Here's hoping someone with a bit of time on their hands will take this spec, stick it into some RAD game tool and see what happens.
"The gameplay will work the same, but look a lot more reasonable."
"That won't work", on the other hand, is easy. Here's why "realistic" fights with lethal weapons don't work for, e.g., a Star Wars game: George Lucas can fiat that Obi Wan never eats a lightsaber until it is dramatically appropriate, but in the game, for there to be challenge there has to be the illusion of risk, and if you're risking insta-death lightsaber cuts then a lot of kids and casual gamers (bread and butter for Star Wars) are going to get cut into pieces by mooks. That is going to be deeply unsatisfying to them. Nethack has a subculture who loves it dearly ("Hah, drunk the potion on level one without first testing to see whether it is a cursed potion? Man, you must be new at this. rolls Oh, you're stoned. Time to restart!"), but the "physics" for Star Wars are very, very different.
The reason D&D doesn't have the fighter die after a hit with a giant club isn't because we're capable of suspending disbelief as long as we don't see it happen. Its because, given that D&D is based around having most shots by competent opponents connect (there is another problem with the other way), having one-shot instasquish makes the heroes seem markedly less heroic, and would result in e.g. the defining D&D encounter with a dragon get skipped totally by rational players. (At least until they could find a suitably non-dramatic low-risk way to dispose of the dragon without ever being perceived by him, such as having the wizard Wish him out of existence.)
[On reflection, the "game fiats you do not die when you as the player fail to dodge an insta-kill attack" gets around this objection, although one wonders if you're sacrificing player agency for "making sense", since a player who literally abandons his controller will see the animation system play his character flawlessly for a minute until his stamina runs out. "Wait, what was I adding to this performance?" is not something I'd want to cause a player to think.]
It wouldn't just be insta-death. In the article he explains how a "focus" bar would replace a "health" bar, with the only real difference in terms of the logical mechanics being that you don't just lose focus when you get hit.
You have reminded me of a talk that Jonathan Blow (of Braid fame) gave on the importance game prototyping back in 2007 that is vastly relevant to this comment, and a pretty interesting watch as well:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3727092195323329487&...
The Last Express was really interesting. It's mostly a Myst-style, er, mystery, with animated cut-scenes. But even despite the limited interface there is a cool fight mechanic. You can only survive by predicting what the opponent's next attack is going to be by subtle shifts in body posture, and doing an appropriate countermove.
How does one even begin to write a martial art simulation? Does one model the human body (model things like "a human elbow can turn x degrees in 2 planes" or whatever)? Does anyone have any references to (or demo code on) how to write a martial arts simulation? Thanks in advance.
On the other hand, most of us probably don't have experience bludgeoning each other with sharp or blunt objects to the point of exhaustion or death. This might mean two things: first, that we don't object to flashy, fun combats, because they are closest to our fighting experience which comes from watching movies. Second, that a realistic combat - a tedious, dirty matter of concentration and endurance - might just not be that much fun to play.
Eh? Not at all. In sabre fencing, it's rare for a touch to take more than 15 seconds. Even in épée, which most closely approximates a real duel, one minute is about the norm.
Fencing is amazing, but it isn't fighting even if fencers do better at sword fighting than folks with no experience.
A: Soon you´ll be wearing my sword like a shish kebab! B: First you better stop waiving it like a feather-duster.
That's what VBProgrammer was referencing. During the Dashing Swordsman sequence in OOTS, Rich recieved a lot of fan mail for referencing MI, but said he'd never heard of it before.
DR has balance, so that the better balanced you are the better you can attack and defend. Some weapons are better than other at unbalancing an opponent, and you can also use spells to gain balance or unbalance something else.
It also has stamina, so that when you swing a sword over and over eventually you'll start swinging wildly, and eventually you'll fall over from exhaustion. This also negatively affects your balance.
The mechanic of position is also used, and as you play you learn how to respond to attacks or execute sequences of attacks to gain a better position.
Benzim mentioned having thrust, slash, etc, and DR implements this idea with thrust, jab, chop, sweep, slash, charge, etc.
The DR system differs from the one in the article in that you can face multiple opponents, though that's a skill you have to level up or else you'll be overwhelmed.
Overall the combat system is very engaging and different from the typical MUD system of typing "attack" and watching lines of numbers go by. Worth playing if you're into that kind of thing.
Mount and Blade is the closest game I've played to this. It still has hit points, but that makes sense for a medieval game where you're fighting heavily armored humans.
http://www.slugfestgames.com/games_eg.php
The only difference I can tell is the game uses the term "poise" instead of "focus." But the notion of attack variants, responses and improvised gear pretty closely meshes with what everybody here and at the original post's thread seem to want.
However, the other thing that needs to be remembered is that if you want to play real sword fighting, take up fencing. Better graphics and level of immersion than you'll find in any game.
I don't know. Fencing is way more effort, harder to master, and I'm not so sure I agree about "better graphics". I mean, they're higher definition, sure, but not nearly as awesome.
One hit from a sword in a vital area and you were dead. Hits to the legs or arm would disable that limb.
A lot of the fights were over quickly. But when both players were good, you could have some pretty tense, tactical duels.
The game mechanics also encouraged you to fight honorably.
you can email me if you can't figure out a way of playing them >_>
I don't understand why you need realistic sword fighting in games where you play just for fun. If realism needed then probably you need a fencing simulation.
For an example of an original martial arts fighting game, Toribash is worth checking out and seems very interesting. My computer isn't powerful enough to play it though, so I can't give a review.