Your thoughts: One-to-One sword play with the depth of WW or TP

#11iKhanic(Topic Creator)Posted 7/17/2014 7:49:33 PM
Labinsky posted...
Can you explain what you mean by "the depth of previous games?" There wasn't much depth at all to those combat systems. Saying that SS made combat into a "puzzle" actually makes it sound deeper than the other games. I don't have much to contribute here because there's nothing at all about direction-based combat that inhibits depth.


Well there are two things at play here, one is the depth of TP and WW's combat systems in that they both had a variety of combat techniques that could be used when fighting enemies. SS pretty much just had the shield bash and the sword. But that didn't have much to do with directionality. I was more asking if you thought it would work with SS's system.

The other is a more action based system. Instead of being centered mostly around timing and reaction, SS's combat was more centered around matching the direction of your slice correctly. So what I'm asking here is if you think it would work if SS maintained the directionality based combat, but added in more timing and reaction like more typical action combat.
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#12AbugumgumPosted 7/17/2014 10:00:56 PM(edited)
I liked SS sword play a lot. I consider it to have easily the most depth of any combat system the series has had. I would totally be down for any kind of improvement upon that, though it doesn't seem to be where the series is headed.
#13iKhanic(Topic Creator)Posted 7/17/2014 10:15:09 PM
Abugumgum posted...
I liked SS sword play a lot. I consider it to have easily the most depth of any combat system the series has had. I would totally be down for any kind of improvement upon that, though it doesn't seem to be where the series is headed.


I fail to see how it had any depth. There are two ways to beat enemies. Precisely aim with the sword or shield bash then slice away.

It may have had a lot of detail and intricacies, but there weren't a lot of ways to approach the problem, which is depth.
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#14LabinskyPosted 7/17/2014 11:31:29 PM
iKhanic posted...
Well there are two things at play here, one is the depth of TP and WW's combat systems in that they both had a variety of combat techniques that could be used when fighting enemies. SS pretty much just had the shield bash and the sword. But that didn't have much to do with directionality. I was more asking if you thought it would work with SS's system.

The other is a more action based system. Instead of being centered mostly around timing and reaction, SS's combat was more centered around matching the direction of your slice correctly. So what I'm asking here is if you think it would work if SS maintained the directionality based combat, but added in more timing and reaction like more typical action combat.

TP and WW certainly had more techniques that could be used, but all the games required you to perform in most cases was the basic sword strikes. You could use more if you wanted to make it interesting, but the games didn't require it for the most part.

There isn't much in TP or WW that I would say requires timing in the first place aside from WW's parry. There's nothing about SS's system that makes it less conducive to timing challenges; in fact, the shield bash is probably the most timing-crucial technique in any of these three games. All SS did was take away a few techniques that weren't factored into enemy design and replace them with directional combat that was. The result was, for me at least, that I felt like I was getting better at swordplay throughout the game, while in the other two there wasn't that much to get good at. I take that back; WW made me a master at killing enemies in stylish and cool ways, but that's not really the point.

You're a good Extra Credits watcher; you know that depth and complexity aren't the same thing. TP and WW have more stuff you can do, but SS gives you a system that it trains you to get better at and rewards you for it, even if it's never as demanding as I would like it to be.
#15Bigmac909Posted 7/17/2014 11:45:16 PM
WW's and TP's hidden skills were not deep. Depending on the enemy, they either worked, and absolutely obliterated the enemy, or didn't work, and were thus useless.
---
3DS FC: 3695 - 0067 - 4389 Name: Shane
Pokemon X Safari: Fire Type - Larvesta, Magmar, & Fletchinder!
#16AbugumgumPosted 7/18/2014 12:27:25 AM
iKhanic posted...
Abugumgum posted...
I liked SS sword play a lot. I consider it to have easily the most depth of any combat system the series has had. I would totally be down for any kind of improvement upon that, though it doesn't seem to be where the series is headed.


I fail to see how it had any depth. There are two ways to beat enemies. Precisely aim with the sword or shield bash then slice away.

It may have had a lot of detail and intricacies, but there weren't a lot of ways to approach the problem, which is depth.


I don't feel like arguing it, but there are obviously many ways to define depth in this instance.
#17Big_IsaacPosted 7/18/2014 12:46:38 AM
Abugumgum posted...
iKhanic posted...
Abugumgum posted...
I liked SS sword play a lot. I consider it to have easily the most depth of any combat system the series has had. I would totally be down for any kind of improvement upon that, though it doesn't seem to be where the series is headed.


I fail to see how it had any depth. There are two ways to beat enemies. Precisely aim with the sword or shield bash then slice away.

It may have had a lot of detail and intricacies, but there weren't a lot of ways to approach the problem, which is depth.


I don't feel like arguing it, but there are obviously many ways to define depth in this instance.

Broadness of gameplay: The number of individual mechanics, abilities, etc
Depth of gameplay: The number of different things you can do with the mechanics, abilities, etc
---
3DS FC: 0817-3784-2273
2 things are infinite: The Universe and human stupidity. I'm not sure about the Universe, though -Albert Einstein
#18ecylisPosted 7/18/2014 2:32:17 AM
I prefer simply pressing a button and it works 100% of the time

Not waving my arms around like an ass and it sometimes works
---
3DS Friend Code: 3582-9158-2225 | #unwarned suck it mods
#19iKhanic(Topic Creator)Posted 7/18/2014 7:49:29 AM
ecylis posted...
I prefer simply pressing a button and it works 100% of the time

Not waving my arms around like an ass and it sometimes works


Not what this topic is about. You don't have to post if you don't have anything to contribute. For the record if you are "waving your arms like an ass" you are doing it wrong. Also, asses don't have arms.

Labinsky posted...
iKhanic posted...
Well there are two things at play here, one is the depth of TP and WW's combat systems in that they both had a variety of combat techniques that could be used when fighting enemies. SS pretty much just had the shield bash and the sword. But that didn't have much to do with directionality. I was more asking if you thought it would work with SS's system.

The other is a more action based system. Instead of being centered mostly around timing and reaction, SS's combat was more centered around matching the direction of your slice correctly. So what I'm asking here is if you think it would work if SS maintained the directionality based combat, but added in more timing and reaction like more typical action combat.

TP and WW certainly had more techniques that could be used, but all the games required you to perform in most cases was the basic sword strikes. You could use more if you wanted to make it interesting, but the games didn't require it for the most part.

There isn't much in TP or WW that I would say requires timing in the first place aside from WW's parry. There's nothing about SS's system that makes it less conducive to timing challenges; in fact, the shield bash is probably the most timing-crucial technique in any of these three games. All SS did was take away a few techniques that weren't factored into enemy design and replace them with directional combat that was. The result was, for me at least, that I felt like I was getting better at swordplay throughout the game, while in the other two there wasn't that much to get good at. I take that back; WW made me a master at killing enemies in stylish and cool ways, but that's not really the point.

You're a good Extra Credits watcher; you know that depth and complexity aren't the same thing. TP and WW have more stuff you can do, but SS gives you a system that it trains you to get better at and rewards you for it, even if it's never as demanding as I would like it to be.


I disagree. Wind Waker and TP both required careful timing around enemy attacks as well as dodging such that you didn't get hit and you weren't blocked. This is part of what made the Darknuts challenging in both games, as they didn't leave themselves open to attack very often and they tended to be quite aggressive. TP's Shield Bash was quite interesting (although it didn't quite work in the Wii version), in that the timing for it on tougher enemies was precise.

The issue with SS is that most enemies were incredibly defensive. Most enemies, rather than requiring you to precisely time your attacks and dodges or issuing some sort of reaction command, required you to see the direction the enemy was blocking and slice appropriately in the ample time you were given. This made it more like a rapid fire jigsaw puzzle as I like to put it.

The shield bash most definitely was heavily action based and was really fun to use, but if you ask me, it worked a bit too well, being pretty much the only thing you need for most of the game.

Thats why I think if they blended TP or WW's combat system with SS's, we could see a really interesting game.
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#20LabinskyPosted 7/18/2014 9:11:26 AM
iKhanic posted...
I disagree. Wind Waker and TP both required careful timing around enemy attacks as well as dodging such that you didn't get hit and you weren't blocked. This is part of what made the Darknuts challenging in both games, as they didn't leave themselves open to attack very often and they tended to be quite aggressive. TP's Shield Bash was quite interesting (although it didn't quite work in the Wii version), in that the timing for it on tougher enemies was precise.

The issue with SS is that most enemies were incredibly defensive. Most enemies, rather than requiring you to precisely time your attacks and dodges or issuing some sort of reaction command, required you to see the direction the enemy was blocking and slice appropriately in the ample time you were given. This made it more like a rapid fire jigsaw puzzle as I like to put it.

The shield bash most definitely was heavily action based and was really fun to use, but if you ask me, it worked a bit too well, being pretty much the only thing you need for most of the game.

Thats why I think if they blended TP or WW's combat system with SS's, we could see a really interesting game.

Eh, all WW required was pressing A when the parry prompt came up in order to counter attacks, and TP had so few enemies that could attack you before you hitstunned them to death that it didn't really matter. I hardly ever had to dodge anything in either game because only a very small fraction of enemies punished you if you started attacking immediately. TP's darknuts were pretty fun to fight, but I had to intentionally cripple myself with no shield and no hidden skills in order to force myself to give them an opportunity to attack.

I guess that what I'm saying is that I don't see this aggression you speak of in WW/TP enemies. They're like SS enemies except they stand there and attack eventually instead of guarding and attacking eventually. If SS is like a slightly fast-paced jigsaw puzzle, then WW and TP are slightly fast-paced press B puzzles. All three games had a few enemies that could reliably attack without competent players killing them immediately--moblins and stalfos in SS, darknuts and stalfos in WW, and darknuts in TP (possibly others too; I've only played the game once, but certainly none of the common enemies fit into this category).

Of course the shield bash worked too well; so did the parry in WW and the hidden skills in TP. It needed some rebalancing, but it was still better balanced than the parry and most of TP's sword techniques.

I would be in favor of combining aspects of the combat systems, but WW's strength was in how it was flexible with providing fights with multiple enemies at once (which it didn't do nearly often enough). Combat with multiple enemies doesn't work quite as well with an SS-like system because you can only focus on hitting one enemy at a time from a specific direction.