Combat System Recycled AGAIN? | Forums

[luckyto]

It does need tweaking, counter windows lowered and AI smartened up (things like detection meters should be much smaller aka easier for you to be spotted, if they see a dead guard they automatically stay on high watch, etc).
.

Agreed.

But one has to mention that even AC1 had Archetypes. So a combat system completely without archetypes is not possible.
But I think they should make the archetypes weak to multiple forms of attack and only immune towards one special strategy.

I view AC1's archetypes more like the same guard with different difficulty levels. But we are talking about the same thing, I think. Any guard in that game could grab you, some were just more likely to grab you. Any guard in AC1 could counter, some were just more likely to do so. And they had different health levels with the harder types taking more hits, and the cannon fodder going down in one good combo or counter. It worked.

Look at God of War. Probably the best melee system ever done. Most encounters featured weak cannon fodder mixed a few harder enemies at you with a variety of attack patterns. You could utilize any number of light attacks, dodges, combos and heavy attacks against each of them with varying success. Combat comes down to reacting to the situation - when to block, when to attack and how to attack and where to move within the fray. It was very simple - but could be layered together with great depth and finesse.

Both AC1 and AC3 came close to this. AC1 was held back because the "turtle" became all too powerful and AC3 is held back by the same archetyping system introduced in AC2.

1. You seem to be pretty lazy...
2. If you ever did parkour you would know that you have indeed to feel and conciously make every move, "your instincts doing this for you" is nonsense. Seriously, try it in real life. You will fail.
3. As if navigation and tactics was SOOOO hard.... Seriously, in games like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or Conviction you have to do the same thing. But I still have to press when I want to climb up something or jump. What the hell is so hard about this?
4. More interactivity (IMO) = more immersion. The less the game requires me to do the less I feel like doing it. Sure, one can exaggerate it. But to be honest, AC is oversimplifying i

Well, I've run from the cops plenty of times back in high school, played ball and been in similar situations ... lol ... my body was doing whatever it needed to, and I was a hell of lot more focused on which way to go. I don't remember consciously thinking, I have to jump that fence, I just put my hand out and vaulted and went back to stride. But my eyes and mind were on my escape route.

More interactivity can often mean less immersion. If it's overkill. Tomb Raider, for example, has a smart cover system. Whenever you are in danger, move to a place with cover and she takes cover. No button pressing. It works. It's probably the best cover system ever invented and the fights are no less immersive. In fact, they are probably better off because I don't have to stop to think ... oh, i'm in cover, i have to press this. I'm focused on the enemy.

In AC terms, which eavesdropping missions were more immersive: AC1's versions where you sat on a bench, and the camera focused in tightly on the conversation or the highly interactive AC3 and ACIV versions where you follow inside this glowing circle? In my opinion, AC1's versions actually allowed you to focus on the story, on the conversation, and were more immersive. While the AC3 version - while being more interactive -- had my mind more focused on glowing DNA circles than the conversation. The ideal eavesdropping mission would be somewhere in between.

It's not lazy, because there's nothing exhaustive about pressing buttons. It's a matter of which interaction creates the most immersion and takes the mind to the place that best suits the mood/game/setting. In my mind, the free-running of AC has always suited the franchise --- and there's nothing brainless about it. I've been gaming forever, since Atari 2600, and even I can see that the desire to have button-presses for every action is the old-school way of thinking (game design) when graphics, environments and AI weren't capable of engrossing a player. AC broke that mold, and I was glad for it. I still like to play the old way, but there are franchises that do that already. I'm good with letting them do it, and AC focusing on level, map design, crowds and other ways to engage me while I run full-speed.


Ultimately, that's where I fall in all changes. For all the releases since ACB. I'm not interested in big changes to the game. Big changes have usually meant disasters with a few minor exceptions. I more interested in refinement. Evolution. Embrace the original Assassin's Creed. Take the combat back to it's roots and refine it. Take the AI and guards back to its roots and improve it. Take chases back to exactly what they were in AC1. Bring back open-ended assassinations (thank you Black Flag). Bring the conspiracy and double-crosses back. Make the crowds bigger, smarter and more complex. Make eavesdropping more immersive, and bring back old-school pick pocketing. Stop trying to make NEW games or what games that fans want. Make the BEST Assassin's Creed game.

[sushiglutton]

SushiGlutton --- going down your first list

1) Standard guards can go down in one-hit. All games need cannon fodder. Cannon Fodder is fun. They are the warm-up. The salad before the main meal. I don't see this as an issue.

Disagree. I don't mind that some enemies are a bit easier, but the standard guards in AC3 are ridiculously easy. It's not like a salad, it's more like a drop of water in a tiny shotglass. They offer no satisfaction to fight whatsoever.

2) The "watch instead of do" philosophy. Oh my... A lot of points here ...

... but first, I have never understood the radical urge to go back to platforming where I have to hit a button for every action. When I hear such criticism, people usually make it out as if there is no player input to free-running as set forth in AC1 --- and that is simply not the case. The player's job is to navigate. Navigating the rooftops and the crowds should be the focus of the player's involvement --- and not when to hit jump or vault like Super Mario Brothers. When you actually run in real life, you aren't thinking "this leg, now this leg, now that leg, now jump." Your reflexes do all that for you. Just like High Profile does all that for the game character. Your mind and eyes are focused on where you are going and the best path to take, and that's why the Parkour system in AC is perfect --- because we shouldn't be thinking about the character actions, we should be thinking about where is the best place to get away, what is the best approach, or is that a guard up ahead.

Second, for combat, I would love to go back to the "watch and react." Since ACII, we've had this combat system that is all about archetypes. For this guard, hit this button combo. For that guard, hit this button combo. It's a brainless IF THIS, DO THIS system. ACIII "almost" broke that stereotype. I could - at the very least - shake things up a little. I would much rather be countering, dodging, grabbing and attacking based on what the enemies were doing, my position in the battle and such ... just like AC1. Reaction. A "watch and react" is the ideal combat system if the AI is decent. A do system is often --- for this enemy, do this, for that enemy do that. And that get's old very quickly (AC2, ACB, ACR).

Third, Action-Cam camera kills have been part of the franchise since part one. I personally do not agree that they take the player out of it -- nor do they create a disconnect. It's a fun reward for solid play. They can be overdone --- and have been overdone. If used poorly, they can create a disconnect. But they certainly can be done right; and numerous games have implemented similar mechanics with great success. I personally was happy to see the double-counter kill cam --- it hearkened back to ACI.

Parkour: Of course you should not control each leg individually, that would be way too much control. But there is a middle ground between that extreme and simply holding the stick in a direction and let the game do the rest. Tapping a button in Mario is a reflex action once you have some skill at the game (note there is an actual learning curve in Mario!). I don't think to myself: "Now I need to tap a button at the end of this platform", I just do it. This is the way all great action game functions. First you struggle, you practice, then suddenly it clicks and now you don't have to think anymore (you can still fail at times obviously).

Agree with your second point, I think you missunderstood what I was trying to say. By the "watch" part of my reasoning I meant when you sit passively and watch a mid-combat "cutscene". Not that you have to observe your opponents for attack patterns, which is obviously more than fine.

I don't mind some action-cams. AC3 took it too far though with really long animations and I believe they moved the camera a lot more than they used to (I could be wrong about this though).

For 3, 4, and 7: AC1 did all those well. You had limited weapons, but you could access them quickly. Knives were easy throw in the mix, and you could mix up light attacks, heavy attacks, grabs, dodges and counters in any number of ways. Add AC3's layer where you have additional options for grabs, kicks, attacks and ranged after counters and you would have a very deep system. (< Evolution)

It's not so much about the quantity, it's about depth The moves in AC3 and AC1 are PLENTY. It's the ability to mix them up and combine them in unique ways. And that's where AC really falls short.... because of the archetype system. It's the archetype system that forces you into only a few useful combinations. If you could literally chain any combination against any foe --- that's depth. That's how Batman works. That's how God of War works. That's how AC1 works. And all the great melee combat systems ever.

To me there is a massive difference between having to tap the d-pad first and then do an action, or to have it right at my finger tips. The latter just feels so much better, it clicks.

I ususally include depth in my combat speeches, not sure why I missed it this time . In short I agree with you that there needs to be ways to mix your various abilities in interesting ways. Your reasoning about archetypes is very similar to what I said I think ("For example the fact that many techniques don't work vs Jaegers, but disarming does, don't make them more interesting to fight. In fact it makes them more repetetive.").


Note one very important thing here though!!!! For this depth you speak of to work you can not have the cannon fodder type enemies you praised in point 1! That's exactly why I consider them such a big issue!

Get rid of archetypes altogether. And make levels of difficulty ... more like AC1.

This is a matter of definition I suppose. An enemy in a certain difficulty level could be considered an archetype.

[Dome500]

Agreed.



I view AC1's archetypes more like the same guard with different difficulty levels. But we are talking about the same thing, I think. Any guard in that game could grab you, some were just more likely to grab you. Any guard in AC1 could counter, some were just more likely to do so. And they had different health levels with the harder types taking more hits, and the cannon fodder going down in one good combo or counter. It worked.

Look at God of War. Probably the best melee system ever done. Most encounters featured weak cannon fodder mixed a few harder enemies at you with a variety of attack patterns. You could utilize any number of light attacks, dodges, combos and heavy attacks against each of them with varying success. Combat comes down to reacting to the situation - when to block, when to attack and how to attack and where to move within the fray. It was very simple - but could be layered together with great depth and finesse.

Both AC1 and AC3 came close to this. AC1 was held back because the "turtle" became all too powerful and AC3 is held back by the same archetyping system introduced in AC2.



Well, I've run from the cops plenty of times back in high school, played ball and been in similar situations ... lol ... my body was doing whatever it needed to, and I was a hell of lot more focused on which way to go. I don't remember consciously thinking, I have to jump that fence, I just put my hand out and vaulted and went back to stride. But my eyes and mind were on my escape route.

More interactivity can often mean less immersion. If it's overkill. Tomb Raider, for example, has a smart cover system. Whenever you are in danger, move to a place with cover and she takes cover. No button pressing. It works. It's probably the best cover system ever invented and the fights are no less immersive. In fact, they are probably better off because I don't have to stop to think ... oh, i'm in cover, i have to press this. I'm focused on the enemy.

In AC terms, which eavesdropping missions were more immersive: AC1's versions where you sat on a bench, and the camera focused in tightly on the conversation or the highly interactive AC3 and ACIV versions where you follow inside this glowing circle? In my opinion, AC1's versions actually allowed you to focus on the story, on the conversation, and were more immersive. While the AC3 version - while being more interactive -- had my mind more focused on glowing DNA circles than the conversation. The ideal eavesdropping mission would be somewhere in between.

It's not lazy, because there's nothing exhaustive about pressing buttons. It's a matter of which interaction creates the most immersion and takes the mind to the place that best suits the mood/game/setting. In my mind, the free-running of AC has always suited the franchise --- and there's nothing brainless about it. I've been gaming forever, since Atari 2600, and even I can see that the desire to have button-presses for every action is the old-school way of thinking (game design) when graphics, environments and AI weren't capable of engrossing a player. AC broke that mold, and I was glad for it. I still like to play the old way, but there are franchises that do that already. I'm good with letting them do it, and AC focusing on level, map design, crowds and other ways to engage me while I run full-speed.

Yes but with less interactivity there also comes more comllications, like the game always detecting the wrong thing and not what you want to do because you were 2 inches left instead of right.

Sophistication HAS to be in there in some way. Do I want to sprint or do I want to climb and sprint? Separate those 2 actions.
Also, do I want to jump or just fall down? (AC4 did a good job with that as far as I can tell)
Do I want to climb left or right? Because as it is now the game just "detects" one direction.

Those are also problems with the system. Too much simplifications leads to more errors in tight situation where seconds can mean a failure of mission or personal goal.

[luckyto]

Yes but with less interactivity there also comes more comllications, like the game always detecting the wrong thing and not what you want to do because you were 2 inches left instead of right.

Well... that's the real problem, isn't it. Black Flag is a prime candidate. It's been so oversimplified that it's glitchy as Vanellope on crack. To me, that all began with ACIII when they changed free running from a two-button action to one. That's when it started to get really buggy. AC1 was - in my biased mind - perfect. You could jog without jumping, walk, slow walk, or run full-speed. It was both intuitive and nuanced. But yeah, in this over-simplified version, it's glitched out.

Disagree. I don't mind that some enemies are a bit easier, but the standard guards in AC3 are ridiculously easy. It's not like a salad, it's more like a drop of water in a tiny shotglass. They offer no satisfaction to fight whatsoever

LOL

I ussally include depth in my combat speeches, not sure why I missed it this time . In short I agree with you that there needs to be ways to mix your various abilities in interesting ways. Your reasoning about archetypes is very similar to what I said I think ("For example the fact that many techniques don't work vs Jaegers, but disarming does, don't make them more interesting to fight. In fact it makes them more repetetive.").

I've seen your combat speeches before I thought that's what you meant. I was elaborating on your point. I think we are on the same page. "It makes them more repetitive" is exactly what I meant. It's been plaguing combat since ACII and I've been on these boards since ACB complaining about it.

Note one very important thing here though!!!! For this depth you speak of to work you can not have the cannon fodder type enemies you praised in point 1! That's exactly why I consider them such a big issue!

Here tho, I think the cannon fodder do give you depth. Because when the cannon fodder is mixed with challenging enemies, you are able to stategically use them to create gaps in the fighting area to manoevre and gain advantage. In this instance, they are necessary. It's true in most games. Maybe the cannon-fodder shouldn't be one drop in a shot glass, but one good combo should take out the low level guards.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[sushiglutton]

I've seen your combat speeches before I thought that's what you meant. I was elaborating on your point. I think we are on the same page. "It makes them more repetitive" is exactly what I meant.

Lol I tend to repeat myself a bit ! In my defense I just finished God Of War 1 today and that game is just too much fun for its own good. So I felt inspired to bash the combat in AC again lol. If AC could get a combat system that was anywhere near that fun (or like in Arkham, DmC or any of the other classics) I would be so happy!

Here tho, I think they do. Because when mixed with challenging enemies, you are able to stategically use them to create gaps in the fighting area to manoevre and gain advantage. In this instance, they are necessary.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I think the standard enemies in Batman have the perfect level of challenge for cannon fodder. They won't kill you, they may cause a bit of problems (break your combo), you need to take them down in a couple of steps so there's still a little bit of depth there.

The tap & kill variety in AC is just too shallow.

But yeah agree to disagree !

[Farlander1991]

I really disagree that there's depth to the cannon fodder enemies in Arkham games in and of itself. In fact, the two-step thing actually gets really annoying and repetitive over time. You essentially just switch from enemy to enemy until they're all down.

There is, however, the thing with timing combos to get the biggest combo bar possible which changes the combat dynamic and adds timing elements, but without it, Arkham cannon fodder would actually be worse than ACs because they're not interesting opponents and it's a chore to get rid of those huge groups. And AC is not a type of game which should include combo bars like Arkham's.

EDIT: And, really, the combo bar is the thing that makes Arkham combat system and adds skill to it (AND use for any gadgets). Without it it's really... meh. I mean, it's alright and functional, though gadhets are pretty much useless (unless they are useful on the hard difficulty, I played on normal). I'm not saying that the system as a whole is bad, because the combo bar is part of that whole (and a lot is designed around getting that combo bar up), and it's what makes the system enjoyable and well-designed and there's skill and timing involved in keeping it high, but without it the systems are not that much better or deeper than ACs.

[Kagurra]

I found AC3/4 combat to be really boring. Hope they change it. Maybe go back to a more evolved system of the old combat. With health on enemies, instead of infinite health if you don't finish your combo or shoot them, and they need to get rid of the idea that all you need to do is press two buttons at such a leisurely pace to just murderlize everything.

[travilanche]

I just gotta say...my biggest complaint about the combat in ACIV is the extreme lack of kill animations. I get that the only weapons used are swords...but after awhile I noticed that watching Edward kill was no longer a joy to watch because it was all the same. If they had done different animations for every set of swords then it would have been awesome. But they were all the same. I always just use either Ezio or Altair's swords because they look the coolest and have a nostalgia factor...but they are basically the same as every other sword set.

Also you Dont get the rope dart until way too late in the story.

[iSoTryHard]

I may cop hate for this, but in my own personal opinion I like the AC Brotherhood system. It improved on my on a good system in my opinion in AC 2 by adding killstreaks to make the combat more flowed, I quite enjoyed it in my opinion.

[Kirokill]

--------
I'm at wild opposition to those sentiments, and they have been expressed on these boards a million times - so don't think I'm picking on you.

I want to fight. I want to be able to fight a hundred guards. I just want it to be fun and rewarding. The franchise has always been about: combat, stealth and free-running. But combat is core. And the player chooses which to do. This idea that I should be forced to run because "that's what an Assassin should do" may be realistic, but it isn't fun. It isn't the game that I want to play, nor many other gamers or people who've been with the franchise.

-----------
No worries
You misunderstood a bit, I know the player should do what he wants, but since AC3 was released it has been annoyingly hard to hide and run, it forced me to fight, I know if you want to fight, fight, and if you want to run, then run. That was ruined with this engine, and even worse in AC4. Hiding was annoying and not worth it because if you hide in a haystack, you get 5 guards to fetch it, and sometimes before they search it, you get spotted, they made hiding grass so useful that any other hiding place is almost useless, because you can assassinate so easily in the grass and you get *u**ed once you try to hide in haystack. Social stealth was also useless in this engine, civilians were like nothing but background for the atmosphere. Notoriety was removed in AC4 that hiding or running was useless.
Of course you shouldn't be forced to hide.