Support NeoGAF

[gunbo13]

Like what? Dark souls? Bloodborne?

Dark Souls is a little too slow for my taste. But Bloodborne fits the description. Playing NG+ difficulties with 2-hand Blade of Mercy had solid depth vs. whatever enemy you chose. You didn't need an enemy to hold a scythe, gun, axe, whatever to add depth to the combat. Certain enemies are more susceptible to parry (a nice system to boot) but you don't have to fight them that way. Bloodborne had a lot of choice and a decent ceiling. The main issue with it is that once you hit that ceiling, you will be deflated. You want it to scale higher but the movement at some point is just too slow. I had a tough time facing this realization.

Other titles are easy, Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, DMC, the trinity. Then you have God of War, Infamous SS, and Darksiders. There are more titles but those are the easy ones I can pick.

 

[nel e nel]

Was linked this video and it shares my sentiments quite strongly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVGk4Hy_v0U

Health regen, automatic animations/positioning. Just a general lack of intensity in play with weak dodging mechanics and shallow combo's in the likes of the Witcher 3 and Shadow of Mordor (haven't played Batman or Ass Creed).

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.



Thoughts?

Maybe you're just not into AAA games anymore?

It's less to do with marketing and more to do with the fact that the average gamer demographic has been aging and has less time/patience for being punished by a hobby that they should be having fun with.

Not saying that X-TREME gaming mechanics aren't fun, but there is a reason they are more niche nowadays. And it's not really marketing. The gaming world is so diversified right now, that you don't have to settle for something that is not your taste.

People seem to be obsessed with having to like every game that comes out, and getting really bummed when they don't.

 

[Wavebossa]

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.

Hmm, ok lets see.

So what do you do when you face enemies with blades?
Or enemies that are electically charged?
Or enemies that charge at you?
Or enemies that have body armor?
Or, you know, enemies with guns? (which there are tons of)

This overused, stupid as shit "Spam XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, press Triangle for auto-win." argument only works if you completely ignore 90% of the combat in the game.

Stop this nonsense

 

[Ferrio]

Maybe he just likes that game and really wanted to show it? He's actually right that action games used to be much more challenging.

I don't buy it. People will ramble off the greats, but anyone could just as easily go back and bring up all the mindless shit that got released back then too. We remember the greats that stuck out, we forget the rest.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Also, I'm going to have to say that the idea that Japanese do combat better than western developers is true to a certain extent, but its also true that the games in which combat systems shine are limited to a small handful of very accomplished Japanese developers.

The rest, by in large are just as simplistic as any western AAA game. Just some food for thought. Having said that I haven't played a single western game that comes close to touching the sheer depth Capcom puts into some of their games. Truly the kings of combat imo.

 

[Puru]

I partially blame it on the general lack of boss fights (or mediocre ones).

Those games generally tend to be pretty boring when all you do is killing the 5-6 type of grunts for the thousand time. What are supposed to be challenges or skill tests are simply missing from the game.

I don't even feel the gameplay needs to be rich or complicated, i mean Ys is pretty much move around, hit, jump (or guard/dodge) and 3+ skills but still manage to provide entertaining bosses and a generally fun game to play.
Ys without boss would be mediocre, Souls without boss would have a few decent sections but still mostly not really good, MH wouldn't exist, etc.

 

[Pyramid head]

Superfluous button presses make deep gameplay?

You don't seem to know what the word 'superfluous' means.

Nothing shown in that video is 'superfluous'. Just the opposite in fact. Every button press served a purpose in prolonging the enemy's juggle state and prolonging a combo to nuturalie and defeat difficult opponents in an efficient manner.

Which, to answer your question, does make for deep gameplay.

 

[Two Words]

I don't buy it. People will ramble off the greats, but anyone could just as easily go back and bring up all the bad shit that got released back then too.

Yes, but he is pointing out the games that people today consider good action games. Ofcourse you could go back to the year 2000 and find all sorts of shitty bargain bin action games. But that isn't what he's talking about in 2015. The Witcher 3, Batman: AK, and Shadow of Mordor were all huge AAA games that were highly regarded as quality games. SoM won several game of the year awards and both Batman and The Witcher 3 are considered huge competitors for this year. He's talking about how the games people consider are the best action games today are far worse than the games considered the best action games of a decade+ ago.

 

[Theognosis]

I agree with the video. Most AAA games are designed for casual gamers. Go from point A to point B, watch a movie and then press some buttons to "play" the game.

 

[copelandmaster]

For fuck's sake. I said to myself I'd be able to hold off on DMC4SE until I cleared my backlog up a bit. This gif is tipping me over the edge.

On topic, though - I sort of see this, though I disagree with using the Witcher as an example. The Witcher 3 is in no way a handholding exercise. Unless you lock onto enemies in the game, you don't snap to them like in Batman and the other games he mentions.

Not to mention, the whole preparation process forces you to learn how to take down each and every enemy. The Witcher 3's combat can be janky at times but it is in no way noob friendly and I'm confused as to why its even part of the conversation.

This was a large part of his problem with the game. Now, I haven't played it, but I was genuinely surprised when he showed the TW3's actual lock on system. Not even FFXV's unfinished combat system has this problem when attacking targets without using lock on. Imagine if something like a Souls game had this problem.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I've enjoyed all of the modern combat in games sans the Souls series, honestly I could never get into how they controlled. It just always felt clunky to me for some reason. I'm a big fan of the Arkham-like combat though, I'm not sure if they could do multi-directional combat against multiple enemies better than that. So if any game that isn't Arkham has that similar style of combat and it's polished, it generally holds my interest. I'm keen on God of War / Devil May Cry combat as well. I feel that it functions very well and maintains the momentum of the action on screen.

 

[IcyEyes]

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.

Roll your eyes again, because I think the Batman combat system one of the best in the market.
Anyway a lot of people has already reply to you so it's not use to reply the same things!

 

[Mesoian]

Hmm, ok lets see.

So what do you do when you face enemies with blades?
Or enemies that are electically charged?
Or enemies that charge at you?
Or enemies that have body armor?
Or, you know, enemies with guns? (which there are tons of)

This overused, stupid as shit "Spam XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, press Triangle for auto-win." argument only works if you completely ignore 90% of the combat in the game.

Stop this nonsense

I hear what you're saying, but the fact that a good 40% of the time, spamming X will actually get you out of those situations due to the timing of the combat, he sort of has a point. Even if he's being incredibly reductive.

 

[eot]

I'm not particularly thrilled with the combat in the games mentioned, but the guy in the OP's video is insufferable.

 

[Zaventem]

This newest batman is such so much more leaps and bound WORSE when it comes to these auto jump 40 feet extend combos. There's a webm floating around with a guy simply pressing one button and he takes down a whole squad. What's worse is western devs look up to this franchise and copy cat it;s combat system.

 

[Two Words]

Some people are saying that games like Batman's depth show their combat in perfectly executing it. The argument is that the games are simple to complete but tougher and far more rewarding to master with well-strung together combos. Sorry, but older action games have that beat there too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiEG3n6lMOY

 

[Riposte]

That isn't playing with skill though, it would also be incredibly boring. Just because the system allows you to play it mindlessly, doesn't make it mindless.

It's not shallow either, there's quite a large variety of combat options.

It's simple, but varied.

It has a lot of combat options that are tacked on after the fact and justified with gimmick enemies (more so in Arkham Knight it seems, haven't played it yet). This approach is inelegant, which means it increases depth in an "inefficient" manner, so to speak. This makes the system more complicated, but not more complex and barely more meaningful. This is represented well, at least in the previous games I've played, where once you resolved the occasional special enemy's built in defense, it returns to same very basic, highly automated formula that describes the game's core combat.

I get the feeling the "depth" you speak of is derived from the rather brainless scoring system, which is merely testing the player's ability to not mess up over a length of time (and this is/was alleviated greatly by the aforementioned dodge technique). And by this I mean, measuring the gap between someone with a 90% chance of messing up vs. someone with 99% over oh so many number of moves. That's basically the most creatively limited and unintelligent test you can put on a player. That such a scoring system would be necessary for a game to have depth is ass backwards. Ideally, the mechanics of the game would be naturally creative and testing in themselves, and the scoring system would exist merely to squeeze a little more out of it. Doing it backwards is like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.


I couldn't stomach the video for long, but my basic thoughts are that combat in "AAA" games can lean towards to be more average and unremarkable than terrible. Often, they play a backseat role or aim to be as unobtrusive as possible. I think it would be unfair to say this is an exclusive "AAA" trait given the landscape of gaming in general. On the bright side is that they can still have some teeth to them if you pump up the difficulty.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Every action game has it's go-to move, but they are nowhere near as universal as what I'm doing in The Witcher 3. As far as God of War, I think the later games did a much better job of adding depth to the combat. I only played them on the first hard difficulty, so that is my experience, but those string of attacks didn't consistently work to kill enemies. Some enemies simply attacked through it and you'd take too much damage to spam your way through a fight. Hell, God of War: Ascension had to sadly nerf itself due to players complaining about a section being too hard.

Again it's about player creativity, you choose not to be creative.

As for God of War: Ascension, if an enemy has a weapon, their attacks can't interrupted with normal attack hit stun, you have to grapple them, or discard your world weapon.

 

[Socrates92]

The video is a little too silly for my tastes but I agree with the point he's making. The games he lists have incredibly watered down combat. Assassin's Creed is a series of glorified QTE's, Batman and Shadow of Mordor have a little more depth but ultimately fall into the same trap, IMO.

I've never understood why these games get rated as highly as they do when the combat is so poor. I appreciate that other elements of the game like the story or graphics might be excellent, but the mechanics should always come first.

I think it's why games like the Souls series have such a vocal audience; the gameplay is just so good. It respects the player, gives them full control and punishes them until they get it right. And to be honest, it's not even about difficulty, it's about giving as much autonomy to the player as possible.

I don't feel like a badass playing as Batman when I see enemies dancing around me one by one, taking turns to strike. It's immersion breaking.

 

[Brandon F]

Health regen has always bugged me. Otherwise I'm not as bothered as most, even if I do agree that combat is often the sticking point in too many games.

 

[blackadde]

Hmm, ok lets see.

So what do you do when you face enemies with blades?
Or enemies that are electically charged?
Or enemies that charge at you?
Or enemies that have body armor?
Or, you know, enemies with guns? (which there are tons of)

This overused, stupid as shit "Spam XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, press Triangle for auto-win." argument only works if you completely ignore 90% of the combat in the game.

Stop this nonsense

maybe i'm wrong here (please correct me), but for some / all of these scenarios you kind of have only one or two options, right? like, if someone charges at you, you press the button combination that specifically beats someone charging at you? if someone is electric, you do the one thing the game specifically told you to do to deal with it?

i know you can use gadgets to cover some of these options but when i went through knight, which was the first batman game i really played, it seemed frustratingly linear because my options seemed super limited when it came to special enemies. avoid them, then do this one button combination, or hey maybe use this one gadget we also highlighted in a tooltip. maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Zakalwe]

I get it. But it seems like you are describing a puzzle action game. Combat shouldn't require enemy patterns to achieve depth. I'm not even sure you can count that as combat depth. I'd describe it as depth to overall gameplay. The great combat systems out there don't require specific enemy types to open up. It's an odd reliance for an action game.

There is no rule, or "should" when it comes to this, only the outcome.

the outcome here is a variety of enemy types that require specific attacks to take out efficiently (which is a staple action game design, in original and deep games too), a large variety of weapons, and a variety of mechanics mixed in such as counters, throws, dodges, takedowns, stuns, crowd control, beatdowns, evades, etc...

It has depth but it also allows you to ignore the depth, which is what many people do.

It has a lot of combat options that are tacked on after the fact and justified with gimmick enemies (more so in Arkham Knight it seems, haven't played it yet). This approach is inelegant, which means it increases depth in an "inefficient" manner, so to speak. This makes the system more complicated, but not more complex and barely more meaningful. This is represented well, at least in the previous games I've played, where once you resolved the occasional special enemy's built in defense, it returns to same very basic, highly automated formula that describes the game's core combat.

I get the feeling the "depth" you speak of is derived from the rather brainless scoring system, which is merely testing the player's ability to not mess up over a length of time (and this is/was alleviated greatly by the aforementioned dodge technique). That's basically the most creatively limited and unintelligent test you can put on a player. That such a scoring system would be necessary for a game to have depth is ass backwards. Ideally, the mechanics of the game would be naturally creative and testing in themselves, and the scoring system would exist merely to squeeze a little more out of it. Doing it backwards is like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

Again, the game is easy to learn and hard to master, especially hard if you learn every move available and make use of them often.

Play on New Game+ Hard (no counter signals and toughter encounters)
Play without taking a hit or losing your flow.
Take the enemies down in the most efficient time, ie: no constant "easy" dodging.
Make the most of your entire moveset, no repeated moves unless you exhaust them all.

Then tell me how automated it was.

If you play it mindless then yes, it will feel mindless.

 

[eot]

It has a lot of combat options that are tacked on after the fact and justified with gimmick enemies (more so in Arkham Knight it seems, haven't played it yet). This approach is inelegant, which means it increases depth in an "inefficient" manner, so to speak. This makes the system more complicated, but not more complex and barely more meaningful. This is represented well, at least in the previous games I've played, where once you resolved the occasional special enemy's built in defense, it returns to same very basic, highly automated formula that describes the game's core combat.

Agreed, mistaking complexity for depth happens too often. I understand why a lot of games go that route though, designing a simple yet deep system is much harder. Few games achieve that and those that do stand out.

 

[GeeTeeCee]

Personally, I'll always choose a Batman or a God of War style game over a Devil May Cry or Bayonetta. I find that the latter are far too focused on combat systems to the detriment of the rest of the game, while the former usually has other things to supplement the "weaker" (less needlessly complex) combat systems. I still think DMC1 was better than 3, because it felt like a more substantial game world, while DMC3 is basically just corridors leading to combat arenas, over and over.

Just an opinion, of course.

 

[Wavebossa]

I hear what you're saying, but the fact that a good 40% of the time, spamming X will actually get you out of those situations due to the timing of the combat, he sort of has a point. Even if he's being incredibly reductive.

Yes he is being incredible reductive, but to an extent, you are as well.

The fact of the matter is that even in 40% of the encounters, No, it absolutely will not.. After the first few fights, you will never ever run into a progression encounter that does not have at least one of the following enemy types

Armed Enemy (gun)
Armed Enemy (blade)
Electrically charged Enemy
Brute (armored)
Charging Enemy

And I love how when we talk about combat in the Arkham series, we conveniently don't include all of those set pieces where we are up against multiple armed enemies and have to use stealth and gadgets to take them out. Those take up a large portion of the game.

Oh, but since those set pieces don't enforce our point that "I just spam XXXXXXXX" so we ignore them when talking about combat. The leaps are logic people are willing to make just to shit on Batman's combat system is alarming to me.

I don't think its the best thing ever, but I'm not going to pretend mashing X alone has got me through the past 3 installments.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Some people are saying that games like Batman's depth show their combat in perfectly executing it. The argument is that the games are simple to complete but tougher and far more rewarding to master with well-strung together combos. Sorry, but older action games have that beat there too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiEG3n6lMOY

How? by swapping weapons and using the same commands that are mirrored across all the weapons?

 

[Two Words]

Again it's about player creativity, you choose not to be creative.

As for God of War: Ascension, if an enemy has a weapon, their attacks can't interrupted with normal attack hit stun, you have to grapple them, or discard your world weapon.

Player creativity doesn't mean much when every option works. There is this design philosophy that if we just let the player do anything they want then they'll just have all sorts of fun doing anything they want. But that isn't how most people tackle anything. I don't want to be a jack-of-all-trades. I want to expertly execute on things. If somebody points out how the most simplest tactic works against everything in the game, then the game has issues in its combat. Destroying a sense of challenge and reward just so I can play the game how "I want to play it" doesn't make for good game design.

 

[rakkadakka]

I really liked Mordor's combat and I hate breaking up my progression through a game to look for a health pack.

So I'm pretty much ok with the way most AAA games play.

 

[Two Words]

How? by swapping weapons and using the same commands that are mirrored across all the weapons?

Each attack has different windows of execution. You didn't play Devil May Cry 3 if you think that statement is true. Why are you making false statements about a video game? How does that help your argument when everybody who has played the game is going to know it is 100% false? You might as well be saying Street Fighter doesn't have projectiles.

 

[Wavebossa]

maybe i'm wrong here (please correct me), but for some / all of these scenarios you kind of have only one or two options, right? like, if someone charges at you, you press the button combination that specifically beats someone charging at you? if someone is electric, you do the one thing the game specifically told you to do to deal with it?

i know you can use gadgets to cover some of these options but when i went through knight, which was the first batman game i really played, it seemed frustratingly linear because my options seemed super limited when it came to special enemies. avoid them, then do this one button combination, or hey maybe use this one gadget we also highlighted in a tooltip. maybe i'm wrong.

No, you have multiple options. You have multiple gadgets. You can use explosive gel, bat-a-rang, batclaw, etc etc.

And in the set pieces, you have dozens of options.
-Fear Takedowns
-Inverted Takedowns
-Ledge Takedowns
-Silent Takedowns
-Grate Takedowns
-Smoke Pellet
-Sonic Bat-a-rang
etc etc etc

All of which require positioning and preparation.

But what you cannot do, is spam XXXXX vs all of those. That's my point.

I'm not saying Batman has the deepest combat ever, I'm just saying that most people who shit on it end up sounding like they have never played the game.

 

[Two Words]

No, you have multiple options. You have multiple gadgets. You can use explosive gel, bat-a-rang, batclaw, etc etc.

And in the set pieces, you have dozens of options.
-Fear Takedowns
-Inverted Takedowns
-Ledge Takedowns
-Silent Takedowns
-Grate Takedowns
-Smoke Pellet
-Sonic Bat-a-rang
etc etc etc

All of which require positioning and preparation.

But what you cannot do, is spam XXXXX vs all of those. That's my point.

I'm not saying Batman has the deepest combat ever, I'm just saying that most people who shit on it end up sounding like they have never played the game.

I think Batman's combat shines best when you are fighting armed opponents that you have to take out one by one and hide in the stealth. That part is actually fun and engaging. They also create great environments that allow you to really be creative out of necessity. It's just that the room full of unarmed/melee weapon enemies combat is a total shit show.

 

[Novocaine]

I got 4 minutes in and I can't do any more. This guy sucks.

Even though there are AAA games that cover the entire spectrum from mindless (Shadow of Mordor) to technical (Dark Souls) most AAA games will have combat (well not just but all of the in game mechanics and systems really) that can be understood and executed by as many people as possible because it opens your game up to a wider audience of people, ergo more copies of the game will get sold and more money is made from the product.

It's the same with movies, that's why we get shit like PG rated World War Z. Making it R18+ limits the audience = less sales. Making it PG13+ = more sales because it's accessible to a wider audience. It's not fucking rocket science.

 

[Mesoian]

Yes he is being incredible reductive, but to an extent, you are as well.

The fact of the matter is that even in 40% of the encounters, No, it absolutely will not.. After the first few fights, you will never ever run into a progression encounter that does not have at least one of the following enemy types

Armed Enemy (gun)
Armed Enemy (blade)
Electrically charged Enemy
Brute (armored)
Charging Enemy

And I love how when we talk about combat in the Arkham series, we conveniently don't include all of those set pieces where we are up against multiple armed enemies and have to use stealth and gadgets to take them out. Those take up a large portion of the game.

Oh, but since those set pieces don't enforce our point that "I just spam XXXXXXXX" so we ignore them when talking about combat. The leaps are logic people are willing to make just to shit on Batman's combat system is alarming to me.

I don't think its the best thing ever, but I'm not going to pretend mashing X alone has got me through the past 3 installments.

No, you're right. But the issue is that you can still fumble through combat getting it wrong in regular intervals. IME, because the camera has a really weird need to rotate around the battlefield (I'm playing on PC BTW), I will often end up accidentally striking an electrocuted enemy or a tazer enemy, and I take the damage as you usually would. But after you take that damage, if you keep mashing into that guy who just gave you the damage, you still get him into a combo string. Enemies with guns rarely matter because they're so slow at shooting, so if you get hit once, you can mash into that guy who shot you, who could be 30 feet away, and still get him into a string. The batman system doesn't really punish sloppy play, at least not on the initial playthrough (to be fair, while I'm close to the end, I'm not there yet).

It's totally true that you can't flawlessly get through an enemy encounter by mashing X. But you can certainly get through by failing to following directions or ignoring tells. And you do most of that by mashing X most of the time.

No, you have multiple options. You have multiple gadgets. You can use explosive gel, bat-a-rang, batclaw, etc etc.

And in the set pieces, you have dozens of options.
-Fear Takedowns
-Inverted Takedowns
-Ledge Takedowns
-Silent Takedowns
-Grate Takedowns
-Smoke Pellet
-Sonic Bat-a-rang
etc etc etc

All of which require positioning and preparation.

But what you cannot do, is spam XXXXX vs all of those. That's my point.

I'm not saying Batman has the deepest combat ever, I'm just saying that most people who shit on it end up sounding like they have never played the game.

I mean...let's put it this way, speed runs of Arkham City don't use any of that stuff, they generally use a few xxxy combos and move on.

The best way to put it would be, for a batman game, this game does very little to punish you for not being stealthy, or not using the full gambit of gadgets and skills at your disposal.

 

[blackadde]

No, you have multiple options. You have multiple gadgets. You can use explosive gel, bat-a-rang, batclaw, etc etc.

can you use these on everyone? it seemed like most of the time vs specific enemy types there was one 'correct' option to use that the game wanted me to do. eg. batclaw vs electric types, or cape -> beatdown vs brutes, cape -> jump overhead stomp vs shield carrying dudes, etc.

 

[Sojgat]

Clip of Arkham knight gameplay playing:

"Combat for children... for retards... combat for skill-less people"

This guy doesn't know what he's even talking about.

Some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that defeating enemies is not the real challenge in that combat system.

Flawless execution and high score are the test of skill.

But wow, it's accessible, it must be for retards.

"I didn't even know he could throw a box"

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Ferrio]

But after you take that damage, if you keep mashing into that guy who just gave you the damage, you still get him into a combo string.

I have not encountered this myself. Not that I've tried to intentionally keep attacking the guy that hurts me when I attack him though. I'll have to try that out, but I do swear that I accidentally hit the same guy again right after and still getting zapped outta my combo.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

maybe i'm wrong here (please correct me), but for some / all of these scenarios you kind of have only one or two options, right? like, if someone charges at you, you press the button combination that specifically beats someone charging at you? if someone is electric, you do the one thing the game specifically told you to do to deal with it?

i know you can use gadgets to cover some of these options but when i went through knight, which was the first batman game i really played, it seemed frustratingly linear because my options seemed super limited when it came to special enemies. avoid them, then do this one button combination, or hey maybe use this one gadget we also highlighted in a tooltip. maybe i'm wrong.

No, as you said you can use gadgets. That switches up the gameplay and options by a lot. With some of them you need to do something to open them up and continue the combo, but there are many ways to fend them off. There are also multiple environmental and special combo moves you can use when you're in the right area or build up your combo meter.

Someone running at you can be dodged by either using the dodge prompt, or throwing a batarang at them, or using your batclaw, or shooting the REC gun, or hitting X and jumping over him, which if you line it up right can make the enemy charge into another enemy and clear out someone behind you. I don't see how that's in any way limited.

If someone is electrically charged, eventually that electricity runs out, so you can either take them out up front with the REC gun, or fend them off until the electric charge wears off and deal with them like a normal enemy.

Really the only enemy that is limited in ways to defeat them are brutes, and even then by the end of the game they throw transforming brutes at you to make you change up your game play style mid fight. Oh, and shield guys, shield guys are the most boring Batman enemy.

Also, you can turn the tool tips off at any time if you don't want them popping up and giving you suggestions.

 

[Wavebossa]

No, you're right. But the issue is that you can still fumble through combat getting it wrong in regular intervals. IME, because the camera has a really weird need to rotate around the battlefield (I'm playing on PC BTW), I will often end up accidentally striking an electrocuted enemy or a tazer enemy, and I take the damage as you usually would. But after you take that damage, if you keep mashing into that guy who just gave you the damage, you still get him into a combo string. Enemies with guns rarely matter because they're so slow at shooting, so if you get hit once, you can mash into that guy who shot you, who could be 30 feet away, and still get him into a string. The batman system doesn't really punish sloppy play, at least not on the initial playthrough (to be fair, while I'm close to the end, I'm not there yet).

It's totally true that you can't flawlessly get through an enemy encounter by mashing X. But you can certainly get through by failing to following directions or ignoring tells. And you do most of that by mashing X most of the time.

I understand what you are saying. You can do that, but in my experience you will fail more than succeed. When I first played Arkham Asylum, i just dropped down in a room with 4 armed guys and mashed X.

I was able to knock out 2 of them, but I still ended up dying to gunfire.

So is it possible to maybe get through a special type of enemy here and there by mashing X? Yes, it is possible, but most of the time you'll just end up dying and wasting time instead of learning how to play the game

I can't tell you how many times I tried to mash those guys with the car doors because I wasn't aware of how to disarm them lol.

 

[Two Words]

Clip of Arkham knight gameplay playing:

"Combat for children... for retards... combat for skill-less people"

This guy doesn't know what he's even talking about.

Some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that defeating enemies is not the real challenge in that combat system.

Flawless execution and high score are the test of skill.

But wow, it's accessible, it must be for retards.

"I didn't even know he could throw a box"

Go fuck yourself.

Uhh, what? The game is brain-dead simple to accomplish the goal. That was his point. I don't know why you are acting as if everybody else is there for the high scores and perfect execution. And like I posted before, previous action games have done high quality execution far better.

 

[Rising_Hei]

Blade: The Edge of Darkness had an excellent combat system. Looks a bit clunky but feels great and shit was extremely satisfying to pull off. Truly the Dark Souls of the era.

The knight's combat was so damn deep and complex, the barbarian was simply fun and crazy ;_;

 

[Zakalwe]

I mean...let's put it this way, speed runs of Arkham City don't use any of that stuff, they generally use a few xxxy combos and move on.

The best way to put it would be, for a batman game, this game does very little to punish you for not being stealthy, or not using the full gambit of gadgets and skills at your disposal.

If the player plays mindlessly then yes, the game will seem mindless.

The game's system is open in that way, you get out what you put in. The fun and challenge comes from exploring the system fully.

Uhh, what? The game is brain-dead simple to accomplish the goal. That was his point. I don't know why you are acting as if everybody else is there for the high scores and perfect execution. And like I posted before, previous action games have done high quality execution far better.

See above.

 

[Two Words]

I got 4 minutes in and I can't do any more. This guy sucks.

Even though there are AAA games that cover the entire spectrum from mindless (Shadow of Mordor) to technical (Dark Souls) most AAA games will have combat (well not just but all of the in game mechanics and systems really) that can be understood and executed by as many people as possible because it opens your game up to a wider audience of people, ergo more copies of the game will get sold and more money is made from the product.

It's the same with movies, that's why we get shit like PG rated World War Z. Making it R18+ limits the audience = less sales. Making it PG13+ = more sales because it's accessible to a wider audience. It's not fucking rocket science.

He never said he doesn't understand why games are becoming this way. He seems to understand perfectly clear that it is done to appeal to a larger audience. He's talking about how bad it makes the game in his eyes and is demonstrating why. It's not rocket science.

 

[Wavebossa]

The best way to put it would be, for a batman game, this game does very little to punish you for not being stealthy, or not using the full gambit of gadgets and skills at your disposal.

That's only true if you ignore all of the encounters vs multiple armed enemies...

can you use these on everyone? it seemed like most of the time vs specific enemy types there was one 'correct' option to use that the game wanted me to do. eg. batclaw vs electric types, or cape -> beatdown vs brutes, cape -> jump overhead stomp vs shield carrying dudes, etc.

yes, you can use them on everyone

 

[Spinluck]

I agree, I don't think Batman combat is all that great, takes so much control from the player.

 

[Ferrio]

If the guy in the video wanted to make a case all he had to do was bring up the batmobile combat sections and this would of been a done thread.

 

[Zakalwe]

I agree, I don't think Batman combat is all that great, takes so much control from the player.

My previous comment works here, too.

If the player plays mindlessly then yes, the game will seem mindless.

The game's system is open in that way, you get out what you put in. The fun and challenge comes from exploring the system fully.

Exploring the system fully =lots of control.

 

[Mesoian]

I understand what you are saying. You can do that, but in my experience you will fail more than succeed. When I first played Arkham Asylum, i just dropped down in a room with 4 armed guys and mashed X.

I was able to knock out 2 of them, but I still ended up dying to gunfire.

So is it possible to maybe get through a special type of enemy here and there by mashing X? Yes, it is possible, but most of the time you'll just end up dying and wasting time instead of learning how to play the game

I can't tell you how many times I tried to mash those guys with the car doors because I wasn't aware of how to disarm them lol.

I mean, I'm not saying you should just mash it out and hope for the best, but having done that quite a few times during my initial playthrough, it's not the worst tactic in the world. At the very least, you can do as such and eek it out. AK is, IMO, likely too forgiving in it's combat, which makes a lot of the puzzle aspect of it seem really thin when, if you're hitting a wall, you can just mash through it and get by more often than not. You won't be getting 3 stars or high leaderboard points, but....you get by.

And yeah, the shield guys are a little weird for me too. I feel like i'll do the BAA attack and will just end up leaping across the combat floor away from the enemy. It doesn't get me killed or anything but, it's not what you wanna do either.

 

[Two Words]

If the player plays mindlessly then yes, the game will seem mindless.

The game's system is open in that way, you get out what you put in. The fun and challenge comes from exploring the system fully.



See above.

Lets say you play basketball. You're a fan and you love the sport. Now lets say you have two choices.

You can choose to play with other similarly skilled players who will challenge you to be creative out of necessity. These players don't just fall for anything, so not everything you want to do will work. It will take you a while to really figure out what works best against them.

Or would you rather play against younger kids who are unfit to give you a real challenge. Now you can just run straight into the lane and dunk on these kids because none of them are going to stop you. But if you think that is boring, you could show off your cross over dribble to create an open mid-range shot. Or use your passing skills to get a teammate a wide-open shot. Or go in the post and show how excellent your moves and fakes are. You could turn it into a game within a game and try to win without letting them score a single point. You might find some challenge if you restrict yourself in some arbitrary ways like only using your left hand, etc.

Personally, I find the former choice far more appealing than the latter. Older action games feel more like the former, modern AAA action games feel more like the latter.

 

[Corpekata]

I mean...let's put it this way, speed runs of Arkham City don't use any of that stuff, they generally use a few xxxy combos and move on.

Do speed runs of like any game use any impressive combat variety? If it's a combat heavy game at all chances are someone is using a simple combo over and over, and it's nowhere near exclusive to a game like Batman.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

He is right, the combat on most western games sucks. I specially hate the Assassins creed combat and Batham combat. But alas those are the things publishers want in order to make the game easier so more people can play it.

As long the Souls series doesn't turn into this crap I will never care and will play western games for any other reasons that isn't actual combat.