Beautiful fencing against invocation. Comparing the combat system in different games

Avatar image for f5f9


Forum Posts


Wiki Points



Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By F5F9
Member since 2021 • 1 Posts

I love to watch swordfights in third person, write combos and cut off heads, and most importantly, warriors always look cool. But it was not always interesting, somewhere I got tired of fighting after a couple of hours of the game, and sometimes interest appeared only towards the end of the game. I'll try to take apart all the mechanics I've seen and put together a view of the ideal melee system that I would like to see.

Combat mechanics in games, and in particular sword fighting, are always difficult to implement. This mainly concerns fantasy rpg. There are, of course, "Souls" games, with their own vision of combat or slashers, but that's different. I understand that to make shooting interesting, you also need to be able, and there are some difficulties. But I want to speculate about close combat and how interesting it is in games.

The Witcher Series

The first part offered an interesting approach to combat. In terms of graphics and entertainment, everything did not look very good, but it was varied. You had several styles: power, fast and group. Each style was pumping, and the hits were getting more. It's a pity, the animations left much to be desired, even from the point of view of logic.

In the second Witcher, the mechanics were slightly simplified, the styles were removed and several sets of animation of hits were made. But there was a parry and the ability to kill with one blow, the killing of several opponents looked especially beautiful if you pumped in the swordsman branch.

The Witcher 3 is criticized by many for simplified pumping, and especially for the combat system. As for me, deservedly so. This is a set of beautiful blows, you just need to parry and counterattack sometimes. You may feel that the combinations are up to you, but no. In fact, this is a very effective and beautiful clicker. But there are still advantages, in addition to the beauty of the "dance with the sword of Geralt", the developers added a large number of finishing moves on the enemy, bloody and bright, which I personally did not get tired of for the whole game.


I cannot describe the previous games, as I played them for a long time and only a little. But I went through this part many times and boldly declare (as everyone already knows) to fight with swords, it's boring to put it mildly. I don't think it was much different in Morrowind or Oblivion, it's Bethesda. As for Skyrim itself, it's a very tedious sword fight, in fact it's a clicker. Light hits, heavy hits and that's it, no combos, no styles, nothing. There are finishing animations that start to piss off after a few hours of play. A reasonable question would be why I then decided to describe close combat in Skyrim at all. It's very simple, you need to know how not to do it.

Risen 2

I deliberately do not want to mention the first part, since this is a typical clicker, and in the third I played as a magician (but I think everything is about the same as in the second). The combat system in this game is pretty simple at first glance, but the more you immerse yourself, the more interesting it is. Of course, everything is not without a flaw, and all battles are more one-on-one. But I really liked the way these fights were made.

You are really fencing with the enemy, since there are fewer monsters in this part of the game, and basically the battle takes place with people. It's hard to describe in words, so I'll write easier, watch the film "Captain Alatriste", and if you did, you understood what I mean. I understand that this is a B category game with a small budget, but even so, they were able to show the beauty of blade fighting. Leveling, gives you more hits and different tricks in battle and, in general, everything looks good.

Kingdom come deliverance

A game with a completely different approach to sword fighting. I know I borrowed a lot from For Honor. Unlike previous games, here we play in the first person. But it’s silly not to mention such an interesting combat system. Of course, you cannot call it a standard one, because striking from five directions and even to the center is, to put it mildly, inconvenient. In this game, like Risen 2, one-on-one fights are very well done, and perfectly reflect the style of the world. When you learn, and most importantly, you get used to the mechanics, the battles will start to give pleasure.

Bundles of blows, parrying, the ability to catch the enemy on a mistake, all this is done quite efficiently. But when you go against the crowd, problems begin. In fact, you are still fighting with one enemy, and the rest are waiting and occasionally poke you painfully, so you need to constantly change the target and have time to fight off everyone, and the archer is still shooting at you. You start to run from the enemy, try to grab one, strike a couple of blows and run away again, as a result, the whole entourage is lost.

Two worlds 2

Many managed to forget this game, and the budget there was also not very big. But in terms of mechanics, the game was pretty beautiful and interesting. Melee combat in this game was something in between, a typical clicker and the same Risen 2. There are good animations of strikes (not just jabs), namely, bundles of strikes, but no combo, and there are several techniques that complement melee combat, such as take away the shield or knockdown. In other respects, nothing super unique, but at the same time, you can go through the game as a warrior and have fun.

Assassin's creed

Valhalla, I put it on the back burner for now, and I can only judge about "Origins" and "Odyssey". Although, who am I kidding, because the combat part in these games is practically different, nothing. There are differences in talent, but in general, fights look the same. It is not entirely correct, in general, it was to mention the series "Assassin's Creed" in this reasoning, but the last parts, rightly, really want to be an rpg.

As for the melee, everything is simple, a few sets of punches, finishing without zest (in Valhalla it is better, I have seen, I agree), parrying and counterattacking, everything is standard. And it seems that all this is not bad and sometimes interesting, but everyone breaks "juggernauts". Even if you kill me, it hurts me to watch how a person was pierced 10 times with a sword, but still on his feet, despite the fact that he is just a person.


Let me summarize, otherwise, I poured water. An ideal, or more correctly, a good combat system should consist of many factors.

1)It is necessary to take into account the setting of the game and adjust the combat part for this. The knight must be able to fend off several opponents at once, and not run around the arena like in MMO, so you need to take into account different fighting styles. Fighting monsters and fighting people should be different with hit animation.

2)The set of different series of blows for each weapon, each, and not for all swords is the same. Here, you can also include a combo, and not one or two, but at least five pieces.

3)The most important thing is the beauty of the battle and the sense of realism of what is happening. The Witcher 3 is a good example in this regard, when simple combat mechanics do not get bored because of the beauty of the finishing animation and the feeling that you really killed the enemy.

The spectacularity of the battle and the beautiful end of the battle, by finishing off the enemy - this is not enough for many games. I want to see how a person or a monster takes real damage, and that a person is obliged to die after being pierced with a sword several times. Much of course depends on the budget, but even more depends on the talent of the developers.

or my purely personal opinion - Fencing in Blade of Darkness, Ninja Gaiden, Dark Soulls. All these Skyrim witchers are two-button stupidity, RPG has never had a good fighting game, but I am sure that it will change in the future.

It sounds trite, but what kind of combat system would you like to see in an action rpg, and where do you think it is best implemented? Write in the comments

and friends - check it if you want more

Avatar image for RSM-HQ


Forum Posts


Wiki Points



Reviews: 89

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 10112 Posts

The games you break down are not really known for having great; let alone good combat mechanics. They hit the balance to keep most players engaged long enough to do most the games adventures/ quests. Combat playing a minor role to the enjoyment over other aspects.

ARPGs with great combat mechanics- Monster Hunter, SoulsBorne, Dragon's Dogma.

Slashers with great combat mechanics- Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden.

It's tough being too critical on other games that I've played with serviceable or mediocre melee combat by comparison to the above. The examples I give above are simply some of/ if not the best handling fluidity, collision, weight of each swing, and gameplay depth. However combat is also the selling point to all my highlighted games.

Skyrim, for as successful as it is has very floaty combat that always feels like one is hitting thin air, even on objects or NPCs. Assassins/ Witcher 3 are pretty stiff with very scripted animations that really takes the fun out the combat. Nothing against these games way of handling combat, it's just very rigid, lacking a lot of satisfaction from games that focus on combat as the necessity. While I'm sure some of these developers strive for better combat, it is not what they are good at, and shows.

As previously mentioned not all games need stellar combat, and forgive me to those that do not know of good examples. Like all games they just need to achieve what is prioritised for the games intended design. And in many the OP blog, it is story and world building. Combat not being a reason to really get behind those games.

Just because a game has swinging swords does not mean it's trying to be the next Devil May Cry or a Souls game_