PDA

View Full Version : Combat still has a lot to learn from the Arkham games



Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 08:16 PM
So I've tried out the combat a lot lately and it's def the most fun combat ever in AC. The choreography is amazing and many of the moves feel great to perform. I still feel though as the combat is a little bit too shallow compared to the Arkham games (and they are not that deep to begin with). I hope Ubi can take it to the next level in the sequel, now that they have got the basics working :D. Here are some particular points:



- No quickfiring gadgets. This is a blunder imo. The Arkham style combat, that AC has tried to copy from, is built around flow. Having to pause the game to select a gadgets is very unsatisfying as it basically signals FAIL to the player.

- Create different strategic uses for the different weapons/gadgets. In Arkham every gadget and every move has different consequences. Not so in AC. For the most part only the animation will change depending on the weapon/gadget. For example if you do a counter kill with the pistol you will kill that guard, exactly the same thing that will happen when you counter kill with a snare (or the bow, or a mine). There are ofc a couple of exceptions like the rope dart and fighting with your fists etc.

- More enemy variety. This is connected to the previous point. In Arkham there are a more different types of enemies (if you count the different types of equipment the enemies can have). And there is a wider set of strategies you need to employ to deal with them.

- Some move to reposition yourself relative your opponents while still maintaining the flow would be nice.

- In Arkham enemies have two basic states, they are either standing and fighting, or lying on the ground waiting to be knocked out. This very simple system creates a lot more variety and strategy than one might first think. For example some moves may knock a lot of people to the ground, while another might take a single opponent out entirely and it's up to the player to choose, another move may be designed to give you time to take out a a grounded thug for good etc. Not so in AC where it's basically just one relevant state. There are no enemies in AC that you have to take out in multiple stages using different techniques.

- More vairety in counters. Arkham has different ways to counter enemies armed with knives, double/tripple counters and shielded enemies. These mechanics creates different rhythms in combat which feels awesome ones you get the hang of it.



I think AC's combat is going for quantity rather than quality sadly. There are a zillion different animations, for a zillion different weapons that all do basically the same thing. It's super flashy, but also shallow.

Now I don't want AC to just copy Arkham ofc, I want it to feel distinct and that Ubi adds its own ideas. However I wish a little more variety and depth was added and some of the ideas above may be a good starting point. It would make it so much more enjoyable even after you have wathced all the awesomely gruesome animations ;)!

Jexx21
12-12-2012, 09:26 PM
No. Please do not 'learn' from the Arkham games. I don't want copy-pasta combat.

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 09:33 PM
No. Please do not 'learn' from the Arkham games. I don't want copy-pasta combat.

yeah like I said


Now I don't want AC to just copy Arkham ofc, I want it to feel distinct and that Ubi adds its own ideas. However I wish a little more variety and depth was added and some of the ideas above may be a good starting point.!

ACfan443
12-12-2012, 09:46 PM
AC combat is supposed to retain some sort of realism, Arkham city combat is cool, but it's really over the top/unrealistic/fantasy. How stupid would it look if Connor leapt 5 metres into the air, shot towards his enemy at 600 miles per hour, and punched his face at a 1000 times a second?

/exaggeration

but you get the gist.

Torvaldesq
12-12-2012, 09:49 PM
Games always learn from other games. I think for the KIND of combat AC has been doing, Arkham is an excellent example of someone doing it better. That said, I've often felt like the multiplayer in AC accomplishes the kind of gameplay that they WISH they could do with singleplayer. Nowhere do you feel more like someone trying to be an assassin. The whole sense of trying to stay hidden, hunting down a target without being obvious about it, trying to escape cleverly after doing something conspicuous like killing somone - it all comes together beautifully in multiplayer. Unfortunately, this kind of cuts against the combat-style they've been doing in single-player. In multiplayer, you die when you're caught basically. A single stab is all it takes. Single player combat, meanwhile, let's your assassin get away with a ton and slaughter hordes of people.

I think when it comes to single player, they need to make stealth and inconspicuous killing a bigger factor, which also means they need to make the price for not doing so much higher (i.e. by making your assassin die to things much more quickly). I'm okay with flow-combat, but would like them to make it so that as glorious as it can be when it comes together well, the player still has a strong urge to avoid it as much as possible because it's just so easy to die.

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 09:51 PM
AC combat is supposed to retain some sort of realism, Arkham city combat is cool, but it's really over the top/unrealistic/fantasy. How stupid would it look if Connor leapt 5 metres into the air, shot towards his enemy at 600 miles per hour, and punched his face at a 1000 times a second?

/exaggeration

but you get the gist.

Agreed, but that is about animations and coreography. If you read my post (sorry I know it's long :) ), you'll see that I'm talking about adding strategy and variety and that is a totally different thing.

TrueAssassin77
12-12-2012, 09:55 PM
.... Arkam city combat is even easier than AC3... it only gets challenging when you literally have 30+ people attacking you....

whats crazy is, that people hails Arkams combat as one of the best fighting mechaincs of gaming in this era... while AC3 combat is hated on because it's "to easy"... double standard.

must be because he's batman i guess

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 09:58 PM
Games always learn from other games. I think for the KIND of combat AC has been doing, Arkham is an excellent example of someone doing it better. That said, I've often felt like the multiplayer in AC accomplishes the kind of gameplay that they WISH they could do with singleplayer. Nowhere do you feel more like someone trying to be an assassin. The whole sense of trying to stay hidden, hunting down a target without being obvious about it, trying to escape cleverly after doing something conspicuous like killing somone - it all comes together beautifully in multiplayer. Unfortunately, this kind of cuts against the combat-style they've been doing in single-player. In multiplayer, you die when you're caught basically. A single stab is all it takes. Single player combat, meanwhile, let's your assassin get away with a ton and slaughter hordes of people.

I think when it comes to single player, they need to make stealth and inconspicuous killing a bigger factor, which also means they need to make the price for not doing so much higher (i.e. by making your assassin die to things much more quickly). I'm okay with flow-combat, but would like them to make it so that as glorious as it can be when it comes together well, the player still has a strong urge to avoid it as much as possible because it's just so easy to die.

That is a fair opinion which I respect :). Personally I don't need an extra incentive to be stealthy. If I think it's fun I do it and if I get caught I pause and restart from the checkpoint. I don't need combat to be punishing to play stealthy. But I respect that some do and that they want AC more focused on the stealth (which I also think can be improved, whould probably make a post about that too sometime :) ).

Torvaldesq
12-12-2012, 10:00 PM
.... Arkam city combat is even easier than AC3... it only gets challenging when you literally have 30+ people attacking you....

whats crazy is, that people hails Arkams combat as one of the best fighting mechaincs of gaming in this era... while AC3 combat is hated on because it's "to easy"... double standard.

must be because he's batman i guess

Wrong. You're confusing what the challenges are geared to. Arkham combat is hailed more because it's more sophisticated and has deeper levels of challenge within it. The challenge, however, is separate from the plot. It is in overcoming optional challenge maps, getting very very high combo levels, and stringing your attacks together to engage the most variety in each encounter. The challenge is not in beating the enemies, it is in doing it with great efficiency and variety.

AC combat leaves a lot to be desired in terms of direct confrontation. It could stand good deal more sophistication.

TrueAssassin77
12-12-2012, 10:03 PM
Wrong. You're confusing what the challenges are geared to. Arkham combat is hailed more because it's more sophisticated and has deeper levels of challenge within it. The challenge, however, is separate from the plot. It is in overcoming optional challenge maps, getting very very high combo levels, and stringing your attacks together to engage the most variety in each encounter. The challenge is not in beating the enemies, it is in doing it with great efficiency and variety.

AC combat leaves a lot to be desired in terms of direct confrontation. It could stand good deal more sophistication.

your speaking general gameplay arent you?

in terms of pound for pound fighting mechanics, arkam is easier than Ac3. i see what you mean tho, arkam is more sophisticated, and has alot of variety. simply more fun.

Torvaldesq
12-12-2012, 10:04 PM
That is a fair opinion which I respect :). Personally I don't need an extra incentive to be stealthy. If I think it's fun I do it and if I get caught I pause and restart from the checkpoint. I don't need combat to be punishing to play stealthy. But I respect that some do and that they want AC more focused on the stealth (which I also think can be improved, whould probably make a post about that too sometime :) ).

To be fair, I guess they do accomplish some stealthy incentive with optional objectives. It does hurt immersion a bit though in the history for me to think, "I don't know Mr. Assassin, I guess you could go around those troops for that optional objective. But you and I both know you could walk up and slaughter those 30 guys without breaking a sweat."

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 10:08 PM
.... Arkam city combat is even easier than AC3... it only gets challenging when you literally have 30+ people attacking you....

whats crazy is, that people hails Arkams combat as one of the best fighting mechaincs of gaming in this era... while AC3 combat is hated on because it's "to easy"... double standard.

must be because he's batman i guess

I agree that the combat in Arkham City is very easy to survive and beat down your opponents. But that's not the point of it. The point is to keep a varied flow. Incorporating a lot of different moves (that are truly distinct, not just visually) without disruption. When you succeed it's very cool. I've played a lot of Arkham to get high scores and there are tons of different techniques and strategies to use. But it's not just variety, Arkham's combat also has greater depth in the sense that many enemies needs to be taken out in multiple steps.

AC3 is not simpler in the sense that you will die less (you'll rarely die in any of the games). It's simpler because it lacks variety, depth and options.

Gi1t
12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
So I've tried out the combat a lot lately and it's def the most fun combat ever in AC. The choreography is amazing and many of the moves feel great to perform. I still feel though as the combat is a little bit too shallow compared to the Arkham games (and they are not that deep to begin with). I hope Ubi can take it to the next level in the sequel, now that they have got the basics working :D. Here are some particular points:



- No quickfiring gadgets. This is a blunder imo. The Arkham style combat, that AC has tried to copy from, is built around flow. Having to pause the game to select a gadgets is very unsatisfying as it basically signals FAIL to the player.

- Create different strategic uses for the different weapons/gadgets. In Arkham every gadget and every move has different consequences. Not so in AC. For the most part only the animation will change depending on the weapon/gadget. For example if you do a counter kill with the pistol you will kill that guard, exactly the same thing that will happen when you counter kill with a snare (or the bow, or a mine). There are ofc a couple of exceptions like the rope dart and fighting with your fists etc.

- More enemy variety. This is connected to the previous point. In Arkham there are a more different types of enemies (if you count the different types of equipment the enemies can have). And there is a wider set of strategies you need to employ to deal with them.

- Some move to reposition yourself relative your opponents while still maintaining the flow would be nice.

- In Arkham enemies have two basic states, they are either standing and fighting, or lying on the ground waiting to be knocked out. This very simple system creates a lot more variety and strategy than one might first think. For example some moves may knock a lot of people to the ground, while another might take a single opponent out entirely and it's up to the player to choose, another move may be designed to give you time to take out a a grounded thug for good etc. Not so in AC where it's basically just one relevant state. There are no enemies in AC that you have to take out in multiple stages using different techniques.

- More vairety in counters. Arkham has different ways to counter enemies armed with knives, double/tripple counters and shielded enemies. These mechanics creates different rhythms in combat which feels awesome ones you get the hang of it.



I think AC's combat is going for quantity rather than quality sadly. There are a zillion different animations, for a zillion different weapons that all do basically the same thing. It's super flashy, but also shallow.

Now I don't want AC to just copy Arkham ofc, I want it to feel distinct and that Ubi adds its own ideas. However I wish a little more variety and depth was added and some of the ideas above may be a good starting point. It would make it so much more enjoyable even after you have wathced all the awesomely gruesome animations ;)!


Even having not played the Arkham games, I still agree with a lot of these points just by themselves. Especially the part about having a ton of options that all do the same thing.

Also agree about having a move to reposition yourself relative to the enemy (one that can be done while engaged), but I don't just think it'd be nice, I think it's even more important than that. So is enemy variety. In my experience, having a strong, responsive defensive system in combat and having good, deep enemy design is just as important as having really cool moves for the main character, but most games tend to focus all on aggression and gloss over enemy depth and defense. The combat systems that have these two missing parts are the ones that really go above and beyond just being okay. The more effective your character's defenses are, the more intense and complex and intelligent the enemies can be, and the more interesting the enemies are, the more you can make use of all those cool moves your character has. :D

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 10:12 PM
To be fair, I guess they do accomplish some stealthy incentive with optional objectives. It does hurt immersion a bit though in the history for me to think, "I don't know Mr. Assassin, I guess you could go around those troops for that optional objective. But you and I both know you could walk up and slaughter those 30 guys without breaking a sweat."

Some levels are so clearly designed to be played stealthy so I don't really mind them using an artificial constraint.

Assassin_M
12-12-2012, 10:14 PM
Agreed.

For one, Guards shouldn't be out of the fight from Unarmed finishes...

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 10:21 PM
Even having not played the Arkham games, I still agree with a lot of these points just by themselves. Especially the part about having a ton of options that all do the same thing.

Also agree about having a move to reposition yourself relative to the enemy (one that can be done while engaged), but I don't just think it'd be nice, I think it's even more important than that. So is enemy variety. In my experience, having a strong, responsive defensive system in combat and having good, deep enemy design is just as important as having really cool moves for the main character, but most games tend to focus all on aggression and gloss over enemy depth and defense. The combat systems that have these two missing parts are the ones that really go above and beyond just being okay. The more effective your character's defenses are, the more intense and complex and intelligent the enemies can be, and the more interesting the enemies are, the more you can make use of all those cool moves your character has. :D

You should, Rocksteady (the ones making the Arkham games ) are truly masters of their art. I'm a huge game nerd and I get excited thinking about all the brilliant gameplay they have packed their games with :). Really, really clever stuff. A lot more studios than Ubi are playing catchup atm.

A better balance between defence and offence would lead to a more intricate system, that's a very good point! And yeah every hero needs a (well designed) villain :)

LoyalACFan
12-12-2012, 10:28 PM
- No quickfiring gadgets. This is a blunder imo. The Arkham style combat, that AC has tried to copy from, is built around flow. Having to pause the game to select a gadgets is very unsatisfying as it basically signals FAIL to the player.
Easily remedied by mapping your quickfire gadgets to the d-pad. You don't really need your main weapons there, since I doubt you need to swap them mid-fight.


- Create different strategic uses for the different weapons/gadgets. In Arkham every gadget and every move has different consequences. Not so in AC. For the most part only the animation will change depending on the weapon/gadget. For example if you do a counter kill with the pistol you will kill that guard, exactly the same thing that will happen when you counter kill with a snare (or the bow, or a mine). There are ofc a couple of exceptions like the rope dart and fighting with your fists etc.
Fair point, but aside from killing them outright (i.e. pistol, bow) or knocking them down for a finishing attack (i.e. rope dart) I can't really think of any other uses for tools. Arkham had several uses, but many of them were too fantastical to work in Creed, like the freeze-blast, electricity gun, and explosive gel (although they approached this territory with the trip mine). So essentially what you're left with is the Batclaw and Batarang, which were replaced with the rope dart and pistols respectively.


- More enemy variety. This is connected to the previous point. In Arkham there are a more different types of enemies (if you count the different types of equipment the enemies can have). And there is a wider set of strategies you need to employ to deal with them.
Arkham had 5 archetypes that I can remember (giant cartoonish enemies notwithstanding) each with different takedown requirements.

1. Normal henchman (anything goes)
2. Knife guy (dodge)
3. Shield guy (stun + jump attack)
4. Cattle prod guy (vault over and punch from behind)
5. Armored guy (beatdown)

Creed III had essentially the same variety.

1. Infantry (anything goes)
2. Agile (counter kill)
3. Brute (break defense)
4. Officer (kill streak)
5. Jager (disarm)

And it could be argued that Creed forced you to use even more tactics, since in Batman, you could always just do an insta-takedown on anyone once you reached a 5x combo (which was insanely easy to do).


- Some move to reposition yourself relative your opponents while still maintaining the flow would be nice.

I can agree with that. It does get annoying when the guards back off until they're just outside your strike range.


- In Arkham enemies have two basic states, they are either standing and fighting, or lying on the ground waiting to be knocked out. This very simple system creates a lot more variety and strategy than one might first think. For example some moves may knock a lot of people to the ground, while another might take a single opponent out entirely and it's up to the player to choose, another move may be designed to give you time to take out a a grounded thug for good etc. Not so in AC where it's basically just one relevant state. There are no enemies in AC that you have to take out in multiple stages using different techniques.

I think this arises from a fundamental difference in the fighting styles though; in Batman, you're just hitting people with your fists, while in Creed, you're fighting to kill. Arkham enemies could believably stand back up after being punched a few times, but it wouldn't work so well if Connor slashed somebody in the neck with a sword or tomahawk and they got back up. You can still knock enemies to the ground with a Rope Dart, counter grab, or double defense breaks, but the use of deadly weapons in most of the fighting kind of limits the possibilities here. Either they're fighting, or they're dead. They could tweak the fistfighting to accommodate this, but honestly, how much fistfighting do you really do in a Creed game? Not much. Unarmed fighting really isn't a priority.


- More vairety in counters. Arkham has different ways to counter enemies armed with knives, double/tripple counters and shielded enemies. These mechanics creates different rhythms in combat which feels awesome ones you get the hang of it.

Creed has double counters (triple counters would be a bit excessive IMO) and different countering options for different weapons (i.e. roll for heavy weapons, meat shield for guns) but I think again, the problem comes from a difference in realism between Creed and Arkham. There are only so many different types of weapons you could feasibly be attacked with in 18th-century America, and I think they did a pretty good job of bringing variety to the stage while staying true to the time period.

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 10:57 PM
Easily remedied by mapping your quickfire gadgets to the d-pad. You don't really need your main weapons there, since I doubt you need to swap them mid-fight.

Better than nothing, not the same thing though.



Fair point, but aside from killing them outright (i.e. pistol, bow) or knocking them down for a finishing attack (i.e. rope dart) I can't really think of any other uses for tools. Arkham had several uses, but many of them were too fantastical to work in Creed, like the freeze-blast, electricity gun, and explosive gel (although they approached this territory with the trip mine). So essentially what you're left with is the Batclaw and Batarang, which were replaced with the rope dart and pistols respectively..

They have to come up with their own ones ofc. Like the snare could be used to tie a couple of thugs together, or the mine to blow the legs off two guards that are still able to shoot at you, or u could have boolas to trip enemies etc. I'm sure they can figure it out. Ofc they should not try to copy paste the gadgets in Arkham City.



Arkham had 5 archetypes that I can remember (giant cartoonish enemies notwithstanding) each with different takedown requirements.

1. Normal henchman (anything goes)
2. Knife guy (dodge)
3. Shield guy (stun + jump attack)
4. Cattle prod guy (vault over and punch from behind)
5. Armored guy (beatdown)

Creed III had essentially the same variety.

1. Infantry (anything goes)
2. Agile (counter kill)
3. Brute (break defense)
4. Officer (kill streak)
5. Jager (disarm)

And it could be argued that Creed forced you to use even more tactics, since in Batman, you could always just do an insta-takedown on anyone once you reached a 5x combo (which was insanely easy to do)..

There were also guards with guns, guards about to throw stuff, female ninjas. And there were more ways than one to take them on. Also the different ways to take enemies on felt a lot more distinct.

Yes you can do a takedown on all enemies, but the amount of options you have is far greater. In AC you can shoot all enemies if you like.




I think this arises from a fundamental difference in the fighting styles though; in Batman, you're just hitting people with your fists, while in Creed, you're fighting to kill. Arkham enemies could believably stand back up after being punched a few times, but it wouldn't work so well if Connor slashed somebody in the neck with a sword or tomahawk and they got back up. You can still knock enemies to the ground with a Rope Dart, counter grab, or double defense breaks, but the use of deadly weapons in most of the fighting kind of limits the possibilities here. Either they're fighting, or they're dead. They could tweak the fistfighting to accommodate this, but honestly, how much fistfighting do you really do in a Creed game? Not much. Unarmed fighting really isn't a priority.

That is a fair point and it may be difficult. They can't copy Arkham directly ofc. Perhaps enemies could have a wounded state. Perhaps there are some pesky weapons that you can get rid of ones and for all.



Creed has double counters (triple counters would be a bit excessive IMO) and different countering options for different weapons (i.e. roll for heavy weapons, meat shield for guns) but I think again, the problem comes from a difference in realism between Creed and Arkham. There are only so many different types of weapons you could feasibly be attacked with in 18th-century America, and I think they did a pretty good job of bringing variety to the stage while staying true to the time period.

Not talking about different animations, but about different inputs. AC has two (meatshield and press B). Arkham has single, double, tripple, knife dodge, evade.

Sushiglutton
12-12-2012, 11:06 PM
I agree with your general point that more realism constraints make the combat design harder. I still feel that they have a lot of potential to improve. Ok I HAVE to go to bed now lol

SkiesSeven
12-12-2012, 11:21 PM
Dark Souls is one the devs can learn from. It's combat, coupled with the A.I. was entirely convincing.

JCearlyyears
12-13-2012, 01:58 AM
I thought AC1 combat was the best. Flow in a fight with blades is not going to happen. If you have ever been attacked by a knife, and they are trying to kill you, you'd it is not a fight. It is them and a knife, and being an assassin, you are skilled enough to turn what is usually surely injury at least into a fighting chance. Seriously, the way so many people are fighting against you in the game, it is ridiculous. They could gang up on you and with no training at all would have strength in numbers and would gut you fast. As a skilled fighter, the assassin could turn it into combat, which is where the combat comes in. Blades are dangerous. The are designed to cut things and they tend to be very good at it. This being known, you should not be able to take so many hits. I want to feel vulnerable in the game, I want to fight for my life, I want large combat encounters to be discouraged. You are either fearless or stupid if you would try to fight as many people at once as can be done in AC. I had a glitch in AC3 and the Jagers wouldn't wait to attack. They were trying to kill me, and it would have worked. I was using cheats, but they were unrelenting and would not wait, they struck to kill. It looked a bit funny because the combat isn't designed to work like that but the point is that for the first time since AC1 I felt threatened, even with the cheat. AC1 was pretty good. It wasn't perfect and could use development, but I think that AC2 broke it, ACB changed it entirely and Revelations didn't do much, and as Connor I'm still invincible. I can take a firing line easy and kill several people in a few seconds. I don't just feel ridiculously powerful in the game, it's like them fighting a god of war. It's just brutal because they have ZERO chance at killing me. I can kill with one hand on the controller, I can leave the room and get a drink while they poke at me with bayonets and then come back and kick all their asses. It's sad. AC1 needed improvement, not the trash bin. If they made the game realistic and hard, with smart AI tactics, and excessive brutality against the player, I think that it would be miles better. That's just my opinion. I like a hard game.

DavisP92
12-13-2012, 03:11 AM
Creed has double counters (triple counters would be a bit excessive IMO) and different countering options for different weapons (i.e. roll for heavy weapons, meat shield for guns) but I think again, the problem comes from a difference in realism between Creed and Arkham. There are only so many different types of weapons you could feasibly be attacked with in 18th-century America, and I think they did a pretty good job of bringing variety to the stage while staying true to the time period.

Idk, if it would really be excessive until i see it. Honestly, looking back at my playthrough of AC3 I didn't really like the combat animations. I would prefer to play as a smooth/quick/deadly assassin rather than a brutish assassin. Which is why i really am interested in AC4 create and customize your assassin concept. If I can make an assassin with no armor that is more focused on parkour/free-running, bows, and hand to hand combat. Then he will flip over enemies, redirect attacks (like the ACR CGI trailer) and do free-running attacks (dash vault), rather than a heavily armored assassin that may just smash into people (like Connor did) and animations where they counter attacks with their armor

Gi1t
12-13-2012, 06:10 AM
I thought AC1 combat was the best. Flow in a fight with blades is not going to happen. If you have ever been attacked by a knife, and they are trying to kill you, you'd it is not a fight. It is them and a knife, and being an assassin, you are skilled enough to turn what is usually surely injury at least into a fighting chance. Seriously, the way so many people are fighting against you in the game, it is ridiculous. They could gang up on you and with no training at all would have strength in numbers and would gut you fast. As a skilled fighter, the assassin could turn it into combat, which is where the combat comes in. Blades are dangerous. The are designed to cut things and they tend to be very good at it. This being known, you should not be able to take so many hits. I want to feel vulnerable in the game, I want to fight for my life, I want large combat encounters to be discouraged. You are either fearless or stupid if you would try to fight as many people at once as can be done in AC. I had a glitch in AC3 and the Jagers wouldn't wait to attack. They were trying to kill me, and it would have worked. I was using cheats, but they were unrelenting and would not wait, they struck to kill. It looked a bit funny because the combat isn't designed to work like that but the point is that for the first time since AC1 I felt threatened, even with the cheat. AC1 was pretty good. It wasn't perfect and could use development, but I think that AC2 broke it, ACB changed it entirely and Revelations didn't do much, and as Connor I'm still invincible. I can take a firing line easy and kill several people in a few seconds. I don't just feel ridiculously powerful in the game, it's like them fighting a god of war. It's just brutal because they have ZERO chance at killing me. I can kill with one hand on the controller, I can leave the room and get a drink while they poke at me with bayonets and then come back and kick all their asses. It's sad. AC1 needed improvement, not the trash bin. If they made the game realistic and hard, with smart AI tactics, and excessive brutality against the player, I think that it would be miles better. That's just my opinion. I like a hard game.

Very good points too.

I actually remember when they first announced AC1 was going to be on 360 and Jade Raymond was narrating the first 360 demo, still a ways before the release. Originally, in AC you couldn't take a lot of hits at all. In fact, they died during the demo while trying to escape. I specifically remember her saying when they enetered combat "...you can't take 100 sword blows to the head, in fact you can't even take one" and then when they died onscreeen, "well, unfortunately we're dead...". :) Whatever changed must have happened during that period between the first Xbox demo and the game's release. No idea what it was or if the public death during the demo had anything to do with it. (I actually liked it. The fact that they got killed during the demo made the game look more interesting to me. It was certianly no GIANT ENEMY CRAB! moment. XD ) I definitely wished that in AC1 I could have kept my four bar health meter that I started out with. My favorite fights were with Templars very early in the game. They put up a pretty decent fight even with a relatively simple moveset. I liked that in AC2 I got to choose whether or not to upgrade my health, which I never did.

On that note, I think AC2, despite being a little too easy like you said, did offer up a good method of reconciling the desire for a challenging stealth-heavy experience with players who like having the option to be more of a fighter. With the equipment, you could arm yourself well enough to survive a few hits if that's what you wanted to do, but if you didn't want that, you could pocket the money and use it for someting more to your taste. I there just needs to be a greater need for it, such that you need to mostly avoid open combat if you're not using armor, but you'd be more agile and could blend in easier without it. When you look at it that way, it turns into a whole new dimension of gameplay. ;)

OmegaRomik
12-13-2012, 07:14 AM
I dont think it needs to copy Arkham games but it does need to be smoother thats for sure. I know i press the circle button WHY DOESNT HE COUNTER!? lol

OmegaRomik
12-13-2012, 07:16 AM
I dont think it needs to copy Arkham games but it does need to be smoother thats for sure. I know i press the circle button WHY DOESNT HE COUNTER!? lol

also i think everything needs to be smoother to the action to the stealth gameplay, on single player tho not multiplayer.

kuled2012
12-13-2012, 09:17 AM
I just bought the Arkham games last week coincidentally and I wholeheartedly agree with the OP, the fact that I died numerous times against chumps was great... Because of AC3 I had this 'no problem' mentality when i took on the guards on but here I had to focus, I think Asylum was more challenging than City but I still think both are better than AC3, I'm not saying Connor should turn to Batman where he can do ridiculous moves you only see in comic books and superhero movies, but I do think it can learn from it. Batman doesn't have a 'lock on' during combat, I think that makes a big difference, When they attack you twice, even thrice at times you don't just have to press the O/B button and watch an animation of Connor killing them (which was a kick *** animation tbf) and you have to take them out whilst they're down..I don't think AC can do that since you're fighting with swords and tomahawks but maybe something similar can be made up.
I think AC3's combat was good compared to AC2-ACR but I do think it can improve :)

ProdiGurl
12-13-2012, 10:44 AM
.... Arkam city combat is even easier than AC3... it only gets challenging when you literally have 30+ people attacking you....

whats crazy is, that people hails Arkams combat as one of the best fighting mechaincs of gaming in this era... while AC3 combat is hated on because it's "to easy"... double standard.

must be because he's batman i guess
I must be weird becuz I'm a little bored of the Batman combat altogether. Just give me a gun already. lol What I never get tired of is swinging and gliding around a kool looking City .

One thing I have a problem with is that my weapon wheel resets itself - I chose the iron dagger, but when a fight starts, I'm back on fists ? So I constantly have to pull up my wheel to make sure the weapons are what I chose. It's as if fists are set to 'default' if you don't use your original selection quick enough. ?

>> I actually remember when they first announced AC1 was going to be on 360 and Jade Raymond was narrating the first 360 demo, still a ways before the release. Originally, in AC you couldn't take a lot of hits at all. In fact, they died during the demo while trying to escape. I specifically remember her saying when they enetered combat "...you can't take 100 sword blows to the head, in fact you can't even take one" and then when they died onscreeen, "well, unfortunately we're dead...". <<

I read some gamer's angry reviews . . they didn't have magic healing potions in AC3 & were upset about it.
You won't please everyone either way Devs go on making it easier or harder to die.

MasterAssasin84
12-13-2012, 11:00 AM
I love AC3 Combat system ! and I certainly would not want ubi to take inspiration of Arkham City !!!

ProdiGurl
12-13-2012, 11:09 AM
Idk, if it would really be excessive until i see it. Honestly, looking back at my playthrough of AC3 I didn't really like the combat animations. I would prefer to play as a smooth/quick/deadly assassin rather than a brutish assassin. Which is why i really am interested in AC4 create and customize your assassin concept. If I can make an assassin with no armor that is more focused on parkour/free-running, bows, and hand to hand combat. Then he will flip over enemies, redirect attacks (like the ACR CGI trailer) and do free-running attacks (dash vault), rather than a heavily armored assassin that may just smash into people (like Connor did) and animations where they counter attacks with their armor

Each Assassin has a background - in Connor's case as an American Indian and I would *expect* brutish. I don't think Ubi has to stick to any one type of combat style with every single assassin as if it's the AC mold. And imo, the ACIII combat animations are the best yet.

montagemik
12-13-2012, 11:26 AM
Assassin's Arkham ??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sorry but if Connor was a Master of multiple gadgets he alone & invented & perfected & ALSO had Mastery of several different hand to hand Martial Arts disciplines .............. THEN SURE !! - Go ahead and make this the Bat Assassin game that some may like .

But connor knows a little fistfighting & wrestling = Nothing more .......No judo , No jitsu , No anything that sophisticated - Connors fast with a Tomahawk & a knife , That's it.

What we have here is a fan's desire to have a combat technique from one of his favourite games Placed into another of his favourite games - No regard for How or why these two different combat systems are the way they are .
Yes AC is a little easy combat wise - But so is Arkham depending how you use the combat system .

Sorry but he's Connor the native american Assassin - Not 'The Dark Knight of Boston City' .

Like others said early AC 1 was more difficult - Then they added FLOW mechanics to combat , which made combat smoother BUT EASIER .(better is a matter of opinion )

dxsxhxcx
12-13-2012, 11:39 AM
Each Assassin has a background - in Connor's case as an American Indian and I would *expect* brutish. I don't think Ubi has to stick to any one type of combat style with every single assassin as if it's the AC mold. And imo, the ACIII combat animations are the best yet.

the only thing I missed was the "kill cams", now it seems they're tied to when you counter attacks coming from multiple (2) enemies (and since we are talking about Assassin's Creed, unfortunately this doesn't happen as often as it should), I think there's other way to trigger them (maybe if you have the perfect alignment with 2 enemies to trigger an specific animation but I'm not sure), I prefer the old way when they happened at random times (and quite often) and also when we're fighting against single enemies.

one thing I just realized now that I finished the game twice and I'm just picking fights with the guards is that we can use snares/bombs/rope dart to kill our enemies too, thanks Ubisoft for the lack of tutorials, my playthroughs would've been a lot more enjoyable if you were kind enough to tell us this kind of thing instead of left us in the dark (not even a mention that we can use the tool button to trigger other animations in the options we can choose while we are in slow motion).

the OP is right when he/she says that AC has a lot more to learn from the Batman's games, try block a few attacks without killing your targets and you'll see that the enemies still take a lot of time to finally attack you again, at least on Batman AA/AC you should always pay attention to other enemies since they're constantly attacking you.

kuled2012
12-13-2012, 12:45 PM
I must be weird becuz I'm a little bored of the Batman combat altogether. Just give me a gun already

Batman doesn't kill people :)

DavisP92
12-13-2012, 01:24 PM
Each Assassin has a background - in Connor's case as an American Indian and I would *expect* brutish. I don't think Ubi has to stick to any one type of combat style with every single assassin as if it's the AC mold. And imo, the ACIII combat animations are the best yet.

Animations were great, for everything. It's just not my preferred combat style. I'll give Ubisoft this, they are good at making characters feel different. Ezio was more of a fancy fighter, doing flips and stuff. Connor was a brute that plowed through enemies, and Altair... Idk what style he has :P

NEURON BOMB
12-13-2012, 01:41 PM
I love the fighting in AC3 but it will never be as good as Arkham City,Rocksteady started something that can never be made better you can't fix perfection,But Ubisoft you can try but like Sushiglutton said don't try and copy it,I think your fighting system is unique and just build on it,It is definitely one of my favourite fighting systems I think everything comes together nicely and I personally don't have a problem with opening the weapons wheel to change weapons plus that is why the D-Pad is there I am able to continue a combat streak just by allocating the sword the left D button and the Tomahawk to the right.If done right it looks super cool.

shobhit7777777
12-13-2012, 01:46 PM
I doubt Batman's combat system would fit with AC's.

While I largely agree with the OP on several points like adding depth to the existing system..the core principle behind Batman's combat is Rythm...where-as in AC it is Timing. Batman focuses on rythmic combat and bouncing from one hit to another maintaining your drum beat without interruption...yes timing is important but not as important as getting into a flow.

AC on the other hand is more about placement, timing and target selection.

Besides given that Batman is realish and AC is realistic...they can't nail the flow and dynamism of Arkham's combat without really breaking immersion. It makes sense to see Batman flip around and power punch a thug into a coma half way across the room...not so much in AC.

ProdiGurl
12-13-2012, 01:47 PM
Batman doesn't kill people :)

Ya that's a whole other problem. How about I use my gun just to shoot them in the kneecaps - otherwise, I knock them out for a little while & they just come back again later.
:confused: I dunno, I enjoyed Ark. Asylum much more than City.

kuled2012
12-13-2012, 01:53 PM
Ya that's a whole other problem. How about I use my gun just to shoot them in the kneecaps - otherwise, I knock them out for a little while & they just come back again later.
:confused: I dunno, I enjoyed Ark. Asylum much more than City.
Well the game would be much easier and less fun with guns, AC picked a good period for guns since reloading was a B***h, they would ruin the series >.>

ProdiGurl
12-13-2012, 01:58 PM
Well the game would be much easier and less fun with guns, AC picked a good period for guns since reloading was a B***h, they would ruin the series >.>

lol that's for sure. But the pain in the butt gun reloading worked in our favor too, they had to reload which saved us from having to continually grab for meatshields.
& ya I totally get why guns aren't in Batman's tool belt but sometimes I did wish I had one handy.

dxsxhxcx
12-13-2012, 02:00 PM
I doubt Batman's combat system would fit with AC's.While I largely agree with the OP on several points like adding depth to the existing system..the core principle behind Batman's combat is Rythm...where-as in AC it is Timing. Batman focuses on rythmic combat and bouncing from one hit to another maintaining your drum beat without interruption...yes timing is important but not as important as getting into a flow. AC on the other hand is more about placement, timing and target selection. Besides given that Batman is realish and AC is realistic...they can't nail the flow and dynamism of Arkham's combat without really breaking immersion. It makes sense to see Batman flip around and power punch a thug into a coma half way across the room...not so much in AC.one thing that I believe that could help with the fluidity of combat in AC3 (I'm not saying this should be implemented in AC3, i'm just using its combat system as an example) is when we are fighting those archetypes that are able to block certain attacks instead of the only result of that be they hitting us, another window of time (but much SMALLER than the first) should be opened where we'll be able to choose the right option to hit (not necessarily killing) our target

SorryImSoAce
12-13-2012, 02:45 PM
The combat in this game is so much better than Arkam City, Sleeping Dogs or any other similair style game for that matter.

Sushiglutton
12-13-2012, 06:28 PM
Assassin's Arkham ??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sorry but if Connor was a Master of multiple gadgets he alone & invented & perfected & ALSO had Mastery of several different hand to hand Martial Arts disciplines .............. THEN SURE !! - Go ahead and make this the Bat Assassin game that some may like .

But connor knows a little fistfighting & wrestling = Nothing more .......No judo , No jitsu , No anything that sophisticated - Connors fast with a Tomahawk & a knife , That's it.

What we have here is a fan's desire to have a combat technique from one of his favourite games Placed into another of his favourite games - No regard for How or why these two different combat systems are the way they are .
Yes AC is a little easy combat wise - But so is Arkham depending how you use the combat system .

Sorry but he's Connor the native american Assassin - Not 'The Dark Knight of Boston City' .

Like others said early AC 1 was more difficult - Then they added FLOW mechanics to combat , which made combat smoother BUT EASIER .(better is a matter of opinion )


You are confusing visual presentation with the combat system. Doesn't matter if the protagonist kills enemies with a knife, his fists or a baguette. That part is all about animations and coreography. The combat system has to do with general things like controls, different states your enemies can have in an abstarct sense, how your different attacks will change that state etc.

shobhit7777777
12-13-2012, 06:55 PM
Ya that's a whole other problem. How about I use my gun just to shoot them in the kneecaps - otherwise, I knock them out for a little while & they just come back again later.
:confused: I dunno, I enjoyed Ark. Asylum much more than City.

I don't use Guns. ;)

A gun killed his parents. A gun fuels crime in Gotham as it provides the ultimate leverage. A gun imbibes overconfidence in a tool rather than confidence in the body. Batman can outshoot SEAL sniper but he'll never use it to fight crime. Its like a principle of his..his one rule..he can't become what he fights. Besides there is tonnes of cool **** that he already as which is way more fun than say..shooting someone.



one thing that I believe that could help with the fluidity of combat in AC3 (I'm not saying this should be implemented in AC3, i'm just using its combat system as an example) is when we are fighting those archetypes that are able to block certain attacks instead of the only result of that be they hitting us, another window of time (but much SMALLER than the first) should be opened where we'll be able to choose the right option to hit (not necessarily killing) our target

You want fluidity?

Ask for a combat roll or dodge option that lets you roll around while still remaining in combat. This would markedly increase the pace. Single out unaware enemies on the outer edge of the circle..roll-dodge there attack and continue with kill streaks. The simple act of such a movement really adds to the speed and dynamism of the combat.

The Witcher 2 is a fantastic example.

Dan Pen 97
12-13-2012, 06:59 PM
I like the combat as it is and so do other people.