Try Dark messiah, seriously, it doesn't cost much and its completely worth it, it has the best first person close combat I have ever seen in a game. Although I'll admit that beyond the combat it doesn't really have much else going for it.Kyrian007 said:First person... none. It just doesn't work from a first person perspective.
What an actor would use trying to look stylish would get him killed within a few seconds in real life. Actual realistic melee fighting is somewhat unexciting for the screen, so realistic HEMA swordfighting has (to my knowledge) NEVER been seen in a movie. Even Mount and Blade is a little Hollywoody, but it's still more realistic than Dark Souls.Burst6 said:I think it does have some grounding in reality. A lot of the moves in dark souls are very stylish, like something an actor who wants to impress would use.Ftaghn To You Too said:Fighting with a sword does not look like that. The melee combat is awesome but has almost no grounding in reality.
I find it quiet flawed. For one, you never seem to do enough damage, so the game turns into rolly polly with Geralt for 15 minutes as you slowly carve down the enemies health and cast Quen every so often. The lethality in -melee- combat is poor and thus the game slows to catatonic sloth status.-Drifter- said:For me, it's The Witcher 2. In a lot of melee focused games (especially RPG's) I'll find myself drifting off in the middle of combat, but TW2 requires you to be on your toes at all times lest you be torn to shreds. Geralt isn't the average damage sponging RPG hero and you're always just a few sword strikes away from a GAME OVER sceen, so strategy and quick wits are vital to survival. You've got make use of your environment, separate your foes from the herd, prioritize targets and strike quickly before rolling away, etc. It feels appropriately lethal, and nothing makes you feel more badass than flawlessly picking off a large group of bandits.
I completely agree. One of the things that made the first game so scary was that you had to constantly be on your toes because enemies can sneak up behind you, and if you're not prepared to dodge or parry, you're getting hit. And it doesn't take a lot of hits to take you down. It's definitely realistic.shintakie10 said:What no love for Condemned? Sure it wasn't the flashiest or the prettiest of combat systems, but it felt real. When you bashed someones face in with a plank you could practically feel the impact because it was so close and so realistic. Other games? Meh. Sure Ninja Gaiden is pretty to look at and its fun to have a system that rewards you actually bein strategic like the Witcher, but at the end of the day its still all so...normal.
That's not timing. That's just chipping away at their health. It's invisible in AC1, but it's there. It's the first combat skill they give you.faspxina said:I found it this recently but there is a way in AC2, and apparently AC1, to do those finishing moves without having to counter, by pressing the attack button only after you land a successful hit, instead of mashing it repeatedly. If you do this by third or fourth hit you'll execute the finisher.irmasterlol said:AC2 still had most of the problems as AC as far as combat only being so much standing around and countering. They didn't speed things up until Brotherhood added that combo kill system that made even the biggest enemy clusterfucks trivial.Kyrian007 said:First person... none. It just doesn't work from a first person perspective.
3rd person... AC 2-Rev. It works as well and as smoothly as the Arkham games, and flows even more naturally with freerunning and even stealth.
When I found out about this, combat did get a lot faster and I still got to do the cool executions.
And yes, Arkham Batman games have the best combat system of all time! ... of all time!
The thing is, in Dragon's Dogma, you only theoretically have variation in the combat, because you're forced to choose three abilities. And while sure, you have many abilities to choose from, only a select few are useful to the individual player, so you'd only really use your favourite three, whereas in Monster Hunter you have every attack on each weapon from the start, and it's up to the player to determine what's good for him. In essence they're rather similar, only you have to unlock attacks in DD.Burst6 said:I thought the combat in dragons dogma was far more varied than in Monster hunter. Yeah Monster Hunter has more melee weapons but Dragons Dogma has tons of skills for each melee weapon. I found myself spamming the same attack over and over much less in dragons dogma anyway.King of Asgaard said:The next is Monster Hunter, as a series. With 11 different weapon types to choose from, each with their strengths and weaknesses, players are encouraged to experiment and diversify their play styles. That is a sign of great combat. Yes, I'm aware that 8 of the weapons are melee, but my point still stands.
Finally, Dragon's Dogma. It was a surprise to see Capcom release a game that, on the surface, looks like Monster Hunter and, while the influence is undeniable, it is its own beast. The melee combat is, unfortunately, not as varied as the previous two, yet what it does is polished to a near-mirror sheen.
To me It's the opposite of what you said. Monster hunter has the simple but polished combat and Dragons Dogma is more varied.
But you have time the moment you press the button, if you want to do a finisher, or he'll just kill him with a normal attack.irmasterlol said:That's not timing. That's just chipping away at their health. It's invisible in AC1, but it's there. It's the first combat skill they give you.faspxina said:I found it this recently but there is a way in AC2, and apparently AC1, to do those finishing moves without having to counter, by pressing the attack button only after you land a successful hit, instead of mashing it repeatedly. If you do this by third or fourth hit you'll execute the finisher.irmasterlol said:AC2 still had most of the problems as AC as far as combat only being so much standing around and countering. They didn't speed things up until Brotherhood added that combo kill system that made even the biggest enemy clusterfucks trivial.Kyrian007 said:First person... none. It just doesn't work from a first person perspective.
3rd person... AC 2-Rev. It works as well and as smoothly as the Arkham games, and flows even more naturally with freerunning and even stealth.
When I found out about this, combat did get a lot faster and I still got to do the cool executions.
And yes, Arkham Batman games have the best combat system of all time! ... of all time!
I didn't find this to be that much of a problem, at least not on normal. I won't argued that it is fairly flawed, but then, so are a lot of my favourite things.Skin said:I find it quiet flawed. For one, you never seem to do enough damage, so the game turns into rolly polly with Geralt for 15 minutes as you slowly carve down the enemies health and cast Quen every so often. The lethality in -melee- combat is poor and thus the game slows to catatonic sloth status.
RPGs?Tippy said:RPG's like Devil May Cry / Bayonetta