Archetype subclasses and variations
Even though we want to classify and organize enemies into a few archetypes, we also want to introduce variety and increase the challenge throughout the game.
The role of subclasses is to push the player to the limit of the combat system by playing with the same rules he has already learned but adding new abilities to the enemy which, for example, reduce windows of opportunity, or challenge the player on his precision.
When we design an enemy we can consider the challenge by analyzing the advantageous and complicating properties of each enemies.
The advantageous properties of an enemy will let the player use him to damage other enemies.
The complicating properties of an enemy will make the challenge to beat him more complex.
Here's an example in a Mario game of the sub-classes concept:
Original enemy archetype

- This enemy simply moves toward the player on a patrol path
- The player has to jump on the enemy to eliminate him
- The resultant turtle shell can be used to kill other enemies
Sub-class enemy archetype

- This enemy moves toward the player
- New complicating property of this sub-class: this enemy moves in the air
- The turtle shell can (again) be used to kill the enemies
Designing subclasses is a very good way to increase or decrease the difficulty of a class without breaking the defining rules of a class.
Risk and reward management example:
To introduce another layer of strategy in the battle we can also use subclasses to add both advantageous and complicating properties on a same enemy.
Here's an advanced enemy with a shield and a weak point in his back which make him explode if the player hits the weak point several times:

Adding a shield to an enemy makes it harder to kill, because the player has to shoot around it to damage it. But we've also added a weak point in the back to give a new tactical opportunity to the player. Normally, a player would try to kill the easiest enemy first in order to reduce the number of living enemies as fast as possible, but in this case...

It's riskier for the player to try to kill the advanced enemy while the other enemies are still alive; at the same time, the player can take advantage of the weak point and kill the entire group faster. It's up to him to manage the risk and the amount of reward he wants to achieve.
Conclusion
Here are the main points to keep in mind from this article:
A combat system well designed is a system which can entertain a player for hours. If the combat system is well conceived, the game will feature a large variety of combat.
A good way to obtain a such combat system is first to design very different abilities for the player's character.
The player's abilities can be differentiated in many ways. For example, designers can add special attributes to some of them: stun, regen, damage over time, repel...
The second point to keep in mind is to design enemies that match the player's abilities. Each enemy has to offer a specific challenge which will push the player to use a certain type of ability to defeat him.
To finish this article, from my point of view, one of the most engaging feelings a player can experience with a video game is to feel smart and proud of his or her cleverness. And a combat system is a great tool to let the player experience this feeling.
|
Write this book! =)
It mostly seems to focus on position, esp. distance, as the determining factor. I think that needs to be extended to other elements. For example, many games feature some sort of "elemental alignment" or "color", ie. fire weapons work better against ice enemies, AP ammunition works better against armored enemies, etc. This can also be a major determining factor in which weapon to use - even the primary factor, in many games that include such elements.
Thanks for your interesting comment.
I agree with you, I didn't talk at all about element alignement as you said. Maybe I should have insisted on it but it's true that I've focused myself on real time combat system in this article, and what are the major parameter to play wiht in a real time combat system. Elemental or colour don't evolve in real time, distance do. And timing evaluation is inherent to real time combat.
In short, if we frame elemental-style design again in the context of some of Sebastien's original core ideas - risk vs reward, offering different varieties of problems/challenges, effectiveness of weapons vs types of enemies - you can use a system to magnify those elements in your game design if they need more emphasis.
I was playing Halo 1 recently, and I think it makes a good example here. The Shotgun is excellent against the Flood, not so much against other enemies. Most other weapons are weak against the Flood. Covenant weapons are better against enemies with shields (the tougher Covenant ones). But these weapons have other tradeoffs too, which usually dominate decisions about which one to carry and which one to use. E.g. sniper rifle is used for distant head shots, rocket launcher doesn't have much ammo, Covenant weapons overheat and can't be reloaded, etc. Even though some enemies seem to have a specific "elemental" bias (e.g. weak against plasma weapons, or weak against shotgun) its not a simple binary decision. Later levels contain a mix of Covenant and the Flood, so choice about which weapon to use in each section will depend on things like, what kind of cover is available, whether they are open spaces or enclosed hallways, etc.
I'll just add that, in most AAA titles, most players don't even experience all that depth. I played through Arkham Asylum without really understanding the melee combat system. Bit of a shame...but I guess for the players that really get into it, like my friend who really got into the Challenge Rooms, they appreciate it.
One thing I notice, though, is something that seems pretty common to combat AI in most games. Namely, that "tactics" is being defined here as really applying only to personal combat with internal resources. But tactics also refers to the smart use of external environmental elements to obtain and exploit a force advantage over an adversary.
This is mentioned indirectly by describing a "tendency" (presumably of novice combat AI designers) to want to allow multiple mobs to function as a squad, apparently just to make a game feel more "immersive" or to make enemies "feel human." It's a fair point that a small set of interesting choices is better than a big vocabulary of indistinguishable actions. But I think dismissing environmental tactical choices as mere "immersion" would miss some opportunities for offering more enjoyable combat play.
In addition to tactics enabled by internal resources -- e.g., HP/mana, cooldown timers, recovery delays, shields, movement speed -- environmental features can be resources as well. Line of sight may be the most common environmental phenomenon that characters can be programmed to respect, creating opportunities for movement and stealth tactics. But there are plenty of other phenomena that also allow tactically interesting character actions and choices: day/night cycles, rain/snow/fog, smoke, entrenchment (digging into the terrain), smell (what if you want to sneak past guard animals?), sound (the Muffle spell in Skyrim), camouflage, heat, pressure, radiation, mass, and so on.
Think about the Thief games. Both light and sound were functional environmental elements of combat AI design. By allowing characters (player and NPCs) to be aware of and make choices about these environmental phenomena, the range of interesting player choices possible -- and the coolness of what NPCs might do because they could detect those phenomena and make decisions regarding them -- allowed a truly satisfying game to emerge. Tactics weren't just about my internals versus your internals; the world itself mattered.
Not every game needs exactly those features. The point is that external environmental resources can also be valuable in tactical combat AI design because they enable more interesting choices. They're not just for immersion.
Thanks!
And may I add, that my instructor in gamedesign thaught me...that the information regarding distance, position of your gear, bombs legs and arms...are game narrative.
Though he used tetris as an example.
Its an valuable pillar, because the player needs input/exposition on how he should act to overcome challenges.
no
NO
NO!
Change "Deep gameplay " to "thrilling", "emotional", "immersive" ANYTHING!
But deep Deep gameplay will always refer to length and breath of the mechanics, and though yes..can take 20-30 minutes to master...it will offer a MUCH bigger symphony of stimulating experience then what angrybird EVER could.
If someone can't, direct them to a different genre.
The article refers to the simplicity of the inputs required from the player, and I don't think that complexifying the inputs would necessarly make the gameplay deeper.
Take the simple Reloading mechanic in a competitive FPS, which is normally one button press. The player still have to figure out when and where it is optimal to do so. It refers to his map knowledge, his prediction of enemy movement, his analysis of the situation, and more... Even with only one single button press, you can expect a new player to spend quite a while to master it perfectly.
I do not think that you have to ask the player to "do a Shoryuken to reload" to add a depth to that mechanic.
I like how you quoted halo a lot in this article, as it is one of the few shooters that really has satisfying open battle ( aka not purely scripted) combat, a lot of people attributed this to the AI. which partially is true.
however the enemy design is so clever and the enemy hierarchy so well constructed that the combat feels like a tactical game (also 30 seconds of fun or The Illusion of Intelligence by bungie is a great resource)
I also think that this is one of the reasons I did not enjoy halo 2 as much as I did one. I loved the E3 trailer, it showed complex situations and interactions and Cortana gave you warnings which was really amazing, but in the game when the Elites were replaced with the Brutes a lot of the tactics got lost.
the brutes did not have a very interesting attack pattern (imho), if the damage received was too high, charge.
which was also very annotying to me as a player. for me the most fun I had in halo is when I was able to really set up a fight, example in the second level when you have to resque the marines there are a few great moments, where you take over a position, and then have to defend it with any means,
usually a quite clear way you can do this is defined (sniper rifle is handed off or happens to be there) but you can ignore i and through clever warthog placement get very different fights.
also the one encounter by the cliff gave me a lot of fun, you ahve to extract marines from a underground structure, and placing my warthog intelligently in that fight really helps.
again it is almost a tactic fight not so much a scripted event or a rollercoaster ride, you ahve to plan your fights and evaluate on a per case basis how to engage you enemies, and there are many possible answers.
again thank you for the article.
Other than that one mistake in your diagram this is an excellent article. Hope to read more.