Support NeoGAF

[ZSeba]

Fuck this guy for spoiling me an arkham knight villain

 

[ZdkDzk]

A variation in styles does not make up for a lack of aggressive enemy AI and that applies to Arkham jut the same - but I didn't mention Arkham. Dark Souls is an exception to the rule, like Ninja Gaiden. Games like MGS, RE, Silent Hill, DMC are the usual blueprint for Japanese combat. No enemy threat.

I didn't say Western games all had fantastic AI, I said DMC has basically nothing worthwhile, but if you want we can point to F.E.A.R. and Halo as undeniable examples. You reference the variations of play in DMC but I don't think 'Choose your style as you beat on a mannequin' really flies. Varying combat approaches mean nothing when you're fighting against dullards. If you're not being challenged by your enemy your game is gone.

Mechanical superiority? In terms of simply 'refining mechanics' yes. I already agreed. Japan will take a singular aspect and drive it home, as with my MGS4 example. In terms of fluid combat however, no way. There's a reason the West was responsible for the multiplayer explosion.

Excepy it can. The majority of DMC's AI are intentionally passive. The games are designed around being stylish and using the available systems to the fullest, hence the style meter. The AI aren't that dangerous for the most part, UNLESS you make mistsakes: because they're not there to pose a threat, they're there to punsih you for making mistakes, and in doing that they're pretty adept. When you misjudge an attack, don't pay attention to an enemy's animation/moveset, do a combo that puts you in a bad position you get punished for it.

The few enemies that are agressive are generally MUCH more agressive and fought alone. The emphasis changes from utilising the combat system to be as flashy as possible, to ballancing style and efficiany as the player has to be more reactive.

The enemy that I always think of for this are Graciuos and Glorious in Bayo. They're the 2 most agressive enemies in the game, imune to witch time, and fought alone as a pair. Most enemies are fought relatively easily, with witch time giving you the option to just wail on the enemy as a reward for paying attention.With Gracious and Glorious, you have to be as efficiant and defnesive as possible (while ideally being stylish) or die. And it's not a case of the game upping it's dificulty towards the end because IIRC they aren't the last enemy type introduced in Bayo 1.

In regards to normal enemies, the reason why Bayo enemies are relatively agressive as opposed to DMC is beacuse Bayo give you a permanant method to avoid and counter them, while DMC doesn't. The game becomes exponentially harder if you were put up against multiple agressive enemies without a way to deal with react to them. It ends up being detractive in most cases.

I wouldn't really tout Arkham as amazing. I like that it did it's own thing, it makes sense for a Batman game. But it's just one passable example and I used much stronger ones. Then again, Arkham, a game which is maybe mid range in terms of Western developed combat systems, is being adopted by games like Mordor, Remember Me etc, so what's your point?

Combat is defined by the need to adapt to enemy attacks as much, if not more than, by your own arsenal. A game like DMC, you have a wide arsenal in terms of styles, but the movement is static, enemies often fall into ranges you have to chase to reach and land a hit, and the enemy behaviour is braindead. MGS you have a large arsenal, again, however largely braindead enemies. Neither have a sense of fluidity in terms of keeping on your opponent, at least not without extreme effort in DMC's case. How many enemies in DMC hover - leading to endless launchers and double jump spams to reach them in mid air? Why are so many enemies in mid air in a game that, for all it's arsenal variety, lends little ability to reach them? How often do you strike an enemy, it flies at least ten feet away and you have to spam Stinger to then go chase after them. Or use pointless gun attacks to keep a combo going. The guns in DMC are there purely to chain and they wreck your movement speed so you're usually better off running after the enemy you sent flying...

That's superior combat?

Ninja Gaiden is a far superior example, you have a wide arsenal, wide movement ranges/speed, enemies are aggressive and present challenge and you have to adapt. You're as defensive as you are offensive. So why point to DMC?

I don't agree with the fluidity, there's always a way to catch up to them/alternative to sending them flying, and the exact purpose of the guns vary, but usually it's to link together combos and buy time. I can't speak for Ninja Gaiden.

I'm not making direct comparisons to be fair. I'm giving notable examples of Western combat systems and typical examples of Japanese games having weak combat outside of fighting games. Japan and the West don't typically develop the same genres on a broad scale to begin with, but as far as Vanquish and Binary Domain go, they are in truth examples of Japan following suit with Western combat development. Good games but Japan weren't the originators of their elements.

I can't speak for Binary Domain, but there's no game even remotely like Vanquish. It's a 3rd person shooter based around mobility, bullet time, and meter usage with a sci-fi setting. Name a game that's even close.

 

[RedFury]

Titanfall has amazing combat, smart pistol dumbness excluded.

Haha we get you love Titanfall (this is like the third drive by Titanfall post I've seen you drop) but this is the wrong thread to say this in. Titanfall doesn't even take its own design philosophy to heart. It wants to be a frantic fast paced shooter but has terrible aim down sight mechanics. Also excluding the smart pistol is the least of its problems. Selecting some weapons put you at a distinct disadvantage because of its fast paced nature. Most people run with the smart pistol, C.A.R, or R-101, there isn't any balance to its core combat. Had they taken more ideas from other arena shooters like quake and such with more refined shooting mechanics you may have had a point.

 

[silva1991]

Yeah combat in western AAA games is just lame, simple and not rewarding.

 

[roflwaffles]

The Arkham combat is perfectly fine for what it is - it's not meant to be a high skill style game.


That being said, the fact that this is the best western AAA combat system is sad.

 

[Ivan Amiibo]

The Arkham combat is perfectly fine for what it is - it's not meant to be a high skill style game.


That being said, the fact that this is the best western AAA combat system is sad.

is DmC considered AAA? cause that wins by a golden country mile. then again, it's built on a japanese template with assistance from Itsuno himself...

 

[Jachaos]

I like Sleeping Dogs' but in general I'd agree.

I prefer the combat in lesser known games here, like Yakuza or Persona 4 Arena. The only recent AAA game I loved the combat for was Super Smash.

 

[Grief.exe]

Haha we get you love Titanfall (this is like the third drive by Titanfall post I've seen you drop) but this is the wrong thread to say this in. Titanfall doesn't even take its own design philosophy to heart. It wants to be a frantic fast paced shooter but has terrible aim down sight mechanics. Also excluding the smart pistol is the least of its problems. Selecting some weapons put you at a distinct disadvantage because of its fast paced nature. Most people run with the smart pistol, C.A.R, or R-101, there isn't any balance to its core combat. Had they taken more ideas from other arena shooters like quake and such with more refined shooting mechanics you may have had a point.

Titanfall is just a broken design from the start. I can see how it passed through focus group testing, but I have no idea how the developers didn't see the main issues.

 

[Harpuea]

How does Metal Gear Rising combat fare against the on going discussion of combat? Never played the game myself, but having player agency over cutting crap up actually makes you feel like the character is wielding a sword and not a blunt stick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzw3pR6-bO8

 

[Klossen]

Combat and control is pretty much the reason I stopped playing Witcher 3. I found the combat so dull and boring that it really made it a chore to play the game. The story, characters, and world were all great, but I couldn't stay interested for too long.

Yeah same. I felt like I played a different game than everyone else. Or people stopped caring about gameplay overnight. I'll never understand the fascination for Witcher 3 when its gameplay is so flawed.

 

[davey_jones_1217]

Yeah same. I felt like I played a different game than everyone else. Or people stopped caring about gameplay overnight. I'll never understand the fascination for Witcher 3 when its gameplay is so flawed.

Maybe it's not them.

 

[quesalupa]

I can't speak for the rest of the games but this guy does not understand Batman's combat at all.

 

[dark10x]

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.

DMC4 is kind of a bad example since the surrounding game isn't all that interesting. You have this amazing combat system...but are limited in how and where you can use it. It's completely at odds with the rest of the game.

The whole series feels disjointed in that way. It has the framework of a Resident Evil game complete with puzzles and fixed camera angles in some spots but is paired with this insanely good combat system.

 

[correojon]

I´d like to add Splatoon to the discussion. The whole ink/squid mechanics and the crazy subs and specials add a lot of depth to the combat. It´s fun, responsive and leaves you enough place to come up with your own playing style.

 

[CountAntonius]

For FPS CS:GO
For Everything Else Dark Souls

These two games have ruined pretty much every other title in their respective genres for me because I know none of them will be as satisfying and deep.

Love the video in the OP and agree completely. Simply could not get into Bat,man and Witcher games because the combat just bored me. I'm sure they are fine game but once the combat loop gets boring I don't care about anything else. I get by on Elder Scrolls just by either stealth archery or being so strong to one shot everything.

His love for Jedi knight made me happy because i absolutely loved Jedi Academy and played it for years online.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Yeah same. I felt like I played a different game than everyone else. Or people stopped caring about gameplay overnight. I'll never understand the fascination for Witcher 3 when its gameplay is so flawed.

In part fans of the genre, in part people who got to experience their design philosophy for the first time. If the game had dropped the ball in what its design priority was (the one thing that hasn't changed in all 3 games, no matter if you throw around an open world or remove a combat system about timing clicks of your mouse; the substance of the game if you will, rather than the package it comes from), then there would be an outcry.

 

[nded]

Batman combat works very well for the predator sections, but I'm not overly fond of the goon mosh pit arena fights.

 

[Jarhad]

Op: "Playing the guitar is so easy. I can just play the same note repeatedly. Since no one can stop me from doing that, there's no reason for anyone to strive to be a better guitar player. All music should played on a piano because Mozart."

Brilliant logic.

 

[forms]

I hate all semi-automated QTE-ish crap there is to be found in games. I want a game where a big weapon hits hard and reaches further etc. The rest should be up to me.

 

[roflwaffles]

DMC4 is kind of a bad example since the surrounding game isn't all that interesting. You have this amazing combat system...but are limited in how and where you can use it. It's completely at odds with the rest of the game.

The whole series feels disjointed in that way. It has the framework of a Resident Evil game complete with puzzles and fixed camera angles in some spots but is paired with this insanely good combat system.

Can't say I disagree completely although I'm a huge DMC fan. 3 and 4 have better combat systems than 99% of games out there but the world surrounding it isn't super great, DMC1 nailed that much better but was confined with a dated system by today's standards.

I think the best action game that supplied both an interesting world and top of the line combat in the past few years is Bayonetta 2, and second place is not even close IMO. Unless it's Bayonetta 1.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

How does Metal Gear Rising combat fare against the on going discussion of combat? Never played the game myself, but having player agency over cutting crap up actually makes you feel like the character is wielding a sword and not a blunt stick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzw3pR6-bO8

The core combat is very good though limited by the short development cycle. It definitely has mad potential and a sequel could fix most of it's short comings.

 

[misho8723]

Man, I do love the combat system in TW3.. it sure isn't perfect, but when you know how to play it, use everything you can, dodge the right time, then the fight can look really like a dance of death .. but yeah, I really don't like the combat systems in most of modern AAA games

 

[Antagon]

I sort of agree with the video. Though my main problem with that type of combat is that it feels so disconnected. Like I'm not directly controlling the character.

But then, halfway the video he starts ranting about console gamers and within a minute or two of his Dark Souls 2 'review' he says that the game would be better if it was first person.... Can't take this guy seriously at all.

 

[Kalentan]

While I do think AAA Western Games could kick it up in combat... We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking every Japanese games combat is on par with things like DMC/Bayonetta and Dark Souls/Dragons Dogma. Because some seem to be pushing that narrative that all Japanese games are like those.

 

[Jarhad]

I hate all semi-automated QTE-ish crap there is to be found in games. I want a game where a big weapon hits hard and reaches further etc. The rest should be up to me.

A counter symbol appears. On top of countering, you can...

Punch, batarang, cape stun, grapple, freeze, jump over, electrify, instant takedown, area stun, or weapon break that person or another without breaking combo.

Yeah, totally semi automated and not up to you.

Also, how is being able to punch someone from across a room not enough reach?

 

[grandwizard]

Batman combat is shallow and flashy and that's what they are aiming for. Anyone can pick it up and feel like a badass almost immediately and feel like the Batman. On a whole when looking at melee action games I would agree that Japan dominates the West in this area. The sad part is Batman's combat would have been fine as a one-off in Asylum, but instead of restructuring it and changing it as the sequels went on they simply copied it and now it's being copied to other games verbatim as the new 'standard combat model'. It's ridiculous. Different weapons alone in other series like Bayonetta or DMC have more variety than the combat systems between every Arkham game AND Shadow of Mordor.

The way Batman works is they basically make every enemy type have a specific button or button combo to take them out, all the gameplay comes from recognizing that enemy and then hitting the right one. And if you ever feel overwhelmed just spam the jump-over button. See a big guy? Cape then punch. See a electric guy? Claw then punch. See a shield guy? Cape then Jump. It's boring and repetitive. It gets to the point where you get those penguin missions where you are about to drop in on a room FULL of guys and you just know it's going to be a complete beatdown with barely any variety or engagement, just follow the prompts and hit the counters (which have an insanely large window). It turns sequences which should be interesting into dull affairs. To combat this they added more enemy types, but all it is is another button to hit, or two button combo to hit to neutralize them (that the game will tell you). They need a serious combat overhaul like a lot of Western action games do (AssCreed for example), but they're too attached to what they have that they just bolt on more and it doesn't help.

The way Batman also warps over to every enemy doesn't help the lack of engagement either, as it makes positioning completely irrelevant. You can simply focus on your face buttons and never have to care about where to be or what to target, just hit the buttons and he will zoom over to every corner of the room to hit stuff. TW3 combat isn't by any means perfect but at least it doesn't resort to that, so positioning and knowing your combat range is something to keep in mind.

 

[Ushay]

He's playing Witcher 3 on some piss easy difficulty in that video, crank it up to death's march where you die in 2-3 hits and try spamming attacks. Good luck.

Batman's combat has always been a snoozefest but I don't have an issue with Witcher 3's. Now you've got stuff like Mordor and Mad Max that look like they stripped their combat out of Batman so overall I agree with the vid, AAA games are stale and boring.

Indeed. I play on Death March and the game has kind of forced me to think before every encounter. The mechanics are generally very good despite what most people think.

My main issue with Japanese developed games, while their mechanics are excellent, they stick to turn based far too often. What they are doing with FF15 is promising at least, and speaks well of the direction they are headed in.

 

[Greddleok]

I've not got a lot to weigh in on this discussion, other than Western devs seem to focus on other things far more than combat. Game play isn't only combat, and the West does some things far better than Japan.

I generally play Western games (although less so AAA), but when I consider it, my favourite games are all Japanese.

What would you recommend to someone like me who loves Japanese games but doesn't really know where to start?
I adore the Souls games, Metroid is one of the best series ever made and Bayonetta (well, Platinum) is a new discovered love.

 

[gunbo13]

I don't understand how people fail to see "Batman is designed to make everyone feel like badass Batman" as an error in logic. There are tons of super powerful protags which will get completely torn apart if you are not a good player. It's not just the normal DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden. God of War, Infamous, Darksiders leads are mythological, superhero, and fantasy. They could make Batman their subservient butler in half a second. So why are these games not automatically boosting player feel right off the bat? Kratos is a good example of somehow who is empowered but the difficulty of the title scales quickly. He is met with powerful enemies early in all titles, just to make sure he isn't shown to be invincible. You feel like you are playing a powerful character but Santa Monica doesn't hand you the keys without contributing some effort.

Batman has a combat system that is designed to not make you work. It's not about logically empowering a character, it's removing the need to work on your craft to become the dark knight. It is about keeping Batman going like a rhythm game instead. The argument that Batman is unique in this regard, makes sense with such a design, is an asspull. Batman should be a weak little nothing if you suck, a powerful haunting force if you are a good. You know, videogames...

 

[Zakalwe]

I don't understand how people fail to see "Batman is designed to make everyone feel like badass Batman" as an error in logic. There are tons of super powerful protags which will get completely torn apart if you are not a good player. It's not just the normal DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden. God of War, Infamous, Darksiders leads are mythological, superhero, and fantasy. They could make Batman their subservient butler in half a second. So why are these games not automatically boosting player feel right off the bat? Kratos is a good example of somehow who is empowered but the difficulty of the title scales quickly. He is met with powerful enemies early in all titles, just to make sure he isn't shown to be invincible. You feel like you are playing a powerful character but Santa Monica doesn't hand you the keys without contributing some effort.

Batman has a combat system that is designed to not make you work. It's not about logically empowering a character, it's removing the need to work on your craft to become the dark knight. It is about keeping Batman going like a rhythm game instead. The argument that Batman is unique in this regard, makes sense with such a design, is an asspull. Batman should be a weak little nothing if you suck, a powerful haunting force if you are a good. You know, videogames...

Not true. There is no should or shouldn't here.

The fact is Batman's combat system is easy to learn, but it is above the average gamer's skill to fully master it (Evident by the vast majority of videos online showing very limited exploration of the system), and many of the people calling it easymode in this thread (and the person who made the video in the OP) would likely find it difficult to master it.

Not suggesting it's beyond them, but that it wouldn't be easy.

Not all games need keep you weak or inefficient before you master them, there are plenty of systems that are simple to learn and difficult to master.

We also need to remember that the people here who have mastered games like DMC are far above the average, so of course a game like Batman is going to seem easier to them.

 

[old manatee]

Titanfall has amazing combat, smart pistol dumbness excluded.

I used the smart pistol for 90% of the games I played.

 

[BadWolf]

How does Metal Gear Rising combat fare against the on going discussion of combat? Never played the game myself, but having player agency over cutting crap up actually makes you feel like the character is wielding a sword and not a blunt stick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzw3pR6-bO8

It is excellent.

The combat isn't quite as open as DMC but what is there is great and very focused. And most importantly, instead of feeling like another game in the genre (like Bayonetta is another take on DMC), MGR has a feel of it's own.

Oh and I sort of also compare it to RE4 because it encourages precision cuts which has real impact on combat. When you weaken a limb you can cut off that specific limb and the enemy's attacks will adapt to that. Cut off both arms and the enemy will start kicking or body rushing you. Cut off all limbs and he will still try to crawl his way to you. So you get into the amazing rushing of fighting enemies to weaken their body parts and then precision slicing them to limit their combat abilities, all happening quickly and smoothly. Very unique to the genre and overall.

 

[gunbo13]

Not all games need keep you weak or inefficient before you master them, there are plenty of systems that are simple to learn and difficult to master.

What I said is not false. It is accurate that it is illogical to stand on the argument that Batman's combat makes sense due to his character. It comes down to design choice, not story, not setting, not character, not the bat. Batman, it's rip-offs, it's mirrors, are all about removing combat progression that is in the root of video games. You were not provided tools in Mega Man games to automatically take down enemies in single swoops. There was no massive lock-on, heat sinking whatever, etc... You gained tools over time yes, but you were focused on defeating enemies, not trying to chain how many you can kill in a short period of time.

Batman is basically an inflated combat system. It removes the core progression element in favor of almost an achievement type system. It would be like Mega Man facing more and varied enemies, his objective to use these single button press advanced attacks to keep chaining deaths. The game becomes much more puzzle & rhythm oriented, with emphasis on what enemies are thrown at you. Would that be fun? Up to preference I guess.

You can argue that Batman is barely combat. It's a scaled system that makes the player work on scripting how it plays out. It's more akin to a composition of action, not a player engaged combat system. You aren't Batman's punches, you are his choreographer. I think it kills immersion, dilutes what action games are, and is just the next step in modern cinematic adventure games.

 

[Zakalwe]

What I said is not false. It is accurate that it is illogical to stand on the argument that Batman's combat makes sense due to his character. It comes down to design choice, not story, not setting, not character, not the bat. Batman, it's rip-offs, it's mirrors, are all about removing combat progression that is in the root of video games. You were not provided tools in Mega Man games to automatically take down enemies in single swoops. There was no massive lock-on, heat sinking whatever, etc... You gained tools over time yes, but you were focused on defeating enemies, not trying to chain how many you can kill in a short period of time.

Batman is basically an inflated combat system. It removes the core progression element in favor of almost an achievement type system. It would be like Mega Man facing more and varied enemies, his objective to use these single button press advanced attacks to keep chaining deaths. The game becomes much more puzzle & rhythm oriented, with emphasis on what enemies are thrown at you. Would that be fun? Up to preference I guess.

You can argue that Batman is barely combat. It's a scaled system that makes the player work on scripting how it plays out. It's more akin to a composition of action, not a player engaged combat system. You aren't Batman's punches, you are his choreographer. I think it kills immersion, dilutes what action games are, and is just the next step in modern cinematic adventure games.

Yes you're a choreographer, but it's still simple to learn but difficult to master the choreographer controls.

People who have mastered more difficult games will find it easy.

Not every game has to be difficult to master and nothing else.

Nothing wrong with that.

And yes, it's a stylistic rhythm game with a Batman skin, nothing wrong with that either.

 

[roflwaffles]

It is excellent.

The combat isn't quite as open as DMC but what is there is great and very focused. And most importantly, instead of feeling like another game in the genre (like Bayonetta is another take on DMC), MGR has a feel of it's own.

Oh and I sort of also compare it to RE4 because it encourages precision cuts which has real impact on combat. When you weaken a limb you can cut off that specific limb and the enemy's attacks will adapt to that. Cut off both arms and the enemy will start kicking or body rushing you. Cut off all limbs and he will still try to crawl his way to you. So you get into the amazing rushing of fighting enemies to weaken their body parts and then precision slicing them to limit their combat abilities, all happening quickly and smoothly. Very unique to the genre and overall.

MGR's combat is a load of fun, but I can't help but feeling that it's incomplete due to the rushed schedule of the game since the secondary weapon system isn't implemented very well.

 

[gunbo13]

Yes you're a choreographer, but it's still simple to learn but difficult to master the choreographer controls.

People who have mastered more difficult games will find it easy.

Not every game has to be difficult to master and nothing else.

Nothing wrong with that.

And yes, it's a stylistic rhythm game with a Batman skin, nothing wrong with that either.

Fair enough. We agree it is a different type of game and has depth in execution, which is fine. It's just that you are probably alone with giving such a fair assessment. The end idea is if one likes this type of "combat" vs. other AAA games. Considering how western companies are copying Rocksteady as they are, there is a fork occurring with action games. So disliking this fork is possibly even more accurate than the thread title's modern AAA games. Do you want to control the fighter or help script the action? Should it more be about how you dodge attacks in short windows of time or how you time inputs to allow your character to keep the acrobatics up.

Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favorite games of all time. It is a title with few enemies, all the emphasis being on the type of enemy, their behavior, and fairly rudimentary combat mechanics. It's much closer to being the choreographer than the brawler. Just done with a different pace and unique puzzle design. The big difference? Wander is a weak fighter. If you like to theorize the story, he is likely not a knight or any sort, more like a compassionate thief. His only real skill is his riding ability.

So you have a classic scripted action adventure with a weak character vs. a modern action game starring Batman the badass. Very similar core game emphasis, yet I find one title to be loaded with creativity, mystique, and the other to be a boring trudge of hit buttons. Maybe Batman should be more like Wander, except strong. The huge brawl fights should be removed, chaining removed. Let him play out like the dark night in the movies, careful, calculated, and a minimalist when it comes to engaging enemies. He is more of an escape artist then a brawler most of the time. Rocksteady should ditch the rhythm system completely. No chaining and emphasize more of what SoTC did, the balance of the character, their personality, and their surroundings, true to form. I know that Batman has those elements in the titles and if they removed the silly choreography brawls, I might just give it another shot.

So my consensus on how to fix this fork of western AAA combat? Scrap it and design better gameplay. Cause the combat is lousy.

 

[Zakalwe]

Fair enough. We agree it is a different type of game and has depth in execution, which is fine. It's just that you are probably alone with giving such a fair assessment. The end idea is if one likes this type of "combat" vs. other AAA games. Considering how western companies are copying Rocksteady as they are, there is a fork occurring with action games. So disliking this fork is possibly even more accurate than the thread title's modern AAA games. Do you want to control the fighter or help script the action? Should it more be about how you dodge attacks in short windows of time or how you time inputs to allow your character to keep the acrobatics up.

Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favorite games of all time. It is a title with few enemies, all the emphasis being on the type of enemy, their behavior, and fairly rudimentary combat mechanics. It's much closer to being the choreographer than the brawler. Just done with a different pace and unique puzzle design. The big difference? Wander is a weak fighter. If you like to theorize the story, he is likely not a knight or any sort, more like a compassionate thief. His only real skill is his riding ability.

So you have a classic scripted action adventure with a weak character vs. a modern action game starring Batman the badass. Very similar core game emphasis, yet I find one title to be loaded with creativity, mystique, and the other to be a boring trudge of hit buttons. Maybe Batman should be more like Wander, except strong. The huge brawl fights should be removed, chaining removed. Let him play out like the dark night in the movies, careful, calculated, and a minimalist when it comes to engaging enemies. He is more of an escape artist then a brawler most of the time. Rocksteady should ditch the rhythm system completely. No chaining and emphasize more of what SoTC did, the balance of the character, their personality, and their surroundings, true to form. I know that Batman has those elements in the titles and if they removed the silly choreography brawls, I might just give it another shot.

So my consensus on how to fix this fork of western AAA combat? Scrap it and design better gameplay. Cause the combat is lousy.

Western AAA games are made to appeal to the average gamer, so they need to allow those people to have fun in a casual way. Sometimes this means the entire thing is too easy for people how are more experienced, but sometimes it just means the system is simple to learn, that doesn't make it poorly done.

And I don't agree that your changes would make it better, they'd potentially work in a different way.

I agree that there is a lack of creativity with some AAA developers, sure.

 

[gunbo13]

I guess it's just a better for some worse for others design choice, when it comes down to it. Oh well.