Torn between 2 combat systems for a new game

I'm trying to make an action game, with these characteristics:

• Side view: Even if the game is 3D, it will have a 2D side-view.
  
• Combo-based: The whole system revolves around making looong combos and being constantly attacking.
  
• Two attacks: The normal attack is used for regular combos, the strong attack is a finisher that can launch enemies, break through shields, knock them away...
  
• 1 VS many enemies: Instead of having very few and complex enemies, there will be a lot of enemies at screen, but each of them will be very specialized.
  
• Hard counters: The player will have to react with specific moves (attack, dodge, block, parry) to certain enemy attacks. He will also have to use specific attacks against certain defenses: Piercing attacks to break shields, barrages to destroy super armor, ground stomps to trip quick enemies...
  
• Special finisher: Once an enemy loses all HP it will enter a dizzy state. Dashing into them will trigger a special finisher that uses the scenery.
  
• Style meter: There will be a style meter that takes into account combo length, parries, last-second dodges...
  
• Style missions: Special prompts will appear asking the player to perform specific finishers (for example: "Throw an enemy through the window"). The player must set up and perform the corresponding special finisher to get a huge style boost.
  

My goal is to make something similar to this, but playable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTeyLXRSVA

When coming up with the details I've thought of 2 different systems, so I'd like to pitch' em both and see which one you guys think would be better (also please feel free to suggest any changes or improvements):

Musou offset

Each combo string is a series of normal attacks (N) ending on a strong attack (S). The length of the combo string determines the finisher like in Musou games, so for example:

• NS: Launcher
  
• NNS: Stomp
  
• NNNS: Stinger
  
• And so on...
  

As stated before, the player may need a specific attack against some enemies, so he needs to be in control of the combo at all times. This is achieved by using dodge, block and parry offset, which allow the player to keep the combo string going while executing the necessary defensive actions.
Also, the player can use short PAUSES in the combo to skip the next normal attack, so he can get to the next move quicker:

• NS: Launcher
  
• NNS: Stomp
  
• N-(pause)-S: Instead of getting a launcher, the finisher will skip to the next once in the sequence (Stomp).
  
• NNNS: Stinger
  
• N-(pause)-NS: Stinger. The player skips the second normal attack.
  
• NNNNS: Barrage.
  
• N-(pause)-N-(pause)-S: Barrage. The player skips the second and fourth normal attacks.
  

PROS

• Encourages the player to finish the current string to get to the finisher.
  
• Encourages the use of different combos.
  

CONS

• Player needs to remember all the combo finishers.
  
• Player needs to determine his position on the combo string, which can be difficult with the pause skips and dodge/parry/block offsets.
  
• May be too complex to use: Enemies will need to be more passive to allow the player to handle the combo positions and finishers.
  
• it doesn't seem that this complexity is adding more depth to the system.
  

Arkham energy

Player can use finishers at any time, but the specific finisher depends on player input:

• S: Burst
  
• Up+S: Launcher
  
• Forward+S: Stinger
  
• Back+S: Barrage
  
• Down+S: Stomp
  

So the player will always be in a NNNN... combo which he'll interrupt with a directional finisher when needed (and with dodges, blocks and parries).

The finisher system is based on energy:

• Using a finisher consumes one energy orb.
  
• Energy orbs are generated by landing normal attacks, parries and last minute dodges. 5 or 6 of these actions are required to generate 1 full orb. It's like the magic system in Bayonetta.
  
• Special finishers generate one full orb.
  
• The player can accumulate up to 5 orbs.
  
• If the player doesn't have any energy, using a finisher will consume 1 HP instead (max HP is 5). This consumed life becomes "recoverable", so when the player lands attacks on the enemies he will recover this HP instead of generating energy. If the player is hit before he has recovered all this gambled life, he loses all of it (+ the damage that the attack he just received will do).
  
• The player can use infinite finishers without having energy, but this will eventually turn all his HP into recoverable life and thus become vulnerable to being killed in one hit.
  

PROS

• Easier, more flexible system for the players as they can access all finishers at all times.
  
• This simplicity will allow for more complex enemy behaviours and layouts. Some enemies can even require several finishers in a sequence.
  
• Enemies can be more aggressive, as the player has all of his tools available at all times.
  
• Player can link finishers one after another, allowing for more creative (and spectacular) combos.
  
• High risk-high reward with the HP gamble system.
  
• Lower skill floor but higher ceiling thanks to being able to combo finishers.
  

CONS

• May be too simple: Most of the time the player will just be pressing the normal attack button to keep the combo going.
  
• Each individual normal hit loses importance, to the point that they could be replaced with autocombos like in the Arkham games with little loss.
  
• No need for dodge/block/parry offset as it's no functional difference between keeping the current combo string going or starting a new one.
  

Summary

• Musou offset: The combo used at every moment will be very important. The player will have to micro-manage every input more carefully to use combo offsets and pauses to get to the desired finisher for every situation.
  
• Arkham energy: The normal combo workflow is much more relaxed, so it will be easier for the player to assess the combat scenery and execute the required action. It will also allow the game to present more complex situations.
  

Please, let me know what you think!

Concept sounds cool. Personally I prefer the Arkham type system because I don't like being locked into long combos just to get to the good stuff and I like the meter managament aspect more.
Also the style meter and the enemy executions seem a bit restrictive, along with the counter system. If you only have one specific move for each enemy state then it becomes annoying. If you can use multiple moves for each state it would be better (so you need to have multiple launchers, multiple shield break moves etc.).

General idea seems neat, esp. with the reference you noted. Think the Arkham system would fit better. In general though I'd suggest coming up with a cleaner base game. Despite just being text now it already feels very cluttered with all types of mechanics.

I'd sooner say start with the core fun idea which is having a multiman brawl where you can continue your combo from one enemy to the next, perhaps also incorporating movement as a part of that (jumping over terrain in stylish/interesting ways for example). You can add those things like style-meters and combo-gauges and all that nonsense later once you've nailed the core fun combat I'd say. That's just my 0.05$.

>Also the style meter and the enemy executions seem a bit restrictive, along with the counter system.
The idea for the executions is that you need to position the enemy in the right place: Once an enemy has no HP left you can keep comboing it and pushing it around. Once you have it where you want (for example, in front of a window), you can drop the combo and perform the execution. You'll have 3 of these missions available at all times, so you're not forced to do a single action but can choose between those 3. Once you accomplish a mission, it gets replaced by a new one so you always have 3 different things to choose from.
Missions can also be things different than executions, for example "Juggle an enemy with the Stinger move 3 times", "Launch more than 3 enemies at once"...When I play a lot a CAG game I end up using the same moves and there are some which I completely forget about. This is a way I've though to nudge the players into using all the different available techniques.

>If you only have one specific move for each enemy state then it becomes annoying. If you can use multiple moves for each state it would be better (so you need to have multiple launchers, multiple shield break moves etc.).
Yup I agree, that can definitely become a problem. I love when games have a sort of "rock-paper-scissor" system but if it's not done correctly it can easily turn into "Simon says": Do this every time you see that. I'll try to stick to your advice and give every move multiple uses, as well as making sure that each of them is not the only thing that can work in a specific situation. Thanks a lot for pointing it out!

>I'd sooner say start with the core fun idea which is having a multiman brawl where you can continue your combo from one enemy to the next, perhaps also incorporating movement as a part of that (jumping over terrain in stylish/interesting ways for example). You can add those things like style-meters and combo-gauges and all that nonsense later once you've nailed the core fun combat I'd say. That's just my 0.05$.

You're right! I'll first create a prototype with the basic combat mechanics on a flat plane, with just the basic enemy types and no style meter, then keep building from there. The style meter & missions will be the last thing I do and I won't get into that until I have nailed the previous aspects of the combat like you suggest.
I'm thinking about very basic traversal, even no jumping at all (though there will be moves that take you to the air to hit airborne enemies). Instead of being a side-scrolling beat' em up, it will be more like an arena based brawler where you are trapped in a big room. You'll fight several hordes of enemies until the boss appears. That's why I thought about the environmental executions: I want the scenery to transform as the player does executions, breaking parts of it so in the end it's completely destroyed and maintains little resemblance to how it was originally.

BTW, I haven' t given much though to the story, in fact I want it to be something very, very simple. Right now my idea is that the MC is just one guy who is going around looking for a fight; He'll just enter a location (an office building, a sawmill, a fish market at the port, a packet delivery warehouse...) shout "FIGHT ME!" and everyone will just get on with it.

Judging from the video and what you have listed, it would be easier to do it in the Arkham style than with Musou(harder for me to imagine). I wonder of the possibility of doing fighting game inputs or separating punches and kicks for body positioning.

Always nice to see a Xiao Xiao fan. Did you see Combat Gods 2 from a few days ago?

I know you what you mean about it not mattering what attack you use, when you care about positioning. A stickman game you may want to check out is Stick It to the Stickman. I added it to my wishlist, but it also suffers from spamming moves, even though moves are on cards that you cycle through from use. So there's a little strategy in things like saving your minigun card (that uses ammo) for large waves.

The Arkham controls on a 2D plane would make it very familiar to people who've played a lot of the 2D CAG. But if you go with the Musou controls, I don't think remembering the combos is too hard. Implosion: never lose hope is a 3D phone game that does this, although the combos don't matter. I think the feel of combat can be good, even if the enemies are simple. The right amount of hitstun and screen shake can make wailing on weak enemies feel good. Environmental finishers and visceral damage only add to it.

>I wonder of the possibility of doing fighting game inputs or separating punches and kicks for body positioning.

That's very interesting, but I want to keep it as simple as possible and try to exploit a small number of mechanics as much as possible before I add anything else, otherwise it can explode very easily into a huge project that I won't be able to manage

>Always nice to see a Xiao Xiao fan. Did you see Combat Gods 2 from a few days ago?

OMG it was amazing! I've saved it into my reference folder, it's given a lot of ideas for some cool moves, thanks!


>I know you what you mean about it not mattering what attack you use, when you care about positioning. A stickman game you may want to check out is Stick It to the Stickman. I added it to my wishlist, but it also suffers from spamming moves, even though moves are on cards that you cycle through from use. So there's a little strategy in things like saving your minigun card (that uses ammo) for large waves.

Didn't know about that, looks very similar in a way to what I want to do. I've donwloaded the demo and will give it a try to steal eehhh...get some good ideas.



>I think the feel of combat can be good, even if the enemies are simple. The right amount of hitstun and screen shake can make wailing on weak enemies feel good.

Yup, it definitely is a priority for me to get this right: Hitstun, particle effects, camera shake...One thing I want to focus on a lot is in exaggerating the animations. I think this is something that was lost a bit when games went from 2D sprites into 3D models and motion capture. Games now hide it behind big explosions of particle effects or camera movements, and it may be something that you don't feel is missing while you're playing the game, but for example if you put some Street Fighter 4 animations next to their counterparts in SF3 you can see a huge difference. It looks like some of the basic animation principles like overshooting, exaggeration, breaking the body or squash and stretch are being ignored by 3D animators as they try to make things look more realistic, but I don't think that should always be the goal with the animations.