You get a break here and there with some basic platforming sequences and lightweight puzzles, but most of the time you simply cut your way through a horde of monsters. I think it’s quite telling that the game is immensely satisfying, despite the basic gameplay loop being fight-die-load-repeat until you finally beat the encounter. On the other hand, when you do pull off a risky move and behead your enemy with one stroke, you really feel good about yourself. A backhand swing will naturally pull your shield away, making your defense wide open for a counterattack.

However, you have to be careful with your attacks.

An orc jumps at you, and you aim a middle swing at his legs. Run past an enemy and hit it with a wide swing, and you’ll hit his back. Since both you and your enemies can block attacks with weapons and shields, it makes sense to aim at the openings. I don’t know anything about programming, but considering how well the enemies fight with it, the AI work must be brilliant. And no wonder, apparently, the animations and the physics engine were built over several years of postgrad research. Every other melee combat system seems antiquated in comparison. Instead of controlling your swings with keys, you control your sword-arm with mouse and your body with keyboard. Well, what if it is just hack and slash? What is best in life? Let’s discuss what makes killing things enjoyable.ĭie by the Sword (1998) is the ultimate “why didn’t I think of that?” melee action game. And true to that sentiment, renaissance-era was associated with a slew brilliant crpgs emphasizing either narrative or rpg systems that inevitably end up topping any codex polls, no matter what the nominal topic is. “It’s not just hack and slash”, was one the taglines used by developers of Baldur’s Gate (1998) to hype up the game before release.

Die by the sword game