I was watching a Let's Play of Jedi Knight: Academy (JK:A), and after just recently watching some shaky-cam footage of Skyrim at Quakecon I was wondering what do so many action-RPG makers have against fluid combat?
Sure, JK has some ridiculous acrobatics and such, and it's more often than not just randomn flailing about, but it's one of the few games where sword fighting actually has a fluidity to it. There is actual parrying of blades, albeit automatic, and you know that when you finally connect a hit it's going to hurt. I know it's mostly a conceit to make it look more like the combat in the Star Wars movies, but I always found that it worked well in that regard.
Combat in modern action-rpg's look more like fighting with baseball bats than actual weapons. It's all about smacking the enemy until it dies, the character doesn't feel like they have any finesse at all. This may be something to do with consoles though, since JK:A or JK: Outcast probably wouldn't work with analogue sticks.
Mount & Blade of course is the exception that proves the rule, but even in M&B I'm not the biggest fan of the static blocking defense. I feel it lacks a bit in responsiveness sometimes, but that's probably just because I'm crap at it!
So while in most AAA games we get cinematic cut-scenes, finishing moves, and all those crap quicktime events... why can't the actual combat, which we spend 90% of the time doing, be cinematic?
As a possible other system using automatic parry's, why not have something like a regenerating guard/energy-mater, which decreases faster if you attack and slower whenever an attack gets parried. The lower the guard/energy-meter gets, the more likely the automatic parry system will fail and you will get a possibly fatal hit.
I guess it's technically a health bar still, but I think the conceit is more important. Especially in a high-fidelity visual medium.


Reply With Quote



