Why is everyone shitting all over Ryse's combat?

[josemlopes]

After playing it at a friends house its basicly the same combat mechanics that Batman made popular, one button to do damage, another to stun and the other to parry, why did everyone called it a QTE fest? Is it because in the executions you have to pressed selected buttons to earn a bonus? Is God of War a QTE fest? People even complained that there was no failed state for missing that QTE in the execution, the other games dont even have anything to do while watching the execution, why was this one so picked on?

I really dont get why people manage to use so much double standards, not saying that Ryse is good but the main bashing was the combat and in that aspect I really dont see how it is worse then the combat style of the games that are being praised, like Shadow of Mordor for example.

Just not long ago I made a thread about how many reviewers are complaining about how Styx: Master of Shadows does its stealth gameplay mechanics but most of the opinions of how the game should have handled certain things are basicly what they bashed the Thief reboot for.

Does everyone just make up their minds over what the game is about before playing it and judge according to it or something? Did they see a QTE in Ryse and automaticly declared the gameplay shit? And did they figured out that in Styx you cant fight multiple enemies at the same type and declared it broken (even though its a fucking stealth game)?

 

[The_Lost_King]

The reason Ryse's gameplay is called a QTE fest is because the most optimal way to play is to damage an enemy until you can QTE him to death. Also, yes, God of War is a QTE fest.

Also just because Ryse and Shadow of Mordor(shorterned to SoM from now on) have the same 3 buttons, does not mean the combat is the same. Ryse really never evolves upon it's gameplay. It stays the same throughout the experience, unlike SoM. SoM's combat evolves as it goes on, with you getting new powers and runes. Also the animation quality of SoM is better than Ryse's. The feel of SoM is just better. You feel very mobile yet strong. Ryse doesn't have the same feeling, and it shouldn't, it should feel heavy, yet grounded, but it doesn't. It just doesn't feel like a roman soldier, it feels like a lesser version of SoM.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

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

 

[josemlopes]

The reason Ryse's gameplay is called a QTE fest is because the most optimal way to play is to damage an enemy until you can QTE him to death. Also, yes, God of War is a QTE fest.

Also just because Ryse and Shadow of Mordor(shorterned to SoM from now on) have the same 3 buttons, does not mean the combat is the same. Ryse really never evolves upon it's gameplay. It stays the same throughout the experience, unlike SoM. SoM's combat evolves as it goes on, with you getting new powers and runes. Also the animation quality of SoM is better than Ryse's. The feel of SoM is just better. You feel very mobile yet strong. Ryse doesn't have the same feeling, and it shouldn't, it should feel heavy, yet grounded, but it doesn't. It just doesn't feel like a roman soldier, it feels like a lesser version of SoM.

Well, from what I saw there certainly werent upgrades in terms of new moves but the game did manage to be challenging with the enemies actually attacking multiple times in a row.

And your view on the combat doesnt seem to make much sense, in the other games you also just hit X untill the finisher is available, you can do it even faster since stunning lets you hit the enemy twice as fast, then you just press the finisher button and its done. In Ryse they actually start dodging you and blocking you so that was even a lie where only the othrr games are victims off. All Ryse did was add a gameplay element to the finishers, instead of just watching a finisher you interact to earn a bonus, how does that justify the shit flinging? Because it being slow doesnt mean shit, it didnt try to be as flashy to match the tone of the rest of the game, when did that became the same as being worst?

 

[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.

 

[The_Lost_King]

The reason Ryse's gameplay is called a QTE fest is because the most optimal way to play is to damage an enemy until you can QTE him to death. Also, yes, God of War is a QTE fest.

Also just because Ryse and Shadow of Mordor(shorterned to SoM from now on) have the same 3 buttons, does not mean the combat is the same. Ryse really never evolves upon it's gameplay. It stays the same throughout the experience, unlike SoM. SoM's combat evolves as it goes on, with you getting new powers and runes. Also the animation quality of SoM is better than Ryse's. The feel of SoM is just better. You feel very mobile yet strong. Ryse doesn't have the same feeling, and it shouldn't, it should feel heavy, yet grounded, but it doesn't. It just doesn't feel like a roman soldier, it feels like a lesser version of SoM.

Well, from what I saw there certainly werent upgrades in terms of new moves but the game did manage to be challenging with the enemies actually attacking multiple times in a row.

And your view on the combat doesnt seem to make much sense, in the other games you also just hit X untill the finisher is available, you can do it even faster since stunning lets you hit the enemy twice as fast, then you just press the finisher button and its done. In Ryse they actually start dodging you and blocking you so that was even a lie where only the othrr games are victims off. All Ryse did was add a gameplay element to the finishers, instead of just watching a finisher you interact to earn a bonus, how does that justify the shit flinging? Because it being slow doesnt mean shit, it didnt try to be as flashy to match the tone of the rest of the game, when did that became the same as being worst?

Saying it is a QTe fest is not equal to shit flinging. They stated that there were QTEs. There are lots of QTEs in Ryse, which makes it a QTE fest.

Frankly I prefer to watch my hero be a bad ass without having to press buttons in a QTE though.

 

[Evonisia]

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

The difference being that Remember Me's Quick Time Events are much worse than Ryse's (though, it's a different combat system so I'll leave it there).

OT: All I can remember from Ryse was that you bash at the enemies until the QTE prompt comes up because then you would be immune to damage while still killing the enemy and it became really repetitive after a short while. The boss fights were irritating because dodging doesn't help you from them (well, it barely helps).

 

[gigastar]

When Ryse was announced back in the grim darkness of 2013, QTE combat was all that there apparently was.

Fucking up a reveal like that left a stigma on it. And it only got worse when "next gen" graphics turned out to not be 1080p, and then the microtransactions came into the equation.

And you cant say Ryse plays like the Arkham games. For one thing, Arkham has multiple enemy types that are not vunerable to a normal counter and beating.

However you cut it though, Ryse is crap. And it will serve as an important lesson for Crytek should they survive thier current financial difficulties.

 

[Grumman]

I have not played Ryse, but I have played Arkham City. The reason why I would not call Arkham City's combat a QTE is because while there are "correct" button combinations to press, they are emergent from the simulation aspect of the game, and there are multiple correct combinations which affect that simulation in different ways. So while the basic combo might be hit-hit-hit-hit-hit-hit-takedown, you and the combat AI both have a lot of influence over what the correct options for combos actually end up being. Using a batarang early in your combo might prevent you needing to use a counter later on, for example. Changing targets might leave an enemy out of position while you beat down one of his mates. Disabling an enemy's gun before you start might save you a smoke pellet. And so on.

 

[josemlopes]

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.

 

[jamail77]

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.

While I completely agree with you it's not like people like the OP do this to purposefully disregard relevant criticism. They really see it that way. The subjective aspect of perspective helps hide the complexities and legitimacy of criticism. I say this because while opinion is certainly a factor, if you look at the history of an art form and look for patterns this creates tropes and structures you can see in modern works. If you combine that with the study of game design and stated intentions from the developers some things are objective. I'm not saying quality is objective; that will always be subjective. But things like this? Yes, they are objective. Differences in games that use similar combat systems are somewhat objective if you can pick them apart.

The OP's perspective does not see those differences though and you cannot really blame the OP for not having a larger perspective. Even if the OP did expand his perspective to account for the stuff I just said, he is allowed to like/defend this aspect of game regardless of what you or I think. It is unfair that he has to ask the question of why everyone is prejudging a game using the premise of heavily assumed "double standard" card rather than recognize he hasn't actually taken the time to ask someone who dislikes Ryse to explain in depth and then empathize even if he thinks the criticism is irrelevant. He might say he is doing just that here, but really the post makes it really obvious that he thinks the criticism is stupid for exactly the reasons you say, so, really, he is just closing his mind and making sure he can confirm his own bias. What can you do? ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

P.S. No offense OP. That's just how I'm taking your post. I've done it myself if that helps remove any arrogance I might have unintentionally shown. We've all done this actually.

 

[jamail77]

OT: Now, as someone who has never played the game, but does know others who actually have played it...it's terrible. These are people who didn't criticize it before trying it, I promise you. They didn't even know about it before it was released. Point is they tried it, said its terrible, returned it. They all say the games you're comparing it to are better. You may think Ryse is similar to the Arkham games, but everyone I've talked to on this says that, while there is truth to that, it goes far beyond your belief of being an unpolished take on those games.

Even, if you're right and due to prejudging, it really is unfairly criticized on its combat when it is awfully similar to Arkham then all that means is it basically just cloned a combat system. We don't need Arkham clones or COD clones or Assasin's Creed clones. There's already an epidemic of clones in the games industry. It's one thing to take inspiration and make it your own and it's another to take something whole piece and do nothing else, let alone optimize and polish the game, because people will buy it if it's like dem' popular games.

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.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

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

The people who grumbled over the combat in Remember Me had a reason, that games combat was awful.

I havent played Ryse but from watching gameplay, it does look quite different from the Arkham series. The Arkham games are all about flowing, stylish combat, with no QTE's in them

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.

I have not played Ryse, but I've seen gameplay of it, and I believe I can tell you some of the reasons that I think you can't compare its combat system to that of the Arkham games, even if that's what Crytek were going for.

First of all is the pace of the combat. In the Arkham games the combat is always speeding up. Landing hits makes Batman move faster and faster as he flies across the screen punching enemies. The more enemies there are the higher you can get your combo and the higher you get your combo the faster you move and the more deadly you become. Ryse does the opposite. Once you start getting your combo up the game starts going into slow motion so that you can do the executions and to showcase the gore. Rather than ramping up making the combat more and more exciting as the combo increases the game gets more sluggish because now you have to use specific button prompts (QTEs) to pull off the executions. The fact is that the Arkham games have much more free-form combat and that allows them to be faster.

Second is the fact that the combat in Ryse doesn't change (at least from what I've seen). You unlock new executions and stuff like that, but you never get any new weapons that change the way you play the game. In the Arkham games you're constantly getting new weapons and new abilities that change the way you approach a situation. You can use batarangs in combat from the beginning but as you play the game you get new gadgets like use smoke bombs, freeze grenades, explosive gel, an electric stun gun, a grappling hook, etc. which greatly changes the combat Ryse has a sword, a shield, and throwing spears and that never changes.

Third is the fact that enemies in Ryse aren't very different from each other. All you're fighting are guys with clubs, guys with swords, guys with axes, etc. but the way you fight them never changes. In the Arkham games enemy diversity is a huge deal, and every time they add a new enemy type to the mix it changes the combat. You start off just facing thugs who attack you with blunt weapons, but this progresses to groups of enemies who have blunt weapons, knives, guns, shields, stun batons, etc. and the variety of enemy composition combined with your different gadgets keeps the combat fresh. I didn't see anything like this in the combat for Ryse.

While the core combat mechanics may be similar the Arkham games just layer on so much more that it completely changes how the two games play to the point where the games are incomparable. It's not just that the Arkham games have more polished combat, they have much more diverse combat. That's why people don't praise the combat in Ryse, because the combat never changes, never evolves.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe the combat in Ryse does change with time and I just never saw that. Maybe you do get new weapons and new enemy types that play differently from each other, and if that IS the case then please correct me. If I'm not wrong however then I think you have your answer as to why people thought Ryse was mediocre.

 

[Aleenik]

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

Or people just have different opinions on what constitutes a good combat system.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

As I recall from Yahtzee's review, the QTE deaths are pointless, since he does them even if you don't press the buttons. That is shitty combat.

 

[josemlopes]

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.

While I completely agree with you it's not like people like the OP do this to purposefully disregard relevant criticism. They really see it that way. The subjective aspect of perspective helps hide the complexities and legitimacy of criticism. I say this because while opinion is certainly a factor, if you look at the history of an art form and look for patterns this creates tropes and structures you can see in modern works. If you combine that with the study of game design and stated intentions from the developers some things are objective. I'm not saying quality is objective; that will always be subjective. But things like this? Yes, they are objective. Differences in games that use similar combat systems are somewhat objective if you can pick them apart.

The OP's perspective does not see those differences though and you cannot really blame the OP for not having a larger perspective. Even if the OP did expand his perspective to account for the stuff I just said, he is allowed to like/defend this aspect of game regardless of what you or I think. It is unfair that he has to ask the question of why everyone is prejudging a game using the premise of heavily assumed "double standard" card rather than recognize he hasn't actually taken the time to ask someone who dislikes Ryse to explain in depth and then empathize even if he thinks the criticism is irrelevant. He might say he is doing just that here, but really the post makes it really obvious that he thinks the criticism is stupid for exactly the reasons you say, so, really, he is just closing his mind and making sure he can confirm his own bias. What can you do? ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

P.S. No offense OP. That's just how I'm taking your post. I've done it myself if that helps remove any arrogance I might have unintentionally shown. We've all done this actually.

OT: Now, as someone who has never played the game, but does know others who actually have played it...it's terrible. These are people who didn't criticize it before trying it, I promise you. They didn't even know about it before it was released. Point is they tried it, said its terrible, returned it. They all say the games you're comparing it to are better. You may think Ryse is similar to the Arkham games, but everyone I've talked to on this says that, while there is truth to that, it goes far beyond your belief of being an unpolished take on those games.

Even, if you're right and due to prejudging, it really is unfairly criticized on its combat when it is awfully similar to Arkham then all that means is it basically just cloned a combat system. We don't need Arkham clones or COD clones or Assasin's Creed clones. There's already an epidemic of clones in the games industry. It's one thing to take inspiration and make it your own and it's another to take something whole piece and do nothing else, let alone optimize and polish the game, because people will buy it if it's like dem' popular games.

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.

Look, I dont think the game is that great, it really has a lot of problems (a big one is that this game is just combat while the others have a lot more going for them, 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. For example, I really dont see why people complain that its wrong that if you fail the QTE the execution still carries on, the QTE isnt for the execution to succeed, its for you to earn the bonus, and yet its seen as a negative. In the other games there you cant fail and execution either so how did it do less?

 

[The_Lost_King]

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.

While I completely agree with you it's not like people like the OP do this to purposefully disregard relevant criticism. They really see it that way. The subjective aspect of perspective helps hide the complexities and legitimacy of criticism. I say this because while opinion is certainly a factor, if you look at the history of an art form and look for patterns this creates tropes and structures you can see in modern works. If you combine that with the study of game design and stated intentions from the developers some things are objective. I'm not saying quality is objective; that will always be subjective. But things like this? Yes, they are objective. Differences in games that use similar combat systems are somewhat objective if you can pick them apart.

The OP's perspective does not see those differences though and you cannot really blame the OP for not having a larger perspective. Even if the OP did expand his perspective to account for the stuff I just said, he is allowed to like/defend this aspect of game regardless of what you or I think. It is unfair that he has to ask the question of why everyone is prejudging a game using the premise of heavily assumed "double standard" card rather than recognize he hasn't actually taken the time to ask someone who dislikes Ryse to explain in depth and then empathize even if he thinks the criticism is irrelevant. He might say he is doing just that here, but really the post makes it really obvious that he thinks the criticism is stupid for exactly the reasons you say, so, really, he is just closing his mind and making sure he can confirm his own bias. What can you do? ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

P.S. No offense OP. That's just how I'm taking your post. I've done it myself if that helps remove any arrogance I might have unintentionally shown. We've all done this actually.

OT: Now, as someone who has never played the game, but does know others who actually have played it...it's terrible. These are people who didn't criticize it before trying it, I promise you. They didn't even know about it before it was released. Point is they tried it, said its terrible, returned it. They all say the games you're comparing it to are better. You may think Ryse is similar to the Arkham games, but everyone I've talked to on this says that, while there is truth to that, it goes far beyond your belief of being an unpolished take on those games.

Even, if you're right and due to prejudging, it really is unfairly criticized on its combat when it is awfully similar to Arkham then all that means is it basically just cloned a combat system. We don't need Arkham clones or COD clones or Assasin's Creed clones. There's already an epidemic of clones in the games industry. It's one thing to take inspiration and make it your own and it's another to take something whole piece and do nothing else, let alone optimize and polish the game, because people will buy it if it's like dem' popular games.

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.

Look, I dont think the game is that great, it really has a lot of problems (a big one is that this game is just combat while the others have a lot more going for them, 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. For example, I really dont see why people complain that its wrong that if you fail the QTE the execution still carries on, the QTE isnt for the execution to succeed, its for you to earn the bonus, and yet its seen as a negative. In the other games there you cant fail and execution either so how did it do less?

It is not as polished as Shadow of Mordor's combat. I'm not completely sure how to explain this because I'm not a game designer, but Shadow of Mordor just feels way better than Ryse. The animation quality is higher and they accomplish the fast and brutal style of combat they wanted. Just like in the Batman games he speeds up and gets more powerfull as the combo goes on.

Ryse, on the other hand, doesn't really feel as good. I get that they wanted a more grounded combat system. It makes sense for a roman warrior to feel grounded. They just didn't really pull that off well. It would have been better if his blows had gotten more brutal as the combat multiplier had gone up. It would have also been better without the QTEs. The thing about the QTEs is that they pull you out of the action. It completely breaks the flow of the combat. If they had just done and execution system like Shadow of Mordor with no QTEs the combat would have felt better because it isn't pulling you out of the action and breaking your battle concentration. Don't tell me the QTE doesn't have an effect on the combat, because it doesn. If there is not QTE you can think about your next move and be forming a plan, which makes it seem as if the battle hasn't stopped even though it kind of has. With QTEs, however, They make you focus on something else that doesn't feel like it's related to the battle you were just in, which breaks your immersion.

 

[jamail77]

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.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

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.