-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Can ranged combat ever be as good as melee combat?
- Thread starter Physiocrat
- Start date
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Depends on the game and mechanic.
Shooters feel much better using guns and bazookas while the melee butt end is shit.
Playing SP RPGs, I find ranged combat with bows shit and janky. The precision needed shooting enemies that all seem to run twice as fast as you makes for hassles especially if the arrow does low damage.
But play DIablo where ranged combat is more like blanket waves of fireballs and arrows that can spam an entire group of enemies and it works wonders.
Shooters feel much better using guns and bazookas while the melee butt end is shit.
Playing SP RPGs, I find ranged combat with bows shit and janky. The precision needed shooting enemies that all seem to run twice as fast as you makes for hassles especially if the arrow does low damage.
But play DIablo where ranged combat is more like blanket waves of fireballs and arrows that can spam an entire group of enemies and it works wonders.
Last edited:
Con-Z-epT
Live from NeoGAF, it's Friday Night!
Mostly cosmetic. Not sure if the difficulty setting played into it.
BusierDonkey
Member
I tend to stick to ranged combat in most games and drop most of the enemies in an area before I move in to pick off the remnants. A good game handles both aspects well or creates scenarios where both are equally needed.
Even games featuring Shooty McGee the space marine can make both feel important. In Halo you can pick people off with your rifles, but it's also fun to run right up to Elites with a shotgun, give them the old Uncle Fister and blast them right in the face with the hot end of your thunder stick.
In Gear of War It's just as fun to use a Longshot to pop heads as it is to bisect them with Lancer.
Even games featuring Shooty McGee the space marine can make both feel important. In Halo you can pick people off with your rifles, but it's also fun to run right up to Elites with a shotgun, give them the old Uncle Fister and blast them right in the face with the hot end of your thunder stick.
In Gear of War It's just as fun to use a Longshot to pop heads as it is to bisect them with Lancer.
Last edited:
Based on God of War which I am replaying now on PS5, the answer would be no. There's too much variety in a good melee based combat game. It's a longer and more dynamic gamplay loop then just popping your head above a cover and pressing the right trigger.
Btw, I barely ever throw the axe in a GOW fight, that's how much I value ranged combat.
Last edited:
Saber
Gold Member
Play Skyrim and enjoy enemies blocking and power attacking you endless.
The game is so bad that this statement its true.
The game is so bad that this statement its true.
Last edited:
Belmonte
Member
Great thread OP! Very interesting discussion.
A huge advantage melee have against ranged is that japanese developers prefer the first and are raising the bar for melee combat since the NES days each generation.
Obviously it is not that western devs can't make great gameplay, I love Doom, Halo, Bulletstorm. Their combat are outstanding. But as a general rule, seems like the east is laser focused on gameplay, which is the backbone of their gaming culture and the west have atmosphere, cinematic and polish as important pillars.
TLDR: Overall I think melee is deeper than ranged but there are great gameplay focused titles like Doom and Vanquish which proves ranged can be as deep as melee games.
A huge advantage melee have against ranged is that japanese developers prefer the first and are raising the bar for melee combat since the NES days each generation.
Obviously it is not that western devs can't make great gameplay, I love Doom, Halo, Bulletstorm. Their combat are outstanding. But as a general rule, seems like the east is laser focused on gameplay, which is the backbone of their gaming culture and the west have atmosphere, cinematic and polish as important pillars.
TLDR: Overall I think melee is deeper than ranged but there are great gameplay focused titles like Doom and Vanquish which proves ranged can be as deep as melee games.
ProgenitorCastle
Banned
This is an awesome thread, so many varied responses from many varied posters!
My answer is that it really depends on preference. And that preference can vary from game to game too. I love ranged combat in 2D games like Megaman X games and Metal Slug because in 2D games, you can always see a certain distance ahead, making it ideal for running and gunning, which some 3D TPS games tried to replicate but didn't work out as well since the character's back would block the view while running and gunning. Mentioning that, that's why I love RE4's stop and pop system so much. It allows you to pause for a bit and think about where you want to aim at. That system is so precise you can snipe incoming thrown weapons out of the air to prevent them from landing a hit on you.
My answer is that it really depends on preference. And that preference can vary from game to game too. I love ranged combat in 2D games like Megaman X games and Metal Slug because in 2D games, you can always see a certain distance ahead, making it ideal for running and gunning, which some 3D TPS games tried to replicate but didn't work out as well since the character's back would block the view while running and gunning. Mentioning that, that's why I love RE4's stop and pop system so much. It allows you to pause for a bit and think about where you want to aim at. That system is so precise you can snipe incoming thrown weapons out of the air to prevent them from landing a hit on you.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
Thwacking a target with a bow in Mount & Blade is more satisfying than any melee combat I can think of.
Hawks Eclipse
Member
The artful mincer
gave you two really good replies but I'll elaborate as requested. First off, I need to say I'm not arguing that ranged combat is superior to melee, but pointing out what it brings to the table.
If all you have are melee options, then the action is going to take place within a sphere (or circle for games without aerial play) whose radius is your range of attacks & mobility options.
Now imagine what kind of levels you'd design to encourage such action to occur in. They'd mostly be enclosed in some manner, perhaps with some disguised corridors for you to fight in.
In order to have bigger, more interesting spaces to interact with, the character would either need ranged attacks and/or mobility options that provide interplay with the level.
Eg. If you're a pure melee character and the level is huge and multilayered, then your character is going to be some variant of 3D Mario; the mental stimulation will come not just from melee combat but from how you navigate the level.
And you can't have all enemies be melee, otherwise you end up having to have every melee enemy be able to close the gap regardless of level obstacles. Imagine every melee character spawning/blinking right behind you.
I mentioned geometry because the nature of hitscan and projectiles means that things like sightlines and elevations can be woven into a level and easily utilized. When was the last time you had to care about sightlines when purely dealing with melee? Perhaps to not trigger aggro and that's about it.
To sort of boil it down again: without ranged combat, the player does not have to contend with threats from a distance. As such the developer would have to 'push' you in other ways, like putting a timer, making stage hazards or just having long corridors. How interesting the ranged combat is depends on what the developers are going for.
Sidenote: You know how in boxing you target specific parts of the opponent with different angles and approaches? Dealing with multiple enemies in a shootout is an abstraction of that: you have to prioritize targets, hit them and be aware of your own positioning & defence to minimize exposure.
P.S. Feel free to ask questions or poke holes in my replies so I can bounce off of them
Physiocrat
Member
Wouldn't this just apply to the enemies rather than the playable character? Ranged enemies make sense to mix things up even if you're a pure melee character
Physiocrat
Member
Is there much skill involved in doing that in Overwatch?
If you play cool games like Max Pain 3 or Destiny 2, I think yes.
tvdaXD
Member
At a higher level, it's mostly timing. Which can become a mental game of who will use their ability first and reading enemies movements to predict intentions.
It isn't very deep however, but does require some skill depending on the situation. Skills have cooldowns, so if there's multiple enemies choosing when and how to use them will be the difference between life and death.
Con-Z-epT
Live from NeoGAF, it's Friday Night!
Just today i remembered the reload mechanic in Gears of War.
Haven't played a GoW game in a decade.
The act of reloading your gun could be accelerated by a timed button press.
Instead of just waiting to get new ammunition your actively involved in the process.
Sure it is simple but a very positive engagement or an extension of gameplay.
Haven't played a GoW game in a decade.
The act of reloading your gun could be accelerated by a timed button press.
Instead of just waiting to get new ammunition your actively involved in the process.
Sure it is simple but a very positive engagement or an extension of gameplay.
The artful mincer
Member
To a point yes but the melee character would still have to navigate the environment to get to the ranged enemy and it wouldn’t matter how deep your combat system you won’t be able to use any of it until your within striking distance of the enemy.
Then you’re having to rely on other factors like level design, traversal abilities. Etc A ranged character however would tons of choice at any given moment.
This is where weapon choice becomes important in shooters to compare melee vs ranged.
Let’s say we have an annoying sniper up on the cliff that’s difficulty to get to does it matter if you’re carrying an axe, sword, dagger, spear etc nope your still gone have to trudge your way up close to him. Does it matter if he is in cover or not? Nope you’re still going to have to trudge your way up to fight him.
Now with the ranged character does it matter weather you have a pistol, shotgun, sniper rife, machine gun, rocket launcher etc absolutely. The sniper rife is the obvious first choice here but you may be low on ammo so you may need to get closer to use your other weapons the shotgun useless until you get close, but the pistol or assault rifle might be good at midrange. If he is not in cover screw it, just spray your machine gun is his general direction and you kill him. Oh he’s in cover well I might be able to get better vantage point and get a clearer shot. He is standing next to a wall great rocket launcher time splash damage will take of him I do not even have to aim.
Hopefully that helps great topic dude I could go a little deeper on other stuff if you would indulge me lol
The artful mincer
Member
This is another good point on why projectiles are so superior to hitscan weapons.
You can parry,block and dodge projectile's,
Hitscans nah, I guess they can encourage good level design
Physiocrat
Member
Indulgence granted. Less time in purgatory for you.
Last edited:
Hawks Eclipse
Member
Just so you know, he's not an alt of mine lol, even though we're definitely on the same wavelength regarding this topic.
But yea, you already agree and innately understand that ranged threats help mix things up, keeping things interesting.
So the next question you should play around with is: "What options do we want our player to have to deal with these threats?".
As a quick aside, you never did mention what games you had in mind when singing the praises of melee combat. Could you give 2-3 examples? (I'm guessing I've probably played at least one of them.)
Hawks Eclipse
Member
I used to think like that but hitscan has its function that projectiles can't really accomplish. The simplest example is Doom (1993); without the hitscan zombies, there's a noticeable lack of immediate threats that you have to prioritize.
Being able to block and parry hitscan isn't new, it's more a matter of whether it makes sense within the design of the game.
Some examples:
- Ninja Gaiden Black allows you to block hitscans simply by holding the block button. The tracking is a bit loose to give you the opportunity to roll away from grabs (which breaks blocks).
- Metal Gear Rising lets you use Ninja Run which auto deflects all hitscans.
- Overwatch with Genji's deflect. Works on Widowmaker's snipes and McCree's Ultimate etc.
- Fortnite allows you to build cover in real time to 'block' hitscans.
vaibhavpisal
Member
An enjoyable ranged combat system is easier to achieve than an acceptable melee system.
Cyberpunk vs Witcher 3
Cyberpunk combat doesnt attracts much attention. Its functional and almost enjoyable.
Witcher 3 is laughable and borderline unacceptable.
I can count on fingers games that have good melee system while good shooter list is much longer.
Cyberpunk vs Witcher 3
Cyberpunk combat doesnt attracts much attention. Its functional and almost enjoyable.
Witcher 3 is laughable and borderline unacceptable.
I can count on fingers games that have good melee system while good shooter list is much longer.
Physiocrat
Member
See the thing is I don't have that much time to plays games given work/family and I mostly play RPGs because my wife likes to play alongside. So actually the best combat I have experienced relatively recently is probably Deus Ex Mankind Divided which is ironically mostly a shooter. As for melee the best could well be Kingdoms of Amalur although I stopped playing because the game was really dull overall. Bar that it might be the Witcher 3 Blood and Wine that has the best melee I have played (yes I know it is poorly regarded combat wise).
My thoughts on melee came from watching videos of other games particularly Dark Souls (combat looks awesome but the lack of a main narrative and focus on exploration plus the difficulty puts me off).
Errr your examples of ranged combat aren't exactly top of the pile....both are rpg, stat driven games.
kiphalfton
Member
Think you have it the other way around. Most melee games don't feel like they have very much weight to them. You slash at your enemy, and it's like you didn't make contact. Like you're hitting them with a weapon that doesn't actually exist.
Games like MGSV though, well that is probably the best ranged combat game in existence. Perfect controls and great weapons.
Games like MGSV though, well that is probably the best ranged combat game in existence. Perfect controls and great weapons.
Keihart
Member
Third person ranged combat can get very mechanically fun too, the first person perspective it's the usual limitation since you lose depth perception and control of aiming and movement get paired together making really difficult to move and shot in different directions. In third person you can implement auto aim and penalties for movement and what not making real homologues to melee action games.
VR makes shooting a lot more fun and complex too, you can make reloading a mechanical skill and you can expect a player to aim and look and move in opposite directions too.
I think there are some very known examples of great shooters that could be compared to melee action games, but most often than not you get a mix of both melee and ranged.
MGSV, Vanquish, Uncharted4 and The Last of Us are some really good takes on ranged and melee combated combined to achieve very different experiences with mechanical complexity and player expression.
VR makes shooting a lot more fun and complex too, you can make reloading a mechanical skill and you can expect a player to aim and look and move in opposite directions too.
I think there are some very known examples of great shooters that could be compared to melee action games, but most often than not you get a mix of both melee and ranged.
MGSV, Vanquish, Uncharted4 and The Last of Us are some really good takes on ranged and melee combated combined to achieve very different experiences with mechanical complexity and player expression.
Last edited:
Physiocrat
Member
True, but I basically just play RPGs today given time constraints. My question is really what are the relative merits of both types.
Weird thread IMO, it should be obvious that ranged combat is much more widespread in video games just by virtue of the FPS combat existing. It's also much better and more intuitive because hiding behind cover and running around feels more like playing paintball than "swing block parry" feels like scuffling with a person (i.e. does not resemble it at all).
sublimit
Banned
Honestly this is a great thread to see who has played DD and who hasn't.
The artful mincer
Member
lol okay then
The last two main example's I can think of are regarding stealth and resource management. Ranged combat seems to work better with both.
I was playing ghost of tsushima and your only close quarter stealth option seems to be sneak up behind guard and press x to kill. (Or press x to jump off roof and kill guard). Where as the ranged options involved about 4 different arrow types, 2 blow guns and 4 different throw items all which have different strengths, weaknesses and effects. E.g. poison blow darts, explosive bombs, light or strong arrows distraction tools with different volume levels etc. Stealth games often have crouch and crawl and you can still engage the enemy with all your ranged options still intact and often with risk reward mechanisms in place. E.g., While Prone your accuracy but less mobile, When standing less accurate but more mobile.
With resource management basically, by limiting ammo you force the player to make more interesting choices or play better. At a basic level this encourages headshots or other weak spots, grouping enemies together for splash damage, making sure you get right up close to deliver that shotgun shot etc.
For a more interesting example in resident evil 2 remake, you didn’t have enough ammo to kill every zombie. You had to revisit areas so you had pick and choose which zombies you wanted to kill, However you could also take out the zombies legs with less ammo forcing them to crawl along the floor making them less of threat and easier to avoid next time you visited the same area. To be fair I think this could work in a melee game but it's an immersion thing i think. Players have no problem running out of ammo but if you sword suddenly breaks there will be hell to pay! Just look at the breath of wild discourse.
Like Hawk said feel free to poke holes in anything I've written as well it make's me think more lol
Astral Dog
Member
Imho, no. Never.
However there are cool mixes that focus shooting with some melee mechanics such as the new DOOM, and action Resident Evils are some of the best tps ever, but even those have a few melee attacks to spice up the combat
However there are cool mixes that focus shooting with some melee mechanics such as the new DOOM, and action Resident Evils are some of the best tps ever, but even those have a few melee attacks to spice up the combat
The artful mincer
Member
This is really good point
What your suggesting is hitscan can be used to force the player into a more interesting playstyle or learn valuable gameplay mechanics?
I.e. why bother building in Fortnite if you can dodge all incoming attacks.
I recall someone mentioning that in uncharted 4 you should have been invulnerable when rope swing to encourage you to do it. At higher difficulties in those games, you basically had to hunker down in cover and couldn’t really take advantage of all drakes mobility options.
Physiocrat
Member
If DD had a decent plot and main quest I would be all over it. It just seems that the fun is fighting monsters in the way of you completing quests. I really dislike random encounters because it just feels like it is in the way of completing my mission.Honestly this is a great thread to see who has played DD and who hasn't.
Deus Ex is quite interesting in that you have the option of both ranged and melee stealth. When I was categorising types of combat in my head my main distinctions were melee and ranged but also stealth and aggressive (for want of a better phrase). Stealth certainly would be too limited as a purely melee style of combat unless traversal was really important and interesting. I say that but there may be example of a good version I am unaware of.
I'm conflicted on limited ammo. On the one had it helps make strategic decisions but in other cases it is just annoying. I like the idea of rarely being able to kill everyone in an area even with basically unlimited ammo so that you have to think more about which enemies are the most important and in the way of the objective rather than the let's kill everyone and then move to the next room tactics.
Somebody_Important
Banned
I always prefer melee combat. I find it's more immersive being up close with the action.
The artful mincer
Member
You're certainly right about traversal mechanics completely changing the game regarding stealth. Batman Arkham, spiderman, dishonoured and assassin’s creed are good examples. Hell in spiderman you can takeout about 10 dudes in 30 seconds if your good
dishonoured as well
There is certainly a lot of conflict about ammo limitations haha. Recently the developers of Doom eternal cut the ammo limits of all their weapons in half compared to Doom 2016 this was an attempt to get there players to switch weapons more learn new tactics etc. Some players loved it others did not lol I think some players just love using certain weapons and get annoyed when they can't use them (In Doom most players love using the super shotgun).
Having said that I think ammo limits allow for greater power diversity in weapons. E.g. the BFG couldn't exist as it does without a hard ammo limit not unless your happy with all challenge and skill going completely going out the window.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
Never played Skyrim VR huh?
It’s the best
TES used as an example of good combat. I never thought I'd see the day.
Hawks Eclipse
Member
Main difference between hitscan and projectile is time and personally, that just means whether it's humanly possible to react to or not.
The threat of hitscan is immediate and unless you offer a solution that counters it entirely (eg. imagine a forcefield that negates hitscan bullets), it's almost always the highest priority problem.
IMO the worst thing about hitscan is that in the past two decades it has been pigeonholed as "bullets you can't see with the naked eye".
In the original Quake trilogy, we had the Lightning Gun and Railgun, both of which are hitscan with obvious visual presence, just different damage and range properties.
From a shooter's perspective, hitscan tests aim and tracking, projectiles test prediction and leading. Stuff like Apex Legends is interesting, where the bullets are really fast but not literally hitscan, so you have tracking combined with variable leading based on distance to the target.
And yea your Fortnite example has the right idea, if everything was slow projectiles there'd just be a lot of kiting. It could be interesting if they developed along those lines, but that's another topic entirely (lol).
About Uncharted, it's easy to see how invulnerable rope swings would be abused: what's to stop Drake from swinging on ropes nonstop? Ideally the AI could be programmed to ease up on the tracking or an easier way would be to have slo-mo you could activate (a la F.E.A.R., Max Payne, Vanquish) which has always been a tool for the player to leverage (and it looks cool!).
Hawks Eclipse
Member
No worries, we're here to help one another appreciate the games that we manage to find time to play.
It's been a while since I played Mankind Divided but I seem to recall guns felt pretty good, lots of customization and you did have to mentally wrestle with the densely packed levels just due to sightlines, both vision cones and weapons.
Regrettably I didn't play KoA extensively, but I'd like to get back to it one fine day.
I think with Witcher 3, the main issues people had with it were due to relatively unsatisfying animations and possibly the biggest offender: no invulnerability frames (usually called i-frames) on evasive moves. At least, that's what I felt from my partway playthrough of the game...
Here's an odd suggestion: you could try playing some classic Street Fighter II with your wife. There's a lot to be learnt about close and long ranged combat, though it's certainly not in the same 'container' as the other games we've been discussing, the concept of controlling space is similar and carries over to most games involving some kind of ranged combat.
And in case that's out of the question, give this a read when you can:
Domination 101: Controlling Space
Domination 101 is a series of articles written by Seth Killian before SRK's forum crash in 2003. Controlling Space by Seth Killian A big part of controlling the match is controlling not just the opponent, but the space around them as well. Really seeing how moves can control a space is pretty rare
shoryuken.com
Makariel
Member
First off: neither Mass Effect nor Deus Ex have IMO particularly good ranged combat. ME3 was ok, but especially the first ME was incredibly clunky, and in Deus Ex having to shoot yourself out of anything felt like punishment. Way better are e.g. Vanquish, which was already mentioned, Doom, Bulletstorm, Titanfall, Rainbow Siege, CS, and plenty more better games to mention for ranged combat.
Defense in ranged combat is of course possible, you do that by changing position, moving from one (safe) cover to another, outflanking an enemy, by dodging or sliding rocket-propelled on your knees forward while shooting down swarms of missiles (Vanquish again) etc.
If you prefer run&gun gameplay, crawling into the perfect sniping position, or whirling around with an unreasonably large sword comes really down to personal taste, I don't think you can say one is inherently "better" than the other.
p.s.: shields are also a thing in ranged combat:
The artful mincer
Member
Fair point complete invulnerability would be a bit much (although I would rather be doing that than stuck behind cover ha-ha) Uncharted saving grace was its low ammo count and 2 weapon limit so you always had to get on your bike to find resource’s and like we discussed you can be flushed out from cover by flanking and grenades etc.
I’m torn on slow mo it's benefits are obvious (Horizon uses it a lot as well ) it's always felt like cheating. Mind you I don’t have a better solution other than super tight controls.
Hawks Eclipse
Member
Oh slo-mo was just a quick and easy suggestion.
I'm of the opinion that the difficulty and behaviour of enemies should be set with the player's toolset always in mind.
So games that include slo-mo generally have challenges that would be virtually impossible without it. And if it doesn't have slo-mo, then hopefully the developers have playtested it on the highest difficulties themselves and consistently beaten it without exploits or cheese tactics.
Of course, they could always do the latter, then include slo-mo as an additional player-aid for those who want a difficulty that's a bit lower than intended.
Physiocrat
Member
No worries, we're here to help one another appreciate the games that we manage to find time to play.
It's been a while since I played Mankind Divided but I seem to recall guns felt pretty good, lots of customization and you did have to mentally wrestle with the densely packed levels just due to sightlines, both vision cones and weapons.
Regrettably I didn't play KoA extensively, but I'd like to get back to it one fine day.
I think with Witcher 3, the main issues people had with it were due to relatively unsatisfying animations and possibly the biggest offender: no invulnerability frames (usually called i-frames) on evasive moves. At least, that's what I felt from my partway playthrough of the game...
Here's an odd suggestion: you could try playing some classic Street Fighter II with your wife. There's a lot to be learnt about close and long ranged combat, though it's certainly not in the same 'container' as the other games we've been discussing, the concept of controlling space is similar and carries over to most games involving some kind of ranged combat.
And in case that's out of the question, give this a read when you can:
Domination 101: Controlling Space
Domination 101 is a series of articles written by Seth Killian before SRK's forum crash in 2003. Controlling Space by Seth Killian A big part of controlling the match is controlling not just the opponent, but the space around them as well. Really seeing how moves can control a space is pretty rareshoryuken.com
Interesting looking article, I will take a look.
Btw why do people want I-frames? Isn't that just an easy out with dodging etc. Take less damage might be a compromise but not invulnerability per se.
My issue with the Witcher 3 was it was too easy on hard especially later on (yes I could have increased the difficulty) and the enemies lacked variety. They balanced this much better in Blood and Wine.
Physiocrat
Member
It's interesting you mention Dishonored 2, that's on my list to play at some point so will make a point of taking note about the stealth mechanics.