Are you surprised by Carolyn's review on Batman AO?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

I know I was. I just woke up, as of this writing, and went on to Gamespot, saw that the review was up and was shocked to see it being a 6 out of 10. I was thinking it was going to be given a much higher score, but as I read the review, I saw that Carolyn was turned off by two things about the game; the game offered nothing new or innovative and that the multiplayer's characters were frustratingly weak. So here's my question to you; are you surprised by her review of Batman: Arkham Origins? Were you hoping to see her rate it higher or do you feel that her criticisms of the game were poor at best?

Also, please keep in mind, I am not here to attack her at all nor to insult her either. That doesn't belong at all, but I am curious to hear your thoughts nevertheless.

#2 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16125 posts) -

I think the score is a little harsh. Even if the game doesn't do much new, this is still some of the best combat and exploration in the action genre.

#3 Edited by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

Not even a little bit. Nor can I say I was expecting it to get a higher review, at least not on this site. I have been rather surprised with the 8s and 9s it's been landing though.

However, I tend to ignore scores and her written review convinced me on the product. I expect sequels to be familiar. While I think a series that has become derivative is a perfectly valid complaint it isn't one that truly bothers me outside of frequent, yearly releases. In this case, if this were a Rocksteady product I'd be let down, significantly. But this is a studio that picked up the franchise and, according to Carolyn's written words as opposed to the score, the "gameplay is as solid as ever" and it has a story with some genuinely great moments.

This is only the third Arkham game and both before were fresh and exciting. I'm alright with familiar ground so long as the gameplay is intact and there's a good story on display.

#4 Posted by experience_fade (259 posts) -

I'm not surprised in the least. It's a shame, I'm sure, but I can't completely judge it until I play the game.

#5 Posted by gpuFX16 (1296 posts) -

I'm really not that surprised. But it's probably because I really don't care for review scores anymore. The score I don't really pay much attention to, but having read the review, it still sounds like a good buy, especially when you consider the fact that Rocksteady wasn't at the helm.

#6 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Isn't this a repeat of what happened to Bioshock 2 ? Where people rate the game lower because it can't rereveal Rapture all over again ? I haven't played Arkham Origins yet but this might just be one of those situations where the game actually isn't inferior in anyway, its just that people where expecting another revolution., I'd rather they milk it than for it to wind up like Bioshock Infinite (a brand new and exciting novel experience that falls flat on its face because it didn't want to be simular to its predecesor) who the hell wants that ?

#7 Posted by insanegame377 (332 posts) -

I cant judge for myself until I play the game, but I was definitely surprised by the score. I'd have been expecting an 8 at least.

#8 Posted by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -

Will be picking it up regardless.

....and PaffDaddy makes a return (found this on front page of Metacritic's user reviews):

"The cape is finally black, and there are no man panties in sight. Now Rocksteady should learn to make a serviceable Batman by omitting the absurd blue/purple cape and briefs, their Batman design is a walking paradox.

P.S. The grey belt is nice, keep that too."

User Corvettecrazy26 (aka PaffDaddy)

Unreal, this guy.

#9 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

It's only a bit strange because most of these criticisms could have and should have been levied against Arkham City as well, but for some reason weren't.

#10 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -

I was surprised to see no mention of the games lack of female character, or the fact that the game portrays men in an unrealistic light.

On a serious note, I don't take anything Carolyn says seriously anymore.

#11 Posted by marcheegsr (2521 posts) -

Im kind of surprised. I expected a 8 at least. Though ill make my own decision when I pick up the game.

#12 Edited by sabretooth2066 (61 posts) -

i went on metacritic, i smiled when i saw BATMAN ARKHAM ORIGINS with 80-90 ratings from several mags, then i smiled even more when i saw the extremely low rating gamespot gave...finally i laughed hysterically when i saw "Carolyn Petit" next to that review.

gamespot reviews are like hilarious jokes more and more

#13 Edited by uninspiredcup (7843 posts) -

Don't agree with the rating at all.

#14 Edited by sabretooth2066 (61 posts) -

this rating is COMPLETELY out of any context and logic:

rating a game with 9 and then rating the sequel/prequel with 6 only because it has nothing new....give me a break!

my major point here is: if carolyn petit would have never played any former BATMAN ARKHAM game, what rating would she have given ARKHAM ORIGINS instead of 6 ??? coz then the features in ARKHAM ORIGINS would be new for her and from a logic point of view she would have probably rated it with 9, just like the "new" ARKHAM CITY when it was released back then.

#16 Edited by speedfreak48t5p (6946 posts) -

If gamespot is going to rate Batman down for lack of changes, Battlefield 4 (and COD) shouldn't be scoring higher than a 5.

#17 Edited by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

It's a shameless rehash made by another studio. Of course I'm not surprised by this review.

And score threads are the worst, but I must admit that I find it really funny when people get inevitably angry when someone gives a low score to a game they like. Posting stuff like "I don't take this reviewer seriously anymore" is even funnier; this means that you take some reviewers seriously? What does "taking a reviewer seriously" entail? Reading all of his reviews and taking all of his opinions as if they were the truth?

#18 Edited by sabretooth2066 (61 posts) -

If gamespot is going to rate Batman down for lack of changes, Battlefield 4 (and COD) shouldn't be scoring higher than a 5.

..dont forget the low ratings WATCH DOGS must get for being a GTA clone only....hopefully not against women...again.

#20 Edited by capaho (1253 posts) -

How can you judge the accuracy of a review for a game that you haven't played?

I should add, however, that I like the Batman series, so if it's just more of the same, that's fine by me. The only rating that really matters to me is my own.

#21 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ ReddestSkies "It's a shameless rehash made by another studio. Of

course I'm not surprised by this review."

Whats wrong with rehashing great concepts, or are you the type of person who'l playing anything new whether its good or not.

#22 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6007 posts) -

Can't claim to be surprised. Frankly, this review states exactly what I was expecting all along; it's just more of the same. But why that should equal a six when it's more of the same of what earned 10s and 9s across the board two years ago just doesn't make any sense to me. It's the kind of score a game merits when it's held up against it's predecessors rather than being judged as it's own game.

You're reviewing a game, not how the latest entry holds up as part of the series.

Oh, and I thought the criticism of the multiplayer was funny- 'the ability to sprint only short distances makes the criminals seem weak and inept.' The thugs Batman squashes ARE weak and inept.

#23 Edited by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

well, i haven't played the game so i won't say i agree or disagree with her arguments. however, the overall impression that it's just more of the same is one i had before the game's release so i'm not surprised when somebody says the formula is getting tiring.

i'm also not surprised that a critic gives a game a score on the lower side and suddenly has to justify themselves for having an opinion that doesn't coincide with the majority.

#24 Edited by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ ReddestSkies "It's a shameless rehash made by another studio. Of

course I'm not surprised by this review."

Whats wrong with rehashing great concepts, or are you the type of person who'l playing anything new whether its good or not.

There's too much variety in gaming for me to play a shameless rehash of a game I've played last year. There are so many quality games that are unlike anything I've played recently, I don't see why I should pay $60 for a game that is just a game I liked with a fresh coat of paint.

Also, if in a few months I want to play more Arkham City, I'll play Arkham City again. This new game offers little additional value to me over the original, and I happen to own the original, so why waste money?

Edit: I'll probably end up picking it up for $5 on a Steam Sale in a few years, though.

#25 Edited by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

I know I was. I just woke up, as of this writing, and went on to Gamespot, saw that the review was up and was shocked to see it being a 6 out of 10. I was thinking it was going to be given a much higher score, but as I read the review, I saw that Carolyn was turned off by two things about the game; the game offered nothing new or innovative and that the multiplayer's characters were frustratingly weak. So here's my question to you; are you surprised by her review of Batman: Arkham Origins? Were you hoping to see her rate it higher or do you feel that her criticisms of the game were poor at best?

Also, please keep in mind, I am not here to attack her at all nor to insult her either. That doesn't belong at all, but I am curious to hear your thoughts nevertheless.

Carolyn got exactly what i think most have had a feeling another Batman would be. Bad.

So i am glad that i didn't jump onto the bandwagon and fell for another bad Batman because City was for me not good and more of that would be even worse.

So congrats to gamespot for not falling for the hype.

#26 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18278 posts) -

I guess she thought the game discriminates against the bats demographic

#27 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

I guess she thought the game discriminates against the bats demographic

Or perhaps Caro just didn´t fall for the hype and could see the game for what it is, more of City just bigger.

#28 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

this rating is COMPLETELY out of any context and logic:

rating a game with 9 and then rating the sequel/prequel with 6 only because it has nothing new....give me a break!

my major point here is: if carolyn petit would have never played any former BATMAN ARKHAM game, what rating would she have given ARKHAM ORIGINS instead of 6 ??? coz then the features in ARKHAM ORIGINS would be new for her and from a logic point of view she would have probably rated it with 9, just like the "new" ARKHAM CITY when it was released back then.

Your post is out of "context" and logic.

First Batman AO is not the first there are two games before it, Batman Arkham Asylum was a great experience, City more of the same but at least enough new to make it a worthwhile experience. But Batman Arkham Origins is more City but just gotten bigger , which is bad and a slap in the face of its fans.

#29 Posted by Randolph (10470 posts) -

If you guys want to discuss it with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to field questions at NeoGAF.

#30 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

No. I, one....don't pay attention to scores. Two....don't pay attention to her reviews.

#31 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

@Randolph said:

If you guys want to discuss it with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to field questions at NeoGAF.

Eh? why would a gamespot editor go to Neogaf and discuss a review on gamespot?

#32 Posted by Randolph (10470 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

If you guys want to discuss it with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to field questions at NeoGAF.

Eh? why would a gamespot editor go to Neogaf and discuss a review on gamespot?

That's a great question, if they ever bother recognizing they have forums on this very website here, you may get to ask them.

#33 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

@Randolph said:

@Jacanuk said:

@Randolph said:

If you guys want to discuss it with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to field questions at NeoGAF.

Eh? why would a gamespot editor go to Neogaf and discuss a review on gamespot?

That's a great question, if they ever bother recognizing they have forums on this very website here, you may get to ask them.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

#34 Posted by FamilyGuyFan507 (2429 posts) -

Her reviews are so tired, and cumbersome. I love how she throws out big words in attempt to 'seem' intelligent in the review process. While, I understand Batman brings little to the table in terms of new, Gamestop, like IGN need to consistently base their reviews. You cannot continuously review Call of Duty around 8+ score, with tons of positive feedback about multiplayer gameplay and then condemn Batman.

I don't care who she is as a person, that has nothing to do with taste, nor opinions. Her review is just that, an opinion, but a lot of what she says comes off as strictly fact, and Gamepot gave Arkham Origins the lowest rating, while receiving various 8s, and 9s. Neither here nor there, I suppose.

#35 Posted by Randolph (10470 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

Will be picking it up regardless.

....and PaffDaddy makes a return (found this on front page of Metacritic's user reviews):

"The cape is finally black, and there are no man panties in sight. Now Rocksteady should learn to make a serviceable Batman by omitting the absurd blue/purple cape and briefs, their Batman design is a walking paradox.

P.S. The grey belt is nice, keep that too."

User Corvettecrazy26 (aka PaffDaddy)

Unreal, this guy.

This is the only review for this game that matters.

#ThankYouPaffDaddy

#36 Edited by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@Jacanuk: there is no falling for hype non sense. Everyone is more than capable of forming their own opinions based on the merits they deem worthy. There is no giant cloud of persuasion that some how magically alters everyone's opinions of games YOU so happen not to like.

#37 Posted by Randolph (10470 posts) -

I'll be very interested to see if this "petit standard" for harsh score deductions when a game does "nothing new" is applied to the yearly sports and Call of Duty games.

#38 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

The game is getting meh scores all over the place so her review is not an outlier. The review was well written and explains her issues with the game just fine and she doesn't seem to have any out of the game sort of complaints like with GTA.

As for the scoring, everyone has their own opinion of what a 6 game is, what an 8 game is, etc. it seems like GS has for a while now used the full scale more than others. For me personally a 6 is a game I really don't care to play, it maybe alright but I don't have time for alright. If this game really is just more of batman I would GUESS my score would be more around an 8 as I really love the core batman gameplay mechanics.

#39 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

@Randolph said:

I'll be very interested to see if this "petit standard" for harsh score deductions when a game does "nothing new" is applied to the yearly sports and Call of Duty games.

yup. They didnt give Halo 4 a 6 last year or Uncharted 3 despite it being a rehash. A really good rehash, but a rehash nonetheless.

Forza 5 is coming out in a month. It better nothing anything about a 6.

#40 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18278 posts) -

@Randolph said:

I'll be very interested to see if this "petit standard" for harsh score deductions when a game does "nothing new" is applied to the yearly sports and Call of Duty games.

I'm not a fan of the "does nothing new" criticism. New ideas in general are few and far between, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with "more of the same" if the material was good to start with.

People can't expect developers to make a game every two years and find something revolutionary with each new installment. It's just unrealistic.

#41 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ ReddestSkies

The Original set the bar very high. I understand you want to see this franchise grow and improve but I can't see that happening, its design is so fucking fantastic that all they can do at this point is fine tune it, any attempt to innovate further at this point is unreaslistic and is gona put the franchise in a Bioshock Infinite dissapointment type situation, its why I'm alil skeptical about what Rocksteady is currently working on. I say let'em milk it dry. Don't need to worry to much about it, it wont cause much of a fuss like COD or Assassin's Creed so you can ignore it rather easily

#42 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150329 posts) -

The game is getting meh scores all over the place so her review is not an outlier. The review was well written and explains her issues with the game just fine and she doesn't seem to have any out of the game sort of complaints like with GTA.

As for the scoring, everyone has their own opinion of what a 6 game is, what an 8 game is, etc. it seems like GS has for a while now used the full scale more than others. For me personally a 6 is a game I really don't care to play, it maybe alright but I don't have time for alright. If this game really is just more of batman I would GUESS my score would be more around an 8 as I really love the core batman gameplay mechanics.

It's just a random score based on opinion. If you like the other Batman games...I don't see why you wouldn't like this one. Of course, if you didn't like them.....I could see that as the reason. I just don't buy putting much stock in random numerical opinions though.

#43 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ Jacanuk "Carolyn got exactly what i think most have had a

feeling another Batman would be. Bad."

POPPYCOCK ! Arkham Origins is not Bad. It may be redundant but it sure is hell is not bad, is this another voice actor thing ? It is isn't it. Im starting to see a pattern.

#44 Edited by Randolph (10470 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@Randolph said:

I'll be very interested to see if this "petit standard" for harsh score deductions when a game does "nothing new" is applied to the yearly sports and Call of Duty games.

I'm not a fan of the "does nothing new" criticism. New ideas in general are few and far between, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with "more of the same" if the material was good to start with.

People can't expect developers to make a game every two years and find something revolutionary with each new installment. It's just unrealistic.

I'm not either. I just find it entertaining how every few years a game get's slammed for bringing nothing new to the table, but then that standard seems to just melt away when the yearly juggernauts arrive. Then all of a sudden they admit it has nothing new, but what IS there is excuted so well that it is still a great game. (mark my words some game reviewed after this one will have something to that effect) I just find the constantly shifting double standards in reviews hilarious here, and even near on saints like GregK were not immune to doing this. (DMC3 is too HARD, I am docking points... DMC3 Special Edition is lacks the original games difficulty, I am docking points... wait... what??)

I say all of this as an amused outsider when it comes to reviews, those things are purchasing guides. I don't need a purchasing guide on the new Batman, because I already knew I didn't want to get it any time soon anyway. Hell, I'm buying a $500 gaming system in November for ONE game, Killer Instinct, and I already know that game will be slaughtered here, if it gets review at all. I'm forecasting a 5 or 6 review score. (won't comment on potential content of the written review because GS has absolutely no fighting game proficient members on it's staff, so it won't matter and likely won't be terribly well informed)

But that isn't relevant to me, because again, reviews are a purchasing guide for people who have not made up their minds already. People really do need to keep that in perspective.

#45 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I was fairly certain this game would be scoring an aggregate closer to the 70-80 mark given the different developer and the fact that this seemed more like an extension of Arkham City rather than an entirely new endeavor.

However, Arkham City is one of the best games ever made so if this game manages to keep the quality of the previous entry intact while adding some variety in the way of boss fights and new challenge rooms I don’t see a problem.

And others who have cited the hypocrisy of sites slamming this game as redundant while circle-jerking other franchises, some of them YEARLY, which are guilty of the same thing have a pretty good goddamn point.

Personally, I’m not too concerned and I’ll have a better understanding of the situation once I play the game this afternoon.

#46 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: but scores can be a great guideline as a quick comparison to other games. When I see a score it instantly puts me into the mindset of what type of quality I can expect that game to be. Also words can be misleading, a review can be almost all positive but the game could still score an 8 implying that while the game is very well done it's not in the same league as a game that scored a 9.

If a score system is used correctly it can be a great way to get right into the heart of what they really felt about a game. When I rate a game it is not a checklist of what is positive or negative, it's simply a feeling of how much I enjoyed that game.

#47 Edited by Randolph (10470 posts) -

@Randolph said:

I'll be very interested to see if this "petit standard" for harsh score deductions when a game does "nothing new" is applied to the yearly sports and Call of Duty games.

yup. They didnt give Halo 4 a 6 last year or Uncharted 3 despite it being a rehash. A really good rehash, but a rehash nonetheless.

Forza 5 is coming out in a month. It better nothing anything about a 6.

By the Petit standard, New Super Mario Bros. U should have been a 5 out of ten, at best. Pikmin 3 should have been a 3 or 4. They really don't think these things through very well at all.

#48 Edited by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I don't really pay attention to reviews, to be honest. And since I cancelled Arkham Origins when the season pass was announced, I don't really care either way. I may rent it at some point, but I kind of doubt it -- I'm moving on to the next generation.

#49 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@Randolph: that's the biggest problem with this site, their review scores are all over the place and have little consistency. Which is why so many have begun to simply shrug off GS reviews.

#50 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@Grammaton-Cleric: I eagerly await the impressions as I trust you more than most sites, especially on this game.

And do we have an official thread?