Why Arkham Origins shouldn't have happened.

The Batman Arkham Series. Where do I even need to begin on how epic Rocksteady has currently made the Dark Knight? The amazing story, the practically flawless combat system, the atmosphere and solid voice acting of Mark Hamill, Kevin Conroy and company. This is the definitive Batman experience, you actually feel like the Caped Crusader himself. Arkham Asylum was released in August of 2009. During Spike TV's Video Game Awards at the end of the year, we got one of the most epic teasers for the upcoming sequel. Joker was unwell, clearly feeling the effects of the Titan formula ripping him apart from the inside out. Fans had two years of hype built up for Arkham City, and it was clear that Rocksteady was doing everything in its arsenal to make this game the best of its kind. Arkham City was released in October of 2011, and it's been dubbed by many to be the greatest Batman game ever made. There were even a few cliffhangers, with a mysterious figure telling Batman that basically the end is near, and the Hush subplot where he uses plastic surgery on himself to become Bruce Wayne. We all wondered if those subplots would be wrapped up in the sequel.

But, alas, we were sorely disappointed. The gaming community got a teaser of a new Batman game 6 months before its official release. However, this wasn't a sequel to AC, it was a prequel, meaning none of the previous games prior subplots would be resolved, and worse, Rocksteady wouldn't be developing it. It was given to WB Montreal, basically the "B" studio. Another odd decision was having Roger Craig Smith being the voice behind Batman, and not Kevin Conroy. It was mostly done to have Batman sound younger because he was just starting out protecting Gotham. Although Smith is a solid VA, I can't help but see just Chris Redfield in a Batsuit. The Joker also got a new voice, Troy Baker, who fills in admirably for Mark Hamill. When Arkham Origins was finally released, people saw immediately it was just a quick cut-and-paste of Arkham City's exact design and many immediately deduced that this was just made for a quick cash in for the franchise. Unfortunately, I have to agree. This series had no desire for a prequel. Although the story in the game was quite good, it was still completely unnecessary. Finally, when prequels are done, you have to get them done 100% correctly, otherwise the game will look inferior to its predecessors. This game was marred with technical hiccups when it was released for the 360, PS3, and Wii U. It was known to freeze on players both in game and when it autosaved, meaning there was potential that a person's save file could be corrupted after restarting the game afterwards. That is inexcusable. This is why game developers employ game testers, to iron out all of the flaws before a game's release. Yes, I understand that developers frequently release patches now to fix these problems. But it shouldn't be like this to begin with. We spent $60 on a game and the least the developers can do is make sure it can function properly.

In the end, this game shouldn't have existed to begin with. If Rocksteady continues to pursue creating games for the Batman franchise, it needs to be done at Rocksteady studios, and not WB Montreal. We've seen firsthand that WB Montreal can't create a successor to Arkham City. Magikmike39 out.

So its Okay for Rocksteady to copy and past shit but if WBM does it you get all whiny about it. It should have totally happened because its a great f#cking franchise more of the same is good for Batman.

Hmm, think its a bit much to say it should have been developed.

It has its faults and its just more of the same we saw in AC so its a decent game and i can easily handle that they made it.

You may be able to write several sentences and a few paragraphs on why it shouldn't have happened but I can sum up why it did happen with a single word: money.

I haven't played it, but from what I understand, Origins is just more of the same... so, that's actually a good thing. It seems people got disappointed that it wasn't such a huge leap up like City was from Asylum (I don't care what anyone says, City is the objectively better game). I will play it some day, once the price drops.

I think a better way of putting it is that it was unnecessary in your opinion. Personally, I did not have any money from AC and ended up spoiling the ending for myself the month it came out after seeing gameplay and feeling compelled to see more and more. I played the demo and was blown away, but saw no point since i viewed the ending.

After seeing the gameplay for origins, I saw no point in buying it because while it did seem fun, it only seemed like something a newcomer to the Arkham series would benefit from playing. At the same time, I am the type of person who likes to see an upgrade.

Origins was like every other prequel ever.

At best a mediocre cash grab.

Wasn't bad, but doesn't hold a fucking candle to Asylum or City.

@ -TheSecondSign-

It does. Its the same.... remember ?

Would you rather Origins never existed ?

No, it doesn't.

Copy pasta half the city from previous game.

Other half is nothing interesting or remarkable.

Most of the villains were low tier, unimportant villains nobody gives a shit about.

Another Joker plot right after we already killed the Joker.

Deathstroke was in it for five minutes.

Final bossfight was a joke.

Same gadgets/but it's earlier in the timeline.

New Batman VA wasn't as good as Conroy.

I don't mind it existing, but it wasn't nearly as good as the other two.

@ -TheSecondSign-

It was exactly like the other two, People treat Batman the same way they treat Bioshock. They get wowed by the novel experience so much they expect it from every sequel/prequel. The difference between Batman and Bioshock is Batman has way fewer things they can improve on. If want something new then play something else.

The fundamental aspects are the same, yes, which is why I don't hate the game. But it wasn't as good as the other two.

My reasons still stand. I think it would've been way better for it go forward rather than backward. Maybe a plot with Jason Todd becoming the Red Hood. A resolution on what happened with Ras after we learned he was beyond the use of the Lazarus Pits. Batman coming to terms with the Joker's death. What happened to the villains we actually like to see be villains rather than grabbing at weak ones like Firefly.

Why didn't Deathstroke have a bigger part? They allude to the Suicide Squad but they don't capitalize on it at all. Shiva/Deathstroke were the best villains they had for this and they have almost no part in it. Shiva shows up for ten seconds and you don't even really fight her. Instead of a dual it's just another fight where she calls a bunch of henchmen to aid her.

I didn't think it was bad, but it wasn't as good as the other two.

Nothing wrong with continuing a good series.

@ -TheSecondSign-

What you like does not translate to whats better. Roger Craig Smith voiced Batman very well, actually he did better than Conroy. Conroy just couldn't do Upset or Angry Batman.

Plus all that crap is just the plot, if Rocksteady didn't wrap up those stories then thats on them, you gona blame Origins for something that happened in City ? Yeah that makes perfect sense.

Also in all the Batman games they don't capitalise on many of the villains, its not just Deathstroke, 50% of those other characters are just plot devices who appear in cutscenes and one single encounter, the Joker being the number one suspect, he may be in a video game but he's far from a video game character, in the Batman games. This applies for all three games. Sorry to break it to ya but from a gameplay perspective they're all pretty much the same, if you liked them for reasons beyond a video game perspective then you you were naive.

@Lulu_Lulu: They are absolutely NOT the same. If they had been identical with the only changes being the expanded city, the new storyline, the new gadget and the new enemy, I'd have been thrilled, but they've made so many minor tweaks that combined they bring the entire experience down.

No critical strike makes it more mashy.

Stacking combo finishers means you can use a finisher without ending freeflow focus.

Shock gloves are activate-to-win nonsense(and don't even add to the gadget variation bonus).

The One Hand Tied modifier now restricts combo finishers instead of removing the counter indicator.

Enemy targeting has been reworked so that you can rarely attack the enemy you want unless you're nose to nose with him, and prioritizing enemies is all wrong and worse, entirely unpredictable.

The freeflow focus combo batarang power gadget has been entirely ruined, making it a waste of a combo finisher.

The concussion grenade is utterly useless on it's own, so much less when compared to the REC.

On the whole, it's still playable, but it lacks the smooth and dependable perfection of Arkham City's combat.

@-TheSecondSign-: Any loose ends not tied up in Arkham City should have been counted as lost the instant the Joker died. You can't have Batman post-Joker- it just doesn't work that way.

@El_Zo1212o: So the made the combat more like Asylum's? Because I played AC, got super high scores on the combat challenges, went back and attempted AA, and damn. AC's combat is so much smoother and better. AA is extremely clunky compared to City. It's disappointing to hear they made the combat more like AA in the new one.

Q.Q I really liked it.

@ El_Zo1212o

The Critical Strikes are still there, I also realised the batman games use a negative feed backloop if you play the game like an ameture by button mashing then it will get easier, but if you do use the other features and diversify your approach to combat then the simple juggling of abilities provides are far more satisfying challenge, but its up to you, the game is not gona force you to be bad ass, it wouldn't be as good if it did, same with Devil May Cry and Bayonetta.

I thought the new one hand tied modifier is awesome I always hated how the takedown finnisher could work on anyone at anytime, with no downsides. Still you hate they changed it I like that they changed it, its not a good or bad thing, some people will like it and most people won't, says nothing about the quality of the game.

Arkham City wasn't perfect, I think you just got so use to it and suck at adapting to changes.

I agree with Lulu here

The Critical strikes in AO is still there and if you stop smashing those buttons like insane and think about the combat, it becomes a lot more satisfying and you get to experience the game for what it is.

One example is Deathstroke , you can find tons and tons of complaints and people saying that this boss is one of the most difficult and irritating, but actually he is not even that hard, if you think about the combat and use the right technique its not even hard on hardest difficulty

Actually, to correct you on one thing; critical strikes are in the game. In fact, one challenge in the Dark Knight system has you attempt to do 20 Critical Strikes during Free Flow.

Enemy targeting, I do agree with; it's ridiculous. You try to go and disarm the guy with the gun and instead, it's the guy with the knife next to him that Batman goes for instead. Fucking stupid if you ask me.

The psychic snipers; please tell me you remember those, because that's just downright ridiculous. Even if you are hiding behind a building, they can still fire at you. What kind of bullshit is that?

The batarang thing; it's actually useful for some of the challenge maps if you just want to focus on getting the medals and getting rid of a few guys just to have enough to take out for the medals.

One thing I do hate about Batman AO though is the fact that there's limited predator areas to complete the challenge in. You will need to get up to rank 10 to unlock the Sonic Shock Batarang takedown and to accomplish that, you have to complete those specific challenges in a predator room, not a predator situation like at the GCPD or at Sionis Industries. To me, that's fucking bullshit too. I know that those challenges are carried over into NG+ and I Am The Night, but fucking really? Shouldn't those upgrades be earned naturally, like how they were in AA or AC? Why did WBM decide to put in that crap?

I honestly don't understand it. I'd rather be playing AC than AO. Only reason why I'm still playing AO is to get everything done as much as possible, with the exception of multiplayer achievements.

Look, I even found that fight to be frustrating and irritating at first as well. Thought it was bullshit, but once I figured out exactly what to do, it was awesome. It's actually one of the best boss fights in the game. When you play it on hard difficulty, without the counter indicators, and do you everything right, it looks like one of those awesome fights that you would see in a martial arts movie, filled with counter and reversals. That's actually one of the best calls WBM made on this game.

Exactly the boss fights in this games is among the absolute top in any fighting game , when you look at them as a viewer they look brilliant and as you expect a batman martial arts fight would look like.

WB games really did a great job and anyone making a fight game should look at AO

The thing is, not all the boss fights are fantastic to go through. Bane's fights, for example, were absolutely ridiculous. When Bane charges at you, the game is programmed to make him act as a homing missile. So even if you managed to get out of the way, he can quickly circle around and still hit you. That's unacceptable. It's not like you can hit him with a batarang, confuse him, and have him just rush in a straight line as you evade to the left or right (like how you could with the titans in AA and I think in AC as well). Also, jumping down to smash ground attack has too much range, so even if you feel like you're safe outside of its range, it still counts as a hit. So you really, REALLY have to be far away in order to not get hit.

It's one of the worst fights in the game and let's not get started on the fight afterwards, which I won't spoil for anyone.

i liked the game and for everyone complaining without playing it, you should of snagged it on Thursday off of amazon for $15. It was a fun game, it had its share of bugs but none of them were game breaking for me. I feel this game is judged unfairly for the launch bugs and the fact that it is similar to arkham city. stop complaining about the game, there is nothing you can do now, it was made, it exists, move on. i know a lot of people like myself who are enjoying it.

I'm gonna be honest here, the only Batman game I really enjoyed was Arkham Asylum. Arkham City was good but not as good as Asylum in my opinion. Won't even bother play Origins since it's pretty much the same.

You are not alone

I know a lot say they like AC a lot more than AA. But for me AC was way too thin in its story and the open world didn't really seem that open and was for me more a nuisance than fun.

AA had the big open areas also , not as big of course but the story and gameplay and pretty much everything made that game so awesome.

AO is more AC but made worse in most areas and the only good thing is the size of the city even tho the height limit is bloody annoying, why can't i go to the top bridge pylon, i am freaking batman.

I still haven't seen any way to unlock critical strikes, only counters. Which brings up another thing I have issues with- an upgrade system that involves challenge unlocks should be strictly challenge unlocks and not throw them into your standard levelup+skill point system. It's just fuckin' confusing.

@Jacanuk: First things first, you don't get to tell me that I suck at anything unless you're better at it than me. So you show me a score of better than 2.5 million points at the Iceberg lounge and then you can tell me how I suck at Batman. That goes for Lulu, too.

Second, studying the combat system in the Arkham series(and any similar combat system) has been how I've spent most of my time on my 360. I've got better than 300 hours on Arkham City alone, so don't you try and give me lessons on the combat system.

It's less accurate, it's got less useful quickfire gadgets and Batman's got severe priority issues in it.

O, and FYI: Deathstroke is the best boss in the whole series, in my opinion.

@Lulu_Lulu: Okay, challenge accepted. 100 to 1- what's your score? :D

@ El_Zo1212o

huh ?

Oh I've never actually made it to the Ice Berg Lounge. Even if I quit school and dedicated all my time to Riddlers Revenge I still won't be able to touch that score.

@Lulu_Lulu: I didn't say "Iceberg Lounge," I said "100 to 1."

@ El_Zo1212o

I have no Idea what that is. :l

You need to hit the right number of combo´s

Also i didn´t say you suck at anything, what i said was that in Batman AO anyone need to consider the moves and not stick with one type or one pattern because that will only frustrate and make the game in some places harder.

The rest is just a measuring contest and i am way too old to get into that over the internet.

If you can't get enough Batman then you will like Origins, but if you're stuck on comparing and contrasting it to the others then you probably won't because it failed to stand out like the others IMO.

Actually, once you get the shock gloves in the story, any fight is pretty easy to go through. Just smack them all, even the ones with tasers, batons, and shields equipped, and battles are usually winnable.

@ Metamania

Then stop using them. Control yourself.

Bayonetta had the same thing with Shuraba and the wicked slices (the Punck Kick Punch exploit) for that weapon are way too strong, even against bosses. Luckily the game grades your performance by how well you vary your attacks, the should get Hideki Kamiya to help work on a grading system in Batman to discuridge using exploits, lets how much fun the shock gloves are if the game gives you a D rank for overusing them. :D.

Can't mods add a scoring system ?

No. I'm not going to stop using them. If it makes battling a lot easier, then why not? Also, I don't need experience anymore. I've leveled myself up to the max for them. I'm not one of those gamers that are looking to get a ridiculously high score in a combat challenge match. It's just not for me. All I care about, in fact, is earning enough points for all three medals and if having the shock gloves on, for the entire fight, will help in that, why not?

Those aren't good reasons for why the game shouldn't exist. For one, there being a prequel to the series does not negate the possibility for future installments that will progress beyond the storyline established in Arkham City. This game was made to capitalize on the franchise, and from what I've read it's a good entry to the series. It may not have received as much acclaim as the previous entries to the series, but it will not besmirch it.

@ Metamania

Look I know its tempting to abuse that power but if RPGs have taught me anything its that power sucks ! I maxed out commander Shepard in Mass Effect and became so powerfull there was no need to take cover anymore, weapons took forever to overheat, I was just going through the motions. Personaly I don't the scoring system anymore, think of it as training wheels for those who haven't yet adopted the philosophy yet.

I don't know about you guys but I found the free flow combat to be worse than it's predecessors.

@ MrAVKV

I know right. The freeflow combat that was identicle to its predecessors totally sucked just because Its in Arkham Origins. Lol !

YOU were disappointed, not me.

You know you dont have to use them ;) if a game gives you a OP gadget then dont use it.

@Lulu_Lulu: Christ, will you quit it already? YOU play it and then talk about how it's identical if you still believe it.

@ El_Zo1212o

No need. its the same. Maybe you think it wouldve been a better game if they changed some crap just for the sake of making it different but I'm not a novelist like you, I've never whined about a great game copy and pasting the mechanics of its predecessor. Or maybe I'm trying to bait you into saying something that contradicts the reviews. Either way I get what want, if you're right then Batman is not a rehash, you're wrong then my credability is restored and I can recycle my Arkahm City defense to defend Origins. Theres a third scenario that involves Origins being inferior but that might be because of the Multiplayer or the plot (which is not mechanically related and is a dumb reason to play a game as mechanically awesome as batman).

The biggest fault I can see within the game that it's more of the same, but even then that isn't much of a fault. The gameplay, while a bit stale after two years, is still a lot of fun and feels very replayable. I didn't feel bored once while playing through the 15 hour+ game. On top of that AO easily has the best use of characters and the best story of the series so far. The assassins all had their moment in the spot light, Bane was finally given justice in a Arkhamverse game, and the Joker actually felt necessary to being the big bad for a third game in a row. The dynamics between Bruce and Aflred, Batman and Gorden, and Batman and Joker all felt very satisfying, especially Batman and Joker's confrontations. While nothing named Arkham is in the game, the game perfectly sets up the story to AA. For a prequel, it was superb. The game could have used a bit more innovation in terms of gameplay, but overall the game was great and is worthy to be listed among AA and AC.

@ El_Zo1212o

you're the only who thinks they failed. "more of the same" get use to it. ;) also you have an oddly short fuse, you've been on gamespot longer than me, thought you'd have thicker skin.

@Lulu_Lulu: General Games Discussion(and the PGD before it) used to be a relatively troll-free zone. I never needed one before the redesign and GGD became the wild fuckin' west.

@ El_Zo1212o

Imagine how system wars is now ! They really dropped the ball with this new site, hey look I can say **** now ! Haha !