If I've learned nothing else from Dan Cook of http://lostgarden.com it's that just thinking up a game-mechanic is practically useless - you have to make a prototype, play with it (as a game) and tweak it (as a coder) to bring out the fun. Like any other fiendishly complicated, non-linear function, the psychological response to 'fun' is not something you can just sketch out on a napkin and say 'yeah, that'll work'.
Here's hoping someone with a bit of time on their hands will take this spec, stick it into some RAD game tool and see what happens.
"That won't work", on the other hand, is easy. Here's why "realistic" fights with lethal weapons don't work for, e.g., a Star Wars game: George Lucas can fiat that Obi Wan never eats a lightsaber until it is dramatically appropriate, but in the game, for there to be challenge there has to be the illusion of risk, and if you're risking insta-death lightsaber cuts then a lot of kids and casual gamers (bread and butter for Star Wars) are going to get cut into pieces by mooks. That is going to be deeply unsatisfying to them. Nethack has a subculture who loves it dearly ("Hah, drunk the potion on level one without first testing to see whether it is a cursed potion? Man, you must be new at this. rolls Oh, you're stoned. Time to restart!"), but the "physics" for Star Wars are very, very different.
The reason D&D doesn't have the fighter die after a hit with a giant club isn't because we're capable of suspending disbelief as long as we don't see it happen. Its because, given that D&D is based around having most shots by competent opponents connect (there is another problem with the other way), having one-shot instasquish makes the heroes seem markedly less heroic, and would result in e.g. the defining D&D encounter with a dragon get skipped totally by rational players. (At least until they could find a suitably non-dramatic low-risk way to dispose of the dragon without ever being perceived by him, such as having the wizard Wish him out of existence.)
[On reflection, the "game fiats you do not die when you as the player fail to dodge an insta-kill attack" gets around this objection, although one wonders if you're sacrificing player agency for "making sense", since a player who literally abandons his controller will see the animation system play his character flawlessly for a minute until his stamina runs out. "Wait, what was I adding to this performance?" is not something I'd want to cause a player to think.]
You have reminded me of a talk that Jonathan Blow (of Braid fame) gave on the importance game prototyping back in 2007 that is vastly relevant to this comment, and a pretty interesting watch as well:
yet ironically sketching things on napkins is what game companies do. "Let's make another FPS like <name another successful game>." Or, "let's make a sequel." etc etc
The game Dragon Realms (play.net/dr) implements a system very much like this. It's actually a mud and not a video game, but that actually doesn't make a significant difference in this context.
DR has balance, so that the better balanced you are the better you can attack and defend. Some weapons are better than other at unbalancing an opponent, and you can also use spells to gain balance or unbalance something else.
It also has stamina, so that when you swing a sword over and over eventually you'll start swinging wildly, and eventually you'll fall over from exhaustion. This also negatively affects your balance.
The mechanic of position is also used, and as you play you learn how to respond to attacks or execute sequences of attacks to gain a better position.
Benzim mentioned having thrust, slash, etc, and DR implements this idea with thrust, jab, chop, sweep, slash, charge, etc.
The DR system differs from the one in the article in that you can face multiple opponents, though that's a skill you have to level up or else you'll be overwhelmed.
Overall the combat system is very engaging and different from the typical MUD system of typing "attack" and watching lines of numbers go by. Worth playing if you're into that kind of thing.
A system with balance, focus, and stamina might be interesting. You could simulate different fighting styles using these quantities. (For example, one style could emphasize stamina -- it would greatly impact the opponent's stamina, but at great cost to your own balance.)
Another interesting mechanic would be different types of attacks: thrust, slash left, slash right, slash down. The player can see the attack beginning and has a small amount of time to choose the correct defense to that attack. Choosing the correct defense reduces the amount of focus lost. You could also add shields. If you press block with a shield it'll block any attack with minimal loss of focus. Shields would have hit points and break if used too many times.
Mount and Blade is the closest game I've played to this. It still has hit points, but that makes sense for a medieval game where you're fighting heavily armored humans.
The only difference I can tell is the game uses the term "poise" instead of "focus." But the notion of attack variants, responses and improvised gear pretty closely meshes with what everybody here and at the original post's thread seem to want.
This one guy, Jordan Mechner, has designed a lot of the interesting martial arts simulations over the years. Prince of Persia, the Last Express, and even Karateka (if you were gaming in the 80s).
The Last Express was really interesting. It's mostly a Myst-style, er, mystery, with animated cut-scenes. But even despite the limited interface there is a cool fight mechanic. You can only survive by predicting what the opponent's next attack is going to be by subtle shifts in body posture, and doing an appropriate countermove.
I think the author needs to have a look at the latest Prince of Persia. The elaborate acrobatics plus his suggested system are what make the game interesting.
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
I don't know. Fencing is way more effort, harder to master, and I'm not so sure I agree about "better graphics". I mean, they're higher definition, sure, but not nearly as awesome.
I stopped reading when it seemed like he was trying to reconcile reality with games. Won't happen. In real life, a .22 caliber cartridge to the pinky will put you on the medivac. In a game, you keep playing because...the point of a game is fun, not avoiding sepsis.
Love the article and I'd just like to take a moment to lament the lack of Bushido Blade type games in the last 2 generations of consoles. Easily the greatest fighting games ever.
you can email me if you can't figure out a way of playing them >_>
There was a game called Moonstone which has realtime swordfighting. You could use 8 way axis of the joystick ( preferably Phyton brand) with two button. It was fantastic and never surpassed.
I don't understand why you need realistic sword fighting in games where you play just for fun. If realism needed then probably you need a fencing simulation.
The best sword-fighting game I've come across has been Defenders of the Crown. Very quick little fights, mess up three times and you die.
For an example of an original martial arts fighting game, Toribash is worth checking out and seems very interesting. My computer isn't powerful enough to play it though, so I can't give a review.
re: boxing games and stamina. I've never found this game mechanic to be convincing, just vaguely frustrating. All of us know what it feels like to push our muscles to the point of exhaustion, until they no longer respond - it is such an innate experience that for me, it is impossible to convincingly recreate it with a keyboard or controller and some on-screen meters.
On the other hand, most of us probably don't have experience bludgeoning each other with sharp or blunt objects to the point of exhaustion or death. This might mean two things: first, that we don't object to flashy, fun combats, because they are closest to our fighting experience which comes from watching movies. Second, that a realistic combat - a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance - might just not be that much fun to play.
> a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance
Eh? Not at all. In sabre fencing, it's rare for a touch to take more than 15 seconds. Even in épée, which most closely approximates a real duel, one minute is about the norm.
Let's see how Red Steel 2 for the wii handles this. It will be revealed at E3 (beginning of june). It makes use of wii motion plus which adds extra input to the wiimote so that you can have a true (or as close as you can get) 1:1 motion.
[+] [-] thristian|17 years ago|reply
Here's hoping someone with a bit of time on their hands will take this spec, stick it into some RAD game tool and see what happens.
[+] [-] callahad|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patio11|17 years ago|reply
"That won't work", on the other hand, is easy. Here's why "realistic" fights with lethal weapons don't work for, e.g., a Star Wars game: George Lucas can fiat that Obi Wan never eats a lightsaber until it is dramatically appropriate, but in the game, for there to be challenge there has to be the illusion of risk, and if you're risking insta-death lightsaber cuts then a lot of kids and casual gamers (bread and butter for Star Wars) are going to get cut into pieces by mooks. That is going to be deeply unsatisfying to them. Nethack has a subculture who loves it dearly ("Hah, drunk the potion on level one without first testing to see whether it is a cursed potion? Man, you must be new at this. rolls Oh, you're stoned. Time to restart!"), but the "physics" for Star Wars are very, very different.
The reason D&D doesn't have the fighter die after a hit with a giant club isn't because we're capable of suspending disbelief as long as we don't see it happen. Its because, given that D&D is based around having most shots by competent opponents connect (there is another problem with the other way), having one-shot instasquish makes the heroes seem markedly less heroic, and would result in e.g. the defining D&D encounter with a dragon get skipped totally by rational players. (At least until they could find a suitably non-dramatic low-risk way to dispose of the dragon without ever being perceived by him, such as having the wizard Wish him out of existence.)
[On reflection, the "game fiats you do not die when you as the player fail to dodge an insta-kill attack" gets around this objection, although one wonders if you're sacrificing player agency for "making sense", since a player who literally abandons his controller will see the animation system play his character flawlessly for a minute until his stamina runs out. "Wait, what was I adding to this performance?" is not something I'd want to cause a player to think.]
[+] [-] heed|17 years ago|reply
You have reminded me of a talk that Jonathan Blow (of Braid fame) gave on the importance game prototyping back in 2007 that is vastly relevant to this comment, and a pretty interesting watch as well:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3727092195323329487&...
[+] [-] psyklic|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonrecursive|17 years ago|reply
DR has balance, so that the better balanced you are the better you can attack and defend. Some weapons are better than other at unbalancing an opponent, and you can also use spells to gain balance or unbalance something else.
It also has stamina, so that when you swing a sword over and over eventually you'll start swinging wildly, and eventually you'll fall over from exhaustion. This also negatively affects your balance.
The mechanic of position is also used, and as you play you learn how to respond to attacks or execute sequences of attacks to gain a better position.
Benzim mentioned having thrust, slash, etc, and DR implements this idea with thrust, jab, chop, sweep, slash, charge, etc.
The DR system differs from the one in the article in that you can face multiple opponents, though that's a skill you have to level up or else you'll be overwhelmed.
Overall the combat system is very engaging and different from the typical MUD system of typing "attack" and watching lines of numbers go by. Worth playing if you're into that kind of thing.
[+] [-] stcredzero|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VBprogrammer|17 years ago|reply
A: Soon you´ll be wearing my sword like a shish kebab! B: First you better stop waiving it like a feather-duster.
[+] [-] stcredzero|17 years ago|reply
http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dashing_Swordsman
[+] [-] benzim|17 years ago|reply
Mount and Blade is the closest game I've played to this. It still has hit points, but that makes sense for a medieval game where you're fighting heavily armored humans.
[+] [-] DLWormwood|17 years ago|reply
http://www.slugfestgames.com/games_eg.php
The only difference I can tell is the game uses the term "poise" instead of "focus." But the notion of attack variants, responses and improvised gear pretty closely meshes with what everybody here and at the original post's thread seem to want.
[+] [-] jderick|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neilk|17 years ago|reply
http://jordanmechner.com/bio/
The Last Express was really interesting. It's mostly a Myst-style, er, mystery, with animated cut-scenes. But even despite the limited interface there is a cool fight mechanic. You can only survive by predicting what the opponent's next attack is going to be by subtle shifts in body posture, and doing an appropriate countermove.
[+] [-] kevTheDev|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Batsu|17 years ago|reply
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
[+] [-] IsaacSchlueter|17 years ago|reply
I don't know. Fencing is way more effort, harder to master, and I'm not so sure I agree about "better graphics". I mean, they're higher definition, sure, but not nearly as awesome.
[+] [-] mynameishere|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisXYZ|17 years ago|reply
One hit from a sword in a vital area and you were dead. Hits to the legs or arm would disable that limb.
A lot of the fights were over quickly. But when both players were good, you could have some pretty tense, tactical duels.
The game mechanics also encouraged you to fight honorably.
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|17 years ago|reply
you can email me if you can't figure out a way of playing them >_>
[+] [-] orionlogic|17 years ago|reply
I don't understand why you need realistic sword fighting in games where you play just for fun. If realism needed then probably you need a fencing simulation.
[+] [-] jpd|17 years ago|reply
For an example of an original martial arts fighting game, Toribash is worth checking out and seems very interesting. My computer isn't powerful enough to play it though, so I can't give a review.
[+] [-] alex_c|17 years ago|reply
On the other hand, most of us probably don't have experience bludgeoning each other with sharp or blunt objects to the point of exhaustion or death. This might mean two things: first, that we don't object to flashy, fun combats, because they are closest to our fighting experience which comes from watching movies. Second, that a realistic combat - a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance - might just not be that much fun to play.
[+] [-] dfranke|17 years ago|reply
Eh? Not at all. In sabre fencing, it's rare for a touch to take more than 15 seconds. Even in épée, which most closely approximates a real duel, one minute is about the norm.
[+] [-] wesley|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfranke|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlievens|17 years ago|reply