How is the combat?

[Captain Blud]

Because the setting and art style looks beautiful. I'm trying to decide if I should buy this

[jd-]

I enjoy it already; you get to use a ton of spells and what not as your disposal so you can take each fight kind of how you want it; I would say the story, setting, and art style make it a must play imo. Just don't come in looking for like DMC combat; it is more dodge and find openings

[Doctor TacoChocolate]

It's mediocre. You get one five-hit combo, you can dodge, and you have five skills on cooldowns. But there are only 6 enemies and your attacks don't have a lot of oomph to them. It's mostly just mashing the attack button and dodging when attacks are telegraphed.

[󠀡󠀡]

pretty fluid like first berserker Khazan

[Kweeb]

Originally posted by Doctor TacoChocolate:

It's mediocre. You get one five-hit combo, you can dodge, and you have five skills on cooldowns. But there are only 6 enemies and your attacks don't have a lot of oomph to them. It's mostly just mashing the attack button and dodging when attacks are telegraphed.

So better than the Arkham games? Literally all you do in those games is mash X and sometimes A and Y and occasionally B.
But those games are considered "revolutionary"

[Kashra Fall]

Originally posted by Kweeb:

Originally posted by Doctor TacoChocolate:

It's mediocre. You get one five-hit combo, you can dodge, and you have five skills on cooldowns. But there are only 6 enemies and your attacks don't have a lot of oomph to them. It's mostly just mashing the attack button and dodging when attacks are telegraphed.

So better than the Arkham games? Literally all you do in those games is mash X and sometimes A and Y and occasionally B.
But those games are considered "revolutionary"

Was called revolutionary because it was the first game to do a "Free flow" combat system, meaning never locked into place. IT set the standards for action games to come and yeah, it wasn't the best combat system, but it wasn't the worst either.

[Doctor TacoChocolate]

Originally posted by Kweeb:

Originally posted by Doctor TacoChocolate:

It's mediocre. You get one five-hit combo, you can dodge, and you have five skills on cooldowns. But there are only 6 enemies and your attacks don't have a lot of oomph to them. It's mostly just mashing the attack button and dodging when attacks are telegraphed.

So better than the Arkham games? Literally all you do in those games is mash X and sometimes A and Y and occasionally B.
But those games are considered "revolutionary"

Definitely not better. The Arkham combat is simple as hell, but it's also unique. Plus the abilities really add a lot of potential variety to everything. There's also a lot of impact to that game's combat. South of Midnight has very little of that.

[Min/Max]

Pretty basic. wait for Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for better combat game.

[Aria Kawa]

I've played the game in my friend's house. The OST is the best part of it, there's some real soul in it. As for the combat, it is just functional, it wouldn't be terrible if there was more variation in the gameplay, but there isn't. It's battle arena followed by basic platforming, followed by more battle arena, followed by more story. The game is just very formulaic and it doesn't take long for this to become quite noticiable.

[burlymatt]

Originally posted by Doctor TacoChocolate:

It's mediocre. You get one five-hit combo, you can dodge, and you have five skills on cooldowns. But there are only 6 enemies and your attacks don't have a lot of oomph to them. It's mostly just mashing the attack button and dodging when attacks are telegraphed.

It doesn't seem to be in your games list. Have you played it then?

[burlymatt]

Originally posted by a slumming angel:

Because the setting and art style looks beautiful. I'm trying to decide if I should buy this

Loving the game, there's a bit of a delay using my DS4. I'm not a fan of mouse and keyboard in games like this, mainly because I end up with horrible hand cramps!