What place does melee really have in shooters?
- Thread starter Westaway
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Killzone 2 previously saw players using their rifles as blunt force weapons in hand-to-hand fights, but the new 'Brutal Melee System' in Killzone 3 takes close-quarters combat to a whole new level. It allows players to execute fluid, context-sensitive close-quarters combos (consisting of kicks, punches and stabs) on an opponent using well-timed button presses.
mwuhahaha
mwuhahaha
I think Halo gets melee mostly right. Maybe it's still a tad too powerful there. Things like Call of Duty knives and Halo Swords have absolutely no place in shooters in my opinion. They can never be balanced and you end up with situations like Commando/Tac Knife whores ruining MW2. Another example of melee done right: Team Fortress 2. Melee weapons are pretty deadly at close range, but they aren't as powerful as a Shotgun or something like that.
Okay, this is MW2-specific, so the entire argument is rendered pointless by the huge masses of games that require melee weapons to be equipped, and they usually do less damage than a shot from a bullet.
In most games, it's just humiliation that you didn't need to use a weapon with any range to kill someone, therefore proving your stealth skills.
In most games, it's just humiliation that you didn't need to use a weapon with any range to kill someone, therefore proving your stealth skills.
Give this man a copy of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Your oppinion will be changed in 3 inverted neck breaks.
1) When you've ran out of projectiles/bullets, a melee weapon comes in very handy.
2) I like systems where the melee weapon stuns an opponent, tying in well to 1) and allowing the player to escape to safety and find more ammo rather than certain death.
3) Some melee attacks make perfect sense - the GoW chainsaw is insta-kill but it also slows you down and opens you up to attack. I rarely see a game where a melee kills in one hit. Think about it, if you're bludgeoned full force with a weapon three times, you'd probably be as good as dead anyway.
But the knife in MW2 is just hilariously poor.
I think personally that if you have most guns considered 'middle range' and no one ever seems to complain about snipers in games ('long range'), then there should also be place for short range attacks and some players may choose to take advantage of it.
2) I like systems where the melee weapon stuns an opponent, tying in well to 1) and allowing the player to escape to safety and find more ammo rather than certain death.
3) Some melee attacks make perfect sense - the GoW chainsaw is insta-kill but it also slows you down and opens you up to attack. I rarely see a game where a melee kills in one hit. Think about it, if you're bludgeoned full force with a weapon three times, you'd probably be as good as dead anyway.
But the knife in MW2 is just hilariously poor.
I think personally that if you have most guns considered 'middle range' and no one ever seems to complain about snipers in games ('long range'), then there should also be place for short range attacks and some players may choose to take advantage of it.
I think the primary reason is that it isn't all that easy to pull off. When you are playing a game with long range guns, doing a melee (meleeing?) is fairly hard to do. And then there is MW2. That game completely broke the melee and should be recalled and re-released, but in other games it makes sense. In some games, it is even realistic. Like in Halo you are a super soldier so the strength makes sense. Or in some older games, you can use it, but it isn't even close to a one hit kill.
I agree in principle. I cite Battlefield 2 and Team Fortress 2 as having good implementations of melee in their respective combat systems.
I haven't played anything multi-player that does that right, but in a single-player game, Zeno Clash is exactly this. There are a handful of ranged weapons that you use occasionally, but for the most part it's a first-person brawler, with various combos based on punches, kicks, finishing moves, and whatnot. Unlike almost every other first-person game ever, it actually feels right when you do those things, because of the way everything's weighted and the way the camera shifts as your character shifts their weight when lunging into a punch or kneeing someone in the face, instead of the usual half-assed melee stuff that's tacked onto almost every FPS. It's kind of short and very weird, but it's fun and sounds like what you're looking for. I hope more stuff like it comes along some day.viranimus said:
It depends on the game.
The melee in MW2 works well because it's a fast paced game. Having to equip a knife and then attack would clash with the pacing of the objective based game types.
Equiping knifes or whatever would work in a slowerpaced, stealth based game.
The melee in MW2 works well because it's a fast paced game. Having to equip a knife and then attack would clash with the pacing of the objective based game types.
Equiping knifes or whatever would work in a slowerpaced, stealth based game.
I think you will find that it is two right clicks, left clicks do something like 11 damage.ProfessorLayton said:
OT: I completely agree that every game should have a gun-butt melee option since that is realistic and seeing how much a heavy blob of metal would hurt you if smashed right into you 2/3 hits seems about right. What should never exist, which a lot of people have picked up on, is the MW2 way where you have the ability to somehow drop your weapon whilst swinging out a knife from your right and lunging a full 3 metres (or about 78 if commando is on) then placing it in your left pocket (so that it miraculously is back in your right pocket for next time) and pick up your gun from however far away you dropped it without stopping or going back. I mean seriously, not every soldier is fucking Houdini. If you take out the lunging element (forget with commando on) the only .... acceptable .... melee in MW2 is the tactical knife since that makes more sense than the gun drop magic trick but that would be incredibly tiring to hold your arms the way they do for more than a minute, let alone the horrible aim.
On the note of how effective melee weapons should be is down to the game. If you're wearing half a car (e.g. Gears of War) then a knife would be fairly useless since there is little chance hitting anyone unless you face stab them, which is why it's not in the game. In something like CS:S the damage the knife does makes sense since most people are wearing kevlar, which is stab proof. On the topic of lunging, the only "good" lunge I've seen is in the Hidden, since without it the game would be pretty dam hard for the Hidden, and the fact that the lunge takes 3 secs of preparation.
I like the way Halo did it, it can do significant damage but is not an insta-kill, unless of course you have the Energy Sword or Gravity Hammer.
It depends on the game. In a game like gears of war or halo where somebody can take almost a full clip of machinegun fire, of course melee shouldn't be a one hit kill. Modern warfare is a different story. if a melee attack did less than a bullet did, what would the point be of even including one in the game?
Melee should always do a generous amount of damage, because in the end, if you managed to make your way right up to somebody that has the means shoot you from a distance, you should get the chance to fuck them up. Sure it probably isn't realistic, but it's common logic as far as balancing goes. I don't get why people complain about the knife in mw2. Yeah it's a one hit kill. So is pretty much everything else, but you can't get a fully automatic knife with an acog scope.
Melee should always do a generous amount of damage, because in the end, if you managed to make your way right up to somebody that has the means shoot you from a distance, you should get the chance to fuck them up. Sure it probably isn't realistic, but it's common logic as far as balancing goes. I don't get why people complain about the knife in mw2. Yeah it's a one hit kill. So is pretty much everything else, but you can't get a fully automatic knife with an acog scope.
Melee is great in shooters. It's perfect for when you have only a few rounds left or reloading if they get too close.
MW2 has just done it wrong. I believe the level design is largely to blame for that: way too many blind corners. In order to discourage camping, each doorway/corridor has multiple exits. So running up to people is fairly easy :/
MW2 has just done it wrong. I believe the level design is largely to blame for that: way too many blind corners. In order to discourage camping, each doorway/corridor has multiple exits. So running up to people is fairly easy :/
Melee lunge is stupid, and it shouldn't always be a one-hit kill. Then again, there are circumstances where it makes sense. As an above poster said, Halo had roughly the right idea: make it a one-hit kill from behind, or from the front it does quite a bit of damage but not enough for a kill (assuming full health), and staggers them for a couple of seconds. And no lunging either. This way ensures that it's used either in sneak attacks from behind, which makes sense and adds to gameplay, in sudden close-quarter encounters, which also does, or as a last resort, but not as an effective weapon of choice.
While its fun to shoot an asshole at point blank range if your on a killing spree and have plenty of ammo. BUT in some shooting games you want the melee option becuase its like you said "unlimited" and can be a one hit kill if you do it right, plus in survival horror its essential becuase who wouldn't kick a zombie or ghoul if they were running out of ammo. and its also a good show off tactic for chaining a kill combo "one blast from a shotgun + melee" equals instant kill.