Arkham Combat: Love it or hate it?

  • 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) 6 months, 4 days ago

Poll: Arkham Combat: Love it or hate it? (32 votes)

It's Awesome. 88%
It's Lame. 13%

So I keep seeing around here people bashing Arkham combat. So I want to see what the cut actually is.

For this discussion, I'm using Arkham City as the high water mark for the concept of Arkham combat. I'm also only offering two options because what I want to know is really, "do you have a positive or a negative opinion?" I don't actually care if you don't think it's awesome, I just want want to know + or -.

Me? I'm on the positive side. If you've spent more than ten minutes or so talking to me about my gaming habits, you probably know this.

And a last question: in Arkham City, what's your high score on the Iceberg Lounge VIP Room? This seems to me to be the most objective measure of one's skill at Arkham combat. Specifically because it's nonstop rather than in waves like most of the other challenges, and because it uses only basic thugs and armored thugs- no ninjas, no lieutenants, no titans- nothing to throw off your rhythm or that you can't wipe out instantly with the smallest bit of planning.

So let's see how it goes.

#1 Edited by groowagon (2800 posts) -

it's far better than any other typical action god-of-war-clone. far better.

#2 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

Combat was the only reason for which I found myself not interested in the franchise. I only liked Arkham Asylum for it's story and characters. Other iterations were just too shallow for me because of the combat. Simple button mashing and nothing else. It gets boring after sometime. No matter how much martial arts movements they may include in the combat, the core mechanics of the combat remain the same and by the same, I mean boring. It's all my opinion though.

#3 Posted by Pffrbt (6553 posts) -

It's dull. Even if you practice enough at it to get high scores in the combat challenges it never becomes particularly fun or interesting.

#4 Edited by groowagon (2800 posts) -

how can you people say it's dull? which action games you think has better combat? i mean, it's not RPG-level, but i have not yet seen better combat in an action game.

you can't win fights with multiple enemies by just button-mashing. you need to time your moves right and you actually have to use evasions and blocks too. once you learn the mechanics it becomes fairly easy, though, but atleast it's not just mashing one button.

#5 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

how can you people say it's dull? which action games you think has better combat? i mean, it's not RPG-level, but i have not yet seen better combat in an action game.

you can't win fights with multiple enemies by just button-mashing. you need to time your moves right and you actually have to use evasions and blocks too. once you learn the mechanics it becomes fairly easy, though, but atleast it's not just mashing one button.

I can give you a lot of examples of games with far better combat and they're not even RPGs. If you like the combat then good, you have your opinion but don't impose that no other game has a better combat.

#6 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Pffrbt: @geniobastardo: okay, so what're your high scores?

If you're button mashing, then you're doing it wrong. Arkham combat is about reading the combat situation and using precise action to respond to the immediate threats and balancing things like your combo modifiers(x5 for combo finishers vs x12 for freeflow focus and power gadgets). And that's not even counting the dozen or so different combat moves. How exactly is that "shallow" or "dull"?

#7 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -
#8 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@Pffrbt: @geniobastardo: okay, so what're your high scores?

If you're button mashing, then you're doing it wrong. Arkham combat is about reading the combat situation and using precise action to respond to the immediate threats and balancing things like your combo modifiers(x5 for combo finishers vs x12 for freeflow focus and power gadgets). And that's not even counting the dozen or so different combat moves. How exactly is that "shallow" or "dull"?

it maybe the underlying dynamics. I for one, never actually felt like controlling something. The combos just happened when I kept on mashing the X button and Y at random. Gadgets were somehow better. They were fun to use but not something that you always use. So a humble no from me.

I don't remember my high score gee hee .

#9 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o: Devil may cry 4 or Assassin's Creed 2 imo. AC2 is in many ways similar to Arkham series.

#10 Posted by marcheegsr (2572 posts) -

I like it.

#11 Posted by Pffrbt (6553 posts) -

how can you people say it's dull? which action games you think has better combat?

Bayonetta, DMC3, The Wonderful 101, Ninja Gaiden Black, DMC4, Anarchy Reigns, Metal Gear Rising, Otogi 2, God Hand.

@Pffrbt: @geniobastardo: okay, so what're your high scores?

I don't care/remember. I'm pretty sure I barely bothered with the challanges, since after completing story mode I was completely bored of the gameplay.

How exactly is that "shallow" or "dull"?

Because it isn't fun or interesting to play or watch.

#12 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@geniobastardo: if you don't remember your high score, you need to practice more, because your score isn't worth remembering. I made 2.51M points in January 2012.

When you get to the low X-thousands(leaderboard standings), you will have started creating combos of your own. I mentioned balancing your combo bonuses before- that's directly tied into it. When you can count your strikes and know what moves you have racked up without looking at your combo counter, then you can plan your combo 4 or even 6 moves ahead. And with the right timing and enemy tableau, you can easily(EASILY) KO 8 enemies at once, sometimes upwards of ten. Look up high score videos on YouTube and you might be able to discern some of what I'm talking about here.

I don't know about DMC4, but Assassin's Creed 2 was nothing like Arkham City. A closer analog would be AC: Brotherhood, where they introduced execution streaks. But even that falls short when you think about how Batman's got the quick fire gadgets which adds s whole new dimension to the combat.

#13 Posted by mjorh (739 posts) -

It's awesome !

And those who say it's lame are the ones who couldn't get higher scores u know that moment when u can't beat a game and you place the blame on the gameplay n stuff....

#14 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Pffrbt: "Bayonetta, DMC3, The Wonderful 101, Ninja Gaiden Black, DMC4, Anarchy Reigns, Metal Gear Rising, Otogi 2, God Hand."

Bayo: never played it.

DMC3: never played it.

W101: totally different genre.

NGB: now that is the definition of shallow.

DMC4: never played it.

AR: totally different genre.

MGR: about the only good example of the games listed that I've played. Except that besides the mostly functional parry move, it's an entirely predictable old school hack n slash with a neat hook.

O2: never heard of it, much less played it.

GH: see above.

#15 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@Pffrbt: "Bayonetta, DMC3, The Wonderful 101, Ninja Gaiden Black, DMC4, Anarchy Reigns, Metal Gear Rising, Otogi 2, God Hand."

Bayo: never played it.

DMC3: never played it.

W101: totally different genre.

NGB: now that is the definition of shallow.

DMC4: never played it.

AR: totally different genre.

MGR: about the only good example of the games listed that I've played. Except that besides the mostly functional parry move, it's an entirely predictable old school hack n slash with a neat hook.

O2: never heard of it, much less played it.

GH: see above.

annnnddd you like Arkham combat. Well played.

#16 Posted by Metamania (11996 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

@Pffrbt: "Bayonetta, DMC3, The Wonderful 101, Ninja Gaiden Black, DMC4, Anarchy Reigns, Metal Gear Rising, Otogi 2, God Hand."

Bayo: never played it.

DMC3: never played it.

W101: totally different genre.

NGB: now that is the definition of shallow.

DMC4: never played it.

AR: totally different genre.

MGR: about the only good example of the games listed that I've played. Except that besides the mostly functional parry move, it's an entirely predictable old school hack n slash with a neat hook.

O2: never heard of it, much less played it.

GH: see above.

annnnddd you like Arkham combat. Well played.

Yes, it's your opinion.

But the truth is, without the Arkham combat, a lot of videogames that came after it wouldn't have been influenced by it. It's a really fun combat system that does take skill and patience to master. Also, button mashing and hitting everyone in the room WILL NOT WORK. I guarantee you that. Some enemies cannot be hit or killed by button mashing alone. You need to devise other tactics in order to win most battles. Do you honestly think that Bane, in Origins, can be killed? I urge you to try that tactic, see how far you go!

That being said, yes, I'm with El on this one - the Arkham combat is fun. It is NOT dull, but rather challenging. If you played enough of the Arkham games and get better and better with it, chances are you'll be even better at it.

#17 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@geniobastardo: to be totally fair, when it comes to the modern beat em up, Arkham City's third on the list.

The list goes:

TMNT: Out if the Shadows

Captain America: Super Soldier

Batman: Arkham City

Sleeping Dogs

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Batman: Arkham Origins

The Amazing Spiderman

But which of my responses were you so snidely objecting to?

#18 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Metamania: I was totally waiting for you to show up.

#19 Edited by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o: ok shut it. You wanted opinions, you had mine. I'm gonna try my luck on Arkham Knight if you're so content with it's combat.

#20 Posted by Metamania (11996 posts) -

Combat was the only reason for which I found myself not interested in the franchise. I only liked Arkham Asylum for it's story and characters. Other iterations were just too shallow for me because of the combat. Simple button mashing and nothing else. It gets boring after sometime. No matter how much martial arts movements they may include in the combat, the core mechanics of the combat remain the same and by the same, I mean boring. It's all my opinion though.

Like I said, if you think it's a simple button masher, you're not that good at the game and you probably got pissed off at bosses like Bane in Origins. So please don't give me that crap please, because to succeed in Arkham, you need to switch tactics and improvise on the fly. The Iceberg Lounge is a great place to know how thugs work in the game and what you can do to better improve.

I'm not saying, by any means, that the combat system isn't perfect (look to Batman AO on that, because WBM screwed the pooch on that game A LOT). But it is fun, innovative, and challenge. Without it, I don't think the recent Batman games would have been successful as they are now.

#21 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@geniobastardo: dude, relax. I'm exploring your opinion. This whole tread was created so I could do just that. In fact, I think it was your dissenting opinion of the combat in the B:AK thread that inspired me to launch this poll.

#22 Posted by Metamania (11996 posts) -

@Metamania: I was totally waiting for you to show up.

LOL, well, when it comes to the Arkham games, I totally love them, so when I see a thread like this, I can't wait to dive in

Also, I saw your list. The Amazing Spiderman, I heard, has a nice combat system to it, so I'll be picking up the sequel in a few weeks on the PS4. Should be fun!

#23 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Metamania: ASM was okay at best, but I compare Spiderman games to Spiderman 2 rather than to Arkham. In that sense, I have hope for the new game- I can't wait to get it for my 3ds(and 360 depending on what the reviews have to say about the webslinging).

So, did you ever break the top 1000 at the Iceberg Lounge?

#24 Posted by Metamania (11996 posts) -

@Metamania: ASM was okay at best, but I compare Spiderman games to Spiderman 2 rather than to Arkham. In that sense, I have hope for the new game- I can't wait to get it for my 3ds(and 360 depending on what the revised have to say about the webslinging).

So, did you ever break the top 1000 at the Iceberg Lounge?

Nope. I never got around to it. I'm quite lazy when it comes to stuff like that. My score wouldn't be anything home to write about anyway. Doing something like that takes a lot of time out of you, which is something I don't have these days, due to work and other things going on in my life.

#25 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Metamania: Work? Bah! Dedication, man! Dedication! 'Sides, the top 1000 can't be more than 900,000 or a million or so.

#26 Posted by Pffrbt (6553 posts) -
Bayo: never played it.


DMC3: never played it.

W101: totally different genre.

NGB: now that is the definition of shallow.

DMC4: never played it.

AR: totally different genre.

MGR: about the only good example of the games listed that I've played. Except that besides the mostly functional parry move, it's an entirely predictable old school hack n slash with a neat hook.

O2: never heard of it, much less played it.

GH: see above.

I really don't care if you haven't played the examples I listed. They all have far better, more fun, faster, more interesting combat than the Arkham games. The fact you haven't played most of the best action games in the past 15 years tells me everything I need to know on your taste in action games.

Also, no, The Wonderful 101 and Anarchy Reigns aren't totally different genres. They're action games, not unlike the likes of Bayonetta or DMC3.

Also, no, Ninja Gaiden Black's fast, challenging combat isn't even remotely shallow. And I have no idea what your "predictable" remark about MGR is suppose to mean, considering the focus on taking out enemies as fast as possible without taking any damage, the parry, the Zandatsu, and the over the top bosses and action.

#27 Posted by groowagon (2800 posts) -

@groowagon said:

how can you people say it's dull? which action games you think has better combat? i mean, it's not RPG-level, but i have not yet seen better combat in an action game.

you can't win fights with multiple enemies by just button-mashing. you need to time your moves right and you actually have to use evasions and blocks too. once you learn the mechanics it becomes fairly easy, though, but atleast it's not just mashing one button.

I can give you a lot of examples of games with far better combat and they're not even RPGs. If you like the combat then good, you have your opinion but don't impose that no other game has a better combat.

cool thing about opinions is that i can impose what ever i want.

#28 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Pffrbt: there's a difference between melee action games(like the ones I listed) and arena brawlers(like Anarchy Reigns, Powerstone, and Smash Bros(if you like the 2D variety)), and Minion-based action games( like W101, Pikmin and Overlord).

Modern Ninja Gaiden is all hack, slash, and dodge, with a sprinkling of emergency magic.

MGR is(like I said) very much an old school hack&slash. The sole focus is to keep hacking away at baddies until they die and move on to the next. There's some dodge and parry involved, but otherwise, it's pure vanilla. A bit of style, a little timing, but nothing on the scale of the top four games I listed. The zandatsu was the hook I mentioned.

#29 Edited by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@groowagon said:

how can you people say it's dull? which action games you think has better combat? i mean, it's not RPG-level, but i have not yet seen better combat in an action game.

you can't win fights with multiple enemies by just button-mashing. you need to time your moves right and you actually have to use evasions and blocks too. once you learn the mechanics it becomes fairly easy, though, but atleast it's not just mashing one button.

I can give you a lot of examples of games with far better combat and they're not even RPGs. If you like the combat then good, you have your opinion but don't impose that no other game has a better combat.

cool thing about opinions is that i can impose what ever i want.

that's one hell of a pessimistic point of view!

#30 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

You talk about their virtue in terms like "fast" and "fun" and "more interesting."

Fun and more interesting, I think, require a bit more specificity.

Fast is undeniable in many of the games you( or that other fellow) listed. But I find a more thoughtful combat system preferable to a faster one.

#31 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@geniobastardo: dude, relax. I'm exploring your opinion. This whole tread was created so I could do just that. In fact, I think it was your dissenting opinion of the combat in the B:AK thread that inspired me to launch this poll.

eh, B:AK thread?? I don't remember.

#32 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -
#33 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@geniobastardo: the Batman: Arkham Knight new screens thread on System Wars(I think). I may be mistaken, though- it might have been someone else.

#34 Posted by cooolio (458 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:
@El_Zo1212o said:
Bayo: never played it.

DMC3: never played it.

W101: totally different genre.

NGB: now that is the definition of shallow.

DMC4: never played it.

AR: totally different genre.

MGR: about the only good example of the games listed that I've played. Except that besides the mostly functional parry move, it's an entirely predictable old school hack n slash with a neat hook.

O2: never heard of it, much less played it.

GH: see above.

I really don't care if you haven't played the examples I listed. They all have far better, more fun, faster, more interesting combat than the Arkham games. The fact you haven't played most of the best action games in the past 15 years tells me everything I need to know on your taste in action games.

Also, no, The Wonderful 101 and Anarchy Reigns aren't totally different genres. They're action games, not unlike the likes of Bayonetta or DMC3.

Also, no, Ninja Gaiden Black's fast, challenging combat isn't even remotely shallow. And I have no idea what your "predictable" remark about MGR is suppose to mean, considering the focus on taking out enemies as fast as possible without taking any damage, the parry, the Zandatsu, and the over the top bosses and action.

To be fair, almost all of those games are really more on the hack and slash side and 2 of them are games that were around during the original xbox's time. However, I can kind of agree with you. I though Arkham City was an amazing game when I first played it. I even beat it twice, but the ai goes at you one at a time. But you have to give the combat credit for having multiple enemy types that can only be taken down in with certain moves and when playing the game on new game plus on hard mode, the enemies attack you one after another and the notifications are gone.

Even so, only being required to press a button to dodge would get very repetitive to some, but you do have to press the dodge button when multiple enemies attack you at once and knife wielders require to use the dodge button with the the thumbstick.

#35 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11518 posts) -

Wheres the Poll option for "Hate how much I love it" ?

Anyway you are right, theres been some misunderstanding about the nature of Batman's combat. Some call it a repititive button Masher.

#36 Posted by Metamania (11996 posts) -

Wheres the Poll option for "Hate how much I love it" ?

Anyway you are right, theres been some misunderstanding about the nature of Batman's combat. Some call it a repititive button Masher.

It's not. Every enemy in the game poses a threat, from the minor thugs to some of the tougher ones, so it's not like you can go around punching every bad guy in the room. Take the Titans, for example, you need to do cape stuns on them, then punch away for a bit until you can get on top of them and use them to wipe away enemies and take control of the crowd. Other guys, such as armored foes, require beatdowns or you can do an ultra cape stun and then do a ground attack to wipe them out (or a special takedown). There's absolutely no way you can sit there and button mash every fight to death in an Arkham game. It's impossible and people think that it is have NO CLUE on how the system works until they've taken the time to played the games, like how I have. I'm decent enough to the point of where I know how every enemy functions and what needs to be done in, say Batman: Arkham Origins, which I've completed the campaign three times in a row and that's only because I'm an achievement whore and wanted more points.

The more you play it, the better you'll get it. For people like a few of the above to dismiss it have no idea on how good the game is until they've taken the proper time to learn everything about it. Like I said, without the combat system, not only would the Batman games have been successful, but a lot of developers have borrowed the engine itself for their own properties.

#37 Edited by Metamania (11996 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:
@El_Zo1212o said:
Bayo: never played it.

DMC3: never played it.

W101: totally different genre.

NGB: now that is the definition of shallow.

DMC4: never played it.

AR: totally different genre.

MGR: about the only good example of the games listed that I've played. Except that besides the mostly functional parry move, it's an entirely predictable old school hack n slash with a neat hook.

O2: never heard of it, much less played it.

GH: see above.

I really don't care if you haven't played the examples I listed. They all have far better, more fun, faster, more interesting combat than the Arkham games. The fact you haven't played most of the best action games in the past 15 years tells me everything I need to know on your taste in action games.

Also, no, The Wonderful 101 and Anarchy Reigns aren't totally different genres. They're action games, not unlike the likes of Bayonetta or DMC3.

Also, no, Ninja Gaiden Black's fast, challenging combat isn't even remotely shallow. And I have no idea what your "predictable" remark about MGR is suppose to mean, considering the focus on taking out enemies as fast as possible without taking any damage, the parry, the Zandatsu, and the over the top bosses and action.

Not really. Hacking and slashing, while it sounds fun, get can repetitive and dull for me. But different stokes for everyone, I suppose. And just because El hasn't played those games doesn't mean he's not knowledgeable about them.

#38 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11518 posts) -

@ Metamania

Its not just the Batman games. Theres an emerging trend where people call something "Shallow and Repititive" and yet refuse to use the other features the game offers whilst playing the game on easy and to top it all off never bother to finnish it. They do the the Absolute Bare minimum and then turn around and bitch about shallow and Reptitive gameplay.

In Batman, its the people who don't use the Quickfire gadgets.

In Splintercell and Hitman its the people who go in guns blazing who complain that theres no stealth. They don't even try to sneak.

In Bioshock its the People who don't use the Sky hook or hack and only use 3 of the many different Plasmids/Vigors.

In Gears of War, its the People who don't flank, Advance and don't cordinate with their teamates.

I can go on and on but the bottom line is gaming these days isn't about forcing depth and variety or challenge on the player, its about making the game accessible to newcomers and for those who still want depth and variety or a challenge can still have it if they just change the difficulty and stop doing the bare minimum.

Now back Arkham City, what you put in is what you get out, if you button mash you won't get combo modifiers, free flow. If you don't use the gadgets and batman's other skills to their fullest then not only will it seem boring, the complacency this level of laziness brings with it is whats gona get you killed when its time to tango with bosses, Titans, Ninja and Thugs with Stun Rods/Riot Shields.

Heres the funny thing about Arkham City: The game's Depth and Challenge is tied directly to its Variety. Making use of the entire skillset will increase the challenge. Hence why people who don't use all the features offered find it shallow or easy.

#39 Posted by Dannystaples14 (957 posts) -

I do like timed combat. It makes the game hard to grasp at first and makes it flexible overall that when you nail it and get used to it you can rock.

Same with Witcher 1 for me. Loved that timed stuff on there. On hard it made it a little horrendous to be honest but I found it just as enjoyable overall.

#40 Edited by MirkoS77 (7322 posts) -

"Simple to learn, difficult to master". If I've seen anything that fits that saying, it's Batman's fighting engine.

I find the Arkham games' (I can't emphasize enough that I'm excluding Origins here, and have City first in mind when saying this) combat to be some of the best designed and most enjoyable I've ever played in any game out there. It's fluid and dynamic: always changing, and always unpredictable. The main difference about Batman's combat from many other games is that the focus--the scope of Batman's engagements--necessitate a certain degree of, for lack of a better word, "casualization" to be able to make a crowd control system a manageable feat....both from a designer and a player standpoint. The combat's been broadened for scale but that doesn't mean it's any less enjoyable or less competently done than other fighters. The focus is just different. Batman is about efficient crowd control and prioritizing, and it's here where the engine's brilliance lies and which its critics seem to be oblivious to.

Of course it's just button mashing against one thug, way to miss the forest for the trees. Seriously, you'd have to be extremely myopic to even attempt to claim these games just button mashers.

Think about it as if you were designing a brawling system that demanded incorporating 12, 24, 36, or more combatants all at once to be dealt with, all while keeping it feasible for the player: it would be nigh impossible to implement a fighting engine that most would deem acceptably complex dealing in such numbers. I have yet (and would love) to hear someone lend an idea as how to execute a better system given such context. People bitch and moan about Batman's combat, but they never actually go into how they'd go about it otherwise. Each enemy is fundamentally very simplistic in the obstacle they present, and taken in and of themselves I can see someone looking at Batman's fighting and outright dismissing it as nothing but button-mashing tedium when held in light to systems that take the focus down to the individual (or few individuals). But the fighting's not about the mechanics, and to focus on that alone in dismissal is to entirely miss the point. The mechanics simply afford a framework to the player to evolve the battlefield to their advantage and preference given the thugs' weapons and Batman's abilities, and in that, they work nearly flawlessly.

Pulling off a seamless combo from start to finish through a variety of enemy types that need to be neutralized in differing ways (and in a particular order if one wants to be successful), with every enemy needing to be taken into consideration in terms of the threat they present at any given time takes a good deal of skill and huge amounts of practice to get good at. Anyone who claims different has absolutely NO CLUE what they're talking about. None. I simply laugh when people use "button masher" as a criticism towards these games, because it means nothing. It's 100% irrelevant to what constitutes the combat's enjoyment or skill-set. It's like criticizing Mario because you push a button to jump. It's not about the jumping, it's about the manner in which it's done to achieve the greater objective. Look at the larger picture. I can look at any single game mechanic under a microscope in the attempt to lay the claim of simplicity at its feet.

Personally, I think Rocksteady's work in this area is utterly brilliant and I can't wait to see what Knight has to offer in terms of new abilities and enemies for Bats to conquer.

#41 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -
#42 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

To sum it up in the end, I would like to go over the most basic thought "everyone have different tastes". By what I've guessed, your tastes in combat are completely contradictory to mine. I like a balanced combat which is combo(not arkham style combos, they're different) focused, like DmC, CLoS 2, DMC4 or take any other good hack n slash and you'll get what I want. What wrong did I find with Arkham combat apart from the most basic stereotypical argument "Button-mashing"??? it felt unbalanced.

Arkham style of combat demands you to dodge and then plan your attacks. When dodging, Batman moves exactly at the speed which seems complimentary to his virtual weight. But when you chain your combos between enemies, it feels like he's teleporting between them. That felt unnatural. In short, I like combat where you feel your character's weight (I hope you're getting what I'm saying), his movements be exactly under your control and his attacks match your button-pressing. If you play any of the games that I or Pffrbt has mentioned you'll know what I mean. On a side note, I appreciate your enthusiasm for orchestrating such a long debate for what you like. Anyway, it all came down onto tastes. Well,there are people in the world who don't like chocolates too (I'm not one of them just to be clear).

#43 Edited by Pikminmaniac (8849 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@El_Zo1212o: Devil may cry 4 or Assassin's Creed 2 imo. AC2 is in many ways similar to Arkham series.

Very few games can touch Devil May Cry 4's combat with Dante.

However, Assassin's Creed 2 boasts a very similar style of combat to the Arkham games only far less fluid, complex, or deep. It's the biggest aspect of the AC franchise that needs a major overhaul especially when you have a franchise like Batman Arkham running right beside it. But you've made your point and described your preferences well in this regard.

#44 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11518 posts) -

@ geniobastardo

Tastes aside, Repitition and Depth are not subjective concepts. Regardless of how its executed one should be able to identify and analyze depth and variety even in games they don't like. Its just not right when people call Batman repititive.

Anyway, I played 2 and a half DMCs, Lords Of Shadow and Bayonetta and I still don't follow your "weight/movement" thingy you described. Batman definately moves awkardly, but so do Nero, Dante and whatever that vampire's name is. They all feel so disconnected from their surroundings

#45 Posted by bezza2011 (2408 posts) -

I couldn't choose, I'm in between, it's better than what's out there cough AC Combat cough but it isn't anything special, I found myself enjoying the games tho,

but combat is merely batter them with 1 button which for the counter attack animation or highlight and then hit another button, you can shape it how ever you want to but 2 buttons for the combat is quite dull. but it's the animations which keep you enticed.

#46 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

@ geniobastardo

Tastes aside, Repitition and Depth are not subjective concepts. Regardless of how its executed one should be able to identify and analyze depth and variety even in games they don't like. Its just not right when people call Batman repititive.

Anyway, I played 2 and a half DMCs, Lords Of Shadow and Bayonetta and I still don't follow your "weight/movement" thingy you described. Batman definately moves awkardly, but so do Nero, Dante and whatever that vampire's name is. They all feel so disconnected from their surroundings

I beg to differ. Their movements aren't awkward ( I know you're pointing at their jump movements). They feel perfectly natural to their character's built. I can only say, you didn't really get what I'm saying and moreover, you don't even remember the vampire's name. Play it and feel for yourself. On a side note, played DMC4 ??

#47 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (11518 posts) -

Yeah I played DMC4... I loved it. It was particularly annoying how everytime you purchase an ability every other abilities soul requirements go up. And yeah, the Jumping was stiff as hell, which made juggling weird.

#48 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

i've only played asylum, but i hear it's largely the same throughout the series. anyway, the fights were fine.

it essentially felt like the AC combat only done well and not clashing with the rest of the game. goons gang up on batman so it never feels like they are politely waiting their turn to beat him to death. the counter move is still really easy to time but it only does a bit of damage rather than defeating goons with 1 hit, so i still wanted to look for opportunities to land normal attacks. then the combo system was a nice touch to bring it all together, encouraging me to keep the multiplier rising and use a simple system to its fullest.

#49 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6010 posts) -

@Metamania: I love it when you highlight a point for me. You were just talking about the armored thugs and you said beat down or ultra stun. The brilliance of the system comes down to this though-

1. Beat down can take them out,

2. Ultra stun can lay them out,

3. An REC will throw them across the room,

4. An ice grenade will leave them vulnerable to a normal strike, knocking them down,

5. An instant knockout will KO one at any time,

6. A batarang to the back will knock them down(this can be accomplished by catching one slipping and just being behind them, catching them reaching for a weapon, or redirecting over them and flipping a batarang at them as they stumble.

And that's only the ways I can remember off of the top of my head on how to deal with this enemy. You have all of these options available to you, they are all valuable in different scenarios, and each of them run through your head in the midst of the constantly evolving combat encounter so you make sure you use the appropriate move depending on the situation in which you find yourself.

You literally have to determine your course of action in the time it takes for Batman to complete a combat animation by analyzing everything from the state of the crowd(who is attacking next, how far away are they, and what weapon( if any) are they wielding, are they armored or not), to whether your next move will be attack, defend, or evade, and what attack on whom if it's the former, and whether to run or counter if it's the latter.

#50 Posted by BARROW_70 (7 posts) -

Sometimes, i trained batman arkham moves at home XD. And hey, if you guys a DC fan, play Infinite Crisis, a MOBA game, much like League of Legends, but in my opinion way better. Then please, use this referral link. Help me help you. I will also help you learn the game.

https://account.infinitecrisis.com/en/registration?utm_source=02d04cfc-cd84-e311-9d8f-bc305b234d58&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=IC_RAF