Change the combat system! (Ideas why and how)

[Arctic]

1. Introduction

I am working out some ideas for a combat system for Gothic Remake over analysing existing and possible gameplay features the guy in the source material called "Gameplay Patterns".
He wrote this huge study about how to extract fundamental core designs out of games for future developers of RPGs and their combat systems. Note that i didn't copy his work, i reinterpreted it.

Source-Material:
(https://odr.chalmers.se/bitstream/20.500.12380/165277/1/165277.pdf)

I want to approach the combat system in particular, because in my eyes it needs a lot of rework.
I read his work and extracted all the rellevant material for a better view over these core elements.

I won't go into detail why it's a broken design, because me and about a thousand other constructive reviews already mentioned its flaws and current issues in the game.

So i decided to tackle this core mechanic in the game as indepth as possible or until i collapse...

i really hope this has an inpact on the actual developement of the Remake and similar games in the future. (Maybe Gothic 2 + Addon +Gothic 3 + Addon + Risen etc... you get what i mean! ;D)

Most gamer recocnize by instinct when games have a good game design and a good chunk of this information here is probably obvious.
Though a quick reminder won't hurt and it helps understanding my train of thoughts with this whole thing.

Feel free to read the whole text, or if you just interested in specific details about the battle system then skip to number 7.

2. Purpose

How can a designer create gameplay by the use of mechanics and dynamics that affect a role-playing games battle system?

3. What is a game?

A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable outcome,
where different outcomes are achieved by values and conditions.
The player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome.
The player feels attached to the consequences of the input effort,
influencing the players choices how to achieve a specific outcome.

4. What is a role-playing game?

The RPG genre is one of the genres with the most subgenres, if not the most diversity.
One reason for this is because since the fourth generation era of consoles, ca.1987 lasting to ca. 1996, more and more game developer started to use role-playing gameplay patterns in other genres.
Around this time, many of today's sub genres started to gain their current shape for example:

- Secret of mana 2 has a more action oriented gameplay then the traditional turn based RPGs.
- Fire Emblem combined tactical elements with RPG elements.

This becomes an issue, as it creates too many games that can be researched and still be said its about RPGs.

5. Limitations

To break down which rpg elements are included here per definition.

1. Character developement

A meaningful choice, which means that the user will have to take decisions for how his character will progress in the game.
In RPGs the user will develop the character from an ingame value called EXP and equipement.
This means you need do develope you character skills and equipement to reach certain goals and the end of the game.

2. Only single player based

The user takes control and act out one distinctive character following the narrative of the game.
This can take part in a NPC party like in "Dragon Age: Origins"
or the lone wolf character who is not in a party like in "Gothic".

3. Battle gameplay emphasize on strategic decisions from the user.

The game has to be a more strategy oriented game in terms of fighting style and decision making before the fight and in the battle itself.
Attack patterns need to be distinct for each enemy, visible enough and built with enough time for being able to react.
(Each difficulty level could lower and raise those speed values, instead of plain stat change, or change the attack patterns a bit)

4. Clear end of the game

There has to be a clear end to the game. No "endgame" like in MMPRPGs where the players do raids to improve the character, but the game never really ends.
Hidden end goals like harder bosses after the story is provides more gameplay.

5. Melee, ranged and magic combat

Because this is for developing a combat system of the Gothic Remake.
No guns or sci-fy weapons, or any modern technology allowed.

6. RPG Gameplay Patterns

This research started with the question:
How can a designer create gameplay by the use of mechanics and dynamics that affect a role-playing games battle system?

- By analyzing existing games patterns and their general battle gameplay, comparing to further analyse the games.
- This research has established different types of gameplay patterns when designing the battle system for a role-playing game.
- I will break down the specific patterns i would use for Gothic:


Omnipresent, structural, flavour and meta patterns,
most prominent for the specific game,
to create specific gameplay experience for the player
and/or affect the game on a meta level:

- Omnipresent patterns (The core of RPG patterns)
Privileged abilities, Privileged movement, Gameplay, Equipment slots, Equipment armor, Equipment weapons,
Items, Enemies, Player character, Boss creatures, Boss NPCs mostly faction leaders, Improved abilities, New abilities, Quests,
Combat, Companions, Cutscenes, Damage, Dialogues, Game worlds, Dungeons, Helpers, Illusion of open space, Inaccessible Areas,
Inventories, Loot, Main story, NPCs, Obstacles, Character Skills, Stimulated Planning, Tactical Planning

- Fundamental Battle Patterns (at the core of the battle system, or influencing battles)
Realtime fights, Debuffs, AI, AOE-Attacks, Body parts for creatures, Combat position, Dmg-Resistency,
Pulling creatures, Combo attacks, Distinctive and diverse magic system, AI-attack patterns, AI is bound to the same rules (no cheating),
Active trigger events for big enemies and bosses, Notorious story/boss events like new enemies spawning, Experimenting, Memorizing,
home point in Camps, as recource replenishment and for combat preperation, Adapting to challenges, Too strong enemies limit pathing and exploration

- Character Development (in which way a character developes to reach certain goals and how to gain exp)
Faction skills, Free choices from the start, Permanent promotion, limited character developement by resource costs, Talent tree for combat skills,
NPCs teach abilities and combat skills, home development affects character development,
(pseudo) development time like Gothics chapters or day/night, store development

- Challenging Gameplay (increasing the difficulty of the game)
Optional hidden bosses, Limited save ability (in Camps), Limited resources, Optional difficulty scaling, ingame time limits for quests,
stronger/buffed "Leader creatures", high risk = high reward choices

- Strategy Battle Patterns (how the user can use game mechnics, to overcome obstacles)
Roaming NPCs, Factional prestige, Learning AI attack patterns, Traps, Enemy-weakspots

Environmental and Exploration patterns (Gathering items and knowledge about the world by exploring the environment
Environmental effects (day&night, highground), Free climbing, Swimming, Diving, Chokepoints, hiding spots,
Weather conditions change pathing of NPCs, Quick travel options, NPCs gossip or written lore is important for gameplay informations

- Extra Content (linking optional gameplay with the main gameplay or gaining gameplay knowledge by extra content)
Arena fights, Crafting, Minigames, Gambling, Bets, Free world exploration, Hunting quests, Wanted lists, statboosting items, Replayability, distinctive challenging puzzles,
"Training Mode" outside the main story could spoil the narrative like minigame cardgame with sleeper motive and true abilities.

[Arctic]

7. My combat system suggestions and ideas

Now with the knowledge of what key elements an RPG like Gothic consists of, i have a few ideas:

The most fitting genre for Gothic is a mix out of Action RPGs and Western RPGs,
where we have the combat system slightly action oriented and skill based but with decision making elements before and in fight.
Any other subgenre of rpg would not work because of too much story cutscenes, breaking immersion, like in JRPGs where you play a certain role like in a movie.


Buffs:

- Dps up (Raising dps by %)
- Defence up (Raising all defence stats by %)
- Speed up (Raising attack speed by %)
- Debuff resistence up (Raising debuff resistence by %)

Debuffs:

- Dps down (Decreasing dps by %)
- Defence down (Decreasing all defence stats by %)
- Speed down (Decreasing attack speed by %)
- Debuff resistence down (Decreasing debuff resistence by %)
- Burn (Damage Over Time through fire)
- Bloodloss (Damage Over Time through deep wounds)
- Freeze (Target cannot move, but can take damage, effect breaks if frozen target receives damage)
- Stun (Target cannot move, but can take damage, effect does not break if stunned target receives damage)
- Disarmed (Targets weapon falls to the ground, can be picked up by NPC again or the player)
- Knocked down (Target gets knocked down and needs time to stand up again, can't move or attack during this status)
- Mind controlled (Target attacks anyone hostile against the caster and follows the caster until the effect wears off, target will snap out of mind control when attacked by the caster)

Melee Combat

- Copy paste Risen 1 and improve it with dark souls 3 AI.
- Dragons Dogmas climbing mechanic seems interesting too, if tailored for Gothic ofc.
- Also mix in a few ARPG Combat elements, killing blows and action time events just feel epic and satisfying. *_* (god of war, asassins creed, LOTR Shadows of Mordor/War)
- DON'T use slowmotion camera and killing cutscenes, even for story purpose it's ugly, slow and not a wanted game feature.
- No lock on system where you can't change targets freely.
- Improved and bug fixed hitbox system.
- No stamina, it slows down combat too much.
- Rewarding timing of combos with fluid hits.
- Distinctive and reliable AI attack patterns, they can be complex but not too fast, buggy and random.
- more skillpoints invested means more attacks, combos, faster hits, higher critchance, chargable hits.
- onehand combat has moderate speed, dps and range.
- twohand combat is slow has high dps, big range and AOE combos.
- two onehand combat with two weapons has moderate dps, range and AOE combos.
- two dagger combat is the fastest has low dps, low range, but high crit chance from behind.
- Faction based special abilities.
- Damage affected by strenght, dexterity, buffs, debuffs, Armor, Weapons.
- Melee combat skills can be trained by various teachers around the world by spending exp points and other recources, depending on the NPC.

Ranged Combat

- Free aiming, like in gothic 3, or newer rpgs with bow mechanics.
- More damage and stumble effect hitting specific weakspots, doesn't work on all enemies.
- Slow movement debuff hitting leg and foot areas, doesn't work on all enemies.
- Magic arrows/bolts with different effects (burn, freeze, knockback, curse)
- Proper animations and sounds from targets getting hit on different spots.
- No arrows stuck in the head, if not dead and if hitting human NPCs, always sets me off.
- more skillpoints invested means more dps on more range and higher crit chance.
- Damage affected by strenght, dexterity, buffs, debuffs, Armor, Weapons.
- Ranged combat skills can be trained by various NPCs around the world by spending exp points and other recources, depending on the NPC.

Magic Combat

- You need recources to cast spells (mana, life force, rune charges)
- Scroll magic can be cast without ranking up in magic circles
- Rune magic vice versa
- You can rank up your magic circles by reaching story driven milestones and spending exp points
- Spells need cooldown timers for recharging
- Recharging is also possible in Camps
- You can't use other factions spells
- There are a few "common spells" which can be used in any faction

Common Spells

Circle 1: Light (Your typical "bring light in the dark" spell)
Circle 2: Heal, Sleep (Healing and sleeping)
Circle 3: Oblivion (Forget what i did...)
Circle 4: Speed (Run!)
Circle 5: Telekinesis (Grab everything you want...)
Circle 6: Levitation ("to walk on air" because "only flying is better" is an exclusive german idiom... xD)


Firemage Spells

Circle 1: Fireball (Single Target)
Circle 2: Firestorm (High Single Target, with AOE around the target)
Circle 3: Firewave (AOE around the Caster, effects only the area it's been casted on)
Circle 4: Firerain (AOE around the Caster, also the areas the caster moves to while under the effect of the spell)
Circle 5: Volcano (Enourmous Single Target, with high AOE around the target)
Circle 6: Inferno (High AOE around the caster, meteors raining down on the area, everything burns to ashes, environment catches on fire, for the spells duration)

Watermage Spells

Circle 1: Iceblock (Single Target)
Circle 2: Icelance (High Single Target, with AOE around the target)
Circle 3: Icewave (AOE around the Caster, effects only the area it's been casted on)
Circle 4: Blizzard (AOE around the Caster, also the areas the caster moves to while under the effect of the spell)
Circle 5: Avalanche (Enourmous Single Target, with high AOE around the target)
Circle 6: Ice Age (High AOE around the caster, everything freezes, even sound, and the environment gets really frosty, for the spells duration, enemies won't break out by being hit)

Guru Spells

Circle 1: Windfist (Single Target)
Circle 2: Whirlwind (High Single Target, with AOE around the target)
Circle 3: Tornado (AOE around the Caster, effects only the area it's been casted on)
Circle 4: Hurricane (AOE around the Caster, also the areas the caster moves to while under the effect of the spell)
Circle 5: Lightningbolt (Enourmous Single Target, with high AOE around the target)
Circle 6: Sleepers Wrath (High AOE around the caster, if characters mana > targets mana ->mind controling any NPC or Creature around if not -> high dps, mana loss )

Shaman Spells
(optional, endgame, after accsess to Orc Camp, you have to choose 1 rune from each circle, but you can change them in the Orc Camp)

Circle 4: Curses Lifedrain, (drains hp from target, part of targets lost hp adds on yours) Plague. (Targets under several debuffs lowering defence, attack power, movement speed etc.)
Circle 5: Transformation Snapper, (fast movement, moderate dps) Shadowbeast, (slow movement, high dps) Meatbug. (small, versatil)
Circle 6: Summoning Wrath Of Nature, (Shadowbeast, Fire Lizard, Swampworm, Snapper, Warg) Army Of The Dead, (Skeleton army out of all skeleton types) Demon. (typical Demon)

I know these spells seem way too op, but when you join this faction, it's already at the point in the game, where you have "fun" with the other factions,
getting various optional requests from the Orcs to kill their enemies before you enter the temple. And let's be honest... we would have killed everyone in the Colony anyway before the endboss right? :D

Faction-Abilities:

New Camp
Bandits: setting up traps, provoke into slow and easy to read attack patterns.
Mercs: stun with blunt weapons hitting the head or critting, chargeattack hitting the enemies in line on the ground.
Watermage: Access to water, ice, magic runes, instantcast spells with slow/freeze, stun, damage down debuffs, mediocre mana costs.

Old Camp
Shadows: backstabbing, disarming the enemy.
Guards: deep wounds (crits) -> bloodloss dot on the enemy with sharp weapons, throwing enemy on the ground hitting nearby enemies.
Firemage: Access to fire magic runes, chargeable spells with burn dots, at high mana costs.

Swamp Camp
Novices: strong temporary swamp weed boosts, after the buff runs out -> dazed (slow movement, blurry sight)
Templar: swamppoisoned weapons with debuff hallluzinations (attacks random targets around him), Determination buff adding high debuff resistence through their believes as a cult.
Guru: Access to wind magic runes, channeled spells with knockback, stun at low mana costs.

Orc Camp (optionial endgame faction)
Warrior: warcry buff boosting strengh, hp and debuff resistence, creature taming.
Shaman: Access to transformation, summoning and curse magic runes, mana consuming lasting effects, using without mana costs lifeforce.

Meta Combat:

- World interaction.
- High ground helps hitting weakspots.
- Creatures behaviour changes during day/night/weather.
- Objects can be used against enemies in combat, like stones, lures, coal basins, camp fires etc...
- Hiding spots for escaping and stealth kill bonus.
- Free climbing on any edges and more surfaces, even big enemies (Trolls, Shadowbeasts, Swampworms, Golems, Demons etc...)
- Water as a barrier for some creatures who fear water, or slowing down movement when coming at you through a river.
- Chokepoints, gaps and doorways as a way of strategic combat decision, enemies shouldn't be able to glitch through walls, or over obstacles. or even hitting you through said obstacles.

[Arctic]

Honorable video links:

Durmin Paradox' review to the Gothic franchise.

I think he is hillarious! :D, thx for linking these in the reviews recently!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4BGaKG5VM&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNHnQBz3BV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THO9FumLH4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KPT85NEU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R6s5BRqGoM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BUEV5eZcpM

[Arctic]

The Nocturnal Rambler's Reviews to the Gothic franchise

Professional reviews about how the Gothic Remake needs improvement in comparisen to the games from Pyranha Bytes.

Also his Blog:
(https://thenocturnalrambler.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-witcher-3-good-bad-and-ugly_30.html)

He mentioned "The Witcher III" and why it's a really good game but lacks in some gameplay aspects too, including the combat system.

https://youtu.be/qvyzjFfxiXo?list=PLmb8lFvHN49MpgOAosi-ojbItMn581v61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V6tdH6YRy8&list=PLmb8lFvHN49MpgOAosi-ojbItMn581v61&index=10&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOlsCvPNCXY&list=PLmb8lFvHN49MpgOAosi-ojbItMn581v61&index=11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZeqB0u6fwk&list=PLmb8lFvHN49MpgOAosi-ojbItMn581v61&index=10
https://youtu.be/9MvcIsucWDI?list=PLmb8lFvHN49MpgOAosi-ojbItMn581v61
https://youtu.be/gVX7Sz8FS30?list=PLmb8lFvHN49MpgOAosi-ojbItMn581v61

[Arctic]

More reviews about the Gothic Remake teaser

https://youtu.be/L69GWl2gSGY

[Auric Carnage]

Or... and here's a thought. We could allow the developers to take it in a direction that they're interested in. It's possible that they wish to take a more realistic approach and not copy off old RPG's simply because they're a norm. They may even be looking for this exact feedback. I do indeed support whatever direction they're inspired to go in, whether it's your nostalgic "rpg" mechanics or a new and fresh take.

[Arctic]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Auric Carnage:

Or... and here's a thought. We could allow the developers to take it in a direction that they're interested in. It's possible that they wish to take a more realistic approach and not copy off old RPG's simply because they're a norm. They may even be looking for this exact feedback. I do indeed support whatever direction they're inspired to go in, whether it's your nostalgic "rpg" mechanics or a new and fresh take.

If it actually is "realistic" or immersive enough for the player, i'm totally fine with it.

Sad thing is, and believe me i tried really really hard, i can't find an RPG with enjoyable gameplay anymore. And it's not only me.
If you search for RPGs, the same games pop up every time, like TES, Two Worlds, Ultima, Fallout, Witcher, Dark Souls... etc.
Yes you can have hours of gameplay from any of those games, but they feel so generic too me i don't want to play them through like Gothic in the old days...
Even letsplays on youtube are boring as hell.

The Witcher 3 is the only game you could call decent enough not to be called a waste of time in my opinion.

- authentic immersive graphics with almost no bugs and odd "reminders" of you playing
- story is well written and makes sense, choices do matter until the end
- authentic characters, even good voiced random npcs
- many many distinctive quests and different outcomes
- decent enough but not perfect combat system, a little bit too easy once you get the hang of it

But it lacks in world design and the ending was anticlimactic. It has the same issues every big open world rpg has. They were a bit overambitious. Not really bad, but maybe the game could have had more impact in story and overall quality aspects, if they would have decided to stick with a smaller world size.

Even then it would only get in sight of the gameplay gothic 1 & 2 has to offer, but i praise the studio CD-Projekt RED for putting such effort in their games without sucking money out of the franchise too much.
But creators of good quality should be paid well, they need food on their tables too. :D

You don't have to reinvent the wheel again but you have to work out a more fitting system for this game.
My ideas are a solid frame to work with, because i think they fit well into the game.
(I will state this as long as noone can proof me otherwise.)
Devs can work with this frame, getting creative with it, change it to their desires, but at least it's something to work with.

You can't just go out and create something new and fresh out of thin air.
You start to build on something, get new ideas and work from there, until you discover your own path. The more detail you bring into research the broader your workspace gets the more tools you have at your disposal so to speak.
Without knowledge you can't be creative at full potential.

It's ok to say i'm wrong, but hear the people out who make those hour-long reviews about this teaser and the original games form PB. So much work put together for 1-2 hour gameplay. There is no way this is only about their love for janky old nerd niche games, it could be a milestone in the history of this genre if it works out well enough for a bigger audience.
No pressure btw devs... xD

[Auric Carnage]

No offense but you talk too much. I suggest playing the game and actually seeing how realistic the combat stances are. Fighting with a weapon is so refined, it's like they blew past the awkward hack and slash from Risen 1 and 2. Following your opponent with strafes and re-positioning of your blade? Brilliant yet also simple. One of the many issues I've had with a lot of games was guarding. If you're positioned properly, you don't have to manually block because your guard is always up to block; This is merely a "teaser." I can't wait to see what they have in store for the full game.

[Arctic]

Why should i bother, i already played the Teaser for a bit and For Honor too so...

It wasn't awkward because of the system persay.
The clunky animations and bad AI attack patterns made it broken. You couldn't play strategic with a scaling learning curve because of this.

In the teaser you can't fight intuitive enough, it seems more complex but in the end if you don't play with a controller or in VR you won't have the best system here, given the majority of the fanbase is playing this on pc. Or do you know your stance without indicators?
I don't think so. But you could, with readable attack patterns.
Aiming to achieve an immersive experience, this combat UI is counterproductive!

Guarding should be harder, without exploits or you won't apreciate the aspects of a well made combat system, where playing offensive is always better then defensive.
If you can balance out those two aspects it's even better.

[Tanist]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shino:

3. What is a game?

A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome.
Different outcomes are assigned to different values and the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome.
The player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.

Your definition is confusing.

You first state that a game is a rule-based formula with a variable and quantifiable outcome, which is ok (though variable I find a bit odd when compared with quantified, as a variable isn't quantified, so by using "and" between them is confusing).

Then, you say that the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable. This is confusing as this seems to conflict with the very concept of a game.

I would say a game is a set of rules, conditions, etc... to which a player competes against those rules with themselves, another, or that of a manufactured opponent to achieve a victory according to those rules or conditions.

In such a definition, there is winning (meeting or exceeding those conditions) and losing (failing to meet those conditions). In your description, you seem to imply that a game is just meaningless actions according to the whim of the player and that, I would not call a game, but simple entertainment (a problem with most modern games these days).


As for your combat suggestions, they are interesting, and I think would be great for a full on action arcade game, but... I think you are moving far too away from the cRPG side of the gaming. While Gothic is an action RPG, it still had a a pretty good connection between its RPG development and that of the action. I think Gothic is best served by creating a stronger bond between that development over the action arcade side (ie having skills and abilities directly restricting player ability in things like how fast you swing, how fast you can dodge, how advanced, etc... ). Still action based, but connected to statistical development and less on the player being able to just get good at arcade and beat the game without any development (ie Dark Souls 1). A player should only be able to use clever approach and individual skill to a certain point, then... they need to find a way to improve the character.

[Tanist]

Here are my thoughts on overall combat in Gothic.

Action/RPG hybrid should mean statistical control on player action.

What that means is that the Action component of game play is driven by the statistical RPG play. The player is given action controls (ie they can swing, move, etc...) as a real time component, but... how those actions function will be limited by statistical ability.

Movement speed, strike speed, etc... will be controlled by statistics. The player though controls where they move to, when, how, etc... and when they strike, or within a certain realm, how often they strike.

That is, the statistical development controls the basics of the players ability to effect play. This is contrary to games like Dark Souls where the statistics are "power ups" to "help" the player, not a limitation or directing of ability (ie in DS, you can beat the game without even attending to any RPG development).

Now, where the flavor of play comes in is to create a wide array of skills and abilities "controlled" by statistics, with multiple levels of ability and focus AND then creating a range of obstacles which will punish and reward the player depending on their development and approaches to encounters (ie NPCs with puzzle like combat abilities which require the player to approach an encounter with thought, often realizing they must return at a later time because they lack the tools to be able to beat a given encounter).

That is the basis of what I think a good system provides.

Lastly, and this is something that irks me in most games today... Negative reinforcement. That is, there should be NEGATIVES to given choices, actions, or situations. This idea that the player has to be having fun constantly is the dumbest concept and most detrimental aspect of modern gaming. Stop trying to make the player happy all the time. Look at the player as your opponent... Make a game where you perplex them, challenge them, confuse them, force them to adapt, etc... THAT IS WHAT A GAME IS!

Stop making this mentally handicapped garbage for small minded morons who want to push buttons and be patted on the back for simply breathing.

Make a game, not entertainment. There is a difference, and real gamers (yes I said REAL) know the difference.

[whitie_z]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

Stop making this mentally handicapped garbage for small minded morons who want to push buttons and be patted on the back for simply breathing.

+1

[Arctic]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

Your definition is confusing.

You first state that a game is a rule-based formula with a variable and quantifiable outcome, which is ok (though variable I find a bit odd when compared with quantified, as a variable isn't quantified, so by using "and" between them is confusing).

Then, you say that the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable. This is confusing as this seems to conflict with the very concept of a game.

I would say a game is a set of rules, conditions, etc... to which a player competes against those rules with themselves, another, or that of a manufactured opponent to achieve a victory according to those rules or conditions.

In such a definition, there is winning (meeting or exceeding those conditions) and losing (failing to meet those conditions). In your description, you seem to imply that a game is just meaningless actions according to the whim of the player and that, I would not call a game, but simple entertainment (a problem with most modern games these days).

Yes you are right with your statement, thx for pointing that out.
This confused me aswell when i was working through the source material.
It didn't specify what i wanted to say, but it made sense as a core concept, when i was building my statements on top of it, layer by layer, until i reached the ARPG genre.
Let me quote the whole thing:

"A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome,
where different outcomes are assigned different values,
the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome,
the player feels attached to the outcome
and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.

Maybe i should delete the "quantifiable" part then? Because there should be only one outcome for one specific set of choices for your variables.
Hard to grasp what the author meant by his statement...

I will edit the definition as such:

"A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable outcome,
where different outcomes are achieved by values and conditions.
The player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome.
The player feels attached to the consequences of the input effort,
influencing the players choices how to achieve a specific outcome."

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

As for your combat suggestions, they are interesting, and I think would be great for a full on action arcade game, but... I think you are moving far too away from the cRPG side of the gaming. While Gothic is an action RPG, it still had a a pretty good connection between its RPG development and that of the action. I think Gothic is best served by creating a stronger bond between that development over the action arcade side (ie having skills and abilities directly restricting player ability in things like how fast you swing, how fast you can dodge, how advanced, etc... ). Still action based, but connected to statistical development and less on the player being able to just get good at arcade and beat the game without any development (ie Dark Souls 1). A player should only be able to use clever approach and individual skill to a certain point, then... they need to find a way to improve the character.

I don't want Gothic to be an arcade game.

Character development should be essential for proceeding the game.
Player-skills and clever approaches to gameplay mechanics are just a method how to reach certain milestones in character development:

- can't kill high level enemies because of low skill/attribute-values.
- can't reach certain areas because of missing skills, story-progression
- can't develope the story without the skills to finish story quests

The combat system is well made,
as long as action elements are restricted by those conditions and don't break the players immersion too hard.
Character/gameplay/combat-development should feel natural for the player.

[Arctic]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

Here are my thoughts on overall combat in Gothic.

Action/RPG hybrid should mean statistical control on player action.

What that means is that the Action component of game play is driven by the statistical RPG play. The player is given action controls (ie they can swing, move, etc...) as a real time component, but... how those actions function will be limited by statistical ability.

Movement speed, strike speed, etc... will be controlled by statistics. The player though controls where they move to, when, how, etc... and when they strike, or within a certain realm, how often they strike.

That is, the statistical development controls the basics of the players ability to effect play. This is contrary to games like Dark Souls where the statistics are "power ups" to "help" the player, not a limitation or directing of ability (ie in DS, you can beat the game without even attending to any RPG development).

Now, where the flavor of play comes in is to create a wide array of skills and abilities "controlled" by statistics, with multiple levels of ability and focus AND then creating a range of obstacles which will punish and reward the player depending on their development and approaches to encounters (ie NPCs with puzzle like combat abilities which require the player to approach an encounter with thought, often realizing they must return at a later time because they lack the tools to be able to beat a given encounter).

That is the basis of what I think a good system provides.

Lastly, and this is something that irks me in most games today... Negative reinforcement. That is, there should be NEGATIVES to given choices, actions, or situations. This idea that the player has to be having fun constantly is the dumbest concept and most detrimental aspect of modern gaming. Stop trying to make the player happy all the time. Look at the player as your opponent... Make a game where you perplex them, challenge them, confuse them, force them to adapt, etc... THAT IS WHAT A GAME IS!

Stop making this mentally handicapped garbage for small minded morons who want to push buttons and be patted on the back for simply breathing.

Make a game, not entertainment. There is a difference, and real gamers (yes I said REAL) know the difference.

Yup, finally someone who understands this!

Me, interpreting your thoughts:

- Players actions (combat, movement, etc...) are driven by statistical RPG elements.
- Statistical elements (Skills, Attributes, etc...) are the players tools to influence the game.
- Players need a wide array of statistical driven tools for gameplay flavours
- Obstacles, rewarding/punishing players actions, developing a sense of need for skills.
- Negative reinforcement is important for a better player experience.
- Good gameplay can only be reached by exposing the player to a relatable range of emotions.

Nowadays games feel more like entertainment drugs. You take them in, they make you addicted and you play them without much joy for the sake of it.
The always rewarding games won't challenge you on a level, real life would.
You can't copy real life in games, that's a fact...

But neglecting so much negative aspects in games is not healthy for your emotions.
The more we get indulged in only funny and rewarding experiences, the less important it becomes to us.
If we get punished in games it's not bad at all, it's healthy!
We learn how to appreciate the effort we have to put in for our rewards.

[Tanist]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shino:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

Your definition is confusing.

You first state that a game is a rule-based formula with a variable and quantifiable outcome, which is ok (though variable I find a bit odd when compared with quantified, as a variable isn't quantified, so by using "and" between them is confusing).

Then, you say that the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable. This is confusing as this seems to conflict with the very concept of a game.

I would say a game is a set of rules, conditions, etc... to which a player competes against those rules with themselves, another, or that of a manufactured opponent to achieve a victory according to those rules or conditions.

In such a definition, there is winning (meeting or exceeding those conditions) and losing (failing to meet those conditions). In your description, you seem to imply that a game is just meaningless actions according to the whim of the player and that, I would not call a game, but simple entertainment (a problem with most modern games these days).

Yes you are right with your statement, thx for pointing that out.
This confused me aswell when i was working through the source material.
It didn't specify what i wanted to say, but it made sense as a core concept, when i was building my statements on top of it, layer by layer, until i reached the ARPG genre.
Let me quote the whole thing:

"A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome,
where different outcomes are assigned different values,
the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome,
the player feels attached to the outcome
and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.

Maybe i should delete the "quantifiable" part then? Because there should be only one outcome for one specific set of choices for your variables.
Hard to grasp what the author meant by his statement...

I will edit the definition as such:

"A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable outcome,
where different outcomes are achieved by values and conditions.
The player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome.
The player feels attached to the consequences of the input effort,
influencing the players choices how to achieve a specific outcome."

Much better. It carries the basics of structure and constraint that a rule system has and implies the need to meet certain criteria in order to achieve a result. I can't tell you how many times I cringe when people try to imply game to mean simply "entertainment", ignoring the actual practical and useful definition of one. It is also the same thing when I hear a developer use "fun" to describe their goal in development, as if "fun" can be standardized for all. The way I look at game development is... you make a game YOU think is fun, then... you hand that to the world and see if people agree.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Shino:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

As for your combat suggestions, they are interesting, and I think would be great for a full on action arcade game, but... I think you are moving far too away from the cRPG side of the gaming. While Gothic is an action RPG, it still had a a pretty good connection between its RPG development and that of the action. I think Gothic is best served by creating a stronger bond between that development over the action arcade side (ie having skills and abilities directly restricting player ability in things like how fast you swing, how fast you can dodge, how advanced, etc... ). Still action based, but connected to statistical development and less on the player being able to just get good at arcade and beat the game without any development (ie Dark Souls 1). A player should only be able to use clever approach and individual skill to a certain point, then... they need to find a way to improve the character.

I don't want Gothic to be an arcade game.

Character development should be essential for proceeding the game.
Player-skills and clever approaches to gameplay mechanics are just a method how to reach certain milestones in character development:

- can't kill high level enemies because of low skill/attribute-values.
- can't reach certain areas because of missing skills, story-progression
- can't develope the story without the skills to finish story quests

The combat system is well made,
as long as action elements are restricted by those conditions and don't break the players immersion too hard.
Character/gameplay/combat-development should feel natural for the player.

Immersion is too subjective of a word, I try and stay away from it as it is along the lines of using the word "fun". Each person has their own requirements for immersion and fun. Those requirements might be at complete opposites. I can get extremely immersed in even a text based game, while some might find that completely non-immersive. I always thought first person games were far more immersive than 3rd person, but there are some who claim 3rd person is more immersive (I don't understand it, but... /shrug). Point is, all you can do is design a system that you think is good, that you think is well designed and then see if people like it.

Like cooking, never let the customer decide the recipe, they may like certain ingredients, but they have no clue what works together to create your meal. That however is how most modern games are developed (as is evident by this "teaser" testing to see if people like the game).

[Arctic]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanist:

Much better. It carries the basics of structure and constraint that a rule system has and implies the need to meet certain criteria in order to achieve a result. I can't tell you how many times I cringe when people try to imply game to mean simply "entertainment", ignoring the actual practical and useful definition of one. It is also the same thing when I hear a developer use "fun" to describe their goal in development, as if "fun" can be standardized for all. The way I look at game development is... you make a game YOU think is fun, then... you hand that to the world and see if people agree.

Immersion is too subjective of a word, I try and stay away from it as it is along the lines of using the word "fun". Each person has their own requirements for immersion and fun. Those requirements might be at complete opposites. I can get extremely immersed in even a text based game, while some might find that completely non-immersive. I always thought first person games were far more immersive than 3rd person, but there are some who claim 3rd person is more immersive (I don't understand it, but... /shrug). Point is, all you can do is design a system that you think is good, that you think is well designed and then see if people like it.

Like cooking, never let the customer decide the recipe, they may like certain ingredients, but they have no clue what works together to create your meal. That however is how most modern games are developed (as is evident by this "teaser" testing to see if people like the game).

For me "fun & immersion" are words you have to apply to a certain context.
You want to have a fun and immersive experience as a fan of this specific type of game.
The overall feeling that no game feels as good as Gothic, won't bother you if you never played it before.
You may find Skyrim very good, or really any other game fitting into this type of genre when talking about rpgs.

(your analogy between developer and cooks is great ^^)

Like the guests of a restaurant who know how a certain meal has to taste like, we know how Gothic has to feel.
I'm not a developer, i don't know how to cook the game to a perfect meal, but if i can test its taste until i'm satisfied, i can help the devs from my point of view. :D

But they should know their ingredients at least and the basic recipe for the game.
If devs won't learn how to put those together
and develope from there, you can't call it Gothic.