Do you think it's a good or bad idea and why do you think so? Please give examples of adventure games with good and bad combat mechanics.
Depends on the game, depends on the combat.
Most of my favorite adventure games dont have combat, however my all time favorites, the Quest for Glory series do. None of the combat in any of the QFG games however is particually well done and it was especially bad in QFG3 and 5.
I prefer RPG styled games, but id rather a Diablo or Helbreath style hack and slash real time fight system then the QFG style or typical RPG turnbased crap (wich my first game will have as its all i can do atm :( )
My ideal adventure game would combine elements from many styles of games. A bit of driving, shooting, fighting and puzzle solving all combined into one nice game :)
I don't think combat systems have any place in adventure games TBH.
I think the general reliance on humour in such games makes combat redundant. I find that where it is implemented, it is normally there as filler since it makes the game last longer if you have a chance of not winning a contest and have to do it all over again.
I think they're great if there's a point to it. Insult swordfighting was combat (in a sense) and you had to learn new moves (insults) to beat better foes and progress. Two of the games I'm working on have combat schemes that are very different (one uses fist and gunfighting and the other uses sequences of poses) and people that have played them enjoy them. Standard graphic adventures bore me terribly anymore, though, so I definitely think there needs to be more to attract attention to your game and make it stand out, and action sequences definitely bring more than just going around trying to solve puzzles. Also, one could argue that many puzzles in adventure games are just filler. How many of us have played a game with a puzzle so inane and drawn out that we thought 'this is only in the game to drag it out'?
When combat fits in, I see nothing wrong with it. Considering that we are talking about "Adventure" games, in some situations, having to fight really pulls you into the story. People here generally don't like King's Quest, but I found the sword-fighting in King's Quest 6 (even though you didn't actually do anything), to be a great thing to include. Other examples: Where would Indiana Jones be without the combat? They even included one or two "impossible" fighters, where, like in the movies, Indy had to use his head to get rid of them.
I find it weird how so many adventure gamers have an almost hatred for action sequences in an adventure game. I personally feel that most puzzles in adventure games are either so simple that they are obvious, or so complicated, that they are absurd. I have no idea what should be put in there to keep the player enthralled, but action sequences seem to be one solution. Or perhaps a series of minigames?
I don't see how humor makes combat redundant. It's not like there are dialogs where combat is randomly injected into the conversation like humor is. Combat is used to not just lengthen a game [like all obsctacles in games] it's used to change your perception of a situation and make you react in a new way.
I have also grown bored with the standard adventure game and the game I'm working on now has combat in it, a few forms of it. The combat in Star Trek 25th Anniversary was pretty good if hampered by the technology... Flying around, fighting a ship and then going on a mission that involves that battle in some way. Not just "FIGHT THE SHIP! OK! Now stroll around looking for things to pick up." You'd fight a ship and then search that ship after disabling it. Or fight off some aliens because they were attacking a stranded federation ship and then you help the people kidnapped.
Something I can't quite explain well is that when a combat sequence feels like I'm playing it in the adventure game engine it more than likely will play bad or at least feel bad. A combat sequence where I'm moving a cross hair around a screen and shooting guys with a simple click as they pop out from behind cover would feel very cheap to me. "All I'm doing is clicking on objects as fast as I can, the only skill is that I can click fast!" Couple that sequence with the ability to go behind and come back from cover by pressing the spacebar [a la Time Crisis in the arcades] and the game gets a little more interesting.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Thu 31/05/2007 14:55:25the other uses sequences of poses
Please tell me you're working on a Zoolander game! ;D
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 31/05/2007 15:19:17
I don't see how humor makes combat redundant.
OK, that's probably not quite what I meant. I've thought about it since making that comment and I'm going to go back on it. :p
I think combat is fine so long as it's implemented in a way that tests the characters abilities and not your own.
Full throttle had a combat system, "The Old Mine Road" IIRC, that always felt a little tacked on to me. However, it's not to say it wasn't done well. I think the key to having combat in an adventure game is to keep it simple, and mostly about proper timing. This isn't a fighting game it needs to be something anybody can figure out. In FT for example, the trick was to get the right weapon for a real easy fight, then use it on another guy at just the right time, when he opened a little compartment on his bike. Again, all about timing.
Combat in an adventure game all depends on the type of game it is. Also you have to think that is it really nessassary to be fighting? I mean Woodruff wouldn't just pick up and start fighting people, now would he?
With games like Fate of Atlantis, combat served as an alternitive route though the game as well as to mix things up. to think of it I believe the only person I ever fought was the bouncer at the beginning of the game.
And look at Star Trek: TNG A Final Unity. You had ship-to-ship combat (albeit i felt it was a bit clunky in design) and whether you got into a fight or not depended on how diplomatic you were in the preceeding conversation(although some were unavoidible). As well as Winning, not figting, and losing(some of the fights, not all) changed how other sequences later in the game played out.
So really it all depends on the type of story you're telling, and if it really fits or not. In a game where you have to collect things around the neighborhood, would you really put a random combat sequence in with your neighbor's dog when a simple steak, or other meat product, suffice?
I'd hate to say this, but the lightsaber (well, lampsword) combat in SQ0 was really pretty bad.
Indiana Jones does it nicely. Being able to avoid through cleverness it is also nice.
Quest for Glory 2 and 3 do it very good. 1 does a reasonable job, 4 a mediocre one, 5 an abysmal one. YMMV.
On the other hand, QFG3 has a very nice magical duel, if you count that as combat. In comparison, KQ5 has a really bad one.
By this I mean interactive combat. Cutscene combat is a different cup of, well, blood.
Beyond Good and Evil isn't really an adventure game. Nor is System Shock, or Outcast, though Outcast comes real close.
They all have combat. It's all very different. It's all great. In these games, combat adds to the tension - if a game needs a tense atmosphere, what better way to do it than adding that element of having to permanently watch your back, move stealthily, and recognize when it's time to start shooting? If well done, it adds immensely to the game.
I love combat in adventure games, when it's just challenging enough not to be frustrating and when it adds to the experience. But that's a VERY fine line, VERY fine.
I agree that combat should only be added if it has a purpose in the story and the mechanics should require some skill, not necessarily dexterity, but for example tactical thinking. But does adding combat to an adventure game put it in a different genre? Remove the fighting and action scenes from Beyond Good and Evil. Does it fit the definition of "adventure game" now? What makes a game an adventure game and at what point does it stop being one?
Quote from: Fee on Thu 31/05/2007 12:09:15
I prefer RPG styled games, but id rather a Diablo or Helbreath style hack and slash real time fight system then the QFG style or typical RPG turnbased crap
(wich my first game will have as its all i can do atm :( )
Some people like realtime some people like turnbased. Turnbased combat can be very enjoyable and rewarding(Fallout), but if you don't like it you shouldn't use it in your game. A little advise from me here: Only make games that you would enjoy playing yourself. If turnbased fighting makes you sick learn how to make a diablo style fighting system and use that. It might take some time but in the end you will be glad youve gone through the difficulties.
Quote from: Fee on Thu 31/05/2007 12:09:15
My ideal adventure game would combine elements from many styles of games. A bit of driving, shooting, fighting and puzzle solving all combined into one nice game :)
Beyond Good and Evil is a fantastic example of combining different genres into one game. And its the official all time number 1 on space boys list.
Quote from: Hudders on Thu 31/05/2007 12:59:00
I think the general reliance on humour in such games makes combat redundant.
Oh no! A furious hell dog! *Use Jay Leno on furious hell dog*
Well, the fighting isn't certainly what defines BGE as adventure game. :P
Ok, I'm not going to argue that. The topic is not about defining the genre, but I see I accidentally moved into that direction a bit.
QuotePlease tell me you're working on a Zoolander game!
Not exactly :) http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=31232.0
While I very much like action games as well as adventure ones, I've never been too fond of action sequences in adventure games. Even when they're done well and serve as alternative paths (as in Fate of Atlantis, in which you never had to fight if you didn't want to) or as a special type of atmospheric puzzle (like Full Throttle, in which most fights could be won with a single hit, with the right weapon) they seem kinda tacked on to me.
Combat in general is fine, though. I just think that turn-based, menu-driven (like many Japanese RPGs use, for example) approach works better in most (conventional, slow-paced) adventure games in general, because most puzzles are also not timed and require you more to think well than to act fast. Adventures in the Galaxy of... used a system like that for spaceship combat, but I found it to be a bit too simplistic.
Of course, if you player character is constantly chased by a homicidal maniac and the player's forced always to be on guard and react quickly to get away with his life, then, of course, a fast-paced action-driven combat system might be a more "organical" fit for your game.
Also in a game with direct (cursor-based) control, environmental hazards and combat that's at least as prominent as the exploration/puzzle solving part (i.e. an action-adventure, like BG&E) also seems to be more suited to action combat. I also can't really imagine SC2/UQM, one of my all-time favorites, with a different, or without a, combat system.
Something that might also work in a classical point & click adventure, because it's halfway between tactical and action-based combat would be a real-time strategy component, which has the additional benefit of probably having a very similar, icon-based interface that integrates nicely with the rest of the game. Dune might have done something along those lines, but my memory's a bit fuzzy. voh (or somebody else that remembers), if you're reading this, could you give us a quick synopsis of Dune's strategy part?
Combat in Adventure games?
Like it was said before, almost anything involving reflexes in AdvGame tends to be annoying to many players.
The FTrot' demolition derby on the very top of my black list.
Dexterity are sometimes necessary. (Is there someone who can tell me how else the loose brick puzzle in the MM'Jail can be useful and realistic?)
In other hand, without moving the thread to the 'definitions debate between RPG and Adventure game', there is an obligation to have Combats in many cases. Matter of coherence. Matter of freedom. Matter of immersion.
Ex.:
The story of the kid who want to be a Pirate. (I don't remember the name, ask Cyrus, maybe he does). Swordfights are in all kosher pirate stories/novels/movies since RLStevenson created the genre more than 1 century ago. It populated the pirate island with pirates (sic) . Gave a reason to put in the game all the stereotypes about pirates than can't get pluged anywhere else. It's fun. And, yes, it lenght the game.
The Genius of Gilbert, (both of them, btw), was to do it without dexterity AND make it related.
Swordfight is not Caber Tossing. Rabbinic fight is not a mandolin contest.
I'm really about to ask a question. : Is there any other way to make non-dexterity combat without the positional Left-Right? (sic... you know what I mean) without looking like RPG? Or without looking like 1213 (is 1213 adventure anyway?)
LUnique'you fight like a cow'Dan
'like an rpg' is pretty much a matter of opinion so I'm not sure how to answer your question. There are dozens of ways I can think of to handle combat that isn't a massive strain on reflexes (and the link I posted above illustrates one such way) but I'm sure some people will say it's borrowed or similar to some rpg I've never played before. I'm also not against rpg elements being in an adventure game; I'm quite fond of the Quest for Glory series, for example. They gave me more to do than just solve a sequence of poorly constructed puzzles.
Climb that tree, hero!
Combat sequence in adventure games are always welcome. Just like logical death sequences remind the player that danger is always present, combat sequences can help to keep the characters but also the mood consistent since in brutal and chaotic environment not every problems can be solved with wits. I don't think the Indy adventure games would have had the same mood as the movies if there were no nazi to punch, nor do I think it would have been the same if Indy was shot on sight and a death message appeared everytime he encountered one since Indy doesn't always run away from his enemies, he confronts them and fights back too.
In several case, combat sequences added to an adventure game can change the experience completly. An adventure game where you could freely home invade dungeons and lich's tombs, pillage treasures, kill monsters and ruin the dungeon owner's plans while at the same time exploring new places, meeting characters, solving puzzle and living an epic tale would be an experience greatly different from the experience of playing yet another KQ clone.
Not everyone like them, we play adventure games to be entertained, sure, but adventure games is also associated with intelligent solutions for the problems the player encounter. If the combat sequences, instead of being clicking frenzies, still require thinking and wits to be overcome, even if the brain is used in a different way, I think it can fit in an adventure game. Some solutions to emphasis on wits instead of dexterity which I can think of right now:
Give the enemies some weak points, so you can either beat them using luck and brute force or simply finding the right weapon/strategy for the right situation.
Give the player the possibility to use his wits to neutralize, confuse or avoid the enemies altogether before the fight has even begun, like in Indy and the Last Crusade. In FOA it was even possible to weaken several of the labyrinth guards if you told them sentences that did not enrage them before the fight.
Turn based system that are a tad simplish with their overused Fight, Magic, Item, Run And Don't Look Back commands can be made more strategic when the player can customize his party and develop personnal strategies or when he also need to move his characters on a grid, like in Heroes of Might and Magic or this game (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/379767). Adding more subtle and strategic commands can help too, in Superhero League of Hoboken, enemies have Greed, Pity and similar stats and you can use commands such as bribing or begging monsters for mercy during the fights.
Some optionnal puzzles, subquests and hidden items can be added in the game, which, when solved or found, reward the players with better weapons, armors, the Legendary Greatsword of +2 or a piece of information that can turn a tough combat in a non-violent encounter.
As for knowing when you cross the line between genre, simply ask yourself which genre is the dominant genre in your game. There are several FPS/platformer that feature huge world to explore, collecting powerup and solving some puzzles, but they are action games with adventure elements because the main gameplay element is to shoot baddies or cut them to pieces. Just like the Indy adventure games remain adventure games even if there are bouncers and several dozens of nazi to punch the lights out, because good old puzzle solving remains the primary gameplay element.
Adrift has a built in combat engine and World Builder, an old program for making graphic adventures for the Macintosh had one also. Idealy the player should have the option to avoid most combats using logic, or if you want to do something diferent allow them to pick fights with ANYBODY but have dire consequences if they choose the wrong traget.
Largo: Avast ye, VooDoo lady! I be robbing ye! Give me all yer treasure!
VooDoo Lady: Shame on you! Robbing a poor defenseless old lady! (Pulls out her Largo VooDoo doll and sticks a pin in it.)
Largo: Gaack!! (Keels over)
VooDoo Lady: Serves you right!
Just make sure that combat isn't too difficult or that there's an option to skip it, (possibly earning less points).
To be honest I expected more people to argue against combat in adventure games and I prepared for a hot debate. Oh well, I agree with most of what you all said. The player should have a choice whether to fight or not and combat should not just be tacked on buttonmashing but should be an integral part of the game with an intelligent mechanism. The fighting modes in the MI games or the Shivah seem like a very good idea. A turnbased tactical system like in the Fallout games is what I personally like the most.
We can argue if you want. ;)
By bringing the Fallout extraordinary combat system, you're touching the taboo question. Do Fallout is a RPG or an adventure game? And why (But mostly : when) did the 2 kinds are (became) separated?
We probably all going to answer that the both were not mutualy exclusive entities. And it's right. And in the same time we all agree that there is more than a 'little' (euphemism) difference between Final Fantasy CCDXII (I don't know where they are now) and Grim Fandango.
ProgZmax : That was the essence (I'm way too much into philo 2nite... sorry guys) of my non-rpg-combat-question.
EDIT : Thanx for link- I'll try it tonite
Or it's dexterity. (click fast)
Or it's stats emulating dexterity (almost necess. turn-based)
Or it's a puzzle (find the talisman and win the fight/s)
Or it's a trivia of some sort (MI - the Shivah)
Or it's a way to do a cut-scene, faking rpg (Tombs and Treasures for Nin8b Yike...)
Is there anything I forgot?
---
Anyway, the important is the player enjoying himself. And immersion/coherence/freedom should be on top of any to-do list. Chicken with pulley if needed, Powered-armor with a lovely/charming/classy/glamor/adorable Gatling minigun if it's more suitable.
LUnique 'I ever sing the maybe song in the shower' Dan
I don't see why we should argue for the sake of having an argument. Everybody who posted seems to agree that combat is ok. I'm actually quite happy about the absence of adventure game conservatives who point the cross and pour holy water at everything "action" or "combat" related.
Also I said I wouldnt try to define or redefine genres because that would take forever and is pretty much redundant. Fallout is a cRPG, no doubt about it. Though cRPGs and adventure games share common elements they have always been distinct genres.
Quote from: LUniqueDan on Sun 03/06/2007 00:26:28
immersion/coherence/freedom should be on top of any to-do list.
Absolutely
Spaceboy, if you want to see all the people against combat, make a game with it in. Then people will tell you to remove it or make it optional. I fully expect people to rate my game poorly on the ags database because they'll get to the first action sequence and give up. I AM MAKING THIS PROGNOSTICATION NOW!
None of the combat in my new game will be optional because that is the story I want to tell and the gameplay experience I want you to have. No one wants a button to skip puzzles in case you get stuck on one and don't want to cheat by looking at a walkthrough online so why should I allow you to skip my action sequence?
1s and "remove the stpid arcade seqense!"s here I come!
I will play your game, Eric. Also, optional is for pansies.
I agree that mandatory changes in gameplay can be better than optional ones. I think the combat becomes a puzzle, and I like having a clear goal. Which is more frustrating - trying again to beat the robot guard in battle, or spending three quarters of an hour combining inventory items with every single object in the game only to realise that you haven't picked up the 2 pixel wide 1 pixel tall thing on top of a barrel which is 3 shades different in colour, hidden in the corner of some room and right dark in the background? At least with the robot you know exactly what you have to do.
I also think that a slight shift (heck, even a big one) in gameplay can keep a game refreshing. Sure, I'm not saying that adventure titles can't be refreshing, but what is wrong with replacing some of the "Combine fossilised sandwhich with irate octopus" puzzles with an action sequence - whether that be in the form of a minigame or a combat sequence, I'm for it.
For example, the 'Hock A Loogie' challenge in the Beavis and Butthead: Virtual Stupidity game. Now, I realise this is not a perfect example as it is not combat, however it is a change in gameplay, and you have to complete it in order to get further in the game. I found it an enjoyable change from the rest of the games puzzles, and so I think it added to the game.
Another example would be the circus game in Sam & Max: Hit The Road where you must bludgeon small, furry creatures in exchange for a prize. Again, this is only combat in a sense, but it still is a refreshing little game. Neither of these "puzzles" made the games any less enjoyable.
If I had to name combat in an adventure game, I'd head for Gladiator Quest. The combat in this game made very much sense as it fitted in with the context of the game. I'd have been disappointed if there wasn't combat - how often did gladiators spend the days solving wacky puzzles, as opposed to fighting? The combat in the game worked well and thus it added to the game.
In my opinion.
MrColossal, if you have combat in your game, I am unlikely to use it as a basis to rate your game badly. Unless it is ridiculously hard or poorly implemented, which I doubt will be the case.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 03/06/2007 03:07:57
I will play your game, Eric. Also, optional is for pansies.
Does anyone know why, starting roughly with their VGA games, Sierra added a skip button to just about all of their arcade sequences?
...because they got feedback from people who didn't like it before?
Because of the pansies!
LEC competition?
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/06/2007 02:39:32
Spaceboy, if you want to see all the people against combat, make a game with it in. Then people will tell you to remove it or make it optional.
Actually I'm designing an adventure game with combat in it and this project is what inspired this topic. In this game the player will be able to choose whether to solve a situation peacefully or with the use of weapons. Making the right choices(like avoiding dangerous places, being nice to people etc.) should allow the player to avoid combat throughout the whole game. But I don't want to make it too easy so the chance of avoiding combat altogether will be rather small.
Space boy, I think that's a good idea. I remember finishing the first level of Deus Ex without using any weapons, and it gives the game a whole different feel. But I agree that if you're going to make it optional, don't make one way the easy way out. I think each path to a game's completion should be equally challenging, as it makes for better replayability.
I agree that combat, if implemented properly, can add a refreshing and tense experience for players. It,s all down to commom sense really if you are going to have combat or arcade sequences in an AG really. For example, if you are making a murder\mystery game featuring miss Marple, would it then make sense to let her solve the problems by entering a combat-mode with all the suspects where she wacks them with a walking-cane to get a confession out of them? I think not. On the other hand, if the game takes place in a wild west enviroment, one or two shooting sequences would not seem out of place. And of course you also have to design them so that they are actually fun to play and not just causing the player to chuck the monitor through the window after a few attempts. ;)
Super Jazz Man had quite a good fight scene.
Although that was more a case of learning the sequence and timing than all out one on one combat.. but it worked and was just difficult enough to piss me off which is always a good thing.
It's definitely down to how the combat is implemented. Arcade-based combat (as in the classic definition of Shoot 'em-Up, Beat 'em-Up, Platform, etc) vs simple timed sequences. It all depends on how you wish the player to interact.
Fisticuffs in Fate of Atlantis was appalling. The arcade sequences in the Manhunter games equally so. It seems hard to get combat to gel in a convincing way in the classic adventure structure. It always, in my experience, seems tacked on.
As for Deus Ex, it certainly wasn't the combat that made it fun for me. And I throughly enjoyed Call of Cthulhu: DCOTE up until the point when it became far too reliant on run-n-gun gameplay.
I liked call of cthulhu up until it became horribly boring.