I've only played Skyrim, and the visceral immersion is what makes the combat enjoyable. I've heard countless people say it's shit, and I disagree, although definitely a bit of area-aware hit detection wouldn't go astray.
Why is the combat in the TES games so bad?
- Thread starter axillarypuma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I actually enjoyed the combat in Skyrim and Oblivion. Some hit detection might be nice, but considering how many arrows I've taken to the face...yeah go play dark souls if you want a combat focused game.
You know, it's funny that Skyrim, even with it's super clunky combat, still sold well over 10 million copies. That gives to show what people are really looking for in a RPG. SquareEnix should take notice, seeing that they are so desperate to make their FF games more action oriented, completely messing up the series in the process.
Why is the combat in the TES games so bad? Well, because of one simple fact: it isn't. It's gameplay, and a great deal of people consider it solid. I'm sorry you don't like it, but your opinion is as subjective as mine, and millions of fans back me up. In the game of subjectivity, the majority rules. I'm tired of these "what I don't like is shit" threads. Seriously.
Cute. If player skill isn't supposed to be a factor in combat, they should just make you click on an enemy and let the game compare numbers. It would be more or less the same without the redundant button smashing. Real time player controlled combat doesn't work when it's almost solely about character skills.Lightknight said:
Realistically how could they improve it? First person close combat is tricky and aside from differing angles of swings I can't think of a way to make it better.
I blame the engine, Fallout's combat is pretty bad too. And I'm just talking about the guns, the melee is the worst I think I've ever seen. Whatever Gamebryo was designed for, it wasn't first-person combat...or physics...or simulating a bunch of objects at once...or...what the hell is that thing's strength?!
meh, it's a first person rpg. Unless you make it turnbased you cannot expect a balanced and interesting combat system with a game where you can create your own class, spells and weapons. All you can do is try and make it look cool which I think they did pretty decendly.
It's all about exploration of the world and npc's. finding the little stories in the world and making your own. And then there is loot hoarding. My mansion at Bal Isra is completely decked out with "TEH EPIXZ"
I always wonder what games people are comparing TES to when they say the combat sucks. And if it is something like assassins creed you get disqualified for missing the point.
It's all about exploration of the world and npc's. finding the little stories in the world and making your own. And then there is loot hoarding. My mansion at Bal Isra is completely decked out with "TEH EPIXZ"
I always wonder what games people are comparing TES to when they say the combat sucks. And if it is something like assassins creed you get disqualified for missing the point.
The load-out/inventory was a pain, poorly managed with a painful interface, particularly for modding gear. As for combat, it's a shooter, so it's much easier to make a satisfying experience vs. melee (and I felt BW made ME guns/powers interesting on top of that). Had its flaws but I felt it hung in there.AntiChri5 said:
But just comparing combat (and admittedly Skyrim is the only TES game I've played) if that's one of the better examples, holy crap I do not want to play any other game in the series. I can forgive a lot for good adventure, lore and design, and I really stuck it out with Skyrim for what it got right, but good lord was the combat atrocious, made even worse by the absurd companion, inventory and UI design.
Not saying combat can kill a game for me (there was so much more wrong with Skyrim), but devs should learn that, for the love of making a game, you don't need focus so much on combat; stick with what you can get right and make it a better game.
Chivalry, Mount & Blade, and Dark Messiah all have pretty similar combat with a much more skill-based and rewarding system. Chivalry is an excellent example of how a first person game can have great melee combat, M&B demonstrates that you can have role playing and skills that matter while also keeping the gameplay meaningful, and Dark Messiah does environmental interactions way better than TES despite being almost a decade old. TES really has no excuses, except that old "but it does so many things that it's reasonable it does nothing well".Rblade said:
I am sorry if I offended you, but I never implied the TES games were bad and I never said that people had to agree with my opinion, I made this thread to know what kept people playing for so long, I mean did you even read what I said? And if you're tired of these posts, then why the fuck did you even bother to comment?Nieroshai said:
I rented Skyrim and never went back. I absolutely agree with you and I fail to understand why a game as huge as Skyrim has such terrible combat. If we're talking about the PC version, you can modify whatever you want and make it better.axillarypuma said:
But "vanilla" Skyrim on the consoles baffles me in terms of the combat.
The only thing I've heard about the game that's worth playing it for is: The huge world, the ability to do what you want (sandbox factor) looting for different species of plants and whatever.
Skyrim and Metal Gear Solid are the most frustrating games I've ever played as a gamer - and I've played some horribly broken games.
