing's a big factor, take a look at Red Steel for the Wii. It's not a great game by any standard, and often feels like an unfinished tech demo, but the swordfighting uses a neat timing system to let you use parries to defeat your opponent or to destroy his sword, ending the fight bloodlessly.

If it's going to be a brutal combat system, make sure it doesn't stay "sterile", with just the swords fighting and the actual combatants serving as goalposts. I want to be bale to throw the guy off balance with a well-times swordstroke, but I also want to be able to beat his bled to the side and give him a sternum full of my shoulder, then follow that up with a stab to the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a side note you should check out Severence: Blade of Darkness. I remember that game being very high on my list of fun to plsy fighting games. You had WADS control, combo moves, limb removal (my favorite) and Shield blocking that if timed right would make the enemy's sword rebound and leave them open for more smacking. And there really isn't anything better than running up a spiral staircase to find a goblin waiting for you just so you could chop off his head with a well timed backstroke that sends it boucing back down the stairs. You could pick up his head and chuck it at someone else later on your way out! It was great and not overly complicated. Just remember that it needs to be fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Till now i never saw a better hand-to-hand combat system like in mount & blade, you can preform atleast 8 different attacks, wich depends at the direction you are pointing your camera. They have a very dynamic blocking system wich adjust itself to the attack the enemy is preforming, like, if the enemy preforms a low attack your character will automatically perform a low block when you click the block button. The game has a free trail avaible, i would really recommend to everyone who didn't tried it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the key here is to have a locked view on the opponent. In a FPS it is too easy to turn/strafe and too hard to find someone around you. So the aim should be locked on the opponent. Maybe with the possibility to make a quick look at the surrounding area but that would always come back to the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that you would probably have to lock on to the opponent Yvanhoe. In a real fight it's not that easy to dance around strafing and spinning like in an fps. And if you tried that you'd probably get a sword in the back.

I'm worried though that if you have to lock onto an opponent things might get a bit repetitive. Lock onto enemy, *clash, bang, kill*, lock onto next enemy *clash, bang, kill*. And what about being ganged up on? A medieval melee isn't exactly an organized affair with individual combatants squaring off with each other :)

Some of the games mentioned look like they have some solid mechanics, Mount & Blade looks interesting. But to me they still all look to...floaty...haha...No real weight to it. Too much hit & run type stuff. I'm obsessed with the look and feel of things.

Ugh...Maybe this is why no one really tries to pull this off :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a one to one fight with swords you would have 9 hit areas, for each of these hit areas stands one attack, this is how an advance combat system with alot of variety would look like. Repeating the same attack wouldn't require any skills of the player himself, you would get the bunnyhopping gameplay like counterstrike etc.. .
Other games like oblivion: elder scrolls IV have 2 different attacks, one fast, and one slow but powerfull, thus you can decide the power of your slash, and also decide the hit area with your pointer, but the animation never changes, and there are no skills required to block an attack wich always comes from the same direction, this is a partial level-based combat system. A fully player-skill (insight etc)based combat system would be much more dynamic and much more challenging. Mount & blade approaches this very well, but the combat isn't smooth enough, due their engine, the animations are triggered to static. Also, deciding wich area of the opponent you will attack using your camera can be a bit frustrating. You can also assign 9 keys for it, but that would never work out well. But with a multi-dimensional device like WE has...it would be possible.

I also need to figer out a unique and smooth hack & slash combat system for the game i'm working out.. and i'm sure that their is a reasonable solution for this wich not limits any player functions, like camera movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]One thing that I don't like about more complexed fighting systems is that you have to think about what controls you need to use. In real life if someone overhead swings at you you will instinctively move to block or dodge it, you don't really think about it./quote]
What if you had an auto block feature that would, in the absence of any other player command, attempt to block an attack. That as a player you wouldn't have to think about blocking an attack. However, if you tried to make an attack (or were in the cooldown from a previous attack), then your character would not be able to block.

For delivering attacks, I think you should look at some tactical systems that you could use for the fight. They don't have to be absolutely realistic, but ones that offer good gameplay choices in the battle.

Think of Scissor/Paper/Rock.

For example: Say the player has 3 basic moves: Thrust, Swing and Parry. The Thrust attack is easily defended by the Parry move, but the Swing is able to (mostly) get through it. A Parry is the fastest, but does no direct damage, however after a successful parry your opponent is slowed for their next action. The Thrust is the fastest move that does damage, and the Swing is the slowest (all damage is the same regardless of thrust or swing)

So if an enemy decides to thrust at you, then you can easily parry them, however, if they Swing at you, you might be able to reduce the damage a bit with a parry, or you could just start your own Thrust at them.

This creates an interesting choice, if you swing, then you can be beaten by them if they thrust, but if they thrust you can beat them by a parry and if they parry you can beat them by a swing.

But these would be basic moves. To make it interesting, you should include the ability to "Fake" an attack. That is start an animation of one action, but end up doing another (Feinting). This could be achieved by allowing the player to change their action during the warmup time of their action. So as the character is pulling back for the swing, the player could then input the command needed to initiate a parry as the player would be expecting their opponent to use the appropriate counter for their action (as the counter to a swing is a thrust and the counter to the thrust is the parry).

This Feinting would still require the player to go through the motions of the warmup of the action (and whatever time you have spent in the warmup of the leading action), so it is not without cost (spend too much time feinting and your opponent will just let their attacks follow through while you are playing around).

From this you could expand the different styles of attacks or include combos.

If you are wanting a more complex system, then you could use different combat styles as "weapons" in the FPS selection. So you might have your sword equipped, but then you choose "Defensive" style that uses moves that are more focused on defending from attacks (it might give bonuses to blocks and parries, be faster at the defensive moves or have more combos centred around avoiding attacks, slowing down the attacks of your opponents or even an auto defence), or use an "Offensive" style that focuses more on the actual damage attacks (it might give bonuses to damage, be faster at the attack moves or have more combos centred around doing damage). You could have as many "styles" of combat as you like (and call them what you wish).

Another thing for a melee combat system is to have more differences between weapon types. Not just speed, amount of damage, etc, but to have real mechanics differences between them. Make it so that different weapons are useful indifferent situations.

As an example: Pikes are good weapons if your opponent is close, but not within sword reach. If they are too close, then the pike is almost useless, also to get the best out of a pike you have to set it to receive an attacker, which means that you can't move fast (and turning corners would be harder/slower/etc)

A Sword is good up close, but you can't really close in with someone if they are using a pike. But get within the reach of a sword and then they are defenceless.

A Bow is good if the enemy is at a long distance away, you can shoot them without them being able to engage you in melee. However, if they are able to get in close, then the bow can not effectively be used (time to load and aim the bow - you might be able to shoot early, but your shot would be fairly wild and inaccurate).

So if an enemy is trying to close with you, then the pike would be good, as you can sit in place and let them impale themselves on your weapon. However, if you have a bow, then you can sit back and make pin cushions of the player using the pike. But if you are suing a sword then you could attack the archer with ease as they would have to stop (or move backwards slowly) to hit you, but you could close in and start slicing and dicing them. This gives a Scissors/Paper/Rock relationship between the weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Edtharan
What if you had an auto block feature that would, in the absence of any other player command, attempt to block an attack. That as a player you wouldn't have to think about blocking an attack. However, if you tried to make an attack (or were in the cooldown from a previous attack), then your character would not be able to block.


It's reasonable, although I think having to watch for an attack is an interesting mechanic in itself.

Quote:
For example: Say the player has 3 basic moves: Thrust, Swing and Parry. The Thrust attack is easily defended by the Parry move, but the Swing is able to (mostly) get through it. A Parry is the fastest, but does no direct damage, however after a successful parry your opponent is slowed for their next action. The Thrust is the fastest move that does damage, and the Swing is the slowest (all damage is the same regardless of thrust or swing)

So if an enemy decides to thrust at you, then you can easily parry them, however, if they Swing at you, you might be able to reduce the damage a bit with a parry, or you could just start your own Thrust at them.

This creates an interesting choice, if you swing, then you can be beaten by them if they thrust, but if they thrust you can beat them by a parry and if they parry you can beat them by a swing.


I'm not convinced there's anything interesting here. With 3 moves, each of which having a certain success rate against the others, there's probably an optimal strategy that is trivial to deduce.

Quote:
But these would be basic moves. To make it interesting, you should include the ability to "Fake" an attack. [...] This Feinting would still require the player to go through the motions of the warmup of the action (and whatever time you have spent in the warmup of the leading action), so it is not without cost (spend too much time feinting and your opponent will just let their attacks follow through while you are playing around).


Assuming you've found the optimal strategy previously, feinting just becomes a game of reaction speed. That can still be fun, but it's not terribly interesting. It might be equally fun if you took away the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect and became a sword-bearing version of the Snap card game.

Unfortunately 90% of combat systems can be distilled down to this sort of thing quite easily. Some games add more and more statistics and attacks - different stances, or weapon types, as you say - so that calculating the optimal strategy is very complicated, though not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an interface idea...

Your look is locked to the opponent, and mouse pointer is visible.
Then, press mouse button, move, release, and you swing your swords that way.
Like... painting your attack. That would be interesting.
A single point is stabbing, a huge diagonal line is a power attack, etc. No pre-made animations.

Defending would be similar... Right-click-drag to "draw a parry line", and the character moves his sword there.

Optionally you could press space and your shield goes to your mouse pointer.

Or even dodging with WASD.

(sorry about the lack of english knowledge)

[Edited by - Gagyi on June 16, 2007 5:23:58 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
I'm not convinced there's anything interesting here. With 3 moves, each of which having a certain success rate against the others, there's probably an optimal strategy that is trivial to deduce.

It was meant to be a Scissors/Paper/Stone relationship (but I didn't spend a lot of time completely balancing it :D).

Swing beats a parry as the swing will still do damage and the next action will not be slowed (a parry is unsuccessful if you don't parry anything)

Thrust beast a Swing as you can do more damage (faster attack)

and Parry beats a Thrust as it prevents any damage and then slows their next action.

Quote:
Assuming you've found the optimal strategy previously, feinting just becomes a game of reaction speed. That can still be fun, but it's not terribly interesting. It might be equally fun if you took away the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect and became a sword-bearing version of the Snap card game.

Reflexes should be an important aspect of a melee combat. It should not be an overwhelming factor, but the player with the better reflexes should have an advantage.

You are talking about an FPS game and they are generally "twitch" games. Even with non melee combat in FPS games, twitch is still an important (not usually overwhelming) factor in the outcome of a battle. Choice of weapon, Environment, Planing should all come into play (eg: in UT2004 a Rocket launcher is not as good as a flack gun in close quarters fighting, but in medium range in open ground the RL can be more effective than the Flack).

This is the main reason I don't like random "to hit" rolls in games (whether they are FPS, RPG, etc) as these random rolls (if you look at their origins in Pen and Paper RPGs) were to substitute for environmental and other factors not usable by the player (but would be for the character if they were real).

In an FPS, the player has access to these factors and so any combat mechanic should allow them players to take advantage/be disadvantaged by them.

One of these factors is Time. As FPS games are twitch, it would not be beyond the player's expectations, but would instead be part of those expectations.

I also talked about "Faking" attacks that would allow a player with slower reflexes to take advantage of players that react too quickly. If the player start off with a Thrust move, then when their opponent initiates a Parry move to counter it, the first player switches to a Swing and before the Parrying player can readjust their action, the Swing can hit. If, however, the second player decides to not go with the Parry and expects the first player is going to fake them, they might instead go with the Thrust and the first player then has an opportunity to attempt to change their action (but this could depend on how long they left it before changing or initiating their actions).

I would anticipate that during combat there might actually be periods where players repeatedly change their actions (maybe even several seconds worth of it) without following through with any of them as they try to out manoeuvre their opponent.

Someone with fast reflexes might be able to get off one or two counters, but a smart player knowing that they react quickly can take advantage of that fact and out manoeuvre them.

Have a read of this article from Gamasutra to see where I am coming from: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070123/chelaru_02.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
I'm not convinced there's anything interesting here. With 3 moves, each of which having a certain success rate against the others, there's probably an optimal strategy that is trivial to deduce.

It was meant to be a Scissors/Paper/Stone relationship (but I didn't spend a lot of time completely balancing it :D).

Swing beats a parry as the swing will still do damage and the next action will not be slowed (a parry is unsuccessful if you don't parry anything)

Thrust beast a Swing as you can do more damage (faster attack)

and Parry beats a Thrust as it prevents any damage and then slows their next action.

Quote:
Assuming you've found the optimal strategy previously, feinting just becomes a game of reaction speed. That can still be fun, but it's not terribly interesting. It might be equally fun if you took away the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect and became a sword-bearing version of the Snap card game.

Reflexes should be an important aspect of a melee combat. It should not be an overwhelming factor, but the player with the better reflexes should have an advantage.

You are talking about an FPS game and they are generally "twitch" games. Even with non melee combat in FPS games, twitch is still an important (not usually overwhelming) factor in the outcome of a battle. Choice of weapon, Environment, Planing should all come into play (eg: in UT2004 a Rocket launcher is not as good as a flack gun in close quarters fighting, but in medium range in open ground the RL can be more effective than the Flack).

This is the main reason I don't like random "to hit" rolls in games (whether they are FPS, RPG, etc) as these random rolls (if you look at their origins in Pen and Paper RPGs) were to substitute for environmental and other factors not usable by the player (but would be for the character if they were real).

In an FPS, the player has access to these factors and so any combat mechanic should allow them players to take advantage/be disadvantaged by them.

One of these factors is Time. As FPS games are twitch, it would not be beyond the player's expectations, but would instead be part of those expectations.

I also talked about "Faking" attacks that would allow a player with slower reflexes to take advantage of players that react too quickly. If the player start off with a Thrust move, then when their opponent initiates a Parry move to counter it, the first player switches to a Swing and before the Parrying player can readjust their action, the Swing can hit. If, however, the second player decides to not go with the Parry and expects the first player is going to fake them, they might instead go with the Thrust and the first player then has an opportunity to attempt to change their action (but this could depend on how long they left it before changing or initiating their actions).

I would anticipate that during combat there might actually be periods where players repeatedly change their actions (maybe even several seconds worth of it) without following through with any of them as they try to out manoeuvre their opponent.

Someone with fast reflexes might be able to get off one or two counters, but a smart player knowing that they react quickly can take advantage of that fact and out manoeuvre them.

Have a read of this article from Gamasutra to see where I am coming from: http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070123/chelaru_02.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This idea is perhaps better for console games than PC games, but it could work for both. Let me know what you think about it.

Step 1 - Player finds need to enter into CQC*:
The player will find himself in a position where fighting in CQC* would be better than shooting. This could be perhaps because the player is out of ammo, or the player has encountered an enemy to close for his weapon of choice (EG sniper rifle or rocket launcher), or perhaps the player has just snuck up behind a camping enemy. To enter into CQC, the player must acknowledge for himself that there is a need to fisticuff. Yes, this all occurs in the player's brain, but this is a part of the gameplay mechanic nonetheless.

Step 2 - Player enters into CQC:
This step simply involves pressing a button that is predetermined to enter the player into CQC mode. This button could perhaps have another primary role such as "use object", and would only cause the player to go into CQC if there is an enemy close enough. Another possibility is to have the button dedicated to CQC so the player can make the decision to holster his weapon ahead of time so he can slink around like Sam Fisher, ready to snap some necks. This simple button press can easily become reflex for your average FPS player, and once pressed, it will cause the player to focus on his chosen opponent(s) (Modern day CQC is supposed to be 1 on 1, but you can always team up with someone and have them "make like a table" while you shove the enemy), blurring the background and causing background noise to shut out. (If facing your opponent, you'd hear your heartbeat as you ready to attack, and simultaneously you'd hear their strained breathing as they recovered from an attack. Meanwhile, gunfire in the other room would seem ever so distant)

Step 3 - Player selects mode of combat:

At this stage, the player simply decides whether he wants to:
A. Melee Attacks such as punches and kicks (includes defending, too)
B. Attempt a quick/stealthy kill
C. Disarm/disable the enemy(perhaps the opponent still has his gun out?)
D. Knife attacks
E. Etc.

Again, relitively simple once you get the hang of it. But after this it starts getting tricky. Fortunately, rather than having to memorize all of this, the game will display buttons corresponding to each action.

Step 4 - Player selects target

I dont mean the player selects an enemy, I mean the player selects where on his opponent he wants to attack, such as the head and neck, the torso, the arms, or the lower body. The buttons or keys will be shown to correspond with each part of the body (the "X" button will appear over the head, the "Up Arrow" will show up over the torso, etc.

Step 5 - Player selects and executes an attack

The game will display the types of attacks the player can use on this target. Once the player makes his choice, the attack will be carried out.

At any time, should the player decide that his current mode of attack is no longer the best choice (for instance, the player was planning on choking the enemy from behind, but the enemy turned around), the player can always press back to turn around quickly.

Yes, this may seem way too complicated at first, but who is instantly able to knock someone cold on their first try? After a while of getting used to it, you're favorite attacks will become second nature to you, and you'll be able to zoom through the steps in perhaps less than half a second. And if theres something you want to try new, the game will always tell you what attacks are available to you.

Just to picture how this would play out, imagine watching someone play an FPS. They're probably flicking their thumbs on the controler (or rolling the mouse across the pad), maybe pressing a few buttons here or there, then you see their eyes widen. The player quickly mashes a sequence of buttons, and a moment later, a bloody grunt echoes from the speakers. The player stands up from his seat and yells "yes! I slugged you in the face!"

And if you're a player who doesnt like the whole "button-mashing-mortal-kombat style of fighting, you always still have your good old rifle to kick butt with. (But if your opponent happens to twist the gun out of your hands in a disarmament attack, youd better be ready to try and meet him on his level, or suffer the consequences.

*CQC (Close Quarters Combat) is the official military term for any combat that occurs within arms length of the enemy. CQC involves melee attacks, knife attacks, disarmament maneuvers and the like. This is not to be confused with CQB (Close Quarters Battle) which simply refers to any combat situation where combatants are fighting in close quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is actually very, very interesting. I am in the planning stage of an FPS myself, and earlier today when I was mowing my lawn I was considering how I would do something to this effect. I think I have found an interesting way of handling these encounters without being your fists boiling down to a merely a weapon with a very short range.

First, I don't think that kicking would be very practical, because you can't see your feet in First Person games. Also, headbutting and other dirty tricks would become implausible. That brings you down to a good, clean fist fight. Or, I suppose that this could work for a sword fight, too.

Okay, I know this introduction is dragging on a little, but just give me another minute. I want you to think of a lot of the FPS games that you play. In many of them, for example Call of Duty, or Enemy Territory, you lean your character with Q and E. You shoot in almost every FPS with the left mouse button, and reload with the right. But wait, why would you need to reload a sword or your hands? That leaves you with two buttons to attack. Your left mouse button could swing with your left hand, and your right could swing with your right. Or, using a sword, swing your sword from that direction.

Makes sense, right? Very simple. Too simple. So, we have to add onto our idea. I'm sure you've all seen a fight before. Not all punches are the same. Sometimes you jab, sometimes you wind up a little and hit them with an uppercut. So, we could set it up so that tapping one of the mouse buttons would be a simple jab, but holding it for a second would let you wind up and hit them with an uppercut. That adds a little bit of depth to the attack system.

Now, anybody who has ever been punched in the face knows that you don't just stand there when you see a swing, you have to move out of the way, or block it. So, remember when I mentioned the lean buttons? There was a reason for that. Let's say you see your opponent winding up for a left handed uppercut. If you lean to your left, they will miss you. That gives you an opportunity to attack. That also helps balance the jabs and the uppercuts. Jabs are quicker, so your opponent might not see them coming and duck. But, uppercuts do more damage. You see how it trades off?

But, what if you are leaning and you press an attack button? What I am going to implement is that if you are leaning and you tap either one of the mouse buttons, you will fake a punch with that hand. But, if you hold the button on the side you are leaning towards, you will wind up for a big swing. If you are holding your inner hand, though, you will lean back a little and wind up for a straight punch to the face.

Now, because my game isn't going to use swords, you'll notice that I didn't go into to much detail on how you could use it for a sword fight. However, simple substituting should give you a decent swordfight system, too.

That system makes block very fast and simple, and could other weapons could easily be substituted with slightly different mechanics. For example, let's say that you had a bat that could be used, too. But, instead of jabbing and uppercuts, you could have a quick hammer-like attack, and a sideways swing, like you're playing baseball. You could lean to avoid the hammer attacks, but the sideways swings would still hit you. So, you could use the hammer to hit their bat out of the way. That makes a rock-paper-scissors of hammering, dodging, and swinging.

But, the interesting part would be when you have an unarmed player and a player with a bat. You could have it so that it is set up almost like a sport, the player with the bat on offense, and the unarmed on defense. When the batman uses his hammer attack, the unarmed would have to duck out of the way. But, using the fake attack technique, with the right timing, they could steal the bat after they lean. That would put them on offense. Or, if the batman swings instead, the player could jab to slap the bat out of the way, giving them room and time for a punch to the bat player, or they could do the uppercut technique to try to steal the bat away when a swing comes.

So, as you see, this system probably has some downsides that I have overlooked, but at least it's a start, and it could potentially evolve into a very interesting and complex gameplay mechanic, possibly even into an entire game with enough effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but then where do you bring in stealth kills? Theres always the halo way of doing it, where a hit from behind is an instant kill. If you're doing an FPS though, ask any military SPECOPS or Police SWAT, and they'll tell you they would never just "punch" someone from behind. I think stealth kills would be an important part of realistic FPS melee, and the three important rules are that it must be quick, it must be silent, and it must be deadly (not unlike my flatulence after a visit to Don Pablos Mexican Grill). And of course, a stealth kill, while impossible to counter when attempted from behind, is almost impossible to pull off when the enemy sees it coming(Except for a "broken heart" stab, but for the sake of keeping it PG in here, I wont go into details on how to pull that one off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by HKurban
Yeah, but then where do you bring in stealth kills? Theres always the halo way of doing it, where a hit from behind is an instant kill. If you're doing an FPS though, ask any military SPECOPS or Police SWAT, and they'll tell you they would never just "punch" someone from behind. I think stealth kills would be an important part of realistic FPS melee, and the three important rules are that it must be quick, it must be silent, and it must be deadly (not unlike my flatulence after a visit to Don Pablos Mexican Grill). And of course, a stealth kill, while impossible to counter when attempted from behind, is almost impossible to pull off when the enemy sees it coming(Except for a "broken heart" stab, but for the sake of keeping it PG in here, I wont go into details on how to pull that one off).


As I said before, that was only a rough idea. You bring up an excellent point. One thing that you could add in is that if they are facing the other direction, and you are unarmed, you could perfrom a neck-breaking stealth kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the stealth kills, if you made them take a longer time to build up and be easily counter by blocks, this would enable a player to launch a stealth kill from behind and be deadly with it. Even though it would take a while to build up, the victim would not see it coming and so could not block it, but if it was done in front of the victim, they could see it coming and have a be able to easily block it stopping it from working. As the stealth kill would take a longer time to perform, it would make it useless against a knowing player as it could be completely blocked and the enemy might be able to get of an attack while you are building up and still be able to block your attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really enjoyed the boxing in the chronicles of riddick: EFBB.

Condemned also relied heavily on close combat but only worked well because you had such a variety of close combat weapons but still wasnt very realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement