You make some cogent points, but you immediately turn everyone off by using the term "casual" with vitriol in the opening statement.
Batman's a dick in this game? Compared to what, the silver age? Because he's not even close to brazen amount of assholishness that he usually displays in the comics.
@Spetral Time Since I'm an idiot, I had to search up the term vitriol, and I after I learned the definition, I have to agree, but honestly what else can I call the combat? Simple maybe, but that'll be me holding back, and games like the Warriors franchise and Viewtiful Joe or even the OG Devil May Cry have relatively simple combat, and they're really good (though not always consistently good for the Warriors series).
Casual combat is everywhere in modern games (and Mad Max was like the tipping point for most critics), and they take influence from this series and the A Creed games, and they have, almost objectively, very weak combat styles. Batman has no real cancels, obvious painted reaction marks to counter, needs emphasis on grapples, needs emphasis for CQC maneuvers, and a bunch of other changes to not be considered casual.
Subjectively you may or may not have fun with the combat (I admit, I do have some fun with it), but for real, what else can I call the combat? It's certainly no DMC, Bayo, Yakuza, Ninja Gaiden, God Hand, or even Go W or DW, and that's just a small amount of games with great or at least OK combat, and some are simple (like God Hand).
I should really learn how to not reply with extremely long comments.
@Litle Wiggle You gotta be kidding me... I mean a dick is still a dick, but he's worse in the comics? Like, we're talking about New52 Batsy, not 90's Batsy right?
Take your pick, 90's Batman, early 2000's Batman, New 52 Batman, Frank Miller Batman. It depends a lot on the writer, but a lot of writers make Batman a grade A douchebag.
Arkham Knight Batman is a REALLY huge dick in that game.
I've played it. It's pretty par the course for Bruce's characterization.
When I made my reply to you Little Wiggle, I meant in a way that he's a dick in times where it makes sense of him to not be a dick, I fully expected 90s Batsy to be a dick because, you know, 90s and stuff. What would you consider his characterization in the multiple animated series out there?
DCAU Batman was pretty close to the better characterizations of Bruce, since he could be REALLY abrasive but still had everyone's best interest in mind. Though, I REALLY didn't like that they decided to use the incredibly stupid Frank Miller invented "Batman and Superman hate each other's guts" dynamic.
Arkham Series Batman never really struck me as particularly dickish, at least anymore than he's usually presented. Then again, I tend to go into Batman stuff assuming the worst, because of how much people just eat up the GRIM AND EDGEY Batman.
Asylum!Batman isn't a dick at all. He's pretty reasonable the entire game.
City!Batman is dying and in a Race Against the Clock, so being abrasive is understandable. Again though, he wasn't really a dick to anyone expect maybe Robin.
Origins!Batman being a dick is okay, because he's still a rookie crimefighter.
Knight!Batman is such a needless dick it becomes extremely funny.
My argument is that his being a dick isn't particularly odd, because Batman IS a dick most of the time in the source material. Level of dickishness varies, but it's almost always there.
This comment thread has derailed, and I don't care. While I do remember in Asylum he isn't the most dickish, he was more dickish in City, but he had his reasons. In Knight, for the context of the games, it came off as just a bit much. Batman being a dick makes sense all around, but I personally though they took that dick factor a bit too far in Knight, especially since there are no citizens in Knight, so there's less reasons to worry is a building blows up or something.
Exactly, Batman is just a super dick in Knight.
Getting back on topic then, I'll say this about the combat. While I dislike the term casual being used to describe things in games (the hardcore vs casual gamer thing is one of the few things in gaming I hate as the PC master race crowd) I'll admit it's not really the most in depth. I find it enjoyable for what it is, since I enjoy the feeling of racking up the huge combos with the spectacle of the take downs and such.
Though I don't take much to satisfy when it comes to combat. Love those warrior games.
Oh, another one of these "It's awesome or complete shit" guys. Maybe some years from now you can provide a more balanced and cogent criticism, with the help of... ahem... hindsight. Best of luck to you.
For the record, "casual" is a meaningless point of criticism. The world is not divided into two categories of "casuals" and "true hardcore gamers." Rather, a given game is can be either mostly intended for a small selection of enthusiasts or a broad array of tastes. Everyone who likes something you don't like can't be shoved into the "casual" box.
Rather, people like the combat in the Arkham games because it's rhythm-based rather than combo-based like most of those examples. They are thus extremely difficult to meaningfully compare.
@Spectral Time To me, there's different levels, and so far I can't think of any better terms at this point Casual, Simple, Average, Above Average, and Depth Heavy Spectacle (of course there can be overlaps)
Casual: A Creed, Batman Arkham
Simple: Viewtiful Joe, MadWorld, Wariors
Average: No More Heroes, God of War Above Average: Dm C (not joking here), some of the simpler Platinum games, Yakuza series
DHS: Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Wonderful 101, MGR
And while I see your point in the Rhythm based explanation, that doesn't really excuse the fact that the combat hasn't really evolved all that much since Asylum. In the first 5 years of the DMC series, DMC 1 is very much a beat 'em up that great mechanics, but it's extremely simple in comparison to it's 3rd installment that truly when the series became a beast-level spectacle brawler. In the 6 years of the Arkham series existence, there is not much of a change, save for more moves and enemy types, but nothing really big for the core combat. And if I compare to the changes made in the Yakuza series whenever that series gets a new instalment (almost yearly really), then you can feel the additions and upgrades to it's core combat way more than the Batman games.
Now don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the combat of the Arkham series, but by god, after playing games with much more challenge and depth and strategy to their combat systems, Arkham is sorta limp in comparison. Really the animations is the best thing about that combat, because no other game that copies that style of combat ever has the same level of animation detail than Arkham.
@Bastard1 Well I did give the series as a whole a 6/10. 5 is average, so it's slightly above average all around. Though if you have exact issues with my review, then I would like to hear them. I'm not shitting you or being sarcastic, and I think I'm able to make a decision on what I like or don't like and don't need hindsight for that.
@Litle Wiggle I use the term casual because I think it's a way to help get my point across that these games combat system is not as amazing as people here and there say it is, but of course this is mostly from perspective, but still.
We all hear from fans of these games say how great the combat is, when there is a good chunk of people say "really?" And really, the people who love the Arkham games combat and say it's "the best" are people that may not always play spectacle fighters, or the Musou/Warriors games, or the Yakuza games, and etc. To them, this combat is the tits, and it's easy for everyone to use and makes you look cool, and it's hard to really mess up. Which is fine, if you like it, like it, it's a video game.
But I had to call out the combat for what I see it, casual. What's more casual than a game that everyone can pick-up and play and isn't all that challenging to implement?
What's worse is that one can do really amazing things if you went full out with a Batman combat game, considering how many martial arts the man knows and the tech he holds. And while I think the tech stuff works fine, the combat lacks stuff that can really make it amazing.
I personally don't see any problems with games that are easily accessible. I don't judge games by difficulty (aside from fake difficulty and cheating AI) but simply by how fun it is. Arkham combat is fun to me, even if it's not particularly deep. I mean, I love the Warriors series, and I find it difficult to call those 'deep'.
I like the musou series as well, and while there is some amount of depth to them, it's not much. I also don't have issues with easily accessible games (I love Tetris and Bejeweled, the ultimates in accessible vidya games), but I truly do feel that the Arkham games could have done way much more with their combat, plus their combat has influenced a bunch of copy-cats out there that it's become un-fun to play, at least for me. I know people out there who can't get enough of the Arkham combat, and I personally think the Arkham combat only looks good for its home series, and I have fun with it there, but not in Mad Max or Spider-Man or Remember Me.
Leave a Comment:
In Hindsight the Combat is Shit
I used to be a major fan of these games, but I’m more of a casual fan at this point, and really, this is a game for casual gamers at best. Now mind you I never played Origins, but I’ll make an educated critique at the end.
Gameplay Combat: It gets easier with each game, like seriously, it’s too simple, and other games copy this games style. It’s fun at first, but if you play a game with way better combat and then go back to this one, you’ll be like “wow, this is too easy, and it’s not fun anymore”. It’s basically the animation that makes the game look really cool, and only the Arkham games knew about this, because any game that copies it’s style of combat don’t look fun because of the animation. Stealth: Actually I think this is the series best strength, it’s predator style is pretty cool, and each game does add something new and have different characters to try new things out. Could be more complex, but still great
Story – All around these games go for a huge scope in their story, success varies in how it’s told. Asylum: Straightforward, nice and tight, ends with a whimper City: Harder to keep straight, a lot to track at once, still good, possibly better Knight: Shit. Dino had no involvement and it shows, plus it’s all around disappointing.
Characters – It’s the Batman cast, so you’ll already be interested, but Batman is such an unlikable dick in these games. Always with the “I work alone!” thing going on, he makes Shadow the Hedgehog look like a guy who’d hang out with you.
Graphics – While it does get better with each entry, there are issues, but the atmosphere stays solid all around. Asylum: Every dude has the same body type, save for Bane and Joker. And it’s showing some age City: Showing it’s age Knight: This is new, so give it a few years
VA – Great everywhere, save for Conroy, who only starts caring by Knight.
Replay value – First had challenge and stealth maps, 2nd had more characters (and DLC shit), last had only Batman, so it went backwards. Each game has other side missions/stuff to do/get, so there’s that.
Origins: Story seems it’s not as strong as 1 or 2, combat is the same, graphics aren’t that better than city, VA is great.
6/10 or something... whatever