Support NeoGAF

[Physiocrat]

Before I start, I do enjoy ranged combat (or shooters), for instance Mass Effect and Deus Ex.

My thinking is this, in melee combat there is much more emphasis on defence, for example blocking and parrying which can't really be replicated if you are being shot at. Further, since you can defend so can the enemies so whilst in ranged combat they have shields etc it is not like having to work around a shield which you can work around positionally. This makes attacking enemies more complex than a shooter would have.

Obviously the execution of combat can vary in shooters and melee style games so shooters can be better in practice, my question is though of the inherent advantages of the combat style.

Am I being fair to ranged combat games (I'm thinking of real time rather than turn based games, that would make a difference)? Are there things that ranged combat can provide that melee cannot?

 

[cormack12]

They're just different.

Ranged attackers can still have parry mechanics like hit L1 and return a projectile to stun/damage. Godfall and Valhalla both have done this recently.
They can have weakpoints like in Horizon or Valhalla. This can be elemental or different damage types (tear etc.)
There isn't a traditional defence in terms of up close and personal - good positioning (cover, concealment and obfuscation) and good stealth/distraction can make this interesting but the enemy AI needs to support it.

 

[Mistershine.]

If you don't use cover for defense and try to flank in The Division and other similar games then you'll either die or spend ages trying to pick off even a weak enemy that's using a pillar or wall to hide behind. It's very much not just a case of who can out tank who. You also have defensive tech that you can use.

 

[BeardGawd]

One game comes to mind.

ARMS.

Check it out. Ranged with melee options has potential if done right. But it won't play anything like a typical shooter of course.

 

[ViolentP]

I certainly don't think you're being unfair to ranged combat, I just think you prefer close combat and you know why. I am on the other side of the fence but I get why you like what you like.

 

[kikkis]

I think ranged combat is better because controlling them is fully analog thus giving them much more depth, instead of just binary pressed a button or not.

 

[Pagusas]

Range combat is the only good combat in Skyrim.

 

[TonyK]

I think games as Vanquish or Bulletstorm are examples of shooters with a gunplay closer to a Platinum melee combat game than the typical Call of duty shooter.

 

[Larxia]

I think it can, but something I find very sad is how, for most people and the media in general now, ranged combat automatically means "aiming" now.

I'm talking mostly for action games meant to be played with a controller first.
In the past, there used to be a lot of games with ranged combats, where you could use some auto lock / target on ennemies, and fire, instead of aiming manually. Most people now see this as some "assisted" or easy mode and are completely against it, but it really doesn't have to be like that, it shouldn't be like that.

When games use some lock-on system, and are designed around this, it can lead to great gameplays that are very different from the usual (and for me, boring) cover shooter system. I think it's mostly the ps3/360 era that started this, with Gear of War for example.
If you take older games, like the matrix games on ps2 for example, the difficulty was there, it was challenging, but the game didn't ask you to spend your time aiming manually at ennemies, there was an auto lock system, you could switch between ennemies, and instead of focusing your concentration on your aiming, you would focus on your movements, on dodging ennemies bullets, running and jumping on walls while shooting and doing combos etc, it was nice.

Some extreme and perfect example would be Zone Of The Enders too, which I played recently for the first time on PC and totally loved. It's crazy fast, actually exhausting at first because it's really not something we're used to in game, range combat at this speed, but it's so good and satisfying, giving a very "spectacular" look to your gameplay when you can handle it correctly. Something like this wouldn't be possible with manual aiming.
A more recent example would be ReCore which I really liked too. You can only fight with ranged attacks, guns, but it plays like an action / plateformer games, you will mostly focus on your movement, on learning the ennemies pattern, dodging their attacks, countering at the right time, switching between different type of weapons at the right time etc, it was nice, and different.

Games with aiming are fine too, but I find them really boring with a controller, and I think action shooting games with lock systems should keep existing too, because they can offer a very different type of experience.

I often see people saying they would love a John Wick game, but I'm sure that if something like this existed, it would either be a regular FPS, or a boring cover shooter if it's TPS, while, as I'm concerned, if I try to imagine a John Wick video game, I would want something that would be very spectacular and basically plays like bayonetta, but ranged. Imagine having a very fast paced shooting game where you can actually do combos like in a melee / hack'n slash game, but with guns, that would be pretty cool.

 

[NickFire]

Light Sabers > Ranged > all other melee

 

[brian0057]

It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Unless your name is CD Project Red where both always suck.

 

[Hawks Eclipse]

Am I being fair to ranged combat games (I'm thinking of real time rather than turn based games, that would make a difference)? Are there things that ranged combat can provide that melee cannot?

Ranged combat provides combatants with options at a distance, thus allowing larger playspaces that retain meaning.

More crucially, they will always have greater dependence and influence on level design and geometry.

 

[FreedomOfSpeech]

If you play DMC5's V, then your melee IS your ranged

 

[poodaddy]

Kingdoms of Amalur, while not a great game, made range combat pretty damn fun, and it felt very much like a character action game with the combos and juggling and shit. I dug it at least, now if only the other parts of the game were fun, (story, exploration, conversation, sidequests), were fun, I might have actually finished it.

 

[Physiocrat]

Kingdoms of Amalur, while not a great game, made range combat pretty damn fun, and it felt very much like a character action game with the combos and juggling and shit. I dug it at least, now if only the other parts of the game were fun, (story, exploration, conversation, sidequests), were fun, I might have actually finished it.

Agreed, the combat was good but the quests and story were a complete snoozefest. The most generic fantasy plot ever.

 

[Andodalf]

I know you mentioned it, but ranged obvious makes turned based stuff super fun. In Xcom setting up sightlines, flanking, and overwatch are so much fun

 

[LazyParrot]

Have you ever played an Elder Scrolls game?

 

[meech]

Before I start, I do enjoy ranged combat (or shooters), for instance Mass Effect and Deus Ex.

My thinking is this, in melee combat there is much more emphasis on defence, for example blocking and parrying which can't really be replicated if you are being shot at.

Mentioned Mass Effect: Barrier, Immunity(First game), Tech armor, shield drain, which functions as a defense for the player and at the same time offers the option to strip enemy defenses...

 

[EverydayBeast]

Archery is the best against big enemies, the number one collected item in games like Botw and Assassins Creed for me was arrows.

 

[Andodalf]

Have you ever played an Elder Scrolls game?

That Stealth Archer Life

 

[sublimit]

Ranged combat in Dragon's Dogma was God-tier. Still i will always prefer melee.

 

[MagnesG]

Obviously the execution of combat can vary in shooters and melee style games so shooters can be better in practice, my question is though of the inherent advantages of the combat style.

Am I being fair to ranged combat games (I'm thinking of real time rather than turn based games, that would make a difference)? Are there things that ranged combat can provide that melee cannot?

Range weapon used in Monster Hunter for example can be as fun as melee weapons imo, I mean the potential is proved already.
Minute motion aiming helping out the original stick aim needs to be a standard though.

 

[WellSheet]

Awesome topic!

move actually thought about this before in some similar manner:

I think what makes melee combat, at least initially, more engaging and interactive is that it largely requires more animations/details to pull off effectively; and that it puts you, the player right up against your enemy and in their face.

I think also the fact that most melee games are third person lends to that feeling.

the more animation, style and visual flair that gets connected to “pressing the square button” I believe creates a much bigger and more intuitive connection to you as the player. There’s just more visual and tactile feedback...

shooting, while I think still can provide those moments, is inherently less in these regards. It doesn’t mean the actual act of playing a third or first person shooter requires less of that skill set than a third or first person melee focused game does, but there’s inherently less flash, style and such.

imagine if they could nail John Wick’s gun-fu combat style in a video game...Watch Dogs Legion had finishers that sort of do it.. the last two splinter cell’s also evoke that vibe a little...but if John Wick’s style could placed on a control, that’d be a really interesting step toward that.

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

Try playing GOOD TPSs.

 

[Jeeves]

You might want to check out Superhot if you want to see an interesting take on ranged combat. Due to the way the game works you're making more deliberate moment-to-moment decisions about both offense and defense, including blocking and reflecting.

 

[Con-Z-epT]

Both can be quite varied and diverse.

What would a fighting game be without complex controls and an endless portfolio of combos?
Or a shooter with just one weapon that does not need to be reloaded?

To me melee combat seems to be more about direct and manifold button inputs rather than mechanics that surround the controls.
Whereas a shooter is mostly a bit simpler in its controlsheme but has the interplay between weapons and enemies.

Of course you can't generalize since there are so many typs of games and mechanics.


Fighting games in general are good examples of overall decent melee combat.

Devil May Cry is another one. It is an action game with an nearly endless string of possibilities to really express yourself while playing.
And you can shoot!

On the other hand you have games like Doom Eternal where shooting enemies is at its core.
Here you have so many weapons and secondary fire modes to tackle each encounter and opponent differently.
And you can punch!

Both games keep you engaged and on the edge of your seat. Especially on higher difficulties.

Another example i would like to mention is Twisted Metal for the Playstation 3.

So many buttons had more than one function and when you transformed Sweet Tooths ice cream truck into a mech the layout for the controls changed considerably.
You could suddenly fly with it and had different special attacks.
It was also a combination of mostly ranged combat with some close quarters engagement in between.

To sum it up i would say that ranged combat can be as good as melee combat.
It is difficult to compare them directly.

 

[Physiocrat]

Ranged combat provides combatants with options at a distance, thus allowing larger playspaces that retain meaning.

More crucially, they will always have greater dependence and influence on level design and geometry.

Could you elaborate on that please?

Have you ever played an Elder Scrolls game?

Skyrim, the combat wasn't that great.

Mentioned Mass Effect: Barrier, Immunity(First game), Tech armor, shield drain, which functions as a defense for the player and at the same time offers the option to strip enemy defenses...

True, but removing that armour doesn't require the same skill as say dodging a shield and hitting at the point they are vulnerable.

 

[Codes 208]

I would say yes. Shooting people with bows in skyrim is probably more satisfying than fighting with a sword (this also applies to oblivion with the ability to create magic spells)

even dark souls for that matter if you’re going the pyro/arcane route

 

[levyjl1988]

I remember Fromsfotware patched a lot of long-range spells like Crystal Soulspear in Dark Souls 2 for Xbox 360 because it was too OP, they wanted players to be more close combat which defeated the point of builds. They thought that creating a long-range attacker would diminish the risks associated with fights. I enjoyed my mage build and certain spells, but the nerfs were so bad I started to dislike the game because it became less fun.

 

[Reality Czar]

I prefer ranged in Skyrim. Melee is pretty unsatisfying but if you level up your bow and arrow skills you can do these crazy bullet time sniper shots.

But yeah in general it's kind of odd. Like it feels weird in Dawn of Sorrow to go around shooting zombies with a gun. Fun though!

 

[The artful mincer]

Great Topic! and yes

The main advantage ranged games have over melee is being able to aim at various parts of the body or environment to change the gameplay.

Unfortunately, most games do not go far beyond 1 shot headshots and exploding red barrels.

However, some games really push this. The resident evil series since 4 is a good example.

e.g., in 4 you can

Shoot the head to stun to open kicks.
Shoot in the knee to either trip up or allow even more powerful suplex attacks.
Shoot throwing objects out of the opponents hands or even in mid-air.( Can be done with Dynamite!)

Horizon Zero Dawn is the absolute Queen of this though you can.

Blow off body parts to disable attacks (There are over 20 enemies with perhaps over 100 unique attacks.)
Blow off body parts to change movement e.g. You can blow engines off flying enemies to ground them.
Blow up body parts to induce status effects e.g. burning for continued damage or electricity to hold them in place.
Blow up weak points to get area of effect damage AND get the same status effects on other enemies.
And best of all blow off enemy weapons and use it against them.

When you throw all this together with really good enemy design with different movement pattern, shapes and sizes you get a crazy amount of depth and I haven’t even talked about weapon variety!

I think ranged games have far more interesting level design even the old uncharted and gears of war games. In most melee games the level design often gets in the way of the camera and as a result most of the big fights end up being in wide open spaces.

 

[WellSheet]

Try playing GOOD TPSs.

An overwrought statement, but RE6 has REALLY interesting and cool mechanics for a TPS - sadly it was out into a “resident evil” game. I wish Capcom would revisit these mechanics, expand on them in a different game

 

[Con-Z-epT]

My thinking is this, in melee combat there is much more emphasis on defence, for example blocking and parrying which can't really be replicated if you are being shot at. Further, since you can defend so can the enemies so whilst in ranged combat they have shields etc it is not like having to work around a shield which you can work around positionally. This makes attacking enemies more complex than a shooter would have.

True, but removing that armour doesn't require the same skill as say dodging a shield and hitting at the point they are vulnerable.

There are shooters where you can evade the attack and doge behind the enemies shield to kill him.
I think this can be even more challenging in shooters since you can't lock onto enemies like in soulslike games.

Are there things that ranged combat can provide that melee cannot?

A press of a button can be "just" a kick or punch.

So is a bullet to the head "just" a button press.

In that sense their even equal.


But from the initial button press over the triggered mechanic up to the animation down to the final response there are just so many possibilities that you can't compare them directly.

 

[harmny]

80% of the biggest esports and most popular games are shooters and the other 20% are mobas. How is it worse than melee?

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

 

[spawn]

When I used a bow in Skyrim that shit was good. I was high level ranged with high level stealth so I could one or two shot almost everything

 

[Fbh]

The thing about most ranged combat systems is that it needs other elements in the game to really shine.
Like in DMCV you can put me in a basic square room and drop some enemies in there, and the melee combat will already be fun.
In a shooter I need more complex level design, fun traversal, maybe some form of cover, etc.

Though there's exceptions like the Magick Archer in Dragons Dogma which, along with the regular archer, is one of the most fun classes to play in a game with solid melee combat.

If you play DMC5's V, then your melee IS your ranged

To be fair though. At least to me V wasn't nearly as fun to play as Dante or Nero

80% of the biggest esports are shooters combat and the other 20% are mobas. How is it worse than melee?

I'd say that has more to do with ranged combat being easier to implement in a multiplayer setting

 

[The artful mincer]

Could you elaborate on that please?


Skyrim, the combat wasn't that great.

True, but removing that armour doesn't require the same skill as say dodging a shield and hitting at the point they are vulnerable.

Regarding the level design bit

Using uncharted as example you are constantly moving and flanking to try and get an advantage on the enemy. Combine this with drake's traversal abilities (and he can always shoot and throw grenades regardless of if he's hanging from ledge or swinging from a rope) and the level design can make every fire fight feel different.

The first uncharted was basic just a bunch rooms with chest high walls but by the time uncharted 4 came along you were rope swinging through pirate ships.

The Last of us 2 is another good example, just being able to shoot and crawl completely changed how the levels felt.

 

[Birdo]

Combine them:

 

[sackings]

dragons dogma. both ranged and magic are potentially more fun than melee.

 

[Con-Z-epT]

Regarding the level design bit

Using uncharted as example you are constantly moving and flanking to try and get an advantage on the enemy. Combine this with drake's traversal abilities (and he can always shoot and throw grenades regardless of if he's hanging from ledge or swinging from a rope) and the level design can make every fire fight feel different.

The first uncharted was basic just a bunch rooms with chest high walls but by the time uncharted 4 came along you were rope swinging through pirate ships.

The Last of us 2 is another good example, just being able to shoot and crawl completely changed how the levels felt.

It can not be stated enough how dynamic each encounter in both of these games play out.
You can play the same area over and over and the outcome feels so different yet naturally.

It gives these games some sort of depth without changing the core gameplay mechanics for each of them respectively.

Both also throw melee into it. And while they are quite superficial with that it adds to the random outcomings of every skirmish.

 

[cireza]

Play some Quake 3, you will get your answer.

 

[Boneless]

You do know FPS games exist right?

 

[The artful mincer]

It can not be stated enough how dynamic each encounter in both of these games play out.
You can play the same area over and over and the outcome feels so different yet naturally.

It gives these games some sort of depth without changing the core gameplay mechanics for each of them respectively.

Both also throw melee into it. And while they are quite superficial with that it adds to the random outcomings of every skirmish.

Indeed and contrast to a melee action game say devil may cry 5.

Don't get me wrong maybe the deepest action game ever created (I am not qualified to judge) but I can barely think of single instance when the level design had any impact on the combat.

You see this with the youtube combo vids a good chunk of them happen in the training area which is nothing but empty space

 

[Con-Z-epT]

Indeed and contrast to a melee action game say devil may cry 5.

Don't get me wrong maybe the deepest action game ever created (I am not qualified to judge) but I can barely think of single instance when the level design had any impact on the combat.

You see this with the youtube combo vids a good chunk of them happen in the training area which is nothing but empty space

There is definitely a pattern in terms of the reliance from shooters and their environment.
Mostly it is about traversal it seems.

Good example with the training area!

Some fighting games tend to use the environment for interaction though like Mortal Kombat.
All of that is not to deep sadly.

Or in the Last Of Us there are a lot of environmental kills even though it is a shooter.

 

[The artful mincer]

I think it can, but something I find very sad is how, for most people and the media in general now, ranged combat automatically means "aiming" now.

I'm talking mostly for action games meant to be played with a controller first.
In the past, there used to be a lot of games with ranged combats, where you could use some auto lock / target on ennemies, and fire, instead of aiming manually. Most people now see this as some "assisted" or easy mode and are completely against it, but it really doesn't have to be like that, it shouldn't be like that.

When games use some lock-on system, and are designed around this, it can lead to great gameplays that are very different from the usual (and for me, boring) cover shooter system. I think it's mostly the ps3/360 era that started this, with Gear of War for example.
If you take older games, like the matrix games on ps2 for example, the difficulty was there, it was challenging, but the game didn't ask you to spend your time aiming manually at ennemies, there was an auto lock system, you could switch between ennemies, and instead of focusing your concentration on your aiming, you would focus on your movements, on dodging ennemies bullets, running and jumping on walls while shooting and doing combos etc, it was nice.

Some extreme and perfect example would be Zone Of The Enders too, which I played recently for the first time on PC and totally loved. It's crazy fast, actually exhausting at first because it's really not something we're used to in game, range combat at this speed, but it's so good and satisfying, giving a very "spectacular" look to your gameplay when you can handle it correctly. Something like this wouldn't be possible with manual aiming.
A more recent example would be ReCore which I really liked too. You can only fight with ranged attacks, guns, but it plays like an action / plateformer games, you will mostly focus on your movement, on learning the ennemies pattern, dodging their attacks, countering at the right time, switching between different type of weapons at the right time etc, it was nice, and different.

Games with aiming are fine too, but I find them really boring with a controller, and I think action shooting games with lock systems should keep existing too, because they can offer a very different type of experience.

I often see people saying they would love a John Wick game, but I'm sure that if something like this existed, it would either be a regular FPS, or a boring cover shooter if it's TPS, while, as I'm concerned, if I try to imagine a John Wick video game, I would want something that would be very spectacular and basically plays like bayonetta, but ranged. Imagine having a very fast paced shooting game where you can actually do combos like in a melee / hack'n slash game, but with guns, that would be pretty cool.

Doom Eternal might be the game your after. Maybe Horizon as well

 

[Boss Mog]

 

[TintoConCasera]

I think it can yeah. A lot of people shit on DOOM Eternal but to me it was perfect ranged combat: meaty, challenging and with a lot of mechanics that blend well together.

It has a steep learning curve but I think that's normal for a game with so much mechanics put in it.

 

[Con-Z-epT]

Nice MOVIE!

 

[The artful mincer]

There is definitely a pattern in terms of the reliance from shooters and their environment.
Mostly it is about traversal it seems.

Good example with the training area!

Some fighting games tend to use the environment for interaction though like Mortal Kombat.
All of that is not to deep sadly.

Or in the Last Of Us there are a lot of environmental kills even though it is a sh

Yeah there's not many I think of accept the souls series perhaps.

Getting ambushed, trying to avoid multiple enemies, certain weapons not working well in enclosed spaces hiding behind the pillars from orenstein and smough lol.

Did the environmental kills do more damage in the last of us or was it just cosmetic ?