How would you make Batman Arkham Origins Better?

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Behardy24 (3059 posts) -

Just finished playing the game and have done a couple of the side quests. Out of the three games in the series, this one had the best gradually difficulty scale. Everything else like the story, environments, characters, side quests, and detective mode were not so great.

For those of you that have played or watched it, how would change Arkham Origins for the better?

#2 Posted by JamesJoule (161 posts) -
#3 Posted by Puddingmon (9 posts) -

Just finished playing the game and have done a couple of the side quests. Out of the three games in the series, this one had the best gradually difficulty scale. Everything else like the story, environments, characters, side quests, and detective mode were not so great.

For those of you that have played or watched it, how would change Arkham Origins for the better?

Basically they released this game to give something to the Arkham fans before Arkham Knight. They knew that they would demand more. So yes its a good game but they rushed and passed over key points.

#4 Posted by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -
#5 Edited by Allicrombie (25122 posts) -

I didn't finish it. The biggest problem for me is that it might look like Batman, might sound like Batman, might have all the cool toys and gizmos and moves like Batman, but it doesn't "feel" like Batman, if that makes any sense.

#6 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Well thats easy.... Just rename WB Montreal to Rocksteady ! :p...

The game is fine... Itd these Rocksteady fanboys that are the problem.

#7 Posted by mastermetal777 (973 posts) -

I would've made the story focus less on the Joker and a bit more on the assassins and Black Mask. I love the Joker, but he's not Batman's only villain capable of causing him problems.

I would've made the gameplay less gadget focused honestly. Those shock gloves were the biggest problem for me, since it removed any sense that these thugs could beat you like in the previous games, especially on higher difficulties.

It also just didn't have the kind of atmosphere I was expecting. Nobody on the streets except thugs and cops. It just made the place feel empty without real justification. In Arkham City it made sense because it was a super prison, and yet that place felt more alive than Gotham in Arkham Origins.

#8 Posted by Jeager_Titan (945 posts) -

Well thats easy.... Just rename WB Montreal to Rocksteady ! :p...

The game is fine... Itd these Rocksteady fanboys that are the problem.

Oh mighty Lulu_Lulu, pls fix the bugs in the game made by your precious WB Montreal.

#9 Posted by mastermetal777 (973 posts) -

@jeager_titan: LOL

And yes, those bugs and glitches were incredibly annoying.

#10 Edited by firefox59 (4360 posts) -

@jeager_titan: LOL

And yes, those bugs and glitches were incredibly annoying.

I always see people destroy this game. Was it just the glitches? I 100% the game and didn't hit a single glitch. Not one. Arkham City actually froze a couple times for me and I ended up losing about an hour's progress between the two times.

#11 Edited by mastermetal777 (973 posts) -

@firefox59: lucky you then. I had more freezes in Origins than with Arkham City.

#12 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Jeager_Titan

Didn't see any.

#13 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Jeager_Titan

Didn't see any.

#14 Edited by harry_james_pot (10556 posts) -

I didn't finish it. The biggest problem for me is that it might look like Batman, might sound like Batman, might have all the cool toys and gizmos and moves like Batman, but it doesn't "feel" like Batman, if that makes any sense.

Exactly. There was still some horrible things like areas you can't glide to directly, the stupid endless bridge, the lack of Riddler secrets.. But even if all of those things were fixed, the game just doesn't feel right.

#15 Edited by The_Last_Ride (70672 posts) -

i liked it a lot actually. I liked the new detective mode, the new enemies and the bosses were good.

#16 Posted by mastermetal777 (973 posts) -

i liked it a lot actually. I liked the new detective mode, the new enemies and the bosses were good.

I do agree that the bosses were very well done in comparison to the previous games, with the exception of the awesome Mr. Freeze fight in Arkham City.

However, I took issue with the new detective mode. At first I thought it was going to be a great way to solve the crime yourself, but no. Batman always, through his own words, tells you exactly where to search and what to look for, which is basically hand-holding. I know the series is pretty bad with hand-holding to begin with, but this was just overkill. Just let me figure it out myself, Bats! lol

#17 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@mastermetal777

So, just like the Rocksteady's Batman ?

#18 Posted by mastermetal777 (973 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Actually worse because I felt deceived from what the gameplay demos were showing without Batman's voice-over. The items get highlighted as soon as you so much as glanced at them, whereas in Rocksteady's games you had to be looking at them directly from a close distance in order to scan them, which to me felt much better by comparison.

#19 Edited by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

I didn't finish it. The biggest problem for me is that it might look like Batman, might sound like Batman, might have all the cool toys and gizmos and moves like Batman, but it doesn't "feel" like Batman, if that makes any sense.

This^ this is the only problem I have with this franchise. Although Arkham knight does "feel" like Batman....so far.

#20 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Thats "Pixel Hunting" and its absolutely terrible.

Any puzzle that revolves around finding things will always be executed poorly because they can because of either hand holding or flatout Pixel Hunting.. See Identity Thefy mission.

#21 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

This game was, simply put, the worst.

Sure, it had a few good ideas that I enjoyed, such as the new detective mode and how I was able to solve crimes and then arrest the bad guys after taking them down.

But it was filled with bugs and glitches that, by the way, the developer REFUSES to fix. That's number one.

Number two - someone said the bosses were great? Bullshit. All of the bosses were fine up to the point of where you fought Bane. They programmed Bane in the worst way possible. Every time he tried to charge you, he could somehow turn around and hit you anyway, even if you managed to get out of the way in time. He can STILL circle around and STILL HIT YOU. That's why the only time he was easy was within the last boss fights, when you had the Shock Gloves put on. Everyone else wasn't that much of a problem. Not Firely, Copperhead, or even Killer Croc. Joker, if you even considered him to be a boss, was a joke and shouldn't even be considered the final boss.

Third of all, there's the Dark Knight system. Unlike Rocksteady's games, you couldn't tackle the challenges any way you wanted them to. You had to do them all in a specific order and if you miss them, tough shit. You gotta do it all over again and it's worse, because some of those challenges, specifically the predator challenges, can only be done in story-mode/predator based missions, if that makes sense to you. That was some of the most stupidest thinking I've ever seen from a game developer. That's one thing I want to see changed if they make a sequel to Arkham Origins - allow us to take on the challenges anyway you see fit. If Rocksteady allowed you to do any of the challenges from their games...why the hell couldn't WBM do it here?

Finally, I found the storyline to be mostly unmemorable, save for how the rivalry between Batman and Joker started, at least in the Arkham universe. It's sad, really, since Rocksteady considers Arkham Origins to be official canon.

In other words? Give it to Rocksteady next time. They know how Batman feels and plays TEN TIMES better than what that fucking piece of shit developer known as Warner Bros Montreal can do!

#22 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

Also, a quick note about the bugs and glitches. Some people must've gotten lucky then...

I've seen, in my playtime with the game, Batman sinking into ships or how the thugs had this WONDERFUL sniper aim; they were so good that they could hit you through walls, even if you were not in their line of sight!

Also, my save files got corrupted and it wasn't because of my Xbox 360 at all. So I had the wonderful task of having to delete my corrupt files and having to start all over again. That took me forever and a day to get back to where I was, including getting all the sidequests done. I completed this game three times for the achievements and I'm glad I won't ever have to bother with Origins again.

Oh and I never touched multiplayer, so don't ask for my experience, from what I've seen and have been told, multiplayer felt unbalanced and clunky.

#23 Posted by gameofthering (10134 posts) -

I felt that the timing was off during combat. It felt different to Rocksteadys games.

#24 Posted by firefox59 (4360 posts) -

This game was, simply put, the worst.

Sure, it had a few good ideas that I enjoyed, such as the new detective mode and how I was able to solve crimes and then arrest the bad guys after taking them down.

But it was filled with bugs and glitches that, by the way, the developer REFUSES to fix. That's number one.

Number two - someone said the bosses were great? Bullshit. All of the bosses were fine up to the point of where you fought Bane. They programmed Bane in the worst way possible. Every time he tried to charge you, he could somehow turn around and hit you anyway, even if you managed to get out of the way in time. He can STILL circle around and STILL HIT YOU. That's why the only time he was easy was within the last boss fights, when you had the Shock Gloves put on. Everyone else wasn't that much of a problem. Not Firely, Copperhead, or even Killer Croc. Joker, if you even considered him to be a boss, was a joke and shouldn't even be considered the final boss.

Third of all, there's the Dark Knight system. Unlike Rocksteady's games, you couldn't tackle the challenges any way you wanted them to. You had to do them all in a specific order and if you miss them, tough shit. You gotta do it all over again and it's worse, because some of those challenges, specifically the predator challenges, can only be done in story-mode/predator based missions, if that makes sense to you. That was some of the most stupidest thinking I've ever seen from a game developer. That's one thing I want to see changed if they make a sequel to Arkham Origins - allow us to take on the challenges anyway you see fit. If Rocksteady allowed you to do any of the challenges from their games...why the hell couldn't WBM do it here?

Finally, I found the storyline to be mostly unmemorable, save for how the rivalry between Batman and Joker started, at least in the Arkham universe. It's sad, really, since Rocksteady considers Arkham Origins to be official canon.

In other words? Give it to Rocksteady next time. They know how Batman feels and plays TEN TIMES better than what that fucking piece of shit developer known as Warner Bros Montreal can do!

The bosses were better than the AC boss fights. You not liking the Dark Knight system is obviously an opinion. The predator and combat in these games is soooo easy with all the gadgets you have now. The DK system gave you purpose and made things more interesting, gave the player challenges.

Just because you had a bad experience with a corrupt file (which happens with loads of games btw) doesn't mean it's the worst thing ever lol. The next game from Rocksteady will be much more like Origins than AC and there's a reason for that.

#25 Posted by Behardy24 (3059 posts) -

@behardy24 said:

Just finished playing the game and have done a couple of the side quests. Out of the three games in the series, this one had the best gradually difficulty scale. Everything else like the story, environments, characters, side quests, and detective mode were not so great.

For those of you that have played or watched it, how would change Arkham Origins for the better?

Basically they released this game to give something to the Arkham fans before Arkham Knight. They knew that they would demand more. So yes its a good game but they rushed and passed over key points.

True. But I felt like I read somewhere that in the Arkham/ Rocksteady contract, if the Arkham series was somewhat successful, there had to be a total of 4 games on consoles. Of course, only one of them didn't need to be fully developed by rocksteady, it just had to be moderate by them.

#26 Edited by Behardy24 (3059 posts) -

I didn't finish it. The biggest problem for me is that it might look like Batman, might sound like Batman, might have all the cool toys and gizmos and moves like Batman, but it doesn't "feel" like Batman, if that makes any sense.

Not sure what you mean by "feel" like Batman. If your talking about the character perspective of him of how he was more "mean" and "gritty", I think that was point since he just started being the Batman just 2 years from when origins happen (couldn't have been made better though). But if your taking about the combat of him, I thought it exceptional fine throughout and was made easier to get combo while at the same time gradually ramping up the difficulty. (bosses were annoying, difficult, and sometimes glicthy)

#27 Edited by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -

I didn't finish Origins. Probably put about 10 hours into it max. My problem that stood out the most was that the game had no feeling of passion in it. When I play Rocksteady's Arkham games, I can feel that this was a product that arose out of intense love for the source material. That their games were made by hardcore Batman fans. Asylum and City felt alive and that care had been taken in every step in its production. Origins felt intensely run of the mill and obligatory. Exactly what it was: a quick cash-in on the reputation of a successful franchise built by a far more talented and impassioned studio.

As far as specifics goes, the city was dull, lifeless and boring to explore, the navigation was a hassle (grapple points were notoriously difficult to find in some places and buildings became obstacles to get around instead of useful points to boost off of, not to mention the bridge), and the nuances of combat were off and ended up being nothing but frustrating.

It did a few things well, like some of the boss fights and the martial artists but that's about all I cared for. Overall I found it to be so unenjoyable to play I couldn't bear to continue after 10+ hours, and I'm a huge fan of this franchise. I just got bored and that's the worst that can be said about any game. I had to immediately replay City over again after it to remind myself what made it such a wonderful series as Origin's flaws are not apparent until some time is spent with it, and it was a night and day difference. No one but Rocksteady should ever touch this license. They own it in all the right ways.

#28 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

@Metamania said:

This game was, simply put, the worst.

Sure, it had a few good ideas that I enjoyed, such as the new detective mode and how I was able to solve crimes and then arrest the bad guys after taking them down.

But it was filled with bugs and glitches that, by the way, the developer REFUSES to fix. That's number one.

Number two - someone said the bosses were great? Bullshit. All of the bosses were fine up to the point of where you fought Bane. They programmed Bane in the worst way possible. Every time he tried to charge you, he could somehow turn around and hit you anyway, even if you managed to get out of the way in time. He can STILL circle around and STILL HIT YOU. That's why the only time he was easy was within the last boss fights, when you had the Shock Gloves put on. Everyone else wasn't that much of a problem. Not Firely, Copperhead, or even Killer Croc. Joker, if you even considered him to be a boss, was a joke and shouldn't even be considered the final boss.

Third of all, there's the Dark Knight system. Unlike Rocksteady's games, you couldn't tackle the challenges any way you wanted them to. You had to do them all in a specific order and if you miss them, tough shit. You gotta do it all over again and it's worse, because some of those challenges, specifically the predator challenges, can only be done in story-mode/predator based missions, if that makes sense to you. That was some of the most stupidest thinking I've ever seen from a game developer. That's one thing I want to see changed if they make a sequel to Arkham Origins - allow us to take on the challenges anyway you see fit. If Rocksteady allowed you to do any of the challenges from their games...why the hell couldn't WBM do it here?

Finally, I found the storyline to be mostly unmemorable, save for how the rivalry between Batman and Joker started, at least in the Arkham universe. It's sad, really, since Rocksteady considers Arkham Origins to be official canon.

In other words? Give it to Rocksteady next time. They know how Batman feels and plays TEN TIMES better than what that fucking piece of shit developer known as Warner Bros Montreal can do!

The bosses were better than the AC boss fights. You not liking the Dark Knight system is obviously an opinion. The predator and combat in these games is soooo easy with all the gadgets you have now. The DK system gave you purpose and made things more interesting, gave the player challenges.

Just because you had a bad experience with a corrupt file (which happens with loads of games btw) doesn't mean it's the worst thing ever lol. The next game from Rocksteady will be much more like Origins than AC and there's a reason for that.

I think you need to re-read my comments, because you clearly assumed crap.

The bosses were not better at all. If you think they were, it's like what you said; it's opinion.

On the DK system, NAW, YA THINK? If you like it, great. I don't. I'm entitled to my opinion, once again. Also, I know what the DK system is there for, so you didn't really need to sit there and waste a bunch of space telling me that either, OK? Next time, use your head. Oh and re-read my comments once again, because you clearly missed the reason as to why I didn't like the DK system.

And no, Rocksteady's next game won't be ANYTHING like Origins. I don't know where the hell people come up with this crap. Seriously? Some people have said it already, such as Allicrombie and Mirko and they are right; it may play like a Batman game, it may sound like a Batman game, it may even feel like a Batman game, but in the end, something was missing and that was passion or love for the series. Origins is the worst in the series, in my opinion. And I'm not the only one that feels that way, which is a good thing.

And by the way, I NEVER said that the whole save file thing was "the worst thing in the world". Next time, I suggest kindly to do better with your posts. Thanks!

#29 Posted by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -

@Metamania: Good to see ya Meta, haven't seen you in a while. Where've you been?

#30 Edited by darktruth007 (504 posts) -

Origins was a decent game. It had a pretty well thought out storyline and the some of the boss fights were pretty intense - however the overall gameplay was so similar to Arkham City that most of the game just felt like a tired, rehashed version of it.

Basically all they did was take everything that made Arkham City great and copy-paste it into their game. This didn't really give it much of an identity - even though the story was strong enough to keep me playing to the end - the game itself didn't leave much of a lasting impact the same way City did because it didn't really do anything differently.

However the game does deserve some credit for its characters. I thought the Joker was pretty well done. Suprisingly the voice acting was a welcome improvement over Hamill, who had played the character for years and done a pretty good job himself. However the Joker in this game isn't as grating on the ears as Hamill was - speaking with more nuance and charisma than the character had been able to do in the past.

Overall the game had a strong storyline - and its worth completing just to find out what happens. However it doesn't exactly instill confidence in the developer's ability to develop games that are unique experiences in and of themselves.

#31 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8764 posts) -

I enjoyed Batman Arkham Origins, but it had two very big problems for me

1) game breaking glitches. The game has crashed several times on me and there have been numerous occations where an enemy in a stealth portion would be stuck on a walking cycle and be indestructible.

2) actually try with the riddler trophies and level design in general. Most of the collectibles were behind an explodable wall. in Arkham City there was FAR more thought put into them. It was one of my favourite parts of City to figure out how to obtain the riddler trophies using the many gadgets at my disposal. all the interiors in origins were also a lot less interesting and well thought out

Having said that, the story was great and the bosses were very strong with the notable exception of Deathstroke who was disgustingly easy and way too quick time event heavy. He was probably the low point of the entire game. Slade deserves better.

#32 Edited by Treflis (11479 posts) -

Do some few more weeks or months of fixing the bugs and glitches such as buildings you could fall through and how the batclaw didn't release itself when you got close enough to the hooks when you were on a raft. To mention a few of them.

#33 Edited by alim298 (1205 posts) -

Ehh... I didn't really have a problem with it but it was just sooo much like previous entries. I remember raging quit at the first "press space repeatedly to open the vent."

#34 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@Metamania: Good to see ya Meta, haven't seen you in a while. Where've you been?

Good to see you too Mirko! :) I've been busy with my life at the moment, so I haven't had time to chat with the locals here as much as I used to.

#35 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

A couple of other things for me to note.

I do agree that the Riddler trophies were definitely more thought out in City and in Asylum as well. Origins, on the other hand, were easy to figure out and offered little to no challenge.

I also agree that the voice acting was decent, especially Troy Baker's performance of The Joker, who was able to pull off a good impression of Mark Hamil's Joker.

As far as Deathstroke goes, he did deserve better and so did the Electrocutioner. I was very surprised to see how that boss fight quickly ended with one move. I was thinking..."fucking really?"

#36 Posted by firefox59 (4360 posts) -

I think you need to re-read my comments, because you clearly assumed crap.

The bosses were not better at all. If you think they were, it's like what you said; it's opinion.

On the DK system, NAW, YA THINK? If you like it, great. I don't. I'm entitled to my opinion, once again. Also, I know what the DK system is there for, so you didn't really need to sit there and waste a bunch of space telling me that either, OK? Next time, use your head. Oh and re-read my comments once again, because you clearly missed the reason as to why I didn't like the DK system.

And no, Rocksteady's next game won't be ANYTHING like Origins. I don't know where the hell people come up with this crap. Seriously? Some people have said it already, such as Allicrombie and Mirko and they are right; it may play like a Batman game, it may sound like a Batman game, it may even feel like a Batman game, but in the end, something was missing and that was passion or love for the series. Origins is the worst in the series, in my opinion. And I'm not the only one that feels that way, which is a good thing.

And by the way, I NEVER said that the whole save file thing was "the worst thing in the world". Next time, I suggest kindly to do better with your posts. Thanks!

You really think you're always right huh? Your first sentence was how the game was the worst game ever. Forgot that eh?

I'm sick of people telling me I didn't read their posts. It's some new trend on these forums. If you don't like what I said that fine, don't cop out with this crap. If you didn't like the Dark Knight system then don't do the challenges. Hey, problem solved. You're acting like it was necessary to advance in the game.

As for the boss fights, I saw your retort coming but hoped it wouldn't. When it comes to things like that their are technical and game design choices that transcend opinion. The bane fight could be beaten without taking damage on hard. I did it just to prove to myself I could. Everyone I saw on these forums destroyed the boss fights in AC. They were all terrible, especially the final fight with Joker. And the Ras a ghul fight, wth was that? The Deathstroke fight was easily better than anything from AC. It was up close and personal and you actually feel like batman while being challenged.

The open world of Rocksteady's Arkham Knight will be much more like Origins than AC. Most of AC word was empty, it had as many bulidings as AA and made you run back and forth in that stupid U-shaped map to make the world feel bigger. Origins world was huge and detailed. That's what I meant. Other than the open world aspect, nothing else has really changed in the Arkham games other than new gadgets and enemies.

#37 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@firefox59

Don't waste your breath, this community has a long history of Studio Dickiding and fanboys just can't accept another studio touching they're favourite games, for better or for worse.

#38 Posted by Mesomorphin (813 posts) -

Add more Joker....

#39 Posted by kaealy (1453 posts) -

The game is so strangely paced och structured storywise. I can't explain why, the game just felt weird.

#40 Posted by Heirren (16542 posts) -

People may not like what I'm going to say, but I think LESS break ups in the gameplay. The gameplay is solid, but then all of a sudden it stops. IN MY OPINION, because the engine is so strong the games difficulty should be more akin to "wave" shooters than a traditional story based game. Start slow and by the end of the game batman is just annihilating foe after foe after foe.

#41 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

@Metamania said:

I think you need to re-read my comments, because you clearly assumed crap.

The bosses were not better at all. If you think they were, it's like what you said; it's opinion.

On the DK system, NAW, YA THINK? If you like it, great. I don't. I'm entitled to my opinion, once again. Also, I know what the DK system is there for, so you didn't really need to sit there and waste a bunch of space telling me that either, OK? Next time, use your head. Oh and re-read my comments once again, because you clearly missed the reason as to why I didn't like the DK system.

And no, Rocksteady's next game won't be ANYTHING like Origins. I don't know where the hell people come up with this crap. Seriously? Some people have said it already, such as Allicrombie and Mirko and they are right; it may play like a Batman game, it may sound like a Batman game, it may even feel like a Batman game, but in the end, something was missing and that was passion or love for the series. Origins is the worst in the series, in my opinion. And I'm not the only one that feels that way, which is a good thing.

And by the way, I NEVER said that the whole save file thing was "the worst thing in the world". Next time, I suggest kindly to do better with your posts. Thanks!

You really think you're always right huh? Your first sentence was how the game was the worst game ever. Forgot that eh?

I'm sick of people telling me I didn't read their posts. It's some new trend on these forums. If you don't like what I said that fine, don't cop out with this crap. If you didn't like the Dark Knight system then don't do the challenges. Hey, problem solved. You're acting like it was necessary to advance in the game.

As for the boss fights, I saw your retort coming but hoped it wouldn't. When it comes to things like that their are technical and game design choices that transcend opinion. The bane fight could be beaten without taking damage on hard. I did it just to prove to myself I could. Everyone I saw on these forums destroyed the boss fights in AC. They were all terrible, especially the final fight with Joker. And the Ras a ghul fight, wth was that? The Deathstroke fight was easily better than anything from AC. It was up close and personal and you actually feel like batman while being challenged.

The open world of Rocksteady's Arkham Knight will be much more like Origins than AC. Most of AC word was empty, it had as many bulidings as AA and made you run back and forth in that stupid U-shaped map to make the world feel bigger. Origins world was huge and detailed. That's what I meant. Other than the open world aspect, nothing else has really changed in the Arkham games other than new gadgets and enemies.

No I didn't forget at all. And I explained clearly some of the reasons why it was the worst game in the series. Forget that, didn't you? That's what I thought.

...You're kidding me, right? You're telling me that the Dark Knight system isn't necessary to advance in the game? Did you even PLAY the game? I went through the game THREE TIMES and you have to earn the necessary gadgets to make the game EASIER for you. Didn't you say that all the gadgets made the game EASIER? Forget that one again, didn't you? Owned once more.

"Everyone I saw on these forums destroyed the boss fights in AC". Really? The boss fights weren't even that hard for me, but I'm pretty sure that some people out there had to struggle a little bit at least before they could figure out how the bosses worked and then eventually beat them. Unless you know what you're doing, I'm pretty sure that there were a handful of gamers that possibly died at the boss fights and before you ask, no, I wasn't one of them.

Finally, all of the Arkham games, all across the board, have been empty of life, save for criminals and a few good guys to help Batman when needed. All of the Batman games have been like this. I never expected Batman Arkham to be like Spiderman, in the sense where the population knew of his existence in daylight. It doesn't work that way for Batman. And I knew what you meant, but my point still stands; Rocksteady's games are NOTHING like Origins in the sense that it isn't game-breaking, doesn't have a lot of flaws in them, and are certainly better in every way, shape, and form. Origins had a few good ideas going for it; the good bits of the story, solving crimes, the use of the Remote Claw to hang baddies upside down on vantage points. But it still wasn't that good of a game. Like I said, the main difference between WBM and Rocksteady is passion. Clearly, WBM had NO passion for the game and the fact that they were more excited about their little DLC (which can take about an hour and a half to beat if you just go through the story alone) then fixing the bugs and glitches clearly shows what kind of developer they are.

They have a lot to do and fix before they can impress me again with another Origins game.

#42 Edited by Metamania (11971 posts) -

@firefox59

Don't waste your breath, this community has a long history of Studio Dickiding and fanboys just can't accept another studio touching they're favourite games, for better or for worse.

That's hard to believe from you. I'm pretty sure you're a huge fan of a game, movie, book, whatever it may be, that had differences that you didn't appreciate it all, so please don't lie. You're just like everybody else.

#43 Edited by iTrueColors (47 posts) -

Well they really didn't change that much of the game from Arkham City. I still FIRMLY believe that Arkham Asylum was the best game in the series

#44 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Metamania

Yes... But the difference is I d!ck ride gameplay, not the studio..... :p

#45 Edited by coasterguy65 (5876 posts) -

I thought the game was just fine the way it is. I never really encountered any glitches. Maybe they were patched by the I played it? Anyway I found the side quests in Origins to be more enjoyable than the side quests in City.

#46 Posted by firefox59 (4360 posts) -

@firefox59

Don't waste your breath, this community has a long history of Studio Dickiding and fanboys just can't accept another studio touching they're favourite games, for better or for worse.

You are right (there are many examples other than this) but it's more than just studio favoritism/loyalty. Gamers in general these days hate change. Anything from a voice actor to a small gameplay alteration. It's not necessarily nostalgia bias, though that is a problem. Gamers freak when a sequel is released that's more of the same. "Oh there is no creativity, lazy devs." But then companies try to improve the game with the sequel and make changes, people bitch about it anyways.

#47 Edited by firefox59 (4360 posts) -
@Metamania said:

No I didn't forget at all. And I explained clearly some of the reasons why it was the worst game in the series. Forget that, didn't you? That's what I thought.

...You're kidding me, right? You're telling me that the Dark Knight system isn't necessary to advance in the game? Did you even PLAY the game? I went through the game THREE TIMES and you have to earn the necessary gadgets to make the game EASIER for you. Didn't you say that all the gadgets made the game EASIER? Forget that one again, didn't you? Owned once more.

"Everyone I saw on these forums destroyed the boss fights in AC". Really? The boss fights weren't even that hard for me, but I'm pretty sure that some people out there had to struggle a little bit at least before they could figure out how the bosses worked and then eventually beat them. Unless you know what you're doing, I'm pretty sure that there were a handful of gamers that possibly died at the boss fights and before you ask, no, I wasn't one of them.

Finally, all of the Arkham games, all across the board, have been empty of life, save for criminals and a few good guys to help Batman when needed. All of the Batman games have been like this. I never expected Batman Arkham to be like Spiderman, in the sense where the population knew of his existence in daylight. It doesn't work that way for Batman. And I knew what you meant, but my point still stands; Rocksteady's games are NOTHING like Origins in the sense that it isn't game-breaking, doesn't have a lot of flaws in them, and are certainly better in every way, shape, and form. Origins had a few good ideas going for it; the good bits of the story, solving crimes, the use of the Remote Claw to hang baddies upside down on vantage points. But it still wasn't that good of a game. Like I said, the main difference between WBM and Rocksteady is passion. Clearly, WBM had NO passion for the game and the fact that they were more excited about their little DLC (which can take about an hour and a half to beat if you just go through the story alone) then fixing the bugs and glitches clearly shows what kind of developer they are.

They have a lot to do and fix before they can impress me again with another Origins game.

You said the game was the worst, not the worst in the series. Sigh.

I perfected the game. Honestly, if you need the Sonic Shock Batarang because the game is too hard then you suck. Non of the gadgets you earned were necessary which is why they were put behind OPTIONAL challenges. Lol at saying 'owned' like a child btw.

Since when does someone disliking the boss fights, mean they were too difficult? I never said that. People hated them cause they were trash and lazy. They fell back on typical boss cliches, especially the Ras' a ghul battle. Again, I never said anything about the difficulty of the fights. Try arguing the issue at hand.

I have nothing to say to the 4th paragraph except that Harley's DLC was about 90-120 mins. I think the Freeze DLC took me 120 mins. Warner Bros. released the CCH DLC a long time after the game came out cause they were trying to fix things. They may have failed (though I experienced no glitches at all), but they still tried. If they had waited longer to release the DLC they would have lost a ton of sales cause no one would have had the game anymore.

#48 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@firefox59

It usually happens with long running franchises so I naturally I assumed it was nostalgia, but you're right though, theres alot more going on.

#49 Edited by jesse-pink (7 posts) -
#50 Posted by CorporateCowboy (11 posts) -

There are some things I really enjoyed – like the Deathstroke boss fight. You might argue that it was tedious or even frustrating and that might all be true but at least it gave you somewhat of a sensation of fighting one of the universes toughest fighters.

What I didn’t like very much was that there was no real feeling of ‘just getting started’ – it’s difficult to put in words but I felt like Bats was superior to previous installments when he shouldn’t be. In an origins story I would expect to get my ass kicked from time to time – to feel that there is a learning curve with the gadgets for example and to feel dread when facing a super villain – or even a large group of baddies with weapons.

It’s clear though that the developer wants to add new features and make it more exciting but in my opinion they should have focused more on the story rather than the… game play I guess. That’s just one opinion of many though.