I've been studying melee combat systems lately.
Taking them apart, looking at how they work, and trying to assemble them on my own.
What I found is that most 3rd person action/adventure games tend to have 1 of 3 kinds of basic combat systems. By Basic combat system, I mean a way of selecting a target and hitting him.
The first kind is ages old, and I'm kinda surprised that its still around.
When Orcarina of Time released, I believe Nintendo refereed to it as the “Lock-On system”
Its pretty old, but its tried and true, it can be found just about everywhere.
Even the more recent “Devil May Cry 4” has it.
The major tell of the system is that, while you can attack without locking on, you're not likely to hit much of anything until you do. The system is often disguised by having some helpful AI that works with you in choosing a target, and it works pretty well.
However the key drawback is that you really need a target for it to be effective at all, and choosing a target, can still take a bit of work on the players part even with AI helping you.
The next system I found seems to be very popular lately, and its found in games like God of War.
With that system it almost seems like the designers felt like choosing a target was such a big hassle that they'd rather not do it at all... and so the resulting system is composed of the hero characters using giant oversized weapons or chain based weapons, and sweeping them across the environment in an enemy's general direction. With the phenomenal range these weapons tend to cover...hitting something is almost guaranteed. In fact NOT hitting something is rare.
However, the lack of the ability to really focus on a single enemy tends to make the combat seem a lot less personal. (This could be why these games often opt for QTE for boss battles)
The 3rd system probably evolved from the Lock-on system, but I feel like its different enough to be considered something else completely.
It works in two layers...the first layer can be recognized by anyone who has played the early Resident Evil games. Resident Evil isn't a melee combat combat game, but it did something that illustrates the first layer very well. In Resident Evil, When you initiated combat, your hero would automatically turn and face the closest enemy to him, and it was simple as that. Whoever was closest, was your target.
That on its own, I wouldn't call much of a combat system, but when combined with the second layer, which is an equally simple rule, It solves the issue of selecting a target very well.
The rule is Range.
The hero will face the closest enemy to him...within a certain range around him.
Every other enemy who isn't in this range is simply ignored, and every enemy who isn't the closest isn't the target.
By making that range around the character very small, and by having a very mobile character who can move around very quickly, The player can choose who to fight simply by getting close to him. Which is something he was going to do anyway.
And the neat thing is, because of the the first rule, you don't even have to initially be facing the target for the attack to land. You can even face directly away from the target, and your character will still turn and hit him when you begin your attack.
It sounds almost too simple, like it was born of the big push to get more casual gamers by making games less complicated on the user end, and it probably was...
However, I think its probably the best kind of combat system at the moment. Targets are selected in a very natural manner, without even giving much thought to it. If you want to hit someone, you just walk up to them and hit them.
I was pretty surprised to note that both Dead Rising2 and Batman:AA use this system at the base level.
So...after selecting a target...
Next I looked into Button Mashing, trying to decipher why it happens, why it doesn't, and what can be done to avoid it.
It was said that most combat systems tend to boil down to “button mashing” after a while.
Which I think is completely true, especially of fighting games.
I think anyone who is developing a combat system, no matter what the genre of gameplay of the project should look at traditional fighting games as references for combat. Those games Live and Die on combat, and as such are probably the best sources to gain an understanding of it from.
Looking at the few fighting games that don't seem to have the button mashing problem revealed a few things.
The games that typically have this problem tend to revolve around collision based Strikes, and unleashing and defending against a flurry of them. While the games that don't have the issue usually revolve more around grapples and reversals which have very little to do with collision detection, if at all. Many of these games typically aren't considered “Fighting Games,” even though realistically they probably are. The reason for this is that they are usually presented to us as “Sports Games.” UFC, MMA, WWE..you get the idea...
The key thing to note about these games is that every single move is choreographed for both the character doing the attack and the character being attacked. The way characters will act and react to being hit with an attack is specifically scripted to happen pretty much the same way every time.
Within that script are small spaces of time that allow the attacked player the chance to press a specific button to break, to change, and in most cases reverse the outcome of the script.
As a result players are forced to pay as much attention, if not more, to their opponents actions as they are to their own.
This can drastically slow the pace of the match down, reflecting the higher frequency at which players are forced to make real decisions about their next button press, essentially eliminating the button mashing phenomenon, or at least making such a method less effective.
Where in the typical fighter, combat isn't scripted with as much depth, and as a result has a much looser and freer feel to it. Many times the only way to counter an attack is to first block it, and then follow up with the attack of your choice.
In the usual setting players don't want to allow their opponent many opportunities to attack them, and the best way to do this is to unleash a flurry of strikes at the opponent, staying on the offensive. The opposing player only has the option of taking the hits, or blocking the hits and still taking partial damage, the only way he can turn the situation around, is to look for a break in the incoming strikes, and try to unleash a few strikes of his own.
The games break down to a “kill or Be Killed” type of situation.
“Strike or be Struck”
I think its the limited range of expression that the players have, (strike & block) combined with a natural survival instinct, that feeds into button mashing. The visual representation of the players health as a dwindling gauge, can also put additional stress on the player, causing him to button mash when things look bad.
