Batman Arkham Origins - mega flop 6/10

  • 193 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by finalstar2007 (24816 posts) -

I loved the first game so much.. the second game was ok and this game is no buy till it hit $10 or something i think im over it already but i'd surely be excited for a next gen batman game though.

#52 Posted by chikenfriedrice (9139 posts) -

I am kind of disappointed....I don't think I will spend $50 on the same ol same ol.....I will wait till it goes on sale

#53 Edited by TheGuardian03 (21181 posts) -

Conroy is Batman just like Hayter is Snake.

Roger Craig Smith is a good Batman though.

Question is Troy Baker a good Joker?

#54 Edited by starjet905 (1840 posts) -
No surprises or innovations to liven up the gameplay
Characters in multiplayer feel frustratingly weak

Cutting off 4 points for that?

What the hell, Carolyn?

I'm honestly getting irritated by this whole "oh, boo hooo, nothing NEW, nothing INNOVATIVE" complaining going on these days.

#55 Posted by Animal-Mother (26139 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

The reviews all over are pretty low/average and you know what sucks? They're docking marks for it not being innovative and just "more of the same" which is such horse shit. Wait till you see CoD Ghosts,AC IV and BF4 get away with it

All I wanted was more of the same really and I'm pretty happy that that's what it is

I played the first half an hour last night. My only real complaint is batmans voice.

Why? From the trailers Roger seemed to be a pretty decent fit for a younger Batman. He has that deepness to his voice like Conroy.

Conroy always fell incredibly flat when Batman had to raise his voice or shout. He was only good when he was doing the inner monologue stuff in the games or talking normally

Well it's not that there's an actual problem with the voice, like I said I played the first half an hour. The problem is when you follow the industry as much as we do you start to realize people and as @TheGuardian03 said it's roger craig smith. Who I highly recognize from the Resident evil titles this gen. Not that it's bad. It just causes some dissonance in my brain.

#56 Edited by Animal-Mother (26139 posts) -

Batman Flopham Borigins.... Said it first.

Wasn't expecting it to revolutionize the series... Was hoping it would be another arkham game I could sink my teeth into... Cant help but to observe the hypocritical deduction of over all quality centering around the lack of innovation in the gameplay and then looking at the yearly retreads like CoD, and the the like somehow always skating by without a whisper. II'll reserve judgement till I see how harsh gamespot is with cod ghosts and battlefield.... When they quietly pass off an 8/10 despite the gameplay being exactly the same over the last 10 installments, that's when I'll riot :P

It is another arkham game you can sink your teeth into!

#57 Posted by Sushiglutton (5164 posts) -

Pretty clear from the beginning that this was a way to get in another Batman game while the install base for Ps3/X360 is at its maximum. Rocksteady just shipped the code across the atlantic for the completely new studio to tweak a bit, package and sell. Still more of the same is good enough for me as this is the mechanically best action/adventure franchise in the world.

What I really want though is Rocksteady's next project :D!

#58 Posted by silversix_ (13390 posts) -

i can't stand the batman titles but just look who reviewed it... no enough females in the game to guarantee a 8/10

#59 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38110 posts) -

Conroy is Batman just like Hayter is Snake.

Roger Craig Smith is a good Batman though.

Question is Troy Baker a good Joker?

Very much so. He's freakishly similar to Hamill at times and really sounds convincing as a younger version of that. Just listen to this:

Troy Baker reads Joker Monologue

#60 Posted by funsohng (27456 posts) -

F*ck the scores

Read the review. Review makes it sound like it's still a great game. Just same as Arkham City. I remember people buying Harley Quinn's revenge just because it was more Arkham City. Well, Origin seems to be more Arkham City, but bigger, so what's the problem.

seriously, people who rely on scores only, please. Learn to read English.

#61 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38110 posts) -

@funsohng said:

F*ck the scores

Read the review. Review makes it sound like it's still a great game. Just same as Arkham City. I remember people buying Harley Quinn's revenge just because it was more Arkham City. Well, Origin seems to be more Arkham City, but bigger, so what's the problem.

seriously, people who rely on scores only, please. Learn to read English.

GAF is the worst for this sort of stuff. Reading some of the stuff over there is such hypocrisy. One minute it's "Never trust review scores" and now it's "will wait for a steam sale based on those scores"

I know that's a bit off topic and not even about people here but it just annoyed me

#62 Posted by R4gn4r0k (15833 posts) -
#63 Edited by drinkerofjuice (3153 posts) -

@funsohng said:

F*ck the scores

Read the review. Review makes it sound like it's still a great game. Just same as Arkham City. I remember people buying Harley Quinn's revenge just because it was more Arkham City. Well, Origin seems to be more Arkham City, but bigger, so what's the problem.

The Harley Quinn DLC didn't do too well from what I recall. Perhaps people expected more than just the same song and dance after two years? I mean City was released two years after Asylum, and there are significant differences between the two.

#64 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17041 posts) -

@Bread_or_Decide said:

@LJS9502_basic: WORTHLESS until it's the score you want. amirite? High five.

Considering I don't pay attention to scores......that makes no sense. Next time please read my posts so as not to waste our time going over something I've already stated. Thanks....

But you care enough to be here discussing the score....right.

#65 Posted by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

@RR360DD said:

I hope this is a sign of gamespot finally using the full 10 point scale.

My thoughts exactly, which also means this game isn't bad -- it's flawed, but still fun for the right group.

#66 Edited by TheGuardian03 (21181 posts) -

@TheGuardian03 said:

Conroy is Batman just like Hayter is Snake.

Roger Craig Smith is a good Batman though.

Question is Troy Baker a good Joker?

Very much so. He's freakishly similar to Hamill at times and really sounds convincing as a younger version of that. Just listen to this:

Troy Baker reads Joker Monologue

Holy sheeet we have the new joker.

very impressed. also roger did a fantastic job as well.

#67 Edited by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@funsohng said:

F*ck the scores

Read the review. Review makes it sound like it's still a great game. Just same as Arkham City. I remember people buying Harley Quinn's revenge just because it was more Arkham City. Well, Origin seems to be more Arkham City, but bigger, so what's the problem.

seriously, people who rely on scores only, please. Learn to read English.

GAF is the worst for this sort of stuff. Reading some of the stuff over there is such hypocrisy. One minute it's "Never trust review scores" and now it's "will wait for a steam sale based on those scores"

I know that's a bit off topic and not even about people here but it just annoyed me

What I love is their allegiance to Steam Sales, which are getting worse and worse each year (unless you're a brand new PC convert, then they still kickass). Steam Sales are going to have to compete with digital offerings from GOG/Amazon/Sony/MS/Ubisoft/EA/X Digital Store Front. You don't need to wait for Steam Sale anymore, they come fairly often and much sooner. It's how I got Tomb Raider for 25 bucks one month after it launched.

Going back to what you said. GAF hates the 4 point review scale, but refuses to buy anything Day 1 that isn't a 9. So why bitch if you don't even take chances on games? Do they only see movies that get Oscar Nominations? The hardcore fans of this industry must be maddening to deal with sometimes....

"Make NEW games! Oh, I only want sequels of your best IPs actually, but if you drop the price to 5 bucks I'll buy it!"

"Digital Downloading and DRM IS BAD! BRB, buying stuff on Steam!"

"LOL REHASHED GAME! COD SUXXXX. Oh, what's this? A new Mario. Take my money!"

#68 Posted by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

Pre-ordered it a few weeks ago, just started downloading on Steam.

Going by the reviews I read, including the one on GS, the biggest issue is the similarity with the previous Arkham titles, leading to a franchise stagnation. Not a big issue for me, though, as I didn't expect any major steps forward for the franchise, so I'm not regretting my purchase.

------

However, these reviews set up an interesting precedent. A franchise stagnation is a rather common thing in the modern gaming industry, but most of the time, it's not cited as a big issue, and is swept under the rug in the reviews. I wonder, do these scores mean we can expect more harsh reviews when it comes to franchises like AC, CoD, BF, sports games, etc?

#69 Posted by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

Pre-ordered it a few weeks ago, just started downloading on Steam.

Going by the reviews I read, including the one on GS, the biggest issue is the similarity with the previous Arkham titles, leading to a franchise stagnation. Not a big issue for me, though, as I didn't expect any major steps forward for the franchise, so I'm not regretting my purchase.

------

However, these reviews set up an interesting precedent. A franchise stagnation is a rather common thing in the modern gaming industry, but most of the time, it's not cited as a big issue, and is swept under the rug in the reviews. I wonder, do these scores mean we can expect more harsh reviews when it comes to franchises like AC, CoD, BF, sports games, etc?

The Games Industry needs harsher criticism, but it also needs fans to understand why harsher criticism exists. Polygon, despite their SimCity debacle, has been pretty good about not being a "8-10 only" review site.

#70 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2048 posts) -

I can't take reviews seriously from a site that gave gta v a 9/10.

#71 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38110 posts) -

What I love is their allegiance to Steam Sales, which are getting worse and worse each year (unless you're a brand new PC convert, then they still kickass). Steam Sales are going to have to compete with digital offerings from GOG/Amazon/Sony/MS/Ubisoft/EA/X Digital Store Front. You don't need to wait for Steam Sale anymore, they come fairly often and much sooner. It's how I got Tomb Raider for 25 bucks one month after it launched.

Going back to what you said. GAF hates the 4 point review scale, but refuses to buy anything Day 1 that isn't a 9. So why bitch if you don't even take chances on games? Do they only see movies that get Oscar Nominations?

PC gaming is already dirt fvcking cheap though but people still wait for sales. I mean I got Batman Origins for 28 EUR. A launch game at that price is unheard of, in fact I got Tomb Raider at launch earlier in the year for 24 EUR. And people STILL wait for sales? Then they're surprised when games sell little at launch

They're a very toxic community when they want to be and would give the hypocrisy here a pretty good run for its money. They love Sony just as much over there as anywhere else but always deny it

#73 Posted by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

@NameIess_One said:

Pre-ordered it a few weeks ago, just started downloading on Steam.

Going by the reviews I read, including the one on GS, the biggest issue is the similarity with the previous Arkham titles, leading to a franchise stagnation. Not a big issue for me, though, as I didn't expect any major steps forward for the franchise, so I'm not regretting my purchase.

------

However, these reviews set up an interesting precedent. A franchise stagnation is a rather common thing in the modern gaming industry, but most of the time, it's not cited as a big issue, and is swept under the rug in the reviews. I wonder, do these scores mean we can expect more harsh reviews when it comes to franchises like AC, CoD, BF, sports games, etc?

The Games Industry needs harsher criticism, but it also needs fans to understand why harsher criticism exists. Polygon, despite their SimCity debacle, has been pretty good about not being a "8-10 only" review site.

I agree... I have no problems with harsh criticism, as long as it's consistent, and backed with sensible arguments. For example, would be pretty sad if Arkham Origins picks up a lot of flak for not moving the franchise forward in any meaningful way, while a bunch of other major IPs get away with it, with the issue swept under the rug.

#74 Posted by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

@LordOfPoms said:

@NameIess_One said:

Pre-ordered it a few weeks ago, just started downloading on Steam.

Going by the reviews I read, including the one on GS, the biggest issue is the similarity with the previous Arkham titles, leading to a franchise stagnation. Not a big issue for me, though, as I didn't expect any major steps forward for the franchise, so I'm not regretting my purchase.

------

However, these reviews set up an interesting precedent. A franchise stagnation is a rather common thing in the modern gaming industry, but most of the time, it's not cited as a big issue, and is swept under the rug in the reviews. I wonder, do these scores mean we can expect more harsh reviews when it comes to franchises like AC, CoD, BF, sports games, etc?

The Games Industry needs harsher criticism, but it also needs fans to understand why harsher criticism exists. Polygon, despite their SimCity debacle, has been pretty good about not being a "8-10 only" review site.

I agree... I have no problems with harsh criticism, as long as it's consistent, and backed with sensible arguments. For example, would be pretty sad if Arkham Origins picks up a lot of flak for not moving the franchise forward in any meaningful way, while a bunch of other major IPs get away with it, with the issue swept under the rug.

That's my worry too. I like that they called this game out for being more of the same -- not a bad thing, just not necessarily moving anything forward -- but I fear COD: Ghosts will introduce a dog, fish swimming away and better graphics and get hailed as some sort godly game you must buy now.

#75 Posted by gameofthering (9899 posts) -

The reviews all over are pretty low/average and you know what sucks? They're docking marks for it not being innovative and just "more of the same" which is such horse shit. Wait till you see CoD Ghosts,AC IV and BF4 get away with it

All I wanted was more of the same really and I'm pretty happy that that's what it is

You never know. Cod might get rated 5 or lower!

Probably not... it'll get 8+ no matter what.

#76 Edited by PrincessGomez92 (3191 posts) -

Want regardless. Really enjoyed the first game and I'll have to get the second one.

#77 Posted by beganoo (1638 posts) -

Yet call of Duty keeps getting 9s. Its pathetic really.

Not saying this one should get a 9 but 7 hours in and having a lot of fun.Also It looks AMAZING maxed out on PC too. A 6, really ? Mainstream, yey.

#78 Posted by Jag85 (4195 posts) -

Interesting how Batman got a 6 for lacking new features... yet Just Dance got a 7 for lacking new features.

#79 Edited by Jag85 (4195 posts) -

@beganoo said:

Yet call of Duty keeps getting 9s. Its pathetic really.

Not saying this one should get a 9 but 7 hours in and having a lot of fun.Also It looks AMAZING maxed out on PC too. A 6, really ? Mainstream, yey.

Considering GameSpot's new stricter reviewing policy (i.e. using the full 10-point scale), I doubt the next COD will get a 9, but probably a 7 or 8 this time.

#80 Edited by LJS9502_basic (149316 posts) -

That's my worry too. I like that they called this game out for being more of the same -- not a bad thing, just not necessarily moving anything forward -- but I fear COD: Ghosts will introduce a dog, fish swimming away and better graphics and get hailed as some sort godly game you must buy now.

That's not a bad thing to mention in the body of the review....I just don't think it should major points for it. The game should be scored based on the game itself and not expectations.

#81 Edited by aroxx_ab (9063 posts) -

I had skipped this game even if it had got 9-10/10, i am tired of batman after the last game and movies.

#82 Posted by Timstuff (26817 posts) -

When Is Gamespot going to come down this hard on Call of Duty for being the same game every year but with a reskin?

#83 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (12625 posts) -

@GhoX said:

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/batman-arkham-origins-review/1900-6415506/

The Good:

  • Movement, free-flow combat, and stealth mechanics are as solid as ever
  • Story has some great moments and makes good use of characters

The Bad:

  • No surprises or innovations to liven up the gameplay
  • Characters in multiplayer feel frustratingly weak

6/10 on Gamespot by Carolyn Petit

Honestly those negatives don't seem like they would drag the score down to a 6/10.

From what I've seen of this game already, it seems like I'll enjoy it way more than city.

#84 Edited by finalfantasy94 (26131 posts) -

I hate when "lack of innovation" but yet I see some games get away with it.

#85 Posted by cainetao11 (15527 posts) -

I see this like a "formula" film. It isn't innovative, you have done it before, but its fun. I have it and am playing it as I type. It's a blast so far. By the way what was it's hype? I never saw an official vote/thread. If none, then it cant flop. Don't get what's so hard to understand about that to some here.

#86 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (12625 posts) -

I hate when "lack of innovation" but yet I see some games get away with it.

Honestly I'd say it's a pretty shitty critique, not unlike the body of Carolyns other reviews.

#87 Edited by redskins26rocs (2674 posts) -

Just think if Deadpool had the new rating system it would probably have the same rating, lol GS.

These reviews are just getting worse each time a big title is released.

#88 Posted by BPoole96 (22741 posts) -

Will buy eventually

#89 Edited by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

@LordOfPoms said:

That's my worry too. I like that they called this game out for being more of the same -- not a bad thing, just not necessarily moving anything forward -- but I fear COD: Ghosts will introduce a dog, fish swimming away and better graphics and get hailed as some sort godly game you must buy now.

That's not a bad thing to mention in the body of the review....I just don't think it should major points for it. The game should be scored based on the game itself and not expectations.

I disagree. If you're releasing a brand new game in a series, but it offers nothing new, then it should absolutely be docked. It's like when a movie sequel comes out and you get the same exact plot (Hangover 2, Hangover 3) with tired jokes/gags/plots, but a new location. That's absolutely a reason to dock a game some major points. It can still be fun, and it can still be a great game to people who are fans of the series, but why make a sequel when your brand new big budget game might as well have been an add-on pack?

#90 Posted by uninspiredcup (6472 posts) -

@TheGuardian03 said:

Conroy is Batman just like Hayter is Snake.

Roger Craig Smith is a good Batman though.

Question is Troy Baker a good Joker?

Very much so. He's freakishly similar to Hamill at times and really sounds convincing as a younger version of that. Just listen to this:

Troy Baker reads Joker Monologue

I don't agree at all. I much prefer this new Batman. While Conroy is great, this Batman sounds much more grufffer while also being recognizable. It also just feels fresher. Frankly, both Conroy and Luke Skywalker are way overused. It's reached the point of saturation.

#91 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149316 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@LordOfPoms said:

That's my worry too. I like that they called this game out for being more of the same -- not a bad thing, just not necessarily moving anything forward -- but I fear COD: Ghosts will introduce a dog, fish swimming away and better graphics and get hailed as some sort godly game you must buy now.

That's not a bad thing to mention in the body of the review....I just don't think it should major points for it. The game should be scored based on the game itself and not expectations.

I disagree. If you're releasing a brand new game in a series, but it offers nothing new, then it should absolutely be docked. It's like when a movie sequel comes out and you get the same exact plot (Hangover 2, Hangover 3) with tired jokes/gags/plots, but a new location. That's absolutely a reason to dock a game some major points. It can still be fun, and it can still be a great game to people who are fans of the series, but why make a sequel when your brand new big budget game might as well have been an add-on pack?

Why should it be docked? If you liked the first Hangover chances are the sequels will entertain you. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like it...but you should rate all medium as stand alone. It's fine to say it's more of the same so people that don't want more of the same know to stay away....but if the games is executed well....it's executed well. Period.

#92 Posted by cainetao11 (15527 posts) -

I hate when "lack of innovation" but yet I see some games get away with it.

Yeah COD every year does it.

#93 Edited by stereointegrity (10657 posts) -

pretty much expected..... Rocksteady didn't develop so of course

#94 Posted by uninspiredcup (6472 posts) -

@LordOfPoms said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@LordOfPoms said:

That's my worry too. I like that they called this game out for being more of the same -- not a bad thing, just not necessarily moving anything forward -- but I fear COD: Ghosts will introduce a dog, fish swimming away and better graphics and get hailed as some sort godly game you must buy now.

That's not a bad thing to mention in the body of the review....I just don't think it should major points for it. The game should be scored based on the game itself and not expectations.

I disagree. If you're releasing a brand new game in a series, but it offers nothing new, then it should absolutely be docked. It's like when a movie sequel comes out and you get the same exact plot (Hangover 2, Hangover 3) with tired jokes/gags/plots, but a new location. That's absolutely a reason to dock a game some major points. It can still be fun, and it can still be a great game to people who are fans of the series, but why make a sequel when your brand new big budget game might as well have been an add-on pack?

Why should it be docked? If you liked the first Hangover chances are the sequels will entertain you. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like it...but you should rate all medium as stand alone. It's fine to say it's more of the same so people that don't want more of the same know to stay away....but if the games is executed well....it's executed well. Period.

Indeed it is executed well. It's a dam good game from what I'm seeing personally. Seriously, if anyone thinks this is even close to approaching a bad game you might want to hand in your gun and gaming badge.

#95 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149316 posts) -

pretty much expected..... Rocksteady didn't develop so of course

And this brings us to another issue.....bigger devs get the benefit of the doubt and don't get docked much, if at all....for more the same. Which means reviews use double standards. Which means they are worthless. Like I stated before.

#96 Posted by cfisher2833 (1441 posts) -

@finalfantasy94 said:

I hate when "lack of innovation" but yet I see some games get away with it.

Yeah COD every year does it.

CoD, AssCreed, etc. They all get away with it. Personally I wouldn't have taken away so many points for that. In my mind, a sequel that doesn't improve much upon the formula has a cap of 8/10.

#97 Edited by uninspiredcup (6472 posts) -

@stereointegrity said:

pretty much expected..... Rocksteady didn't develop so of course

And this brings us to another issue.....bigger devs get the benefit of the doubt and don't get docked much, if at all....for more the same. Which means reviews use double standards. Which means they are worthless. Like I stated before.

This game improves upon Rockstreadys in multiple regards.


Example: Playing on hard you will die a lot, in Rockstreadys games having to select "retry" over and over was a pain in the butt. This game fixes that by just automatically taking you to checkpoint screen. Simple but welcomed.

#98 Posted by the330and419 (222 posts) -

Got it delivered from Amazon today. Looking forward to playing it later tonight after work. So basically, all reviews for this game is saying it's the same as asylum and city? How does that make it a 6/10? Sounds awesome to me. Loved the first two.

#99 Edited by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

Got it, Asylum, and Origins for $40 on GMG, so I have zero fucks to give. Looking forward to playing it.

Just waiting for Call of Duty 10 to get a 9, even though it's the same goddamn game we've been getting yearly since '07.

#100 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (16935 posts) -

Carolyn sucking as a reviewer as usual, but at least this time she is being a shining example of the hypocrisy of game reviewers.

Where was the 6 for MW3 when it gave us way more of the same just done worse? Too many series get praise every single iteration regardless of actual merit, yet they go and dock a game this majorly for the same crap that the rest of the big titles never get held accountable for.

Welp, maybe next time the devs need to just toss some money to GS to get that 9/10.