I think SoM is significantly better. There are way more moves you can pull off for starters. I also like the idea that through various perks you can refill resources by pulling off specific moves mid combo. The "blink" ability (forgot wahat it's called) is a fun way to zip around the battlefield and take out archers even within a combo. Enemies are more varried than in AC. The quality difference is pretty massive imo. AC combat is just pure trash.
@AM-Gamer: In regards to sword and shield combat I would say Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, but keep in mind Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a pvp focused game.
In regards to open world rpgs, kingdom come: deliverance seems quite promising from what we have seen so far. I mostly talking about combat that take a certain level of skill unlike shadow of mordor which consist mainly of button smashing.
@thepclovingguy: See I like games like that. I think DS, DS2 and BB had great combat but I don't want every game like that. Something like SoM needs a combo system.
I've always thought Devil May Cry had excellent combat.
I must say Assassin's Creed is the worst offender, I truly enjoyed Black Flag and the whole naval combat, except you got to the point of "board the ship"... not again
Every game with spamming one button non stop, then another button lights up then you hit that one...
@thepclovingguy: See I like games like that. I think DS, DS2 and BB had great combat but I don't want every game like that. Something like SoM needs a combo system.
I've always thought Devil May Cry had excellent combat.
Of course, otherwise games get repetitive, but SoM doesnt offer the player any challenge, especially once you get all these op abilities. Being able to instantly block enemy attacks and avoiding getting hit by just jumping over people ruins the combat completely.
Asscreed was really bad too, but in that game, the whole experience was bad. So you didnt have those predator sections to look forward to like in Batman.
@mems_1224: Gotta say, I do like the Souls games. But this bullshit that the combat is nuanced and complicated is none sense. The enemies attack fast and do major damage with them. That's it. It isn't all that intricate. You take 3 hits, you die. That is all that is compelling about the combat, the possibility of dying to OP enemies that can hit you through wrought iron fences in places.
I have to admit I just can't stand TW3's combat. It's the main stumbling block for me. I realize Geralt jumping and pirouetting (sp?) is supposed to make it more believable like in the novels and the real world where one hit can kill you, but it just feels clunky.
Assassin's Creed combat has been ginped and unresponsive since Unity and equally so in Syndicate. Sure the games mechanics were godly evolved by Black Flag but instead of evolving enemy abilities to provide challenge they simply gimped the player, made a shitty unresponsive and unsatisfying combat system.
@cainetao11: it also gets high marks for its combat due to its unique weapon animations, diverse character builds, magic/pyro/faith, distinctive enemies and varied attacks
@cainetao11: it also gets high marks for its combat due to its unique weapon animations, diverse character builds, magic/pyro/faith, distinctive enemies and varied attacks
And I could dig that...................in the beginning. Its not a new thing in the recent outings. Its an RPG with different builds, great. But when it comes to playing the game, the combat for me is really only compelling because of how easily one can be killed. I haven't seen that many different animations I guess in my play throughs.
Nothing in real time. Even the worst real time system can be tolerable. No, the winner goes to bad turn based combat. It can draw what should be a quick encounter out multiple minutes with unskippable animations, trash enemies out the ass, a complete lack of difficulty, and no attempt at pacing.
The worst well known offenders I feel like are the numbered Final Fantasy games. Yes ATB titles are technically real time, but they still play like turn-based titles. The only way I could finish the PSP version of FF4 was with a fast forward button. If your game is going to use this god awful style of combat, please do me a favor and put fast forward options up to 16x.
Witcher 2-3, Dragon Age Origins/Inquisition, Fallout 4, StarCraft 1-2, XCOM, Dark Souls, Divinity OS, Command and Conquer and Prince of Persia 1-3 have the best combats in games imo, I think they're not only fairly challenging but also demand strategy while being badass and don't feel repetitive even if you've played too much. I also love Assassin's Creed combat system, specially Syndicate's and AC2's. I also love Mordor's and Batman's combat a lot. Maybe Skyrim's combat is my worst.
Whenever a shooter tries to call themselves an rpg. The latest being the Division, lol. I like the game, but the mechanics just consist of sponge bullets. Lv blah blah m4, Lv blah blah AUG. *facepalm*
Bethesda games and the piece of crap that stole GOTY last year
Man, for some reason I thought you liked TW3.
But yeah, I'll never understand why so many action rpgs get a free pass on the action part. You know, the part that makes up the majority of the gameplay.
@cainetao11: Try testing out different weapons and play styles. I have never played a action RPG in my life that had such distinctive weapon feel and such distinctive and amazing enemies with various strategies to defeat them.
Bethesda games and the piece of crap that stole GOTY last year
Man, for some reason I thought you liked TW3.
But yeah, I'll never understand why so many action rpgs get a free pass on the action part. You know, the part that makes up the majority of the gameplay.
Depends f.e I dont think the Witcher 3 combat is so bad that it would ruin the whole experience like it did in Mordor for me. I dont think the shooting and overall combat in Uncharted is anything special either but that doesn't stop them from being great games.If souls games had bad combat it would be a whole different thing as that is their driving part.
Log in to comment