Batman: Arkham Asylum

[CowTip]

It becomes a little more important if you play the game on hard (just a little <.<), but I dunno. I kind of like it this way. It lets you create as much depth as you want. You can mash your way through every fight, which can get old after awhile, or you can try some finesse which can be very rewarding from a fun perspective. The stealth parts in the game are the same way really. You can do every single one by just gliding off of gargoyles over and over or you can take advantage of the multiple tools they give you to do things more interestingly. In that way you more or less decide for yourself how you want the game to be played.

Perhaps more incentive to be more creative might be nice in the sequel, but then again, there are those challenges for people who really want to get into the real depth of the game.

 

[Oburi]

The problem is that beating enemies down is all it's meant to do. Beating them down without pause, without taking damage and so on only has its place as a challenge on the side for people who can't get enough of the game.

Well yea, but also you can use some of the gadgets for disabling enemies that you might have not even thought of. It may fall under the "fighting with finesse" category, but, for example, I didn't realize you could use the grappling hook (upgraded version as well) on as many as three bad guys at once. Then there is the trigger that allowed you to roll and jump so as to not break combo. The fighting can be very impressive (looking).

But again, its all for fun. You can beat the game by just using the same moves over and over. But like Cowtip, I enjoyed that kind of fighting, basically, if you have the skill to pull it off, then go ahead, if not... button mash!

 

[Aazealh]

Well yea, but also you can use some of the gadgets for disabling enemies that you might have not even thought of. It may fall under the "fighting with finesse" category, but, for example, I didn't realize you could use the grappling hook (upgraded version as well) on as many as three bad guys at once. Then there is the trigger that allowed you to roll and jump so as to not break combo. The fighting can be very impressive (looking).

I used that in the game proper and I don't think it shows some sort of secret depth to the fighting system. Your comment is revealing because you specified that it was impressive looking. Yeah, it does look very cool when you chain attacks, but the character is still moving on its own a lot, like Eluvei said (and that's why it looks cool, because that awesome fluidity couldn't be attained otherwise). I find it cute that you guys think you're showing some special finesse just because you're using the less basic but still quite common moves (for info I have more Arkham Asylum achievements than you do, Oburi).

To me the more interesting aspect of combat was the stealth. The fighting system was nice and I liked the fancy moves, but I wouldn't say it was deeper than God of War's, for example. I'm looking forward to the sequel anyway, and I hope that we'll get a real detective mode this time.

 

[CowTip]

I can almost completely gaurantee you that if you put in some time into trying to finish the combat challenges you'd probably change your mind. Keeping up a 40-60 hit combo while also changing up your tactics can get really intense. Punch here, dodge over the enemies head here to knock stun stick guy forward so I can hit him, oh gotta do a counter on that guy who just ran up behind me, now I need to do a cape dazzle on this knife guy, crap that guy over there is pulling a gun out of a cabinet, need to do a takedown on him, throw a batarang at that guy to keep the combo going, punch, dodge, counter, grapple to pull enemies in, perform a quick ground takedown specifically on knife guy because he's too much trouble, punch, punch, crap the ground is going electrified, use throwing takedown to toss a guy out of the arena and then hop to safety before it's too late... Yeah, it's more than just hitting one button and watching batman do pretty moves. What I listed is very much like what a real fight in the tougher challenges has to be like. When you start getting combos flowing you have to know what you're doing and you have to select the proper enemy at the proper time or everything gets screwed up. Heck, one of the hardest parts is just knowing when to counter and when to go full on attack mode and that gets even more complicated when you throw those stupid knife/stun baton guys into the mix which they so love to do.

As stated you can't just keep doing the same things over and over (one easy way to keep a chain going is simply to heavy punch, heavy punch, standing takedown, heavy punch, heavy punch, standing takedown) but you'll never get a high enough score to finish most of the combat challenges that way (I should know, I tried to do so many times). The early combat missions can be finished with 3 emblems as long as you can hold a chain for the most part, but the later ones require some skill and timing (I actually have 1000/1000 this game, Cowtip5100 is my gamertag, but I almost quit trying to perfect it over shock and awe extreme).

Tons of people just give up on fully finishing the game because they can't pull off one or all of the hardest combat missions (Sewer Bat, Rumble in the Jungle, Shock and Awe: all extreme). It took me a good 6-7 hours just to finally pull it off and every time I screwed up I knew it was my fault and not the game's. I completely agree that the single player doesn't give you much reason to be that great at combat, but they have a really great system in place. It's just like playing an oldschool game insomuch that it's all about the timing but you also have to really formulate an ongoing future-thinking strategy as to which enemies to attack first and which to save for takedowns and the like. Stuff like Rumble in the Jungle extreme and having to deal with those 2 beasts while keeping a good combo going or shock and awe where you have to cram as many moves into the first few sets of enemies while not taking so long that you run out of time and insta-die... it gets really crazy. I've also been really into many other brawler type games such as Devil May Cry (all of them), Bayonetta, God of War etc. etc., but I found the combat here more satisfying and less... I dunno... grindy feeling... and I love those games.

I'm looking forward to the sequel anyway, and I hope that we'll get a real detective mode this time.

I would definitely agree with this. More sleuthing outside of just solving riddles would be nice. Look at me! I'm following a trail of tobacco/blood/fingerprints/booze... oh it's all the same really, just different shades of color.

 

[Eluvei]

So there's a mode where you actually control him during the combos? Because, on the campaign, I just pressed the punch button three times and then the counter button when the game taught me to do it, and I could enjoy the slow motion animation of Batman taking down the thug. Watch it, I said. That's what you do when you press the buttons in this game. You watch Batman slowly doing things.

I don't mean to say that you wasted your time doing the challenges, but it seems to me that you're trying to make it look like a polished Devil May Cry game on its hardest mode, while it looks more like the ending of Indigo Prophecy, where you had to press the QTE buttons faster than what you'd learned at the beginning of the game or you'd die. The action on this game reminds me more of Indigo Prophecy than any beat 'em up, to be honest. This grindy feeling in the brawler games that you've mentioned is probably the lack of beauty and fluidity in the moves, it ends up looking monotonous after you've played for so long. And this fluidity is something that could only be achieved, as Aaz mentioned, if you're not controlling the character. And that's the whole thing: you control Dante much more than you control Batman, even on the challenge modes, no matter how many enemies are on screen or how many moves you make Batman perform. The grappling hook will always lock on three targets at once for you, no matter the game mode or the difficulty.

while not taking so long that you run out of time and insta-die... it gets really crazy.

I've noticed that the hardest part of some of the challenges is about trying to perform enough combos in a set amount of time, and that looks a lot like they noticed the game's battle mechanics were so simple that they're having you do exactly what you've done on the campaign absurdly fast and non-stop. You have to use a certain button on the armed thugs so that Batman knocks them down, and use another button three times on the thugs close to you so you can kill them. That's pretty much QTE if you replace the model of the different thugs with the image of the buttons. I don't think there's anything oldschool about this, on the contrary, it's a good example of the sacrifice of the gameplay to achieve a certain amount realism.

And I don't know why you think this is so bad. If they sacrifice just a little bit of the fluidity and general awesomeness of the moves and add three more buttons, it's a decent, fast-paced brawler. Then I'd buy the game. Add three more buttons and I'm sold.

 

[Aazealh]

I can almost completely gaurantee you that if you put in some time into trying to finish the combat challenges you'd probably change your mind.

I finished quite a few before getting bored with it. Sorry but there's nothing to see in them that I haven't seen, even though I didn't complete them all. Don't be so presumptuous.

Yeah, it's more than just hitting one button and watching batman do pretty moves.

No one said that's what it was. You're just going to one extreme to justify the other.

Heck, one of the hardest parts is just knowing when to counter and when to go full on attack mode and that gets even more complicated when you throw those stupid knife/stun baton guys into the mix which they so love to do.

Incredible depth! Two types of enemies each require a move other than a standard attack!

Tons of people just give up on fully finishing the game because they can't pull off one or all of the hardest combat missions (Sewer Bat, Rumble in the Jungle, Shock and Awe: all extreme). It took me a good 6-7 hours just to finally pull it off and every time I screwed up I knew it was my fault and not the game's.

What you don't get is that those challenges being very hard doesn't make the combat very deep. The difficulty's all in the fact you have to execute the moves flawlessly.

I don't think there's anything oldschool about this, on the contrary, it's a good example of the sacrifice of the gameplay to achieve a certain amount realism.

Actually I agree with CowTip about this; I do think it's pretty old school in that it requires perfect memorization of the patterns and timing in order for you to succeed. What I disagree with is that it makes the combat "deep".

 

[CowTip]

At this point I definitely think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. They've put in plenty of moves to utilize in combat if you feel like using them. If the player doesn't feel like using them and instead decides to just hammer on the attack button, they'll take the enemy down. Yes you can boil a lot of the game down to a QTE if that's how you want to play it (as long as you're not playing on hard mode, hard mode you at least have to dodge once in awhile), but given that there's 3 different types of takedowns (Of which offer very different rewards and consequences in how you deal with your enemy), the batarang, dodging from enemies, dodging over enemies to stun them, using the cape to stun them, the batclaw to drag enemies in/stun them, counters, light attacks and strong attacks, I'm just not sure what else we could be asking for. Yes batman will home in on enemies to some degree (You literally cannot just tap the button, if you're facing the wrong way you'll just punch air). I'd be interested in more enemy types maybe, but again, the five they put in make combat really hectic at the higher stages. With enemies that you have to stun before hitting, enemies that you have to dodge over their heads before hitting, taking priority to guys with guns, using the little guys for fodder to build up combos for takedowns while avoiding the other types... with how fast everything is happening it gets really crazy. Yes there's lots of memorization to remember button combos but you also have to think on the fly.

I won't argue my points anymore because if people can't see it at this point, they won't, but I still don't think you can understand until you've tried to triple medal every map. Just playing the combat challenges for fun doesn't show you what the combat can do as every one of them can be completed with a crappy score if all you're doing is taking down enemies. I think it's a completely fair argument to say that the single player combat is seriously simplistic, but at least there's enough in the game otherwise that it always felt fun.

The reason I say this game is less grindy to me is because games like DMC and Bayonetta and lesso God of War is that those games are more about beating one or a small group of enemies multiple times while slowly whittling down their health bars. In Batman you can take down any enemy very simply but the fluid movements keep you engaged and pressing a lot of buttons in different combinations (L button for batarang, R for claw, X punch, Y counter, B stun, A dodge, A + X throw, B + Y standing takedown (Both have to be built towards, but they come fast), R + Y for a flying ground takedown... and yes you have to press your control stick in the proper directions to launch at the proper enemies at the right time. It's a lot to remember when actually trying to rack up scores. In the other action games I've mentioned, you can literally fly through any of those games just hammering on the attack button or one or two moves if you want. In God of War I pretty much only use R + heavy attack and nearly nothing else and made it through fine. DMC you can just push the attack button again and again for three hit combos while occasionally needing to jump. Bayonetta you can literally just button mash and you may die once or twice but it'll get you through the game just fine. All these games you can of course do more if you want to, but none of them really require you to unless you go for the extra content like Batman's score attack mode. The only real difference is that in Batman you don't have to walk up and literally be in an enemies face to hit them as as long as you're facing your enemy you'll launch towards them. Maybe it's that enemies don't dodge much that bothers you guys. It's true that no one dodges, but the system is free flow after all, just trying to see how long and varied you can keep your combo going with the enemies given to you.

Again, the combat is as deep as you want it to be in this game and after working through those score challenges, I for one will be disappointed if they change it much in the sequel.

I mean really, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl80IP73Tac and then go and try to mimic what he's doing your first try and tell me how it doesn't take a good amount of practice to get to the level that he's at (combos and overall score). Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T2sWWDJPd8 a guy who's finishing the challenge but with nowhere near the finesse of the guy in the first video to show just how different the combat can be. There's tons of videos on youtube showing people finishing these challenges completely different ways. It's not like there's a one time formula that if you memorize you'll spam through 100% every time (well, there might be but it'd be ridiculously close to impossible to pull off perfectly every time if so). I really don't know how much deeper you can get without throwing in convoluted button combinations. The combat has a lot of tricks and takes a lot of practice to master. There's a lot more available then is initially seen on the surface. I just don't know what else to really say about it

 

[Aazealh]

I still don't think you can understand until you've tried to triple medal every map.

Then you're deluded. It's not very hard to assess.

I think it's a completely fair argument to say that the single player combat is seriously simplistic, but at least there's enough in the game otherwise that it always felt fun.

I wouldn't call it simplistic (repetitive though, and relatively easy to go through), but I also don't think the challenges make the combat system somehow deeper. It's just more of the same, only you have to do it perfectly. Like I already said, the difficulty is added through external constraints. But you don't seem to want to hear that.

In the other action games I've mentioned, you can literally fly through any of those games just hammering on the attack button or one or two moves if you want. In God of War I pretty much only use R + heavy attack and nearly nothing else and made it through fine.

I guess for it to be deep the developers would need to add a mode with timed challenges then? Since it's apparently also your opinion of Arkham Asylum's campaign?

I mean really, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl80IP73Tac and then go and try to mimic what he's doing your first try and tell me how it doesn't take a good amount of practice to get to the level that he's at (combos and overall score).

Really I don't think you understand what "depth" means. Yes it needs a lot of practice, but that doesn't mean the system is deep. Just that the challenge is hard. Just like Castlevania on the NES is very hard while its gameplay isn't particularly deep. That's a lot of explanations needed for what is essentially semantics.

 

[CowTip]

See, I think again that the problem comes from what definition of depth you're going for again. As you said, it can come down to semantics, but there's definitely depth to the system. If you're talking about the controls in general, I can't really see depth having much to do with anything outside of just complexity. If we're talking about customization, every move in the game can be chained in different ways to create very different outcomes in order to set up different scenarios so I couldn't follow that argument. Even a game with simplistic controls can have great depth when applied in certain ways (working with the in game physics to create certain situations etc.). In every video game in existence you're just memorizing preset control schemes and repeating them at proper times via memorization and response. There can be depth even to a Castlevania game, it's just the complexity of controls isn't great. Some argue there's a ton of depth to a game like Super Mario Bros. and you literally just walk, run, jump or throw fireballs in that game.

Stepping away from what I think of depth (which is as I stated earlier had to do with a system containing more to it than initial glances would give on to) I looked up the definition in Merriam-Webster and got:
3 a : difficult to penetrate or comprehend : recondite <deep mathematical problems> b : mysterious, obscure <a deep dark secret> c : grave in nature or effect <in deepest disgrace> d : of penetrating intellect : wise <a deep thinker> e : intensely engrossed or immersed <she was deep in her book> f : characterized by profundity of feeling or quality. Or: the quality or state of being complete or thorough

Sure, the controls themselves aren't that difficult to penetrate or comprehend, as are the controls for most good videogames (like chess, easy to understand how every piece works, but you always have to be thinking the next move ahead and the consequences of said actions. You are literally always doing this in the actual challenges), but the application of those moves to keep fluid motions going can be quite difficult to plan out when coming up with a strategy for each challenge. Later challenges you have to act in completely different ways to actually pull off a high score, you don't just repeat the same pattern again and again for every challenge. If it's a matter of being intensely engrossed or immersed, you have to be engrossed in order to think on the fly as to your next course of action. Enemies are always changing up what's happening in the flow of combat, it's not like you know that every 3 seconds a medusa head is going to pop out of the side of the screen and you have to whip it. Profundity or feelings of quality? You can't get any more subjective than that.

At this point I almost feel like you're trying to say that no video game can actually have real depth when it comes to a fighting system, which if is the case I can't argue with you as that's definitely an opinion. Everything you've mentioned about Arkham Asylum not having depth could be applied to just about every other game out there that it's about memorization of control and then difficulty only comes with how well you can perform those controls in a given situation. Would true depth come if for instance we had something like an option to punch a guy in the head, chest or legs for varying effects? In the game you can chain moves together to work in unexpected ways such as throw an enemy into another knocking them both down leaving you open to attack someone else or giving you time to set up a ground takedown or something. Eluvei mentioned the problem being that there aren't enough moves. That's a subjective stance and I can't really argue against it outside of saying that I feel there's already more than enough to keep your brain working while keeping up true freeflow movements, of which you can only really judge by pushing yourself to perform at a higher level (as is forced through the challenges).

 

[Aazealh]

As you said, it can come down to semantics, but there's definitely depth to the system.

You're the one who called it simplistic. Of course you meant outside of the challenges, but it's not like the fighting system changes when the situation becomes more challenging. Maybe you meant to say that it is linear, which I would agree with.

If we're talking about customization, every move in the game can be chained in different ways to create very different outcomes in order to set up different scenarios so I couldn't follow that argument.

I disagree that it can lead to "very different" outcomes. A few slighty different outcomes, yes. But in the end a takedown's a takedown.

There can be depth even to a Castlevania game, it's just the complexity of controls isn't great. Some argue there's a ton of depth to a game like Super Mario Bros. and you literally just walk, run, jump or throw fireballs in that game.

I love Castlevania dearly but its gameplay is very basic. I don't know why you're even trying to argue about this.

(like chess, easy to understand how every piece works, but you always have to be thinking the next move ahead and the consequences of said actions. You are literally always doing this in the actual challenges)

Hahaha please, you're comparing those challenges to chess? You've completely lost perspective. The planning involved is minimal. And you know, you don't have to detail everything in the game since we've all played it.

At this point I almost feel like you're trying to say that no video game can actually have real depth when it comes to a fighting system

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Everything you've mentioned about Arkham Asylum not having depth

I never said that the game had no depth. Don't misrepresent my words.

Would true depth come if for instance we had something like an option to punch a guy in the head, chest or legs for varying effects?

More varied types of enemies, enemy attacks/parries/counters and a better AI would be a great improvement. To give Batman a hundred moves isn't enough (nor necessary), it has to be global and balanced. You mentioned chess earlier, well think of the difference between chess and checkers: more varied types of pieces, each with its own set of moves. That brings depth.

 

[CowTip]

You're the one who called it simplistic. Of course you meant outside of the challenges, but it's not like the fighting system changes when the situation became more challenging. Maybe you meant to say that it is linear, which I would agree with.

Well, maybe I mean more that the situations given to you in game never even offer a chance to lead into the higher complexities of the fighting system. The closest you even get is the room at the end of the game full of completely optional enemies, but even those are just regular thugs. You just don't have many situations with large varied groupings of enemies. That leads to more simplistic engagements, not to mention all the unlocking you have to do to get to your full potential. In a way the combat is indeed simplified due to those reasons in the single player game. They can't really push you in combat because they can't ever tell what moves you may or may not have unlocked.

I disagree that it can lead to "very different" outcomes. A few slighty different outcomes, yes. But in the end a takedown's a takedown.

A takedown is a takedown, but depending on who you attack and when can completely change the situation you're in and how the enemies can act towards you. A good way of seeing this is how every encounter actually starts the same every time, but ends up completely different depending on how you approach your enemies.

I love Castlevania dearly but its gameplay is very basic. I don't know why you're even trying to argue about this.

Hahaha please, you're comparing those challenges to chess? You've completely lost perspective. The planning involved is minimal. And you know, you don't have to detail everything in the game since we've all played it.

I only compared it to chess insomuch as that you have to think ahead and that keeping combos flowing are hard to master though easy to learn. The planning involved is only minimal if you want to beat your head against a wall again and again. You seriously have to learn the intricacies of every challenge and come up with an overall strategy as wildly throwing combos seriously just doesn't cut it. The point of the argument behind Castlevania and Mario etc. is just to illustrate very simple sets of controls that can be manipulated in more depth if you want to go there. I'm speaking of things such as using hit mechanics to bypass entire areas and weapon utilization. Initial simplicity yes, but even these simplistic systems can have some real depth to them.

I never said that the game had no depth. Don't misrepresent my words.

Maybe I should have said 'lacking' depth. Regardless, even if you do think there's depth, you've represented yourself as believing that there's not much as can be seen through your comment of: "Incredible depth! Two types of enemies each require a move other than a standard attack!"

More varied types of enemies, enemy attacks/parries/counters and a better AI would be a great improvement. To give Batman a hundred moves isn't enough (nor necessary), it has to be global and balanced. You mentioned chess earlier, well think of the difference between chess and checkers: more varied types of pieces, each with its own set of moves. That brings depth.

I can't say that this would be necessarily be bad, I just personally feel like they did more than enough in the first game. It's definitely opinion though. I think they did a great job with the first game. If they put out the exact same system with only minimal changes to the combat such as a few different gadgets, I think I'd be A-Ok with that. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Proj2501]

Street Fighter's combat has depth. Batman's is fun but come on, it basically does the work for you. All you have to remember to do is counter/block.

That is all. <3

 

[CowTip]

whoooboy

 

[Aazealh]

Well, maybe I mean more that the situations given to you in game never even offer a chance to lead into the higher complexities of the fighting system.

And an arena with many enemies at once and a time limit does that? I'm sure you realize that it's more of what I've been pointing out: palliating for the lack of challenge when fighting individual enemies (or a small number of them) by raising up the stakes. Tell me, if you removed the time limit, or just added 30 seconds to each challenge, would they be so hard anymore? No they wouldn't. And that's not even mentioning the other stuff (not taking damage, needing to do 3 flawless fights in a row).

I'm just repeating myself here, but if the fighting system was as deep (complex and elaborate) as you make it to be, those artifices wouldn't be needed.

A takedown is a takedown, but depending on who you attack and when can completely change the situation you're in and how the enemies can act towards you.

Sorry but I don't think it changes things too much, and you're not going to sway me on this.

I only compared it to chess insomuch as that you have to think ahead and that keeping combos flowing are hard to master though easy to learn. The planning involved is only minimal if you want to beat your head against a wall again and again.

Only the hard part to master isn't the thinking ahead because that's really very basic. Say what you will but it is minimal and is not where the difficulty resides. Taking out the knife guy first then the guy with a gun then the stun rod guy then isn't even strategy, it's common sense.

You seriously have to learn the intricacies of every challenge

i.e. rote learning.

The point of the argument behind Castlevania and Mario etc. is just to illustrate very simple sets of controls that can be manipulated in more depth if you want to go there. I'm speaking of things such as using hit mechanics to bypass entire areas and weapon utilization. Initial simplicity yes, but even these simplistic systems can have some real depth to them.

Please tell me in more details about how complex and elaborate Castlevania's fighting system is.

Regardless, even if you do think there's depth, you've represented yourself as believing that there's not much as can be seen through your comment of: "Incredible depth! Two types of enemies each require a move other than a standard attack!"

I just disagree with you that the game's fighting is akin to chess in complexity and apparently has more depth than the combat in the Street Fighter series (from your reaction to Proj's post).

I can't say that this would be necessarily be bad, I just personally feel like they did more than enough in the first game. It's definitely opinion though. I think they did a great job with the first game. If they put out the exact same system with only minimal changes to the combat such as a few different gadgets, I think I'd be A-Ok with that.

What if there's no challenges in the second game though? What then?