Was Rocksteady actually a blight on gaming?

That type of combat is about mixing up the attacks while keeping it accessible, looking good, and making the average player feel like a badass. I enjoyed it in the Batman games and Mad Max. The combat is only one element of those games. It was more than serviceable.

I didn't like the combat and like everything else, people copy anything that the general public favors.

It work in Batman. but doesnot work in any game thus negative impact thus ruined game.

also. it also work in Spiderman. super hero games should be simple games. but these mechanics implement in other action games make it worse.

I agree. It ruined combat in games.

However I disagree Superhero games should have a requirement of being simple. This is partly why most suck.

Loved it, but then again I don’t really care much for souls games or dmc games…

I'm fine with it, they added challenge to the combat by making some enemies immune from direct attacks requiring attacking from rear after hoping over, some require stunning, some require players keep up a combo chain because they can only be taken down by combo chain takedown move.

I'm fine with it. People love to act like games aren't games because some stupid reason, like I dunno how walking over a hidden medkit that intant heals someone on the verge of death is any better than slow health regen.

Yes. It's poor. I finished writing the script for my Arkham City critique, but narrating it is proving difficult. The first quarter or so took twenty-three minutes, by which point my throat was dry and I kept reading the same lines again and again. Will just record my voice sentence by sentence in Reaper. Hope WB an YouTube don't copyright-rape me. Will definitely make a second version for a file host like Mega.

@BassMan: All the elements are kind of shit, not just combat.

Iunno. Arkham Asylum was pretty rad. Didn't care much for all the other games that seem to copy it. Chose to not play those LotR Batman games because they seemed sucky, not because they copy Batman combat. Spiderman, same thing. Looks boring.

Well, for me it's more fun to stay in the action thanks to running over a medkit rather than waiting behind cover until my health is back. Kinda hate slow regen, actually. Especially when it's just shown as various degrees of red on your screen.

People enjoyed the games and praised the combat. It's normal for people to be influnced by a successful idea. I still find there's variation in combat in new games to play and original new ideas, so I have no issues.

@uninspiredcup: Super heroes are.overpowered in movies. They also target towarda younger audience. They should be simple but Batman arkham games were masterpieces.

Really enjoyed the games myself as well as the combat so I’ll vote, “No”.

The combat was revolutionary at the time not to mention it was a top tier franchise.

Mario and Zelda are targeted towards children, they are more complex than Arkham. And treat the consumer with more intelligence.

This is a very odd statement my friend.

Nail on the head.

Arkham is actually incredibly overrated, even if we somehow ignore the non-existent combat.

It made gaming worse, and combat in general. The Nazis were a trend. Won't be praising them.

I feel like the Assassin's Creed games had a similar combat system at the same time Batman came out. I think the combat system was really inventive at the time, but after it was replicated through three batman games, all the following AC games, 2 Mordor games, and three Spiderman games, mad max ect, it's pretty stale. Still though, I don't fault Rocksteady for making a combat system that's been popular enough to replicate for over a decade because if the games with that combat system continue to sell then developers are going to make it. I'd Blame the consumers for buying the same re-hashed games over and over if it bugged me that much.

was never a huge fan of the combat but did really like asylum. didn't care much for the series once it went open world.

personally don't hold it against rocksteady that their style got ripped off so regularly. only game i can think of that did a good job with it was shadow of mordor. spiderman the opposite.

sounds like critiquing the combat is more difficult than the combat

edit: also cup i'm pretty sure ive seen you praise origins

mario is not superhero. superhero mean someone superhuman. overpowered.

this is why Superman game is impossible because he is most overpowered. cant get damage. Batman is at least vulnerable.

If I want to play complex game. I wont play Superhero game ie Batman or Spiderman. I would play Half life or STALKER. if I want to relax. I play Arkham or Spiderman.

Depiction of Bane/gameplay

Also not Rocksteady, who gave us somehow an even worse Bane than Batman And Robin.

This game is more complex than any of these.

As is this.

^ Also the best Superhero game nobody remembers

Also Batman defeated Superman (Robocop)

Big brain smarts while Superman is OK USA Resetera user.

@uninspiredcup: it's still arkham / batman combat even if made by wb. but you liked its gameplay?

It's gameplay was the exact same barring the detective stuff added.

Only thing I like is 1. The setting which reminds me of Batman Returns, and pretty sure that was deliberate 2. Bane, my fav character who in almost all forms of media outside the comics is terrible 3. The Joker in this is actually more interesting than Rocksteadys

As a game, with gameplay, it's a one and done. Something never ever returned to, and I typically just google the cutscene to say randomly on the internet "hey look, This Bane isn't shit"

Also a game that gets looked down upon as a bastard compared to Rocksteady, with them seemingly sharing that attitude. Which made their downfall all the sweeter.

1. Fighting game

2. Original superhero Real time Tactics/strategy game

These aren't arguments my friend.

i think they called knight the arkham trilogy conclusion i.e. the third game

I would need to replay Asylum to see if it holds up, but I loved it at the time. It's kinda crazy to think this style of combat, and Demon's Souls came out the same year. I think both have their place.

They excluded it from canon yes. Even though it told a better story. And had a Bane that was actually Bane and not The Incredible Dumb.

Seen as a filler game, the bastard B-Team. KOTOR 2.

Do not understand why everyone is so resistant to me being right. Very odd.

Could never get into their games. But things are so break when it comes to single player that I wish we had more of them.

of course they are.

suppose you can make superman game but not being superman ie overpowered fly anywhere. instead deep and complex immersive sim. that will not be superman my friend.

They already made a Superman game.

No. I don't love Arkham's combat, but it's fun enough and was unique at the time. Of course, I didn't end up playing a lot of the games that aped it. Might feel differently if I had.

One of the most dogshit combat systems i've ever tried. The only person i know that enjoyed it greatly, and even considers it very skillful is @Maroxad

then you have ghost praising spiderman and tlou. strange times

That combat was both slick looking and also easy to grapple with. It's not rocksteadys fault that many others copied them. AAA game developers don't often have original creative ideas and so the arkham games benefitted by having something "new" and "fresh" in the gameplay.... That it's become a norm in gaming is something I blame on the unoriginal copy artists at other developers who couldn't think of their own combat system.

Neither.

Batman combat sucked. But it was the fault of other devs for copying it. Not Rocksteady's fault.

No...

Even Souls Combat > Batman combat.

But didn't ask if it was their fault. Asked if they were objectively a positive or a negative.

Now that i cought you in 4K, you deny these allegations? We both know you love it, but is ashamed of admitting it.

I actually really loved the overall formula of that combat, it keeps thing casual enough that it isn't intimidating while removing the failure-frustration because you're only really punished if you screw up (which is how it should be). Not everything has to be a brutal grind where you try 20+ times to beat a fight or whatever; sometimes indulging in a power fantasy and just annihilating foes is enjoyable. And remember: Batman, a regular guy, constantly defeats superpowered villains (and allies, occasionally) so the power fantasy isn't really out of line.

Concerning the Arkham games, I liked the stealth aspects as well; they were a good combination of immersion and cinematic, utlizing setpieces well while not removing you from the game itself.

Concerning their influence, I'm a big fan of the two "Middle Earth" games because they're a good blend of Assassin's Creed exploration coupled with the Arkham-style combat, while utilizing a great IP in a way that honors the source material quite well (well, except for maybe sexy Shelob 😋 ...)

Man, I kind of feel like Butter's in that WoW South Park episode where he's like "Aww but I like Hello Kitty Island Adventure"

Everyone hating on me for liking a game they hate and having fun. Sheesh 😋😁

Just occurred to me that Cup's precious Tomb Raider is fucked up now in part because of Arkham Asylum. The button prompt to do flashy stealth animation with cinematic cam, the idiot challenges that appear at the top of your screen ("Kill three enemies completed."), sixth sense revealing secrets and X-ray, it's all there.

It's been fucked up since Legend.

Guardian Of Light and Temple of Osiris are the only good Crystal Dynamics TR titles.

.

@uninspiredcup: But last reboot followed Arkham Asylum and was further decline.

I'm not sure, but I am sure that there isn't any talent working at Rocksteady any longer.

@R4gn4r0k said:

I'm not sure, but I am sure that there isn't any talent working at Rocksteady any longer.

Wait, did they went with Mr. Freeze to Mrs. Freeze?

Now, if they were trying to go with Mr. Freeze's Wife resurrection kind of thing, I would accept this.

She's called Nora, and as part of a bigger problem:

Their game launched barebones, and their live service is off to a very weak start.

Now you could excuse one or the other:

Either a game launches feature complete, and it has a less-than-thrilling post launch support: that's forgivable

Or a game launches barebones, but then blows it out of the park with constant updates and post launch support: that's no mans sky right there.

But Suicide Squad:

a) was lacking content (gameplay) and ended its story on a cliffhanger for live service

b) started their live service really weak with more grinding and very little pay off... promising more in part 2

c) part 2 well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideSquadGaming/s/aK4iLSrfvX

It's like they don't want any players to return. Instead doing the opposite of what people want at all times.

Wait, that's Nora?

Even fucking, Batman And Robin didn't mess it up.

She's suppose to essentially be a frozen princess, not an angry Resetera user.

What the ****.

Nah.

Modern Rocksteady yes, old Rocksteady no.

Arkham combat has aged very poorly by virtue of the fact that everyone else iterated them into obsolescence very quickly, but Arkham was a big push forward for enjoyable but accessible combat that's meant as one element of a greater package and not necessarily the sole focus.

You compare to other similar action adventures of the time before that, like Twilight Princess, Bioshock, Uncharted 1 and it's pretty clear that Arkham was a welcome step-up. The only one that's probably better before it is Ninja Gaiden, which isn't accessible at all and kind of stretches the definition of this admittedly broad and vague genre.

They can change anyone you adored into a racist, glutton, karen and there ain't nobody gonna stop them.