Can a slow action game work?

[Samuel Tow]

I apologise for the seemingly random topic as my first foray into General Discussions, but this is something that's been on my mind for some time and I wanted to get a few opinions on it.

Today, I saw a promo video for Hawken. It's an indie giant mech game that looks pretty cool, but... To me, it kind of doesn't look or feel "giant." This not too long after the latest entry into the MechWarrior franchise materialised as basically a fast-paced MOBA FPS. This video, though, really gave me food for thought as the developer being interviewed started talking about how people expect Mechs to be big and powerful and have "authority" and have really big guns and so forth, but... He never, not once, addressed the issue of apparent weight. What I mean by this is, yes, the mechs to do indeed feel big and powerful and impregnable, but they really don't feel heavy. Not in any mech game that I've played in the last 10-15 years, at least.

This has me wondering... Can a game revolving around slow, lumbering, methodical machines really be an action game? And we don't have to go out of our way to find those. Tanks are a good example or, hell, your typical WW2 battleships are. Sure, battleships may be "fast" by naval warfare standards, but they're still enormous machines with wide turning circles and relatively slow speed, armed with large but very slow-firing cannons. Can a game like this really be considered "action?" I mean, given my previous paragraph, obviously I'm biassed into thinking it can, but my opinion has been famously unpopular, so I want to get a bit more feedback, just for my own curiosity if nothing else.

So we have some context to work with, let me list a few ways in which an action game to do with moving and shooting can be "slow:"

*Slow movement speed. Obviously, that's a big part of it. If your vehicle moves slowly, the game is slow, but not always entirely such.

*Slow manoeuvring speed. This one is slightly less obvious. As with my battleship example above, some machines are actually quite quick in a straight line but are nearly impossible to turn around with any speed.

*Slow fire rate. Large weapons which deal a lot of damage but take a very long time to reload, basically forcing each shot to count and inducing a lot of "non-combat" gameplay as players are forced to act during lengthy reload times.

*Large unwieldy machines. This one's sort of similar to manoeuvring speed, but it has more to do with how easy it is for terrain to get in a player's way and prevent him from reaching a particular place easily.

I know I'm not communicating my own points very well - it's a running problem with this theme. Really, all I'm saying is that I'd expect a giant mech to be very slow, very cumbersome and very difficult to turn around, so seeing a "giant" mech game that involves sprinting, bunny-hopping and rapid relocation just seems odd to me. But then, would a giant mech game like what I'd expect it to be really be any fun?

[GuyPerfect]

The last MechWarrior game I played was MechWarrior 4, which showcased the superior features of DirectX 7 with "actual, in-game screenshots" on the box. I don't know how modern MechWarrior games compare, but I do know that MechWarrior 4 is pretty much what you're talking about with the slow action.

The game has a variety of mech models to choose from; some heavy and slow, others light and fast. The Atlas and Daishi mechs, for instance, are the largest you can get and are pretty darn slow, but they can slot up with the heaviest weaponry available. This includes the heavy lasers, the Gauss Rifle, the Long Tom and all manner of long-range missiles. Contrast with the more maneuverable mechs like the Hellspawn, which even comes with jump jets but can't really slot very many weapons at all...

I've seen multiplayer matches where one team effectively had a big bad mech tanking for its more fleet-footed compatriots. Any lighter mechs that attempted to take on the tank would get shot down in a couple hits. Any bigger mechs that tried to take it on would get overwhelmed by its quicker buddies. As far as big, slow and powerful are concerned, you absolutely can make action work.

[Samuel Tow]

I actually remember MechWarrior 4. It may well be the best mech game I've played since EarthSiege 2. Really gave me the feeling of being a guy in a cockpit, rather than BEING a mech running around. I've always felt that intermediary step of disconnecting the player's actions from the Mech's responses by imparting delays and detaching my head from the position of the cockpit was a great way to get me immerse. No so much in recent mech games, though, where they really ARE first person shooters.

Actually, if I had to point to a game that did "slow" right, it'd be World of Tanks, at least for the heavy tanks. These things carry the biggest guns, and heaviest armour, but GOOD LORD if they aren't slow as all hell. 12 degrees per second turret rotation, 7 kph speed uphill, 45 second cannon recharge, long aim time that resets when you move, but damned if they can't take a beating and punch through damn near anything in one shot. I've actually had games where I felt bad for the enemies when they're using lighter tanks since they really can't do enough damage and stay alive long enough to hurt me :)

That's kind of what I'm saying - it's not just about being big or strong, it's about being slow in everything you do. Even when a machine isn't very fast, when it's slow enough, it feels heavier.

[Kaiser Tarantula]

Star Trek Online did 'slow' vehicles pretty well.  The largest starships (the Star Cruiser class for the Federation, the Vo'quv and Kar'fi Carriers for the KDF) are abysmally slow to impulse and turn, but they have the shields, hull, and crew capacity to weather the hits they're forced to take.  Their slowness is actually an advantage, allowing them to "powerslide" and "drift" in ways that smaller craft can't.

Given that they typically mount beam turrets (360-degree firing arcs) and beam arrays (270-degree firing arcs), this means that the most powerful way to attack other ships with a cruiser is to "broadside" it like a classical seaborne battleship, bringing your enemy into the firing arc of your front and rear weapons at the same time.  Being able to impulse toward a target, cut the engines and then slowly slide forward under inertia while pivoting on your axis to place yourself in perfect broadside is a potent technique to master.

Compared to escorts and science vessels, Cruisers in STO are really the lumbering behemoths of the battlefield, but they're also too hard-hitting to simply ignore or outmaneuver (especially if they've got a good tractor beam to slow you down and haul you in with). and unlike most gigantic opponents, they have no problem swatting little guys like flies once they're visible and in-range.  In fact, they kinda excel at swatting lots of little guys at once (You will never forget the sight of a critmonkey Fed Cruiser using Beam Array: Fire At Will with antiproton beams in the middle of a horde of To'Duj fighters and watching them all evaporate.  Notice how all of the other Fed ships are floating around the battle taking on specific targets, while the cruiser just broadsides and sits there, vomiting death in all directions and absorbing a veritable storm of incoming fire).

[Profit]

Sam what are your thoughts on Armored Core 1 for the ps1? It was a slow lumbering mech game and it worked really well. (Only the armored core games on the ps1, the ones on the ps2 and 360 were awful twitch fests although I hear the latest returned to its roots in terms of gameplay)

[Samuel Tow]

Ah, Star Trek Cruisers :) Yes, these are by far my favourite ships. Nuclear Toast was trying to sell the virtues of Escorts to me, but I actually LIKE my ships slow. I didn't play a non-movement-boosted Stone Brute for nothing, after all. And that's a good example, actually. Sure, we trade some damage for the enormous bulk by not being able to afford narrow-firing weapons, but the feeling of having this big, lumbering ship that takes ages to swing around in a 10-mile turning radius is quite gratifying, actually. I just wish ship designs weren't so... Star Trek :)

I think modern gaming is a bit too attached to instant feedback systems when it comes to movement. Players expect to be able to move in all directions at a moment's notice so even simple games like Carmageddon where you have to do a 3-point turn just to swing around might come off too "slow." But I like it, personally. Sure, it can be tedious, but at least it tells you that you're not just a camera floating six feet above the ground. You're driving a large machine which isn't as manoeuvrable.

Sam what are your thoughts on Armored Core 1 for the ps1? It was a slow lumbering mech game and it worked really well. (Only the armored core games on the ps1, the ones on the ps2 and 360 were awful twitch fests although I hear the latest returned to its roots in terms of gameplay)

My thoughts are I've never owned a gaming console in my life, but I've heard a lot of good games have been released for them. I, sadly, don't know anything about Armoured Core, but seeing Steel Battalion for the Knect makes me feel like it'd be right up my alley. You know, if the game actually worked and I actually owned a Knect. Does ANYTHING on that console ever work?

[GuyPerfect]

Hey Sam, just a heads up because this forum software isn't very good at indicating it, but I sent you a PM.

[Tenzhi]

The problem with being slow in an 'action' game, in my opinion, is when you're slow enough relative to the enemies that the very act of movement seems like a futile gesture (I think it was a Battletech game where I ran into this issue).  If the proper balance can be achieved, I think it could be more fun than an intense twitch-fest, but it's not a direction I've seen taken very often in games.

Does ANYTHING on that console ever work?

Almost everything I've played on it has worked fine.  Most of the games I've experienced issues with, I've had similar issues on other platforms they were released on (worse, in some cases, as certain consoles seem prone to problems with level geometry on cross-platform titles that weren't specifically developed for them).  Mind you, I've skipped Kinect altogether.  Personally, I would have liked to have tried the original Steel Battalion on the regular XBOX, with its special here's-a-mockup-of-your-actual-cockpit controller.  The controller was costly, but it certainly enticed the part of me that occasionally wants to pilot large vehicles of destruction.

[Profit]

My thoughts are I've never owned a gaming console in my life, but I've heard a lot of good games have been released for them. I, sadly, don't know anything about Armoured Core, but seeing Steel Battalion for the Knect makes me feel like it'd be right up my alley. You know, if the game actually worked and I actually owned a Knect. Does ANYTHING on that console ever work?

Sam, I'm gonna point you at Chromehounds and Armored Core 5 for the xbox 360 if you decide to go that way.

[Samuel Tow]

The problem with being slow in an 'action' game, in my opinion, is when you're slow enough relative to the enemies that the very act of movement seems like a futile gesture (I think it was a Battletech game where I ran into this issue).  If the proper balance can be achieved, I think it could be more fun than an intense twitch-fest, but it's not a direction I've seen taken very often in games.

Well, in a "slow" action game, presumably everybody will be slow such that you're not at a distinct disadvantage. Having big guns that can't hit crap is no fun at all, definitely, and you're right that it needs to be balanced carefully. Actually, I'd say a game comprised mainly of large, slow, cumbersome units is probably the most fertile ground for the kind of "light" fighters that end up being entirely pointless in most other games but for rapid redeployment scouts. In World of Tanks, for instance, I've seen a single light tank drive circles around heavier vehicles who have slow turret rotation speeds and 30-second reload times. In fact, I've fallen victim to this, myself, getting shot to pieces by a light tank which moves faster than my tank turns.

I agree that this is a very rarely travelled direction for action games, but I'm not sure it's because it's so hard to balance. Mostly, I just think the gaming world "gets" FPS games and is sticking to them, trying turn even stuff that isn't an FPS into one. Again, I need go no further than MechWarrior Online, a game in which a "heavy" mech is simply one which walks slightly slower and can't FLY. That's not to say balancing a slow action game is easy, since you can't just rely on damage numbers power tricks and must REALLY take into account terrain, manoeuvrability, firing arcs and suchforth, but it shouldn't be so hard that literally only a handful of them exist.

[GuyPerfect]

Mostly, I just think the gaming world "gets" FPS games and is sticking to them, trying turn even stuff that isn't an FPS into one.

The truth of the matter is that the gaming world "buys" FPS games, so publishers keep churning them out, trying to turn even stuff that isn't an FPS into one.

You see this a lot across all sorts of genres. Publishers prefer to release "safe" titles, investors like companies that make money, and all of that trickles down the chain of command to the developers. The only company I can think of that's immune to the "safe" mindset is Nintendo, who have blown whole consoles on new ideas.

[Samuel Tow]

Here's something that just occurred to me: Slow powers. I don't know if you've noticed, but almost any MMO that isn't City of Heroes seems to have most of its skills consist of very fast, spastic actions somewhere in the range of 25-75 milliseconds in length. Basically, quick sword swings for attack, rapid bow pulls for archery, fast hand gestures for spells, and all of it doable while you're on the move. I get that this is done because that's what people want - remember the complaints around Total Focus? But can't a basic RPG be made "slow" by introducing "slow" power that take a long time to perform but have a proportionately huge effect? Wouldn't that make for a "slow" action game?

And I know this can work, too. Take, for instance, something like League of Legends. By all accounts, this is a fast game, and it's pretty much faster than I can handle. Yet one character (the yeti rider thing) has a powerful skill where he stands in the middle of a circle and charges a huge ice explosion for I think 4 or 5 seconds. By League of Legends standards, that's HUGE, an even with its native slow, it's still easy to dodge if you see it coming. But the trick with that skill is you need to slow your enemies and catch them snoozing so they don't have time enough to react. It's a slow attack and it IS a risk, but it doesn't seem to ruin the game, at least not that I've seen.

For the longest time, I've wondered if an MMO can work if players were given "raid boss" type powers, by which I mean slow attacks with lots of charge-up time that nevertheless deal massive amounts of damage. I've always wondered... Well, why can't Sam Tow have Cloud Strife's "Omnislash" and just unleash a 10-second barrage of sword slashes at a single opponent for massive damage? I've discussed this with others and most people damn near fainted at the prospect of a 10-second-animation attack. Doesn't matter what it does, it's too slow. But from where I'm standing, that's kind of the point - being slow makes it "feel" more powerful than if it were fast. Same with Energy Transfer, actually - I vastly preferred the remade animation to the old one because the new one looked bigger and it was slower, as a large attack should be. Performance be damned :)

This is really what had me wondering - wouldn't a traditional MMO class work if that class were based entirely around VERY slow attacks that do a LOT of damage? Because I really, really haven't seen an MMO which does this.

[Samuel Tow]

It is a balancing act though to consider, and one that does need thinking about especially in terms of how it interacts with the *base* mechanics of the game... Do you allow rooting of characters when they get hit initially? Or will you let them be able to freely move around in combat, not even rooting them for attacks?

It is a thought to consider... btw, I feel that you can do something like this where activating those "Heavy hit" abilities as powers that require you to be stationary to use them... you can argue either way if they should be "you started casting it, you are unable to move until it has finished" and the "If you move the power is not cast" side of balancing...

As far as action games go, I'm actually not a fan of letting people move AND attack at the same time, unless it's at a very slow speed. Never was a fan of the "bunnyhopping" games of old, as you may tell, with Quake III and that "rocketjumping" nonsense being probably the worst about it. I remember liking UT2004 a great deal, but I tried it again recently and I just don't seem to have the patience for all the strafing and jumping around. Used to be pretty good at it, too, but it's a kind of skill I no longer have and, frankly, don't miss in the slightest. So yes, if I were looking for a "slow" action game, I'd definitely root or slow people for attacks.

World of Tanks has an interesting way of handling it, in that you CAN "run and gun," but your accuracy is crap. Fast tanks get around this by either firing small cannons without aiming so much and hoping to score more hits on their usually stationary enemies than they take, or otherwise just getting in close and shot-gunning cannon fire from a distance where accuracy doesn't count for too much. In general, however, victory isn't gained by fast-paced precise hits, especially since it has an auto-aim function, but rather by judgement as to when you can take a shot and when you shouldn't stick your tracks out. It's no less intense, I've found, but it's less stressful in the long run, at least for me.

I actually think City of Heroes did this quite well, more so in its olden days than towards the end. Slower powers on longer cooldowns meant we used fewer, larger moves to accomplish anything, creating a battlefield which was as tactical as it was button-mash-happy. Oh, sure, the game was easy enough to scrapperlock through it, but it was just slow enough for me to be able to think about what to do next in real time. It became a lot less like that towards the end, though, with all the death patches and fast positioning and quirky bosses. At some point, Paragon Studios forgot that their game was actually very slow and put us in situations that require fast reactions, for which we were really not equipped. Again - 3.3 seconds of Total Focus that you can queue up after 2.something seconds of Energy Transfer. As I have. And gotten Power Syphoned for it.

What I find, though, is that slower games give me more time to appreciate the game itself. It gives me time to be aware of my surroundings and, to take in the graphics and to actually think on my feet. Maybe that's why I keep harping on how few slow games there are.

[Tenzhi]

I generally prefer being able to move and attack at the same time.  Of course, it works best when the two mesh together fluidly.  The two Batman games Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are a good example of that sort of thing, methinks, but I don't know how well that would work with customizable characters.

On the other hand, if transitioning between attacks and between attacking and moving are seamless enough, and if the attacks are dynamic enough, one may not notice much that one is being rooted.  I believe the Dynasty Warriors games (and possibly some fighting games) often showcase that.  Speed may be a factor there, though.