Arkham Combat: Love it or hate it?

Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) 1 year, 7 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.

#51 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@geniobastardo: Now that, I understand. My first and loudest complaint on launch day was that Batman moved entirely too fast. The pace if the whole combat system was ratcheted up to 11 and it just didn't seem right that Batman, who's built like a tank, could move so fast. But that's just an aesthetic complaint.

Your teleporting remark rings true, too, but Batman is one man who mops the floor with crowds of thugs at a time and usually without breaking a sweat. I bet those thugs felt like he was teleporting around between them, too.

As far as movements matching button presses, I can see how some people would find that undesirable, but you have to remember that the game is as much about rhythm and analyzing, planning and executing all in fractions if a second. I like to say that Arkham City is to kung fu as Guitar Hero is to playing rock music. The way you learn to play GH is the same way you learn to play a real musical instrument. The only difference is that a GH guitar has 5 keys and a switch rather than 20-some-odd frets x 6 strings. Batman puts you in a situation where you need to read the intentions of an attacker and respond appropriately in a flash. You also develop "katas" to achieve certain results(such as going from a takedown to reloading another combo finisher in 3 moves, or loading up a powergadget and clearing half of the enemies on the floor). Kung fu shit, but ridiculously oversimplified make believe kung fu shit.

And finally: it's a good thing you're not one if those anti-chocolate nuts(ha ha), or I'd kick your ass right the hell out of my thread!

#53 Edited by Pffrbt (6596 posts) -

@Metamania said:

But the truth is, without the Arkham combat, a lot of videogames that came after it wouldn't have been influenced by it.

Which is a shame since it's so simplistic and dull.

@Metamania said:

And just because El hasn't played those games doesn't mean he's not knowledgeable about them.

Apparently it does since he had nothing to say about several of them and didn't know what the hell he was talking about for the ones he did and hadn't even heard of a few. There's also the fact that he considers Arkham's banality a highlight of the genre.

Loading Video...

I'll take this crazy, over the top action over Arkham any day.

#55 Posted by Pffrbt (6596 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

@Pffrbt: there's a difference between melee action games(like the ones I listed)

I was never asked to list specifically melee action games (since it doesn't matter whether they're melee or not), only games with better combat than Arkham. All of these games have better combat than Arkham.

"Minion-based action games( like W101, Pikmin and Overlord)."
The fact that you think The Wonderful 101 is even remotely like Pikmin or Overlord tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. The Wonderful 101 has far more in common with the likes of Bayonetta and Devil May Cry.

"Modern Ninja Gaiden is all hack, slash, and dodge, with a sprinkling of emergency magic."
Sure, if you decide ignore the combo system, fast paced action, and challenging AI.

"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."
The sole focus is take out enemies as fast as possible while taking zero damage. If you're "hacking away at baddies until they die" you're playing it wrong. The game also has a solid combo system that's far more interesting and fun to play than any of the games you listed.

"nothing on the scale of the top four games I listed."
All of the games you listed have painfully banal, simplistic combat that don't even begin to approach the depth, style or speed of anything I listed.

#56 Edited by Ballroompirate (23667 posts) -

Love the combat

#57 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@Pffrbt: I love how all of your complaints regarding my assessments are pretty much identical to the holes everyone poked in the dissenting opinions in this thread.

#58 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

I don't know what the code is to embed the video all fancy like, so here, have an unclicky link:

Batman: Arkham City - Iceberg Lounge VIP Room [as…: http://youtu.be/29hHHAov2sE

The games you listed are all flash and mash. Nothing that requires the kind of planning and execution it takes to score well in Arkham City.

Also, W101 has you collecting minions to become more powerful and losing minions when you take damage. Thus, yes, it does bear a closer resemblance to pikmin and overlord than anything else you listed.

#59 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (6932 posts) -

The combat is one of the best parts of the games I reckon... it's so free-flowing.

#60 Edited by cooolio (528 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@El_Zo1212o said:

@Pffrbt: there's a difference between melee action games(like the ones I listed)

I was never asked to list specifically melee action games (since it doesn't matter whether they're melee or not), only games with better combat than Arkham. All of these games have better combat than Arkham.

"Minion-based action games( like W101, Pikmin and Overlord)."

The fact that you think The Wonderful 101 is even remotely like Pikmin or Overlord tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. The Wonderful 101 has far more in common with the likes of Bayonetta and Devil May Cry.

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

Sure, if you decide ignore the combo system, fast paced action, and challenging AI.

"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."

The sole focus is take out enemies as fast as possible while taking zero damage. If you're "hacking away at baddies until they die" you're playing it wrong. The game also has a solid combo system that's far more interesting and fun to play than any of the games you listed.

"nothing on the scale of the top four games I listed."

All of the games you listed have painfully banal, simplistic combat that don't even begin to approach the depth, style or speed of anything I listed.

Well, whether or not those games have better combat is your opinion, but it is still more appropriate to list games with a similar combat system. Batman is not going to be running around slashing enemies and or uniting with comrades to perform various attacks. You have said yourself that these games are fast paced. If they all have the same underlying concept that you prefer, then of course they are going to be better to you.

However, none of this stops your from saying what you like about their combat system that Arkham games have failed to do, which you have not done. You could even say what you would prefer for the Arkham games to do to add more depth as long as it gives more insight in to what you feel it lacks. You said yourself that it boils down to taste, but a difference in taste does not make one thing better than the other or support your side of a discussion.

#61 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@cooolio: Way more useful than my reply.

@Pffrbt: Seriously- take a page out of that other fellow's book.

#62 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14327 posts) -
Loading Video...

In a nutshell.

#63 Posted by Metamania (12025 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@El_Zo1212o said:

@Pffrbt: there's a difference between melee action games(like the ones I listed)

"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."

The sole focus is take out enemies as fast as possible while taking zero damage. If you're "hacking away at baddies until they die" you're playing it wrong. The game also has a solid combo system that's far more interesting and fun to play than any of the games you listed.


Just because a game has a fast-paced combat system doesn't mean it's better for other people like me and El. Stop saying that as some kind of fact. It's merely an opinion. As someone else said, you prefer those games, more power to you. But stop acting like these games are somehow better than Arkham when, in some other people's minds, they are not. And by the way, Batman's combat system has the same idea in mind; to be a badass and fight without taking damage (and that's VERY hard to accomplish, especially with the amount of baddies being thrown at you!). We are not perfect gamers like you. *rolleyes*

#64 Posted by Pffrbt (6596 posts) -

@cooolio said:

Well, whether or not those games have better combat is your opinion, but it is still more appropriate to list games with a similar combat system.

Games with similar combat systems do not have good combat by default, so there's no point in listing them. The best a game using this style of combat can hope for is serviceable, mediocre at best, dull combat.

"However, none of this stops your from saying what you like about their combat system that Arkham games have failed to do, which you have not done."

That video of Bayonetta perfectly shows what I like about these combat systems that Arkham games have failed to do. I like lightning fast, responsive, technical combat systems with limitless, over the top combo potential.

"You could even say what you would prefer for the Arkham games to do to add more depth as long as it gives more insight in to what you feel it lacks."

Speed it up, give Batman actual combos beyond rhythmically tapping one or two buttons and occasionally splooging out a gadget every now and then. The current combat system just needs to be scrapped, because it's a dead end. It's part of the reason why Arkham City was so dull.

#65 Posted by Pffrbt (6596 posts) -
@El_Zo1212o said:

I don't know what the code is to embed the video all fancy like, so here, have an unclicky link:

Batman: Arkham City - Iceberg Lounge VIP Room [as…: http://youtu.be/29hHHAov2sE

This is completely monotonous to both watch and play. This combat requires so few button inputs and has such relaxed pacing.

"The games you listed are all flash and mash."
Except they aren't. You wouldn't know though since you haven't actually played any of them. That Bayonetta combo video takes not only a ton of technical skill, but also a ton of creativity, planning and fast reaction time to be able to link so many combos together like that.

"Also, W101 has you collecting minions to become more powerful and losing minions when you take damage. Thus, yes, it does bear a closer resemblance to pikmin and overlord than anything else you listed."
Except, you know, the entire combat system that you're ignoring that makes it far closer to Bayonetta and Devil May Cry. What with the fast paced action, scoring system, dodging, and linking combos together.

Loading Video...

#66 Posted by cooolio (528 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@cooolio said:

Well, whether or not those games have better combat is your opinion, but it is still more appropriate to list games with a similar combat system.

Games with similar combat systems do not have good combat by default, so there's no point in listing them. The best a game using this style of combat can hope for is serviceable, mediocre at best, dull combat.

"However, none of this stops your from saying what you like about their combat system that Arkham games have failed to do, which you have not done."

That video of Bayonetta perfectly shows what I like about these combat systems that Arkham games have failed to do. I like lightning fast, responsive, technical combat systems with limitless, over the top combo potential.

"You could even say what you would prefer for the Arkham games to do to add more depth as long as it gives more insight in to what you feel it lacks."

Speed it up, give Batman actual combos beyond rhythmically tapping one or two buttons and occasionally splooging out a gadget every now and then. The current combat system just needs to be scrapped, because it's a dead end. It's part of the reason why Arkham City was so dull.

1. That is completely subjective. Also, it is not like I am asking you to find games that play like it, I am just asking you to show me a similar combat system that allows you to flow from target to target. To say that a combat system like this can only hope to be dull and repetitive does not prove anything, and it is completely untrue. The only people who limit what a game's combat system can do is the developers. I can think of a ton ideas that may not be great, but can be used in future games.

2. In all honesty, I see what you like in those type of combat systems, and they represent a genre that the Arkham games will never be and I can respect that you do not like it.

3. Like I said, I get what your saying, but I believe that it is impossible for Arkham games to get like that.

I

#67 Posted by cooolio (528 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:
Loading Video...

In a nutshell.

I know that the poster is playing but i do not know about you.

#68 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet: That was just you being a smartass, right? You don't actually buy into any of that? Right?

I have to believe that because the alternative is that you actually believe this hit-baiting troll.

I mean, rapid tapping the counter button to make a point that's utterly lost when he builds zero combo and when you realize that that fight will 4 times as long as if you built a combo and used combo finisher or two.

If you never bother to learn anything more than strike, counter, counter, strike, then if course its going to become tedious.

And this dope is obviously a Batman Begins baby. Anyone who grew up with Batman TAS knows that he's always been referred to as "Raysh Al Ghoul." And considering Batman, the Joker and Harley were all pulled straight from The Animated Series, the pronunciation make perfect sense.

#69 Edited by BranKetra (49556 posts) -

Positive. The best part of the combat of the Arkham games is experienced when the combat multiplier is high enough to show what Batman is capable of. At that point, the battles are not about whether or not Batman can win against waves of opponents, but how his techniques be executed flawlessly with that graceful destruction of his.

I have not actually tested myself on the Iceberg Lounge lately. I have the game of the year edition of Batman Arkham City and if I have the time, I might.

@Pikminmaniac said:

@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.

Do not forget about Nero. He is not on Dante's level, but Max Act and fully upgraded moves make for some awesome combos. Catching Credo's spears without QTE was one of the highlights of the past generation.

@El_Zo1212o: You said Ninja Gaiden Black is shallow. Let us not bunch NGB with Ninja Gaiden 3 for the sake of clarity. While it is not as varied as Batman Arkham's freeflow combos, the combat is relatively as complicated as a Dead or Alive game which pre-Ninja Gaiden 3 was made by the same developer who made Ninja Gaiden. Since Team Ninja split, it is not quite the same as it was before. That said, I have played most of the games @Pffrbt mentioned and NGB remains at the top as far as combat is concerned. You cannot block in Batman Arkham games; you can only counter or dodge. In NGB, you can. Blocking is an essential skill in fighting.

I guess that blocking would definitely slow the pacing of the freeflow system as it was in Arkham City (I have not played Arkham Origins, yet). If any Batman game is intending to compete with NGB's combat, it needs the speed of Ninja Gaiden Black (with blocking, mind you) and the possibilites of the freeflow combat system.

#70 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@BranKetra: I'll give you points for that, but I just can't help falling on the Batman side of the speed debate. Combat just seems to carry more weight(making me feel more badass) when it's not happening so blindingly fast that it devolves into button tapping exercises rather than systematically deconstructing a mass of bad guys.

Also, do go back and hit up the Iceberg Lounge. I haven't seen one score in the nearly two will pages of this thread and it's starting to make me worry that my interest in doing better and climbing the ladderhas been misplaced in the extreme. I can't seriously be the only one on these boards that gives a shit about this, can I? I mean, there are people around here who crow about being a 4th or 5th prestige in Call of Duty, so I can't really be the only competitive Arkham player around here, can I?

#71 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

Fuckin' Gram! If he were here we'd have a hell of a discussion jumping off around here! Where o where has my Grammaton_Cleric gone?!

#72 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18199 posts) -

@ El_Zo1212o

The Problem with Gram is he makes debates feel more like work. I can't decipher half of what he says. It really brings the exchange down to a crawl.

He's like the guy who tells a smart joke to a dum person and says their responsible if they don't get the joke. Not Cool.

I think its messed up that TexasGoldRush comes back every now and then back bat Gram didn't. Is he dead ?

#73 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: That was the best part about Gram- he elevated any debate. I managed a good turn or two in this thread, but I can't help feeling his absence. Especially when I remember the Great Arkham City Thread of 2011.

And when he got riled up he'd go around kickin' ASS. An old favorite trick of mine- using big words against small minds.

#74 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18199 posts) -

Its a cheap trick even by internet standards. Its also counterintuitive.

#75 Edited by JangoWuzHere (17299 posts) -

No one hates Arkhams combat. People who do are simply lunatics.

#77 Edited by blangenakker (2567 posts) -

The Batman game's fighting system is probably the best when it comes to brawling and hand-to-hand combat. It's incredibly fluid and great to watch. The button prompts may be simple whoever it's the enemies you face and the gadgets at your disposal that create the more depth. It's not as over the top and combo heavy as hack-and-slash games because it's not meant to. Batman is a human, a maybe unrealisticly trained human but the fighting systems fits the character.

#78 Edited by Metamania (12025 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

No one hates Arkhams combat. People who do are simply lunatics.

don't throw your accusations on me! ALLIGATHOOR!

It's really sad that you ignore every valid point made by me and several others and write stuff like this that contributes NOTHING to the thread at hand. GOOD JOB!

#79 Edited by Metamania (12025 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Its a cheap trick even by internet standards. Its also counterintuitive.

Then you weren't intelligent enough to understand Gram. Period. He is a smart gamer and one of the best posters around. It's too bad he's not around because of folks like you and others that never understood him and thought he was a joke.

He wasn't.

#81 Posted by Metamania (12025 posts) -

@geniobastardo said:

@Metamania said:

@geniobastardo said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

No one hates Arkhams combat. People who do are simply lunatics.

don't throw your accusations on me! ALLIGATHOOR!

It's really sad that you ignore every valid point made by me and several others and write stuff like this that contributes NOTHING to the thread at hand. GOOD JOB!

I ignore them?? you might be kidding me. I've taken in account every thing you've spoken. Sadly, they were not enough to convince me. My preferences are different. Accept it. I've laid down everything that I should have and I know the TC has got my answer but sadly , not you! ..read my previous posts again.

I'm not going to be told what to do. You don't like it? Tough crap. I say what I want and do what I please. Your preferences on what you want out of gaming? More power to you, but are of NO concern to me. The fact that you can't seem to accept a good combat system that's right in front of you is pretty much a damn shame.

#82 Edited by Metamania (12025 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

"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.

See, someone gets it! :P There's a channel called Arkham Videos and I've seen this player demonstrate exactly why I feel Batman has some of the best combat mechanics I've ever seen in a videogame.

Loading Video...

Here's a great example of what Mirko talks about in terms of crowd control and prioritizing. This is how, if you take the time to understand the game and how it works, you'll see that it is far more than just dull or a button masher. No way you can win every fight by button mashing. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

#83 Posted by Sushiglutton (5475 posts) -

It's the most fun arcade combat ever made imo. In the campaign you are not really pushed to take advantage of all the techniques, still a blast though if you play a varied style anyway. When you are playing for high scores and get in the zone it's freaking sublime!!!! One of the best feelings in gaming.

#84 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18199 posts) -

@ Metamania

I get that Gram is smart but deliberately using words on the far edge of the comprehension spectrum for the sake of winning an argument was just petty. Nobody talks like that, not because they are not smart but because using normal vocabulary eliminates potential misunderstandings.

Which is probably how so many arguments get started in the 1st place. It also makes him seem snobbish. I'm rather surprized anybody could respect him after being on the receiving end of one of his.... Lets call them "Lectures"

#85 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@Metamania: dude, relax- genio here added the most to this thread so far for the dissenting side. If you wanna rage, rage on Pffrbt.

@Sushiglutton: "When you are playing for high scores and get in the zone it's freaking sublime!!!! One of the best feelings in gaming."

Absolutely agree. I've hit the zone in some games and it's always really satisfying, but in my experience, these new style beaten ups take that to a whole new level. Especially when the animations are well designed to link together and pack a punch(ha ha). There have been times when I'm doing so well that a particularly violent strings of ass whippings make me laugh out loud out of sheer exhilaration. If that's not what a game is supposed to do, then what's the point of playing?

@Lulu_Lulu: I don't think that was the point at all. First, because you can never "win" an argument- check out some of the religious vs atheist threads on Off Topic for examples- you can only hope to give the opposing side something to consider. Second, there was never a word he used that couldn't be understood by any high school graduate who'd ever read at least a couple of books just for fun.

And also, my first direct interaction with him( meaning when I decided to look at the name that went with the signature) was when I was on the receiving end of one of his two-pages-single-spaced posts. But instead of getting all indignant and trying to fight with him, I responded thoughtfully point by point to his post and we ended up having any number of truly stimulating conversations on the topic. And here, 2 and a half years later, I still remember it as the most interesting thread I ever participated in.

#86 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@Metamania: WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?!!? I just watched the Survival of the Fittest video you posted and look at how he did the last two dude in wave 1! He finished the beatdown on the armored goon then initiated an extremely ill-timed aerial attack- the launched off of the dude he ran up and CAME DOWN ON THE OTHER GOON! How did I not know this move existed?! I've been playing this game for years and have looked up any number of videos, but I've never seen that before!

WHY DIDNT SOMEBODY TELL ME HE HAD ONE OF THOSE... THINGS?!

#87 Edited by Tqricardinho (434 posts) -

It's great, It really makes you feel like a superhero without needing to memorize dozens of combos.

#88 Posted by Boddicker (3026 posts) -

I bought the very first Batman AA game and sold it within a few days.

I just never felt like I had "control" of Batman. It was like press a button at the right time and he would automatically perform the correct move to counter it.

I probably should have stuck with it to see if it would have grown on me. I doubt it though,

#89 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (18199 posts) -

@ El_Zo1212o

I disagree, not only did he use a lexicon of a professor, I could've sworn Some of the words he used were Anglo-Latin (Latin words in English :p). I definately fought with him.... Like I would any other snob.

I don't read books for fun but I do read books, atleast one book a year ;), mostly novels.

#90 Edited by foxhound_fox (90506 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.

If you haven't played Bayonetta, DMC3/4 and God Hand and think NGB is "the definition of shallow" then you have no right to have an opinion about the best action game combat in gaming.

Arkham's combat is fun, but it is incredibly shallow. If it didn't have the scoring mechanic, there would be no reason to do anything beyond button mash.

#91 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: Nice of you to show up.

There's that word again: "shallow." In what way do you think the combat system lacks depth?

#92 Posted by mastermetal777 (2256 posts) -

I love the combat in the Arkham games. It's easy to dismiss it as simple "button-mashing" if that's all you're really doing. But the use of gadgets when swarmed with aggressive baddies, along with the timing aspect of each punch, makes this system very in-depth and makes you really feel like the caped crusader. It's not about having long tedious combo strings that only a few people would study and use. It's about precision and strategy, and that's the most unique aspect of the gameplay in the Arkham games.

#93 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18199 posts) -

@ foxhound_fox

I also use to need to be evaluated if a game wanted me to use all its other features.... But I'm a big boy now :p and I'l use the full skillset without the scoring system :D. Look at me now, Dad ! ! !

Anyway, I think this is another one of those situations were people confuse complexity with depth and intuitive/accessable with Shallow. This is one of the reasons I never liked Street Fighter's 6 button (without shortcuts) system. The Devil May Cry reboot's controls were also considered shallow now that you could switch weapons much much better than before, amongst other features ofcourse, but they were actually fixing its Predecessors flaws. Please reconsider Batman's combat.... Theres a free cookie if you finaly recognize its awesomness.

#94 Posted by foxhound_fox (90506 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

@foxhound_fox: Nice of you to show up.

There's that word again: "shallow." In what way do you think the combat system lacks depth?

There is no "choice" over how Batman attacks his foes. You push X (or square on PS3) and he punches, flip-kicks, etc without giving the player the option to do those different moves. I greatly enjoy Arkham City (I own it on 360 (Collector's Edition), PS3 (GOTY Ed.) and PC (GOTY Ed.)) but I also enjoy games like Revengeance, DMC3 and Bayonetta that give the player the ability to control every aspect of their combo, and not just physical attacks, grab attacks and gadget attacks.

If you weren't trying to compare the Arkham franchise's combat to games like DMC3 or NGB, I probably wouldn't have even voiced my opinion. They are two relatively different types of games, and when compared, distinctly showcase the Arkham series' lack of depth (which isn't necessarily related to complexity).

#95 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18199 posts) -

^He has a point ^

Can't compare Hack n Slash with Beat'em Up.

#96 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6045 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: it's worth noting that I wasn't the one who brought up the likes of DMC and NGB.

I still fail to see how how it can be considered shallow, considering the strike is only one of the dozen+ combat moves available. Remember that this is the modern incarnation of games with the same three hit kick combo and four punch combo you used throughout the whole game 20 years ago.

Plus, I always appreciated how, instead of being tied to preset combos, you make your own combos for each scenario.

#97 Posted by cooolio (528 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@El_Zo1212o said:

@foxhound_fox: Nice of you to show up.

There's that word again: "shallow." In what way do you think the combat system lacks depth?

There is no "choice" over how Batman attacks his foes. You push X (or square on PS3) and he punches, flip-kicks, etc without giving the player the option to do those different moves. I greatly enjoy Arkham City (I own it on 360 (Collector's Edition), PS3 (GOTY Ed.) and PC (GOTY Ed.)) but I also enjoy games like Revengeance, DMC3 and Bayonetta that give the player the ability to control every aspect of their combo, and not just physical attacks, grab attacks and gadget attacks.

If you weren't trying to compare the Arkham franchise's combat to games like DMC3 or NGB, I probably wouldn't have even voiced my opinion. They are two relatively different types of games, and when compared, distinctly showcase the Arkham series' lack of depth (which isn't necessarily related to complexity).

If they are so different, then could it not be said that the comparison does not show Arkaham's lack of depth but its lack of some of the things that hack n slash games have? The games you mentioned beat Arkham games in quantity. Due to the many combos and weapons that the characters of the other games possess, they have variety of attack moves. Now, when it comes to moves and combos, I can partly agree on the Arkham games lack of diversity. If we were able to utilize different styles of fights to transition from defense to attack fluidly, then that would be pretty amazing. But Prffbt, the poster who brought those other games in to the discussion, seemed to want the Arkham games to fast combat comparable to what is present in games like DMC3 and NG, and that is not something that would be good for the series.

#98 Edited by Byshop (12576 posts) -

I keep seeing the same criticism both being thrown at Batman as well as most of the games it's being compared to (it's too shallow) and the same response on both sides as well (if it's too shallow then that's because you're playing it wrong) and in most cases I think both sides are right about their respective games being deep if you put the time in. I loved the combat in Batman, but I also have enjoyed many of the other games mentioned in this thread (the only one of which I haven't played is Wonderful 101).

@Pffrbt I get that you prefer the more over the top action of spectacle fighters to a more realistic melee brawler, but at that point you're really crapping on a genre of game rather than the game. That's kind of like when @Lulu_Lulu joins every thread that talks about an RPG to tell everyone about how much he dislikes RPGs rather than talk about the game itself. Ninja Gaiden is good, the good DMC games are good and have very tight combat systems and Bayonetta has a very similar feel. The Otogi games were beautiful but it's been so long I honestly don't remember a ton about the combat system besides it feeling very floaty. God Hand was an awesome game and the build your own combo idea was pretty neat, but it didn't feel that deep overall since the main tactics were all pretty basic.

One of the things I consider to be a good trait of a spectacle fighter is if a skilled player can make it through the entire game without taking a single hit outside of scripted sequences. This is something that all of these games have in common (except maybe for God Hand as I don't recall that game giving the player sufficient mobility to be able to deal with crowds and never take a hit). Batman's combat isn't as fast as some of these other games but the depth is there when you start using gadgets in your combos and chaining together attacks to do things to cause enemies to hit each other, using the environment to your advantage and for takedowns, etc. I dig that I can go on Youtube and watch challenge videos of the game and constantly see new tactics that I hadn't thought of or a player doing something that I didn't even know was possible.

Where Batman excels as a game is that unlike the rest of these titles it's more than just the combat system. Most of these games are just brawlers with maybe some platforming and light puzzle elements, whereas Batman had all these other elements -and- it treated the source material very well which is extremely rare in licensed games.

Where Batman's combat system falls short IMHO, is the fact that while there is a lot of depth there it's entirely possible to button mash your way through -much- of the game. Sure, you're doing yourself a disservice if you do that, but the game doesn't punish you enough for it.

-Byshop

#99 Edited by BranKetra (49556 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

@BranKetra: I'll give you points for that, but I just can't help falling on the Batman side of the speed debate. Combat just seems to carry more weight(making me feel more badass) when it's not happening so blindingly fast that it devolves into button tapping exercises rather than systematically deconstructing a mass of bad guys.

Also, do go back and hit up the Iceberg Lounge. I haven't seen one score in the nearly two will pages of this thread and it's starting to make me worry that my interest in doing better and climbing the ladderhas been misplaced in the extreme. I can't seriously be the only one on these boards that gives a shit about this, can I? I mean, there are people around here who crow about being a 4th or 5th prestige in Call of Duty, so I can't really be the only competitive Arkham player around here, can I?

I think the sensation of "weight" as you call it has to do with more realistic characters such as Batman Arkham having strong opponents being muscular and better graphics overall. Ninja Gaiden Black is a retro game at this point in time, but its game system is what makes it superior to experience at a higher level. I forsee that if Team Ninja does not surpass NGB, another developer eventually will.

That said, the Batman Arkham engine has its strengths. Batman has an arsenal of weaponry on him that can be used at any time along with his hand-to-hand skills. It makes for a fun experience. Once in a while I have thought about playing through Arkham City again. It would be on hard mode and I will get all of the riddler trophies. I say that the combo system is not Batman Arkham's strength, but actually the culmination of all of its parts.

There is the following:

  • Story
  • Graphics
  • Predator stealth
  • Batman allies
  • Batman villians
  • Freeflow combat system
  • Batclaw and gliding
  • Exploration
  • Upgrades

As I stated, the culmination of all of its parts makes it great. It the Arkham combat were transferred to a video game where that is the focus without anything else, I would not buy it, but as the focus of a challenge mode, it is well.

#100 Edited by foxhound_fox (90506 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

@foxhound_fox: it's worth noting that I wasn't the one who brought up the likes of DMC and NGB.

I still fail to see how how it can be considered shallow, considering the strike is only one of the dozen+ combat moves available. Remember that this is the modern incarnation of games with the same three hit kick combo and four punch combo you used throughout the whole game 20 years ago.

Plus, I always appreciated how, instead of being tied to preset combos, you make your own combos for each scenario.

DMC doesn't have "preset combos" in the sense I think you are talking about. Instead of only a single strike, the combos in DMC are completely interruptible and remixable. You can cut one combo in half and move into a lift, and then carry on through to a mid-air combo, cut it in half again, bring the enemy back down to the ground, and finish them off with a power combo.

Your inexperience with the series in question makes it hard for you to have a position on the type of gameplay we are discussing here.