Is lock-on actually necessary for 3D action games?

Is lock-on actually necessary for 3D action games?

What do you think are the pros and cons of lock-on? What do you think of 3D action games that don't have it?

Pros:
Optional state
Opens up range of movement that is suitable to the context
Better representation of how combat works in real life

Cons:
.

Are you dense or something?
It allows you to move your character without facing away from your enemy.

>Cons:
Being casual as fuck

As long as you can move the camera and manually aim, there's absolutely no need for lock-on.

Depends on perspective and other mechanics involved in the game.

Mountain blade has a nice combination of zoning, timing, and direction oriented combat. While the animations aren't anything to write home about it is a deeper system than what meets the eye.

For Honor is another 3rd person melee oriented game. There's again a deep system for the combat that includes zoning, direction, etc but it's coupled with a lock-on system unlike mountain blade.

Dynasty/samurai/ musuou warriors empires are shallow in comparison and offer a more arcade-y button mash-y experience.

Lock on or no lock on, the rest of the game matters more.

It just kills my immersion when my character turns his back to the huge dragon runs for two steps and does some weird move and turn back again. Witcher handles this decently to be honest.

It doesn't work on this guy.

Never had problem moving camera and character at same time.

>is it necessary
No. See: Dragon's Dogma

Not to say it's not welcome in other games (Souls, Bloodborne).

It's pretty contextual. I think you need to have a grasp on how your combat system works specifically before you decide about things like Z Targeting.

The only bad thing about it would be The Legend of Zelda's usage of it post-Ocarina of Time. Specifically because they've done fuck all to improve the combat, and just keep going right back to Z Targeting with nothing else.

I guess that's not the concept's fault.

For a game with a single analog stick? Yes.

worst part is how they add more and more mechanics to z-targeting so you're forced to use it.

The character model should register an enemy and adjust the movement scheme automatically without restricting or changing the camera angle.

Lock-on should not be related to the camera whatsoever.

Oh god, I know exactly what you mean. Lock on without having the player character strafe just looks fucking weird.

It's just a useful mechanic that allows you to strafe around enemies. It doesn't detract anything.
What's the point of this thread?

I've never had an issue walking places, so I don't see why anyone uses cars or bicycles

>OoT
>Moving the camera

Centering it behind Link is the only camera control available to the player.

OoT did it right for the following

>gameplay appeal (exclusive attacks with varying damage)
>visual appeal (cinematic camera)

How do you strafe in games where the character doesn't always face away from the camera?

OoT had first person. Checkmate, deists

...

Why would you want to strafe?

>being intentionally retarded for the sake of his own argument

Go back to your bedrrom, you 've had enoguh fatty

How would you play DMC with no lock-on? Don't say anything about DmC

Extremely useful for swordplay

DMC1 without lock-on is fine.

Depends on the combat in the game. With a controller and two sticks you have to either work the camera or fight your target. With lock on you don't have to work the camera which allows you to focus on fighting. You only need lock on if the combat is fast paced.

>tfw no game with decent swordplay uses a lock on

The post I replied to said that the only camera control available to the player in OoT was centering on link, which is factually incorrect. You're not allowed to move the goalposts until my shot goes in.

FINE?

K E K

DMC1 PLAYS LIKE SHIT M8

A lot of games that lack a lock-on system typically have some kind of 'soft-lock' that will direct the players attack animations at a particular nearby enemy. Most of Platinum Game's games do it. Ninja Gaiden does it. Onimusha does it. Even God Of War does it.

Yeah but what about 3 & 4? There's moves you can only do locked on. Also isn't DMC1's stinger input lock-on then forward+triangle?
FUCK YOU

I don't care about those games since they're vastly inferior to the first one, but you can ignore the lock-on entirely and still beat it.

Chill bruh, I like the game. But it still plays like shit.

I asked you a question and you can't even answer it.

I've never wanted to strafe in any game ever, mainly because there hasn't been any proper context.

The only time strafing would make sense is in 1v1 combat with another humanoid. When the fuck does that ever happen in a game other than Souls, which has lock on anyway.

I've never explicitly played a game and been like "gee i sure wish i could strafe this fucking dragon"

Imagine how retarded every boss in Dragon's Dogma or Monster Hunter would be if you strafed every skyscraper boss?

Strafing is limited to APRGs that don't have a lot going in the "Action" department.

Look at TW3. Nothing is dumber than singling out a guy and circling him when there are five other dudes in a scuffle ready to cut your nuts off, albeit that game had many more basic issues than it's failed execution of lock-on.

I get it, you want to strafe around and be the last samurai and do a dash cut and then watch your opponent fall in a wideshot. Play Ubishits new dumb fucking game and enjoy it.

I'm aware of that, but DMC's soft-lock doesn't let you do things like launch or some of the forward-back moves in 4

To be honest, as long as you can face forward again without actually moving forward, I don't see any need to strafe. But if you insist, the lock-on button can be a strafe button instead, and you'd circle-strafe by slowly moving the camera.

...

1's great but 3's decent too. I kind of agree about 4 but it's fun to play sometimes.
I was making a DmC reference you wet noodle, it looked like you were about to DmC shitpost

I'm pretty sure all stinger moves can be performed by double tapping forward plus attack. High Time moves are the only ones that absolutely require the lock-on.

because strafing allows you to not have to flick the stick at your target every time you want to attack it. it allows you to move and attack at the same time, which is useful for a whole lot more than just combat against another human-shaped opponent

>It doesn't detract anything

It minimizes positioning in a 3D action game. You essentially don't have to aim your attacks anymore because you're locked on, you care way less about your range of attack because with lock on you have so much freedom of movement that you can easily close into your attack range and minimize exposure to yourself on whiffs. Playing a 3D action game without (or without using) lock-on feels so fucking different than one without it because actually needing to aim every melee attack adds a completely different dimension to the game. Aiming is most notable in Monster Hunter because aiming melee attacks is practically the entire game what with monsters having different weak points and breakable parts.

Of course, I'm not entirely sure if one is superior to the other. The purpose of this thread isn't for a value judgement of a single mechanic.

>What's the point of this thread?

To hear the opinions of video game enthusiasts of a single mechanic. If you're unfamiliar with games that utilize it or deliberately choose not to I recommend you participate by simply watching this late night video game design thread.

there is lockon tho

Look at all the projecting.

Monster Hunter would be a million times easier if you could just strafe the fucking monsters, instead of rolling around like a retard. Not having a lock-on is artificial difficulty to make neckbeards like you feel superior for fucking up their hand using the LEGENDARY CLAW GRIP STYLE.

If you're circling around a single enemy when surrounded by multiple then it's your fucking dumb decision, not the game's fault. Games like Dark Souls and Witcher encourage you to single out enemies and NOT be caught in a mob, so you have to not be retarded and play your tactics around that.

You're to one wanting to dashcut through a horde of enemies while looking at the camera as they explode in the background.

You you DOUBLE samurai!

Repeating digits are only possible with zeroes on Sup Forums, silly (You)

You sure you're not thinking of Bayo or DmC? I don't remember any DMC having double tap stingers. Also kind of ignored the forward-back motions from 4 I mentioned...

holy shit what the fuck did i just write

good luck translating my retardese

Typically your hitboxes are absurd, so its pretty easy to hit everything. In the case of oot, the movement is fluent and ai is sufficient enough to where the some complexity.

But consider souls and mh, with theyre lack of movement, adding lockon will undermine the complexity that the hitboxes and frames create.

Everything else is combo and beat em ups, where the focus is more on score/ complexity is more in the combo system

Even Dragon's Dogma has a soft lock-on for certain contextual actions like Blocking because trying to block with a shield without lock on would be unnecessarily fucking difficult

what are you talking about, it reads just fine

are you having a stroke?

there's a big difference between lock-on and snapping to the enemy

When you get dubs that aren't 00 it adds one to the post counter, so if not for moot changing it all those years ago he would have gotten it.

It isn't tutorialized anywhere but the double tap method does work. Go boot up DMC3 and try it out.

Without good free strafing and aiming controls, yes.

Most modern action games seem to be moving away from it in favour of an Arkham Asyulm style snap-to-enemy system where you don't even have to worry about player position. Just hit attack in general proximity to an enemy and you'll start attacking them. This is a pretty shitty system imo since it is so limiting.

Weird that it isn't mentioned in a tutorial or movelist, also weird that you can't do something similar for launchers or other motions(as far as I know), but that's neat

How exactly is it limiting?

I got your point.

The thing is, I think lock on was made especially to address the needless fumbling that free-camera combat brings to the table. With Lock-On you can actually make enemies tougher in other ways, like timing, attack patterns, better AI and etc., things that would probably be way too cheap and hard to deal with if the player DIDN'T have access to a lock-on feature.

The point is that harder doesn't mean better, despite what some people like to claim. Sometimes harder just means bad design. If something is harder because it lacks something very obvious that could improve the player experience, then it's bad game design pure and simple.

Something like Monster Hunter doesn't really bring anything new to the table to counter the fact that it has a messy camera system, it simply lacks basic lock-on mechanics and calls it a feature, without adding anything to compensate that. I've played through Freedom Unite 2 and MH3, and had lots of fun, and honestly the only thing that is really hard about the game is wrestling with the shitty camera controls. That's the only thing that makes the combat truly challenging, and it's a shame, because they game would be way more enjoyable otherwise.

It doesn't sound like he's actually played anything past asylum, or even at all.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Because your character's position isn't a factor in combat

Yes it is.

OoT pioneered it and still does it better than 90% of modern offerings.

Mostly because it's not entirely needed throughout the game if you know what you're doing. It's just there for convenience.
Plus what this guy says.

Not in the same vein of games like DMC though. For example, if you want to close the gap between the player and enemy in DMC you would probably need to manually input a Stinger motion in the direction of the particular enemy you wish to target. In Arkham Asylum just hit attack and Batman will instantly jump toward them with little in the way of exact player targeting.

No

See: Monster Hunter

>Not in the same vein of games like DMC though

That wasn't what was being contested.

That was only the case in Asylum. It doesn't work in City.

Besides, that shit's so awesome it shouldn't be a problem.

It really doesn't allow for many complex bosses. The most liked arkham boss doesn't even touch non-stealth options.

It has nothing to do with boss design.

I just used DMC as one example, the same could be said of plenty of other action games too like Ninja Gaiden, Kingdom Hearts, God Hand etc.

>Besides, that shit's so awesome it shouldn't be a problem.

I hate this mentality, the 'press button, receive awesome' mentality that is infecting action games. Taking away player agency in favour of cool animations isn't a positive thing.

You're continuing to be irrelevant. The statement being refuted was literally "you don't have to worry about enemy position". This is demonstrably false. I don't know why you'd even try to save face. I can only hope that you're not the original poster and are just lazily jumping into the conversation.

But you still have agency because it's your choice to initiate the attack in the first place. It's not like it happens without your consent.

I am the original poster and if you read my original post I was talking about player position, not enemy position so I dunno what you're talking about.

That was a mistake of mine but my point is still the exact same. You were moving goalposts you stubborn little fuck. To see you so unaware is infuriating.

>only enemy standing is pretty far away
>anyone with passing familiarity with the combat will know that the basic strike will have Batman attack the nearest standing enemy

How exactly is this imprecise?

But I'm not though? Do you even know what 'moving the goalposts' means?

like xenoblade chronicles

You only need them for controllers because aiming is a bitch otherwise

What if there are multiple enemies standing around?

this, lock on is for controllers, where it should stay as they need all training wheels they can get

I'm too tired of Sup Forums to add something, but i love you nerdy mechanic bros.

Would really enjoy a nerdy mechanic girl.

Then you move the analog stick in the direction of the one you want to hit. Duh.

Lock-on targeting is a great way to deal with a worthless single-sticked controller in a 3d setting. Everything else has a second analog stick.

What if the enemies are constantly moving around and not standing still?

Can you name some third person action games on PC that have good combat but no lock-on then?

Tracking.

You can't replicate lock-on's precision with a free camera, and without precision the enemy design has to be watered down or else it'll feel like playing an unfinished game.

>KB+M could make lock-on unnecessary
>3D action games never take advantage of it

Mount and Blade

I just don't get how being rewarded with little to no effort even feels rewarding at all

So let me get this straight:

>single button: not rewarding
>single button+analog in a direction: rewarding

Wow, that extra input really makes a difference, huh?

I agree. Just look at a game like No More Heroes 2. The bosses move all over the fucking place. Without lock-on, you can't even make the game.

>Not having a lock-on is artificial difficulty to make neckbeards
I think you guys are giving MH too little credit. Needing to consciously aim everything you do is pretty much a tenant of MH design. Refusing to allow the player to just "fire and forget" anything they do offensively is so built into the game that the guns have an ideal range to maximize damage so the player care about his positioning if using a ranged weapon. Even shit like flash bombs require aiming and those just need to be somewhere in front of the monster's vision to work. There's a reason why pretty much every hard hitting weapon is reliant on it's VERTICAL strikes rather than wide ranged horizontal ones.

Secondly, with the amount of parts monsters have lock on might not even be a good choice for your typical lock-on to exist in the first place. Locking onto a rath's right wing could cause wild camera swings during it's attacks and scrolling through each of it's parts could cause issues for the player.

Games without lock-on are simply completely different beasts than games with lock-on. With lock-on (DMC, Batman, GoW, even Souls etc) it's much more reaction based. Your attacks are super safe and accurate so it's more like just making the choice to attack and your defense is simply how well you react with your i-frames button or block button.

Games without lock-on are way more about the act of actually successfully attacking than just choosing to, seeing the opening and choosing to capitalize on it is way less important than successfully hitting and getting out safe. I-frame options aren't that great so there's much more weaving out of range of attacks then moving back into range for your own than the binary "use attack button/use i-frame button" lock-on games have.

Furthermore...

Physically being outside of a enemy hitbox rather than just being invincible during it is such a huge part of MH that an attack that moves you while providing 0 i-frames is considered a good defensive option.

It isn't.

Mount and Blade is better.

I don't play Monster Hunter so answer this: how big are the monsters and weapons on average? Cause no lock-on makes me think they'd have to be big enough so that their hitboxes make up for the lack of precision.

Shooter controls (as in your character follows the camera) for melee combat are dumb because in a real fight you wouldn't be darting your eyes everywhere looking around and turning your whole body to attack in a certain direction. You'd be focused on your opponent and keeping your eyes on them. Zeno Clash has to be one of the only games that gets first person combat right since it has lock on

If you're going by realism, it's better than some camera following behind you

it's necessary if you're using a console controller. Wouldn't be with mouselook.