Have you played Dark Messiah? For me at least, even with the camera shake in OB I don't 'feel' my impacts nearly as much as DM and therefore I can't accurately gauge more strategic attacks or timing, it becomes more about guess-work, button mashing and luck. I remember the animation in DM almost giving me the impression that my mouse had force feedback, when it didn't. That never happened to me in OB or MW. MW's combat was vastly less satisfying simply because of how much behind-the-scenes control the numbers had and gave you no indication of why or how it was computing (except your sword magically went through the enemy without affecting them, lol). Unless you are more used to older, turn-based RPGs where animations never truly reflect the numbers and are simply there to look good then I'm not sure how that could feel right to anyone.

As a matter of fact, I am used to older, turn-based RPG's.

No, I haven't played Dark Messiah. My comments were just a gut reaction to the video, so I'm thinking that maybe I shouldn't have said anything. It seems to me that the player is too busy, almost like in one of those Street Fighter-type games. I wouldn't want the Elder Scrolls to start demanding too much of the player in the way of finger gymnastics, but I can't quantify "too much." The animations in the Dark Messiah video give me the impression that the character can do a lot. However, despite the extra animations and weapons not swishing harmlessly through their targets, the combat still strikes me as being just about as unbelievable as Morrowind's.

If you would logically hit and the AI doesn't dodge in time. They get boobooes.

And I think its been said before, but things like cornering and paralyzing could eliminate the chance not to hit. And stikes via the back or side become increasingly hard to block. So they could set up the whole chance to hit on a scale -> chance to hit = (skill & stat multiplier) * (2 - cos x), or some variation.
at x = 0, or right in front of the person, (2 - cos x) = 2 - 1 = 2, so the chance stays the same.
at x = 90, left or right of the enemy's face, (2 - cos x) = 2 - 0 = 2, so double the chance.
at x = 180, or behind the player, (2 - cos x) = 2 - ^-1 = 3, and so on.

Edit: :nerd:

The idea is to make combat look and feel more "believable", not turn it into "Flying Ninja Swordsmen" or something equally ridiculous. The combat system needs to rely heavily on the character's skills (less on the player's), otherwise the whole game concept goes out the window and you might as well just market it as a "first person slasher" game. I certainly wouldn't buy it, and strongly suspect that the majority of the RPG enthusiasts would have fits about it. It also needs to use the player's input as to what is being "attempted", otherwise the "action" players won't buy it, and having a few more "choices" is a good thing from a RP standpoint as well. Adding "finishing moves", more "power moves" than the already annoying ones in OB, and other "arcade" elements that require better "finger gymnastics" on the part of the player, may draw in a few new "twitch" players, but will also go a long way toward alienating the existing RP fanbase.

The PLAYER should decide WHAT to do, and WHEN. The CHARACTER should determine how well it's accomplished. The GRAPHICS should present some rational representation to show HOW or WHY the outcome occurred. Both MW and OB got half of that right, and half wrong. Morrowind's failure was that the game didn't give any visual feedback as to why you missed: the opponents never dodged or parried, so your weapon appeared to go harmlessly right through them. Its strength was that the length of time you held the button before releasing determined the strength of the attack and the timing, giving a very "direct" feel to it. Oblivion's failure was that each standard attack was identical in effect to the last one, regardless of the character's abilities, and there was a delay between the time you pressed the attack button and when your character responded; I always felt "detached" from the action. Its strong point was that the animations generally showed exactly what was happening.

Do you want automated combat? Not even turn based. Automated.

DO YOU?!#@

Yes please!!!

Ha j/k

It is always a balance of twitch and stats (reflexes and tactics), but I want TES to remain unique in the RPG genre and one thing its always felt like is a first-person action game, even as far back as Arena and Daggerfall - not quite as action-y as something like Hexen - but it can't go fully turn-based/timer-based/automated or whathaveyou because that just isn't the game. TES is or has tried to be a lot about immersion and there is no better way to immerse a player in a world than put him in first person and force him to hit things in the face. I have always considered turn-based combat and other such stat-based RPG stuff a work-around for technological limitations before anything else. But now so many people are used to it that it becomes a legitimate genre or sub-genre of gaming. In FF1 they didn't have the technology to do or show what they wanted to, and so they invented a system that could simulate it and make the player feel like a badass with little or no effort on their part. Then of course, it stuck like that and this was before first-person shooters even existed. The other problem with stats-based combat is that the player runs into stat-walls, which simply means that there is no effective strategy but retreat, and that's neither fun nor tactically engaging. For the most part, there should always be the ever-so-slightest chance that the player can deal with most any foe, they just may have to get creative in order to do so.

Having the numbers do things for you to a certain degree takes over from being tactical/strategic and simply becomes lazy, in a game like this, nothing should be 100% certain and you should always have to be on your toes in combat. Let's try to keep this from becoming too pattern-based like an MMO and keep the vibrant "this is happening to me right now" feeling that the series has always been so good at...adopting some of the DM tricks would only enhance that (and yes DM has leveling and stats just like Oblivion - it also makes you feel like a complete badass when you get to higher levels though ha - and isn't that what everyone complains about missing with OB's leveling system?).

I must say, Capital88, that DM video really looks something that the next TES game should strive to be at the very least. In addition, different weapon types should fulfill different roles
ex.

• Long/sort swords for a balanced defense-offense game, speed and damage varying between the two.
  
• Axes and hammers for a more offensive game to hack/bash the person to bits/gooey mess and less about your own safety (the best defense is a good offense).
  
• Daggers/knives for quick dispatching when undetected, and fast offensive strikes. They also can act as efficient parry blades when on the shield arm for a skilled user.
  
• Staffs and spears for a more defensive game. Staffs work more defensively, in that they're about tripping, stunning, and knocking the person, while spears have some tripping, but also focused on stabbing the person from a farther distance than any other melee weapon.
  
• H2H being the ultimate control game, with the beast races having the added bonus of slashing with their claws.

Definitely, the trouble with the DM game versus something like Oblivion is simply a case of logistics. I think (hope/wish) this time around we'll see something much more akin to that. The big difference is that DM was pretty much JUST that as a game, 12 linear levels that one would expect in a standard shooter, albeit in a fantasy setting. Oblivion on the other hand had 10 billion* times as much actual content so being able to focus and perfect one element of the game is nigh on impossible.

I still remain pretty hopeful that with Bethesda's recent run of success they are going to have a much larger team and much more funding for this iteration so that will likely give them more freedom to up the ante on all fronts and hopefully combat doesn't get passed over as 'good enough' since it is something one does a LOT in the game.

Hopefully they also AVOID the FO3 system...pleeeeeeeeeease! I'm okay with some slow-down effects in higher combat levels and the ability to 'focus' as a spell or ability but please don't have me selecting body parts and playing percentages with a paused menu...I loved FO3 but I never once used that system as it was so vastly unnecessary...

*number may not be perfectly accurate

VATS is a FO thing, I don't think they'll use it in TES.

I'd probably buy the game anyway, if the rest of it was well designed, and then complain loudly about the stupid and un-immersive combat system. On the other hand, if combat turned into another "Mortal Kombat" style "combo moves" twitch-skill fighting game, I'd never even consider buying it. TES is something in the middle, and that's what makes it unique. Both the character's stats and the player's actions have had some impact on it in every game, although I felt that OB relied more heavily on the player than the character in more ways than just combat.

That's what I think about Star Wars Galaxies. I LOVED RPing, and sieges and stuff. The world was incredible. But the combat was painful.

But thanks to TES's tendency to be modular, I don't think we'd have to worry even then.

I don't get it. If it has both an okay, sensible fighting system and amazing role playing, you wouldn't buy it?

No, but if it had a stupid, "twitch game" combat system, there'd be no point in me playing it. I don't have the reflexes I had 30 years ago, and the game wouldn't be enjoyable, if I could even get through it. Sooner or later in these games, you've got to do some fighting. I hated the "arcade" combat games back when they came out, and STILL hate them. Turning TES into one would be like Corvette releasing next year's model as an SUV version only. Some might buy it; others would feel betrayed.

I have never played Dark Messiah, so I can't be sure saying this, but it looked like it randomly decided when to do a finishing move, based on character skill. Not only is that cheesey, I would hate to have that.

Realistically, sword fights are not necessarily a one-swing, one-death affair, but they usually are a one-hit, one-death thing. And realistically, the pro swordfighter will beat the amateur swordfighter 99 times of a hundred. How? Because the pro can read the amateur like a book and act accordingly. He sees a swing coming, so he dodges or parries or does whatever to avoid getting hit. If he did get hit, he would most likely die, regardless of if it's an amateur or a pro swinging the sword. He gets his skill by being able to avoid getting hit, not being able to take more hits.

So why not have this in TES? The player aims and times his character's attacks. The character's skill decides how close he comes to hitting where the player actually aimed, and how easy it is for your opponent to block or dodge (this could be simulated by opponents blocking and dodging less as your skill gets higher, to simulate the character swinging faster and not broadcasting his next swing; or it could literally have your character swinging slower at a low level and have a slight delay between player click and character attack, which gets shorter as the skill gets higher -- although I think #1, the animations would be harder to have 100 different swing speeds for each weapon, and #2, players may get frustrated at the click-to-attack delay)

The player always decides what to do; to chop your opponent's head off, or stab him in the gut. The character skill limits how well these actions are performed; miss your mark entirely and swing over his head, or your swing is parried.

No way, I have the game. you can kick anyone into a spike trap and it wll kill them instantly, and you can stab anyone who is knocked to the ground or incapasitated. And Its got a realy good combat system, its not just "stab stab block". The only thing I dont like about the game is its very linear and the graphics are crap.