I don't know where you see all these games less combat oriented than M&B. Outside of combat you've got trade, diplomacy, warband management, village/town/city management and menial task related side-quests. You can even choose not to personally partake in combat. This is already less combat oriented than Oblivion, Dark Messiah, Two Worlds 2 or Enclave. All of which have far worse combat.
My view of M&B as a combat-oriented game comes from two facts: Firstly its development. The combat was developed first, it's the core of the game. All the other things you mentioned were just tacked on very late in the development as an afterthought. Secondly, they're far less important to the game than the combat. Trade? The economy is broken, and what are you going to do with the money anyway? The only things you can buy are more goods (with which you make even more money) and combat equipment. The trade is there only as a means to support your fighting. Diplomacy? Eh, not really much of that in Native. Warband management? Consists of buying different kinds of food and clicking the "upgrade troop" button whenever it becomes available. City management is a complete joke, and side quests are either of the "fetch" variety or serve only to get you into combat. Fact of the matter is, the game is about combat.
How exactly do you expect a weapon to have a different feel in a video game other than having different speed and reach?
Play some Severance. Each weapon class has some special attacks that can be performed with any weapon of that class, but individual weapons also have their own unique moves.
Every weapon has its perks for that matter. They do different damage types that have different effects on different armoured opponents, some are more effective against shields, some attacks are unavailable for certain weapon types, some can be used either one-handed with a shield, two-handed or thrown. It doesn't really get any better in a video game.
I don't see how those are perks. Damage modifiers have nothing to do with how the weapon feels, all they affect are the numbers. Yes, some weapons are one handed, some two handed, etc. But all weapons of the same type feel exactly the same. As I said, a mace and a sword have significantly different fighting styles, yet M&B lumps them into "one handed" and treats them as no different.
And how does difficulty setting have anything to do with it? We're talking about the control scheme, which apparently is "impossible" to learn (and we've already been over how "impossible" it is to master).
Because on higher difficulty AI opponents feint more, requiring a greater mastery of the control system. Why am I even having to explain this? You have played the game, right?
I thought it was clunky in combat, actually. Being stuck in a slow animation till it's over. It ain't closer to realism nor to a better control scheme. And it sure as hell wouldn't work in large scale combat (or in any combat with NPC allies).
Of course it wouldn't work in large scale combat, but there never is any large scale combat in Severance. In this respect it's very much like Oblivion and other games that feature combat as a marginal gameplay element. It's yet another reason why I think M&B is primarily focused on combat - it just has loads and loads of it. When you get attacked by bandits in Oblivion, it's like two or three guys. When you get attacked by bandits in M&B, it's
dozens.
As for realism, refer back to my post about technological versus tactical realism. In reality, you can't just change your mind instantly in the middle of a sword swing the way you can in M&B. Your movements have a certain inertia, which I feel isn't represented very well in M&B. Once you start a motion you are in a sense committed and can't return to a neutral stance instantly. In M&B you can move and attack in any direction as you please, it's as if the bottom half of the body is totally independent of the top half, which of course isn't the case in reality. Severance, unrealistic and gamey as it is, does do a very good job of making you think about timing, positioning, and distance. It's necessary to wait for an opening before you commit yourself and attack.
Mashing one button? Since the very start of the series, the combat system has been based around counter-attacks. Did you only play through the very begininng of AC1 or something? And marginal? In the last AC game, quests involving open combat are equally represented as the other types (chasing, tracking and stealth). And you happen to kill 10-30 people at a time in these quests. Most notably in the mercenary related quests.
Fair point, that may have been an oversimplification on my part. The combat consist of
holding one button and pressing another whenever you see an enemy telegraphing his attack (which they do for about five seconds before actually attacking, and of course a dozen enemies will wait for their turn instead of swarming you all at once) in case of the earlier games, or holding one button and then mashing another to keep a kill streak going in Ass Creed Bro. At which point the combat, for all points and purposes, ends. The animation kinda does go on for a bit, but it's really a foregone conclusion by that point. Complex, that ain't.
And you haven't addressed Dynasty Warriors series combat, where you basically run around on a battlefield killing generic enemies by the hundreds and their generals using brawler style combos.
That's because I've never played that series, since I'm not a child and thus don't own a console.
Author
Topic: Elder scrolls V: Skyrim (Read 269509 times)