Awesome!

However...is the "Fight" videos audio off-sync for anyone else?

wish they would use batman style combat, it would make this game so much better

I've had enough of Yakuza. The story only gets worse, and nothing gets better.

Yeah, make sure it takes no skill to make it better. Fuck taht noise, the arkham combat style sucks ass. Requires nothing from the player.

By the way is this the PS3 or 4 version? I just imagine that with a little bit better animations and shaders this would look amazing.

Batman: Arkham combat system is "easy to learn, but hard to master". Just because a combat system is easy for beginners/everyone, doesn't mean it isn't deep and doesn't take skill to master it.

And while it is somewhat easy to win most fights, it takes a lot of skill to win them in style - this is true for almost any game, be it Devil May Cry, Street Fighter, Dark Souls or whatever - like not getting hit, using multiple gadgets and moves without ever letting the chain combo end until all enemies are down, all while playing in Hard mode (at 60fps).

The reason I mentioned "at 60fps" is because in 30fps, it's much more easier to see enemies' attacks and counter or dodge them, even in Hard mode, while at 60fps it becomes much more difficult to do so and things can get chaotic very easily. Think of it as a "Turbo" mode.

Either way, you shouldn't confuse a game's "difficulty" with its "combat system", the Batman: Arkham games have a relatively easy difficulty, specially because of the combat system, but the combat system itself is one of the best there is - if not the best.

Also, let's not forget that the player is supposed to feel very powerful and badass as Batman, but that also can't be helped as Batman's mythos states he is a grandmaster of various martial art styles.

So expecting Batman to get his ass handed to him by street thugs, military personnel or even ninjas goes against that mythos - the reason people are playing Batman games in the first place.

Not to mention the fact more difficult and complex games tend to sell a lot less, since most players don't like getting frustrated a lot.

No, just no. Arkham combat is made so that ANYONE can master it in a few minutes. In DMC most people wil have a hard time surviving on normal, let alone pulling of SSS combos. That you even make the comparison is silly.

Also i just don't buy the whole backstory argument to making shitty, easy combat. The only reason they do it is to appeal to the largest audience. let's not try to pretend anything different. In most any game you are always the hero, and you always have all the tools you need to win. Some games just have the audacity to actually demand the player invest some time in to the game and learn how the mechanics work. Most AAA-titles don't do this however, as a game that actually requires the player to think is considered "niche" today. Which i think is rather sad.

I mean the most rewarding combat systems are the ones that require you, the player, to actually be good to get good results. Boring combat is boring combat. I'd rather die a few times in a fair challenge than counter a million thugs and feel unstoppable any day. Also i think one of the good things about Batman as a super hero is that he's NOT superman. He can get beat up, and should get the shit kicked out of him if he isn't at the top of his game (that being you, the player, playing well).

Simple doesn't mean bad by necessity, i think the Souls games prove that. The combat is fairly simple, with few moves and no fancy combos or shit. But it involves the player constantly, every time you press a button could be a deciding factor in the battle. You constantly have to think about your healt, your stamina and your positioning. In the arkham games you just mash attacks and counter when the big prompt shows up on the screen. You can almost look the other way while fighting, because the game does everything for you. But i understand it's appeal; it's easy to feel like a badass. The illusion is shattered when you think about how the mechanics actually work though, and you realize that it's just rigged for you to beat the shit out of the enemies, with no real challenge. Bump up the difficulty and it doesn't actually make the combat more challenging, it just gives the enemies tons of health and damage.

But then you basically agree that shit combat is ok because players don't like to get challenged. It's like...ok, we don't need good music any more. Justin Bieber sells a shit-ton so he must be good, right? He's the best pop idol ever, because he raked in the cash. Fuck Tupac, he aint got shit. Ice JJ Fish got 35 million plays on youtube alone!

The more i think about it, the more i'm starting to think that you are just not realizing that options in combat is not the same thing as meaningful options. You have options in the Arkham games, they just don't matter all that much. Which is why it's such a shitty combat system imo.

Basically, DMC would have the exact same issue if it weren't for the style system. Ironically enough, the style system is what makes one of the shittiest and most pointless combat systems to the best. Imagine playing DMC without giving a shit about the style score. You can just use the same combo over and over again. Doesn't matter, since you just want to kill the enemies. Why should you use the various moves? Well to get your style meter up, of course. This pushes the player to combo all of your moves together to keep the style meter going, and pushes you to experiment with combos and what moves work well together and so forth. It takes shite combat and makes it great. All of a sudden the otherwise pointless options now serve a purpose.

It's the same with the Souls games. You usually don't have loads of options, but they all matter. Everything from a backstep to your jumping attack has great strategic value in combat. Fuck it up and you are possibly dead.

Another thing i think both the Souls games and DMC does well is enemy variety, something i thought was very lacking in Arkham Asylum. All the different enemies need different strategies and approaches in Souls and DMC, in Arkham and Shadows of Mordor, it's just the same kind of boring enemies all the time. Some times they have a bit more healt or you can't counter them, but that's about it. You just keep on your tedious grind with the same grunts, over and over again.

Great job, thank you! :)

Now I just have to learn Japanese...

First, anyone -and I mean ANYONE - can master anything if they put the time and effort into it, that's just life. There's no point to even say this about anything specific.

Second, if you think you can master the combat system in Batman: Arkham games in a few minutes, then you should be a professional player earning money, because even the people at Batman: Arkham games dedicated sites who are very passionate and have years of experience don't boast this claim lightly. And I'm talking about people who rank in the top of the leaderboards.

Like I said before, most people play the way it's easy for them and don't fully master the combat, even using multiple gadgets during your combos is something very hard to do - and yes, that's how Rocksteady intended people to play it:

"But the connection between Batman's combat system and Batman's gadgetry is something we always try and push, so we've got a new philosophy in Arkham Knight, which is gadgets while gliding."

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/batman-arkham-knight-interv...

As for Devil May Cry, I have played all the games in the franchise and I can tell you, it doesn't take much skill to finish it. You can totally spam certain attacks using certain weapons, I have done it and have seen it be done by other people. So perhaps you're the one being silly saying they can't be compared?!

The Batman: Arkham games' combat system isn't easy or shitty, again, you say this, then please show me your leaderboard rank or make a video where you have mastered this combat system you call easy and shitty and that can be mastered in a few minutes. Surely it will only take you a few minutes to make it, no?

As for Batman's mythos, he. is. the. "goddamn Batman", he's supposed to be a badass force of nature, if you make a game in which he isn't like that, you won't be making a game that does justice to the character and its universe. Which is exactly what Rocksteady did.

Also, I did say they didn't want to make a difficult and complex game, because those sell a lot less than easy or average difficult games. Even a lot, most likely most, of hardcore gamers prefer the latter over the former.

But just because that was a part of it, doesn't mean that was all there is to it. If you make a game where Batman, a grandmaster of various martial arts and considered to be one of the best fighters in the world, isn't a badass, you clearly didn't stay loyal to its mythos.

Here's an excerpt from a Gamasutra interview with Batman: Arkham Asylum director, Sefton Hill:

"Combat was probably the biggest design challenge that we had, because we wanted to create something that was unique for Batman. Also, we had the philosophy that if it's something that's simple for Batman to do in his world, then it should be easy for the player to execute as well. That's where the combat's simple controls came from."

Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4152/rockste...

Just for sales purposes, right?!

Rocksteady did indeed make a combat system that is "easy to learn, but difficult to master", and that mastering takes time and effort, but that's not something that's required to beating the game, the game's difficulty is easy to average and you will only feel the need to hone your skills when doing the various challenge maps, which are relentless in most cases.

You said and I quote: "the most rewarding combat systems are the ones that require you, the player, to actually be good to get good results.", exactly what I said previously about not getting hit, using multiple gadgets and moves, and etc, all which yields better results/scores. Which is exactly how the Batman: Arkham games' combat system works.

If you want more challenge, play at a higher difficulty and really try to master the combat system, but the game won't punish those that don't want that type of challenge, which is a very wise thing to do, giving different kinds of options for different kinds of players looking for different kinds of experiences.

Batman can and does get beat up if the player doesn't play well, only difference is that the player doesn't get punished as much and has a ton of different options to avoid this situation. Plus, like I said before, Batman: Arkham games aren't difficult, but that has nothing to do with the "combat system", which is what you aren't understanding.

Crank the challenge up, even activate the handicap/disadvantage options in the challenge maps and play the game, your experience will be completely different, you will not survive without getting really good with the combat system. Just because the game doesn't force people to become really good or give up playing the game - like the Dark Souls games, for example - doesn't mean the combat system isn't great. The Dark Souls combat system has more layers in some places, but less in others.

As for increasing difficulty, it does make the combat more challenging, enemies attack faster, you don't have counter prompts on screen, the counter window time is significantly reduced, more enemies at once, more Elite enemies, more enemies armed and so on. Not just enemies with more health and dealing more damage. Each of which creates a more challenging combat experience, and just keeps on increasing as time goes on and more enemies are defeated.

I didn't agree with nothing about "shit combat is ok because players don't like to get challenged.", perhaps you can quote me on that in my previous post?

I really, really hate when someone tries to put words into my mouth by saying I said this or that when I didn't. This is almost the most basic, and pathetic, form someone without solid arguments tries to divert someone else's statement to make it look like they have a point or that the other person doesn't have one. Which is commonly used by a lot of people on the internet, unfortunately.

Most likely most gamers do not like frustrating games, which is a direct result of more difficult and complex games, for example, just yesterday I heard Michael Huber and Kyle Bosman from GameTrailers.com talking in a Just Played of Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze about how Brandon Jones (chief of staff of the site) and his wife, both hardcore gamers, went to play Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze after finishing Super Mario 3D World and stopped playing it after dying time after time without making much progress.

Source: http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/ha9m3t/donkey-k...

That's the editor-in-chief of a big gaming site with years and years of experience playing games. My point: a lot of people do not like getting frustrated, and that's why most recent games aren't that hard. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the game offers ways for increasing the difficulty for those who prefer something more challenging.

You seem to have the notion that if something is "easy", it automatically makes it "shitty", which if true, is a very narrow minded and distorted way to see things. Most games offer different levels of difficulty for different levels of players, depending on their experience, age, skill level, mood, time constraints and etc.

Still, players can even use certain mechanics of a game to further increase or decrease the difficult level, like spamming a very powerful ability for decreased difficulty or playing only with a certain restriction, like knife only, for increased difficulty.

Most of the games that give more freedom and control to the player so he/she can customize the experience to his/her liking are better for it, easy for beginners, medium for average players and hard for veterans and etc.

The below are some of the "they just don't matter all that much" options, huh?

Strike, Critical Strikes, Aerial Attack, Counter, Projectile Counter, Evade, Blade Dodge, Blade Dodge Takedown, Redirect, Cape Stun, Group Stun, Ground Takedown, Beat Down, Special Combo Takedown, Special Combo Bat Swarm, Special Combo Multi Ground Takedown, Special Disarm and Destroy, Glide Kick, Drop Attack, Slide, Dive Bomb, Shockwave Attack, Glide Boost Attack, Batarang, Grapple, Explosive Gel, Smoke Pellet, Glue Grenade, Concussion Detonator, Quickfire Batarang, Quickfire Grapple, Quickfire Explosive Gel, Quickdrop Smoke Pellet, Quickfire Glue Grenade, Quickfire Concussion Detonator and etc.

And this is for Batman alone, play with Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing or Deadshot and you need to adapt to their respective styles, moves and gadgets, which produces a different combat gameplay experience.

When you truly master the system, you fully realize how much each different attack, counter, move and gadget makes a difference for each situation, some are better for certain enemies in certain situations at specific times, but that doesn't mean that other actions won't work, just that they won't be as efficient or may end up leaving you in a poorer situation. They're all meaningful as long as one knows what he/she is doing.

What you said about Devil May Cry's style system's reason is exactly the same for the Batman: Arkham games, you have no idea how exactly the same almost everything you said about it is to the other. And even so, it depends on the player, some just want to kill enemies while others want to invest time and effort to create a better combat experience, and this applies to both franchises.

In Batman: Arkham games the player dies a lot because of his/her own mistakes, just like Dark Souls, though the main difference is that Dark Souls punishes the player more heavily, which gives the impression that strategy is more important, which isn't by itself, it all depends on the player, the game and what one has to lose with a wrong move.

Best example is dying with no souls collected, whatever, there's no sense of urgency or the feeling that strategy is essential, you have nothing to lose but time and patience, which depends on the player, but make it so you have tens of thousands of souls collected and then things change drastically. Same as with most games, including the Batman: Arkham games, the more you have to lose, the more reason/incentive you have to be careful and strategize.

The one area I do agree with you is enemy variety (by type, not models) in the Batman: Arkham games, though each consecutive game has increased it upon the previous, and I believe Batman: Arkham Knight will increase that a lot more than compared to its predecessors.

At the end of the day, the Batman: Arkham games' combat system is deep and engaging, and it does take effort and time to master it, while being easy for beginners. Though the game overall is easy to average, which makes a lot of people feel they don't need to master it, which is true, but then again, most games are like that.

However, that doesn't mean there's no challenge for those who seek it, and that the most difficult challenges won't require you to master the combat system, only that the game won't force you to play it like that and punish you if you don't.

So yeah we agree, the combat is simple in the Arkham games (possibly to not piss off editorial staff) and there are a bunch of moves in the game. I still don't see where the depth comes in. Yeah you can do crazy combos and shit, you can in most games. It's about how the game implements it and how the game makes the player use the systems in place. Super Mario Bros, i don't think you'd call that a hugely deep game, yet you can still spend hundreds of hours perfecting your technique for running through the game perfectly. The fun comes form the great use of simple design choices, not from 500 moves. You need the jump and the fire flower, that's all and it's still a great, engaging and challenging experience. Arkham combat completely forgoes this by having the basics of combat being a homing attack and counters, which is ultimately a rather boring combat scenario that almost plays itself once you've learnt what the 2 essential buttons do. Also i agree that there are things similar in the setups between DMC and the Arkham games, but the core gameplay and how they go about implementing it is radically different. DMC is about being a badass, Arkham is about feeling like a badass.

The Arkham games do a lot of stuff well, i just don't think the combat is the stand out point. And i centrainly don't want one of my favorite series on the playstation to exchange it's fun, fast and brutal combat for the floaty mess that we see in the Arkham games.

As for the whole "easy = shitty" thing, well i think it's essentially true. To an extent. A game that is too easy is not fun, which is probably the reason why you aren't fucking tearing ass at Reader Rabbit Preschool right now. If you have to play the game with self imposed handicaps to make it challenging on "normal", then i think it's probably a bit too easy. Less coddling please.

See i think there is inherent value in games that don't gimp themselves in order to cater to as large an audience as possible. Difficulty and failure don't have to be bad things. In fact, some of the best games in this and previous generations have been the ones that do difficulty well, instead of just letting the players breeze through them. But then, this is exactly why i gravitate more towards smaller games that dare to be niche. I'd rather get team wiped 100 times over in Darkest Dungeon than breeze through Shadow of Mordor.

The combat is simple for beginners, but has depth to it for veterans. The depth comes from playing properly, which is more efficient, faster and yields better results. Same as Devil May Cry games, you can button mash them, but the combat will never be satisfying as playing it properly.

Both franchises will give the player a sense of being a badass when playing properly, only difference is the Batman: Arkham games also make beginners feel like a badass, even though they're not. Which in and of itself is not a bad thing, it's great to feel like "I'm awesome" sometimes, but the depth and requirements are still there for those who choose to pursue it, only the game doesn't force or punishes the player if he doesn't do so.

Which if you think about it, it's a great thing, just like in everything in life, gives the player the freedom to do as "little" or as "much" as possible in anything, which catters to a lot of different players' tastes and needs.

Which other games like Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy, for example, don't give to the players, if they don't have time, commit and train, they won't go far, if these games had an easy and normal modes while leaving the difficulty intact for the highest difficulty, they would appeal to a more broader audience and it wouldn't take anything from people who like them as hard as hell.

Rocksteady did an interview, I believe, where it said most people didn't play the Batman: Arkham games' combat system the way they intended them to play, and consequently, those people usually say the combat system is bad.

But that when they saw players who truly mastered the combat system they made it look easy in videos, but if someone played the games before and tried to do the same, they would realize that it is hard as hell to pull off those combos.

I tried to find that article yesterday for over an hour and just couldn't find it, maybe you will have more look than me, I believe it's from 2014 or 2013, but no period and words filters I used led me to it.

Granted, I believe this is like a double-edged sword, they make the game's difficulty easy, which in turn doesn't give players strong enough reasons to master the combat system, but once you really crank up the difficulty, if you don't, you get owned very hard. So it's a difficulty vs incentives problem, not a combat system mechanics one.

I had this discussion with KornDog and someone else before, most people play without putting much though in it and unless they played the game as Rocksteady intended, they will never see its full depth.

Incidentally, the same is true for Dark Souls games:

"Coming in at 59.15, Coolidge may not best every boss, but every strategy he uses is baked into the developer's intentional design."

Source: Watch Dark Souls 2 beaten in under an hour without glitches: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-11-12-watch...

If Coolidge played spamming attacks and items, he would never have beat the game so fast and so efficiently, which is true for Dark Souls, God of War, Street Fighter, Super Meat Boy, Mario like you said and just about every game, that's just like everything in life.

You most likely drive a car, but you most likely don't have the same skills and experience of a professional driver, and your car most likely isn't as fast as a Formula 1 racing car, but that doesn't mean that there's no depth to driving by itself, as professional drivers demonstrate on every type of racing sports out there - since you're not forced to do so, you just aren't part of the elite (hardcore) percentage that does so. And that's your choice, "free will" and all that doesn't make it anything less full of depth just because you're not forced to do so.

I always play games in their most difficulty setting and I believe you, KornDog and a lot of other people here are part of that hardcore percentage that wants more challenge, but it isn't wrong to give other people different choices that suit them. And that is something the Batman: Arkham games do right that games like Dark Souls don't. And they're better for it.

Depth of a system mechanics is not related to a games difficulty, it is related to the reasons it gives players to try and better themselves, which is what I believe you haven't understood yet. While a game may give players a lot of reasons to better themselves, at the end of the day, it's all dependant on the players' tastes and needs.

For example, the 2 links below take you to articles explaining and with videos of someone beating the PC versions of Dark Souls I and II with a Xbox 360 Rock Band guitar - I bet a lot of people would have thought such a thing impossible.

In Dark Souls I, he did it in roughly 11.5 hours while with a peculiar control scheme which limits motions to the character's vertical movement speed (the whammy bar), moving to the right (holding the guitar upright), and rotating the camera left (the effects switch) and with no option to block, use a heavy attack or make gestures.

As for Dark Souls II, he finishes the entire campaign solo - including the DLC - in little over 9 hours while he only sustained 92 deaths, while using the same control scheme that limits motion to the character's forward & backward movement (the whammy bar), moving to the right (holding the guitar upright), and rotating the camera left (the effects switch), and with no input for heavy attacks or blocking.

Watch someone beat Dark Souls with a guitar controller:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-09-08-watch...

Dedicated man shreds through Dark Souls 2 with a guitar controller:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-07-dedic...

Those are challenges he took upon himself to overcome, but they also showed that he beat both Dark Souls I and II with relative ease - like I said countless times before, they're not that hard - and, most importantly, without using all the moves, attacks and techniques the games' combat system offers. In a sense, you can think of him as not "fully mastering" the games' combat system - of course he did, but he didn't need to use everything the combat system offers to beat the games.

Which is exactly the same thing that Batman: Arkham games' average to easy difficulty does, you can finish games from these both franchises without fully utilizing everything their respective combat system offers - needless to say what most of the Dark Souls community thinks of players who fight with bows only, but that doesn't mean there's no depth to one or the other's combat system.

All it really means is that one doesn't gives the player enough reasons to master it by "default" and requires the player to actually increase the difficulty through lots of different means to actually feel that need, while the other requires the player to dedicate a certain time, commitment, effort and patience to mastering it if the player plans to beat it, and actively punishes the player if he/she doesn't.

First off no, you don't have to master Dark Souls to finish the game, not by a long shot. You don't need to parry, you don't need to figure out very specific iframes, parry frames or dead angle swing or anything. If you want to PvP you have to, but for the PvE just learning the basics is fine. And they are super easy to learn. You only need to be careful, conserve stamina and learn enemy patterns. It requires a bit of patience, especially if you are used to playing AAA games that hold your hand constantly, but it's not that difficult nor is it frustrating or unfair. Well, if you can accept that you need to learn to progress, rather than rage quit ofc.

To me the difference is in the basic gameplay. Batman is floaty, clunky and steers all his attacks himself. Dante will do fuckall if you don't control him properly, but when you do it feels precise and accurate. Same in dark souls, if you don't use your moves properly nothing will happen. That's the big difference for me. Dark souls wouldn't get better or deeper if you added 1000 moves, it'd just get more cluttered. The basic gameplay of stamina management, environmental awareness and observation of enemies is what makes the combat great. That works from the first enemy to the last boss and is constantly engaging. Without any artificial difficulty needed, at least not for your first few playthroughs.

Also please, you don't need to bring up speedruns, they prove nothing of the general gameplay experience. These are people that know every nook and cranny of the game, just how to exploit every stat and weapon. They say nothing of worth about the games design and philosophy. Looking at what you have put down i think it does indeed seem to be more of a priority to make the game accessible and palatable to the mainstream than it is to make really solid combat. You need to feel like a bad ass when you are the freaking batman, so here you go...have some spider sense, huge frame windows for counters and attacks that aim themselves. For those who want it, have a bit of an XP-bonus if you make long combos, but that's about it.

Just doesn't feel compelling at all to me.

I hope for the fans that this gets localized. Personally i don't care much for this anymore. It should improve and not stay the same and not change at all.

I enjoyed Yakuza 5, so I'm looking forward to this one, I really like the changes to combat.

If you mean combat system as a whole including the best action games out there, its definitely not "the best".
Sure its "the best" when it comes to "pick up and play" but other than that, no.

Way better than AC thats for sure, but i would say Shadow of Mordor and Arkham series are the best when it comes to this "type" of combat.

But these days I love the Batman-type combat more than your traditional DMC/Bayo/NG because i am not into overexagerated stylish combos and learning them all...etc. as i used to sometimes (rarely) i do, but for the most part i just like to have fun and Batman/Shadow of Mordor combat does that and i like them VERY much.

The only franchise i give time to is Ninja Gaiden series, but thats because i know the core combat from its roots since the first NG so its a natural progress for me to learn everything there is quickly and its my *sigh* favorite action franchise so I am drawned to it.

All in all, I dont find Arkham/Shadow of Mordor combat shitty at all, its FAR from it. Its one of the best there is for pick-up-and-play and feeling awesome, but yes it can be very challenging at times when it gets way too crowded (Shadow of Mordor lol), but its not hair-pulling and heart attacking challenge, and alot of gamers dont have time and patience for it and just want to have fun.

Too bad this is still cross gen. It will be nice to see them doing more with skin shaders and cloth once they finally jettison the ancient PS3.

They also missed a trick with the video booth video. It should have looked like a 1980s VHS tape instead of modern HD video.

A wall of text. looks pretty interesting, reminds me of shenmu.

that's probably because Ryu ga Gotoku is kinda the successor of shenmu~

I'm a fan of both, and it's no successor. Very different games overall.

They didn't bother updating the graphics for PS4 did they?

After finishing Ori And The Blind Forest, I decided to go back and play Batman: Arkham Origins, didn't finish the Cold, Cold Heart DLC. But first I wanted to go and hone my fighting skills in the Challenge mode's maps.

I got owned so fast, and it was even on the Normal difficulty, damn!!! I played it for over an hour in a lot of different maps and with all 3 characters, and I gotta say, B:AO's challenge maps at least on normal mode, are not easy at all!

And I have finished all Batman: Arkham games on the Hard difficulty multiple times, plus most of the challenge maps. I was with a default Batman, no progress on the Story mode, so no advanced combat techniques and moves, so I was mostly only being able to use attack, counter and evade moves, but it shouldn't have mattered.

Still, even on the less challenging maps and on Normal difficulty, I was still getting defeated over and over and was barely scoring properly, if this game is easy, I'm not getting it.

Of course, it's been a very long time since I last played a Batman: Arkham game, and I never mastered the combat system for real, I remember playing extremely well back when Batman: Arkham City was released, that's when I was at my best, but I never went further like training for weeks or months like some really passionate fans/experts did.

Batman "will do fuckall if you don't control him properly, but when you do it feels precise and accurate." as well, same for "if you don't use your moves properly nothing will happen." and "environmental awareness and observation of enemies is what makes the combat great."

As for "artificial difficulty", like I said before, Batman: Arkham Origins' Challenge mode's maps aren't easy at all. Below are the 3 starting difficulties:

Easy - For novice players or those new to the action genre. Enemies are no match for the strength, gadgets and intelligence of the Batman.

Normal - A balanced difficulty option suitable for most players. Enemies are tough, aggressive, and merciless. But you are the Batman, ready to bring justice to the streets.

Hard - Warning! Enemies are faster, tougher and more dangerous right from the start. Challenges will push Batman to the limit. This should only be attempted by players who are experts at Batman: Arkham Origins, or the very brave!

Then after completing the Story mode on Normal or Hard difficulty, there's 2 more difficulty levels beyond the above 3 that get unlocked: New Game Plus and I Am The Night.

Like I said, the Batman: Arkham games have a fairly easy to average difficulty Story mode, but Challenge mode is a whole different story, even with a fully upgraded Batman. And from what I read, New Game Plus is even more difficult than Challenge maps, plus in I Am The Night
mode, you only have 1 life, it's game over if you die and you will have to start again.

There's all kinds of options when it comes to difficulty in Batman: Arkham games, and most people never play on the hardest difficult levels, challenge maps and/or enough till they actually feel the need to master the combat system, and do so.

So it's very frustrating to read a lot of people saying the combat system in Batman: Arkham games is bad when they never committed to it, in the first place.