I still find Batman's extremely enjoyable. It's got nothing on say Bayonetta when it comes to raw depth, but it's just fun as fuck, well thought out, and feels fantastic. Any other game that has tried to use that system has made it seem shallow as fuck ( Ex. Mordor), but Batman just always gets it right.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anyone else dislike combat systems in modern AAA games?
- Thread starter Go_Ly_Dow
- Start date
Bright-Light
Member
That video is for a challenge really early on in the game and really isn't difficult, there are no enemies with
weapons, electrified enemies, brutes, medics, sword wielding ninjas etc.
Valkerionseven
Member
This is the entire reason why I never got this trophy haha.
Gaming would be much better.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
I said HIGHLIGHT VIDEOS.
For a forum that sure loves the word "hyperbole" GAF has problems identifying intentional use.
That poster wasn't being literal.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Batman's combat is built around crowd control and it's not designed for 1 vs 1 scenarios...
copelandmaster
Member
He did play it on Death March, in his 2nd response video to the shit storm he got for his TW3 video. The review, response one and two are worth watching.
TW3 is fucked in terms of combat. Batman as well.
Worth a Buy's hook: "is this game worth your money?" If the PC game he's reviewing is broken in some way, say keyboard support, despite being an otherwise excellent game with native pad support, he pans it.
Case in point,when he reviewed both Dark Souls and Dark Souls II, he panned them on principle due to broken keyboard support, and he stopped playing both very quickly, without grasping a solid understanding about anything relating to either game's combat. This really hurt his credibility with DS2 when he complained about having independent decoupled character movement from the camera and compared it to World of Warcraft, instead of other Action RPGs.
Summer Haze
Banned
It's not the most complicated combat system in videogames, no (not that something being simple is inherently a bad thing or anything), but I'm not trying to oversell it, I'm just stating what the combat is in actuality, which isn't a simple X button spam-fest. And I'd agree with the last part of your comment. Once you get used to which buttons take down each type of enemy the biggest challenge comes from zoning out and losing your focus. I've found music helps.
Oh, and that damn camera. Lost my combo so many fucking times due to that shitty thing.
I've switched my hyperbole detector back on. Thanks.
really i wish many more games tried to emulate the masterful design behind NGB's combat- i think that game has the perfect (and i mean perfect) 'grounded' combat system despite it's otherwise pretty wild trappings
like, DMC's wild style isn't always going to be the right choice, but i think NGB works as a fantastic companion piece to exemplify two ideals of strong action design without much compromise
like, DMC's wild style isn't always going to be the right choice, but i think NGB works as a fantastic companion piece to exemplify two ideals of strong action design without much compromise
It would be just another drop for me. I think Batman looks ludicrous during these mob fights when someone like Kratos for example, looks very solid. Instead of timing inputs, he has counters, crowd control, juggles, various weapons, etc... Basically the solid foundation of a great 2D brawler put into 3D space, which is what the best developers do. I'm not even sure what is exactly fun about Batman's combat is all. It's like a bad evolution of the Mark of Kri system.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't last very long with the last games so I wouldn't know of the later ramp ups.
Let me just take time to explain Batman's combat to those ignorant or denying its depth. The combat falls under the category of "easy to learn, difficult to master." At its core, as others have said, it's a rhythm game. You pay attention to the enemies and tap the right button at the right time. That is the core, but that is not the end of it as it is much deeper and more challenging once you really get into it. The game can actually be pretty challenging on normal difficulties but if you crank up the difficulty and turn off counter icons then things get interesting. The game doesn't just set you up against one enemy type, but instead fills the game with various enemy types holding various weapons that requires you to stay on your toes, and make constant threat assessments while attempting to hold on to your combo string.
You enter a crowd of enemies and some have lead pipes, some have guns, some have swords, some have an electrical field surrounding them, one has a shield, one is a brute, and one has an electric stick, and each one requires a different approach and take down. You start with the lesser thugs building up your chain but then comes that electric shrouded thug, you can't hit him head on so you have to overcharge his field and hit him, but as you do that a thug comes charging at you, you can't dodge that attack you must respond with a gadget attack. Now, you try to hit the sword ninja but he is able to counter your attack and the comes back to attack you, meanwhile that brute is coming down to take a swing. You can't hit him head on, you have to stun him first, but that thug with the gun is preparing to take a shot, while a medic is preparing to revive a fallen foe and surround him with an electric field; what do you do?
I also want to note that again on the higher difficulties without a counter icon you have to be extra good and reading enemy animations and anticipating their attacks. What's more, the game actually punishes you for mashing "X" or "Triangle" if you;re really good then you are able to tap the buttons at the correct time to get a "Critical Strike." Thus, the game encourages and rewards precision as opposed to button mashing.
But yeah, I guess the combat is really shallow and just a button masher.
Whoops, quoted the wrong guy.
You enter a crowd of enemies and some have lead pipes, some have guns, some have swords, some have an electrical field surrounding them, one has a shield, one is a brute, and one has an electric stick, and each one requires a different approach and take down. You start with the lesser thugs building up your chain but then comes that electric shrouded thug, you can't hit him head on so you have to overcharge his field and hit him, but as you do that a thug comes charging at you, you can't dodge that attack you must respond with a gadget attack. Now, you try to hit the sword ninja but he is able to counter your attack and the comes back to attack you, meanwhile that brute is coming down to take a swing. You can't hit him head on, you have to stun him first, but that thug with the gun is preparing to take a shot, while a medic is preparing to revive a fallen foe and surround him with an electric field; what do you do?
I also want to note that again on the higher difficulties without a counter icon you have to be extra good and reading enemy animations and anticipating their attacks. What's more, the game actually punishes you for mashing "X" or "Triangle" if you;re really good then you are able to tap the buttons at the correct time to get a "Critical Strike." Thus, the game encourages and rewards precision as opposed to button mashing.
But yeah, I guess the combat is really shallow and just a button masher.
Whoops, quoted the wrong guy.
The only one I've played if it counts is Bloodborne. I like Bloodborne's combat because of how different every enemy feels. Everytime you see a new enemy, you have a moment where you stop and feel like you need to probe the enemy and see what it does. The leap of faith that you have to take to do visceral attacks is the greatest sense of risk/reward as well. The telegraphs for attacks tend to be much shorter as well. You seem to think that all telegraphs are equal. I don't compare a split second telegraph and a telegraph that you can make last 3 seconds long as being equal. I don't consider Bloodborne to be the apex of action combat, but I definitely enjoyed it a lot, while I very much disliked The Witcher 3's combat.
Furthermore, The Witcher 3 having telegraphs that require dodges alone doesn't turn it into some masterpiece. Having a single element requiring some dynamic change in what you are doing isn't enough. Alchemy is pointless. I never bother touching any of it because it is totally unnecessary. Why use bombs when slashing around is effective enough? Why use Igni? Why use Axxi? They're there for no purpose besides the fact that they are a choice, and there lies the problem. They design the combat to be a matter of choice, but every choice is completely viable and rendered meaningless.
I'm not sure you've even played Batman then, Batman also has counters, crowd control, juggles, various weapons, etc...
Learn every combat option and utilise them every time you play at full speed while not taking a hit. That's where the fun lies, you have to be willing to learn it properly though, most videos I see of Batman just show the user mashing attack, countering, and repeating the same couple of moves over and over.
Just because it can be played mindlessly doesn't mean it is.
I could just as easily describe Demon's Souls that way. "Every fight I roll out of an enemy's first attack and attack him while he's recovering." Anyway, from your description, it sounds like you are doing a lot to fight basic enemies and you obviously have to do more than that when fighting groups of enemies like drowners. When you fight monsters, you have to use different tactics because they have different movesets and weaknesses. For example, you should always dodge the mud that is thrown by water hags or you will be disoriented. You can also counterattack them to cut their venomous tongues off. Not everyone has to like the combat but to call it bad combat system is just wrong.
Also, if the game is too easy, you should increase the difficulty unless you prefer it easy.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
I'm a little torn on this topic because I don't think a game necessarily needs good combat to be successful.
Morrowind has combat, that while not traditional, really allows you to role play.
I think the problem is a lot of people have lost the ability to use their imagination while playing a game.
Morrowind has combat, that while not traditional, really allows you to role play.
I think the problem is a lot of people have lost the ability to use their imagination while playing a game.
hmm ... nope. I think that western devs are better than Japan devs in both combat/gameplay department. Of course, games like BloodBlorne are just incredible, but that not means that all the Japan's devs are as good as From Software.
Ps I love Platinum's games ... (I bought a WiiU just for Bayonetta 2 ...).
No, he's right. It's sort of the big problem about AK, where in most post 50% completition scenarios, the X button just stops being useful because there are so many enemy types that require other tools to damage them.
That being said, the regular attack IS still ludicrously overpowered in every batman game and batman like game, allowing the player to completely ignore spacing, blocking, dodging, counterhits, etc. And I'm not really sure taking the X button away is the best way of making the game more difficult...but that's what they did for AK so....::Shrugs::
Exactly.
The only reason you'd say "Batman is just a button masher" is if you're bad at it, or just haven't bothered to learn all the systems properly.
Summer Haze
Banned
Ah, I see.
One other thing I liked about AK's combat is the ability to counter-throw enemies. It really helps with crowd control and adds a little more "depth" to the counter system. I liked that they realised that the player would need something to deal with the increased enemy count in combat scenarios instead of just jumping over everyone.
SolidSnakex
Member
Are we talking about melee combat? Because I just don't see that. Just look at something like Dragon's Dogma. That was Capcom's first open world RPG and they nailed the combat on the first go. And on a level that you really don't see in any other open world RPG.
I played it for about an hour. And the detailed write-up of Batman's depth a few posts up basically talks of adding various different wrenches to a rhythm based combat system. I disliked hitting a few buttons and watching this character bounce all over the place like I was just yelling "go Batman go!"
So maybe there is depth with adding these mix-ups to keep you on your toes while you try to maintain a rhythm. Sounds like Patapon. But I think some players, myself included, really want more control over the characters, not the environment.
I dunno man, the fact that most games have been aping batman over the course of the past few years says a lot. I wish it was better, but even DmC follows into the hole of every weapon's depth being dictated by an XX . XXX combo, a stinger combo and a launcher, and that's it.
I think, more than good or bad, it's more that western developers get combat to a certain point, and stop because it's good enough, while eastern devs will keep going, creating systems that end up being far deeper than the average user will ever need, but it's certainly there to use should they want to change things up.
I don't get why you're telling me what I'm doing in the game. I'm really far into the game. I've unlocked the full skill tree slot selections and I've fought tons of different monsters. The water hags mud throwing doesn't mean anything when you have Quen. Drowners are only slightly annoying at low level, but again are trivialized by Quen. I'm playing the game on the second-highest difficulty. When is it okay to just say the combat in general is too easy instead of blaming the difficulty selection?
And I have never played Demon's Souls or recall ever saying it is any better.
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
Dante, Ryu Hayabusa, and Bayonetta are all superhuman characters who are pretty much the strongest fighters in their worlds. They're more "godlike" than Batman is compared to his foes, so the "well Batman is a master of fighting so it makes sense for his game to be simpler" argument really makes no sense. I'd rather just call it what it is; that they're simpler games because the developers wanted to appeal to wider audiences without frustrating players - which is fine. It's totally fine to be into those games too. But it's also fine for someone to say they think games like that are less fulfilling because of their relative simplicity.
batman is sometimes a really straightforward (and imo over-designed) stimulus-response system. you can ONLY do this attack to this dude, you can ONLY use this attack on this guy, if you're about to be hit, here's an enormous window for you to press the button that stops it. there is a lot of fun and depth to the system once you look for opportunities to use every gadget, get all the combat bonuses and so on, but it's more puzzle than traditional combat. again, i think it does it's thing extremely well, but it really feels like you're on rails the whole time if you try to approach it like a traditional japanese action game.
the creativity involved in DMC/bayo style combat is - here is a huge set of moves - how can i use them? what the developer intended is totally irrelevant, because it's so free-form i might be able to find a crazy new use for X that lets me now do some other combo or movement trick that nobody's ever seen or thought of before.
the creativity involved in DMC/bayo style combat is - here is a huge set of moves - how can i use them? what the developer intended is totally irrelevant, because it's so free-form i might be able to find a crazy new use for X that lets me now do some other combo or movement trick that nobody's ever seen or thought of before.
I haven't played The Witcher 1 or 2 but I have heard that it is a lot better. From only playing The Witcher 3, I found the combat to be great.
If you don't like the free flow style there's nothing that can be done about it, but don't let the fact it locks on fool you: you do have a great deal of control, it's just different. Your control comes in the form of choosing which enemy to lunge at and selecting one of the many combat options.
There's a lot of control, a lot of skill, and a lot of challenge /if/ you bother to find it.
It's totally understandable if you don't enjoy the style, just don't call it shallow if you haven't fully explored it.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
All but the most ardent defenders know the Arkham combat is shallow. It doesn't make it bad, or evil, but its a combat system designed to look flashy and accessible to the millions of people who play the game. Things like positioning, spacing, range; things that are core to most action game design, just doesn't really matter in the Arkham games cuz he can just fly around the room at any time, counter pretty much anything. You're never in a bad spot because you can literally just keep mashing X to escape and fly across the room with a strike if need be.
And it works in the context of the game's desire to be a flashy Batman simulator. To take on a bunch of various thugs, with wonderful animations, powerful sound design, cool Bat-gadgets, and the like. Its not something that's gonna hold up the game all by itself, but due to the nature of its game design it doesn't have. Its just one pillar the formula is built on. Its combat isn't as deep or as challenging as the various Bayonettas, DMCs, Ninja Gaidens, God Hands, or even God of Wars of the world, but it doesn't really has to. What Rocksteady has works, for its intended design needs.
And it works in the context of the game's desire to be a flashy Batman simulator. To take on a bunch of various thugs, with wonderful animations, powerful sound design, cool Bat-gadgets, and the like. Its not something that's gonna hold up the game all by itself, but due to the nature of its game design it doesn't have. Its just one pillar the formula is built on. Its combat isn't as deep or as challenging as the various Bayonettas, DMCs, Ninja Gaidens, God Hands, or even God of Wars of the world, but it doesn't really has to. What Rocksteady has works, for its intended design needs.
Honestly if he hadn't picked Jedi Knight as his counter example I might of taken him a bit more serious.
All in all there's not many developers that I'd say have done better combat systems than say something like batman. There's the noteable big ones, but beyond that? I mean a lot of Japanese action games aren't that great, but we tend to only think of stuff like DMC or Ninja Gaiden.
All in all there's not many developers that I'd say have done better combat systems than say something like batman. There's the noteable big ones, but beyond that? I mean a lot of Japanese action games aren't that great, but we tend to only think of stuff like DMC or Ninja Gaiden.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
As long they fix the camera
Stereogatari
Banned
Stealth Assasin's Creed thread?
Parmadillo Marshmallow
Member
Reposting from another thread:
I have recently come to the conclusion that Japanese developers "get" melee-based action combat way better than western developers. God of War/Sony Santa Monica is the only exception that I can think of. There is a certain "tightness" to the gameplay that relies on consistent and specific frame-based animations that the western devs just can't seem to nail.
Outstanding combat mechanics, in order (IMO):
Monster Hunters
Souls/Bloodborne
Ninja Gaidens
God of Wars
DMCs
Dragon's Dogma
Games that other people like that I hated the combat in:
Witcher 3
Assassins Creeds
Dragon Age Inquisition
Haven't played:
Bayonetta (I want to)
Batman (I have no desire to)
I have recently come to the conclusion that Japanese developers "get" melee-based action combat way better than western developers. God of War/Sony Santa Monica is the only exception that I can think of. There is a certain "tightness" to the gameplay that relies on consistent and specific frame-based animations that the western devs just can't seem to nail.
Outstanding combat mechanics, in order (IMO):
Monster Hunters
Souls/Bloodborne
Ninja Gaidens
God of Wars
DMCs
Dragon's Dogma
Games that other people like that I hated the combat in:
Witcher 3
Assassins Creeds
Dragon Age Inquisition
Haven't played:
Bayonetta (I want to)
Batman (I have no desire to)
Summer Haze
Banned
But you literally can't do this. Unless you're surrounded entirely by the basic, grunt-style enemies, and even then it's not quite that simple.
Really? I find the "gameplay" in JRPGs generally to be awful. Basic features taken from other games rolled up in to "systems" with funny names. Ridiculously easy and often simplistic combat encounters with a few boss fight difficulty spikes to encourage grinding. Laughable characters, story and most glaringly, writing. Not sure how much the latter has to do with being translated, though.
Not that WRPGs tend to do all the above well, but some recent mid-tier titles and older games are miles beyond anything I've seen in a JRPG. Every once in a while I look in to JRPGs, and it seems like most of the same (what I consider) flaws still exist.
Western strategy and tactical games are also easily better than what Japan produces.
Indie titles also do some great stuff.
But yeah, the most mass market "AAA" tends to be pretty bad.
Curious, why not?
copelandmaster
Member
You have to look at your opponent to figure out when to attack? Wow!
Dudes have different weapons? Zounds!
Chains turn the combat into a win button? **MLG HORN**
You have to chain to beat certain enemy types? That's DmC color coded enemy bullshit.
Deep, Rythm based, challenging gameplay. That shit is basic combat 101 toned down to brain dead levels.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Define depth concretely then, and don't use subjective words. My money is on that by the time you define it, Batman will fit the bill.
Such ignorant posts.
Play on the hardest mode, without counter signals, with multiple enemy types, and just press x.
Let me know how that works out for you.
toastyToast
Member
Assuming that's Playstation X
Spectacle often works against combat quality. Spectacle cannot operate along side a player that has total agency over the character. That is why modern action games that focus on spectacle work to reduce what the player can actually do into neat little funnels that lead to seeing cool whiz-bangy stuff. Do people remember the CoD: Black Ops mission that requires literally no shooting from the player? You really just have to follow and see cool shit happen. Feel free to shoot enemies if you want, but it is totally optional. What is most important is that you get to see all of this cool stuff we did!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY
I'm obviously not telling you what you are doing. I am giving examples of how is more complex than what you had described. The water hags throwing mud still blinds you with Quen. In my playthrough, drowners would destroy my Quen in a single hit and if I were fighting a group of them, relying on Quen too much would lead to death.
I never said that you played Demon's Souls. I used it as an example because it has combat that is accepted as great by most users on neogaf.
It is not okay to call a game's combat too easy when you aren't even playing on the highest difficulty. That's insane. Why are you so reluctant to increase the difficulty if you think the game is too easy?
digita1alchemy
Member
What you explained is still My First Action Game™ compared to something like, say, The Wonderful 101. Sure, it's more accessible and that was probably the aim, but don't pretend like it's some shining beacon of action game mechanics for truly seasoned players.
This is a very good post that cuts straight to the heart of the matter.
PseudoViper
Member
Sleeping Dogs hand to hand combat was superb! Absolutely loved it. I would like to see more games handle hand to hand combat like Sleeping Dogs. I think it's pretty rare to see games like that.
Maybe Batman falls within the same lines, but I think it is slightly unfair to compare an RPG like The Witcher or Skyrim to a pure action game like DMC or even Dragon's Dogma. Dragon's Dogma was made by the Devil May Cry team -- a team that's inevitably more experienced making action game combat systems.
Think about it: How many action RPGs actually have good melee combat? The Souls games are honestly almost the only ones if you ask me, and are definitely contenders for the best. Action games and RPGs are two different genres made by developers with completely different skill sets. Rarely do they intersect well.
Wow he can take on 4 of the most basic enemies in batman, congrats.
Brute forcing games isn't a new thing. I watched someone complete MGR the other day by just mashing until the last boss, are people now going to say MGR is a trash battle system?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I'm going off playstation terminology here, so by X I mean the dodge button. The dodge button that vaults over all enemies and interrupts their animations no matter what they're doing, or what enemy type they are, and renders them ineffective no matter what difficulty level. The one you can mash and still keep your combo going.
The game is shallow. That does not mean its bad. Simple can be good! I'm a fan of Arkham's combat! Not everything has to be Bayonetta or DMC4.
So what you're saying is that the early combat encounters in the game in which you are being taught the systems are easy? Who would have thought?
Magic Mushroom
Member
It looked cool, but was really shallow. You could counter almost everything.
"Unfortunately" your post reminds me a game that I really love, but even after many iterations hasn't yet been able to improve. Assassin's creed.