GameBanshee Forums

In particualar fantasy RPG's, It seems to be the main downfall of many RPG's, combat in KOTOR and Morrowind is just completely tedious, Gothic, I am told, isn't much better, being far too complex and boring. Then we have a slight improvement with the old block, normal + power attack method as used in games such a Jade Empire and fable, but quickly turns a game into button mashing. This imo is slightly improved upon in games such as X-Men Legends (due to the addition of combo's) and Pirates of the Caribean (mainly because of the complete lack of health of your opponents and yourself, making combat quick and reflex based) and finally probably my favourite widely used combat format, used by Strategy RPG's, where at least you have to put some thought into combat, though even it can get a bit tedious against the cannon fodder in between big battles. Though my favourite combat system would have to be the one used in Moonstone (action/rpg from 1992), where there were 3 attacks Slash (quicker), Overhead Swing (more damage) and thrust (Longer range), and 3 different parry's for each, very much easy to learn, hard to master. So just want to know what your favourite RPG for Combat is?

Personally, I like the pause-and-command combat system that first showed up in an RPG in Darklands (still a great game), and more recently in such products as PS:T and the BG2 series. It gives me a strategic game subset, where such titles as NWN and Arcanum take away control of my team, and put it in the hands of pretty awful AI.

I'd like to see a combat system based more upon a complex version of Rock-Paper-Scissors. Essentially, if you and the opponent chose rock, then it results in the weapons crossing. With Rock essentially beating paper, and so on and so forth. Of course, a little more indepth than that, but I think it would provide for a good means of doing combat, and not just button mashing, or stale attacks.

I, like fable, generally enjoy the turn based combat more so then real time and more twitch combat because it adds to the strategy. I feel that real time combat is only there to add a (lousy imo) form of difficulties, and I prefere being able to evalute the situation and select the various attack/spells.

I never cared much for Morrowind/Daggerfall way of doing things, because it didn't really give me any kind of statisfaction waving my mouse around, and it didn't feel more "personal" due to it. On the contrarey, combat is one of the reason why I never fell for Morrowind, having tried the excat same ting in Daggerfall.

So Baldurs Gate series, Fallout Series and similar provide me with the "best" combat. But generally in Strategy games, I prefere Turn Based as well.

Xandax have you played any of the Shining Force games, would you say your prefer that kind of combat to say the quasi-real time combat of Baldur's gate? or rate it about the same.

I actually dislike turn based combat (or automated for that matter). By that I mean I don't like combat simply being about clicking on a character and sitting back while the computer waves your weapon for you a number of times in a round...

Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy it - especially on some of the harder scripted battles in games like BG where more player intervention is required. But occasionally, or perhaps specifically - there are times when I want to be controlling the weapon - most notably, lightsabers

I loved Jedi Knight II and it's multiplayer because it had a thrilling, complex (but masterable) melee combat system - which also required tactics. Some of my fondest memories of multiplayer gaming were in a 1 on 1 lightsaber only duel... nothing tops it

I was very dissapointed when Bioware opted to go for automated/turn based combat again in KotOR - I just didn't get a thrill out of my character having a lightsaber and being a jedi (especially since he couldn't too any funky Jedi jumping - a la Yoda )

In Morrowind I savoured being able use the bow in realtime - although close combat and magic was very clumsily handled. Gothic I found more to be a matter of getting used to, it had a very steep learning curve due to the very bizarre control system - but I eventually found it to be very satisfying, with good control over your character and his movements. Very similar to Zelda 64 (which, by the way, had an equally amazing combat system).

I'm hoping Bethesda knock up a nice combat system for Oblivion (and fix innumerable other issues). And it seems Bioware have employed realtime combat in Jade Empire ; shame we can't get it on PC , but fingers crossed for Dragon Age

All of that said: the combat system doesn't really make or break a game for me - I enjoy both, although I sway in favour of realtime. Realtime combat can be clumsy, and turn-based can be constricting

[QUOTE=Itch]Xandax have you played any of the Shining Force games, would you say your prefer that kind of combat to say the quasi-real time combat of Baldur's gate? or rate it about the same.[/QUOTE]

I don't know Shinning Force at all, so can't say.

One of the latest turn-based RPGs that comes to mind (in my case) is the Temple of Elemental Evil. Bugs and glitches aside, the game's combat truly depicts how Dungeons & Dragons combat goes, from what I hear.

However, if D&D games are not your piece of pie, then I apologize that I can't be any more helpful.

[QUOTE=Xandax]I don't know Shinning Force at all, so can't say.[/QUOTE]
It's an old snes game, think Heroes of might and magic, except with PC's rather than units, and the range of long range PC's was a lot shorter.
If you've never played any heroes of might and magic games, then I am not sure what to compare it to.
Yeh, Combat doesn't make or break a game for me, and I think that is why it is such and afterthought in RPG's because people don't really care.
But by the same token, I think that is why (or at least part of the reason) I enjoy the baldur's gate series more than I did KOTOR, NWN or Morrowind, because the combat in the other two was just plain boring.

The choice between turn based and pausable real-time is less important to me than the combat mechanics. For example I really dislike the D&D combat system because it completely lacks suspention and is only a matter of average damage per turn vs hit points. A better system was imo that in UFO: Enemy unkown. Not an RPG, but the combat system would suit just fine for one.

[QUOTE=Itch]It's an old snes game, think Heroes of might and magic, except with PC's rather than units, and the range of long range PC's was a lot shorter.
If you've never played any heroes of might and magic games, then I am not sure what to compare it to.
Yeh, Combat doesn't make or break a game for me, and I think that is why it is such and afterthought in RPG's because people don't really care.
But by the same token, I think that is why (or at least part of the reason) I enjoy the baldur's gate series more than I did KOTOR, NWN or Morrowind, because the combat in the other two was just plain boring.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Shining Force was for theSega Genesis. A good game, through and through, though.

[QUOTE=Aegis]Actually, Shining Force was for theSega Genesis. A good game, through and through, though.[/QUOTE]
Heh heh, Yeh I never had a console as a youngin' so all the console games I've been played have been on emulators, so I get confused easy.