The poor use of shields in video games, and a suggestion for animators
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- Some gameplay footage from Ryse: Son of Rome recently reminded me of the odd phenomenon in most RPGs and other video games that their characters apparently don't know how to use a shield.
They generally have a tendency to just throw their shield arm way back while attacking, thereby making it completely useless. In a historical battle that kind of behavior would have gotten them killed pretty quickly. Of course it's "just a game", but why not make it look better while at the same time saving animators some time and work?
Want to help fund future videos?
/ skallagrim
My Facebook page:
/ skallagrimyt
If enemies knew how to use shields in Dark Souls you'd might as well jump off a cliff with the chances you're going to kill them.
+A E S T H E T I C S those guys are so easy to parry though
you would just have to do a guard break
Temmie Flakes If they knew how to use shields you wouldn't even be able to guard break them . . .
1st method : use the kick command to push their shields and break their guard ; 2nd method : wait for them to attack, then parry
alterrnatively, if they still cause trouble in early game, head to blighttown (with the masterkey) to pick the large club, farm the leeches, go back up to depths for the large ember, buy fire resine on your way to firelink, then down to new londo to farm darkwraiths and get the very large ember, homeward bone to Andre, from whom you buy small shards, and upgrade your large club to +15. With the remaining souls (after this long trip), level up strength to 27, two hand your new toy, and remember only to use the jump attack. Then the lancier shouldn't stand against you anymore. On the other hand, the hollows with torches are so diffcult to avoid, they are ruining my experience...
"Impossible to protect all of the body at once"
*Puts on Havels set*
"You wot m8"
+MrDylanHM
*puts on Giant's set and Mask of the Father*
Get at me scrub.
with dark wood grain ring
*Puts on havels set*
"Stunned"
literally though the same thing as he said that
+Han Solo Get that shit outta here
next episode: why wearing a helmet is a good idea in battle
+raglanheuser it's always a good idea to wear a helmet in Counter Strike. it saves you from 1 shot headshots of most weapons in the game.
+Harith Azmi
*Gets shot in the head with an AWP. Lives*
Your Friendly Neighborhood Plague Doctor it's possible to live after getting shot in the head with an awp. but only if the shot was a wall bang on the middle iron doors in de_dust2 and the person getting shot was wearing a helmet.
+Aleksa Petrovic talking about lack of common sense spells sense wrong
+raglanheuser Viper vs. Mountain?
It is in part because one of the principles of animation is exaggeration. Doing it like that is less accurate but looks more interesting and dynamic.
Not just animation. It's a common thing for visual art in general.
All that with it actually being easier to animate fluidly and dynamically with the shield actually going behind the character.
So yeah, it’s interesting to learn about accuracy
But I would’ve like a comparison in this video
Would’ve made it better, but yeah that’s just a pet peeve I have with videos in general
Guess it would’ve been more work for him to cut that in ://
@@blackwhitestudios5953 wait til you find out about shield + spear in DS
It also makes it easier to read when you're playing, which is a big deal when you're small on the screen
And game directors tend not to care about anything but bombastic visuals
"you cant protect the entire body at once"
**Laughs in turtle formation**
Best comment XD
You use mainly spear for that formation so you aren’t even swinging anyway
@@nguyentran7068 What about the Roman Testudo though lmao
@@Pao234_ you can search testudo on google to know what kind of animal is it lol. They are basically the same. And swinging with your shield round and round will mess up the FORMATION
its called armor
Open your guard when attacking is also a game balance decision. A charakter has to be vulnerable in order to be killed.
+Ingo Nikot Not strictly true. Gaming is by its nature an abstraction. I can think of plenty of games where simply smacking someone's shield will kill them eventually.
Yes, it does make more sense to have enemies open their guard so they die to being hit in the flesh, but there are various genres where you could indeed do a satisfying and realistic style of combat.
Off the top of my head, imagine a turn based RPG with realistic combat animations. When "idle" the combatants just jab at each other to make it look like they're fighting, then when you attempt your attack a proper animation kicks in. If the attack hits, then you get a quick, realistic clash where your blow catches an arm or a leg, glances off a helm or whatever. If the attack kills them then the enemy will stumble or fall to the ground, opening their guard and your character will move in for a satisfying finisher.
JasanQuinn I agree, i was talking about games where the shield is directly for blocking (mount and blade) and not an stat item(diablo).
***** yeah if you cheat and exploit game mechanics. Also my point was against realism but at least you tryed.
***** "and exploit game mechanics" maybe read more than 4 words next time ;)
+Ingo Nikot Practically every game with a shield doesn't use the shield geometry intersecting with a blade to stop damage. This has almost nothing to do with balance.
the biggest problem with this is that most games make the shield immaterial when you are not actually blocking. And if you are not blocking you can get hit right through the shield which is nonsensical as fuck
Yep. Also, it works like a gameplay mechanic. You have to choose between blocking or attacking, so it makes sense that the character (exaggeratedly) opens guard to attack.
yeah... I played Chivalry by more than 2k hours.... that mechanic was really nice. But I still get pissed by get hit right through a immaterial shield.
***** on chiv you can hold alt to attack to the other side. Also the character movement it self can change the attack direction. Is not that hard to avoid a shield.
***** Still, it's not brilliant. And I believe Mount&Blade did it better. In Skyrim shield should be more responsive, but that would be op, so for the sake of balance I believe it seem to be made way less agile than it sholud be.
Fegelmast Says Google employees Get cancer maybe, but I believe in thorn banner (creator of Chivalry) their hitboxes are extremely accurate.
"If you must make a choice between a sword or a shield, take the shield."
After two years I'm really the first person who caught that reference?
I don't remember where I heard this
@@sarahhavillamelooliveira5825
How to train your dragon, first training scene (:
@Brian Treves Well, Skallagrim have video about fighting giant monsters. Axe is better. Anyway, if you are fighting monster what is faster and stronger than you, even the tiger, it is better to use ranged weapon. Dragons are bigger, faster, stronger and have special abilities like breathe fire. Also spear is very nimble, long and easy to use, but with shield, it's length makes it awkward. (:
You know whats nice about mount and blade? When you attack your shield still works in blocking stuff. Even if the shield is on your back it still protects you from lots of projectiles from the back. Very nice. Cant wait for bannerlord
+fl333r Yeah, i remember runing from a group of enem horse archers (hey, it was early on, my group of peasants got lolstomped by plane bandits), and i hat a shield on my back, they kept hitting the shield with arrows and i managed to escape off hte mape with low HP.
+fl333r But it only blocks projectiles, not hits from weapons.
+Darth Webster it does actually, if you have a decent shield.
+fl333r God bless the mighty Mount and Blade. May those 63e scrubs never prevail.
Me too m8! Really, anyone who consider himself a Warbander can't wait for Bannerlord.
Okay, I could've sworn I had replied to this video, but apparently I can't find that comment. (Newbie) Game animator here, maybe there's a couple of things I can clarify.
- I love historical accuracy and overall common sense when animating combat, but there's some things you just can't do. You can never forget it's games we're talking about. You need to feel a reaction to every button press, very clear, no doubts. You need a very specific game and, especially, a very specific camera angle for certain movements to show (if you hide behind the shield). First person cameras might work with this though.
- From an animation perspective, silouhette is more important than accuracy. Take a paper and sketch all of this moves you're showing in the video, then fill with, say, a black marker. You'll probably see that most of them have a very confusing shape: a shield, some legs and some shapes pointing out. This does not read, you need clear poses, even if they're somewhat ridiculous.
- This is something I believe you've already mentioned in other videos, but telegraphed movements are important, very important, as is player feedback. Imagine a generic enemy with a shield, always covered, doing perfectly logical movements and attacks. Sometimes it blocks player attacks, sometimes it doesn't and you're not entirely clear from your camera perspective if the shield was in the way or not. You don't know if there's a pattern or a specific way to beat it (Zelda maybe). You can't see properly when he attacks, etc. All these things are important and valid tactics when fighting realistically, but will only cause frustration for most players in a game.
Summarizing: clear shapes, proper feedback and telegraphed attacks, camera angles. Those things get in the way of realism and historical accuracy. That said, you could still aim for much better animations without fully breaking those rules in some games, but I guess extreme poses look too cool to remove them huh.
aWinterCrow
This was interesting, thanks
I have to disagree. They can be implemented. It's just that with those mechanics you would have to make the game with the mechanics in mind instead of a generic combat sistem with easy mechanics. It would probably be a simple sistem with many but simple face value mechanics that can be used simultaneously in a fast paced way. Patrons aren't liked by everyone you know? The blocks shouldn't be random characters should have physical limitations, the guard of a soldier isn't perfect but he's not going to get randomly hit by an attack made by a peasant.
The game would be totally different from most games but it would be certainly feasible. Hard to make and would require a physics engine made to create entities that react in realistic ways to attacks and have actual physical limitations in determined areas of the body simulating muscles and realistic reactions to different types of interactions with the environment.
This is obviously hard. But if made correctly could be like a fast paced mordhau with more options that go more for extremities and body control that only weapon control and physics that allow it to add things like weight or injuries. That's if you go for realism without taking too much of fantasy.
With a lot of fantasy making this at least for me would be easier. If the characters are enhanced by magic and have access to things like healing spells, etc... They could afford to take damage and you could make big scale battles without almost no limitations on size or power. Precise and realistic movements well made would allow to extreme levels of control for the player which when complemented with things like magic, etc... Could allow to make never seen before experiences while not making it unfair. I'm not speaking about limb to limb control in a regular basis but at least some degree of control over them individually would allow for epic things.
Then if you really want to give some big epic attacks use magic for that. What if there's a way to cannalise magic into an attack to make a giant and powerful slash that cuts through almost anything but for that the character is forced to movw with such strength thst he goes towards a big open attack that they cannot stop before finishing (at least not without the character not having enought strength to stop the sinetic energy) . Or there are gestures nessesaries for magic and only one way for each one forcing characters to make them in order to use spells making them vulnerable for intervals. That way magic and sword would make sense. Sword has what magic doesn't have it's safe fast and effective. But less potential for example.
Think of dark souls like combat with actual realistic movements for physical attacks. Then some degree of control of body stance, legs, and movement. Allow things like simple parkour even some wall running and things that maybe are a bit far fetched. And focus the controls on the character instead of the weapon. I would make it so the character has some kind of focus so that they can change fast between interactive and movement focused options and more combat focused ones.
If the caracters can magically heal form mosy wounds then it doesnt matter that they aren't able to react easily to all hits. I would simplify blocking or give it some degree of automatic responses to aid the player. Though requiring still effort by the player. More options could be though to make but msde well it could be a hit certainly I think it would be possible but very ambitious and not feasible for small group.
yes
rosure7 this comment is 2 years old
@AsianPlays Dude, why are you getting so mad? This guy just shared his disagreement in a respectful manner, and his argument even acknowledged that creating a more realistic game would be pretty difficult.
For historical or realistic games, I totally agree.
For fantasy games where the combatants use oversized weapons, throw magic around, and lingerie protects women as well as plate armor... well, realism is obviously compromised for the sake of stylistic choices, so... yeah.
Oh as an aside, I have a fondness for the shield-pin + stabbystabbystabbystabby. Relentless stabbings are just so... brutal.
malignor I disagree. Just because a story takes place in world where things like magic and super-strength exist does not mean you shouldn't make the story as realistic (within the context of that world) as possible.
TheGuileRaven Realistic fantasy world < Consistent fantasy world, imo.
The story can be as outrageous as possible - I just want to make sure the storyteller in question understands the nuances of his story and how prevalent these themes should be in his world, outrageous or not.
Let Us Consistent and realistic are inherently linked. Believability is all about context. Whether or not something is outrageous depends entirely on the rules of the setting. If the setting is made up, then the rules are too.
TheGuileRaven Exactly what I tried to say - however, I believe that realism is the insistence that the absolute rules that govern your universe must, above all else, mimic absolute rules that govern reality, instead of creating your own absolute rules and fabricating the context from there - which I usually prefer.
"The main purpose of the shield is to protect yourself"
Yes, by adding a passive blockchance and an armor bonus on heavier shields
I always thought the animation communicates to the player that according to the gameplay machenics you're vulnerable while attacking. If the shiled would be still in the front, the player would think the character is still protected.
+Gábor Koszper well that would be essentially be the case. but you can balance this by making injuries more realistic.
wounding an opponent slows them down. makes them lose their stances and such. the challenge simply shifts from smashing as much as possible to get a hp bar to 0 to strategically planned defense and attacks.
+zool201975 I don't understand. How would it make the fight more realistic and less about just bashing the enemy if the player won't even see if there's an opening in the defence?
Gábor Koszper
proper game designing is paramount.
there are multiple ways to do this. camera angles the correct way in third person for instance. this is ofcourse when realism is the goal. cant expect a medieval rts game to work by these mechanics. and in fps you already have essentially the same limitations as normal eyes. no one sees everything in fights. there comes in player skill where they need to learn motions of their opponents to read their attacks.
+zool201975 Or they could make a game where a player instantly sees who is guarded by their shield and who isn't and they could use that information instead of randomly bashing the enemy.
Gábor Koszper
well that is against the realism. even if you are blocking doesn't mean you are suddenly armored up. you simply protect yourself from attack coming from a specific direction.
Now we need a skyrim mod with these animations replaced.
Shinji72
Blocking sucks in Skyrim anyway
SamuFinland No its not u kill the ebony warrior easily if u have the right perks
you can kill the ebony warrior with a spoon ffs
Breath of the Wild could use also use that mod as well
Yo I was thinking about that
With a little animation experience I can tell you that most of what you explained which is correct goes against the grains of what good animation teaches you. The overlapping of action layers in your "safe" method is visually stiff and unappealing. Were I using a sword and shield I'd certainly take note of your points though. I think there is probably a solid balance between the two and hopefully people can find it to satisfy visually the concerns you rightfully have.
+Wiley
I know that animation has its own theory behind it, but I find it bizarre that somehow real movements are not good enough. Is our sense of what looks "right" so warped by media?
+Skallagrim
I Think it s just a matter of different "rights" for different purposes.
+Skallagrim I think some of the attacks in Soul Caliber 2 are a good balance, off the top of my head. Of course I'm talking about the lightweight charcters, not Nightmare the one swinging a big ass dragon-head shaped sword, but the characters like Link, Raphiel, Mitsurugi. They still have a few bad, flashy attacks, and I find those attacks are realisticly the harder attacks to make enemy contact with. Maybe you should look into it for a video?
+TheSilverWolf1998 I would argue that Nightmare's giant hunk of metal works for him though. His character is just a crazy killing suit of power armor that tries to butcher every opponent. He wouldn't really have much form to his attacks other than what he picked from Siegfried. With how strong he his, swinging a poorly balanced hunk of metal and flesh works for him also. If anything Siegfried should be looked at in a scrutinizing light with his choice of weapon size. I can understand maybe the extra length to it, but the bulk is ridiculous for a character like him.
Twinkle Toes
In Soul Calibur 2, which mr. Wolf for whatever reason specifically referred to, Siegfried and Nightmare are still one and the same, aren't they?
So Nightmare's breaking the laws of physics is a little more fishy than in the following games hehe.
But of course if you want to argue down that line of "it's not supposed to be realistic", you could say that his default weapon isn't a hunk of metal, but a living, evil thing, and might not be nearly as heavy and impractical as it looks.
How to shield:
1. Attach shield to foot
2. Sparta kick target off cliff
3. Eat danish bacon
You have to have an opening so that gameplay is fair and visually makes sense. If the shield was always covering the character, then player would question why they're being hit, so its a fair mechanic so that if the player missed the attack or does it at the wrong time, they'll be countered, instead of seeing the character get hit and say "well what the hell im holding the shield in front of me and im still getting hit?"
Yet that issue is still present in many games, hits which you should dodge, or parry according to animations, is often times hits anyway, as it is oftentimes a random algorithm of chance. Still I for one would not mind if it were more realistical, also because it will actually be somewhat informative then.
That is a nice gameplay explanation. Now for something from the animator POV. Wide arc animations with shields impose much more momentum and force, that being the whole point of it. Those animations are made especially with that in mind, not real life historical martial arts. Honestly, to an animator who is working on a semi medieval fantasy setting, realism is not important (unless it's specifically told us to focus on it), the "feel" of it is. It's what is taught to us, at least to me.
Erik Waters
You're propably right, but still it would be nice (at least in games whereby blocking does not come down to chance, but when you choose to block) that the shield mirrors something that would make sense, as otherwise it may very well break immersion to those that have a slight bit more understanding of how it works. Also it would inform those who don't know how it works, but yes I can imagine that most people would want something that looks forceful, heck I did, before I learned how swordplay and shield techniques are in reality.
op4000exe
Honestly, I myself try to make a nice balance between the two, but sometimes it's not our decision to make. We wipe up some demos, show them to the project leader or team leader and he makes a decision. I've been told numerous times to "make things flashier". We can push a certain vision, but in the end we are just "tools" for the "artistic minds". Animators mostly don't have control over what we animate.
Erik Waters
Obviously I was really refering to people who themselves are "in charge" of the game, I realise when there's a publisher for example, that they (propably people who don't know much of swordplay, as that is not their job), will demand a more weighty / meaty gameplay to entice the player x)
But I totally realise that you don't always have the option to make what you might want to make, or maybe the person doing the animation, just doesn't know any better, which too is a possibility, though I do know that with animation you usually study the source material quite detailedly.
The reason for animating that entire swing is to "sell" the weight of the blade and the power behind the cut. And, well, for gameplay purposes--there needs to be some risk to attacking, some opening created when swinging, to avoid a situation where the player can simply hide behind a shield and trivialize combat.
True, but a shield opponent could force the player to have to get around the enemy to strike them. Rather than wait for an opening... create an opening! Dodge around them and attack from the sides or back!
@@TheNorthlander This is true--you could have a mechanic similar to the Riot Cop's shield in Risk of Rain 1, where he becomes invulnerable in one direction, but must exit his shield stance to change directions. This works better in a 2D plane, like in RoR1, but the principle holds--reducing turn speed or requiring you to drop shield if you want to change directions is a good way to encourage other players to flank shield-users.
Bad excuse.
@@IncognitoActivado Realism isn't always prioritized over better game design, nor should it be. Keep things as realistic as you can without sacrificing gameplay, yes, but fun and real life aren't always the same things
@@TrixterTheFemboy Bad excuses are bad, dude.
This makes me so happy they added End Them Rightly as an execution in For Honor
Less movement = more realistic = stiff animation.
= Not interesting to watch
@@DelToDelete = no sales
@@chibamoon6410 = no money
Elijah Rivera = bankruptcy
@@overtimeseed = Pissed off boss
I think that game developers should focus more on medieval warfare,and try to make it as realistic as possible. There are just so many shooters nowadays,that melee fighting games are slowly becoming obsolete. To clarify: I am not talking about melee games like Tekken or Smash Bros (that have little to no weapons use),nor am i talking about games like Soul Calibur and Final Fantasy (which have weapons that are too unrealistic (but also fun :P). I am talking about realistic weapons,with realistic physics. It may sound boring,but it is up to the devs to make it interesting,with eccentric and intricate weapons design,as well as armor,and techniques.
Does assassins creed count?
Superbullseye Gamer
No, he said realistic ....
If you think it sounds boring I can guarantee you that video game devs also beleive it sounds boring. If you want a medieval fighting sim why not make one yourself and then it can be up to YOU to make it interesting, don't just say "here's my idea for a videogame its boring but devs can make it exciting". TL;DR don't force devs to do shit you think is boring
Realism is more exciting than fantasy, because truth is stranger than fiction. The youth of today have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise. Literally, just 'flash it up' with pretty colours to get their attention.
Pythonhare
You mean this sim? Mount & Blade: www.taleworlds.com/
there's a couple reasons. From a pure gameplay standpoint, animating it like that forces the player to give up the shield when they're attacking, meaning that every attack leaves them vulnerable. Same applies for enemies. From the player's side, that commitment brings out risk, because if the player misses, well... as you said, they're out in the open. Basically, a sitting duck waiting to be struck. From the enemies side however, it rewards the player for being able to react to an enemy's advance well by giving them a clear open window to deal damage.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, it sells how strong the cut is much easier, and looks more dynamic. General rule is that realism takes the backseat to spectacle.
One game that got it right was Borderlands 2 of all things. There's enemies who hold a large riot shield in front of them and it has just a little notch to the side so they can hold a gun out and shoot at you. They're actually quite a PITA to deal with. Gotta either flank them or knock them off balance to get past the shield.
Even more ironic when you find out that Borderlands and Borderlands 2 were made by Gearbox...yes, the same company that also worked on Duke Nukem Forever.
Travis Retriever shshshsh... the less we mention that abomination the less likely someone else is to want to replicate the failure...
***** To be fair like 90% of the crap in that game was leftover from 3D realms where they kept redoing the same game over and over again. Gearbox just cut off the bits they could, tied off everything else, and released it so it could be finished already. I wouldn't tie Gearbox into making that.
explosive weapons get through. damage is reduced but not by enough to let them win by attrition. also the syren's ability makes everything a joke :)
And then, there's Athena and her aspis.
As an amateur animator who knows decent enough theory, I can safely say that moving the shield back is for the purpose of emphasis. It emphasizes the power of the sword strike by moving the shield away from it. It also uses something called staging, drawing attention to the location of the strike, whereas otherwise the movement might look too subtle and no attention would be drawn to it. Moving the shield back isolates the strike and makes it easier to see.
So that's the basic theory on why animators do that. I'm sure a compromise could be found, but this works for non-HEMA enthusiasts.
depending on the game, the player needs to clearly see the shield opening. it is MUCH harder to animate the shield moving around at the front. if above does not apply, soemtimes the shield is just snapped to the hand, and the regular animation moves the arm away, then the sheld gets moved away automaticly
a press x to do this can break a players immerssion immensely. in animation you REALLY exxagerate a lot for stuff to be clear. now there will be games that do it better than others, but not all games will be able to pull these advanced shield animations off.
There's also a matter of clipping. They could be trying to avoid the weapon clipping through the shield.
YOU FACE CURAXU!!!
***** Another Ragican on another part of the internet? O.o How can this be?
***** Oh-oh-oooh?
But how will you look heroic without putting the shield behind you?
+CHRISTIANNWO Heroes can only get where they do through caution.
Just bring a sword to a gun fight, like that one guy during WW2
@@thejedisonic67 dont you mean a sword to a gun fight
@@lillburtlonk3721 thanks
Kinda late, but let me write my POV.
As an animator, there are some things you have to keep in mind, like exaggeration and silhouette to give the best reading possible. If it's an action scene, you must make it in a way the public will understand in a matter of seconds what's happening.
Ok, what you taught us is the realistic way of doing things, but seeing it with an animator's eyes, the silhouette is terrible and every attack you did looked weak. The public will see an attack like that and think "what happened? Did he poke the guy?"
If you make short attacks, it won't look as powerful and the public won't see it as a big hit. The way you flourished and made a stronger attack also has a pretty terrible silhouette, it might have a bigger impact in real life, but in an action scene, this won't look like anything else than a sword making a weird turn.
Just keep in mind what's easier to understand, that big ridiculous hit throwing the shield all the way back or that short attack you did?
Also, with those stances and movements, you don't have the freedom to do artistically eye catching things, like a simple effective smear.
But everything depends on the focus of the production. If it tries a realistic approach, then they must do it as realistic as possible. Although you have to keep in mind it will never be really realistic, because games, movies, series, cartoons depend on a media that shape the way things are done.
+Paulo Henrique Rodrigues
I understand that, but I have seen realistic animations done well. The way the character uses the shield and spear in Dark Souls for instance is pretty much perfect, and it seems to be just fine artistically.
+Skallagrim Thing is spears in that game have the very specific advantage that you can attack while blocking. In most games and indeed even with most weapons in dark souls you are supposed to be vulnerable during your own attack animation. If they animated it in a way that looked like you were still protected but you in fact weren't this would be very confusing.
+Jamie Phipps in of the attitude, "tough tits" when playing hero... either you know what you're doing or you don't.
i know makers produce games for a mass market, (aka people who wouldn't know why a Norse man in 3000bc Italy is wrong, or glass windows in medieval games....)
i for one actually loose my sense of suspended disbelief with most of these games because of something silly like how an avatar moves, water being as lethal as lava, or, strange attack styles usually fancy looking but would result in being hacked to pieces.
ezio would have been killed by a person punching in a flinching response and impaling him with one of the many concealed weapons. (standard)
300, would have simply squashed with 0 effort from the combined forward march of 900 let alone thousands.
and the shield was one of the most effective weapons on a battlefield of its day, you lost a sword and started smashing heads with your shield.
a shield was more important than the primary weapon (rarely a sword but i wont get into that)
+Paulo Henrique Rodrigues This is why we can't have nice things. If you make realistic medieval rpgs then try to make the combat as realistic as possible, unless it's just a fantasy game then do whatever, plate armor boobs too.
Gamers would praise it and love it. Why can't game devs ever understand what gamers want?
+Jamie Phipps in dark souls, unless the person is actively blocking, i.e just holding the shield at the side; it wont actually block damage. it might be a little confusing at first, but the game gives you clear instructions to "hold x key to block" and i think most if not all players catch on very quickly.
Nice video.
But as game developer, I can say, why no one really cares (except for realistic fight games): player needs show. He don't want to watch this boring movements, he wants really cool action, just like many games does. I hope, this will change in future, because I find real techniques very impressive and beautiful.
Btw, thank you for your explanation and showing movement details. One day I'll make stuff like that c:
P. S. I saw uploading date only after I publish this. Sorry for that
Ive seen many players say they do want this, in fact, I imagine people are getting bored with standard unrealistic fantasy. Its a typical response to an oversaturated genre.
Meh, combining quick thrusts while keeping cover can be very elegant and beautiful, it's really only suffers from not looking very powerful to some people.
I can't speak for Rome but the reason most video games do that is for mechanics purposes. In most games you cannot swing your weapon and hold your shield up at the same time. This is to create a sense of defense and offense. If you want to deal damage you must leave yourself exposed. Also making certain attacks animate a certain way help with combat variety.
I feel they make these exaggerated movements for a sense of style than one of realism. To most people it looks a lot 'cooler' having flashier and riskier moves than someone who hides behind a shield for 95% of the battle. Not saying it's realistic. Just saying it looks more interesting.
Another good point I saw in the comments is that it makes better game design for your character to feel protected when using the shield but vulnerable when attacking.
I get what you're saying Skallagrim, but for gameplay reason it wouldn't make sense. First it isn't really easier to make a dumb-looking non-realistic movement of the shield or a more realistic, slighty animated/static. Second, for gameplay reason you rarely are blocking while swinging a sword in games, that's why the shield MUST look out of the way. There are _very niche_ games that the shield keeps its hitbox/blocking ability when attacking, but it is very rare.
I just realized that the sentinels in Dark Souls are the only video game characters I've seen in which their shields constantly work. Unless you count Smough with his hammer. I could mention jackals from the Halo games, but their shields never move.
Its because in a video game "clarity" is more important than realism.
You just read a comment of the game designer stop trying to act cool
I'm on the Game Development program at George Brown College, Toronto, and I just would like to let you know that the information you provide in your channel is *invaluable*. I know you have a very extensive library of videos, and that is fantastic, I plan to systematically analyze your content and I am very thank full for your work here, know that it is not falling into deaf ears by any means! Sometimes, though, we don't have as much liberty to do what we should, and we must do what other people insist, other times we end up doing silly things because of the context, like designing 800 different magical swords... eventually you run out of ideas and end up with something stupid and... yeah... the crystal floats in place on the hollow blade due to... magic... sigh... sorry. But honestly, the advises you give will make a difference. Thank you once again.
Tell me how that ass taste
@@shmeeps9605 *visible confusion*
Are you saying fictional, impractical sword designs shouldn't be in video games?
The whole point of games is to be able to do things that you can't in real life. Brashly cutting scores of enemies down with a hollow-blade sword that has a magical crystal in it is just one of the wonderful things you'll never get to do in real life. Please, don't forsake ideas of fantasy because it "doesn't make any sense" or "isn't historically accurate". If that's all you care about, your games are going to be dry and underwhelming.
Someone should probably relay that to Skallagrim too. I enjoy his videos, but sometimes he dissects things that really don't need it.
@@chrisseger2346 I mean, I believe it feels better when it's plausible than when the devs have no idea of what medieval/renaissance combat looks like, and do things that makes no sense at all in design and movement. You can have believable fantasy weapon that makes sense and look good it's not hard, but when it's over the top borderline unusable, I find it boring, like they tried too much on it.
@@chrisseger2346 and please don't see only what you wanna see, if realistic games are dry and underwhelming tell me why so many people play Arma and Kingdom Come. I mean come on.
This is Thrand!!! Well done! I agree the character animations normally do not make people who understand proper fighting mechanics feel they represent reality and kind of insult their intelligence. Those poor fight animations also can make them less enjoyable to people who know better and not allow them to immerse them selves in the game as other do. I normally assume it just means people working on the game care more about Hollywood and stage play type theatrics and have no clue of real combat or fight mechanics them selves.
The purpose for this type of attack is balance. Mostly games wants force you to make a choice: attack or protect. When you attack you deal damage, but also expose yourself to the enemy, and when you protect yourself, take less damage but does none (or less damage). Batman Arkham is a different style of game mechanics, they throw a bunch of enemies with large weapons and make all of they attack in the same time, so if game don't be fluid you are fucked up, while in other games, like Skyrim, you fight enemies in 1v1 or 1v2, you have powers, and they need to do de same decision that you make: with they attack they expose themselves, but if they use some protection, they will cause less damage. And off course, if you can do that, the game will probably became slower and, at some time, boring, because you don't have the same fell while you're practicing sword fighting and playing a game with swords.
Victor Reis Sobreira I don't know exactly what you pointed there, but how i'm kind of learning this language I think it was something of grammatical nature, if it was, I will be gadly if you tell me :)
And Batman is more focused on stealth attacks, and that stuff, but if you go rigth to them, open battle, they will react in a proper way than other games do. They shoot you at the same time, attack together, in some "derp" ways, but still something.
In Assassin's Creed, they just come 1v1, and sometimes, shoot their friends. I think that you can't make a game that is really fun and reallistic.
But don't get it wrong, realism don't means that the game will be boring, but makes the game slower, that's why there is no Hack'n Slash game reallistic, or aprocimated to it.
Victor Reis Sobreira
Farcry isn't that realistic, actually there is a bunch of non-sense in it. And I don't say that Batman and AC are Hack'n Slash, I just said that realism make the game slower, and thats why there is no realistic (or barely realistic) Hack'n Slash, it's because this type of game must be fast.
AC and Batman wants to be more stealth and change from slow to fast action. But if you use only realistic movements to them, they would be too slow and msot of thing would be impossible (like taking the gun from one guy, using him as a shield and making everybody shoots him instead of you).
The most realistic sword figthing game that I've played is Chivalary, and if you compare no any figthing game, Chivalary is slow as hell, but it doesn't means that is boring, the game type kind of "supports" it.
But take this type of style and put in like, Skyrim, try to make a hole dungeon whit pure realistic combat, would be 1/2 hours to complete, and, at some point, would get boring.
GGWP Yes, but the gameplay mechanic is independent of the animations. Normally if you hold the block key or button when hit, you're fine. It will always be an abstraction and simplification compared to real-life combat, but you might as well make the animations look better.
***** then its about showing the state the character is in, attack or defence. if the difference in the charactes overall appearance or "silhouette" was as slight as the examples you have shown most players would have difficulty knowing when to block or attack and most likely not even appreciate the subtlety of the system.
***** I like these vids where you talk about game mechanics. They're useful. I suggest a few different camera angles though. Your archery vids had a 3rd person perspective, which was cool. It would also be awesome to see such things from a 1st person perspective.
I mean, take archery. I'm too unco-ordinated to shoot a bow, and don't even own one. On the other hand, archery sounds like a cool game to write. The problem is, I really don't know how it should look when you're doing it correctly. I mean, does my eye sit directly behind the arrow when it rests in the bow, or is your POV slightly off-center? How much of your vision is obscured by the arm holding the bow? The same applies to sword-play, and your shield obscuring your view.
Anyway, it's just a thought. I dunno if other people feel this is necessary.
(I also sometimes wonder if you know much about celtic mythology. You seem like you might, and I'd be interested in vids about that. I hope that doesn't sound all racial. I'm celtic-based so I'm allowed to say it?)
Keep up the good work! I'm sure I'll keep watching regardless of what you do :)
“Who cares, it’s just for demonstration.”
Yeah, that’s why video games do this, too.
What? Video games aren't trying to show a demonstration, they are trying to simulate an experience. Using the wrong type of shield with your sword doesn't take away from a demonstration of movement, but using the wrong movement DEFINITELY takes away from a simulation of an experience.
@@KingOfDarknessAndEvil yeah. They damage the experience for people that actually care about that part of it. If they went for things like realism somr characters would be doing some crazy stuff outside of cutscenes on player demand allowing players to feel more like the character they are playing.
@@KingOfDarknessAndEvil it depends on the type of game, in a fantasy action game things need to look flashy and cool not correct.
I think that in most games, the attack animation is the same with or without a shield. If you have a shield equipped, it's just put in as a visual during the attack and your shield arm moves like it would with nothing equipped.
I wouldn't be surprised at that. From a development standpoint, it saves time that can be allocated to other resources.
A lot of action oriented games with shields though, you usually have to purposefully use the shield too, so if you aren't actively using it, it's going to use the default animation. So it really only saves time depending on the game. An RPG probably is going to just reuse the animation like you said because it doesn't actually impact game play like in an action game.
Ceryk at least from what I've seen, bathesda's work on oblivion, and wind waker from nintedo, both of those games have the character use the same animations with or without their shield. it's just blocking in oblivion without your shield equipped has you block with the sword (or other one handed weapon.)
Also it's worth pointing out that in such video games where use of a shield is encouraged, it is usually only meant to defend against those ridiculously over-telegraphed power-attacks or a volley of enemy projectiles, & in close quarters the player is instead encouraged to use stealth, dodge, counter, or just get the heck out of there.As such, needing to keep one's guard up after a successful block or attack tends to take a back seat (usually to those dodge, stealth, & counter animations I mentioned earlier).
Quidgo
Unfortunately when they do do that, it because they have a limited time budget they can dedicate to things since they have to constantly meet milestone deadlines or the game is likely to get cancelled.
And mocap already requires clean up and modification to get it game ready. Believe finer details, such as hands and faces, they still have to animate by hand as well, because most mocap systems don't pick that stuff up at the range they usually mocap at. There may be newer mocap systems that are better and require less clean up, but even if there is, most companies take awhile to adapt new tech.
Not to mention, if it's mocapped and it's not part of the original animation, you're not going to be spending 30 minutes working on it. You need to rent or hire the mocap studio again and get the mocap actor back in to redo the mocap for the new animation and that all costs money. Unless there's a lot of stuff that's going to be redone, most companies aren't going to do that.
Yes, but the funny thing is, even with an empty hand that kind of movement is still wrong. Throwing the arm backwards really only makes sense when performing a lunge, as in rapier fencing.
the purpose of using a shield in video games is +50 def
(can boost more or give special effect depend on quality/rarity)
except for the games where they just increase block/dodge/evasion chance.
Nyeh heh heh!
You'd make one terrifying Legend of Zelda mini-boss fighting like that!
Link is doing his stupid spin-attacks and jumping blows, and you're just poking his eyes out, slashing his fingers off, blocking all of his Hollywood Dojo martial-arts with your shield, and begging him to stop mucking about and actually take you seriously.
_We would die over and over and over again!_
*****
I saw mini because Skall is not a giant dragon.
He's like the Iron Knuckle, except fifty-thousand times worse.
+Red Dragon Pshh, you just disarm his shield with the hookshot and the fight is even
*****
And by that you mean latch on and get yanked right into his blade.
Because wooden objects are apparently fixed in space-time in Hyrule.
Game-Mechanics.
If we assume it could disarm Skall in reality, we should also take into consideration all the other issues of the hookshot, like broken hands upon pulling the trigger, and having all of your organs rearranged if it pulls you along, other things a hookshot could do in reality.
Yup.
+Red Dragon The fight goes differently depending on which world the fight goes on in. In the Zelda universe, physics don't seem to need to make sense :P
+Red Dragon The Stalfos in LoZ: OoT are pretty conservative in their movements. The only reason they expose themselves as much as they do while fighting is to give the player an opportunity to counter ( n64 couldn't really handle dynamic fighting in LoZ) :)
This is adorable. Very informative and interesting to watch. This reminds me of all those days analyzing things about games and movies that aren't right and should be a different way. You put it into fun and entertaining words and actions
The reason animators usually do this is because it makes the movement more clear and ‘punchy’ to look at - important for animation since you want to know what’s going on at a glance.
I am working on an MMO right now, nothing big, looking to to have no more than around 30 people on at any given time, and if need be I will purchase servers, but enough about that. The point is, I am trying to make the game realistic in the sense of not including hundred pound slabs of steel tied to a small branch, but instead fancy looking PRACTICAL swords that give off the illusion of fantasy, but don't look completely ridiculous. After watching some of your videos, I have gained a much better understanding of swords, knives, and the such, and how they should look, work, etc.
This may also sound a bit odd, but could I make an NPC based off of you as a blacksmith or something?
That idea is fucking awesome.
Nemas Aliakhbar lol expect it in like 10 years, just me and some buddies working on it
Charles C But you HAVE to implement him either, as you said, a blacksmith, or a Trainer.
Oh definitely
Charles C Contact me when its done. I'll definitely play
You could argue if you shield pash your opponent you would probably go for that swing. Shield bash and swing your blade so hard you do half a twirl. The shield would knock your enemy out of position to retaliate
Unless they see it coming and brace for it, or are already braced in some fashion.
One issue I actually see in Hollywood and video games very frequently is that people always seem to not move their shields, as you state in the second half or so of the video, but they also hold their Shields too close. Because if you have your shield right next to or over your head but some big fighter comes at you with a halberd, mace, hammer, or really anything heavy and strikes your shield, all that energy will still be transferred directly into you and hurt you, as opposed to holding your shield farther from you and letting the energy disperse throughout your stance.
What's realistic isn't always what's best for gameplay. Many games have an attack/defense tradeoff (for gameplay reasons) and this kind of animation makes what's happening more clear to the player. The public that actually wants realistic/accurate combat is very niche.
Nasst How is throwing the shield aside beneficial to gameplay? I'm pretty sure players can see that the opponent is attacking, even without that.
***** It's not about the opponent, it's about stressing the fact that you're vulnerable while you're attacking.
Nasst i highly doubt its about showing that you're vulnerable. since using the shield shows you already know that. it most likely for the uneducated animators that think you have to do a over powered hit to kill. a swords will cut very good without having to put everything you got.
Tyler Lalonde It's definitely about the vulnerability. If the character always had their shield up, and you got hit while not blocking, you'd probably be wondering why you took damage, even though your shield is at the ready.
Nasst
Exactly, it's also (in MMO's at least) about telegraphing. Players need to have certain visual cues to recognize enemy types. Lots of armor=Knight/Paladin, robes=mage/healer, leather=rogue/archer, etc. And a good way to tell a player "Hey, this is a tank" is to give them a shield. Even if in the game you can't actively use it, it still has the purpose of telling others what your class is.
You should try out Dragon's Dogma. While it's FAR from perfect, some of the Fighter-class - the class that uses swords and shields without the aid of magic- moves is to keep their shield raised, and jab or slash from behind it, never leaving themselves too exposed. Aaaannd then the Warrior class throws logic out the window by literally spending five to ten seconds telegraphing their next attack by raising their giant swords over their heads while they charge up their strike. Like I said, FAR from perfect, but it's still really good.
"I don't get why they do this"
-animation wise: swinging the shield back makes the move look way more powerful, smooth, and just better looking than having your character standing still like a statue and awkwardly swinging his right arm
Gameplay wise: you have to break your defense to attack, and if your character/weapon has a move that allows you to attack and defend at the same time you'll have to pay it back somewhere else (speed, range, power, ressource,...)
But purpose of having shield is to protect during attacking as much as is possible
@@ruster2230 in real life, yes. In a game of any kind, it can have other functions. Games have rules, and shields can fit into those rules according to what the game designers want. Most video games with shields make their use rather limited.
@@jankbunky4279 why? Using shields has some realistic disadvantages so why they don't implement them instead of something lacking logic, historical accuracy and common sense?
Ruster XXX
Here’s the issue game designers have to make many options equally viable. If a game that features medieval weapons and armor was entirely realistic then the best option for 90% of infantry combat situations would be full Plate Armor with a spear and shield.
That would be the most powerful option for infantry Melee combat by a country mile, so much so that all the other options available might as well not exist. This is known as poor game balance.
In short because games have to be balanced they can’t be realistic, because real life is not balanced.
@@Kingdomkey123678 Not really there are games that go the with the "infantry: heavy armout (usually not plate though due to region are time), spear and shield. but achieve balance with cavalry, archers, musketiers, etc.
Of course they could decide the weapons on other factors, when facing cavalry you really would want a pike or other type of infantry lance rather than a spear, while in the woods or other limited terrain you really would like some shorter sidearm to go with your spear.
Putting the shield behind your back when you strike is essential, if you've played Mordhau you'd know that in every single skirmish and battle ever theres always one dude with a greatsword killing his teammates. I believe this is hotoricul accurite
you forgotten the leather straps to hold you'd forarm in.
your *
No, there were no leather straps on centergrip shields like this, it's a different type.
I read something that said that a viking round-shield was designed so the user could quickly pick it up and use it without worrying about whether it was upside-down or what have you. Is this accurate?
nope
It allows the user freedom of movement about the shield. There was a video by a Danish historian demonstrating the use of it to a class outside and showing how many options being able to pivot around their shield or allow it to pivot left or right to reposition around an opponent to get an axe strike in. Skallagrim even shows how that could work here when he brings the shield around to parry strikes from other directions without moving.
Real combat is pragmatic, and pragmatic, minimalistic movements aren't as exciting to watch.
Sorry Skall, you probably won't get your way with this one. Part of looking badass is taking stupid risks and getting away with it unscathed. Most animators and especially mo-cap artists are aware that what they're doing is silly, but damn if it doesn't look cool.
They are exciting to watch. Publishers don't think so though, and they've told you not to think so, and they run the industry. If you watch real sport fighting, it can be pretty exciting, especially if you were involved in direct control of the combatants.
As an animator I disagree. I also found it rather silly the approach with shields.
Someone should draw a bunch of horribly injured anime characters that thought the rules of anime applied to a more realistic setting. It'd be hilarious.
Zeke Freek That is just you not appreciating rational thought. I don't feel badass if my character is deficient
*****
This has been done before in Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, where the lightsaber does defend against enemy attack if it lands on the opponent's lightsaber. Doing it with shield and sword is not much different.
The shield in front isn't a perfect defense as there are actually many techniques to bypass it in historical texts, including shield-intensive Viking combat. Some moves betray a small opening to the enemy, who has a small window to exploit it.
"From the wrist" windup is still too small....
I know, you're analysing from realism standpoint.
I am going to counter-analyze from game mechanics and visual design standpoint. Just for the fun and interest, just like you're making these videos :)
Most games that this is relevant for are 3rd person action, where your character is max. 1/3rd of the screen wide and 1/2 to 1/3 tall. Also usually viewed from behind, or from random angle.
Which means wrist animation is like 1/50th of screenspace, not enough to be caught by peripheral vision. and you need your attack animations, for the protagonist and for everyone else, to be so clear in the silhouette they will be recognizable even by peripheral vision.
Which means you need large movements of large screen areas. You need shoulders to do a distinctive move for the player to see the attack on his character when looking at it from behind, you need wildly flailing hands to significantly change the silhouette from any angle, and to clearly speak about which attack it is. So the more of the body moves in the attack, hit, dodge, block, whatever, the better. So animators "imagine" an "every attack gets the whole body and balance point into the force" and go from there, thus the flailing.
Even the "compromise" adjustments you suggest (except "think of better work with the shield", that one IMO is still doable fully game-like and sensible at the same time) would make a game unplayable. Like, you would be shocked how IN YO FACE animations need to be for people to notice and feel good... :-D
I'm a gamedev and I was. And still am, still takes some time and forcing when I animate to EXAGERRATE EVERYFUCKINGTHINGSOMUCH, but if you do it any other way, the final product looks dry and cheap and... bad.
Still, thanks for all these videos. You have no idea how much material and inspiration you gave me for one game I'm planning, that wants to do sword combat... a bit differently from status quo or even most of the experiments. Your, and scholagladiatoria's, and sometimes Lindybeige's videos were and still are a totally priceless contribution to its design :)
Static vs fluid animations: the framework people use when devving is already there and u necessarily use the one that enables complex blending and fluid animations, it's just whether you choose to use it or not. Also, in this case, it is many times easier to make realistic combat fluid, because the blendings of what animates when and how are simpler, as attack would move just hand, and influence other parts of body very little, same with all the other animations, so combining them to one fluid complex movement would be much easier, than combining even three whole-body animations in a way that makes sense (although it is a relatively common practice, in some use-cases).
heck in animation you have to literally squash and stretch a character for their motion to look good.
doombybbr ...okay, why is it a response to my comment?
Also, you don't have to, that's just one approach. You won't see Mass Effect or Call of Duty (for example, among thousands of others) using it ;)
MidnightSt my point is that exaggeration is very common.
doombybbr yes, I agree, which is the reason why I made the exact same point, among many others, in my original post to which you replied ;)
Which is precisely why I asked what was the point of your comment, especially in the context of it being reply to mine ;)
MidnightSt I didn't see a comment on squash and stretch in there.
Many game designers know about practical use of swords and shields, as a game designers job is to do this kind of research. However it's difficult to add realistic fighting mechanics in games without it becoming frustrating for players.
I think the reason a shield is moved out of the way during an attack is to add a bit more challenge, you can be hit quite effectively while attacking, particularly in PVP situations. This means the player has to focus on timing a lot more.
One of the reason I think it is this way is that there have to be balanced mechanics that can work when you're controlling your character with a limited interface. If you could attack and block at the same time that would be kinda OP since virtual fighting can't yet be as complex as RL fighting, so instead the idea is that you have to time when to attack and when to block. Video game combat can't really be as fast and sporadic as RL combat, becasue you cant controll the character with the same ease speed and reflexes as you can controll yourself, which is why attacks in games are often slower than IRL. Thats another reason why characters make these huge swings at eachother instead of agile jabbs, if the attacks have to be slow for the game to be playable they have to at least look dramatic.
Exactly my thoughts. Since games don't rely on physics of momentum and muscle there usually is no way to attack past a shield in blocking except attacking other body parts perhaps, or in some games the shields have limited durability and break. So then you have to expose yourself when attacking instead of being invulnerable all the time.
Demon's Souls and Dark Souls allow for simultaneous attack and defense while wielding a shield and spear,but those games have to compensate by limiting strafing movements to slow sidling and dodge rolls to prevent either the player or enemies from having defense so effective that any random encounter either is drug out indefinitely or is horribly one sided in favor of the one with the better shield and weapon combo.
The use of shields in other games is mostly for balance or style or both,as others have pointed out.
In old 2-D games,it was worse since it would make an enemy's defense nigh impregnable when there is no Z-axis to maneuver along to get around their cover and when the player uses a shield,it would force a limitation on the player such as a quickly breakable shield,chip damage through blocks or a small hit box for the shield or one hit death when hit with one's shield down.
He knows about the souls series very well.
Skal already did a video about dark souls combat
I'm a video game dev in practice rn and I'm making an FPS/3rd person game with a lot of Germanic inspirations, including the shields and swords. I was curious at finding unique and accurate attack/defends animations and this helps a lot! Thanks!
As a game designer myself, I liken the terrible swordplay of characters to professional wrestling. Of course the over-the-top grapples and throws would be trounced by an actual wrestler, or an actual martial artist, but because it is for entertainment purposes. If it were actually a fight, the crazy suplexes and top rope jumps would be an incredibly unnecessary risk.
Real swordplay is a lot of analysis and not a lot of action. The bouts I've seen between Skall and his young woman assistant (whose name I am a terrible person for forgetting) is 30 seconds of feints and watching for openings, and 3 seconds of actual attacking. While this may be exciting to experience, building 40-60 hours games around it is uninteresting to watch and mentally taxing to those who play.
That being said, with motion capture what it is, I'm hopeful that someday soon we will have sword games that can actually be true to the style. A mo-cap sword game with an oculus rift 1st person perspective would be a welcome addition to the gaming community.
Metrion77 The thing is, games cannot and should not be 100% realistic. But they don't have to be 100% bogus either. The gameplay mechanics can remain largely the same while the animations are just a little more plausible.
***** Some games, like dark souls, have more believable combat because their selling point is the high difficulty and (vaguely) realistic gameplay. And I agree that Rise, Son of Rome, should have definitely have had that, being a "historical" military gameplay.
The issue comes down to something central to all entertainment: Interesting vs Believable. In games, "boring" is a kiss of death, while "impossible" can actually be a selling point. And humans tend to consider excessive as interesting. The haymaker KOs in boxing, the backboard-breaking slam dunks, the top rope elbow drops. And in games, cloud's buster sword, the excessive spikes on Skyrim's daedric gear, and the over-the-top guns in shooting games.
That being said, I very much enjoy your series pointing out the shortcomings of fantasy combat in games, because we do need more dark souls and less final fantasys.
Metrion77
I don't mean to but in. However, in the last few years of gaming we have seen genres that people said were dead come back to life making a profit (turn based strategy in XCom for example) and design decisions that the industry stated would not sell become massively popular (see what Demons Souls had to go through in order to get a publisher). Back in the day there where games like Bushido Blade where I have seen two opponents circle each other for a long time before either of them dared to attack since almost any hit could kill. Perhaps this other piece of industry wisdom about avoiding realism with shields/armor is another thing that we could safely toss into the bin. I personally would love to be playing a game and realize that some grunt is actually incredibly scary because it is wearing armor, and I cannot just hack though it. Maybe by using a system like MGS:Revengence but for accurately targeting small holes in defense instead of wildly flailing.
ADADEL1
I've been wondering why there haven't been more games like Bushido Blade too. I think that even small, there is a public for more realistic combat games. Still, unrealistic weapon use in many games that don't pretend to be realistic doesn't bother me much. Ryse is an interesting case because it's supposed to stick to an historical setting.
Metrion77 pretty much hit the nail on the head. Moreover, the reason for the exaggeration in animation goes way back to the principles of animation and drawing in general. Specifically, strong posing. As a rule, you typically want to have your characters drawn in/strike extreme poses. Animators typically want a strong line of action in action poses to portray that the character (and by association, the player) is resolute in his actions and knows what he's doing. As annoying as it is to see characters over-extend themselves in animations, it is a necessary evil to ensure that they do not seem stiff, and it is a relatively easy way to beat the uncanny valley from an animation/drawing perspective. Yes. The uncanny valley does exist in animation. Need an example? Look at Snow White (the old disney film). The standard human characters in Snow White were rotoscoped (this means that the animators basically traced over captured footage from actors on film footage). Notice how there's something a little off about the movements of Snow White and Prince Charming. Compare them to the dwarves, which were animated without rotoscoping, and you will clearly see that the dwarves are more lifelike and lively. That you can notice the "off-ness" of Snow White and Prince Charming when they move is an example of the uncanny valley in animation. The closer it gets to being realistically correct, the less genuine and generally off-putting it becomes to human perception.
The examples provided, while practical and realistic, would look hella boring onscreen and lack visual impact - even/especially with the wrist flourish. Between the button press, the frames it would take to display the motion and the result of the action taken, the visual feedback would just feel off. It would be correct, but it wouldn't FEEL right to the player. It is for this reason that a lot of mo-capped data is exaggerated upon during the cleaning process.
Though, that does bring up an interesting question. If a game uses mo-cap, but the animators exaggerate the final result, should the motion capture be part of the marketing or not? If people who look for realism get disappointed upon discovery that there is some exaggeration in the product they purchased; and people who don't look for realism in their products don't care either way, is there any benefit to putting that onto a bulletpoint on the back of the box or mentioning it in an interview?
Fun fact.
Its because the animators are trying to make it look entertaining. Sure it is less work for us to keep the shield arm there, but its not as exciting to a player / viewer, and in a discipline where theres a lot of emphasis on exaggerated movement, we often want to throw the characters weight around more.
It's not exciting though.
Well obviously because It's blocking your view, people dont want to stare at a shield the whole game. Its supposed to look cool and make you feel like a god-tier warrior lol
That's what I was thinking. Animation is not supposed to be realistic. One of the principles is exaggeration. And to get clear silhouettes you need to animate it that way. If you look at dark souls, when you equip a spear and a shield you can actually attack while protecting yourself. But that attack animation looks the weakest of all.
If you go too realistic in your animation, then it defeats the whole purpose and you might as well just do it in live action.
Not actually, you're just being ignorant lol
Btw HE KNOWS it's just a video game
Ja moin :D
Wann kommt mal wieder Fnaf ? ;)
It doesn’t look cool. It looks ridiculous...
"Impossible to protect all the body at once"
*puts on juggernaut suit
Despite the guys who want to make their animations look cool (if not realistic), I tend to embrace realism since I know exaggeration and increasing badassery to sacrifice realism are starting to become rather cliche.
It’s for the purpose of gameplay, by exaggerating this motion it clearly shows to the player what the character is doing; when comparing games and reality it’s important to realize that the character is about the size of somebody pretty far away in the eyes of the viewer.
*****
It's not actually less work. it is a heck of a lot more work. Shields moving in an unrealistic way are due to letting them be articulated with the movement of the hip, in the way the program wants to articulate them. Locking them in place (not articulating them automatically) would cause mesh deformation and tearing. So, you have to animate parts that are not the focus of the animation, in addition to what is the focus, in order to keep that from happening. Which is a lot more steps of translation and rotation per bone per frame, that the animator has to do manually. Or basically, double the work of just letting it do what it wants with some minor tweaks to make it look cool.
Here is a link to Slat: sourceforge.net/projects/free-bvh-editor/
That is one of the most basic .bvh animators out there (which is also free). Go through the tutorial and play around with it a bit. And, you will see what I mean.
There is a solution though. Mocap (motion Capture). Mocap can be really expensive to do yourself though. Unless you do it something like this: freemocap.com/
Which still requires that you have a Kinect.
I had actually been thinking some time ago about a system of manual animation based of still posed key frame image guides. Something that wouldn't take as much work out of it as mocap does. But, would help a lot by eliminating a lot of the need to think about how things should look.
The kind of things that would be needed are Black tightly fitted clothing. Black muslin backdrop. White plastic bands tied around the major joints (plumbers tape might work). White floor markers (so the end pose always returns to the original footing. And, for camera stand positions). The subject poses. And, several pictures are taken. They move into the next key frame position and this is repeated. (front, back, both sides and if at all possible top and bottom). The images for each key frame are arranged into image guide plates. These can then be imported as image planes to show an animator where to translate joints and how to rotate them for each key frame (it's actually really easy to mesh extrude, model, and position against an image plane). In a program like blender. The blanks would be automatically filled in. Export to .bvh and you have pseudo-mocap animation at far less monetary cost.
***** I see... that is something I was not aware of. So I guess it's a case where the constraints of the medium dictate design quite a bit.
*****
mmmm...not so much the constraints of the medium (not stand alone anyways, but that is a part of it). Even though it's more work. Many would do it happily for a better result. But developers often work under publishers (even in crowd funding and self publishing...they still technically work for their audience).
And, with that comes an expectancy of getting content out in a timely manner. Which is a good thing. Because, left to their own devices content developers would (especially when working in a team) rarely get anything actually done.
It's mostly a time management thing. Look at the history of the Fable series from Lionhead studios. It's one big fail on time management. And each game after lost chapters was a disappointment (I recall many felt lost chapters itself was a rip off because it was a re-release with content they didn't finish putting in for Fable). But, each game put out did better then the last. Because, ultimately. they knew when to just push ahead (they were also really good about glossing over initial outrage with DLC promises).
Do you mean a game that uses a lot of sprites (which the original AoE as a 2D Isometric projection game does)?
I understand, frame-by-frame animation is more kind to realism but also more work intensive. Rigging models is always an approximation of frame-by-frame on-model drawings.
*****
Stripe based? As in frame-by-frame?
From a game design perspective, the shield movement is part of conveying what is going on screen, while incorrect, its very clear and easy to read what's going on with an exaggerated animation
"It's impossible to protect all of the body at once" - Skallagrim
"AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA" - Every armored tank soldier ever
All kidding aside great video as always.
You have the joint gaps.
I understand what irritates you but what you must realize is that overall the big unreal swings are mostly to differentiate from other moves so player can tell what kind of move is going to happen. I mean it would not even look good on the screen. also player needs more time to react to an attack and the long wind up gives them time to make a correct response. And lastly most important thing.. Its for the looks man. Most people do not even realize how much of a bullshit these fighting techniques are until we see informative videos like this and I still prefer these made up unskilled moves because of all the reasons above. I think this will be a thing in some strategy or medieval fighting simulator but very unlikely in Action fighting tittle game where it is most about being AWESOME. Anyway thank you for your info on how to strike from behind the shield. PS: I like the part where you tumble the shield over your hand to get cover from the right.
Unfortunately, the Rule of Cool in video games dictates maximum arm flailing during melee combat.
Rules of Cool can change. If the animators were to be better versed in combat, they could make really cool scenes without the need of cartoon antics. Besides, like in a movie or a cage match, watching a good fight is all about the distance and the angle where the spectator is located.
It's so cool that I'm flailin' my arms brah.
Rule of Cool is somewhat a necessity. If it didn't exist then your lifebar would only allow for three light hits, you wouldn't be able to run in certain armor, etc.
The whole sense of this is exactly to open the defense both for players and npc, so you can land a hit in this single moment, its all about timing and visual feedback. Animation has to fit gamepaly not realism. For movies I'm with you.
This always happens with punches as well. So many people think it's a good idea to throw your left arm behind you as you punch with the right.
Stupid people that have no idea how to fight. Most people think that if you spread your weight out as much as you can you will be more powerful.
I look at these people and wonder. What the hell have you been smoking because it is some superb quality.
Victor Reis Sobreira
People do it all the time. I'm guessing that they think there's more momentum or something if they swing their other arm around.
It sort of works in martial arts if you intend to punch a lot, because it takes less energy to wind up if you've already got it going. It doesn't work in an actual sparring match, because you are, of course, telegraphing.
jamie schwartz
The instructor tells them to adopt that stance for punching exercises, and they think it extends to fighting. I don't call people stupid for simply being ignorant, I don't know about you.
TargetHippo
It's not momentum, it's conservation of momentum (using the energy you've already created with the first punch and putting it into the second one). Momentum is generated more if you turn into a punch, but that also sets you off balance a bit for using your other hand to punch. If you practice, you can punch very quickly with just one hand though.
Skallagrim: It's impossible to protect all of the body at once.
15th century armour: Am I a joke to you?
I Always wear my shield on my back so i can protect myself from arrows to the knee.
For some reason this I my favourite video on TH-cam atm, and I don’t even play games with shields in
I totally agree. Shields in video games seem to just magically negate a certain amount of damage without actually doing anything.
The most realistic combat I've seen in a video game is probably the Mount And Blade series, namely Warband. Have you played these games, or seen gameplay videos etc.? What do you think of the combat from a realism perspective? I particularly like the way a shield on your back will protect you from arrows from behind; it's neat.
I'm pretty sure of modders can add timed blocking to Skyrim then highly paid developers can add the same function totheir games thus making shields less about "automatic armor" and a more active defense
Lexx Alolia
such an mod already exists on the nexus if i recall corectly bu i barely play skyrim anymore warband feels much mor fluid to me
i completly agree... the best shield usage in historical combat is indeed in the mount & blade series... overall mount & blade seems to be very realistic...
Well Skyrim is more exploration and hacking through monsters. There's a reason why its combat mechanics are known as hack and slash, rather than simulated medieval fighting.
*****
from what ive seen in the dev blogs the combat system got an complete overhaul and knowing the devgroup realism si their thing so bannerlords is going to be spectacular
maybe inexperienced low level people in rpgs like skyrim could do that, then as they get better with the weapons they don't do those mistakes :P
That...
Is actually a really good idea.
I am planning to make an RPG, and I might add a thing like that.
Soldier Chaz DDDOOOO IIIIITTTTT idc if people use my ideas. it only makes things better if people share things.
This is good information but granted, character animation can happen in a fraction of a second unlike human flesh so having more dynamic movements has a lot of potential for being visually exciting. Not to mention hit boxes may not correspond with the actual shield and all that
There isn't a hema school for miles where I live so I can't take time to get to an official class and I have to practice alone and I always learn something new when watching your videos thank you skall
Games generally completely screw up pre-gunpowder weapons, not just with appearances, but with gameplay. Two handed weapons are all too commonly depicted as slow, over sized weapons that are always swung with every bit of strength, when in reality, they're in many ways the opposite: pole arms are meant to be used more like a quarter staff with a really mean business end. You don't need to swing that hard, you can parry very well, and you have loads of reach. There are two main disadvantages; one: your hands are exposed to the enemies weapon, two: your vulnerable to arrows which a shield would block rather well due to the fact that it's a 3x3 piece of wood.
Then there are bows which are depicted far too much like guns with the way their damage works. The arrow has a blade on it for a reason: it's meant to cut though major organs and cause the target to bleed out. However, there are games like Shadow of Mordor that make the head the most effective place to land a shot. Arrows move slower than bullets and make up for it by cutting; since bullets can generate more force, they can penetrate bone much better. A shot to the head with an arrow would still be debilitating, but not as effective as the chest or even throat.
You can still carry a shield while wielding a spear, which is nice against arrows
Chunk Meat Didn't some spartans do that? Hoplite I believe they called them.
Chunk Meat I was mainly referring to weapons like dane axes and glaives, I know about spear and shield. Spears are lighter and meant for thrusting, so they pear together with shields quite nicely.
Xunmatio Greek armies were made up primarily of hoplites, they were incredibly common and not restricted to Sparta.
Ethan Schenck arh snap. That just goes to show how much I really remembered from history class huh? Oh well.
Really enjoyed your explanation of shield use in combat, thanks! Makes perfect sense to cover yourself as much as possible.
As game dev, I can provide explanation to some of your points.
AAA games like Sons of Rome commonly use motion capture (character movement / combat). I've never played it and I don't know if player or enemies can equip different shields, but I'm pretty sure there won't be separate animations just for different shield sizes, so one animation must work for small and large shields. Care must be taken to prevent shield clipping into other objects.
As for movements itself, exaggerated movements are used for several reasons:
- looking spectacular (you've mentioned this)
- giving visual feedback to player
- giving player enough time to react (block)
First point gives player satisfaction for doing something cool.
Last point is important from gameplay perspective and it's opposite of what you'd like to do in real life.
Sometimes it's hard to make game both entertaining and realistic and realism is usually sacrificed first, because it's not primary goal of the game. This applies especially to mainstream games, which target wide audience, where the goal is to make everything as accessible and clear as possible.
Did you play Kingdom Come? Can you make video about combat in that? :)
I doubt it's perfect, but they really try to go as far as possible with realistic combat.
"Moving like you didn't have it"
Yeah in a lot of games the animators will only do one animation for swinging a sword and the shield is simply attached to the hand. That way, if you're using a 1H sword it uses the same animations for both users who have a shield and those who don't. You save a lot of animation time that way, imagine having a game with 30 different 1 handed weapons, any of which could be used with a shield or not. If you add separate animations for all of them you'd create a huge increase in the work load on your animators.
Instead, you just take the standard animation that the weapon has when used by itself without a shield, and snap the shield to the character's hand... it looks silly but it saves a LOT of time.
Jason Slade Yes, but they even animate it like that in games where the main character uses nothing but sword and shield all the time, as in Ryse: Son of Rome for instance.
Alot of times video games don't use the "real way" of things is because it's nit that they would have to change just the players hero but the ai would be way more difficult to kill it would change everything in the game to be real about everything alot of the rules of video game combat are setup that way for the design and difficulty of the game it part of shaping combat is for it to not be real but different. But it would be awesome to play a game that pure real based
My shield broke :(
Seller: WELL I PRESENT THE NEW UNBREAKABLE SHIELD FOR JUST 599 RUPEES!
Name: swedish Comedian
Uses Rupees as a currency
*What*
@@vitaurea its the currency in legend of zelda games. Pretty weird choice tbh.
The goal isn't generally to make it look more spectacular. The reason for the huge wind-up is that timing is a critical component in sword fighting gameplay. The people playing the game aren't sword fighters; they don't know what animations to look for to respond to and can't respond quickly enough to them without having trained appropriate muscle memory anyway. A wrist flick on a small screen at the opposite side of the room won't mean anything to a gamer if they can even spot it. By massively exaggerating the motions, you give indicators that even a completely untrained video gamer with slow reactions can react to in a generous amount of time. It's an affordance that enables somebody to feel like they're sword-fighting without actually knowing how to sword-fight. Realistic movements would completely undermine a player's ability to play the game, in the same way that most people refuse to play a semi-realistic modern military game like ARMA3 because they "get shot out of nowhere and it's just no fun and feels like a job".
That said, I am amazed there aren't actual at least some sword fighting simulations which advertise this difficulty and learning curve as a selling point. AFAIK they don't exist.
I get the wind-up, but the way in which most video game characters completely ignore their shield and throw it behind them as they strike is just bizarre.
but if the attack is safer, the risk versus reward becomes more unbalanced. the thinking is, while you are attacking you are completely vulnerable
Shit, I should start reading other people's comments before I write more or less exactly the same thing, lol.
what about Chivalry: Medieval Warfare? are the animations good?
I played that game for a long time and I'll tell you this: they are complete bullshit. Even more if you exploit certain mechanics.
The game is a lot of fun though. But does it have historically accurate/sensical animations? Fuck no.
Hmhm..
They better be accurate...
overhead overhead overhead kick x.x
As an animator and a swordsman, I would say that the problem is not so much in the movements but in the speed. They execute the movements very slowly, giving the appearence that a sword weights 7kg or somehing. In real life it would be faster and more fluid. Search for War of The Roses or Kingdom Come: Deliverence.
Odd Cheshire If you made that game any faster than it is right now, it would be almost unplayable. Some of the faster weapons are almost impossible to parry if you feint a little with them. If you sped up the game, it would just be a button-mashing game.
A lot of the time the game directors you show your animations to dont care for historical accuracy and just want to see the most badass-looking thing possible, so they'll tell animators to make the pose extremely dramatic. A stiff character doesnt make for as much of a visually interesting interaction. That's likely the reason why you see this in video games so often.
This drives me nuts in Skyrim to no end. Shields are of no use in that game unless you are actively blocking. Even when the shield is in the resting position, which is approximately where it should be when you're striking ( but perhaps a tad higher), it provides no defensive benefits whatsoever. Even if an attacker strikes you from the side where you're holding your shield, their attack just passes right through your defenses unless you're holding the block button. Simply put, you can't use your sword and shield at the same time. So stupid.
You should play Mount & Blade instead. It's still nowhere near perfect, but much closer to realism.
AstralStorm I love having 2 shields. To protect me from the sneaky javelin of fatality, thrown axes of instant death and arrows of slaying. Excellent game that one is, but some of the ranged combat is just enough to warrant excessive defense!
First of all that's not entirely true, when you have a shield equipped in Skyrim you get a passive armour bonus (what's displayed in your inventory) regardless of whether or not you even have it drawn and you get an additional 25 hidden armour bonus on top of that which you get for having a shield equipped regardless of the displayed armour rating, meaning that having a shield equipped will oftentimes give you as much extra armour as you would get from your chest piece.
Now regarding the actual use of the shield, in Skyrim, the combat is honestly about two things: stamina and stagger. The shield is used this way so that enemies (any you) are forced to give openings rather than simply blocking all the time and being invincible since the game makes a simple hitscan and doesn't detect where you were hit just that you were hit and from which direction. If it was the front, congratulations you just 'blocked' an attack, a portion of additional damage will be negated based on your block skill and perks. That's the thing, blocking isn't really blocking anyway. It is just more damage reduction compared to what your damage reduction would normally be. How you really negate damage in Skyrim is by not having the hitscan say you were hit. You can do this multiple ways, the first and biggest one is, like I said earlier, stagger. You can stagger your enemies with two main ways: bashing, and power attacks.
Bashing is the best way to keep yourself safe, the moment you see your enemy start to move their weapon you bring up that shield and bash him with it. You can think of it like it's parrying you can block and take the hit or you can deflect or redirect it and so this is just your deflection. You then can move in for your counter attack and this is where the second main aspect of Skyrim combat comes into play, stamina, this is honestly for someone playing with a shield and one handed weapon the most important thing they can have. Not health, because remember, if you can prevent the enemy from hitting you, you won't have to worry about health (For the most part, it's still nice to have decent health for magic and the occasional attack that will get through when you're out of stamina.).
Your stamina is honestly just how long you can stagger your enemy, if you know what you're doing, as long as you have stamina your enemy will be staggered and unable to attack you. So regarding your counter depending on what weapon you have and what perks your opponent has you may or may not be able to get a normal attack in before you need to stagger your opponent again. If you can get a normal attack in, you should, as you need to save your power attacks for staggering your opponents. Your power attack takes much longer to wind up than your shield bash, but it does more damage and more damage to stamina efficiency is better for you as in a fight, running out of stamina as a shield focused character is not good. Your shield bashes should honestly be saved for when you mess up and are about to be hit, if there isn't enough time to shield bash your opponent, only then should you take the hit by blocking with your shield.
If you play it right, you shouldn't be taking hits to your armour at all which is why light armour and shields work so well since a light armour perk gives you +50% stamina regeneration. Bottom line though, stamina is what keeps you alive as a shield wielding character, not health.
TL:DR Shields do protect you to an extent when not actively blocking in Skyrim and I wrote you a guide about how to properly use a sword and shield at the same time in Skyrim, I wish I was kidding.
Skyrim shields have armor aswell which passively adds up with the total armor count, so equipping a shield even without blocking does make you more protected at all times from physical type attacks.
And if it was possible to strike and block at the same time, you would be nigh invincible playing that way as blocking increases your defense by a ton, especially if you have the perk that makes it block magic aswell, so that's the reason they went for it the way it is, it's a balance issue
Though you can get a power bash move which does a very nice amount of damage, and even a regular shield bash is a nice way to stagger an opponent, get in a quick slash with a sword and then return to actively blocking again.
Actually, shields increase your armor when equipped, so there yah go (even if it's like +2% DR - whatever, it's there for balance I suppose).
Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole blocking fiasco. I've been making comments all over this section. I just don't want to get into it again.
I just wanna chuck my shield at people like Captain America.
Mount and Blade is usually pretty good at handling this, compared to other games. The characters keep the shields in front of them and leave just enough space for a swing or a slash.
ZemplinTemplar Which also demonstrates that it is indeed possible to make more realistic animations that still work for visual effect.
***** Add to that the Floris mod pack, which changes almost all of the attack animations to more realistic alternatives (along with a good 85+% of the entire game's content), and you get a game that I still haven't found a more satisfying alternative to.
Thanks, guys. :-) Good to hear my sentiment on M&B isn't alone.
I just wish the A Clash Of Kings mod didn't crash on me every ten minutes (which is nearly as long as the game takes to load with that mod). Not to mention that ACOK is easily one of the most mercilessly difficult versions of any game I've ever played.
Your videos have helped me develop a medieval game using actual combat styles.
Why do shields have a bump in the middle?
It's called the boss, it's a hollow dome that provides an opening for the hand to grasp the grip in the center.
like a BOSS!
Holy potato, the video is 2 years old, this comment was made 1 day ago, but Skallagrim still answered it
that's because he's always on point
Isn't it also for deflecting a swords path to create an opening like a buckler shield?
As an animator AND a fan of martial arts, I completely see what you're saying. Unfortunately, however, most of the most practical combat maneuvers simply don't read as strong or powerful in cinematography and especially animation.
In art and animation, strength and power are portrayed through strong and dynamic gestures. That means exaggerated poses, and, as we see even in live action fight choreography, wide sweeping movements. Again, utterly impractical in most RL scenarios, but looks great on camera.
The most effective and practical techniques, which usually involve economy of motion and linear attacks, simply look weak on camera and especially in animation. That's the only reason it's not done, much to the annoyance of pros who actually know what they're doing.
The only consolation I can offer is that whenever a student of games and film, all starry-eyed from the visions of spinny flippy spectacular bullshit that he or she thinks martial arts are about, decides he wants to attend one of your classes, it's very satisfying to knock that shit right out of them.
Sorry kids. TV, games, and movies are fake and choreographed. But boy are they exciting to watch!
+Dan Weeks This is exactly what I was thinking. If you watch real fights, even stuff like MMA, they're much more boring than action scene sequences. If people fought like in the movies, they would get their butts handed to them in seven different pieces. But still, I'm interested to see if I can include a bit more realism in my art, so this video is very useful to see the proper techniques for a shield.
In anime, villains can teleport behind you at anytime
As someone working in the gamedesign business - i at first want to thank you. i already used your channel as information and learning ressource about the technical stuff around Swords and Swordfightning alot.
This is more an issue of the Gamedesigners less about the Animators.
This one is part of the base concept. like how realistic should the game be. With motioncapture we're already able to take over realistic(/correct) stances or moves in real time if needed. thats not the problem. Still there´s the balance between realism and user experience. tbh... we all love fancy weaponary at some point. or cool looking attacks.
For sure if you look up some fancy FANTASY games you for sure will find more.. unreal swords or movements. obviously. If you look up a game like per example "For Honor" youll find more realism. With more time invested in sowrdfighting research.
In the end. Why do we play games? yeh because there s awesome stuff we can fucking do we actually cant do in the real world. so why not a glittery blade with spikes xD
so.. if there s blade in a game like those you showed us as example... there... probably is more to talk about in terms of realism than just the sword in that specific game ^^
again, thank you
Honestly, Games are like other fiction, They tend to favor flashiness over realism, If things were realistic it would bore many of the mindless drones out there who never even think about a realistic depiction of weapon use.
Many people have unrealistic expectation of weapons such as swords and firearms because of the movies and video games.
I am certain that there are many animators out there that want it to be realistic but the management wants it to be exciting and focus on the visual aspects of it rather than a more dull and realistic style.
I think a game designer would rather have firearms portrayed for example as pistols being used Akimbo as a given and the muzzle flashes to be huge and present with each shot regardless of the fact that it has a flash hider or even a suppressor.
It's the same with swords especially Asian swords, They are these super weapons that slice like light sabers and can take out multiple enemies and do not even show the slightest sign of wear after clashing with numerous metal targets.
Isn't it shameful that game designers that make a living out of depicting violence don't as much use a weapon in real life to see how they really behave in real life? Isn't that basic research you would do? If I was a major game producer I would have people involved in combat mechanics and animation follow courses that familiarize them with how these weapons actually behave and I must give some credit where it's due to the makers of the Call of Duty franchise (especially the older games) for using more realistic sounds and weapon operation (with some expectable errors) and on how the iron sights are portrayed, I think the fantasy RPG games are a lot more shameful in their lack of research but granted there are a lot fewer authorities in the use of medieval weapons and ancient weapons so hands on may be more difficult in the confines of a corporation however the information on the internet nowadays is vast....
Check out the M&B or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I do not see any flashiness in these titles.
The Zelda series of games would be unplayable if they were realistic :P
Bore the mindless drones with realism or bore the people that have a brain with vapid flash? Choices choices.... when in doubt, choose to bore the people with a brain.
Nevermind that there's other ways to convey intensity without flash. Not everything has to be hollywood to be exciting, but much of the comments on here disagree. And yet they probably still hate hollywood, because hypocrisy reigns (or because they like to pretend they have integrity).
Hymns HasCancer
Mount and Blade isn't realistic though. There's no grappling, no shield hooking, no follow-ups to a parry or ways to trap or control an enemy weapon, or different ways to use a weapon or martial arts techniques, you can ONLY attack in four directions, the combat is very static (only swing or block, etc.) and shields explode if you hit them enough. I think napoleonic wars added crouching and the ability to melee with a ranged weapon and there was a minor degree of vertical control in aiming your attack - yes that made the melee system less determinate and a bit more exciting, but it still didn't add much to the realism (unless you simplify it into bayonet warfare - bayonets are handled pretty simply in real life too, I think - it's basically who thrusts first, and bayonets are very chancey to parry and not rewarding when you do parry them).
You can't make the argument that M&B is anymore realistic than any other historical-inspired video game, unless your comparing it to something that doesn't really try to be historical, or somehow does pay some homage, yet gets even more things wrong or simply misses out (Ie. Dark Souls or perhaps Diablo 2 - arguably Diablo 2 is pretty accurate in its naming scheme, though it seemed to think that longsword and viking swords require a lot of strength to use, even compared to one-handed axes). I could say that CMW and age of empires are as realistic as M&B, because they pretty much are. They all pay some homage to medieval times and AoE even has a historical segment where it talks about the different civilizations, whereas M&B doesn't. Chivalry tries to differentiate between the weapons more than M&B.
Shields did not explode in real life, unless hit by a lance at very high velocity or maybe smashed with a big heavy club or big slow two-handed dane axe or throwing axe, or if the shield was inferior, ie. it was made of pure wood or something (which was illegal; it was either a scandinavian or anglo saxon king that made a law requiring every warrior to cover his shield in rawhide if he was to march with that king).
Dane axes, big clubs/grand maces, couched lances, throwing axes and pilum. Those are probably the only pre-gunpowder things that actually outright destroy or make you want to drop a shield. Of course, I'm not counting medieval artillery. My main point is that shields were very good and all infantry used a shield, and they would last. This was up until armor became good enough, and then some knights would abandon shields (probably mostly to express individualism rather than particular advantage).
GrOuNdZeRo7777
Hey, I've got nothing against zelda being unrealistic. It's clearly a fantasy title.
My problem is when they try to give things a historical foundation or put an emphasis on large scale 'medieval themed' battles between regular people. Or when I google 'medieval' and see almost nothing but cosplayers in World of Warcraft style armor, right beside replicas of mildly-legitimate medieval weapons or armor.
the reason animators do this is because of telegraphing and "exaggerating" the movement
Are there any historical martial arts techniques for using the shield as a bashing weapon? Videogames do that a lot too but I wonder how much it was used.
I mean Spartans would use shields as weapons sometimes so I guess but I'm unsure about others
more to pary, but you could shield bash a mace, shortsword, or axe user.
a lot
Yes. But mostly using the edge instead of the face since bashing with the edge allows for your weapon arm to follow-up. where as facing the shield forwards and doing a push to bash limits visibility and essentially prevents the use of your weapon arm.
This also largely depends on the shield. A buckler or other small center-grip shield is basically just a punch with a shield. Center grip is far easier to bash with the edge or face, strapped are almost exclusively edge bash.
Side-note: you also use the edge to deflect thrusts especially from polearms like spears. The name of the game with shields and armor is DEFLECTION not blocking; blocking is far harder on the user and the equipment (more transfer of energy). Same goes for parrying, if you can deflect the blow instead of catching it so much the better.
Uhmmm... I see that this reply was left here WHOLE 4 MONTHS AGO, but I would like to answer : Yes. But mostly not with the kinds of shields that videogames show us... We could take a viking shield - bashing with it COULD be effective as some kind of push, to make the foe loose their balance, but not really often, I must say... If you wish to perform a bash with a "normal" shield, such as a viking shield - you turn the shield and bash with the side.
The historical examples of exact BASHING with the shield are in manuscripts that show us the Sword & Buckler fencing. Buckler itself is a really small shield and it would be pity, or even stupid, not to use it as some kind of steel fist.
Another example is not actually a bashing in the fight itself, it is bashing before the fight : Roman Legionnaires were starting the combat with bashing their shields into the enemy ranks and do that kind of push, so all of the foes could feel/see some wave from the impact, which was very intimidating, but the PRIMARY cause of them doing that was simply covering their foes and restricting their movement, pushing them away with large scutums and not letting them to strike any of the legionnaires standing by left and right.
Thank you if you did read this, once again, sorry for responding that late, but I had to. xD
Skallagrim,
how should getting around a constantly held up shield be portrayed/done in video games?
-Attacks from directions and to locations the shield currently doesn't cover? (what about real big shields like tower shields then?)
-Some sort of direct counter to "holding block" with a shield? (e.g. a kick or some sort of block break technique)
-A resource that is used up every time blocking with a shield and when depleted will allow enemies to eventually break through?
Anybody else ideas on this?
Basically darksouls, you can dead angle which allows you to hit a guarding opponent, a guard break that grants a powerful counter to follow it, and a stamina cost for every hit blocked.
@@Ontarianmm Sounds good. Guess I will play some Darksoules then, to see exactly what you mean. 😎👌
That reminds me of a question I wanted to ask you. About bastard swords. In certain video games and table top RPG games (Like dungeons and dragons), they can be used as both a one handed weapon and a two handed weapon. My question is, how much of that, is true? Can you actually use a bastard sword two handed or one handed and there for 'swap' during battle? And would you want to?
If you use it two handed, you get strength and a half bonus vs just plain strength bonus. If you're fighting something like a goblin with an AC of 17 (pathfinder), the high chance of hitting would greatly benefit the party, and any hit would almost garuntee a kill. One handed, you get the shield, which is more for orcs whose AC is 14 and deal 2d4 or something strong like that, but they'll hit you less. I personally use it one handed because I tank as a paladin a lot, and my recent character had his points all in charisma. I use a bastard sword one handed in larp too.
Joshua Chenevert
I understand how the Bastard sword works in a game, I grew up with game knowledge of weapons. That's game knowledge. What I am wondering is about the real life versions of said weapons. I mean, for the longest time, I thought a long sword was a one handed sword that was about, maybe four foot long. Come to find out, it's meant for two hands, like the typical claymore.
Well a bastard sword is the same thing as a longsword. I think you would use it most of the time with two hands (if not why dont just use an arming sword) except for certian tecnique like grappling. Its may be pissible to use it with a shield, but if you carry a shield with you you dont really need a longsword. Its not too heavy to use it with one hand, niether is a two handed sword (2-4 kg) but its just not effective.
Cernel Joson
I see, so basically the whole 'Bastard swords being the ultimate mid point for one to two handed swords' is mostly bust?
Eldest Wolf Yeah it is. You COULD use a longsword (same as bastard sword) in one-hand but it would be incredibly ineffective (especially compared to an arming sword), the longsword is by all means a two-handed sword.
I play D&D regularly and since i got into HEMA the whole weapon system is becoming unbearable hahah
Game flow. That's the point. Combat is designed to be fluid and responsive. Logic usually die early in the proces of designing animations and combat system... Pity.
***** well, You do no control anyone directly in TW series (maby except for Shogun 2). It's the idea of direct control we are refering here to. And that's a completly differend story. Plus, in TW games they still must compromise group animations for the sake of fair gameplay and more arcade like expirience (although not that much).
In video games shield/some other weappn must be balanced in some way, and that way is being exposed while attacking. Video games arent going to be realistic because it would break them.
I guess its more of a balancing reason, as of a decorative reason.
Imagine warlord from for honor being able to defend always, even while attacking.
So, they animate the shield to the back, so it looks cooler and balances him altogether.