The Arkham games' combat is easily the best I've ever played. I'm pretty sure almost everyone will agree with me. Btw, when I say Arkham combat, this extends to any kind of combat that involves countering and combos, i.e. Shadow of Mordor or Assassin's Creed, even Kingdoms of Amalur. So I was thinking, in every review I've read about open world games with unarmed/close quarter combat, people either mention that the combat is identical to Arkham's, or they complain and claim that the game is just ripping off Arkham's combat. But is there really any other kind of combat suited for open world games? Fun combat at least. What do you think could be an alternative to Arkham's combat, or do you think every game should be have Arkham-esque combat?
Good unarmed/close quarter open world combat that isn't Batman
- Thread starter Bob_McMillan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lol you think almost everyone will agree with you...why? also no I dont think every game should have an arkham esque combat as you put it even if it was the best one ever invented it just wouldnt work for some games.Bob_McMillan said:
Its hard to say what you will class as arkham esque combat though its very name suggests that it has to follow a very similar feel and route and as such they will all feel the same. I have only finished asylum (liked it btw) but have played a few of the challenges of city around a friends house. I always found combat to be a weak part of the game just felt very QTE heavy without the prompts fun for a while and it works but gets tedious very quickly although im glad its more involved than Assasins creed wait counter wait counter wait counter fights.
I tend to prefer more action based combat that has more flow such as Bayonetta and its sequel being the best of the best in this area (yes it has counters) even if its more focused on dodging while comboing into an unstoppable rhythm. I also like ones that require a bit more strategy (usually not a lot) such as Okami and Zelda where weakpoints have to be found even for standard enemies on occasion.
Dynasty warriors and its ilk also have their own brand of combat that some like, in short there is loads of different open world (as you call it) combat types and they can each suit different purposes and I am sure there will be many more made in the future. I dont believe in a one style fits all. Arkham is one that has worked same with the others I have mentioned and as such if another combat feels similar similarities will often be drawn to the one that sticks out most in the persons mind that did it well before.
My problem with games like the Arkham games and Assassin's Creed is that you sort of have to take advantage of what's given to you because, well, look at these cool new gadets! This became very apparent to me in Assassin's Creed 2 and Arkham City. The only reason I took advantage of the gadgets was because I needed something to break up the sheer, mind-numbing monotony that the combat was built around. Otherwise, it is either just a bunch of punching with the occasional counter or a bunch of countering with the occasional punch. This isn't to say that I dislike the Arkham games (I love them), but I found them to have far more than the developers were willing to take advantage of.
But even if they could take advantage of what they have, I'm not sure I would particularly like having it in every open world game. What if I want to have more Zelda-like combat? or God of War? or Dynasty Warriors? or Prince of Persia? or Dark Souls? or...you get the picture. Sure, not all of those are open-world games, but their mechanics are solid and could work in pretty much any setting. To just go after Arkham-styled combat in everything would be to ignore the dozens of other systems that have worked over the years. And, personally, I actually prefer the combat in most of those games than I do in the Arkham games even when I'm playing them in the most fun way I can.
But even if they could take advantage of what they have, I'm not sure I would particularly like having it in every open world game. What if I want to have more Zelda-like combat? or God of War? or Dynasty Warriors? or Prince of Persia? or Dark Souls? or...you get the picture. Sure, not all of those are open-world games, but their mechanics are solid and could work in pretty much any setting. To just go after Arkham-styled combat in everything would be to ignore the dozens of other systems that have worked over the years. And, personally, I actually prefer the combat in most of those games than I do in the Arkham games even when I'm playing them in the most fun way I can.
If you weave gadgets into your combo without interrupting it, you gain additional XP by the end of the fight. You don't HAVE to, but use them well and you'll level up faster. Also, gadgets are a pretty much a necessity to fully beat the combat map challenges.MysticSlayer said:
I understand that much. It's just that I'd rather have the combat itself encourage the gadgets rather than an XP bar or some extra mode I may never (though likely will) touch.Johnny Novgorod said:
Arkham combat looks nice and makes you feel very powerful. it is designed to flow well in a group fight. Great system. But almost more from a cinematic perspective.
If that is what you are looking for, have you looked at remember me?
For a more comedic spin Yakuza. beat people up with umbrellas, pipes, or bicycles
If that is what you are looking for, have you looked at remember me?
For a more comedic spin Yakuza. beat people up with umbrellas, pipes, or bicycles
Another vote for Ninja Gaiden, but it's not open world. It kinda is, but there's no point as the enemies don't respawn.
Why would you limit it to open world? If you're looking for good combat, open world/unarmed cuts down the options pretty drastically. It's probably just Batman. 100% unarmed is pretty rare, and open world tends to sacrifice polish for quantity.
I would absolutely hate it if all third person CC games had the Arkham engine. I get really bored by counter based combat *cough* Assasin's Creed *cough*, and I kinda suck at it. I'm master level on NGB, but I can't counter reliability. Combat for me is watching for an opening, and exploiting it. Also not a fan of standing there waiting. I'd rather be running along a wall, bounce of a guy's head, take out his buddy, and finish off the first before he turns around.
All in all, you should play more games (not Arkham clones). There's a wide world of close combat out there waiting for you!
Other mentions:
Devil May Cry 3 (maybe 4, haven't played)
God of War (any)
Prince of Persia: Warrior Within (most people hate this one, but it has the best combat)
These are all kinda the same with Ninja Gaiden, like Batman and his clones, but it's a different kind of system.
Why would you limit it to open world? If you're looking for good combat, open world/unarmed cuts down the options pretty drastically. It's probably just Batman. 100% unarmed is pretty rare, and open world tends to sacrifice polish for quantity.
I would absolutely hate it if all third person CC games had the Arkham engine. I get really bored by counter based combat *cough* Assasin's Creed *cough*, and I kinda suck at it. I'm master level on NGB, but I can't counter reliability. Combat for me is watching for an opening, and exploiting it. Also not a fan of standing there waiting. I'd rather be running along a wall, bounce of a guy's head, take out his buddy, and finish off the first before he turns around.
All in all, you should play more games (not Arkham clones). There's a wide world of close combat out there waiting for you!
Other mentions:
Devil May Cry 3 (maybe 4, haven't played)
God of War (any)
Prince of Persia: Warrior Within (most people hate this one, but it has the best combat)
These are all kinda the same with Ninja Gaiden, like Batman and his clones, but it's a different kind of system.
I have a great game for you good unarmed/close quarter combat and isn't Batman... just not open world....
The Chronicles Of Riddick : Escape From Butcher Bay . It does not have those fancy fist fights though . Its just get in , punch and get out before you get hit . Kind of realistic . The game is an excellent fps , close quartered and 9/10 from me.
It even has ring fights . It game switches style from shooter to unarmed to stealth , so it may or may not be the game you are looking for but it will be a great experience nonetheless .
Here is a review :
The Chronicles Of Riddick : Escape From Butcher Bay . It does not have those fancy fist fights though . Its just get in , punch and get out before you get hit . Kind of realistic . The game is an excellent fps , close quartered and 9/10 from me.
It even has ring fights . It game switches style from shooter to unarmed to stealth , so it may or may not be the game you are looking for but it will be a great experience nonetheless .
Here is a review :
Specifically an open world game with close quarter combat that isn't Batman-esque? Honestly I can't think of many from the past few years. I liked the inFamous system of CQC, but it was fairly rudementary. It was fun when you threw in some of your powers into the mix.
Uh, .....yeah that's the only one I can think of that is an "open world" game.
Now outside of open world games, one of my favorite combat systems was in Mark of Kri. You locked onto a variable number of targets, and then press the button associated with that target. You could mix it up by switching between targets by switching buttons. It was very simple, but oh so satisfying when you'd carve up half a dozen guys with your massive battle axe, and then sweep the controller to lock onto the next dozen. xD
Uh, .....yeah that's the only one I can think of that is an "open world" game.
Now outside of open world games, one of my favorite combat systems was in Mark of Kri. You locked onto a variable number of targets, and then press the button associated with that target. You could mix it up by switching between targets by switching buttons. It was very simple, but oh so satisfying when you'd carve up half a dozen guys with your massive battle axe, and then sweep the controller to lock onto the next dozen. xD
I agree that Batman style combat, while fun, is designed to make you look untouchable and goes for a more cinematic approach than an interactive one. Inu-Kun's comparison to Simon is about right (and I am good at Simon) as it is the "paint by numbers" of combat engines. It is a really good system and works well in the right setting. It works great in the super hero genre as superheroes are meant to be 'untouchable'. The Captain America: Super Soldier game does it pretty well as well as adding in other abilities like bouncing bullets back at the enemy, or even holding them and using their gun arm to shoot other enemies with their gun. Deadpool throws another spin on it by just giving you guns and has the trigger buttons operate those on top of the button pad for melee.
Unfortunately, I passed on Shadows of Mordor because I felt the "untouchable" combat model was a poor design choice as it hindered the nemesis system they have in the game. To take advantage of the Nemesis system, the combat shouldn't be the easy 2 button combat model on the market. I felt this combat robbed a lot of potential from the game, so much so that it deterred me from buying it as I probably wouldn't gain a Nemesis unless I chose to have one... which seems contradictory to what a nemesis is. When is the last time you sought out someone to try to ruin your life? Marriage jokes aside, probably never. Why not just chop off their head?
Uncharted uses it as well (for melee) and once again it is for the "untouchable" hero of the story. I would even say with that game (and Arkham) that the combat model even helps push a story forward faster. Uncharted is about making quick (easy) decisions on the fly and not over thinking it much like the protagonist's demeanor. Both Uncharted and the Arkham games aren't games you are really meant to die in IMO but rather progress through fast to see more and more of the story unfold. They are more cinematic games that benefit from the player overcoming challenges as they come rather than presenting challenge that are hard to overcome.
The model just doesn't sync up to certain atmospheres though. It is a GREAT model when you want the player to feel completely awesome and unstoppable against the primary conflict in the game. It is a horrible model if you would like the game to offer a more threatening or challenging atmosphere. All it requires is that you push 1 of 2 buttons depending on if an attack indicator is on the screen or not. Skyrim doesn't have great combat, but if you swapped it out to this combat model, it would lose something as the world would become much less threatening than it already is.
It is a truly great combat model in the right setting. However, I think Shadow of Mordor is a prime example that not every setting is the right setting.
Unfortunately, I passed on Shadows of Mordor because I felt the "untouchable" combat model was a poor design choice as it hindered the nemesis system they have in the game. To take advantage of the Nemesis system, the combat shouldn't be the easy 2 button combat model on the market. I felt this combat robbed a lot of potential from the game, so much so that it deterred me from buying it as I probably wouldn't gain a Nemesis unless I chose to have one... which seems contradictory to what a nemesis is. When is the last time you sought out someone to try to ruin your life? Marriage jokes aside, probably never. Why not just chop off their head?
Uncharted uses it as well (for melee) and once again it is for the "untouchable" hero of the story. I would even say with that game (and Arkham) that the combat model even helps push a story forward faster. Uncharted is about making quick (easy) decisions on the fly and not over thinking it much like the protagonist's demeanor. Both Uncharted and the Arkham games aren't games you are really meant to die in IMO but rather progress through fast to see more and more of the story unfold. They are more cinematic games that benefit from the player overcoming challenges as they come rather than presenting challenge that are hard to overcome.
The model just doesn't sync up to certain atmospheres though. It is a GREAT model when you want the player to feel completely awesome and unstoppable against the primary conflict in the game. It is a horrible model if you would like the game to offer a more threatening or challenging atmosphere. All it requires is that you push 1 of 2 buttons depending on if an attack indicator is on the screen or not. Skyrim doesn't have great combat, but if you swapped it out to this combat model, it would lose something as the world would become much less threatening than it already is.
It is a truly great combat model in the right setting. However, I think Shadow of Mordor is a prime example that not every setting is the right setting.
Batarangs can hit three enemies at a time and the explosive gel could clear a large area. The combat did encourage use of the gadgets.MysticSlayer said:
Did you ever get around to playing it? Because some of the orcs get really tough to beat. Some of them have so many immunities, that you can't just autopilot kill them with your favorite combo, but have to try and manipulate the fight to weaken them, which is tricky when 50+ other orcs are smacking you on the head. I don't think it's as hard as you make it out to be, to find a tough orc. Yes, sometimes, it's really easy to drop an orc without much effort, but then you run into the guy who is just Immune to all your lulz, and tosses you around like a puppy.Savagezion said:
I don't see having a useful function as the same as encouraging the use of them. Having a useful function is just a nice bonus for those who choose to use it, but it isn't required nor does it make anything significantly more manageable. A game that encourages you to use something will actually present scenarios that either can't be passed or would be significantly more difficult to pass without using what you are given. From what I remember, very few, if any, combat scenario in the first two Arkham games couldn't be very easily solved just by using Attack, Counterattack, Dodge, and Stun. The gadgets were essentially just there if you wanted to add variety or play around in the stealth sections.nathan-dts said:
Conversely, in games like Legend of Zelda, there may be enemies that punish you for using the basic attacks or are in areas where basic attacks don't work, so you have to experiment with items. As a less item-focused example, some of the Prince of Persia games had enemies designed to prevent the most basic combat maneuvers and/or all but completely require you to take advantage of less-common tactics.
And like I said earlier, I'm not saying that the Arkham games are bad. I enjoyed them a lot. It's just that I think they threw in more than the game itself takes advantage of, often requiring the player to come up with their own excuses to use it. And that's fine to an extent, but it's just not my personal preference for games that are that long and have that much direction to them.
Not yet. I do plan to pick it up eventually and have a look through it but I know I need to get it for less than a $20 bill. I have watched about 4 Let's Plays (sorta skipping ahead here and there like fast forward) and I can tell the gameplay. Unfortunately I think the game would be much better if it offered that kind of challenge in the gameplay much earlier. It has more to do with the combat model. I am pretty good at it. I don't know how I would rank against a large community (at least average) but I was very disappointed in the Let's Players ability to fight within the model. MANY fights I was thinking "dude, you suck". ONe was even saying that fighting large groups is hard when I find the larger the group the easier it is as then you can practically just spam the counter button. Large groups = huge combos and 1 enemy = predicatable patterns. Small groups offer neither.Happyninja42 said:
The thing to remember is that mobility is key. In batman use the jump button to constantly be manuevering around the fight when you get a split second between counters. In Mordor, it looks like it is a roll but the same principle applies. As you get surrounded, work towards the outside of the crowd as you fight. Or work away from the Captain. It isn't about the toughness, its about using the combat model to your advantage. Once you get insta-kills, its all downhill from there and if I remember right, insta-kill hits are even easier to get on Mordor.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I think the combat in the Batman games is only really good in games about Batman, or characters of similar ability.
The combat is meant to make you feel powerful, feel like Batman. The combat is really really easy until you're in a big group of enemies who all have weapons. Why? Because of course Batman can beat the shit out of some unarmed thugs in hand to hand combat, he's the goddamn Batman. Similar systems don't really work with other characters though because they feel too powerful for their world.
Take for example Assassin's Creed. It has a similar combat system to the batman games, just a bit slower, but I've always hated it. In the first game you're outright told that Altair isn't a great fighter and that his skill set is all about hit and run tactics, taking his target by surprise, killing them, and then running away from the guards. Everyone in the game tells you to avoid direct confrontations with guards because you'll die. The problem is, the combat is so easy that Altair is basically an invincible god of death. You can easily fight 20 guards at once without taking a single hit, and it completely changes the way the game was meant to be played as well as the player's perception of the protagonist.
The Batman combat system is good for games where your character is meant to feel very powerful and in control, like Batman, but it's not so great in games where the player character is supposed to be a normal person.
The combat is meant to make you feel powerful, feel like Batman. The combat is really really easy until you're in a big group of enemies who all have weapons. Why? Because of course Batman can beat the shit out of some unarmed thugs in hand to hand combat, he's the goddamn Batman. Similar systems don't really work with other characters though because they feel too powerful for their world.
Take for example Assassin's Creed. It has a similar combat system to the batman games, just a bit slower, but I've always hated it. In the first game you're outright told that Altair isn't a great fighter and that his skill set is all about hit and run tactics, taking his target by surprise, killing them, and then running away from the guards. Everyone in the game tells you to avoid direct confrontations with guards because you'll die. The problem is, the combat is so easy that Altair is basically an invincible god of death. You can easily fight 20 guards at once without taking a single hit, and it completely changes the way the game was meant to be played as well as the player's perception of the protagonist.
The Batman combat system is good for games where your character is meant to feel very powerful and in control, like Batman, but it's not so great in games where the player character is supposed to be a normal person.
I disagree. Didn't enjoy the Arkham game's combat or Mordor's.
The animations are pretty but aside from that it's just a whole bunch of mindlessly spamming the same buttons imo.
The Witcher 2 has a somewhat similar combat system if you're looking for suggestions, although it's a little bit more complex.
The animations are pretty but aside from that it's just a whole bunch of mindlessly spamming the same buttons imo.
The Witcher 2 has a somewhat similar combat system if you're looking for suggestions, although it's a little bit more complex.
Dying Light's melee combat has impressed me, when it actually comes into play (the regular zombies don't offer much interesting to it, granted).
If you don't immediately whip out the shotguns and grenades, meleeing the human guys can get into some pretty visceral matches with parrying and dodging while trying to keep your stamina up (which prevents it from being just endless spamming attack).
If you don't immediately whip out the shotguns and grenades, meleeing the human guys can get into some pretty visceral matches with parrying and dodging while trying to keep your stamina up (which prevents it from being just endless spamming attack).
Sleeping Dogs immediately springs to mind for melee-based, third-person open world combat - in fact I'd probably say the combat system is better, as you can get through most fights in Arkham by spamming the counter button. Sleeping Dogs' combat system is a bit more involved, and you can use the environment to your advantage more.