What if we made combat more abstract?

[Amgeo]

This is something I've been thinking about lately. Imagine that we took a game with really fun and satisfying combat, like God of War, Saints Row, recent Batman games, whatever you like, but we abstracted the visual elements so that they don't look like living things. For the sake of argument, let's say that we built this to keep the combat as close to the original and (hopefully) satisfying as possible. I'm imagining something like a big spoon beating up giant water balloons, if you can't picture what I'm trying to describe.

How much do you think that the experience would be changed for the player? How would the "games make children violent" crowd react? Is there some glaring flaw or advantage to this idea that I'm not seeing? Most any thoughts are welcome.

Bonus: To save time, if you read this and think "what a moron, seeing your character fighting the enemies is most of what makes combat in games so much fun," let's shorten that down to, let's say, "klop."

 

[Smooth Operator]

You mean like Mario and Disney cartoons?
Well then you are home free, people are just hung up on portrayal of real violence and their results (blood, guts,...).

 

[Daggedawg]

klop

In all seriousness, though, I think as long as the combat is satisfying and "feels right," it doesn't matter what the subject matter is.
Look at Fruit Ninja, for example. You're slicing up... fruit. But it feels so visceral and satisfying it's almost like you're playing God of War for kids or something.

I for one would love to see a totally absurd action RPG/hack n' slash/whatever you call it featuring vegetables, stuffed toys and origami figures as enemies. If done right, it would be pretty cool. And trippy.

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

You can be a toilet in Saints Row 3.
No waterballoons though.

 

[Odd Owl]

I'm not sure I understand how much you'd really be able to alter by way of abstract-ifying the combat. Without certain visual elements (physical strikes, or at least projections of force), I'm not sure how you'd still be able communicate the idea of combat at all. And if you just transfer those visual representations of force to erstwhile-inanimate objects, you don't really have anything more than a battle-royale between the kitchenware and the household furnishings from The Beauty and the Beast. So . . . not much different than an old Disney or Warner Bros. cartoon. Unless I'm misunderstanding your idea here.

 

[Amgeo]

klop

In all seriousness, though, I think as long as the combat is satisfying and "feels right," it doesn't matter what the subject matter is.
Look at Fruit Ninja, for example. You're slicing up... fruit. But it feels so visceral and satisfying it's almost like you're playing God of War for kids or something.

I for one would love to see a totally absurd action RPG/hack n' slash/whatever you call it featuring vegetables, stuffed toys and origami figures as enemies. If done right, it would be pretty cool. And trippy.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking of. It's not so much beating up people, it's about satisfaction.

 

[Keava]

The question really is... What for? What that style would be supposed to achieve? What is the market for it? And why?

Combat with humanoid characters has the advantage of fluid motions thanks to how bodies tend to be constructed, we have lots of joints, can bend and twist in quite surprising ways, which in the end adds to end visual effect.
A spoon smacking a balloon would be rigid, dull due to how limited the material is.

As far as abstract enemies go, there as plenty of sidescroller platformers back in early 90ties that made You fight all kinds of silly things but They don't transfer all that well into 3d environments, again due to how boring the objects look.

 

[Amgeo]

The question really is... What for? What that style would be supposed to achieve? What is the market for it? And why?

Combat with humanoid characters has the advantage of fluid motions thanks to how bodies tend to be constructed, we have lots of joints, can bend and twist in quite surprising ways, which in the end adds to end visual effect.
A spoon smacking a balloon would be rigid, dull due to how limited the material is.

As far as abstract enemies go, there as plenty of sidescroller platformers back in early 90ties that made You fight all kinds of silly things but They don't transfer all that well into 3d environments, again due to how boring the objects look.

All right, the example I gave was a little silly, but I think you have the answer in here. The way our bodies are constructed let us move in fluid ways, but what if we constructed a body based less on the human form and more based on how the player would use it?

 

[Keava]

All right, the example I gave was a little silly, but I think you have the answer in here. The way our bodies are constructed let us move in fluid ways, but what if we constructed a body based less on the human form and more based on how the player would use it?

You know what rigging is in animation? You create a stickfigure-like skeleton that has points in 3d space You manipulate to achieve animation. Like marionettes, just doesn't need strings.
The simplest form of it would be a sphere with single point in the centre which rotates it. Each joint in bone structure or segment of body is such sphere with part of body attached to it, making it rotate along with the sphere, changing the planar coordinates of the vertexes that make a polygon.

You can adapt it to pretty much any shape with complex-enough skeleton, but it still will be limited to somewhat skeletal design. Making it abstract only in outside shape. Which again brings me to question, what's the reason? There is quite a few indie and amateur abstract games out there, but just changing the base mesh from human to pear won't change all that much to be somewhat innovative.

 

[Esotera]

Maybe someone should make a West-Side story game, where you have to use a dance mat to save the world from invading Russians in a gritty dirt-brown world. No idea who would make this, or what the rights would be like.