Why is everyone shitting all over Ryse's combat?

[sageoftruth]

By the way, you do know Shadow of Mordor is being accused of literally stealing code and assets from Assasin's Creed and the Arkham series, right? Not the best example even if it is being received well. Then again, at least Shadow of Mordor has its nemesis system to fall back on.

I'd definitely believe it. If you've played Arkham City and any Assassin's Creed game, it's impossible to ignore the similarities seen in Shadow of Morodor. Still, as you also said, it does have the nemesis system to fall back on, and at least the things that are blatant imitations aren't of poor quality.

When you said they stole the code, do you mean literally?

 

[sageoftruth]

I shit all over both of them, does that make it okay? I get physically ill just watching all that stop and go slow motion, let alone actually playing it. That is why I cannot get into any games that do combat like that. The cinematic feel also gets pretty old after the 500,000th kill in slow motion.

I agree there. I'd love to see less of that. That's part of what made Ninja Gaiden 3 such a disappointment for so many players.

 

[jamail77]

When you said they stole the code, do you mean literally?

I do not think there is any proof, but yes, in a sense anyway. It's just been accused of that. The people behind Shadow of Mordor deny intentionally and purposefully copying anything beyond taking respectful influence. Obviously, the accusations don't believe it's just coincidence or respectful influence, but rather blatant stealing. In the case of Arkham influence, they can get away with that because that series is also published by Warner Bros. This sums up the situation well:

 

[josemlopes]

but I am not complaining about the general reception of the game, I am complaining how they received the core combat mechanics), I just didnt find the core combat to be much different then the one it the other games. Its not as polished as the one in Batman but its certainly up there with the one in Shadow of Mordor. Then it still has the multiple enemy types that have to be taken out differently and the special power up bar, it also has the strong attack and stun if you hold the button for longer, something that is needed to take out some enemies, some of those also dogde and block your attacks. So yeah... the combat feels the same although slower, something that really isnt to blame, speed isnt the same as quality, they wanted to make the combat look a bit more grounded. It feels as shallow as it did in the other games and my point is that its treated as day and night.

I dont know, to me it feels like the game in it self did a lot of what the general public doesnt like, focus on visuals, XBox One exclusive, QTE, very linear levels, and that criticism bled into the other parts of the game.

I get that you're complaining about how the core combat was received rather than general reception. I and others have already explained that the people who played the game see it as worse than the games it might be taking influence from. I say "might" because I haven't played it, so I wouldn't know if it is actually taking influence rather than just being similar. Anyway, there have already been in depth explanations on what makes it bad and how it has nothing to do with general public dislike of other mechanics bleeding into core combat reception.

The issue you're having is very simple really. You see the core combat differently from those who disliked it. You default to "But these same people like similar combat in other games" and "It seems unfair" and "You're just letting your dislike of the other mechanics bleed into dislike of the core combat" because you don't understand the other side's perspective. That's how you're seeing it, but you don't actually know how they feel nor do you understand the reasoning judging from your responses and detailed personal experience with the game and the dislike.

Nobody can change your mind on this, so I think the discussion will just become pointless soon. You're not going to gain any insight. There will be responses ranging from the extremes of in depth breakdowns to angry "You just don't get it man!" short, curt statements from the dislikers. And, on the other side you'll get the short responses that agree with you and the in depth responses that breakdown why people are stubborn based on the same assumptions you continue to make. You're not going to learn why people think the way they do about Ryse though. To understand, both you and the dislikers have to open up to a larger perspective and it looks like neither you nor them are ready to do that. Neither of you is probably going to end this with a friendly "agree to disagree" either.

By the way, I don't include myself a disliker simply because I'm only going off hearsay. I haven't played the game, so that's all I can contribute.

Yeah, I am going to have to agree with that.

So yeah... thats that.

 

[Doopliss64]

I love how quickly people pull the "double standard" or "hypocrisy" card whenever a game is criticized for doing something poorly that another game does well. Ryse is not shat on because it uses the Arkham-style combat, it's shat on because it does so poorly. There are so many factors that determine if a game works (in this case: animation, responsiveness, repetition vs. evolution of systems, difficulty, complexity, etc.) that your argument is reductionist to the point of absurdity. It's like saying, "How come people say Big Rigs Over-the-Road Racing (look it up) is bad, while somehow Forza is great? They're both racing games, you use one button to accelerate and one to brake/reverse, that's like the same thing! Hypocrites!"

Game design is extremely complex, and I don't like it when the "double standard" card is used to disregard completely relevant criticism.

Before trying the game I didnt even knew how the combat was because no one explained it well, all they did was say how bad and boring it was while its basicly the same as those other games even if not as polished as the one in Batman (its certainly as polished as the one in Shadow of Mordor or Sleeping Dogs). There was from the get go a severe focus on QTE from the media to even after the release as if the game was just that while it shares a lot with those games. Like I said before, not really saying that its a good game but I really dont see how complaining about an aspect of the game that isnt bad made sense just because of how everyone was perceiving the game before release. No one really went "I feared that the combat was shit because of QTEs and all but in the end its just like that Batman style of combat, even if not as polished", no, all I heard was that it was bad because it had QTEs.

The entire style of combat that Batman made popular is rather boring itself, it made sense in a Batman game where its just punches letf and right and you are the guy that is supposed to kick everyone's asses but in the end its a rather simple, if not easy combat style where most of the failings come out of the numbness of the player (I still think that Kung Fu Strike does it better). Even Ryse is still kind of easy since the attack patterns (when they do multiple attacks in a row) dont change much.

I do believe that Ryse failed on a lot of aspects, like the game seemed that it was just combat as it was very linear, you dont do platforming, puzzle solving, stealth, nothing, just fighting and in that the gameplay may get boring a lot faster but in the end that fighting gameplay isnt bad and its easily compared to what they call great, and yet it was completely ignored over what people thought the game would be like.

Fair enough, I have nothing against Ryse's combat per se. I mostly took issue with your method of argument, not so much with the argument itself. I actually agree that people tend to oversimplify when criticizing a game, but I think the problem is less hypocrisy and more hyperbole. It's easier to just dismiss the combat in Ryse as a "QTE-fest" than it is to actually give an in-depth analysis of why they feel it doesn't work as well as other similar games, for the same reason people tend to call any disappointing game the "worst game ever" when in fact it's just mediocre or a mixed bag. Extreme opinions are easier to articulate.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Some people are just silly. Like people who grumbled over the combat in Remember Me.

How is that silly? That game had a handful of combos and half of them were just too long to use effectively. The ability cooldowns made sense when fighting mooks but not when fighting the 1 solution enemies the game threw in later. It was easily as boring as the AssCreed mash counter to win gameplay and it was the only way in which the game allowed meaningful interaction.

As for the OP, my understanding was that people do, in fact, consider God of War to be a QTE fest. Heck, some people would call Revengance one (reasonably fairly considering the number the player can trigger) and that game has a pretty decent amount of depth combat-wise, even with how overpowered a few of its moves are