To CDPR: The importance of Combat

[4RM3D]

Open world RPGs tend to be a jack of all trades because you can follow (many) different paths and have various means to complete tasks, which makes it difficult to have good mechanics for everything.

I'll give a simple example. Stealth is usually an option in RPGs, which means such a mechanic must be implemented. Usually, it's just a simple indicator of how well hidden you are. This is enough for a normal RPG, but wouldn't suffice for a game that focuses on stealth (e.g. Thief/Dishonored). Then you have fighting (melee/ranged), driving, hacking, talking, exploring (jumping/climbing), mini-games and whatnot.

When you can quantify every aspect of the game, which mechanics can you use the most (or have to)? Driving is a support thing, but stealth could very well be the most important for a cyber-ninja. Or maybe you want to talk or hack your way through the game?

Then how important is combat? Dunno. DIsco Elysium is a RPG without any combat (except via dialogue choices). Regardless, if the devs want to add a mechanic to the game, then either make it memorable or make it forgettable. Or to put it bluntly (and more clearly), if it's going to suck, then, at least, make sure it isn't annoying. Case in point, the Witcher 3's combat, which was mediocre, but still good enough to have an immersive fantasy RPG.

 

[satyrsangre]

also in a branching narrative RPG like CP2077 seems to be, the combat is likely not what the devs hope to be its most memorable elements. i perceive they want gameplay to be in service to story.
'i made these choices now i'm in a firefight.'
'i made this dialogue option now i'm in on the boss' secret weakpoint which is hidden otherwise'
'this narrative reveal angers me so now my V will kill them'
a narrative RPG has gameplay in service to story (Skyrim, Fallout, Divinity). rather than games where gameplay is in service to gameplay--which is often a matter of taste, but to me examples include (City of Brass, CoD, No Man's Sky).

narrative RPGs where gameplay serves story often have really robust, diverse sets of mechanics that mean people have a lot of choice of how and when to use them, regardless of the quality of those mechanics.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Then why makes the combats takes most of the RPG mechanics?

 

[satyrsangre]

because combat mechanics are what people usually expect out of an RPG. it's just the truth of the genre.
but like @4RM3D said, Disco Elysium is such an anomaly because it lacked active combat and was entirely narrative. but it still had mechanics akin to skills, attributes, perks, etc. that's an example where narrative entirely was gameplay entirely

 

[Restlessdingo32]

because combat mechanics are what people usually expect out of an RPG. it's just the truth of the genre.

Wait.... Say that again... If this is true it would explain a thing or two. I hope it isn't. If it isn't and devs think it is... Hmm .

In terms of the thread.... Well, there are well designed mechanics, poorly designed mechanics and everything in between. Only one of them should ever be the goal. Regardless of game genre, label or anything else. If an RPG has combat elements in it the game doesn't get a pass if they're bad. In that case it's just an RPG with bad combat mechanics. Whether this makes the experience bad overall is a more complicated matter.

The short version, declaring RPG's do not or should not have quality combat mechanics, if the game includes combat, is fundamentally flawed reasoning. It'd be like saying your car can have shitty mirrors or no windows because the tires are awesome.

 

[Nicademusx]

As long as it's not made to be a grind, at least not an unrealistic grind, then I love this.

What's the factor for that equation?
Just an example...Let's say it takes 100 irl hrs to get good with a club. Do we divide that by 100 and it takes 1 in game hour to equal the same irl time?
Where is the grind line drawn?

 

[satyrsangre]

Wait.... Say that again... If this is true it would explain a thing or two. I hope it isn't. If it isn't and devs think it is... Hmm .

just because it's the truth of the genre and most people's expectation of the genre (community and dev alike) doesn't mean that all RPGs have to include it. Disco Elysium, a very good RPG by many people's estimation, doesn't have live combat mechanics, only narratively decided ones. it doesn't make it any less of an RPG.
your point eludes me. please expound _/||\_

 

[Restlessdingo32]

just because it's the truth of the genre and most people's expectation of the genre (community and dev alike) doesn't mean that all RPGs have to include it. Disco Elysium, a very good RPG by many people's estimation, doesn't have live combat mechanics, only narratively decided ones. it doesn't make it any less of an RPG.
your point eludes me. please expound _/||\_

For whatever reason I took your statement to mean people expect blowing up, shooting, maiming, slicing, dicing and otherwise destroying sentient creatures to be the core feature in an RPG. If you meant people expect combat to exist in an RPG, which is a very different thing, then there are no arguments.

 

[satyrsangre]

@Restlessdingo32 aha! i hear you then

 

[fridgeband]

Open world RPGs tend to be a jack of all trades because you can follow (many) different paths and have various means to complete tasks, which makes it difficult to have good mechanics for everything.

I'll give a simple example. Stealth is usually an option in RPGs, which means such a mechanic must be implemented. Usually, it's just a simple indicator of how well hidden you are. This is enough for a normal RPG, but wouldn't suffice for a game that focuses on stealth (e.g. Thief/Dishonored). Then you have fighting (melee/ranged), driving, hacking, talking, exploring (jumping/climbing), mini-games and whatnot.

When you can quantify every aspect of the game, which mechanics can you use the most (or have to)? Driving is a support thing, but stealth could very well be the most important for a cyber-ninja. Or maybe you want to talk or hack your way through the game?

Then how important is combat? Dunno. DIsco Elysium is a RPG without any combat (except via dialogue choices). Regardless, if the devs want to add a mechanic to the game, then either make it memorable or make it forgettable. Or to put it bluntly (and more clearly), if it's going to suck, then, at least, make sure it isn't annoying. Case in point, the Witcher 3's combat, which was mediocre, but still good enough to have an immersive fantasy RPG.

I agree on almost everything except that I think that Witcher 3's combat was one of those annoying and forgetful mechanics like those that you mention. It just added (along with the style of travel, even if I love roach a lot as a character) a tremendous amount of frustrating tedious grind and inconvenience to the gameplay.

Post automatically merged: Jul 7, 2020

What's the factor for that equation?
Just an example...Let's say it takes 100 irl hrs to get good with a club. Do we divide that by 100 and it takes 1 in game hour to equal the same irl time?
Where is the grind line drawn?

This is a really good question and I have a really honest answer. It's just very important that the player can both see and feel themselves becoming better in a fair enough time frame and in such a way that they do not feel forced to sit there for extremely long amounts of (in real life) time repeating the same action over and over and over again specifically for the goal of finally improving their skills in-game.


Instead, the player should be able to ignore, but still casually notice their skills improving slowly, but not painfully slowly, in such a way that they are more focused on the fun that they are having, and not actually forced to pay attention to their skills slowly improving. It's important that the player should be having so much fun and be so entertained by the combat, the story, the gameplay, that they are able to just reach a point where they only notice after the fact "oh hey my skills have improved as a side-effect of all the fun I was having" I would consider that a non-grind, and just "fun".


If the player feels like "oh no now I have to do the tedious and chore-like task of wasting huge amounts of my time grinding my skills up, while having zero fun at all" then I consider that to be a grind.

 

[BluPixel]

Never understood why people say witcher 3 combat is bad. I don't know even 1 rpg that does third person action combat better than witcher 3

 

[4RM3D]

I don't know even 1 rpg that does third person action combat better than witcher 3

Dark Souls

/thread

 

[fridgeband]

Never understood why people say witcher 3 combat is bad. I don't know even 1 rpg that does third person action combat better than witcher 3

Well because I never felt in control of the combat in Witcher 3. I don't mean in control of other enemies, not what I'm saying at all. I mean, I never felt in control of my own character. I felt like controlling geralt was extremely frustrating and I never felt like he would do what I actually wanted him to do. The whole experience in combat, and even out of combat felt extremely clunky and slow moving and felt like walking through mud. Every action I tried to take was just so so annoying, and I always regretted all combat encounters, even ones where I had 100% complete victory. Even winning wasn't fun in witcher 3 combat. I tried my best to explain, I hope it helps. I also noticed that enemies had a very weird habit of being able to cancel and interrupt geralts attacks that he had not yet started, with attacks that they enemies had not yet started, all without even touching geralt once, causing tons of moments where geralt would just stand there and get attacked while I frantically smashed my keyboard inputs like "AHHHHHHHHHHH JUST MOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVEEEE!!!!" The game really put me in a bad mood lol

 

[Nicademusx]

I agree on almost everything except that I think that Witcher 3's combat was one of those annoying and forgetful mechanics like those that you mention. It just added (along with the style of travel, even if I love roach a lot as a character) a tremendous amount of frustrating tedious grind and inconvenience to the gameplay.

Post automatically merged: Jul 7, 2020

This is a really good question and I have a really honest answer. It's just very important that the player can both see and feel themselves becoming better in a fair enough time frame and in such a way that they do not feel forced to sit there for extremely long amounts of (in real life) time repeating the same action over and over and over again specifically for the goal of finally improving their skills in-game.


Instead, the player should be able to ignore, but still casually notice their skills improving slowly, but not painfully slowly, in such a way that they are more focused on the fun that they are having, and not actually forced to pay attention to their skills slowly improving. It's important that the player should be having so much fun and be so entertained by the combat, the story, the gameplay, that they are able to just reach a point where they only notice after the fact "oh hey my skills have improved as a side-effect of all the fun I was having" I would consider that a non-grind, and just "fun".


If the player feels like "oh no now I have to do the tedious and chore-like task of wasting huge amounts of my time grinding my skills up, while having zero fun at all" then I consider that to be a grind.

I like the way that was stated and agree with you 100%

 

[fridgeband]

I like the way that was stated and agree with you 100%

I like it when I find posts that speak to me this good, and I also like it when my words come out good and speak to someone else.
The deep connection of understanding is such a cool thing, and it feels amazing.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Well because I never felt in control of the combat in Witcher 3. I don't mean in control of other enemies, not what I'm saying at all. I mean, I never felt in control of my own character. I felt like controlling geralt was extremely frustrating and I never felt like he would do what I actually wanted him to do. The whole experience in combat, and even out of combat felt extremely clunky and slow moving and felt like walking through mud. Every action I tried to take was just so so annoying, and I always regretted all combat encounters, even ones where I had 100% complete victory. Even winning wasn't fun in witcher 3 combat. I tried my best to explain, I hope it helps. I also noticed that enemies had a very weird habit of being able to cancel and interrupt geralts attacks that he had not yet started, with attacks that they enemies had not yet started, all without even touching geralt once, causing tons of moments where geralt would just stand there and get attacked while I frantically smashed my keyboard inputs like "AHHHHHHHHHHH JUST MOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVEEEE!!!!" The game really put me in a bad mood lol

You ever try playing it without button mashing? In my experience button mashing was the largest no-no with TW3. The experience was night and day. If you button mashed it was clunky and felt non-responsive. If you had a grip on the timing, enemy attack patterns and exploited them correctly it was... not.

I'm in the midst of replaying Kingdom Come and it fits a similar concept. If you button mash there you're gonna have a bad day. Hell, even combos or long attack strings almost require successfully executing a clinch or perfect parry. In both cases you might still get interrupted. The only really bad aspect in that game is fighting multiple opponents.... The auto target lock mechanics are terrible and you spend 5 minutes trying to land perfect parries until the odds are even (and... this is why you bring a war hammer or mace... swords can suck it).

I'd agree with BluePixel. TW3 combat wasn't bad if it was handled correctly. If anything it's one of the better games in the area as ARPG's go. It was definitely not the best. It was relatively basic too. Bad is a stretch. If you want bad ARPG combat play AC: Origins.

 

[fridgeband]

You ever try playing it without button mashing? In my experience button mashing was the largest no-no with TW3. The experience was night and day. If you button mashed it was clunky and felt non-responsive. If you had a grip on the timing, enemy attack patterns and exploited them correctly it was... not.

I'm in the midst of replaying Kingdom Come and it fits a similar concept. If you button mash there you're gonna have a bad day. Hell, even combos or long attack strings almost require successfully executing a clinch or perfect parry. In both cases you might still get interrupted. The only really bad aspect in that game is fighting multiple opponents.... The auto target lock mechanics are terrible and you spend 5 minutes trying to land perfect parries until the odds are even (and... this is why you bring a war hammer or mace... swords can suck it).

I'd agree with BluePixel. TW3 combat wasn't bad if it was handled correctly. If anything it's one of the better games in the area as ARPG's go. It was definitely not the best. It was relatively basic too. Bad is a stretch. If you want bad ARPG combat play AC: Origins.

No no no I am not a button masher. witcher 3 combat was so broken that at times it made me feel like a button masher because of how unresponsive the controls were. I felt like at many times w3 outright completely ignored my inputs even if I was being calm about it. The game would ignore my inputs so badly that it would create very tense and frustrating situations where geralt would just stay sitting there and get attacked while I tried to maneuver and attack and block, and the game just didn't care what I wanted to do. Instead of fighting the enemies, I was fighting the game.

If the combat is bad like that in Cyberpunk2077, I might possibly ask for a refund.

 

[4RM3D]

I'm in the midst of replaying Kingdom Come and it fits a similar concept.

That auto lock on, though, more annoying than the combat of the Witcher ever was.

If the combat is bad like that in Cyberpunk2077, I might possibly ask for a refund.

The Witcher vs CP2077 (or Geralt vs V):

 

[fridgeband]

The Witcher vs CP2077 (or Geralt vs V):

So Cyberpunk2077 = Indiana Jones right? If so, I am extremely relaxed and have no worries
I just want to feel like I press keys, I move my mouse, I do an input, and V does exactly what I want them to do. Fluid, clean, good movement, no clunk, just nice and simple proper accuracy and responsiveness to my controls.

 

[4RM3D]

So Cyberpunk2077 = Indiana Jones right? If so, I am extremely relaxed and have no worries

You've experienced some discomfort when trying to tell Geralt how to swing his sword. However, if you use guns, instead, then you just have to point and shoot. No dodge/sidestep, no parry, no riposte, no light swing or heavy swing; just pull the trigger.