How to implement 'realistic' swordfighting in video games.(shamusyoung.com)
shamusyoung.com
How to implement 'realistic' swordfighting in video games.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=188
35 コメント
At the same time, his very first point deftly avoids the need for mocking up:
"The gameplay will work the same, but look a lot more reasonable."
'yeah, that'll work'
"That won't work", on the other hand, is easy. Here's why "realistic" fights with lethal weapons don't work for, e.g., a Star Wars game: George Lucas can fiat that Obi Wan never eats a lightsaber until it is dramatically appropriate, but in the game, for there to be challenge there has to be the illusion of risk, and if you're risking insta-death lightsaber cuts then a lot of kids and casual gamers (bread and butter for Star Wars) are going to get cut into pieces by mooks. That is going to be deeply unsatisfying to them. Nethack has a subculture who loves it dearly ("Hah, drunk the potion on level one without first testing to see whether it is a cursed potion? Man, you must be new at this. rolls Oh, you're stoned. Time to restart!"), but the "physics" for Star Wars are very, very different.
The reason D&D doesn't have the fighter die after a hit with a giant club isn't because we're capable of suspending disbelief as long as we don't see it happen. Its because, given that D&D is based around having most shots by competent opponents connect (there is another problem with the other way), having one-shot instasquish makes the heroes seem markedly less heroic, and would result in e.g. the defining D&D encounter with a dragon get skipped totally by rational players. (At least until they could find a suitably non-dramatic low-risk way to dispose of the dragon without ever being perceived by him, such as having the wizard Wish him out of existence.)
[On reflection, the "game fiats you do not die when you as the player fail to dodge an insta-kill attack" gets around this objection, although one wonders if you're sacrificing player agency for "making sense", since a player who literally abandons his controller will see the animation system play his character flawlessly for a minute until his stamina runs out. "Wait, what was I adding to this performance?" is not something I'd want to cause a player to think.]
"That won't work", on the other hand, is easy. Here's why "realistic" fights with lethal weapons don't work for, e.g., a Star Wars game: George Lucas can fiat that Obi Wan never eats a lightsaber until it is dramatically appropriate, but in the game, for there to be challenge there has to be the illusion of risk, and if you're risking insta-death lightsaber cuts then a lot of kids and casual gamers (bread and butter for Star Wars) are going to get cut into pieces by mooks. That is going to be deeply unsatisfying to them. Nethack has a subculture who loves it dearly ("Hah, drunk the potion on level one without first testing to see whether it is a cursed potion? Man, you must be new at this. rolls Oh, you're stoned. Time to restart!"), but the "physics" for Star Wars are very, very different.
The reason D&D doesn't have the fighter die after a hit with a giant club isn't because we're capable of suspending disbelief as long as we don't see it happen. Its because, given that D&D is based around having most shots by competent opponents connect (there is another problem with the other way), having one-shot instasquish makes the heroes seem markedly less heroic, and would result in e.g. the defining D&D encounter with a dragon get skipped totally by rational players. (At least until they could find a suitably non-dramatic low-risk way to dispose of the dragon without ever being perceived by him, such as having the wizard Wish him out of existence.)
[On reflection, the "game fiats you do not die when you as the player fail to dodge an insta-kill attack" gets around this objection, although one wonders if you're sacrificing player agency for "making sense", since a player who literally abandons his controller will see the animation system play his character flawlessly for a minute until his stamina runs out. "Wait, what was I adding to this performance?" is not something I'd want to cause a player to think.]
if you're risking insta-death lightsaber cuts then a lot of kids and casual gamers (bread and butter for Star Wars) are going to get cut into pieces by mooks.
It wouldn't just be insta-death. In the article he explains how a "focus" bar would replace a "health" bar, with the only real difference in terms of the logical mechanics being that you don't just lose focus when you get hit.
It wouldn't just be insta-death. In the article he explains how a "focus" bar would replace a "health" bar, with the only real difference in terms of the logical mechanics being that you don't just lose focus when you get hit.
I agree with both you and Dan Cook.
You have reminded me of a talk that Jonathan Blow (of Braid fame) gave on the importance game prototyping back in 2007 that is vastly relevant to this comment, and a pretty interesting watch as well:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3727092195323329487&...
You have reminded me of a talk that Jonathan Blow (of Braid fame) gave on the importance game prototyping back in 2007 that is vastly relevant to this comment, and a pretty interesting watch as well:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3727092195323329487&...
yet ironically sketching things on napkins is what game companies do. "Let's make another FPS like <name another successful game>." Or, "let's make a sequel." etc etc
Well, that's not sketching a new game-mechanic on a napkin, that's "let's re-use existing, known-good game-mechanics because making up new ones is hard work/expensive/risky".
The game Dragon Realms (play.net/dr) implements a system very much like this. It's actually a mud and not a video game, but that actually doesn't make a significant difference in this context.
DR has balance, so that the better balanced you are the better you can attack and defend. Some weapons are better than other at unbalancing an opponent, and you can also use spells to gain balance or unbalance something else.
It also has stamina, so that when you swing a sword over and over eventually you'll start swinging wildly, and eventually you'll fall over from exhaustion. This also negatively affects your balance.
The mechanic of position is also used, and as you play you learn how to respond to attacks or execute sequences of attacks to gain a better position.
Benzim mentioned having thrust, slash, etc, and DR implements this idea with thrust, jab, chop, sweep, slash, charge, etc.
The DR system differs from the one in the article in that you can face multiple opponents, though that's a skill you have to level up or else you'll be overwhelmed.
Overall the combat system is very engaging and different from the typical MUD system of typing "attack" and watching lines of numbers go by. Worth playing if you're into that kind of thing.
DR has balance, so that the better balanced you are the better you can attack and defend. Some weapons are better than other at unbalancing an opponent, and you can also use spells to gain balance or unbalance something else.
It also has stamina, so that when you swing a sword over and over eventually you'll start swinging wildly, and eventually you'll fall over from exhaustion. This also negatively affects your balance.
The mechanic of position is also used, and as you play you learn how to respond to attacks or execute sequences of attacks to gain a better position.
Benzim mentioned having thrust, slash, etc, and DR implements this idea with thrust, jab, chop, sweep, slash, charge, etc.
The DR system differs from the one in the article in that you can face multiple opponents, though that's a skill you have to level up or else you'll be overwhelmed.
Overall the combat system is very engaging and different from the typical MUD system of typing "attack" and watching lines of numbers go by. Worth playing if you're into that kind of thing.
A system with balance, focus, and stamina might be interesting. You could simulate different fighting styles using these quantities. (For example, one style could emphasize stamina -- it would greatly impact the opponent's stamina, but at great cost to your own balance.)
Swordfighting is a lot like sex. Often it's not what you do - but what you say.
A: Soon you´ll be wearing my sword like a shish kebab! B: First you better stop waiving it like a feather-duster.
A: Soon you´ll be wearing my sword like a shish kebab! B: First you better stop waiving it like a feather-duster.
You're thinking of the "Dashing Swordsman."
http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dashing_Swordsman
http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dashing_Swordsman
The original Secret of Monkey Island had a system called "insult swordfighting". One combatant would taunt the other ("you fight like a dairy farmer!"); if the recipient came up with a good response ("how appropriate. You fight like a cow"), they would take a turn. If not, they would get pushed back. Get pushed far enough back and you lose.
That's what VBProgrammer was referencing. During the Dashing Swordsman sequence in OOTS, Rich recieved a lot of fan mail for referencing MI, but said he'd never heard of it before.
That's what VBProgrammer was referencing. During the Dashing Swordsman sequence in OOTS, Rich recieved a lot of fan mail for referencing MI, but said he'd never heard of it before.
There's also the Pkunk from the Star Control II video game. They recharge their spacecraft by shouting insults at their enemies to drain "emotional energy."
http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Pkunk
http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Pkunk
Another interesting mechanic would be different types of attacks: thrust, slash left, slash right, slash down. The player can see the attack beginning and has a small amount of time to choose the correct defense to that attack. Choosing the correct defense reduces the amount of focus lost. You could also add shields. If you press block with a shield it'll block any attack with minimal loss of focus. Shields would have hit points and break if used too many times.
Mount and Blade is the closest game I've played to this. It still has hit points, but that makes sense for a medieval game where you're fighting heavily armored humans.
Mount and Blade is the closest game I've played to this. It still has hit points, but that makes sense for a medieval game where you're fighting heavily armored humans.
This discussion is sounding more and more like the card game "En Garde"...
http://www.slugfestgames.com/games_eg.php
The only difference I can tell is the game uses the term "poise" instead of "focus." But the notion of attack variants, responses and improvised gear pretty closely meshes with what everybody here and at the original post's thread seem to want.
http://www.slugfestgames.com/games_eg.php
The only difference I can tell is the game uses the term "poise" instead of "focus." But the notion of attack variants, responses and improvised gear pretty closely meshes with what everybody here and at the original post's thread seem to want.
I think the original Prince of Persia was the most fun swordfighting game I have played.
This one guy, Jordan Mechner, has designed a lot of the interesting martial arts simulations over the years. Prince of Persia, the Last Express, and even Karateka (if you were gaming in the 80s).
http://jordanmechner.com/bio/
The Last Express was really interesting. It's mostly a Myst-style, er, mystery, with animated cut-scenes. But even despite the limited interface there is a cool fight mechanic. You can only survive by predicting what the opponent's next attack is going to be by subtle shifts in body posture, and doing an appropriate countermove.
http://jordanmechner.com/bio/
The Last Express was really interesting. It's mostly a Myst-style, er, mystery, with animated cut-scenes. But even despite the limited interface there is a cool fight mechanic. You can only survive by predicting what the opponent's next attack is going to be by subtle shifts in body posture, and doing an appropriate countermove.
"his one guy, Jordan Mechner, has designed a lot of the interesting martial arts simulations"
How does one even begin to write a martial art simulation? Does one model the human body (model things like "a human elbow can turn x degrees in 2 planes" or whatever)? Does anyone have any references to (or demo code on) how to write a martial arts simulation? Thanks in advance.
How does one even begin to write a martial art simulation? Does one model the human body (model things like "a human elbow can turn x degrees in 2 planes" or whatever)? Does anyone have any references to (or demo code on) how to write a martial arts simulation? Thanks in advance.
Well, I really just meant "games". I'm not a game programmer, just an occasional player.
But, maybe I chose the word "simulation" because his works are always grounded in ordinary body physics. The typical fight game is really a button-masher with the reward of seeing a body fall to the ground if you win. Mechner's fight mechanics are about things like leverage, timing, moves and countermoves. They aren't really 'realistic' either but he's going one level deeper.
But, maybe I chose the word "simulation" because his works are always grounded in ordinary body physics. The typical fight game is really a button-masher with the reward of seeing a body fall to the ground if you win. Mechner's fight mechanics are about things like leverage, timing, moves and countermoves. They aren't really 'realistic' either but he's going one level deeper.
I know this is getting off topic, but the original Monkey Island handled it beautifully
I think the author needs to have a look at the latest Prince of Persia. The elaborate acrobatics plus his suggested system are what make the game interesting.
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
I don't know. Fencing is way more effort, harder to master, and I'm not so sure I agree about "better graphics". I mean, they're higher definition, sure, but not nearly as awesome.
I don't know. Fencing is way more effort, harder to master, and I'm not so sure I agree about "better graphics". I mean, they're higher definition, sure, but not nearly as awesome.
I stopped reading when it seemed like he was trying to reconcile reality with games. Won't happen. In real life, a .22 caliber cartridge to the pinky will put you on the medivac. In a game, you keep playing because...the point of a game is fun, not avoiding sepsis.
Bushido Blade for the original PlayStation was a one-on-one game with pretty realistic weapon fights.
One hit from a sword in a vital area and you were dead. Hits to the legs or arm would disable that limb.
A lot of the fights were over quickly. But when both players were good, you could have some pretty tense, tactical duels.
The game mechanics also encouraged you to fight honorably.
One hit from a sword in a vital area and you were dead. Hits to the legs or arm would disable that limb.
A lot of the fights were over quickly. But when both players were good, you could have some pretty tense, tactical duels.
The game mechanics also encouraged you to fight honorably.
Love the article and I'd just like to take a moment to lament the lack of Bushido Blade type games in the last 2 generations of consoles. Easily the greatest fighting games ever.
you can email me if you can't figure out a way of playing them >_>
you can email me if you can't figure out a way of playing them >_>
There was a game called Moonstone which has realtime swordfighting. You could use 8 way axis of the joystick ( preferably Phyton brand) with two button. It was fantastic and never surpassed.
I don't understand why you need realistic sword fighting in games where you play just for fun. If realism needed then probably you need a fencing simulation.
I don't understand why you need realistic sword fighting in games where you play just for fun. If realism needed then probably you need a fencing simulation.
The best sword-fighting game I've come across has been Defenders of the Crown. Very quick little fights, mess up three times and you die.
For an example of an original martial arts fighting game, Toribash is worth checking out and seems very interesting. My computer isn't powerful enough to play it though, so I can't give a review.
For an example of an original martial arts fighting game, Toribash is worth checking out and seems very interesting. My computer isn't powerful enough to play it though, so I can't give a review.
re: boxing games and stamina. I've never found this game mechanic to be convincing, just vaguely frustrating. All of us know what it feels like to push our muscles to the point of exhaustion, until they no longer respond - it is such an innate experience that for me, it is impossible to convincingly recreate it with a keyboard or controller and some on-screen meters.
On the other hand, most of us probably don't have experience bludgeoning each other with sharp or blunt objects to the point of exhaustion or death. This might mean two things: first, that we don't object to flashy, fun combats, because they are closest to our fighting experience which comes from watching movies. Second, that a realistic combat - a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance - might just not be that much fun to play.
On the other hand, most of us probably don't have experience bludgeoning each other with sharp or blunt objects to the point of exhaustion or death. This might mean two things: first, that we don't object to flashy, fun combats, because they are closest to our fighting experience which comes from watching movies. Second, that a realistic combat - a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance - might just not be that much fun to play.
> a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance
Eh? Not at all. In sabre fencing, it's rare for a touch to take more than 15 seconds. Even in épée, which most closely approximates a real duel, one minute is about the norm.
Eh? Not at all. In sabre fencing, it's rare for a touch to take more than 15 seconds. Even in épée, which most closely approximates a real duel, one minute is about the norm.
In real life, "winning" 10-7 isn't all that much of a win. More to the point, "a touch" doesn't cause a position reset and some touches are far more important than others.
Fencing is amazing, but it isn't fighting even if fencers do better at sword fighting than folks with no experience.
Fencing is amazing, but it isn't fighting even if fencers do better at sword fighting than folks with no experience.
I had an in-depth reply to this, but I accidentally closed the browser tab in the middle of composing it. So I'll leave it at this for now: historical accounts of the duration of sword duels do not distribute themselves qualitatively differently from modern fencing, and even less so from the fencing of 100 years ago.
I guess I'm talking more about medieval stuff (about which I also don't know much). Swords, maces, that kind of stuff. I might be talking about something slightly different than the article.
Let's see how Red Steel 2 for the wii handles this. It will be revealed at E3 (beginning of june). It makes use of wii motion plus which adds extra input to the wiimote so that you can have a true (or as close as you can get) 1:1 motion.
I think the realistic version would be more fun. But as both a fencer and the author of a Nethack variant, I might be an outlier here :-)
Dark Messiah had an interesting combat system. Too bad they outsourced the multiplayer component, which absolutely sucked.
Here's hoping someone with a bit of time on their hands will take this spec, stick it into some RAD game tool and see what happens.