Support NeoGAF

[Protomanx13]

Like to see you try in Arkham knight. Brutes, charging guys, guys with stun rods, ninja knife dudes, guns with stun suits... ya the punch button alone will get you fucked up.

Thing is even with all the combat options in batman, the fighting looks beautiful and flows pretty seemlessly when done correctly.

I would if the pc version works fluently. Played for 5 hours and the batmobile part is nearly unplayable

 

[Ferrio]

As someone who's been gaming for 30 years, I think the video is selling batman and other games extremely short and that there's a lot of nostalgia blinding them. Jedi's knights combat system isn't something to write home about nowadays.

Batman's systems and others are complex as you make it usually.

 

[Walpurgis]

The Witcher 3 is a terrible example. It has no health regen, great dodging mechanics and deep combat. The only thing that is true in the OP is automatic animations. Anyone who thinks The Witcher 3 has bad combat is either a bad player or is playing on the easiest difficulty.

 

[Zakalwe]

He's actually not wrong about that part, he's saying no matter where the camera is facing or what's going on pressing attack just makes your character instantly lock on and lunge towards someone with otherwise no input from the player.

Batman's combat looks so goofy as a result of that, you can press attack and batman will liu kang kick across the screen 100 feet into an enemy.

There's nothing wrong with that though, the combat system is like a rhythm game that requires some pretty tight timing. Yes, the flow becomes automated when you build your combo to a certain point, but if you still have to input very quickly depending on the enemy you're hurtling toward. And you still have to be on the ball for counters, and blade attacks, etc... Like many rhythm games it speeds up when you're doing well to increase the challenge.

At no point an the player switch off and just let the game automate, not unless you play on easy mode.

 

[Harmen]

This is commonly the case, but the nature of much AAA is to encourage hand holding so as not to scare off the general public. But luckily we still have a few higher budget titles where combat is a priority.

While this most certainly is awesome, this type of combat would be utterly ridiculous in games like Batman or the Witcher. Same goes for Vanquish combat in Ucharted or TLOU.

Having basic controls and straightforward moves =/= simple combat. For example, I think Uncharted uses leveldesign and varying difficulties in a fantastic way. Yes, it is simple to do most actions in UC. But the great online MP, higher difficulties and broad variation brought by different environments, enemy placement and weapons.make the combat far from the simple breezetrough people are making it out to be.

Don't know about Witcher 3 though, but 2's combat was the reason I quit initially. I thought it was dreadful. And stuff like AC is indeed way too automatic for my taste. I love Batman's combat, but acknowledge from a gameplay point of view it is rather straighforward. But it does make me feel like a batass, which to me is the point of those game.

 

[digita1alchemy]

Most big budget, mainstream games aren't doing anything interesting mechanically. They're mostly fluff hidden behind high production values. They're popular, but then again so is McDonald's.

 

[Inkvoterad]

Eh, while i agree with the point that modern western games have taken a huge drop in quality regarding combat there's one thing he talks about that i just find being stupid as fuck.
It seems he wants literally every game with combat to put the player in extreme danger, no matter what, otherwise he just can't be arsed to play it properly. He mentions how there's no point in countering and doing other stuff than punching in the Batman series, but there is. Just like any game where focus is on the combat there's a combo system, which in turn rewards players for playing "better" (quotationmarks cause batman combat isnt exactly anything difficult to master) by giving them all from more money/gold/etc to spend on upgrades/weapons/armor/moves/artworkshit to items locked behind "challenges" that require you to be versatile in your combat (look at those stone statue thingies in dmc3).

Batman is all about chaining together huge combos and that is where alot of the enjoyment people talk about exists with the games. And i have to say that you wouldnt be able to complete the Arkham games by only smashing the punch button, several factors has always come in after you've progressed to force you to take use of all the things batman can do, just as with the rest of them.

I mean, fuck. Not even the DMC games are at core "hardcore survival" games unless you rank up the difficulty to max. They're too all about doing long combos and looking sexy as fuck while doing it while being versatile in the combat.

I get that he wouldnt like the mechanics in Batman, i agree with him on those points about the automated shit being lame as hell and all, but the part about not being arsed about playing the game properly unless his character is in constant danger just feels undeveloped and dumb as hell.

Sorry for long and probably very incoherent rant, but that part annoyed the living shit out of me.

If he can't find the slightest enjoyment in being in the position of the one controlling the battlefield i don't understand why he bothers with Character action games at all.

 

[Two Words]

The only ones I can think of that have that same feel are Batman and Shadow of Mordor which is easily explainable via the WB license.

AC plays differently to me because of the heavy parrying required in the later games. The Witcher 3, as someone else mentioned, is not a joke on higher difficulty levels. It is a much more methodical combat system versus the frenetic nature of Batman and Mordor.

There are more games that can be listed, but yes they don't play like spitting images of Batman. They do however take a lot of inspiration from it. The problem is that inspiration makes the game really easy. A lot of people here are defending Witcher 3, but that too is a very easy game. Not on the same level as Batman, but still easy even on harder difficulties once you get past the brutal beginnings.

 

[gunbo13]

Well we were talking about 3 but ok. I agree 1 has subpar combat.

Yea, could be. I never tried 3. Just couldn't get past the clunkiness of the early games. Not to mention the horrible AI, standing there getting shot in the face when I tell them not too. Well, those are my memories of ME at least.

I really hate that people view Western combat as bad or simple just because you don't always have full control of characters - not everything has to be a character action game. There are good western combat systems (Batman) which are heavily automated but still require skill, timing and precise input and then there are bad examples.

Except almost anyone can perform the same level tasks because the game is so streamlined. Skill basically becomes competency, which is the absence of depth.

 

[Puruzi]

There's nothing wrong with that though, the combat system is like a rhythm game that requires some pretty tight timing. Yes, the flow becomes automated when you build your combo to a certain point, but if you still have to input very quickly depending on the enemy you're hurtling toward. And you still have to be on the ball for counters, and blade attacks, etc... Like many rhythm games it speeds up when you're doing well to increase the challenge.

At no point an the player switch off and just let the game automate, not unless you play on easy mode.

The combat being like a rhythm game doesn't make the combat good you know.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

All these games are too concerned with looking good. It's the same reason why platforming became more automated. Your game looks really stupid when the player misses a jump and it looks stupid when they miss a punch.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Yea, could be. I never tried 3. Just couldn't get past the clunkiness of the early games. Not to mention the horrible AI, standing there getting shot in the face when I tell them not too. Well, those are my memories of ME at least.

Except almost anyone can perform the same level tasks because the game is so streamlined. Skill basically become competency, which is the absence of depth.

Not true at all. Watch someone who is pro at Batman vs someone who is bad. Flawless free flow vs stuttery, jumpy struggle to completion.

 

[DrGonzo615]

As someone who's been gaming for 30 years, I think the video is selling batman and other games extremely short and that there's a lot of nostalgia blinding them. Jedi's knights combat system isn't something to write home about nowadays.

Batman's systems and others are complex as you make it usually.

Pretty much this.

This guy is way off base.

I dont see why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. In Batman, you are effin Batman. Random street thugs arent supposed to be a real threat to you. The skill comes in how well you can chain together moves, dodges, reversals, gadgets while taking on enemies that require different tactics to take down.

 

[Ri'Orius]

I didn't like Witcher 3's combat, but Batman combat is wonderful. Yeah, if your goal is to get to the end on easy mode, you can just spam attack, but on harder difficulties, going for three-star challenges (note: I haven't gotten around to many challenges in AK, hopefully they're still awesome) you need to know your shit.

Dude talks about how he doesn't counter and just lets charging guys hit him, and I'm like, wtf? Apparently if he doesn't get a "game over" screen he doesn't feel the sting of failure. Every time my combo breaks I know I messed up. I might still make it through the encounter, but I hold myself to a higher standard than that.

 

[Zakalwe]

There are more games that can be listed, but yes they don't play like spitting images of Batman. They do however take a lot of inspiration from it. The problem is that inspiration makes the game really easy. A lot of people here are defending Witcher 3, but that too is a very easy game. Not on the same level as Batman, but still easy even on harder difficulties once you get past the brutal beginnings.

Batman isn't easy if you actually try to play with maximum efficiency and skill though. It's an open system that lets you create your own challenge.

The combat being like a rhythm game doesn't make the combat good you know.

What does that have to do with my comment? I was making a rebuttal against the idea that the automated flow makes the combat automated. I didn't write "Batman combat is good because it's a rhythm game".

But you are right, just being like a rhythm game isn't enough to make it good. What makes it good is the variety of options available to you and the fact it's incredibly open to interpretation.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

There are more games that can be listed, but yes they don't play like spitting images of Batman. They do however take a lot of inspiration from it. The problem is that inspiration makes the game really easy. A lot of people here are defending Witcher 3, but that too is a very easy game. Not on the same level as Batman, but still easy even on harder difficulties once you get past the brutal beginnings.

It's an RPG...you've seen what static leveling / level scaling does to combat in games (see Oblivion)--it makes leveling completely pointless.

The combat gets easier because Geralt's abilities make him a more powerful combatant. Sure some of the signs could use a good nerf or two, but the overall progression of your character can be seen via his power over enemies and shouldn't be construed as a weak combat system.

 

[Two Words]

The Witcher 3 is a terrible example. It has no health regen, great dodging mechanics and deep combat. The only thing that is true in the OP is automatic animations. Anyone who thinks The Witcher 3 has bad combat is either a bad player or is playing on the easiest difficulty.

I'm playing it on the second hardest difficulty and I think the combat is stupid easy. I've played it for dozens of hours and nothing in the game has made me have to change my combat choices. Every fight I simply cast Quen, then Yrden if I need to on monsters. I jump to their side and slash. Then the monster will do a very telegraphed large attack and I jump back. I repeat this until it is dead. Human enemies are easy fodder that require absolutely no real effort. Just cast Quen and slash about until they are dead. Do a little dodging so that they don't completely surround you.

The game is nowhere near as brain-dead simple as Batman, but I don't get this major defense of The Witcher 3 as some brilliant execution of action combat. It's not.

 

[SmokedMeat]

That's not the point. And regardless, Batman's combat could have a ton more depth and still be more than faithful to the comics. Rocksteady just chooses to make it basically autopilot.

I don't feel it's autopilot when you have a room full of enemies, some of whom attack, and need to be handled differently to defeat.

I think it works well for Batman, and actually has some impact, as opposed to a character unleashing triple somersaults and ultra flashy sword attacks that just magically pass through enemies with no feeling of impact or damage.

I don't feel every action game needs pages of button combinations to be considered good.

 

[ShinMaruku]

Japan is a praradox believe it or not. Generally their games are easier than the western equivalents look ad DMC3 for US and EU being the hardest versions. But since Japanese devs come to the games as mechanics above all else and not experince they give you the tools to really go ham.

Western devs just don't think on that level outside of a few outliers and since they are still aming for "We want everybody to play" farse they will never really push the games nor design tools for you to go ham. For example we have a 'budget' game in Oneechanbara Z2 chaos where superficially you can just mash but when you find the cool combos the harder more obnoxius points of the game become easier when you learn all the tools. Then there is a revving up system for Kagura where her sub weapoin can be charged mid combo which after you finish a cool combo you can rapid fire her glaive in a machine gun like fashion.

It's all a systems based game verses and experience type game. I fall into the systems based games therefore Japan appeals to me.

 

[Ferrio]

Dude talks about how he doesn't counter and just lets charging guys hit him, and I'm like, wtf? Apparently if he doesn't get a "game over" screen he doesn't feel the sting of failure. Every time my combo breaks I know I messed up. I might still make it through the encounter, but I hold myself to a higher standard than that.

Yep and at higher difficulties having your combo break could easily mean death. The combat needs a lot of awareness of all your enemies positions, what type of enemy they are, and what the proper tactic is to take them down. Once the game starts throwing all these enemy types into the same arena the stuff gets pretty hectic. It's honestly pretty insulting when this game offers so many combat options and ways to tackle situations and this guy just handwaves it away because he can take on 5 of the starting enemies on an easy difficulty.

 

[gunbo13]

The Witcher 3 is a terrible example. It has no health regen, great dodging mechanics and deep combat. The only thing that is true in the OP is automatic animations. Anyone who thinks The Witcher 3 has bad combat is either a bad player or is playing on the easiest difficulty.

So is Witcher 3 much better combat wise then 2? I tried playing 2, amazing graphics on PC, combat was horrific.

While this most certainly is awesome, this type of combat would be utterly ridiculous in games like Batman or the Witcher. Same goes for Vanquish combat in Ucharted or TLOU.

I don't think anyone is saying those games should adopt a DMC combat system. But I'll say that Sucker Punch outclasses Batman in a heartbeat.

Not true at all. Watch someone who is pro at Batman vs someone who is bad. Flawless free flow vs stuttery, jumpy struggle to completion.

I didn't say "bad" I said competent.

As for your point...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr7aBBdXQeA

Ehhhh...

 

[toastyToast]

Batman combat falls apart once you have to start picking your targets with the bonkers auto-tracking and just stopping is counter intuitive so you just start jumping over dudes until you can find something to hit until toy can finally work up a takedown. It all feels tedious compared when the combat works i.e it's still easy and all you're focusing on is getting a high score.

The Bayonetta games had a very good middle ground of complexity. Relatively simple, not an overwhelming amount of options but still quite a lot and there was enough room to style on the top end. Not as much as DMC3/4 but still.

 

[Summer Haze]

Never mind.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Batman says no.

 

[Reebot]

And I roll my eyes every time I see comments like this. If you really think that Batman's combat is just 'press X to win', then you either haven't played the games, or you suck at the combat. The X button doesn't even do anything against some enemies, so how you can claim it's nothing but spamming X is beyond me. Try playing the game on NG+ (no counter prompts) and then tell me it's nothing but an X button spam-fest.

Yeah, you have to occasionally press another button. That poster was so far off.

 

[SmartWaffles]

I roll my eyes every time people say Batman combat is great.
It literally what makes Western AAA games so bad.
Spam XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, press Triangle for auto-win.
Position? Fuck nah, the move will automatically move toward for you.
Just press any direction+X, it will "dance" to the next target so you can spam more Xs.

Hey genius how about you finish a combat challenge in Arkham series without taking a single hit. (I'm not even asking you to use different gadgets and different combo takedowns because that seems to be too complicated for you)

 

[GuardianE]

While this most certainly is awesome, this type of combat would be utterly ridiculous in games like Batman or the Witcher. Same goes for Vanquish combat in Ucharted or TLOU.

I definitely don't disagree, but I was more just trying to illustrate that there are a limited number of AAA games out there with a heavy combat focus. Although DMC4 was AAA at the time of release. Those standards have shifted. RE6 and Dragon's Dogma are more recent examples.

 

[Zakalwe]

As for your point...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr7aBBdXQeA

Ehhhh...

That's one of the easiest challenges and not a good example of someone who's making the most of the combat system at all.

Yeah, you have to occasionally press another button. That poster was so far off.

Something tells me you haven't ever done well in the harder combat challenge modes... What's your average combo score?

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

I'm playing it on the second hardest difficulty and I think the combat is stupid easy. I've played it for dozens of hours and nothing in the game has made me have to change my combat choices. Every fight I simply cast Quen, then Yrden if I need to on monsters. I jump to their side and slash. Then the monster will do a very telegraphed large attack and I jump back. I repeat this until it is dead. Human enemies are easy fodder that require absolutely no real effort. Just cast Quen and slash about until they are dead. Do a little dodging so that they don't completely surround you.

The game is nowhere near as brain-dead simple as Batman, but I don't get this major defense of The Witcher 3 as some brilliant execution of action combat. It's not.

So you telegraph enemy attacks and dodge/counter appropriately? Gee, that sounds oddly similar to a combat system that gets praised for its immense depth...

 

[unholyrevenger72]

The combat being like a rhythm game doesn't make the combat good you know.

All combat is rhythm based though. Batman is Jazz, DMC is speed metal. If the player who is performing in the DMC4 gif in thread didn't have rhythm, it wouldn't look good. And that's why i'm not impressed by DMC highlight videos, the player builds a rhythm and repeats it ad nauseum.

 

[Seyavesh]

maybe it was because i played Sigma, and not the Xbox orginal, but if you held block for more than a second he would grab you and head butt you and throw you to ground.

The Trick was to tap block and counter attack, or attack with a faster weapon because he'd block if not in an attack animation.

nah this happens in NG black too, it's one of the key points of the boss and it actually makes him one of the greatest first bosses in any action game ever because of the grace of his design (strong tells using nunchucks as animation basis that show clear lines of attack, reactive actions that force the player to solve the concept behind the boss that still allows for open solutions)

it tests the player on the basics of the game and challenges them to think critically about their approaches to problems using their wide toolset. there's no ATTACK NOW phase, no signals beyond pure animation- it's genuinely beautiful design

 

[foxtrot3d]

EDIT:

I roll my eyes every time people say Batman combat is great.
It literally what makes Western AAA games so bad.
Spam XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, press Triangle for auto-win.
Position? Fuck nah, the move will automatically move toward for you.
Just press any direction+X, it will "dance" to the next target so you can spam more Xs.

You're talking shit.

 

[see5harp]

Witcher 3 is better than the last game but combat is still the worst part of the game.

 

[Neff]

Japanese developers are steeped in arcade heritage, so their games are based around mechanics which are static, 100% accountable to the player and purely skill-based. An old post I made comparing Arkham combat to Streets of Rage:

Arkham's combat is more like a rhythm game than an adaptive, creative combat engine, at least on hard difficulty. It mostly does all of the zoning for you, with Batman being attached to each enemy by an invisible elastic band which stretches and contracts depending on your vulnerability or combo. Enemies will come up to you and you press the specific buttons to trigger a specific attack to take out/counter a specific type of foe, and there's not much decision making on the part of the player outside of that. You pick enemies off one by one and you're basically indestructible so long as you do the right thing at the right time. Being surrounded is common, and not dangerous. Building momentum with an uninterrupted chain is also important. It gets very hectic and exciting, but it's more or less monkey see monkey do, and the timing is reasonably generous.

Something like SoR on the other hand is about putting moves together with split second timing in such a way which maximises crowd control while enhancing a tight defence. You're forever at the mercy of fixed startup and recovery properties, but also likewise able to take advantage of precision movement and inputs. It's much more about picking tools for the right situation and putting it all together on the fly so you don't leave yourself open or surrounded.

Both styles of combat are very fun and rewarding, and appear quite similar, but they're conceptually very different.

I definitely prefer the Japanese take on combat, but something like Arkham at least is very fun and exciting, at least when played on hard.

 

[ghibli99]

Bayonetta 2 and DmCE are two recent examples where I just totally fell in love with the combat systems. I understand that the Arkham series has a more "automated" approach, but I still find it to be very satisfying, both from a gameplay and presentation perspective.

 

[Two Words]

It's an RPG...you've seen what static leveling / level scaling does to combat in games (see Oblivion)--it makes leveling completely pointless.

The combat gets easier because Geralt's abilities make him a more powerful combatant. Sure some of the signs could use a good nerf or two, but the overall progression of your character can be seen via his power over enemies and shouldn't be construed as a weak combat system.

I actually like some sense of scaling in my RPGs. I'm playing Kingdom Hearts right now, and I like that at a certain point, the Heartless just become a lot stronger and more powerful Heartless appear in different zones. It would be a snooze-fest if the same weak Heartless that I can wipe with a single Thundaga spell cast were still around.

I don't mind getting more powerful and seeing that improvement in the combat. My problem is how the RPG improvements completely trivialize the combat. Once Quen sticks around for a long time and I can cast magic with ability points and earn ability points from casting magic, I'm basically the Terminator.

 

[shinobi602]

They seem fine to me. I love the combat in games like Batman, Shadow of Mordor, Gears, Witcher 3, Mass Effect 3, etc. I also love the combat in games like Bloodborne, Ninja Gaiden, DMC, etc but I don't want every single game to be Souls' level of difficult.

 

[SmokedMeat]

So you telegraph enemy attacks and dodge/counter appropriately? Gee, that sounds oddly similar to a combat system that gets praised for its immense depth...

Is it the one with a lock on button?

 

[Roto13]

The combat in so many modern western games is derivative of the Arkham combat system and that is a terrible system to begin with. Mash attack until you see the propmpt to hit dodge or block and then mash attack again. After enough mashing, you can throw a batarang or something. Ugh. It's the worst. Like a long, boring QTE string, or a rhythm game without any music. Especially once you get the inevitable skill that lets you throw batarangs more often if you mash attack at an even pace.

 

[Two Words]

So you telegraph enemy attacks and dodge/counter appropriately? Gee, that sounds oddly similar to a combat system that gets praised for its immense depth...

I don't really get why you are associating somebody else's words with me. I don't associate extremely slow telegraphs that need to be dodged and can be dodged with complete ease as "immense depth".

 

[Sande]

Not every game can be Dark Souls or Bloodborne, but it feels like many developers are going for this automated approach as it flows and looks better when marketing these games.

I came here to comment that even Bloodborne and Dark Souls aren't really good enough despite being some of the most acclaimed games out there. After playing Demon's Souls I was like, "Alright, that's pretty good. I can't wait to see where the gameplay will evolve from here". And... it kind of didn't evolve at all. It's still completely fine and all but every Souls game leaves me wondering what could have been if they kept iterating and pushing the envelope.

But yeah, even Dark Souls looks like perfection when you start comparing it to Batman, Assassin's Creed and the others. The whole "press X for awesome" game design culture is disgusting.

 

[Summer Haze]

Yeah, you have to occasionally press another button. That poster was so far off.

I replied to exactly what the poster said, which is that you can spam the X button and press Y to win. You can't do that. But thanks for sarcastic oversimplification.

 

[GuardianE]

All combat is rhythm based though. Batman is Jazz, DMC is speed metal. If the player who is performing in the DMC4 gif in thread didn't have rhythm, it wouldn't look good. And that's why i'm not impressed by DMC highlight videos, the player builds a rhythm and repeats it ad nauseum.

I agree there's a rhythm to all combat, but there are actually no repeated moves in that DMC4 gif, and the moves utilized have different timing.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

I don't really get why you are associating somebody else's words with me. I don't associate extremely slow telegraphs that need to be dodged and can be dodged with complete ease as "immense depth".

Let me ask you this, then. Do you find the Souls series combat to be better?

Because what you are describing in The Witcher 3 is the exact description you hear when people give advice on mastering Souls combat. Hence, why I said "immense depth."

 

[gunbo13]

I don't feel every action game needs pages of button combinations to be considered good.

Yea, most western devs who are great at combat don't have pages of combinations. Santa Monica, Sucker Punch, Insomnaic, and Vigil Games all have made or make deep systems that don't require you to muscle memory tons of stuff.

Something tells me you haven't ever done well in the harder combat challenge modes... What's your average combo score?

What's a better example? I dropped Batman because it was just like AC to me (which I also dropped), simple inputs. And I don't think upping the rhythm of combat is especially deep. It's more a tactic for a shallow game to ramp up with something instead of nothing.

 

[Zakalwe]

You're talking shit.

No he isn't.

Play on hard, and play some of the harder encounters with multiple enemy types. Medics, stun batons, shields, brutes with blades, guns, etc...

Now take them all out without being hit, without losing your combo, maintaining full free flow and being fast enough to input the exact move you need as you hurtle toward that shield bearer or stun baton wielder, then mix in some CC, finishers, stuns, etc...

You can play it without challenging yourself if you want, but that would be dull and too easy. Try doing what I wrote on hard, consistently, then come and tell me he's talking shit.

What's a better example? I dropped Batman because it was just like AC to me (which I also dropped), simple inputs. And I don't think upping the rhythm of combat is especially deep. It's more a tactic for a shallow game to ramp up with something instead of nothing.

I'm sure there's a video out there if you're really interested, but if you have the game load it up and play it on hard and find a group with multiple enemy types and try to do what I explained above. It's hard, and the challenge is fun.

 

[Valkerionseven]

Geeze yes. Even if I am interested in the basis of a AAA game I know damn well the combat is going to so boring and unfulfilling that I cannot make myself pay for them.

I want to like Uncharted, Batman, and more but damn... we just gotta say it. The combat and mechanics in these games is brain dead and almost insultingly easy. After stuff like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta ect. I want games that expect me to actually play them, not press triangle when a marker is over the enemies head to instantly take them out. Or worse the combat is just clunky to the point of annoyance. Said it a million times before here but I just keeping having to each time I try to go to one of these big "GOTY" titles.

 

[Summer Haze]

You're talking shit.

How am I? Spamming X will get you killed. Some enemies aren't affected by the basic attack move. NG+ removes counter prompts. Nothing I said there is a lie...

 

[Pyramid head]

And I roll my eyes every time I see comments like this. If you really think that Batman's combat is just 'press X to win', then you either haven't played the games, or you suck at the combat. The X button doesn't even do anything against some enemies, so how you can claim it's nothing but spamming X is beyond me. Try playing the game on NG+ (no counter prompts) and then tell me it's nothing but an X button spam-fest.

Yup, some enemies require you to press A before pressing X, and some require you to press B before pressing X. It's really overselling the combat to suggest it's not little more than a spam-fest. The real difficulty comes from trying to hold your attention and not zone out and press the wrong button during a x40 hit combo.

 

[Mesoian]

This is commonly the case, but the nature of much AAA is to encourage hand holding so as not to scare off the general public. But luckily we still have a few higher budget titles where combat is a priority.

One of the most exciting things in my eyes is the fact that platinum is getting the chance to do games outside of niche genres, allowing them to take the lessons learned from their character action games and apply them to larger worlds. Scalebound is the obvious anticipation, since, if that game does turn out to be a hunter game, it may be the first one we get that places combat prowless over instructional rigour.

And while it's not fair to say, "what is every game had DMC4/NGS+ combat?"...yo, what if every game had DMC4/NGS+ combat?!?

You're talking shit.

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::