Yeah, I've noticed that most games with some kind of melee combat seem to mimic the Arkham games. Lots of quick slo-mo's and combos. I don't mind it, though. As long as they continually innovate, I think I'd be fine if more games had combat like it.
The biggest thing to point out here is that you're comparing a brawler's gameplay to those of action titles. This style of combat is the modern equivalent of all those many 2D side scrolling beat 'em ups like Final Fight and Streets of Rage. Counter or not, the simplistic combat will always consist of rhythmic repetition (but that can be great fun).
The rise of the counter is a great thing, though, IMO. Instead of sloppy stop go mechanics, we get a mechanic that encourages incessant attacking because players are able to directly respond to attacks, instead of fleeing.
The mindlessness is fitting for the genre, as it recreates the instinctual, reactionary flow of fighting styles. That said, I'm all for alternatives. I'd love to see a direct or spiritual sequel to God Hand's tank beat 'em up combat style, and it would have to have the customizable combos and attacks!
The rise of the counter is a great thing, though, IMO. Instead of sloppy stop go mechanics, we get a mechanic that encourages incessant attacking because players are able to directly respond to attacks, instead of fleeing.
The mindlessness is fitting for the genre, as it recreates the instinctual, reactionary flow of fighting styles. That said, I'm all for alternatives. I'd love to see a direct or spiritual sequel to God Hand's tank beat 'em up combat style, and it would have to have the customizable combos and attacks!
A very well written piece that I utterly disagree with.
Allow me to explain why.
While the idea of complexity in the combos is good I hate the fact the game is more about my memory than my skill, I hate it in fighters when they have the most insane combination of buttons for moves with Soul Calibur 4 having a very nasty move with Ivy. While I'm fine with people being able to pull there off, being required to in the game isn't something I enjoy.
However I can work with timing and situational awareness which is oddly why I have a game called Evil Zone on PSone which I refuse to get rid of as I consider it the best fighting game I've ever played. all it has is 2 buttons and the analogue stick and yet only having an attack and a block button leads to so many situational moves such as dash attacks, counter dash attacks and all kinds of special moves etc. To me it feels like the controls are being used to their fullest potential without needing to have high and low kick and high and low punch buttons too then having a 6 button long combo move.
To me its not so much a simplification as a steam lining and removing or cutting down and the number of controls that do the same thing just slightly different.
Allow me to explain why.
While the idea of complexity in the combos is good I hate the fact the game is more about my memory than my skill, I hate it in fighters when they have the most insane combination of buttons for moves with Soul Calibur 4 having a very nasty move with Ivy. While I'm fine with people being able to pull there off, being required to in the game isn't something I enjoy.
However I can work with timing and situational awareness which is oddly why I have a game called Evil Zone on PSone which I refuse to get rid of as I consider it the best fighting game I've ever played. all it has is 2 buttons and the analogue stick and yet only having an attack and a block button leads to so many situational moves such as dash attacks, counter dash attacks and all kinds of special moves etc. To me it feels like the controls are being used to their fullest potential without needing to have high and low kick and high and low punch buttons too then having a 6 button long combo move.
To me its not so much a simplification as a steam lining and removing or cutting down and the number of controls that do the same thing just slightly different.
@TheKodu
certainly a fair counterpoint you raise, particularly the whole memory thing - albeit, with systems such as this two button example, do you ever feel as though you start to passively (rather than actively) make your way through encounters after having done the same thing ad nauseum for hours, simply because you're running off muscle memory and not much active moment to moment thought?
certainly a fair counterpoint you raise, particularly the whole memory thing - albeit, with systems such as this two button example, do you ever feel as though you start to passively (rather than actively) make your way through encounters after having done the same thing ad nauseum for hours, simply because you're running off muscle memory and not much active moment to moment thought?
Nice Blog! I could be wrong but wasn't Sleeping Dogs produced by Square Enix, who also had a hand in Arkham City, which in turn would help to explain why they share similar combat types?
Also, i think a great answer to combat repetitive combat would be to take some cues from the PS2 game 'Urban Reign'. It had a great combat style, that used a variety of martial arts and environmental attacks. If it's combat style could be Incorporated into third person actions games, combat repetitiveness would be a thing of the past!
Also, i think a great answer to combat repetitive combat would be to take some cues from the PS2 game 'Urban Reign'. It had a great combat style, that used a variety of martial arts and environmental attacks. If it's combat style could be Incorporated into third person actions games, combat repetitiveness would be a thing of the past!
I'm a fan of Dynasty Warriors series, which has repetitive combat mechanics, but it works, and it feels good. So with saying that, if a developer can make it work, I don't really see why it's a problem. Focus on refining everything else about your game if you've already got a good hold on on aspect of it.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow

send message
follow
followers





