Poll: Why is melee over powered?

[Dyme]

Games =/= realism.

If Battlefield 3 would be realistic, I would enter a plane and kill everyone and there would be nothing they could do about it. And there would be rockets flying hundreds of kilometres. No one wants realism.

 

[Deadyawn]

It's a risk vs reward thing. If you're going to run right up to someone all the while they're shooting you, you need some sort of reason. Instakill melee attacks mean that you can make a viable strategy out of attacking in close combat. It also means you can sneak up on people and have a way to deal with them. I think the halo system works pretty well, 2 hits to kill from the front, 1from the back.

The problem is that melee isnt that much of a risk, in most games it has "auto-aim" in the way that you wont miss the hit, and it still lunges the character.

The player that is shooting will have to unload a mag on the enemy to kill him while the other guy just needs to get a bit close and instakill.


Look at the guy at 1:11


Even while getting hit the guy manages to knife him, while if it was gun VS gun it would have been completely different.


EDIT: Also worth pointing out is the time that it takes to knife, its instant.

I see your point and in some of those cases it would probably be good to adjust the way the melee attack works. but really, in these games it doesn't take many bullets to kill you, you should be able to kill someone before they get close enough to knife you. Ideally, the knife should be kind of like a reset button for two people that have gotten too close to each other to have a meaningful firefight. And if they're unaware of you then there should be someway to instantly dispatch them.

 

[Alrocsmash]

Melee overpowered?

I think around 6 World of Warcraft Gladiator seasons want to have a word with you.

 

[Apocalypse0Child]

I agree that melee in Halo is a complete shit. Players survive full-on impact from an rpg but fall over if you brush too close against them in a tunnel, give me a break.

But I personally think (yes, I do play as a knife runner a lot so that probably invalidates my opinion) that knifing in CoD is completely reasonable. As was previously said, if you can get close to someone without getting shot, fairplay to you, and you need/deserve a quick kill.
*Edit* Especially on the hardcore game modes.

 

[DeleteThisAcc]

If they let you come so close you can slice their throats and cut their hearts out, they deserve it.

Knife - deadly weapon, but I would like to see you take your knife out from holding weapon position and slit my throat / stab me through bullet proof vest in 0.1 second and don't miss my throat.

Any game with "press that button for instant knife kill" has overpowered knifes/melee. Anyone saying otherwise is defending their beloved COD/other childish game.

Oh and firearms are underpowered - IRL - one bullet to leg and you are out of game.

 

[randomsix]

The problem for me is that even if you come at someone with a knife, there shouldn't be a guaranteed kill, as if you are close enough to them to stab them, then they are close enough to you to try a counter of their own. That games nowadays make it a foregone conclusion that the person with the knife gets a quick, clean, uncontested kill is incredibly lazy game design in my opinion.

Another issue is that its much too easy to sneak up on people due to very fast moving and strafing speeds and a lack of peripheral vision that is a result of playing on a screen.

 

[Atmos Duality]

If this doesn't just pertain to CoD4.x...

Well, depends on the game. Obvious, I know.
But it boils down to risk-vs-reward. In a game where guns have both range and good stopping power, melee needs a counterbalance to make it something other than a desperation attack.
That usually involves turning it into an attack of opportunity.

A good example for comparison would be the difference between Tribes 2 and Tribes: Vengeance.
Both games have a melee weapon called a Shock Lance. One is a dedicated electrical spear projector, the other is a katar-like blade built into your suit that you can use to stab with any time between your other attacks.

Tribes 2: The Shock Lance is a very powerful weapon, but it's difficult to use simply due to the nature of the game. However, it kills anyone rather quickly, ignores shields, and is an instant-kill regardless of circumstances when you strike someone in the back with it.

In Tribes:Vengeance, the shock lance does little damage, but can be used when you're right up in someone's face, at any time. Kind of like Duke3D's Mighty Boot.

One weapon is a tool for assassinations, the other is more punchy and better used in the midst of a firefight to supplement your attacks. Sufficed to say, the former proved to be more practical in general.

 

[Snowblindblitz]

I always liked the way Call of Duty (1 & 2) did it. Actual damage that is different for every weapon. Snipers and rifles used to have the most meelee damage. One hit on the chest / head was enough and their meelee range was fantastic. It fit in amazingly with the rest of the gameplay, movement speeds and weapon fire ranges.

But no, instantkilling (which is today's standard pretty much, thanks to console games) IS overpowered.

What if it was like the taunt-kill of TF2's sniper.

So it stabs very quickly where it instantly paralyses the enemy who doesn't actually die till the knife is twisted and then pulled out. Because a straight "stab in and out" knife wound can't possibly be deadlier than being shot twice in the chest with an assault rifle, but if the blade was twisted to literally disembowel the enemy that could surely kill with one "hit".

So, the balancing here is that in a pinch you can deliver a quick and effective attack but you cannot be too aggressive with it as you are left vulnerable for a couple seconds so no more of running into a room and knifing to death three people who are armed with fully automatic weapons:

I haven't played CoD in a long time, and that reminds me of how unrealistic that game is. I don't look for realism in a game (love TF2) but I don't like games trying to sell realism when it's that ridiculous.

 

[Slayer_2]

It's unrealistic (good luck pushing a knife though a kevlar vest and into an area vital enough to kill), but fair, as the knife needs to be powerful enough to be useful.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Because the gun is far superior to the knife in terms of a straight fight. The knife would be useless if you saay, won in that straight fight, and dug the blade into your opponent, but then didn't die. By the time you hacked away at them, you'd have a lot of bullets in you.

Thus, you need to balance it. The game rewards people brave enough, skillful enough, and fast enough to get that close to their enemies without being gunned down by the superior weapon.

Tbh, If a knife kill isn't instant. There is next to no point including it in the game. Because hardly anyone except the very few 'elite' players will think twice about using it.

Take Counter-strike for instance. Nobody uses the knife for actual killing (Unless they're really cocky, but the success rate is very, very low.) They use it for specialized knife battles, or knife duels.

 

[Zantos]

On some games I think they're just off balance. CoD for example, you can put an entire mag in them and they'll still be able to make it up and kill you. Gears of War handles it's melee slightly better. Yes all of the melee attacks are one hits, and yes one involves a chainsaw, but it takes a lot of skill and luck to get through the lancer and shotgun fire alive and if you manage it then you kind of deserve that one hit.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Because can you imagine how incredibly under-powered and flat out lame multiple hit knife kills would be in CoD? For fucks sake, a couple shots is all the guns need to kill you, and they can do it across the map! Melee isn't over powered on it's own, melee auto-aim is both over powered and ridiculous. Melee should be a one hit kill stab, with no or minimal auto-aim.

 

[CorinthianRed]

It's a risk vs reward thing. If you're going to run right up to someone all the while they're shooting you, you need some sort of reason. Instakill melee attacks mean that you can make a viable strategy out of attacking in close combat. It also means you can sneak up on people and have a way to deal with them. I think the halo system works pretty well, 2 hits to kill from the front, 1from the back.

no see, because once you throw lightweight and marathon in there it's not a risk, it's an almost certain guarantee.
Or the melee should just take like 3 seconds to perform while you're pulling knife out and then putting it away.the balistic knife is a risk vs reward, the melee is something they give to kids who were unprepared to turn a corner.

 

[similar.squirrel]

As everybody's been saying, it's for the sake of balance. First-person perspective does not lend itself especially well to melee combat [as demonstrated by Mirror's Edge], so there must be some incentive for risking a hail of bullets to land a punch. Anyway, there's nothing more satisfying than taking down an Elite's shields and pummelling him into oblivion as he stands there screaming at the sky. And now I sound like your typical gun-nut psychopath..

 

[AwkwardTurtle]

It's not overpowered.

You're just bad at the game. Period.

Whatever game it is.

Ahaha made me laugh. xD

OT: Well I think the points everyone makes above is pretty much accurate. If melee didn't one hit kill and guns were to kill a person with the same speed as a number of melee hits, then there would no longer be a reason to melee. It's all about rewarding those who would forgo the guns given to him or her to stab an enemy in the face. Or punch...whatever floats your boat.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Because only real men punch.

Actually, in all honesty, I do agree that meleeing is OP. It defeats the whole purpose of guns if it's more advantageous to run up to the enemy and duke it out Mortal Kombat style.

imo, meleeing should only kill the guy if bullets can kill you just as fast (See: CoD, though that's sketchy since the Marathon Commando knifers are annoying) or if you've shot them a lot of times. I personally thought Halo 1 did it perfectly well, and the lunge mechanic put into Halo 2 was a bit silly. I mean, I'm pretty sure that you can't lunge with a gun, and a gun is a horrible choice to whack someone over the head with unless you take the time to use it as a baseball bat, which I think would damage the gun.

 

[Stalydan]

considering the physical implications, it doesn't seem overpowered at all. 'unloading a machine gun into a target' and then getting killed by the target's knife indicates ranged weapons are underpowered though.

Definitely, I don't know the last time I heard of somebody having ten bullets tearing through their chest and then getting straight back up. It seems like the only weapons that actually do have the power they're suppose to have are sniper rifles.

 

[JaceArveduin]

I like how Combat Arms does it myself, no "press X to stab". you have to switch to your melee weapon, and it takes two swings from the default knife to kill.

Though the ranges in the game are wonky and it's not balanced through out the arsenal.