DELETED
- Thread starter deleted139124
- Start date
I can't speak too much for hand-to-hand/melee combat, but when it comes to shooters: the gun is the star of the show. A lot of games mess this up, but I think even a mediocre shooter can get tons of mileage by having awesome weapons (see: Turok). A large part of this is actually making the guns feel powerful, which is achieved by having 3 characteristics:
-The gun should look cool
-It should have great sound effects
-It should have a cool function or be creative
You don't necessarily need all 3 of these, but the more you have the better. A good example is the "Syndicate" reboot, which was not a great game by any stretch. However, it helped itself by having awesome weapons. They weren't even all that crazy or interesting, but they looked and sounded fantastic, and really helped supplement the game and the world itself (the "Killzone" games also fall under this category). As mentioned before, Turok and Resistance (especially Resistance 3) also really helped themselves by having weapons that met all 3 criteria and were just a blast to use.
-The gun should look cool
-It should have great sound effects
-It should have a cool function or be creative
You don't necessarily need all 3 of these, but the more you have the better. A good example is the "Syndicate" reboot, which was not a great game by any stretch. However, it helped itself by having awesome weapons. They weren't even all that crazy or interesting, but they looked and sounded fantastic, and really helped supplement the game and the world itself (the "Killzone" games also fall under this category). As mentioned before, Turok and Resistance (especially Resistance 3) also really helped themselves by having weapons that met all 3 criteria and were just a blast to use.
One Finger Death Punch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN6rYygppY0] is a good example; combat is responsive, a good example of 'easy to learn, hard to master', and every move, from the standard punch to the jaw-shattering kick that sends your opponent into the stratosphere, just shoots a feeling of visceral joy up my spine.
It's funny, I thought Mass Effect controlled better than ME2 or 3.
Anyway, I think it has to do with feedback in terms of knowing what you're doing does damage and has impact. I also think combat has to fit the mood of the game, so a game like Silent Hill can have crappy combat that still feels in place.
Anyway, I think it has to do with feedback in terms of knowing what you're doing does damage and has impact. I also think combat has to fit the mood of the game, so a game like Silent Hill can have crappy combat that still feels in place.
Weighty animations mostly.
The Last of Us has some of my favourite combat of all time. Thing is, mechanically it's rather simple stuff. Basic stealth, a melee system that mostly boils down to mashing one button and third person shooting distinguished only by the "soft cover" system.
But I love it because when Joel bludgeons a dude to the ground with a brick and then kicks him in the jaw it actually looks like blows are being exchanged. To the point where on my first playthrough it was making me wince from time to time. The player character's motions flow nicely and enemies have specific flinching or staggering reactions to each kind of attack.
None of that weaksauce bullshit you get in 99% of games where your character will perform an attack animation and then the enemy will either lose some health but continue moving and attacking as if nothing happened, or they will perform a generic flinch animation that has little connection with the manner in which they were hit. (Looking at you Skyrim). Often in games involving swords or other melee weapons your blows will pass straight through the enemy as if you were swinging at empty air. (Looking at you Dark Souls.) Fucking lame.
It carries through to the shooting as well. None of that Borderlands garbage where enemies barely even react to being shot and it feels like you're just whittling away at ambulatory health bars all game. When an enemy takes a bullet they flinch or stagger. It's good visual feedback.
I'll also second the OP on Mass Effect 3 as a fellow Vanguard aficionado. That class was a joy to play, with shotguns, the nova ability and the heavy melee all being very satisfying to use.
It could have been better though. The charge ability animations were a bit janky and the ragdoll physics were a bit overdone, sometimes making enemies seem weightless or lifeless. Also, some over-reliance on bullet sponge enemies.
The Last of Us has some of my favourite combat of all time. Thing is, mechanically it's rather simple stuff. Basic stealth, a melee system that mostly boils down to mashing one button and third person shooting distinguished only by the "soft cover" system.
But I love it because when Joel bludgeons a dude to the ground with a brick and then kicks him in the jaw it actually looks like blows are being exchanged. To the point where on my first playthrough it was making me wince from time to time. The player character's motions flow nicely and enemies have specific flinching or staggering reactions to each kind of attack.
None of that weaksauce bullshit you get in 99% of games where your character will perform an attack animation and then the enemy will either lose some health but continue moving and attacking as if nothing happened, or they will perform a generic flinch animation that has little connection with the manner in which they were hit. (Looking at you Skyrim). Often in games involving swords or other melee weapons your blows will pass straight through the enemy as if you were swinging at empty air. (Looking at you Dark Souls.) Fucking lame.
It carries through to the shooting as well. None of that Borderlands garbage where enemies barely even react to being shot and it feels like you're just whittling away at ambulatory health bars all game. When an enemy takes a bullet they flinch or stagger. It's good visual feedback.
I'll also second the OP on Mass Effect 3 as a fellow Vanguard aficionado. That class was a joy to play, with shotguns, the nova ability and the heavy melee all being very satisfying to use.
It could have been better though. The charge ability animations were a bit janky and the ragdoll physics were a bit overdone, sometimes making enemies seem weightless or lifeless. Also, some over-reliance on bullet sponge enemies.
I like combat that's easy to learn but difficult to master.
A good example is Kingdom Hearts 2, which has some of my favorite combat of all time. It's pretty simple to button mash your way to victory, but if you get all the little details down, it can be very rewarding. It's nice to build your own combos to pound sephiroth with, and then, when he tries to blast you with black orbs, to use reflega to blast them back. Or to have flashy sequences like this:
They're epic and cinematic, and while they're similar to quick time events, they work because their non intrusive. They make the player and the level feel that much more epic, while adding another layer to the gameplay. It's simple, and it works.
In a sense, I appreciate fun game play more then difficult or complex gameplay. I like games like Dark Souls, of course, but the gameplay is both fun and challenging in that situation. I don't care how hard a game is, I just want to enjoy myself. Simple and easy gameplay can work really well with story based games like Mass Effect, since it's just challenging enough to be fun, but not difficult enough to ruin the pacing of the story. I feel like this is importent for story based RPG's, which is why many of them (telltale) have dropped the pretense and removed combat altogether.
A good example is Kingdom Hearts 2, which has some of my favorite combat of all time. It's pretty simple to button mash your way to victory, but if you get all the little details down, it can be very rewarding. It's nice to build your own combos to pound sephiroth with, and then, when he tries to blast you with black orbs, to use reflega to blast them back. Or to have flashy sequences like this:
They're epic and cinematic, and while they're similar to quick time events, they work because their non intrusive. They make the player and the level feel that much more epic, while adding another layer to the gameplay. It's simple, and it works.
In a sense, I appreciate fun game play more then difficult or complex gameplay. I like games like Dark Souls, of course, but the gameplay is both fun and challenging in that situation. I don't care how hard a game is, I just want to enjoy myself. Simple and easy gameplay can work really well with story based games like Mass Effect, since it's just challenging enough to be fun, but not difficult enough to ruin the pacing of the story. I feel like this is importent for story based RPG's, which is why many of them (telltale) have dropped the pretense and removed combat altogether.
The love of my favorite class, the Vanguard, makes me happy with all the joy.
"We need to hang back for re-enforceme... did Shepherd just make himself into a biotically charged projectile and knocked that those Tangos on their asses?"
"And followed it up with a Biotic fueled ground pound, yes."
"... Ok, well that's done. Let's get back to the Normandy."
What makes me feel like a game's combat is satisfying to me is when I can choose how I can fight. Devil May Cry is the obvious choice to explain that. When the only thing limiting you is if you have the skill to pull off what you want, to switch weapons on the fly and continue your combo. That's something that I love.
"We need to hang back for re-enforceme... did Shepherd just make himself into a biotically charged projectile and knocked that those Tangos on their asses?"
"And followed it up with a Biotic fueled ground pound, yes."
"... Ok, well that's done. Let's get back to the Normandy."
What makes me feel like a game's combat is satisfying to me is when I can choose how I can fight. Devil May Cry is the obvious choice to explain that. When the only thing limiting you is if you have the skill to pull off what you want, to switch weapons on the fly and continue your combo. That's something that I love.
Been playing Vermintide. Impact is extremely important. As is speed. Nothing is more fun than playing the elf and creating Will It Blend: Giant Rodent Edition.
Sheer visceral impact can carry a game for me.
Sheer visceral impact can carry a game for me.
I'm like a kid where flashy combat with cool effects tends to get me feeling pretty good. A decent example is Sword Art Online: Hollow Fragment. Using stronger attacks has large energy-like effects come from your weapon, as well as each time you hit an enemy, with a rather powerful hitting sound effect with every attack that connects. It always felt really satisfying to do. Especially when you dual wielded
Generally this.Zhukov said:
There are exceptions, but my favourite action games usually have a grounded feeling to them (Resident Evil 4, The Last of Us). To me action holds little excitement if gravity is completely absent, whether it's games or movies. Games like Bayonetta and Metal Gear Revengeance are hailed as the best action games out there, but they don't really do anything for me since they lack "beef".
Other than that, obviously how it's implemented and balanced. I mean, the combat in Max Payne 3 and The Evil Within also has weight to it, but in those games it's far from entertaining.
People smarter than me call it "kinaesthetics". Some call it "game feel". Basically, the game needs to use sound, animation, response to damage, and input delay together in order to help transcend the reality that I'm just a guy holding a controller.
For a bad example, any Assassin's Creed game. The animations are so long and it feels so floaty, that I'm not even sure I have 1:1 control of the character for fucking anything. It doesn't help either that even the joy of platforming is reduced to holding down the "awesome trigger" and moving the stick in a direction. This is why I've never played more than an hour of any of them.
It's a really specific and not fully understood thing, which is why those who nail it get accolades for it. In Demon's Souls, the way it felt to have L1 lift up your shield, and the ability to do a rhythmic ebb and flow in order to manage your stamina while also blocking attacks was fucking amazing, and in the grand scheme it's a small thing. My cousin (who had never seen a Souls game before) was watching me go through No-Man's Wharf with the archers, and I pulled up the shield right as an arrow was about to hit me, and he was like "whoa, that was cool that you saw it coming at the last second and could just whip the shield up like you would for real".
This is going to sound strange, but noises/sound effects are major to improving combat, even at the expense of "realism". In Quake 3 Arena, when your shots hit there was a satisfying "pwomp" when your shot landed, confirming for you that it did in fact hit to help you plan out the rest of the attack/retreat. In more modern games, the enemy needs to groan, or something audible and also react with animation to make it feel right. For all its failings, Rage fucking nailed it when it came to enemies taking your shots. Condemned: Criminal Origins is still to me the pinnacle of weighty and impacting first-person melee.
It's become the bane of modern open-world games right now (I almost made a thread about this), but developers have taken notes from the Arkham games in this regard. The thing is, it's not enough to copy the rhythm game style of racking up a combo and ice skating from enemy to enemy with rhytmic taps and occasional counters; what made Arkham work was that the hits had impact, the elbows and punches and the way that the enemies looked like they got wrecked by it. It was a smart move, having the player perform rhythmic taps that caused batman to gracefully slide from enemy to enemy with that rhythm, but with bone-crushing impact to make the hits satisfying. I do hope we see an evolution or replacement of this system though, because it's become the go-to melee system for open-world games and it doesn't fit all scenarios. Adding on more gadgets is only extra whipped cream on the sundae.
Oh, and this might go without saying, but QTEs are the opposite of satisfying combat. I'm playing a shit game of Simon Says in order to trigger an animation, or worse, prevent me from "failing a cutscene" that must be restarted. I would have enjoyed RE6 a lot more (I liked the melee/stamina management, the combat roll, etc.) if there weren't SO MANY instances of this kind of QTE littered all over every campaign.
For a bad example, any Assassin's Creed game. The animations are so long and it feels so floaty, that I'm not even sure I have 1:1 control of the character for fucking anything. It doesn't help either that even the joy of platforming is reduced to holding down the "awesome trigger" and moving the stick in a direction. This is why I've never played more than an hour of any of them.
It's a really specific and not fully understood thing, which is why those who nail it get accolades for it. In Demon's Souls, the way it felt to have L1 lift up your shield, and the ability to do a rhythmic ebb and flow in order to manage your stamina while also blocking attacks was fucking amazing, and in the grand scheme it's a small thing. My cousin (who had never seen a Souls game before) was watching me go through No-Man's Wharf with the archers, and I pulled up the shield right as an arrow was about to hit me, and he was like "whoa, that was cool that you saw it coming at the last second and could just whip the shield up like you would for real".
This is going to sound strange, but noises/sound effects are major to improving combat, even at the expense of "realism". In Quake 3 Arena, when your shots hit there was a satisfying "pwomp" when your shot landed, confirming for you that it did in fact hit to help you plan out the rest of the attack/retreat. In more modern games, the enemy needs to groan, or something audible and also react with animation to make it feel right. For all its failings, Rage fucking nailed it when it came to enemies taking your shots. Condemned: Criminal Origins is still to me the pinnacle of weighty and impacting first-person melee.
It's become the bane of modern open-world games right now (I almost made a thread about this), but developers have taken notes from the Arkham games in this regard. The thing is, it's not enough to copy the rhythm game style of racking up a combo and ice skating from enemy to enemy with rhytmic taps and occasional counters; what made Arkham work was that the hits had impact, the elbows and punches and the way that the enemies looked like they got wrecked by it. It was a smart move, having the player perform rhythmic taps that caused batman to gracefully slide from enemy to enemy with that rhythm, but with bone-crushing impact to make the hits satisfying. I do hope we see an evolution or replacement of this system though, because it's become the go-to melee system for open-world games and it doesn't fit all scenarios. Adding on more gadgets is only extra whipped cream on the sundae.
Oh, and this might go without saying, but QTEs are the opposite of satisfying combat. I'm playing a shit game of Simon Says in order to trigger an animation, or worse, prevent me from "failing a cutscene" that must be restarted. I would have enjoyed RE6 a lot more (I liked the melee/stamina management, the combat roll, etc.) if there weren't SO MANY instances of this kind of QTE littered all over every campaign.
The old avatar was better. Now I'm a sad Simon.DrunkOnEstus said:
OT: Oblivion's combat felt like you were just playing a game of bumper cars, colliding and scratching at each-other with little in the way of meaningful feedback besides the heartfelt verbal abuse of Wes Johnson. I prefer combat with more meaningful feedback, like what you got with the flawed Soldier Of Fortune 2. It should ideally be short and hellish for all involved.
I'd say any game the values actual player skill for the entirety of the combat gets a thumbs up with me. Any combat that relies on luck to see victory to anything more than a very token degree I despise, therefore I don't like a lot of Turn based strategy games unless luck is a factor that can be removed from the equation within a reasonable time frame. I'm also a rabid fan of RPGs, thus I find even the worst of action RPGs regardless of whether they are a swords and sorcerer type like the Tales games, first person/third person shooter like the Mass Effect series or Fallout, or otherwise to be vastly superior to any other kind of RPG hands down.
One feature that often makes combat very appealing to me is the importance of timing/reflexes. Games with counters, parries, and
just-dodge benefits can be very fun for me. This applies to Ninja Gaiden and Dark Souls as well, due to the invincibility frames you must sometimes exploit from dodging at the right time in order to fight effectively. If I feel that it all comes down to just pushing the right buttons, then combat will get pretty stale eventually. If it comes down to mashing the same button sequence over and over without any need to look at what I'm doing, I'll get bored of it really fast. Sorry Dynasty Warriors.
While the Assassins Creed games do have counters as their main combat feature, they typically fall short of my expectations, due to how overly-generous those games can be with the timing required. The Arkham Games improved on that a bit by enabling enemies to attack simultaneously.
just-dodge benefits can be very fun for me. This applies to Ninja Gaiden and Dark Souls as well, due to the invincibility frames you must sometimes exploit from dodging at the right time in order to fight effectively. If I feel that it all comes down to just pushing the right buttons, then combat will get pretty stale eventually. If it comes down to mashing the same button sequence over and over without any need to look at what I'm doing, I'll get bored of it really fast. Sorry Dynasty Warriors.
While the Assassins Creed games do have counters as their main combat feature, they typically fall short of my expectations, due to how overly-generous those games can be with the timing required. The Arkham Games improved on that a bit by enabling enemies to attack simultaneously.
You've got me thinking about how awesome it would be if they gave Dark Souls weightier impacts *swoon. Did they do that with Bloodborne or was that just blood splattter?Zhukov said:
The controls... What button does what, what happens when certain button "combos" are performed, and if "direction" plays a factor to what button does what... Sure, all of the extra bits to get someone invested in the combat is fine, but if the controls, themselves, don't do anything for me, then the game's shit out of luck to invest real time into it...
Other than that, balancing between "too easy" and "too hard" is a good honorable mention in my book...
Other than that, balancing between "too easy" and "too hard" is a good honorable mention in my book...
Being responsive to my input, and doing what it says on the tin.
Also making me feel effective in combat. If the system is clunky, and it's a combat heavy game, I will feel like I'm fighting the system to try and play the game. If it's designed well, where I'm not thinking about the combat itself and just doing it, while enjoying feeling like a badass, then I'm happy.
Also making me feel effective in combat. If the system is clunky, and it's a combat heavy game, I will feel like I'm fighting the system to try and play the game. If it's designed well, where I'm not thinking about the combat itself and just doing it, while enjoying feeling like a badass, then I'm happy.
For me it's being easy to get the hang of while not getting overly repetitive and still being fun. For example, the Call of Duty games have had a fairly simple set of controls since the beginning and just about anyone can get a pretty firm grasp on them fairly quickly and then continue on to have a decent time. My experience with The Witcher 2, however, was quite the opposite. I played through the tutorial two or three times and still couldn't get a firm grasp on the combat mechanics, so if I had tried to go further in I probably would have been in for a very rough time.