Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Oh brilliant, thanks, I'm being a little paranoid but if you have played it that long I'm assuming that you've been happy enough with the combat to not be frustrated with lock on problems. Just asking because it's a very similar game to AK and I wanted to be sure.
Unrelated, what were most of those 200 hours spent on? Sounds like there are a lot of side challenges to do
Basically Rocksteady managed to 'lose' the work done to build the combat system in Arkham Asylum and CIty, right after they finished on the latter. WB Montreal were given the job of making Arkham Origins and had to re-make it from scratch. I did not like Origins and this was primarily the reason why: the timings were all wrong and there was no longer variation in speed as the combo multiplier rose.
Rocksteady for some reason ended up using the Origins system made by WB Montreal instead of recreating their much better one.
WB Games have encouraged the devs for all the games they publish to borrow the basic idea of the Arkham combat system, but none of them have really grasped why it was so popular. Shadow of Mordor was one of the better ones, but because of the free-flowing nature of it even though it lacked the timing-base. It's been changed again for Shadow of War and I dislike it intensely.
What do you not like about SoW's combat? I found Mordor's to be fine