Arkham Origins- combat system

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I started playing Arkham Origins yesterday to see if the criticisms levelled against it are justified. I haven't got far enough in yet to make an overall judgement but I have noticed (or possibly imagined) a few minor changes to the general combat system which have been frustrating me hugely. I looked it up and found this post on the Warner Bros. Games forum by 'EarthOne' which summarises the issue excellently:

Initially I thought maybe I had just gotten worse at the game, having not played in a while, and assumed I was falsely blaming the game however having found a few other people who've found the same issues I'm now curious: Has anyone else noticed these changes and if so have they been as irritating for you as they have for me?

I've read (on this forum) about some people complaining about the slight tweaks to the combat system basically ruining the game. I was kinda worried about the game as it wasn't Rocksteady and it was a prequel. And from Jim Sterling's review to user opinions, I've basically lost all interest in playing it to be honest. It usually is those little tweaks that end up ruining something that was so great (as everything being in proper alignment is what made the thing great to begin with); it's similar to balancing an online shooter, you make the wrong minor buffs and nerfs and it ruins the game.

Only during the fights with Bane did I notice this. Which was minor. It's still the best Arkham game storywise though, so it should definitely be played by fans.

I didn't have a single problem on the PC version. Maybe it's a console thing. And since it's running at 30fps on a console, things can seem a bit sluggish. But for me Arkham Origins runs so much better than both AA and AC. An the combat, while tougher because enemies don't just wait for their turn to attack, isn't in any way ruining my fun. In fact, I quite enjoy the challenge.

Adam Jensen:
But for me Arkham Origins runs so much better than both AA and AC.

Well except the game keeps freezing on me. I just god poised by that one chick and now my game won't load.

Yeah, i noticed it, pretty much all i do is counter, try something else and get smacked. Maybe i'm just tired of the same combat after 3 games, but it simply isn't fun for me anymore, just repetitive as hell.

Phoenixmgs:
And from Jim Sterling's review...

Jim's review is a worthless piece of shit if you ask me. He wasn't reviewing the game. He was reviewing the developer, the publisher and the state of the gaming industry. Arkham Origins is a fine game. Once the bugs are fixed it will be an excellent game.

TBH, I've finished AO and while it's a decent game, I feel it's the weakest of the 3 game Arkham games.

It feels more like a really big DLC for Arkham City, rather than a game in it's own right. I know there was a new development team and they clearly didn't want to tamper too much with the formula that made the first 2 games a success. But that being said, they've played it TOO safe and rather than expand on what's gone before they've just added to what's already been done.

kasperbbs:
Yeah, i noticed it, pretty much all i do is counter, try something else and get smacked. Maybe i'm just tired of the same combat after 3 games, but it simply isn't fun for me anymore, just repetitive as hell.

Agreed.

I start my fight like this.

counter
hit
counter
counter
counter
counter
evade
hit
counter
B/Y (or circle/triangle)
counter
counter
....

Basically almost the entire fight is countering... and more often than not some autolock shit causes me to hit nothing.
I wasn't the greatest at the previous 2 games but at least I could do 60 to 70 hits fairly regularly. Now I can't even go a whole fight against 3 people without getting hit. Five hours in and my max combo is 33. What the hell is going on?

There are a couple of good things about it though. The double and triple counters are nice.

while I love the game (it has the best story of the lot for me) the combat does get on my nerves. I find myself conwtantly countering in most battles, but that doesn't work in battles with shield guys so I lose out of the combo alot because I don't have time to tackle them between the counters.

Adam Jensen:

Phoenixmgs:
And from Jim Sterling's review...

Jim's review is a worthless piece of shit if you ask me. He wasn't reviewing the game. He was reviewing the developer, the publisher and the state of the gaming industry. Arkham Origins is a fine game. Once the bugs are fixed it will be an excellent game.

I read the review and only the very last bit of Jim's review was complaining about gaming industry. He cited the story wasn't good, the villains weren't good (and the boss battles), the combat just wasn't right (like several forum users here have said), the online sucked, and the glitches. He gave a pretty long list of actual things he didn't like about the game. The flaws don't always have to be major for it to greatly impact a game. Slight tweaks can basically break Batman's combat system (along with mechanics of other games as well), some users have said that (like the post right above this one). I didn't like that they made it so you really couldn't choose what you upgraded or got when you leveled (which was something awesome about the previous games). I don't know if I will have the same opinion after playing it but I wasn't really excited about this game anyways (I want a sequel, not a prequel) and I wasn't going to buy it unless both critics and players just loved the shit out of it citing it's much better than City. I was and probably still will give it a play after the price goes down.

Battenberg:
So I started playing Arkham Origins yesterday to see if the criticisms levelled against it are justified. I haven't got far enough in yet to make an overall judgement but I have noticed (or possibly imagined) a few minor changes to the general combat system which have been frustrating me hugely. I looked it up and found this post on the Warner Bros. Games forum by 'EarthOne' which summarises the issue excellently:

Initially I thought maybe I had just gotten worse at the game, having not played in a while, and assumed I was falsely blaming the game however having found a few other people who've found the same issues I'm now curious: Has anyone else noticed these changes and if so have they been as irritating for you as they have for me?

To be fair, the "freeflow" enemies that the guy mentions (enemies just sliding across the ground even though they started their attack 10 feet away from where you're currently standing) actually WERE in Arkham City. However, I made a topic last week called "Arkham Origins Final Impression" or something in which I brought up pretty much everything that guy brings up as well. Suffice to say: the combat is certainly broken.

Oh, and lets not forget the bits that the person in your spoiler box DIDN'T mention. Like how the game has a fetish for forcing you to fight 20 guys in enclosed spaces that would be like trying to fight a gang riot in the confines of a prison cell. Seriously, there's one instance after you solve a crimescene where you have to fight two normal thugs, a martial artist, and an armored enforcer on a rooftop that could be no bigger than 5 feet by 10 feet.

And lets talk about the aiming, shall we? I believe "spoiler guy" (as I'm going to call him) at least touched on this with the whole "sometimes Batman just attacks air", but it goes beyond that. Used to be that Batman could, for instance, quick-fire the Batclaw over his shoulder by doing a half-spin to grab someone that was a distance behind him. This was handy because at the right times it could be used to pull yourself out of a group when you do the follow up clothes-line attack on the guy you Batclawed. Well now Batman can apparently only shoot the damn thing in the direction he's facing.

Sticking with the Batclaw, there's also the fact that it used to be it'd go after the nearest person in the direction you were pointing (or maybe the other games were just more accurate at who you'd be pointing at). Now it seems to ALWAYS go for the furthest person in the direction you're pointing...meaning that you'll shoot it right past the guy who's running up to punch you in the face and grab the guy who's dancing around 10 feet behind him...meaning that the first guy is most certainly going to punch you in the face when you pull on the guy you actually clawed.

This leads into the concept of prioritizing targets. Now one of my biggest complaints about this game was that you don't get the Disarm-Destroy move until damn near the very end of the game...in fact it might be the very last thing you unlock (excluding potention bat-challenge unlocks). But when you finally do get it, good luck using it to it's full advantage. You see Batman seems to have a preference for just grabbing the nearest weapon in sight. In Arkham city, lets say you've got four guys to the right of you. On guy's unarmed, two have bats, and one has a gun. When you used Disarm-Destroy while aiming to the right, Batman would prioritize "Alright, there's a dude with a gun, take that out first" and would properly dive between the guys with bats to grab the guy with the gun and destroy the gun. Not in Origins. In Origins, like I said, it's whatever the closest weapon is in the direction your pointing...and sometimes it doesn't even matter what direction you're pointing. Perfect example: I'm in a fight and there's a guy with a gun standing next to a guy holding a fire extinguisher over his head. Fire Extinguisher Man is slightly in front of Gun Man. I initiate Disarm Destroy, pointing at the guy with the gun. Batman instead headbutts the guy with the fire extinguisher, catches the extinguisher as the guy drops it, and throws it across the room....and proceeds to get pumped full of lead by the guy with the gun.

Sometimes Batman just refuses to initiate a beatdown after he cape-stuns someone. He'll just do a regular hit and the guy falls down...but you're expecting to have started a beatdown so you keep hitting the hit button only to start punching the air. Welp, there goes THAT combo...

In generally the game seems designed to prevent you from getting high combos...like...in every way that it possibly can. Like I don't know who's idea it was to make it so that you actually have to beat the crap out of interrogation targets as though they were normal guys, then finish the fight, then walk over and interrogate them, but it was a fucking shitty idea. I like that the interrogations are more than just "Tell me what I wanna know!" "Ok! Ok!", but seriously, any fight that requires you to interrogate someone is pretty much impossible to finish with a perfect, unbroken combo. When you punch the target for the last time, Batman doesn't follow through with the hit and basically just comes to a dead stop...most likely to get punched in the back of the head by the person who's been chasing him around for 4 moves.

Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that the evasive flip-jump usually resets the "agro" for most of the thugs around you...doesn't seem to be the case here. If a guy's coming to attack you and you flip over another guy...that first guy is just going to keep running after you until he gets his chance to actually attack. Then there's the fact that, going back to the whole aiming-thing, Batman will sometimes not bother flipping over anyone and will instead just dive-roll right into the middle of a group of thugs.

Also, the FreeFlow Focus is absolutely pointless. I mean, in Arkham City, you could definitely tell it was having a good effect by slowing everyone else down. Not in this game, all it does is make things even harder because now the edges of the screen are all blurry...if there's any speed reducing taking place for the thugs, it's barely noticeable.

Oh, and this doesn't really have anything to do with the combat, but FUCK the asshole who thought it'd be a good idea to put fucking snipers on every fucking rooftop once you're about 2/3rds of the way through the fucking game.

The only real issue I encountered is that thing where you try to attack someone behind you and he just punches the air.

Other than that I didn't really see any issues with the combat. There was a tendency to throw a bit too much at the player sometimes (10 regular guys with stuff to throw, two knife guys, two guys with guns, a shield user, a guy with a stun baton, 2 martial artists and a guy with armour in one fight felt like a bit much.) but that's more to do with my lack of skill than bad game design.

And that thing about countering a martial artist and it not working, I think it might be because martial artists sometimes do this 'double attack' which you have to counter twice. They get two counter indicators over their heads, but they're quite close together so it can just look like one.

Yeah, the combat's been like that since Asylum, honestly. Counter the fuck outta everyone or risk getting your ass kicked. What always annoyed me, was Batman's slow ass whenever knocking out stunned enemies. It's not easy to do that mid-fight.

Sounds worrying to me, I played ACs combat maps over and over constantly, its my favourite aspect of the games.

Phoenixmgs:

Adam Jensen:

Phoenixmgs:
And from Jim Sterling's review...

Jim's review is a worthless piece of shit if you ask me. He wasn't reviewing the game. He was reviewing the developer, the publisher and the state of the gaming industry. Arkham Origins is a fine game. Once the bugs are fixed it will be an excellent game.

I read the review and only the very last bit of Jim's review was complaining about gaming industry. He cited the story wasn't good, the villains weren't good (and the boss battles), the combat just wasn't right (like several forum users here have said), the online sucked, and the glitches. He gave a pretty long list of actual things he didn't like about the game.

He didn't do the game any justice. He didn't review it objectively at all. The last bit may be directly about the gaming industry, but the entire review is actually about that. He used Arkham Origins as a scape goat to rage about other issues. a 3.5/10? That's completely unprofessional. The story is good, the boss battles are actually better than most boss battles in most video games. Definitely better that all of the boss battles from previous Arkham games.

Phoenixmgs:

Adam Jensen:

Phoenixmgs:
And from Jim Sterling's review...

Jim's review is a worthless piece of shit if you ask me. He wasn't reviewing the game. He was reviewing the developer, the publisher and the state of the gaming industry. Arkham Origins is a fine game. Once the bugs are fixed it will be an excellent game.

I read the review and only the very last bit of Jim's review was complaining about gaming industry. He cited the story wasn't good, the villains weren't good (and the boss battles), the combat just wasn't right (like several forum users here have said), the online sucked, and the glitches.

Except the villains were brilliant. I was kind of skeptical because Mark Hamill wasn't voicing the Joker, but the guy that did him did an excellent job and the relationship between The Joker and Batman in this game was great. The boss battles are one of the stronger points in the game, and were the best probably the best in the series, especially the Deathstroke fight. The combat isn't bad per se, it's just tighter and a bit more challenging, which isn't a bad thing. And as for the glitches, annoying as they may be, they can be fixed. And the only glitch I had was the vent in the tower so I can't really complain about glitches. As for online, I haven't tried it and I'm not going to.

What did Jim give it anyway? I haven't seen his review.

OT: Didn't have any problems with combat on PC, it was a bit more challenging and felt a bit tighter. That's it.

Adam Jensen:
He didn't do the game any justice. He didn't review it objectively at all. The last bit may be directly about the gaming industry, but the entire review is actually about that. He used Arkham Origins as a scape goat to rage about other issues. a 3.5/10? That's completely unprofessional. The story is good, the boss battles are actually better than most boss battles in most video games. Definitely better that all of the boss battles from previous Arkham games.

Reviews are subjective so how are you supposed to review a game objectively? To some people, the change in combat breaks it (like several people have said in this very thread). To others, the change makes it more challenging. The combat in Batman was never about the challenge in taking out all the enemies but the challenge was performing those long ass combos that made you feel like the badass that Batman is. Many have complained that the fights have turned into just mashing counter pretty much the whole time, it's more challenging but much less fun. Several posters here have sighted that Batman prioritizes the wrong enemies just like Jim said in his review as well. The story and boss battles being better are your opinions, not an objective facts. From Jim's review, even without the last couple paragraphs, I knew that the game wasn't going to get over a 5/10, maybe a 3.5 is a bit harsh but Jim does use the whole scale where 5 is average (not 7) unlike the IGNs and Gamespots of the world. Jim felt the game was a below average experience and rated it as such.

Kungfu_Teddybear:
Except the villains were brilliant. I was kind of skeptical because Mark Hamill wasn't voicing the Joker, but the guy that did him did an excellent job and the relationship between The Joker and Batman in this game was great. The boss battles are one of the stronger points in the game, and were the best probably the best in the series, especially the Deathstroke fight. The combat isn't bad per se, it's just tighter and a bit more challenging, which isn't a bad thing. And as for the glitches, annoying as they may be, they can be fixed. And the only glitch I had was the vent in the tower so I can't really complain about glitches. As for online, I haven't tried it and I'm not going to.

What did Jim give it anyway? I haven't seen his review.

Jim gave the game a 3.5. He actually mentioned that Troy Baker as the Joker was great.

To me, the combat in the Batman games isn't about the challenge of actually winning the fight but trying to pull off long and awesome freeflow combos, that's what makes it fun and challenging for me. It seems from other posters that its much too hard to keep lengthy combos going, which is very disappointing. Regardless if you even wanna try online, it's part of the game and if the online sucks, I'd say you have to at least take a full point off. Yeah, I realize Batman is about the single player so that's why I'd only take a point off. Now if COD's or BF's online sucked, I'd take at least 5 points off because those games are dependent on good online. If you include online in any game, it's part of the game and factors into the final score. Glitches CAN be fixed, but also may not be fixed. I don't have a problem with a review marking down points for current glitches, then adding a point back on if they then do indeed get fixed.

Adam Jensen:
Once the bugs are fixed it will be an excellent game.

That's the old question, though.
Should the reviewer ignore the bugs and trust 'it will eventually work'?

From what I've read some people played a game that was almost unplayable because of glitches.
I'll personally play this game eventually, but not for a while until I hear the bugs are fixed. (And the prize drops)

Phoenixmgs:

To me, the combat in the Batman games isn't about the challenge of actually winning the fight but trying to pull off long and awesome freeflow combos, that's what makes it fun and challenging for me. It seems from other posters that its much too hard to keep lengthy combos going, which is very disappointing.

Well, I have the achievement for getting a x50 freeflow combo, so I'd say to people struggling to keep a combo going that it's a problem with them and not the game.

Also, a 3.5 out of 10 is a seriously unfair score.

I don't see the problem, I never encountered any bugs in my playthrough. When I got hit by an enemy during a combo, it wasn't because the game was buggy, it's because I'm crap at it.

Lieju:

Adam Jensen:
Once the bugs are fixed it will be an excellent game.

That's the old question, though.
Should the reviewer ignore the bugs and trust 'it will eventually work'?

From what I've read some people played a game that was almost unplayable because of glitches.
I'll personally play this game eventually, but not for a while until I hear the bugs are fixed. (And the prize drops)

No, a review should include any bad bugs that the reviewer encountered, and if the game gets a patch then the reviewer should update their review of the game to say that the bug they experienced got patched. Anything other than that would be unprofessional, because if you just ignore the bugs then you're giving consumers unfair expectations, especially if the developers end up ignoring the bugs and never fixing them, which does tend to happen at times. Reporting on the bugs and drawing attention to them gives the developers more incentive to fix their shit.

Eddie the head:

Adam Jensen:
But for me Arkham Origins runs so much better than both AA and AC.

Well except the game keeps freezing on me. I just god poised by that one chick and now my game won't load.

yeah this is my only beef with the game. I think the combat is great personally

Dirty Hipsters:
*snip*

Like with Obsidian games.

But the problem is, no one ever seems to follow through on the second part, the 'going back and updating their review once the bugs are fixed' part. Especially if they gave it a horrible review based on bugs alone. Not saying they should ignore the bugs; but they do seem to ignore the fixing of the bugs.

I feel the same way. I was really good at the combat in arkham city. Like really good, I have a high score of over four million points in the jokers funhouse map with batman. For some reason in arkham orgins I have difficulty getting a combo over twelve without the spider-sense counter icons. It is really pissing me off.

Adam Jensen:

He didn't do the game any justice. He didn't review it objectively at all. The last bit may be directly about the gaming industry, but the entire review is actually about that. He used Arkham Origins as a scape goat to rage about other issues. a 3.5/10? That's completely unprofessional. The story is good, the boss battles are actually better than most boss battles in most video games. Definitely better that all of the boss battles from previous Arkham games.

Dude, you can't argue someone's not objective while claiming your personal experience makes up for everyone else having a worse one. Jim's review is worth substantial more to me than yours as it stands. And while I did actually like the game, the story to me was somewhat infuriating (Shiva and Deadshot are both side missions? Seriously? Because we needed more Penguin) and the boss battles aren't all amazing (like Bane's, which was regular ass enemy who occasionally goes invincible unless you superstun like, arrrrggggh, thats already not as cool as Ra's Al Ghul's fight).

Battenberg:
So I started playing Arkham Origins yesterday to see if the criticisms levelled against it are justified. I haven't got far enough in yet to make an overall judgement but I have noticed (or possibly imagined) a few minor changes to the general combat system which have been frustrating me hugely. I looked it up and found this post on the Warner Bros. Games forum by 'EarthOne' which summarises the issue excellently:

Initially I thought maybe I had just gotten worse at the game, having not played in a while, and assumed I was falsely blaming the game however having found a few other people who've found the same issues I'm now curious: Has anyone else noticed these changes and if so have they been as irritating for you as they have for me?

Dunno, finished the main story today, combat seemed fine to me. I don't mind that I have to block more, though that said, I don't have to "constantly hover my finger over the triangle button", my right mouse button always has a finger over it ^_^

Seriously though, it's only natural that enemies try to hit you and not just queue up like idiots (there's an old saying that goes "Not even Hercules against two"). The combat still flows beautifully, you just have more of your hits being counters, but that if anything, adds to the flow, assuming you know what you're doing. There's also something to the tactics of prioritising your opponents (for me it's the shield fuckers first as I can't counter them, then the knife guys cause I suck at countering them :P ) and dividing them up a bit.

The person who wrote that post mentioned losing his combo due to a martial artist guy 'interrupting' it. He's actually doing it wrong, the martial artist does have some room between his strikes, but rather than waiting for him to strike again, you can go ahead and punch someone else once before countering his attack again. As for the counters not registering, really, the only time the counter "wouldn't register" for me was if I was JUST starting to punch someone when I really should've reacted to an attacking thug. If you press the counter button during your punch animation (rather than right after it), you're doing it wrong.

So no, have to disagree, the combat still works just fine. I'm far more bothered about the whole "Fast Travel takes 10 minutes to load" thing... was sitting here with my brother laughing our arses off at how Batman could've flown to the fucking Moon and back with his flying car in the time it took him to fly over a few blocks when I first tried it...

I can't say I really noticed that much.

I mean I certainly noticed that things don't feel the same as the first two games, but they're not better or worse really, just a bit different.

RJ 17:
snip

That's one hell of a long post - might be worth spoilering.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who's noticed the changes. They should only be minor issues in a system which is otherwise excellent but I'm something of a perfectionist and these issues make it very hard to get flawless combos, often even in relatively simple encounters. Even more annoyingly it's making me play very conservatively which has changed the fights from looking like spectacularly choreographed masterpieces to a repetitive string of counters and evades.

Also could people please try to keep on topic, there's probably more posts here arguing about Jim's review than talking about the combat system.

Battenberg:

RJ 17:
snip

That's one hell of a long post - might be worth spoilering.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who's noticed the changes. They should only be minor issues in a system which is otherwise excellent but I'm something of a perfectionist and these issues make it very hard to get flawless combos, often even in relatively simple encounters. Even more annoyingly it's making me play very conservatively which has changed the fights from looking like spectacularly choreographed masterpieces to a repetitive string of counters and evades.

Also could people please try to keep on topic, there's probably more posts here arguing about Jim's review than talking about the combat system.

Easier to get noticed with a big ol' mega-post. :P

But I'm like you in that I'm a perfectionist as well. Back in Arkham City, any of the "Big Main Fights" (such as the very first one in the court room and the arena brawl in the museum) I would just immediately restart to the last checkpoint if I messed up my combo. But back in AC, it was because I got sloppy, plain and simple. In Origins, it's like the game is specifically DESIGNED to make you break your combo. Case in point: what I was talking about with the interrogation targets. I can't tell you how many times I've lost a combo because there's been an interrogation target in the fight. I liked it MUCH better when you had to specifically save them for last and then, as a finish move, Batman scares the shit outta them by knocking out their last buddy then immediately he's got them by the throat, holding them off the side of a building.

I kept assuring myself that this game was worth the pre-order because "As long as they didn't fuck up the combat system, I know I'll love this game" since the combat was my favorite thing about the first two games. Everything I saw in the videos leading up to the release suggested that yes, they were gonna make it more challenging with the new enemy types, which I was actually looking forward to. But, lo' and behold, they managed to just out-right fuck up the combat system.

I had really high hopes that I wasn't going to get burned on this pre-order, because I only pre-order if I'm certain that I'm going to like the game. And really, after having beaten the game and not touching it since, I've gotta say I'm kinda regretting it now.

P.S. Worse than the combat system is the UNBELIEVABLY restrictive level up/challenge system...that pisses me off more than any of the BS in the combat system. You don't get Critical Strikes until half way through the game and you don't get Disarm-Destroy until damn near the end of the game...what kind of horseshit is that?!

Adam Jensen:
He didn't review it objectively at all.

*Cough*

And even judging his review "objectively" he does seem mention quite a lot of problems about the combat, map, detective sections and such.

My issue is that it used to be that only enemies that were on screen would attack, but now enemies that are off screen can now attack. It makes sense in a real-world standing, but this is a game, and as such, reality needs to be stretched to accommodate for the player. One too many combos have been ended because some dickhead off screen decided to attack me from beyond my visual range, giving me about half a second to do something about it once he shows up on screen and my reaction time isn't that good. It gets worse if the guy in question cannot be dealt with normally. On an unrelated note FUCK the Deadshot fight. One thing that developers should be terrified of is the player asking, "then what?" At the tail end of the encounter, Deadshot grabs his hostage and kills him if you do... something, it's not clear exactly what triggers Deadshot to kill the hostage. The only thing the game says at this point of the fight is use "Detective Vision to locate the hostage." HEY RETARD I HAVE BEEN USING IT THIS ENTIRE FIGHT, I ALREADY KNOW WHERE THE HOSTAGE IS! HOW ABOUT YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE FUCK IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN AT THIS POINT! GODDAMN! I'm sorry, I put the game down for the night after failing it like ten times because the game wasn't clear on what I was supposed to do.

100 hit combos, get on my level. This might just be the side of me who fully completed the combat challenges in City talking but the combat is the best so far.

People went on about how the enemies in Asylum politely wait to come at you one at a time now suddenly a mob attacking as a mob should is shocking? The counters are the best part of the game for me, the more the better. I guess after all the time spent on City the harder the better in Origins. The freaking kung fu enemies are awesome.

The boss fights are some of the best this year, especially the Deathstroke one, I was never one to care about the level up system in any of the other games except the health and a few stealth ones

EDIT: Oh yeah, the bugs really are worth all the fuss. My game is currently stuck on the last Bane fight because it turns into a black screen the moment it starts while the game is still technically being played, I can move and attack and everything. Dying to it doesn't reset it either.

cojo965:
On an unrelated note FUCK the Deadshot fight. One thing that developers should be terrified of is the player asking, "then what?" At the tail end of the encounter, Deadshot grabs his hostage and kills him if you do... something, it's not clear exactly what triggers Deadshot to kill the hostage. The only thing the game says at this point of the fight is use "Detective Vision to locate the hostage." HEY RETARD I HAVE BEEN USING IT THIS ENTIRE FIGHT, I ALREADY KNOW WHERE THE HOSTAGE IS! HOW ABOUT YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE FUCK IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN AT THIS POINT! GODDAMN! I'm sorry, I put the game down for the night after failing it like ten times because the game wasn't clear on what I was supposed to do.

I guess you never played the one particular challenge map in City? That Deadshot fight is a near exact copy paste of a map in there and the hostage take is part of that scenario as well. He just spins in a predictable circle until you get the standard silent takedown. Yes, it's dumb that you can't punch him really quickly before he gets there but that was in City too, you can only blame them for not improving on that one small aspect. You could call them lazy for the copy paste though.

hazabaza1:

Adam Jensen:
He didn't review it objectively at all.

*Cough*

And even judging his review "objectively" he does seem mention quite a lot of problems about the combat, map, detective sections and such.

Poor choice of words. What I meant to say is, Jim allowed his feelings about the state of the industry to worm their way into the review of the game. If that was common practice then how could we as consumers trust his reviews? He's supposed to inform us about the game not about his feelings about the industry.

Adam Jensen:

hazabaza1:

Adam Jensen:
He didn't review it objectively at all.

*Cough*

And even judging his review "objectively" he does seem mention quite a lot of problems about the combat, map, detective sections and such.

Poor choice of words. What I meant to say is, Jim allowed his feelings about the state of the industry to worm their way into the review of the game. If that was common practice then how could we as consumers trust his reviews? He's supposed to inform us about the game not about his feelings about the industry.

Even if you remove the bits of the review where he complains about the industry there's still a lot of issues he talks about.

The pacing, the plot, a clearly post-release DLC attitude, a boring map, broken combat, boring crime investigation, dull boss fights and glitches.

Going off that (haven't played it myself) I'm not sure it deserves even that much of a score.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked