So I'm currently aiming to develop a game with turn-based combat vaguely similar to the classic Final Fantasy games; in my current design, the battles themselves will be very quick, usually not taking more than 2 - 5 minutes (depending on the player, naturally), but there will probably be a LOT of them. So, my question is, in a general sense, what's the science between making sure the same basic combat flow doesn't start to get old, as much as possible? Do you keep adding new mechanics, force them to change tactics often, perfect the player feedback effects, etc?
Two to five minutes for a single battle is actually a really long time. Most turn-based combats in games take seconds, not minutes, to complete and that's on purpose - it helps keep the combat flow from getting old. I suggest you do some more technical research on your subject. I suspect you'll find your results surprising. Here's what I mean.
What I think you should do is record yourself while you play through each fight in some of the turn-based combat games you think have good flowing combat (e.g. Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Expedition 33, whatever) using capture software like OBS studio or even just with your phone while playing on your console. When you're finished, write down how long the fight took from beginning to end. Write down how many actions you took and choices you made. Write down how often the enemies got a chance to attack and what they did. Write down how much damage you dealt and how much you took. Write down as much as you can about the numbers, the timing, and what happened. Break the entire combat encounter down as systematically as you can. Repeat this process for several battles so you have data across multiple fights for multiple games. How does a boss battle differ from a regular battle? Does a scripted battle differ from a boss battle? Analyze them too. Write this all down and then look for commonalities across the different types of battles and games.
Repeat this process for games that don't feel as good, where it started to get old for you. Record all those data, then start comparing. How are the less good fights? What's the time per battle differential? Are you making similar choices or different ones? Try to figure out what technically makes it feel "old".
This is actual video game design research. You need real data to make your comparisons, not just some vague ideas about how things work. You need real numbers to model your own systems after, not just assumptions. Take the games you're researching and actually break them down with real data, and then use that real data to draw your conclusions. The results may surprise you.
[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]
Making games is hard. Making a game with more than 32 playable characters is very difficult. Now integrate a huge line of collectable to
Found this old GDC talk id been meaning to look up. A while back, I joked that most combat-heavy videogames are basically just Skylanders, and a couple people, both of them Skylanders fans, seemed a little incredulous at me. Well, I was referencing this talk, so hopefully if you watch it you'll understand where im coming from. If not, hopefully you'll enjoy learning a little bit more about how one of your favorite games was made.
(IMPORTANT QUESTION: towards the end of this video, they mention some type of website where you could play with your skylanders in non-combat situations... is there any information about that still online? Like a YouTube retrospective or something? It sounds interesting, did it come out before webkinz? Im assuming its not still around.)
I dunno if this is a hotel take, but Werehog combat is better than Frontiers combat imo.
(this showed up when looking for a Sonic Frontiers gif)
Ngl I like the Werehog combat more. Frontiers is more flashy, but the animations are often awkward, and you're not using most of the moves, because there's little to no reason to switch it up. You just focus on dps.
Same can be said about Werehog, but to a lesser extent. It's more hands-on when you get backed into a corner, or you need to use an enemy to attack around you, or actually having to maintain your blocking, or dealing with support enemies.
Not only that but there are multiple moves that add to movement as well. They are great for skips and going faster, and overall there's a larger focus on enemies that block.
So few times you break enemy guards in frontiers, and breaking it can really drag the fight unless you have the quick cyloop. But with Werehog, there are multiple ways of breaking enemy guard, and they're not so inconvenient, and enemies are more prone to guarding. There's also a huge importance on positioning, because no doubt you get clapped if your positioning is bad, which basically doesn't matter at all in Frontiers.
Not only that but the environments are far more conducive to the fight. There are many environmental hazards and ways of support that can change the tides of battle. For instance in Chun-nan night there's a secret electric enemy you can get to via a secret platforming challenge, and throwing it into the arena will kill all the enemies, since the area is slightly flooded. That's cool.
Not only that, but enemy groups in Frontiers basically means nothing. Combat is only useful against the bosses and mini-bosses, but there's such tiny reason to fight regular enemies in a normal playthrough, and those fights aren't really memorable. Not only *that,* but it's usually a group of one or two types, when there's so much more potential.
For instance, the sniper guys in the second island would actually be more of a challenge when there are other enemies. And those wheel guys from the first island. I love them so much, but they'd work so much better while fighting other enemies.
Most enemies are too simple or annoying. The guys that fly away in the second island really focus the camera on them for their duration of their animation, which is annoying. Accidentally getting too close to the dogs will enter a long battle. Also the eagles in the third island. They aren't normally troublesome, but killing them is a bit of a drag. For some positivity tho, one enemy I do like is the UFO that steals your chaos emeralds. When it happens for the first time, it catches you so off guard, and it makes chasing them worth it. It's a fun little interaction that doesn't happen often.
I wish enemies were more focused on in development, and I was hoping so much for them to fight like Nobodies in KH2, which is a far more hands-on experience with their complex moveset. When I first saw the Frontiers enemy designs, I was convinced these would be the Nobodies of Sonic, and I LOVE Nobodies. I **l o v e** Nobodies.
It's possible I'm asking for a lot, but there aren't that many enemies to begin with in the game anyways. All that to say I think Werehog enemies overall do better in hands-on combat.
Lastly, Sonic himself is very awkward in Frontiers combat? He can feel clunky or stiff, and the lock-on function locks off half the time. It's not a deal-breaker, but def one of my least favorite versions of Sonic having combat. It's sad too because it's so cool to imagine the kind of stuff you could do. But it's just so simple, and you can get around any scenario just by parrying. Hell, even platforming. Parrying is so good there's very little reason to dodge, again, besides platforming. And the enemy movesets feel very awkward compared to Sonic's- also what were they smoking on when designing Final Horizon mini bosses!?!? I have to get on that same type shit just to beat em' as Sonic.
I am aware to compensate, they gave everyone (but Sonic) 9999999 damage.
Not shitting on the game by any means. I had a blast playing it, but combat is definitely the weakest part of the game for me and with no competition, despite combat being one of the biggest selling points. I just think the Werehog's feels generally better in every aspect besides flashiness and speed. And ngl, the Titan and Mother fights can be more engaging than some of the mini-bosses in Frontiers.
I did see a leak suggesting there might be a second Frontiers game down the line, and I'm really hoping they double down on development, especially since Shadow Gens was so great. I'd love to see that combat reworked to be a bit more hand-on.
Also personally, if they inspire the combat from something else, I desperately hope it's Kingdom Hearts 2 rather than Devil May Cry or God of War. I just think it might suit what they're going for more, and dodging and using combos is perfectly simple and deep enough to be easy to get into, but have a high skill ceiling. And I think it has a good idea on how enemy movesets should interact with character movesets, to make every enemy and battle very memorable. Plus QTEs in Sonic is cool now, and I think something similar to reaction commands would go so fucking hard.
Also combat is as smooth as butter, and has a good share of movement. Also the final boss has a fucking awesome moveset, and data Xemnas is peak. Also the guard works like a parry, but has way more freedom in choosing when to keep parrying or when to counter attack, making bosses like the first Xemnas battle more intense, as you can't just counter attack whenever you want.
And the ability customization is great. Though not super customizable, it still serves its purpose mighty well. And all the transformations are sick as hell, and Final Mix gave multiple more uses to Wisdom form, and the keyblade matchups are awesome.
Hell they don't even need to add the command menu I love so much. Just have a more basic version of it and I'll still eat it all right up. Also I love how KH2 has so many methods of avoiding damage. The glide, the dash, the dodge roll (FM,) the double jump, even regular jumping, guarding, reflect, some keyblade attacks, leaf bracer, transforming, summons, limits, reaction commands, Goofy, and they're all so useful omg.
This just turned into me glazing my fav action combat game, huh.
TL;DR: I hope the next Sonic Frontiers sequel/esque game kicks up on the missed combat potential, and I desperately hope they take notes from Kingdom Hearts 2 Final Mix. (Specifically.)
A couple of combat design concepts for my portfolio! I think that every fighting game should have a really powerful old man actually. ID under cut
[ID: A set of two images with drawings of a cartoon koala doing various fighting game poses and actions. The koala wears a tan farmer’s hat and overalls with a light blue shirt underneath. Image 1 has a large drawing of the koala with a laid-back expression next to two rows of fighting actions. The first row, labeled “Attack 1, long wind up” the koala leans back, throws an uppercut, and powers up with a purple aura. The second row, labeled “Hit + KO”, the koala is hit off the ground with a surprised expression, falls backward, and lands with his hat covering his face. Image 2 shows two rows of attacks with the koala in a “second phase”, glowing purple and gold. In the top row the koala powers up, slashes with both arms, then rears back and unleashes a purple cloud of three gold claw scratches. In the second row, labeled “Heavy Attack, uninterruptible” the koala lifts both arms, slams them onto the ground with a huge release of purple energy, then picks up his fallen hat with a tired expression. End ID]
When Bosses Fail: Gameplay and Story Synthesis in Persona 4
I recently was absorbed into Person 4 Golden now that it got released on steam. Since the game is a few years old at this point I’d normally say that this is ground covered by people better and smarter than myself and not write about it, but when fighting the first boss a moment occurred that completely changed my perspective on video game bosses as a whole and that revelation is just too intense not to write about! I’m of course talking about the moment Shadow Yukiko tries to summon her prince charming for a second time and the spell fails. I want to take a look at why a boss trying and failing an attack is probably the single most amazing synthesis of story and gameplay I’ve seen and why it tells you more about that bosses character than anything else could.
For those of you who haven’t played Persona 4, I’ll quickly run down the setup to this boss. I wouldn’t consider it a major spoiler since it is only the first real boss of the game. Anyway enter Yukiko, a girl who is born into a family that runs a famous inn and will be forcing her to carry on the family business when she’s older. She’s not at all into this life and this manifests as the thought that she needs to find a prince to whisk her away and get her out of this life. The boss of this section of the game is her inner feelings manifested into a monstrous phoenix in a cage. Sometime into the fight this monster uses the summon ability introduced earlier via normal enemies to call forth a prince monster that looks like a puppet and which fights alongside her. However, when you defeat it or it runs away, she attempts to resummon it only for her to completely fail and we get a bit of dialogue along the lines of “Why? Why won’t he come!” After you defeat the boss and Yukiko solves her inner turmoil she learns she needs to seek independence by herself and not wait to be passively be saved by someone.
So its pretty clear the designers have baked extremely important narrative details into this fight, but most of the time when you see this its the villain's strengths being turned into their primary abilities. Why is it so important that this boss tried and failed to do something? Well when we’re talking specifically about villains, we’re talking about people who we know have flawed views of the world. These characters are defined by their flaws first and foremost and in most media these flaws directly lead to their undoing. Voldemort in Harry Potter didn’t anticipate Harry’s mother’s love protecting him and accidentally turning him into the Horcrux that would be his undoing. President Snow expected the fear of the Hunger Games to keep people in line not lead to rebellion. The Joker in the Dark Knight didn’t anticipate the two ships not immediately blowing each other up because he believed people were inherently corruptible. Villains by there very nature are meant to have flaws that directly lead to their downfall and this is often how stories present moral lessons.
However in games we find this far less often and its often reserved to finding the weak point is an enemy’s seemingly impenetrable armor. The twist identity of Doc Oc in the newest Spiderman game for example is one of the best interpretations of the character as a whole yet the fight devolves into you just damaging him in generic ways over and over with cutscenes showing you trying to disable his arms. His mechanical arms are certainly showcased to full effect in this fight, but not his superiority complex placing himself above people he wants to “help” in a perversion of Spiderman’s ideology. Arguably the best antagonist in Bioshock offs himself and you end up fighting against a guy who uses too siphons too much plasmids to himself to try to become super powerful. In this boss fight we do see the plasmids as the weak point you use to defeat him but only after a full phase of him wrecking house using said plasmids to good effect. In less story focused games, villains often boil down to really bad people who want power and thus it feels a bit counter-intuitive for the player to defeat them by powering up yourself (but you’re the good guy so don’t worry). Video games in general are less likely to present a boss’s failing during the battle.
When movies have villains who are defeated directly because of their flaws it provides a solid moral framework, but when video games fail to do that the moral lesson can fall flat. How do we know Doc Oc’s idea of thinking of those he saves as lesser is bad? Well he says it in a cutscene and he’s the bad guy so case closed I guess? In Yukiko’s case we know for a fact that her idea of a prince coming to save her is incorrect because we’ve observed visible effects on gameplay. This is far more impactful than if she just said it because in order to win the game we as players are hyperfocused on observing the patterns of gameplay that will lead to our victory. In other words, when something happens that helps or hurts our chances of winning that’s something we care a lot about immediately.
The other reason this boss design is effective is because it gives us a better understanding of the character in a diegetic way which is basically a fancy way of saying its the “show don’t tell” rule applied to video game writing.
Now when making a boss fight like this you can either approach it from a bottom up or top down approach (to borrow magic the gathering design terminology). Top down would be writing the character first and then designing the fight to fit the character, but bottom up would be making the fight first and then writing the character. As always a bit of both is probably best, but lets imagine using bottom up to write a Pokemon gym leader villain. Many joke that the gym leaders are supposedly elite trainers but only use one type of Pokemon and therefore open themselves up to having clear weaknesses. This fact would actually work well if we wanted to write gym leader characters whose flaw is that they are rigorously set in their beliefs and won’t change. For instance the Fire gym leader would be always passionate and excited but not know when to calm down and rest and the Water gym leader could be always calm and not know when jumping into immediate action is necessary. In these cases, them having only one type of Pokemon is symbolic of their unchanging natures. Perhaps when you meet them later in the game they’ve learned and have other types of Pokemon?
So in conclusion most games that aren’t directly trying to create story and gameplay synthesis on every level often fall short when it comes to boss design. Bosses often have powers indicative of their strong points but don’t have mechanical failures based on their character flaws. Honestly the problem is not nearly as bad as I make it out to be, but despite that I still think that if there’s one thing the gaming space needs more of its bosses who make mistakes during battle.
Why is ranged combat so much more common for the biggest action games than melee? What are the design benefits of having a gun or things that work like a gun?
It's generally easier to prototype and develop ranged combat that feels good than it is for melee.
Melee combat lives and dies by the animations and systems we build. If my character swings her sword in a horizontal arc, it creates very different expectation for a hit reaction than stabbing or chopping. A player will probably realize near-instantly if the reaction animation doesn't match the type of attack properly and it will make the combat feel cartoonish, breaking immersion. The melee animations are also performed extremely close to the camera, so the player gets full view of all of the details. We need many different attacks and many synchronized hit reactions in order for the melee combat to look right.
Ranged combat, on the other hand, does not usually carry this kind of action-reaction animation expectation. Shooting animations are generally simple and small motions. Playing a hit reaction can be as simple as a flinch or just falling over. Hit reactions are limited to hit location and typically don't need to take the motion of the weapon into account. Enemies that play hit reactions are also usually smaller on screen and further away, meaning less overall player scrutiny. We can sometimes just get away with turning on ragdoll and not even need a specific hit reaction.
Really, it comes down to the fact that animation and system requirements of making a good melee combat system work are more expensive than making a good ranged combat system work. Since the act of shooting and the act of getting hit are significantly distinct from each other, ranged combat is much easier to get working than melee combat where the hitting and the getting hit are inextricably linked. Combine this with the fact that melee combat is, by necessity, up close and immediately visible and you have a noticeably higher bar for acceptable quality from a melee combat system.
[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]
Say you've got a dungeon that can be played with 1-8 players; how do you scale that for each number of players? What variables tend to wind up being the most fun to have tweaked (enemy hp, numbers, etc)?
Scaling an encounter to support different numbers of players is generally a question of resource allocation. If we have a small number of these encounters in the project, we can do most of this by hand and spend more effort on each one. World of Warcraft's old raid system where raids supported only 10 or 25 players are examples of such where tuning and mechanics were modified to specific player numbers. However, doing this for one to eight players (or, as it stands now in WoW anywhere from 10 to 30) means eight balancing passes for every encounter. That's far too much work to do in any reasonable amount of time. This means we need to think about building a system of rules to do this for us quickly and easily.
Usually when we're talking about scaling an encounter, we have a number of dials we can adjust, as you said. Here are a few of those numbers
Enemy health
Enemy damage per basic hit
Enemy base attack rate
Enemy special attack cooldown
Number of targets an enemy's normal or special attack can hit
Whether/when an enemy can use a particular move/mechanic
Amount of navigable space for an encounter
Enemy enrage timer
Debuffs on the players
Some of these are more easily scaled, like health, damage, debuffs, etc. while others like specific attacks and cooldowns often require more careful balancing. For enemy health, we consider the amount of damage per second we expect per player and multiply by how long we want each enemy to live, then give a little extra buffer (e.g. additional time for players dodging enemy attacks). For damage per hit, we consider how much health and damage mitigation players should have and how many hits we want them to be able to take before death. For debuffs and cooldowns, we consider what percentage of the encounter time we want the players to have to deal with debuffs or cooldown abilities. It really helps to think of the players as a scalable percentage for the enemies to affect, rather than specific numbers.
If player healing is a role that needs to be handled, it makes tweaking the encounters more difficult since we cannot always expect there a healer to be present. In such situations, we can potentially provide an NPC healer or other environmental elements like interactables or consumables with cooldowns that provide enough healing for the fights. Our goal is usually to make healing and health management an additional task to be considered by the players during encounters, even while solo.
There's a lot more depth we can go into on this - tailoring action set piece raid boss fights in World of Warcraft is very different from doing a broad tuning pass for a squad with variable size in a game like Call of Duty Outbreak - but this should explain the broad strokes of how a system designer approaches this kind of thing. We have a set of different numbers we can adjust (and set up formulas for), and we have a holistic view of the players as a collective of effectiveness that we can modify on a percentage basis instead of an individual player basis. Then, if we have the time, we establish the kind of experience we want the players to have and tune toward that experience.
[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]
In your experience how close do es the serious number-crunching player get when they try to figure out the math behind an ability or other item?
The hardcore theorycrafters can get pretty dang close to our internal formulas, but that's not necessarily going to stay the case. We will make adjustments to the formulas for various reasons (e.g. we want to tune crit up across the board, we want to tune this specific ability down, we're raising the level cap in an expansion, we want to change things up for this season, etc.) which can often invalidate previous assumptions.
In a lot of ways, the theorycrafters are actually the mirror opposites to designers. We designers start with the math and use it to try to craft the intended player experience. Our goal is to create a combat experience that is fun and engaging for the player. The theorycrafters start with the player experience and try to figure out all of the math that drives it. Their goal is usually to optimize their combat performance, even if it means sacrificing the engaging gameplay to do it. It's a pretty major distinction - lots of people can understand what it means to break down an experience into the component mathematical parts, but it is far rarer to find people who can use those math components to craft an interesting experience.
[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]
