Combat in adventure games

[mkennedy]

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).

[space boy]

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.

[LUniqueDan]

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

[space boy]

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.

immersion/coherence/freedom should be on top of any to-do list.

Absolutely

[MrColossal]

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!

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I will play your game, Eric.  Also, optional is for pansies.

[ThreeOhFour]

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.

[Radiant]

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?

[Babar]

...because they got feedback from people who didn't like it before?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Because of the pansies!

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

LEC competition?

[space boy]

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.

[ThreeOhFour]

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.

[accolyte]

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I liked call of cthulhu up until it became horribly boring.