RPG combat

[2733]

With the release of Fable 3 right around the corner I've begun thinking about something that has bothered me for quite some time,

Why do RPGs have poor combat?

While the combat in fable is not terrible, if compared to say, "God of war" or "Bayoneta" it just isn't well done. Which leads me to the thought "If you are going to make a 50 hour game at a cost of $6,000,000 to make why would you let the combat be anything less then absolutely perfect?

 

[FalloutJack]

Ah, well...God of War isn't an RPG, though. Should we not compare it to other RPGs?

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

God of War and Bayonetta perhaps aren't brilliant examples to choose, though.
Both of them are hack n' slash style games, where the whole objective is simply wading through tons of dudes whilst looking as awesome/bad-ass as possible.

Most RPGs (an annoyingly general term) are likely to sacrifice ground breaking combat systems in favour of storytelling and aesthetic, (Oblivion springs to mind), and those with brilliant storytelling AND a great combat system (Dragon Age, for example) have an immersive-as-hell storyline but the combat system requires you to do maths, meaning fighting breaks the immersion. "Why go to all the trouble of creating a live-in, absorbing world when you're going to break that every time a fight pops up?" is the attitude a lot of developers seem to take and is completely understandable - an RPG is, at the core, all about immersion.

Just my oppinion...

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I don't know. Then again, I'm one of those creepy people who like turn-based games...

It's probably because of a greater development focus on dialogue, graphics, and audio. Spreading themselves too thin. Look at Fallout 3's horrid manual aiming.

 

[TurtleBay]

I think that one of the issues is that they want the combat to be mostly stat based. FPS games and games like God of War make the combat skill based. If a really skillful player could aim themselves and hit every shot then it would be useless to have any kind of attack rating or accuracy skill. Likewise if a good player can dodge all of the enemies attacks it would be useless to have a dodge skill. In FPS games it is OK to have the game measure the skill of the player instead of the attributes of the character because they don't have stat customization systems.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

It sounds like you just hate RPG combat mechanics compared to hack n' slash, platformers, shooters, etc. The AAA RPGs usually have great combat mechanics, but of course they're not going to be nearly as stylish or free flowing as other genres. You have to remember that money is a huge limiting factor. If you are putting most of your eggs into telling a good story, then there is a perfectly good reason to make sure that you don't have the most stellar combat possible, it's a trade-off for your storytelling possibilities.

 

[Enigmers]

If you want an RPG with an actiony combat system, try Diablo or Torchlight.

 

[Asdalan08]

I actually like RPG combat... atleast turn-based combat because it reminds me of my childhood of FF and Dragon Quest. But aside from that I can see how some people see it as boring and just plain pointless but theres something about the strategy involved in RPG combat as compared to the RUN IN AND SPRAY BULLETS EVERYWHERE technique of FPS's.

Meh... that's just me

 

[omega 616]

I should save this little rant onto my computer, hack and slash games have piss poor combat! square is always light attack and triangle is strong, so the best combo is always 2 squares followed by one triangle for the entire length of the game (maybe adding a few extra squares to the mix), while the ranged attacks do tiny amounts of damage against anything.

Comparing hack n slashers to RPG games isn't a great move, although I can see what your shooting at. RPGs are more about story, so I would rather have mediocre combat and great story than vice versa.

In an ideal world we could have both, but if we lived in such a place this thread would be pointless.

 

[Eduku]

I should save this little rant onto my computer, hack and slash games have piss poor combat! square is always light attack and triangle is strong, so the best combo is always 2 squares followed by one triangle for the entire length of the game (maybe adding a few extra squares to the mix), while the ranged attacks do tiny amounts of damage against anything.

Comparing hack n slashers to RPG games isn't a great move, although I can see what your shooting at. RPGs are more about story, so I would rather have mediocre combat and great story than vice versa.

In an ideal world we could have both, but if we lived in such a place this thread would be pointless.

DMC4 and Bayonetta beg to differ.

OT: I like RPG combat perfectly fine. Both turn-based and real-time. I guess the reason why real-time combat isn't like God of War and Bayonetta (a poor comparison in the first place) is that RPG devs have to spread their resources across things like story and character development.

 

[Brotherofwill]

Doesn't exactly take rocket science to figure out why the combat is 'worse'. RPG combat isn't and shouldn't be going the route of hack and slashers. That type of combat would be much too fast, development heavy and not very compatable with stat based systems. Hack and Slash combat is skill based, RPG combat is mostly stat based.

I don't know. Then again, I'm one of those creepy people who like turn-based games...

Who doesn't? I still think it's the best for RPGs.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

I should save this little rant onto my computer, hack and slash games have piss poor combat! square is always light attack and triangle is strong, so the best combo is always 2 squares followed by one triangle for the entire length of the game (maybe adding a few extra squares to the mix), while the ranged attacks do tiny amounts of damage against anything.

Comparing hack n slashers to RPG games isn't a great move, although I can see what your shooting at. RPGs are more about story, so I would rather have mediocre combat and great story than vice versa.

In an ideal world we could have both, but if we lived in such a place this thread would be pointless.

DMC4 and Bayonetta beg to differ.

OT: I like RPG combat perfectly fine. Both turn-based and real-time. I guess the reason why real-time combat isn't like God of War and Bayonetta (a poor comparison in the first place) is that RPG devs have to spread their resources across things like story and character development.

DMC 3 would like to have a word with you as well...

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Most RPGs (an annoyingly general term) are likely to sacrifice ground breaking combat systems in favour of storytelling and aesthetic, (Oblivion springs to mind), and those with brilliant storytelling AND a great combat system (Dragon Age, for example) have an immersive-as-hell storyline but the combat system requires you to do maths, meaning fighting breaks the immersion.

I wouldn't really quote Dragon Age as having a ground breaking or revolutionary combat system (See Neverwinter Nights), it was pretty much the worst aspect of the game in my opinion (unless you count the ear splitting, skin twisting, wall paper-peeling sound of the children's voices) and didn't do much to advance the genre.

I would say Fallout had a really strong combat mechanic, you built your character a certain way to be stronger in a particular branch of combat or even being adept at avoiding it altogether. The guns felt good and varied, the melee felt strong and there was always a sense of you being very easily outmatched if you wandered into a bad area (mostly at initial levels, later on you were pretty hard to kill), which a lot of RPGs are missing now (see Dragon Age). Also, the game exercised a stealth element that meshed well with the other types of combat, and the VATS aiming system allowed you to play a type of combat even if you weren't too adept at controlling that type of play. IE if you stink at getting head shots with a sniper you could let the game take over for you and have your character stats speak for themselves.

 

[Flamezdudes]

RPG's have awful combat? Since when?

I guess it's because the focus is generally on the world, characters and story instead of combat. However, i've played quite a lot of RPG's with good combat.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

Most RPGs (an annoyingly general term) are likely to sacrifice ground breaking combat systems in favour of storytelling and aesthetic, (Oblivion springs to mind), and those with brilliant storytelling AND a great combat system (Dragon Age, for example) have an immersive-as-hell storyline but the combat system requires you to do maths, meaning fighting breaks the immersion.

I wouldn't really quote Dragon Age as having a ground breaking or revolutionary combat system (See Neverwinter Nights), it was pretty much the worst aspect of the game in my opinion (unless you count the ear splitting, skin twisting, wall paper-peeling sound of the children's voices) and didn't do much to advance the genre.

I would say Fallout had a really strong combat mechanic, you built your character a certain way to be stronger in a particular branch of combat or even being adept at avoiding it altogether. The guns felt good and varied, the melee felt strong and there was always a sense of you being very easily outmatched if you wandered into a bad area (mostly at initial levels, later on you were pretty hard to kill), which a lot of RPGs are missing now (see Dragon Age). Also, the game exercised a stealth element that meshed well with the other types of combat, and the VATS aiming system allowed you to play a type of combat even if you weren't too adept at controlling that type of play. IE if you stink at getting head shots with a sniper you could let the game take over for you and have your character stats speak for themselves.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear - no, DA didn't use a revolutionary combat system. What I mean was it was a good one.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, in Dragon Age try going straight to Orzammar after leaving Lothering. You're not absurdly outclassed, sure, but it can prove quite a challenge for low-level characters; especially on harder difficulty settings.

 

[2733]

with was has been posted in mind I now pose the question the other way, why can we not have the fine character development and deep involving story of say "Persona 4" (one of my favorite games ever) into "Devil may cry"?

is it so hard? is it so much to expect? or have we simply become complacent to this order of things?

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

with was has been posted in mind I now pose the question the other way, why can we not have the fine character development and deep involving story of say "Persona 4" (one of my favorite games ever) into "Devil may cry"?

is it so hard? is it so much to expect? or have we simply become complacent to this order of things?

There is some great characterisation in the DMC games, (well, with the exception of 2).
DMC is very well written, in my oppinion, and has some great voice actors. It's an incredibly immersive game (again, not no. 2) and, given a decent chance, is sure to draw you in somewhat...

 

[Korten12]

Demon's Souls has one of the best combat systems, simple but amazing!

 

[Eduku]

with was has been posted in mind I now pose the question the other way, why can we not have the fine character development and deep involving story of say "Persona 4" (one of my favorite games ever) into "Devil may cry"?

is it so hard? is it so much to expect? or have we simply become complacent to this order of things?

Why does Persona need a Devil May Cry combat system? They're two completely different types of game. I'll stick with the turn-based combat in Persona and if I want to play combat like Devil May Cry, I'll play Devil May Cry.