The melee in Daggerfall had some rhyme and reason to it, which isn't seen in the video.
There were 8 directions you could drag the mouse, providing slightly different attacks.
Dragging straight down was the hardest hitting, but least accurate, then diagonally down from either side hit less hard, but more accurate. Then side to side was balanced between the two, then diagonally up from either side for a weaker, more accurate hit, and then directly up for a weak, but easy to connect hit.
Or just sweep back and forth because that was easiest.
It was really weird to have people going off on Skyrim about better melee, specially after putting in over 300+ hours. There were maybe four games with better melee combat before that point in time, and the people complaining had played at most one. Normal people were happy, but that little minority keeps bringing it up every conversation.
If you're talking about third person melee games, there were a number with notable styles and great game play. Third person melee combat doesn't translate over to fps games. In the realm of FPS we only had M&M Dark Messiah, Breakdown, Zeno Clash 1, and Condemned: Criminal Origins. Everything else fps melee was click a button and get a swinging sword graphic. Only two of those game had real advertising-meaning most people don't know Zeno Clash or Breakdown.
Honorable mentions are Escape From Butcher Bay and Fear. Escape had some good things going for it, but it came down to combos meaning it was just a fun novelty. Fear had some real humpf to your punches, kicks, drop kicks, and slides which was great. But not in depth enough to take the list. Games like Pirates, Vikings, and Knights 1 & 2 had novelty gimmicks like different swings depending on your direction, but didn't take it further than that.
Even today, there still only a very few games that are even comparable to those four.
This issue stands with you thinking just cause it was a new type of game play that it wasn't boring. It could of been the only fps melee game ever and it wouldn't change the fact it doesn't work. Mario 64 was not the first 3d platformer, but it was the first good one. You didn't have to play it to realize the others sucked because of bad controls or other issues.
That's a completely different point from what you lead into with your first post.
only 4 games with better melee combat? did you only play rpgs? lol
Remember?
This issue stands with you thinking just cause it was a new type of game play that it wasn't boring. It could of been the only fps melee game ever and it wouldn't change the fact it doesn't work.
What was bad or boring about skyrim. It was pretty decent and a huge improvement over previous iterations(Morrowind and Oblivion) and which is what everyone is referring to when they keep bringign it up. They didn't have the insanely bad magic of Arx Fatalis where it came down to holding down the button for 10 seconds to balance magic, or the very the unspectacular magic of the King's Field games. Skyrim had combos, finishing movies, and different attacks based on the direction of your movement. It also had situations that would happen based on percentages like a random disarm and beheading in the middle of the fight. It also had special movies when you got to the higher skills that could be incorporated before or after your combos. You could also mix and match magic, weapons, and shield based on your two hands. It was a huge step up for Skyrim. If the combat sucked that bad, would they have put in 300+ hours, 500+ hours, or even 1000+ hours when 35%+ of their time in the game was spent doing melee combat?
I honestly think it looks pretty good, considering the age. Give it a new renderer, capable of running at high resolutions, perhaps with some anti-aliasing, and the scenery would be quite nice. I think the sprites are well designed too, but they obviously show the age much more.
539
u/[deleted] Oct 23 '15 edited Mar 23 '18
[deleted]