-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Can someone please direct me to a combat system with "depth" (whatever that means)?
- Thread starter Exellus
- Start date
Having lots of weapons = Variety. But variety doesn't automatically means death, because you can have 10 weapons but all those weapons could be very simplistic...hence "shallow". On the other hand you can have a game with only one or two weapons have have a lot of room for experimentation and free form combos, basically combos that you create out of your own creativity/skill. God of War 2018 is an example of a game with not much variety but a lot of depth in combat due to room for experimentation with what you do have.
Then you have games like Monster Hunter World, which are as deep as they are wide/varied. The game has 10+ weapons and all those weapons have their own playstyle and completely change how you move around the map and engage a monster. You have some combos but how you chain them is up to you. Other examples of games that fill this are fighting games, DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden etc.
But generally speaking people around this forum use "shallow" just to describe anything they don't like. They could describe a game with lots of depth but no variety (like GoW) as Shallow. But they can also describe a game with lots of weapon but otherwise little depth (like Dark Souls) as deep. I'm sure some people would disagree and tell me it's deep but Souls games do not particularly encourage mixing and matching things in combat and instead encourage recognising and following/countering a pattern.
Then you have games like Monster Hunter World, which are as deep as they are wide/varied. The game has 10+ weapons and all those weapons have their own playstyle and completely change how you move around the map and engage a monster. You have some combos but how you chain them is up to you. Other examples of games that fill this are fighting games, DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden etc.
But generally speaking people around this forum use "shallow" just to describe anything they don't like. They could describe a game with lots of depth but no variety (like GoW) as Shallow. But they can also describe a game with lots of weapon but otherwise little depth (like Dark Souls) as deep. I'm sure some people would disagree and tell me it's deep but Souls games do not particularly encourage mixing and matching things in combat and instead encourage recognising and following/countering a pattern.
Last edited:
Monster Hunter.
I'd say if you have a Switch, gen Gen Ultimate. I think the combat is a little deeper in the legacy titles (particularly Gen with the Styles/Artes system) than World. World is still great though and much easier to get into. Legacy is an... acquired taste.
I'd say if you have a Switch, gen Gen Ultimate. I think the combat is a little deeper in the legacy titles (particularly Gen with the Styles/Artes system) than World. World is still great though and much easier to get into. Legacy is an... acquired taste.
While I think depth is a relative term that will mean different things to different people, my experience with FF15 was "hold down the circle button. When health gets low teleport away, and then continue holding down the circle button".
Thats an example of no-depth to me. I can tell you how to play the game in 2 sentences.
Thats an example of no-depth to me. I can tell you how to play the game in 2 sentences.
Play Hellblade and Ryse Son of Rome. Then play God of War.
I think these games have similar 3rd Person over-the-shoulder combat and are easy to compare. Before God of War released, I thought combat was gonna be shallow and similar to the former 2 games. However after playing it, a myriad of things make God of War's combat deep.
- options - like weapons, customizable abilities.
- enemy variety, with different enemies requiring different approaches.
- satisfying enemy reactions - like being stunned and launched in the air.
- combos.
- good balance with different playstyles being viable.
- some degree of optional high risk high reward playstyle can be very exhilirating - like parry mechanics.
I think these games have similar 3rd Person over-the-shoulder combat and are easy to compare. Before God of War released, I thought combat was gonna be shallow and similar to the former 2 games. However after playing it, a myriad of things make God of War's combat deep.
- options - like weapons, customizable abilities.
- enemy variety, with different enemies requiring different approaches.
- satisfying enemy reactions - like being stunned and launched in the air.
- combos.
- good balance with different playstyles being viable.
- some degree of optional high risk high reward playstyle can be very exhilirating - like parry mechanics.
I'm a big DMC/Bayo/Ninja Gaiden fan so I completely understand what you are trying to say but Souls games are extremely far from shallow, my friend. The mechanics aren't as complex, but there's near limitless depth to be found in such games, I'd argue they're even deeper than the previously mentioned titles with a straight face. Complex mechanics≠depth, Nidhogg alone proves as much.
Hot take o'clock?
Gen Ultimate is the GOAT Monster Hunter game. I've played every game in the series since 2009 (Freedom Unite was my first). Gen Ultimate is the culmination of every classic MH game. 4U is close behind it, but GU is just too good.
This ain't a knock on World, btw.
Depth comes from variety, growth potential, and user customization.
Variety in scenarios, enemies and tools/weapons.
Growth potential in skills or item power up.
User customization in equipment options and builds.
FF7 Remake probably has all of that if it's even a shadow of FF7.
Variety in scenarios, enemies and tools/weapons.
Growth potential in skills or item power up.
User customization in equipment options and builds.
FF7 Remake probably has all of that if it's even a shadow of FF7.
"Depth" is a hard thing to quantify, but I feel that a "deep" combat systems includes a. many different tools and mechanics for combat at your disposal (this doesn't mean throw a bunch of crap in with no sense of synergy or cohesion) and b. you must master most, if not all of them to complete the game on hard.
I'd agree with you, I just know we're in the minority haha. Gen Ult the culmination of everything great about MonHun imo. However, if you've never played the series before, it's probably best to start with World. It's just so much more accessible and almost as good ;)
Sure, valuing different things is kind of the nature of opinion. I could have qualified my statements as them simply being my opinion, but I didn't really see the need to since video game discussion is pretty much all about opinion. Despite that, I'm sorry if I came across a little strong.
I can understand your takeaways though. God of War certainly takes cues from Souls and since I really don't find Souls games to be all enjoyable combatwise I was naturally going to be at odds with some elements of it. Funnily enough though, while I loved the game feel of hitting enemies with the axe, I felt similar to how you felt about Spider-Man's combat. It just felt like I was abusing cooldown abilities and wailing away mindlessly since most of the extra abilities aren't super practical and there aren't really a ton of combos, something that even older God of War games were better at dealing with I think. That compounded with the RPG elements that heavily undermined getting better at the mechanics and the strange inconsistencies that cropped up rather often really brought it down in my eyes. I am intrigued to see the system expanded in the sequel though.
Spider-Man at least encouraged me to use most of my arsenal during my initial playthrough on Hard and pushed back in ways that were consistent. This stuff naturally begins to die down as the gadgets become increasing over powered, but it certainly felt that even at it's worst, there were a handful of viable options within the system to work with. At the very least, I was impressed considering this was Insomniac's first attempt at making an action game like this. Very interested in seeing the team's prowess grow in the sequel too.
But you literally do that.
I know what you mean, I'm just goofing around.
It's probably true that FF7R won't hold up to the titans of the gameplay world in terms of depth, but that strikes me as less a diss of FF7R than praise of some of the greatest combat systems we've seen. Final Fantasy VII itself was no Nocturne, but it was deep enough combined with great visuals and fun mechanics. That's enough.
I always felt like depth wasn't necessarily related to the breadth of the move set of the main character, but in the varied applications of the move set to "win" each individual encounter. Like just a block function is shallow, but then if you block at the point of impact and it turns into a parry or something else, then the block function gains additional depth.
I also think creating depth with fewer moves is more elegant than having a ton of moves, but both have their place and are enjoyable in their own way.
I also think creating depth with fewer moves is more elegant than having a ton of moves, but both have their place and are enjoyable in their own way.
As usual the issue lies in conflating complexity with depth.
- Go is a very simple game in terms of rules, yet unfathomably deep.
- Calvinball is a game of infinite complexity (rules are added as you play), yet extremelly shallow.
In theory, the learning curve of a game should correlate strongly with the highest Elo rank of its top players. A game that has a very high skill ceiling will have players at the top reach very high (>2500) Elo numbers; this is because they consistently win against an echelon of players below them, which consistently win against another tier of players, etc; many levels of aptitude are the hallmark of a very deep game. On the other hand, a game that is shallow (that is, one that can be fully mastered in a short time and / or has a prominent random component) will have low Elo numbers (< 2000) even among its top players, due to the compressed skill curve with few "mastery tiers".
The above of course only works directly in the case of versus games. For single-player games you would probably need a scoring system to rate, compare and rank players.
- Go is a very simple game in terms of rules, yet unfathomably deep.
- Calvinball is a game of infinite complexity (rules are added as you play), yet extremelly shallow.
In theory, the learning curve of a game should correlate strongly with the highest Elo rank of its top players. A game that has a very high skill ceiling will have players at the top reach very high (>2500) Elo numbers; this is because they consistently win against an echelon of players below them, which consistently win against another tier of players, etc; many levels of aptitude are the hallmark of a very deep game. On the other hand, a game that is shallow (that is, one that can be fully mastered in a short time and / or has a prominent random component) will have low Elo numbers (< 2000) even among its top players, due to the compressed skill curve with few "mastery tiers".
The above of course only works directly in the case of versus games. For single-player games you would probably need a scoring system to rate, compare and rank players.
I too would like to know this. I feel like a lot of the games I've played recently have a lot of depth, but then reading responses in this thread tells me otherwise.
Even for someone like myself whose favorite game is FF, it's a little early to call FF7R one of your favorites when it's not even out yet. From what I've seen, it has as much depth as it needs to have.
As for the offending comment, it ain't that deep. That poster might be looking for something different. Their loss.
I don't know what people are expecting with FFVIIR, but it feels like people don't even bother to look at the systems in it and assume all it is is you mash the square button. XV really burned some folk.
DMC has 'depth' in its systems by being so open ended and being about exploiting different properties of attacks to do the same thing with slightly different results (ie, you can parry a projectile with your sword, or you can do it with punchline and jump off and juggle the enemy around in the air)
'Depth' isn't enough to describe everything that can be good about a combat system though. VIIR looks good cause of how all the different systems seem to play into each other and the different ways of controlling characters. I think this forum will be really surprised with the fighting in VIIR when it comes out, even if they ended up divided on other issues like story and its execution.
DMC has 'depth' in its systems by being so open ended and being about exploiting different properties of attacks to do the same thing with slightly different results (ie, you can parry a projectile with your sword, or you can do it with punchline and jump off and juggle the enemy around in the air)
'Depth' isn't enough to describe everything that can be good about a combat system though. VIIR looks good cause of how all the different systems seem to play into each other and the different ways of controlling characters. I think this forum will be really surprised with the fighting in VIIR when it comes out, even if they ended up divided on other issues like story and its execution.
Souls game have depth when the character and weapon levels aren't high (I am talking extremely low level), weapon attacks and range has good impact in a PvP.
There's different kinds of detph.
for combat depth you generally want a game to either present you with interesting decisionmaking or allow you lot's of room to improve on execution.
Not all games need super high combat depth though, and especially RPG's and open world games often have enough other stuff going on that compensates for a more shallow combat system.
If you want to know what makes a game shallow, it's games where you are able to play optimally within a short amount of time. As in: there are no better strategies than what you are doing and there is no way get better anymore.
Lot's of turn- and actionbased RPG's are pretty shallow combat-wise despite drowning in systems.
for combat depth you generally want a game to either present you with interesting decisionmaking or allow you lot's of room to improve on execution.
Not all games need super high combat depth though, and especially RPG's and open world games often have enough other stuff going on that compensates for a more shallow combat system.
If you want to know what makes a game shallow, it's games where you are able to play optimally within a short amount of time. As in: there are no better strategies than what you are doing and there is no way get better anymore.
Lot's of turn- and actionbased RPG's are pretty shallow combat-wise despite drowning in systems.
So is depth usually found in combo systems in your view?
Edit: Let me try to add something here. There seemed to be 2 kinds of depth that people are advocating for in the thread.
One is depth of execution. This results from the game requiring precise careful input to succeed. This might also be decisionmaking in a small timescale. The cleaner the gameplay, the cleaner the fight, the the deeper the execution.
The other is depth of decisionmaking: the game offers the player many meaningful decisions, either before or during combat. The better the decisions, the cleaner the gameplay the cleaner the fight.
Perhaps the good example of a game that requires deep decisionmaking is FFT. Build a good party, making good decisions and win. There is a wide variety of options that underpin those choices.
A good example of execution depth is Nioh. High skill cap, with cleaner play leading to cleaner fights, take for example "crusher" achievements.
Last edited:
Essentially "depth" comes down to making interesting decisions.
A game with a depth combat system is one where you're making interesting decisions before, during, and after fights.
What makes a decision interesting is by weighting the pros and cons of making a move- Nioh's ki pulse system is my favorite go to example. The simplest and easiest to do version of the ki pulse recovers a little bit of stamina, while the more advance techniques are harder to pull off but rewards you with more stamina.
which do you choose during different scenarios is interesting and allows for expression.
A game with a depth combat system is one where you're making interesting decisions before, during, and after fights.
What makes a decision interesting is by weighting the pros and cons of making a move- Nioh's ki pulse system is my favorite go to example. The simplest and easiest to do version of the ki pulse recovers a little bit of stamina, while the more advance techniques are harder to pull off but rewards you with more stamina.
which do you choose during different scenarios is interesting and allows for expression.
Depth is very subjective, to the point where this is kind of impossible to answer.
Like, if you count having to have an extra hand, then DMC5 has a lot of depth, but on the other hand, Sekiro has a load of depth, but execution wise it's so much more simpler than DMC5, yet you're doing more with less.
Then you have something like Ninja Gaiden, which is fairly simple, and mostly based on defense finding openings rather than all out offense, but with your absolutely massive combo lists that you have, you'll use the same say 10 combos at a stretch out of the 100 or so that you can do.
Like, if you count having to have an extra hand, then DMC5 has a lot of depth, but on the other hand, Sekiro has a load of depth, but execution wise it's so much more simpler than DMC5, yet you're doing more with less.
Then you have something like Ninja Gaiden, which is fairly simple, and mostly based on defense finding openings rather than all out offense, but with your absolutely massive combo lists that you have, you'll use the same say 10 combos at a stretch out of the 100 or so that you can do.
Executions plays into decision making.
You see this all the time in fighting games- do you take a chance and try out a difficult move with better rewards but a higher chance of screwing up? Or the easier but safer move?
Using Nioh again, using Ki Flux would grant you more stamina, but are you confident in pulling it off in the middle of a Hino Emma boss fight?
It's also not about combos.
Titanfall and Vanquish don't have combos but people still respect those games as deep combat because there's complexity in the movements of your character.
Samurai Shodown doesn't have combo but nobody's gonna call it shallow.
Titanfall and Vanquish don't have combos but people still respect those games as deep combat because there's complexity in the movements of your character.
Samurai Shodown doesn't have combo but nobody's gonna call it shallow.
If FFVII is anything like what I played of FFXV, yes it is incredibly shallow. For me it doesn't feel good, everything is floaty and automated to a point I feel I'm just watching someone else play the game.
On the other hand, stuff like Dragons Dogma (if we're talking RPGs) I feel in control all the time and I need to stay sharp and use all my abilities so I won't get crushed
On the other hand, stuff like Dragons Dogma (if we're talking RPGs) I feel in control all the time and I need to stay sharp and use all my abilities so I won't get crushed
It's about time scale. Large time-scale: macro-level strategy is decisionmaking.
Small time-scale choices, reactions telegraph-reading is more execution. Obviously lines blur. That's why FFT is a good example of depth of decisionmaking--no time limit.
I'm completely baffled by the God of War talk, having played through it plenty and then watched high-level play from people doing no-hit, highest difficulty videos of the toughest fights in the game...because that shit is CRAY. There's a huge gap between "good enough to finish normal" and "complete mastery of the system" in God of War, and if that isn't "deep", I think the terms have lost all meaning.
Okay but how do you react to the attack? Dodge, jump, block, parry, counter? All of them might work but which outcome do you choose and why?
A game with combat depth would give you all these options and more and you have to make a decision with it.
Also important to avoid conflation between 'deep' and 'good'. Simple structures can be absurdly satisfying when executed well and complex structures can often be frustrating, obtuse or convoluted.
For me, depth is way less important that how feels and elegance: if the blows are satisfying and the nuances and complexities of the system emerge through the natural flow of play, I'm sold; if the hit-boxes are woolly and the game auto-pauses a dozen times before I've even finished my first battle to wall-of-text me an encyclopedia's worth of rule sets and systems, I'm out.
For me, depth is way less important that how feels and elegance: if the blows are satisfying and the nuances and complexities of the system emerge through the natural flow of play, I'm sold; if the hit-boxes are woolly and the game auto-pauses a dozen times before I've even finished my first battle to wall-of-text me an encyclopedia's worth of rule sets and systems, I'm out.
Complexity and depth are different things and none of them are subjective like some people are saying. Complexity can be measured by the number of available options, while depth can be ascertained by looking only at the meaningful options. For example:
Even something so "simple" at a first glance as Dark Souls can have a lot of depth. Souls games present a million different situations depending on your equipment/build, enemy types, enemy layouts, level design...They force you to think about range, strength of your attacks , enemy HP, positioning...This is not something Souls invented and can be clearly seen everywhere like in the original and the updated DOOM games or even in really old games like Mega Man.
On the other hand, you have games which are much more complex like the original God Of War, but where there´s no depth at all due to the same combo being more than enough to get you through the game. Xenoblade 2 presents a lot of different mechanics and systems but you just end up repeating the same inputs regardless of what´s happening in the game. These are games where complexity failed in making the combat system deeper.
The depth-complexity ratio can take many values: You can have games with low complexity and high depth (Splatoon, Souls), high complexity and high depth (DMC, Bayonetta), something in the middle (DOOM2016, MGR), high complexity and very high depth (Astral Chain, TW101)...This applies to all genres, for example I´d say Portal is a game with low complexity but very high depth, while GTA has high complexity but very low depth.
- Imagine a game where you only have 2 attacks: Punch and Kick. Total available options = 2. Low complexity.
- Punch hits high and kick hits low, while enemies can also block high or low. Both attacks are meaningful, so at this point there is some depth in the system.
- It turns out that the developers decided to only use enemies that block low, so kicks become completely useless. The punch is now the only meaningful option, so even though the number of options remain the same, the depth of the system is in fact lower.
- You also have a special move that works just like the punch in every way. Does this increase depth? I´d say it doesn´t: You just have to use punches or the special move regardless of anything. You have to keep using anything but kicks, there´s no decission to be made, at most there´s a predefined method.
- The developers see this and make it so the special move knocks down enemies, while everything else stays the same. The system now has more depth, as you may have to decide between repeatedly punching an enemy to kill it or knocking it down to be able to defend against a different one, or have time to heal, or escape...
Even something so "simple" at a first glance as Dark Souls can have a lot of depth. Souls games present a million different situations depending on your equipment/build, enemy types, enemy layouts, level design...They force you to think about range, strength of your attacks , enemy HP, positioning...This is not something Souls invented and can be clearly seen everywhere like in the original and the updated DOOM games or even in really old games like Mega Man.
On the other hand, you have games which are much more complex like the original God Of War, but where there´s no depth at all due to the same combo being more than enough to get you through the game. Xenoblade 2 presents a lot of different mechanics and systems but you just end up repeating the same inputs regardless of what´s happening in the game. These are games where complexity failed in making the combat system deeper.
The depth-complexity ratio can take many values: You can have games with low complexity and high depth (Splatoon, Souls), high complexity and high depth (DMC, Bayonetta), something in the middle (DOOM2016, MGR), high complexity and very high depth (Astral Chain, TW101)...This applies to all genres, for example I´d say Portal is a game with low complexity but very high depth, while GTA has high complexity but very low depth.
I think the backlash with GoW´s combat happens when people try to put it in the same group as DMC or Bayo: These are high complexity-high depth games, while GoW I´d say is medium/high complexity-medium depth. Also, high range games are often focused on gameplay while games in lower complexity/depth ranges tend to focus on other stuff. In GoW, several design decissions that directly affect the core of the combat system were taken for narrative or artistic reasons (like the camera or removing the jump) and if you´ve seen or read any interviews with the director of the game the narrative was front and center the focus of the game. For comparison, look at any interview with Hugo Martin (creative director for Doom 2016 & Eternal) and how his focus is on gameplay, even when he´s talking about the narrative component of the game.
This is very well put. I'd also add that while DMC and the like have a massive amount of moves you can make, they don't IMO extend this in the same way to the enemy design where several types mostly just stand around for you to juggle to death. Bosses are generally the most mechanically interesting portion of these games and there is absolutely zero depth to their level traversal since it's largely just running from one arena to the next.
By comparison Spiderman has a lot of depth to traveling around its massive level but by comparison the combat quickly becomes a by the numbers routine where you figure out the moves that work best in most situations. It's definitely the thing that needs most work for a sequel.
Souls games have a pretty small moveset for each weapon type and most of the time you are spamming R1 combos but those games are more about knowing your enemies, managing spacing and enemy mobs. The levels are also full of perils and ambushes. The kind of build you make directly affects how you play the game too and is one of the reasons why Sekiro to me has much worse replay value when it doesn't really have that many different ways to approach each encounter.
