Support NeoGAF

[TimFL]

...

Acrobatics while swinging will beat fucking rad though, but I have the feeling we might not be able to entirely control that. We'll see, it's too soon to tell.

You probably wont. They confirmed that Spidey does most things automatically when it comes to acrobatic movement. Like when you web zip towards the billboard during the chase and the billboard is blown to shreds: Spidey automatically does the fancy "evade danger" animation without you having to do anything.

 

[The God]

as a martial arts dude myself i really appreciate those animations and mocap, i wonder who they got to perform those kicks.

looks so damn good.

Fuck all the Arkham whiners. This is what Spidey combat should be.

 

[Loris146]

as a martial arts dude myself i really appreciate those animations and mocap, i wonder who they got to perform those kicks.

looks so damn good.

Combat is perfect. Can ' t wait to see an extended demo with open world gameplay.

 

[UrbanRats]

The more i watch this trailer, the more brilliant this game looks.

It feels l8ke the proper realization of Spiderman ive been dreaming about evee since sm2.

Im not bothered by qtes either, unless they are too punishing.

 

[JOKERACN7]

The 'The animation and combat dynamics look very slick' would fall under "good portrayal of spider-man".

Loads of slow-mo, 'gadgets', batman combat, QTEs, 'cinematic' scenes, give the players as little control as possible and spoon-feed everything. While seemingly other top tier developers try to stray away from such things this is like a time portal back to 5 - 7 years ago where all this stuff was in full effect.

Would have much rather have seen just a demo of them fooling around in the open world or telling us more about the Peter Parker part of the game, show off what's unique about it. Them thinking this is their best showing of the game speaks volumes.

Again, I think they're doing an awesome portrayal of spider-man and I'm sure the fans will love it, just that if you'd strictly focus on gameplay design and what was shown off it was very bland and not a good showing.

Pretty much summed it up.

It seems that player agency is not the focal point of the combat system and this is not good, I don't like it when spectacle overshadows substance, you should strike a balance between the two

 

[The God]

Pretty much summed it up.

It seems that player agency is not the focal point of the combat system and this is not good, I don't like it when spectacle overshadows substance, you should strike a balance between the two

Where in the combat are they taking control from the player?

 

[Krakin]

The combat sections were fully controlled by the player as far as I could tell and the game isn't linear. Can we all just wait for more footage before jumping to conclusions?

 

[Planet]

This game is getting the same level of concern trolling as Horizon got. Not that I needed any more confirmation that Spider-Man will be amazing.

 

[mckmas8808]

This game is getting the same level of concern trolling as Horizon got. Not that I needed any more confirmation that Spider-Man will be amazing.

And we "really" know why that's the case too.

 

[8byte]

You don't. And this is why I hate these kind of games, I don't agree with this kind of design philosophy. You shouldn't first come up with a cinematic scene and then think about how you can implement it. You should first evaluate what you can actually do and start from there. Gameplay should never come as an afterthought.

Please, tell us more about your game design expertise.

 

[Lifeline]

This game is getting the same level of concern trolling as Horizon got. Not that I needed any more confirmation that Spider-Man will be amazing.

Oh man, I remember the weird ass complaints people came up with for Hoirzon. You're right, these Spider-Man concerns remind me a lot of that same thing.

 

[Lys Skygge]

Fuck all the Arkham whiners. This is what Spidey combat should be.

I agree. Also, Arkhams combat looked and felt amazing, so I'm glad Insomniac is seemingly influenced by it.

 

[More_Badass]

I agree. Also, Arkhams combat looked and felt amazing, so I'm glad Insomniac is seemingly influenced by it.

Was playing Arkham Knight last night. The Arkham freeflow combat is probably my favorite combat system in all of gaming, and I'm so glad other games are adopting and tweaking it

But playing AK, and seeing Batman pinball across the room and flip over enemy's heads....it screams Spider-Man. The finishers and counter animations are definitely perfect for Batman, but in light of this E3 footage, it seems so obvious that the freeflow combat style was always destined to be the perfect fit for Spidey

 

[sn00zer]

And we "really" know why that's the case too.

? I dunno man Horizon was firmly in my 'too good to be true' bucket for a long time until i played it. Both from coming off of Shadowfall and the fact the game just visually looked insane.

 

[jstevenson]

You probably wont. They confirmed that Spidey does most things automatically when it comes to acrobatic movement. Like when you web zip towards the billboard during the chase and the billboard is blown to shreds: Spidey automatically does the fancy "evade danger" animation without you having to do anything.

But you do have to specifically zip to that.

 

[More_Badass]

You don't. And this is why I hate these kind of games, I don't agree with this kind of design philosophy. You shouldn't first come up with a cinematic scene and then think about how you can implement it. You should first evaluate what you can actually do and start from there. Gameplay should never come as an afterthought.

It's clearly obvious that they didn't design the sequence like that. This isn't Resident Evil 4's "throw a QTE in the middle of a cinematic"

The amount of planning and effort needed to seamlessly shift between gameplay and contextual moments, all within a massive open world, is a huge endeavor. The pacing of it all, the careful modulation of controls and gameplay to suit each moment, the different kinds of prompts and contextual controls for different situations.

 

[cb1115]

iirc you had to press A to vault over objects like fences and the edges of buildings in order to keep your momentum up in Sunset Overdrive, wonder if it's similar here

 

[More_Badass]

iirc you had to press A to vault over objects like fences and the edges of buildings in order to keep your momentum up in Sunset Overdrive, wonder if it's similar here

Look at the moment when Spidey vaults from a web zip into the wall-run up the building. I think that's in here

 

[cb1115]

Look at the moment when Spidey vaults from a web zip into the wall-run up the building. I think that's in here

yep that's what i was thinking about too. the animation also looks very similar.

 

[Alienous]

It's clearly obvious that they didn't design the sequence like that. This isn't Resident Evil 4's "throw a QTE in the middle of a cinematic"

The amount of planning and effort needed to seamlessly shift between gameplay and contextual moments, all within a massive open world, is a huge endeavor. The pacing of it all, the careful modulation of controls and gameplay to suit each moment, the different kinds of prompts and contextual controls for different situations.

I think what Aters is saying is that they probably thought "wouldn't it be cool if you had to stop a crane from falling" rather than "what set-pieces do our game mechanics allow". You get the sense of the latter when you play something like Uncharted - the defining set-piece of the game is one that combines most of the core game mechanics (grappling, driving, shooting, (light) platforming). It was built within the confines of what the game mechanics allow.

It's hard not to see QTEs as a failure of game design, nowadays. It just feels like this cop-out when bringing cinematic moments to a game - "watch this movie and press the buttons".

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

It's pretty crazy how much the qtes took over on something like a forum and than you look at the reality that is the masses. I was off yesterday so such watching reaction videos for e3 games watched several for Spider-Man everybody losing their minds at the entire demonstration especially ESPECIALLY the crane set piece. You really see the difference between the hardcore audience and your regular buyer. Doubt they even know they're called qtes

 

[More_Badass]

It's pretty crazy how much the qtes took over on something like a forum and than you look at the reality that is the masses. I was off yesterday so such watching reaction videos for e3 games watched several for Spider-Man everybody losing their minds at the entire demonstration especially ESPECIALLY the crane set piece. You really see the difference between the hardcore audience and your regular buyer. Doubt they even know they're called qtes

The general audience isn't thinking "but what about the gameplay". They're thinking, "whoa, it's like a comic book scene come to life. Oh damn, it just went right back into gameplay! Whoa, this is like that F&F moment but I actually get to play it...as Spider-Man! Now it's like Uncharted, stuff's collapsing, this is awesome!"

It's the same reason why the Arkham games captured the way Batman fights versus the old games. Sure, the older games were brawlers, gave you more complex fighting with different combos and whatnot. But the Arkham games feels like you're Batman, through the animations and fluidity of the fighting.

You could just have the player swing along the crane and then do a loop around it to "catch" it, never leave the regular gameplay and controls. But that doesn't feel like Spider-Man in the way this sequence does

 

[Spinluck]

Fuck all the Arkham whiners. This is what Spidey combat should be.

No other style fits him better at the moment.

Maybe some day we'll get a 1:1 of a comics level Spidey, but idk if the game mechanics and controls are there yet.

This looks really close to that.

 

[dmshaposv]

Bravo on the cinematography and animation, insomniac.

 

[Spinluck]

Where in the combat are they taking control from the player?

You not selecting which fist to punch with or which leg to kick with is what he's referring to.

Come on Insomniac, we need absolute control of every single aspect of the combat!!! I want to be able to choose which flip I do when I dodge, don't randomly select it for me! Control control control!

What's wrong with slo-mo? Lol. A bunch of great games utilize that for dodging. Max Payne, Vanquished, Bayonetta, hell even Zelda. Slo-mo is all of a sudden a design flaw or a way of cheapening the combat!

It's pretty crazy how much the qtes took over on something like a forum and than you look at the reality that is the masses. I was off yesterday so such watching reaction videos for e3 games watched several for Spider-Man everybody losing their minds at the entire demonstration especially ESPECIALLY the crane set piece. You really see the difference between the hardcore audience and your regular buyer. Doubt they even know they're called qtes

Yeah people really do not think about it the same way a forum like GAF does. You might find it on some places on the internet, but the majority don't even think about it from what I've seen just talking to others about the game.

I didn't even notice that Spidey was merging two different stands of webs when stopping the crane. Sensational animation there.

 

[SoCoRoBo]

What you're saying literally boils down to "Developers, please, stifle yourself. Don't try anything that falls without these narrow constraints I personally think should be present."

No it's not! Developers are stifling themselves by adopting a very stifling combat system.

I think people fully understand the appeal of the Arkham combat system, even the ones who are very critical of it in this thread. It's an amazing achievement in balancing spectacle with the feeling that you're doing something impressive. Virtually anyone can feel like Batman with the Arkham combat system, it's a remarkable achievement in that sense. With that said, assessed purely in terms of quality as a combat system, it's not a particularly deep or interesting combat system. This is almost objectively true; the Arkham combat system is accessible and liked by a lot of people precisely because it's not complicated. Simplicity is the appeal. That's the tradeoff the developers decided to make.

Look at this combat video from DMC4:SE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhP7itgBNMQ

And compare it with this from the Arkham games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sHV2MMe1Q

DMC has a far more complicated and intricate combat system that allows far more player expression. People can study it for years and still not master it. You can play Arkham for a few hours and pretty much understand everything it has to offer. DMC has a better combat system qua combat system. But it could never quite have the same mainstream appeal of the Arkham games.

Whether you think the trend of Arkham combat is a good thing is another issue altogether. I think it's representative of an increasingly homogenous approach to game design that favours spectacle over skill and that requires almost nothing from the player. It's a trend that creates forgettable, pointless experiences. Of course the guy would personally prefer different design constraints. It's a forum about games and game design. Your post isn't an argument, and it's perfectly valid to dislike degenerate and increasingly simplistic game design.

 

[More_Badass]

No it's not! Developers are stifling themselves by adopting a very stifling combat system.

I think people fully understand the appeal of the Arkham combat system, even the ones who are very critical of it in this thread. It's an amazing achievement in balancing spectacle with the feeling that you're doing something impressive. Virtually anyone can feel like Batman with the Arkham combat system, it's a remarkable achievement in that sense. With that said, assessed purely in terms of quality as a combat system, it's not a particularly deep or interesting combat system. This is almost objectively true; the Arkham combat system is accessible and liked by a lot of people precisely because it's not complicated. Simplicity is the appeal. That's the tradeoff the developers decided to make.

Look at this combat video from DMC4:SE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhP7itgBNMQ

And compare it with this from the Arkham games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sHV2MMe1Q

DMC has a far more complicated and intricate combat system that allows far more player expression. People can study it for years and still not master it. You can play Arkham for a few hours and pretty much understand everything it has to offer. DMC has a better combat system qua combat system. But it could never quite have the same mainstream appeal of the Arkham games.

Complexity and depth isn't the be-all-end-all of what makes something good. It's what works for the individual game. Sure, Batman could have a combat system as deep and complex as DMC. But what would that make sense for the game? Or would having such a combat system just feel overly complicated and unnecessarily granular for the focus and intent of the game?

We had games that tried to do that brawler/combo-heavy style of combat for Batman, and they all sucked because it was brawler/combo heavy. Such a combat system puts the enemies on the same level of the player, in that they're formidable challenges that require those kinds of complex skillful combos and whatnot to defeat

But Batman vs goons and thugs? The last thing you want is for these goons to seem like formidable threat that can defeat Batman, that you need to do these extended combos and such to defeat them.

In that reason, the freeflow system is vastly better than any kind of DMC/Bayonetta/etc style for these games, for Spider-Man, or for that dream John Wick game I want to play someday

It's not just accessibility or simplicity. It's what makes sense for the game design, the character, and so on

 

[MugiwaraCole]

Combat is perfect. Can ' t wait to see an extended demo with open world gameplay.

PSX soon come.

 

[Spinluck]

Edit: if they expanded a bit on Max Payne 3, it'd be a killer John Wick game

No it's not! Developers are stifling themselves by adopting a very stifling combat system.

I think people fully understand the appeal of the Arkham combat system, even the ones who are very critical of it in this thread. It's an amazing achievement in balancing spectacle with the feeling that you're doing something impressive. Virtually anyone can feel like Batman with the Arkham combat system, it's a remarkable achievement in that sense. With that said, assessed purely in terms of quality as a combat system, it's not a particularly deep or interesting combat system. This is almost objectively true; the Arkham combat system is accessible and liked by a lot of people precisely because it's not complicated. Simplicity is the appeal. That's the tradeoff the developers decided to make.

Look at this combat video from DMC4:SE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhP7itgBNMQ

And compare it with this from the Arkham games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sHV2MMe1Q

DMC has a far more complicated and intricate combat system that allows far more player expression. People can study it for years and still not master it. You can play Arkham for a few hours and pretty much understand everything it has to offer. DMC has a better combat system qua combat system. But it could never quite have the same mainstream appeal of the Arkham games.

Whether you think the trend of Arkham combat is a good thing is another issue altogether. I think it's representative of an increasingly homogenous approach to game design that favours spectacle over skill and that requires almost nothing from the player. It's a trend that creates forgettable, pointless experiences. Of course the guy would personally prefer different design constraints. It's a forum about games and game design. Your post isn't an argument, and it's perfectly valid to dislike degenerate and increasingly simplistic game design.

What is there to do in DMC besides fighting? The entire game is based on combat so it has to have plenty of complexity and depth on the linear systems it's built around.

AK is a vastly different game than DMC, and the amount of depth you can go into when it comes to combat is only so far with a bunch of different systems at work.

If this game was a hack and slash, with the simplicity of a game like Batman, then I think it'd be a more reasonable argument or complaint. Even though simplicity isn't a design flaw...

GoW has been a victim of that criticism for a while, but I don't think people ever stop to think that some people prefer simplicity, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing. If you prefer games with more depth then there are plenty of games that offer that. For as simple as GoW combat has been, it's incredibly popular and fun. It appeals to who it's supposed to appeal to.

This falls in line with the "they should just copy the Souls combat" posts that plagued the forum around the time of Bloodborne's release. If it can be fun and simple, then I think that's fine.

 

[bunkitz]

No it's not! Developers are stifling themselves by adopting a very stifling combat system.

I think people fully understand the appeal of the Arkham combat system, even the ones who are very critical of it in this thread. It's an amazing achievement in balancing spectacle with the feeling that you're doing something impressive. Virtually anyone can feel like Batman with the Arkham combat system, it's a remarkable achievement in that sense. With that said, assessed purely in terms of quality as a combat system, it's not a particularly deep or interesting combat system. This is almost objectively true; the Arkham combat system is accessible and liked by a lot of people precisely because it's not complicated. Simplicity is the appeal. That's the tradeoff the developers decided to make.

Look at this combat video from DMC4:SE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhP7itgBNMQ

And compare it with this from the Arkham games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sHV2MMe1Q

DMC has a far more complicated and intricate combat system that allows far more player expression. People can study it for years and still not master it. You can play Arkham for a few hours and pretty much understand everything it has to offer. DMC has a better combat system qua combat system. But it could never quite have the same mainstream appeal of the Arkham games.

Whether you think the trend of Arkham combat is a good thing is another issue altogether. I think it's representative of an increasingly homogenous approach to game design that favours spectacle over skill and that requires almost nothing from the player. It's a trend that creates forgettable, pointless experiences. Of course the guy would personally prefer different design constraints. It's a forum about games and game design. Your post isn't an argument, and it's perfectly valid to dislike degenerate and increasingly simplistic game design.

It's not exactly fair to compare Devil May Cry with Batman Arkham. Their combat systems are completely different. DMC is a character action game, whereas Arkham is 3rd-person action adventure game. (Yeah, okay, not really sure what's a more accurate sub-genre to describe the Arkham games. Apologies.) While the freeflow combat system is purposely simple and easy to learn, just because you know everything you can do and how you can do them doesn't mean it's easy to master. The skills required to master a character action game like Devil May Cry or Bayonetta are different compared to what you'll need in order to master Arkham Asylum and its sequels. The former is fast and frenetic, requiring fast reflexes and a lot of physical skill on the player's part. The latter, on the other hand, is slower and more strategic, planning what your next 10 moves are gonna be. If I play Devil May Cry, I want to show off and juggle my enemies. It's about being stylish. If I play Arkham, I plan ahead in order to take down a room full of thugs in the most efficient way possible.

Devil May Cry and the like, are sprints. Batman Arkham and very likely Marvel's Spider-Man as well, are marathons. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, are for different purposes, and they both appeal to different people. Just because you like the former doesn't necessarily mean you'll like the latter. The industry can have both, and neither one of them is necessarily better or worse than the other. The level of depth found in each are different.

And what do you expect? For every action game to conform to complex combat mechanics like that of a character action game? What if it doesn't fit the game they're making? The characters that are going to be fighting in said game? One of the appeals of the freeflow combat system is that it fits the character so damn well. You shouldn't have a combat system that involves juggling your enemies and perfectly-timed parries for that. Sleeping Dogs, for example, has a fantastic combat system that fits the game so well because it's martial arts oriented. Batman's works so well because it fulfils the power fantasy of being Batman and is an accurate representation of the character's skills and fighting abilities as seen throughout 70+ years of Batman media.

The thing is, though--and I've been saying this since Arkham Asylum--the freeflow combat system fits Spider-Man even better than it does Batman. Spider-Man literally jumps over his enemies, zips from one to another, bounces between them, etc. when he fights them. As compared to Batman, who's kind of hard to imagine being seen doing a flying kick across an entire room. No offense, Bruce. One of my favorite scenes in all of comics is in what I believe was the final issue of the original Civil War story where Spider-Man would punch and kick his way through a bunch of combatants, immediately moving on to the next after landing a hit. It's a perfect match. And there is plenty of depth to be had in a combat system like this, and developers shouldn't make it complicated just for the sake of complexity and making it seem like a "deeper" combat system.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

Just glad I wasn't alone in spending the last half a decade playing the Arkham games and thinking "throw this combat system in a Spider-Man open world, and we might just have something".

Seriously, I assumed we all saw the Spidey teaser last year and knew exactly what the combat was going to be. It's made for him. Don't fix something that ain't broke.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Still talking about QTEs.

This is just sad.

 

[Visceir]

This is more of a wishful thinking but physics based web shooters would have been neat and something I would have liked to see from a 'next-gen' title -- being able to target individual bodyparts and just immobilize thugs by webbing a foot on the ground or something...or like in the gameplay demo rather than just pressing a button and pulling the crane towards the thugs just have full control of its movement and use it for all kinds of dumb fun.

I do realize that isn't the game they're out to make, which is a bit of a shame really.

I imagine now the game will heavily hinge on the story -- if they make the story great the game will be great.

 

[Spinluck]

Next gen? The PS4 came out in 2013...

This isn't a PS5 title.

That idea sounds interesting, but from the sounds of it, I'd think compromises would have to be made to key parts of the game to implement that.

Spidey is just has so many tools at his disposable. You've got start capping out the possibilities somewhere.

Maybe DICE can get to work on that Spider-Man FP VR game!

 

[bunkitz]

On a related note, regarding the combat, a difference with Arkham's that I like is how Spidey doesn't knock out thugs with a single hit. It makes it more entertaining, visually speaking, since it's less bouncing around, but actually spending some time fighting thugs. That, and it allows for boss fights and the like without having to change things too much, as seen in the demo with the large Inner Demon.

Arkham Origins' Deathstroke boss battle is still the shit, though. Fucking loved that.

 

[SoCoRoBo]

Complexity and depth isn't the be-all-end-all of what makes something good. It's what works for the individual game. Sure, Batman could have a combat system as deep and complex as DMC. But what would that make sense for the game? Or would having such a combat system just feel overly complicated and unnecessarily granular for the focus and intent of the game?

We had games that tried to do that brawler/combo-heavy style of combat for Batman, and they all sucked because it was brawler/combo heavy. Such a combat system puts the enemies on the same level of the player, in that they're formidable challenges that require those kinds of complex skillful combos and whatnot to defeat

But Batman vs goons and thugs? The last thing you want is for these goons to seem like formidable threat that can defeat Batman, that you need to do these extended combos and such to defeat them.

In that reason, the freeflow system is vastly better than any kind of DMC/Bayonetta/etc style for these games, for Spider-Man, or for that dream John Wick game I want to play someday

It's not just accessibility or simplicity. It's what makes sense for the game design, the character, and so on

I think we agree quite a lot on this. I tried to be generous to the Arkham games in my post. I completely acknowledge the Arkham combat system as a remarkable achievement in making people feel like Batman. It's good for the experience and I completely understand the appeal. I love the Yakuza series, for instance, which is another good example of a game that makes you feel very badass but doesn't have a great degree of depth to it (I'd argue still a lot better than the Arkham games). So to be perfectly clear, I think the Arkham games achieve what they set out to do well. It's just that, and I acknowledge the elitism in making this point, I want better and more interesting games. I don't want lethargic games that demand nothing from the player and deliver only a forgettable burst of unearned pleasure.

The Arkham games don't do anything particularly well, outside of creating a Batman experience. Its aim is to keep you amused with a varying number of superficial systems. I'd almost compare it to MMORPG design, where the intention is to create a completely false sense of progression and achievement for the player. MMOs are extremely successful in this goal but that shouldn't stop us criticising them for having fundamentally degenerate and quite exploitative game design.

If it was a case of live and let live then that'd be fine, but this is a design trend that is extremely common across multiple genres and is one that has had a net negative effect on the industry. You end up seeing game after game with the climbing mechanics of Assassin's Creed, the cover mechanics of Gears of War and the close combat of an Arkham. There's so much you can do with this medium and the trend towards degenerate design is actively harmful to that.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

On a related note, regarding the combat, a difference with Arkham's that I like is how Spidey doesn't knock out thugs with a single hit. It makes it more entertaining, visually speaking, since it's less bouncing around, but actually spending some time fighting thugs. That, and it allows for boss fights and the like without having to change things too much, as seen in the demo with the large Inner Demon.

Arkham Origins' Deathstroke boss battle is still the shit, though. Fucking loved that.

I feel like you rarely one shot enemies in Arkham.

 

[bunkitz]

I feel like you rarely one shot enemies in Arkham.

Oh, my bad. Knocking down, rather. Not knocking them out of the fight completely. Although, you can do that in Arkham with critical strikes.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

Oh, my bad. Knocking down, rather. Not knocking them out of the fight completely. Although, you can do that in Arkham with critical strikes.

Sure.

Though I'd argue (correctly) Spidey should be one-shotting enemies way more frequently than Batman lol

 

[Version 3.0]

Sure.

Though I'd argue (correctly) Spidey should be one-shotting enemies way more frequently than Batman lol

Yes. Please get this right. Normal humans better not be damage sponges. And in particular, they better not be able to just "disappear" his webbing. That's my biggest pet peeve. I do realize some compromise is necessary to have a game, but it's the same webbing that catches a falling crane and helicopter in this very game. A human opponent that you web up better not just go "3, 2, 1 and I'm free!".

 

[Baldwin_the_First]

But you do have to specifically zip to that.

Are we still getting the extended demo shown behind doors this week? ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

 

[Bunta]

Are we still getting the extended demo shown behind doors this week? ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

He's said we're still getting it but no date.

 

[Baldwin_the_First]

He's said we're still getting it but no date.

Ah damn, my fault, I was so sure he had said it was gonna be this week that I was all hyped up for nothing.

 

[Razgreez]

Am I wrong in wanting just a little bit more momentum in his movement? I.e. just before he pulls himself towards the furthest most enemy (from the camera) he basically just stops in mid air. It affects the visual fluidity of the combat

 

[Sou Da]

I think we agree quite a lot on this. I tried to be generous to the Arkham games in my post. I completely acknowledge the Arkham combat system as a remarkable achievement in making people feel like Batman. It's good for the experience and I completely understand the appeal. I love the Yakuza series, for instance, which is another good example of a game that makes you feel very badass but doesn't have a great degree of depth to it (I'd argue still a lot better than the Arkham games). So to be perfectly clear, I think the Arkham games achieve what they set out to do well. It's just that, and I acknowledge the elitism in making this point, I want better and more interesting games. I don't want lethargic games that demand nothing from the player and deliver only a forgettable burst of unearned pleasure.

The Arkham games don't do anything particularly well, outside of creating a Batman experience. Its aim is to keep you amused with a varying number of superficial systems. I'd almost compare it to MMORPG design, where the intention is to create a completely false sense of progression and achievement for the player. MMOs are extremely successful in this goal but that shouldn't stop us criticising them for having fundamentally degenerate and quite exploitative game design.

If it was a case of live and let live then that'd be fine, but this is a design trend that is extremely common across multiple genres and is one that has had a net negative effect on the industry. You end up seeing game after game with the climbing mechanics of Assassin's Creed, the cover mechanics of Gears of War and the close combat of an Arkham. There's so much you can do with this medium and the trend towards degenerate design is actively harmful to that.

I honestly think the Web of Shadows combat system was more engaging than Arkham's.

 

[NullPointer]

You don't. And this is why I hate these kind of games, I don't agree with this kind of design philosophy. You shouldn't first come up with a cinematic scene and then think about how you can implement it. You should first evaluate what you can actually do and start from there. Gameplay should never come as an afterthought.

Well said. That philosophy is definitely my preference. Spectacle through gameplay, not in spite of it or in exchange for it.

Its an impressive scene visually, but it doesn't impress when it comes to the player involvement.

The game could still be awesomesauce, so am not writing it off because of a disappointing reliance of QTEs in succession. But all of these posts asking how you would do exactly that scene without QTEs are asking the wrong question.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Am I wrong in wanting just a little bit more momentum in his movement? I.e. just before he pulls himself towards the furthest most enemy (from the camera) he basically just stops in mid air. It affects the visual fluidity of the combat

Yes, nitpicking at its finest

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Am I wrong in wanting just a little bit more momentum in his movement? I.e. just before he pulls himself towards the furthest most enemy (from the camera) he basically just stops in mid air. It affects the visual fluidity of the combat

After GTA4 I'd rather have snappy controls that feel right and like I'm in the driver's seat. The weight could be ok for the swinging, and even then, too much realism there could destroy the fun (crap I need to build momentum again).

 

[Baldwin_the_First]

Am I wrong in wanting just a little bit more momentum in his movement? I.e. just before he pulls himself towards the furthest most enemy (from the camera) he basically just stops in mid air. It affects the visual fluidity of the combat

I actually like the integrated slow motion in it.

edit: nvm, I thought you meant when spidey flips over the enemy. The momentum from when he pulls himself with his web towards the enemy is perfect imo, it translates well the change of direction he does mid-air.

 

[Razgreez]

After GTA4 I'd rather have snappy controls that feel right and like I'm in the driver's seat. The weight could be ok for the swinging, and even then, too much realism there could destroy the fun (crap I need to build momentum again).

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying there should be absolute realism. I'm always game for bending newton's laws . On the flip side it (could) add(s) a risk-reward factor into the gameplay. Maintain momentum and thus (slightly) improve damage, and perhaps xp gain, or break it in order to perform whichever move you desire at the time. Call it spidey-choreography. Not like the developers would pay attention to my ramblings anyway. I'm thick, the move i describe happens immediately after (during) this sequence