Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Misconceptions about action combat
Scalpless
Member UncommonPosts: 1,426
I've seen the "action combat vs. tab-targeting" argument several times on this forum and it always amazes me. Not because I'm in either of the camps, but because it's as if the people who discuss it have never played any melee-focused action games. Here are the three main criteria this community seems to use to separate action combat from old-school MMO combat:
1) No tab-targeting
2) Active blocking and dodging
3) Ability to move during attacks
So, Guild Wars 2 is more of an action game than Devil May Cry. Wait, what?
When you take a closer look at actual melee action games, the fact is that many of them (Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Darksiders, Dark Souls) have lock-on. Usually it's either automatic or done by holding a key instead of pressing it once, but it's still there. The second criteria is more or less ok. The third one is - again - in direct conflict with melee-focused action games. Very few of them let you move while attacking. Platformers often do. Shooters do. Games focused on melee? Nope.
"Action combat vs. tab-targeting" is a false choice. A game can have both or neither. The idea that the targeting method alone could tell a game's genre is perplexing, to say the least.
Comments
I would make the following distinctions: -
Most FPS/ TPS games are action combat. They do not have tab-targeting or any system to lock on, they have free movement, they do not have telegraphing or a specific 'dodge' button that makes you roll around the floor like you're on fire.
Most MMO combat that is labelled 'action' is more of a hybrid system.
That's true as far as shooters are concerned, but shooters are just one subgenre of action games and obviously deal with shooting things, not stabbing them to death.
Agreed, and I think the difficulties in making melee combat purely action orientated is why few people attempt to do it. It is more user friendly to have some form of targeting and some assistance in blocking/ dodging.
It has been a while since I played, was melee in Skyrim pure action?
I don't get it why you and many others associate this with action combat. Action combat is usually built around not getting hit by either dodging or blocking. If you get hit, the hit stun (flinching) will allow your oppent to pull off a big combo. So you have to read you opponent move and carefully choose how to attack. Use the wrong move and you leave an opening for your opponent. You still have running attacking, jumping attacking, rolling attack but that's it. This 'ability to move during attacks' is usually seen in tab-targeting as getting hit is decided by the dice roll of hit rate vs dodge rate (WOW, Rift and the likes). In Tab target combat you don't care if you get hit or not (you always do). It's more about healing vs DPS and the RNG crits, procs and what not.
I don't.
You do realise that every single example you gave were of game designed around being played on a console, then ported to PC. Although there are console games that fit that prescription as well such as "Monster Hunter" which until "MH3U" lacked any lock on at all, and even then it only locked the camera, not the attacks.
They lack the precision of a mouse and keyboard. Proper action combat games should mostly focus on precise hitboxes, parries, ripostes, counter, blocks, piercing, blunt, slashing, trusting strikes. Some good examples of finished games are such as "Mount and Blade series", "War of the Roses/Vikings", and of course some unfinished games such as "Gloria Victis" and "Life is Feudal", but I'll admit to not having played the last two examples.
But as you say, action combat in MMOs is pretty much a cooldown based, tabtargeting MMO that allows allows you to do every single auto attack individually.
Edit: I suggest you play some of these titles, most of them have really rewarding combat mechanics. Can't speak for "Gloria Victis" or "Life is Feudal" though, since I don't play Early Access games.
My bad then. But it really irks me when I see this coneption being thrown around action combat. It's freaking action combat. You can't just push buttons willy-nilly and leave it to the RNG.
Personally, I would much prefer if people viewed combat systems as a spectrum; from easily automated to not-so-easily automated. Consider, for example, how useless the action combat vs. tab target dichotomy is for distinguishing between the following two games:
1) Targets are selected by pressing a key, but there are no rotations or other predictable, macro-friendly breakdowns for combat. Imagine this game employs a complex system of counter-attacks instead.
2) Aiming a reticule or using a mouse pointer is required to select targets, but abilities can be spammed in a predetermined order thereafter.
So which of these is more "actiony" than the other? It's a silly distinction to make when what people are really interested in is categorizing games as easy or hard. Can I turn my brain off to play this game or not?
I've played M&B and War of the Roses. I'd say Chivalry is worth mentioning, too, although it employs the mouse wheel instead of mouse movements. Works a bit better IMO, but to each his own.
Anyway, I'm not claiming lock-on and movement restrictions are necessary for an action game, because obviously they're not. They just have little to no bearing on a game's genre. DMC is an action action game with lock-on and movement restrictions. M&B is an action game with neither. They're both fine games with better combat than any "action-MMOs" can offer.
I get the feeling two different thoughts are being expressed here. Are you guys talking about moving while getting hit or moving while executing your attacks.
Because from the list of action games provided and from what I've played, action-canceling is pretty universal and any attacks that do prevent you from moving are really powerful and are over rather quickly.
Let's use Dark Souls since it's one of the slower and strategic combat systems, let's say you're using a Greatsword or other large weapon, if you do a heavy attack, you don't all of a sudden get locked out of control of your character. You can actually move while you're winding it up, you move slower and slower and can rotate your angle until your swing releases and then you're stuck(ish) during the follow-through.
I'd say one of the tenants of action combat is retaining control over your avatar's actions, preferably on a 1:1 basis. There was a thread about Tera yesterday where I expressed the same views. It's one thing to have a mini animation lock-out, and it's another to literally press a button and then just watch your character do a fancy move for a couple seconds.
Another key feature in action games is that you can play without getting hit at all if you're good. And this is the only feature GW2 doesn't have (otherwise it really is action combat). No mob should be able to cast a spell or hit you with an attack that doesn't make visible contact with your character. See how much people complained about hitboxes in Dark Souls 2, action games are what you see is what you get. Did you roll under that attack? You did not get hit. This is really where MMO's tend to miss out on the action side of combat because they use range instead of hitboxes. This mobs attack has a 5 yard range, if you're within 5 yards, you get hit. Whereas an action game, you would just watch the mobs weapon to see it's range of attack - it might be 8 yards during a lunge thrust attack, but only 4 yards during an overhead smash.
Action games and action-MMO's don't really play the same, even if you can note similarities on paper, you'd be hard pressed to convince (me at least) that they're both equal under the banner of "action".
Of all the MMO's (Vindictus excluded since I dunno if it's a full MMO in the sense we're using it here), I'd say GW2 and Wildstar are the two closest to action combat, with GW2 being a very slim margin away, whereas WS kinda cheats it by making it all about avoiding colored spots.
However, all computer games that I have seen have laughably unrealistic melee combat.
Swordsman vs wolf: they stand facing each other, the swordsman goes whomp, wolf loses hit points. Wolf goes bite, swordsman loses hitpoints. repeat until one dies.
In reality, wolf attempts to leap on swordsman. Either swordsman fends off wolf or skewers it, or he is rolling on the ground with a wolf trying to bite his throat. Swordsman drops sword, grabs dagger - he'd better have one!
Now repeat, except with two wolves. Gets a bit harder, doesn't it?
In any game that uses D&D style "you lose 12 hitpoints as the wolf bites you", combat is so abstracted that the only consideration is what is more fun for the player.
I think we're talking about moving while executing your attacks. Out of the games on that list only Devil May Cry (And maybe Bayonetta. Unfortunately I haven't played it much.) allows action canceling at will by jumping. Arkham City allows it on Easy and Normal, but not of Hard. Arkham Origins doesn't allow it on Normal, which is why many - not me - feel its combat is clunky. Dark Souls doesn't exactly allow you to move while attacking. Some attacks, like the greatsword power attack you used as an example, have movement as a part of them and you can turn during those attacks. However, you can't cancel them.
I like action combat for FPS, not for RPG. Vanguard was too action combat-ish for me because it had the special attacks that forced you to constantly watch your toolbar. One of the *many* reasons I lost interest in Vanguard (none of which were the 'bad launch.')
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
One of the largest problems is just the phrase "action combat" as it is too general. Action combat to me is combat that relies on a reticle based targeting system, and others consider GW2 combat which is tab/auto target as action combat. Some may even consider WoW action combat.
It seems to have become a buzz word for game developer's PR.
I heard about this game, Skyforge, and saw and heard the phrase action combat over and over. The melee combat actually looks half decent, but the ranged combat skills appear to be full auto/tab target which is not what I consider "action combat".
I've decided to ignore the phrase "action combat" at this point, instead I'm looking for a game that uses a reticle based targetting system, otherwise I will not even consider the game. Tera's combat was fun, could've used some slight adjustments, Wildstar's would've needed some more adjustments but was somewhat fun as well.
I have more of a background in FPS & TPS and my dream game would be a MMOTPS involving thousands of players all in one map at the same time (yes I know it exists). So perhaps that explains my preference. Thing is I also would love to play a game that acts like a TPS targetting wise but is set in the past and uses ancient weapons and magic/fantasy elements on a massive scale. Thousands all fighting in one huge battle...
I might play action combat i an MMO but the only way I would was if it was designed for a controller.
I am sorry, but I don't believe action combat and keyboard/mouse are compatible. Too stressful and fatiguing there. Plus you have to take your eyes off the fight in most cases if there are a multitude of keystrokes used in the battle. The only way action combat can be comfortable for more than short periods for the majority of people, is if you do it with a controller. So it has to be simple enough for that.
Case in point I was watching the Pax thing with Star Citizen and Brad Roberts was not playing the game on the keyboard , he was playing it on a controller. If you want action combat in an MMO, it has to be controller based IMO.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Tera is compatible with a ps4 and xbox controllers and works very well with melee classes, less so with range classes. The issue with controllers in mmo's is typing in chat and all the other short cuts you need and having to put down the controller just to type on the KB is a pain.
I feel Tera is the gold standard for action mmo's, its not perfect but it beats the hell out of any so called action mmo on the market today. I just wish dev's would take their concepts and improve on them.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I considered FFXI to be action just because i had to constantly think and pay attention to react to what the mobs were doing.
I have seen the top fps's that are often called action be less skillful just because they knew how to wait at a juncture and just aim and click.Example is Quake,players know how to aim at a spot waiting for a player to pop out or rise from a jump lift,they often don't even move their aim.
Also doing some matrix roll is just imo dumb it looks fake and silly and tying it into automated spells or abilities or auto avoidance is very weak game design.
Point is action is simply having to act and react and the better the system designs are in making you think and create versatility in the combat ,the better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
As I see it, what makes combat action combat is if you need to actually connect with your attack and there is no magical targeting and auto-hit, decided by dice rolling.
So TERA is the most of action combat I have seen in an MMO, closely followed by Vindictus and at a far third place, Guild Wars 2 which is more like a hybrid than pure action combat.
Personally I can't see myself going back to the traditional targeting type of game after playing TERA for so long. ESO's combat felt terrible in comparison, even though it had so called soft targeting.
My gaming blog
I played Bayonetta, and one of the things that I didn't like was exactly that you locked onto enemies, and when you had to kill certain enemies before the clock ran out, this was extremely clumsy and annoying to do.
The benefit of a tab system is that you know 100% who you're locked onto, it allows for extremely complex and large scale raids, which you saw in games like Everquest.
It also allows for things like pulling mechanics, advanced CC, etc. The stability a tab system combined with trinity brings to a game, allows for certain gameplay elements to fall into place.
I feel the same way. The fact many action MMO on PC are played with controllers shows how strategic combat has evolved (or devolved if you want to look at it that way), into button mashing systems.