Batman Arkham Origins - mega flop 6/10

  • 193 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Edited by Jolt_counter119 (3966 posts) -

Not as horribly bad as her recent reviews but still an annoying read. Worst reviewer at gamespot. Easily.

#102 Edited by LordOfPoms (1086 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@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.

Keeping with the Hangover theme, they copy pasted the plot of the first one in the second and third. If this series entertains you, why do you need a review of 4/5 stars to tell you that you're going to like it? If this if your first Hangover movie, why should you spend 20 bucks to take the family to see it when the first was better, funnier and cheaper than the "new" version? See the reasoning? Reviews of the Hangover movies went from "must see" to "its OK" to "this one is terrible..." and they're right to do it -- and fans of the movie still ignored it and paid money to see it. They knew what they were getting.

You can't rate all medium stand alone, particularly in video games where the first game is usually a building block for the second. I understand your thought process, but the reality is that after 6 Call of Duty Games in X amount of years, if you see minimal improvement you should call it out knowing that it probably won't alienate the fan base -- unless of course they live to have their opinions validated by a number from some random person, which happens all too often in games.

If a game is executed well, but it's the same thing you bought 12 months ago, why praise them for just barely clearing the bar instead of completely raising it? Especially when it's two different teams working on 2 year cycle?

Two different schools of thought here.

#103 Posted by Clock-w0rk (3238 posts) -

What was the SW hype for this?

Not made by Rocksteady/10

#104 Edited by Solaryellow (459 posts) -

No offense intended to reviewers but I take their reviews (good or bad) with a grain of salt.

I prefer hearing from those who don't make their livelihood working for gaming magazines, websites, etc..,

Although I am only an hour or so in, I am thoroughly enjoying this game and that's all that matters.

#105 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8720 posts) -

Any news on the combat/strealth challenges or what replaces the riddler puzzles/trophies for this game? Those are the aspects I care about the most and I don't hear people talk about them much

#106 Posted by Renegade_Fury (17031 posts) -

Not as horribly bad as her recent reviews but still an annoying read. Worst reviewer at gamespot. Easily.

Easily. 9/10 + for games that are equivalent to DVD bonus games, but a 6/10 for a real game that is mechanically sound.

If GS is going to start playing this game, then I hope to see BF4, AC4, CoD: Ghosts, Mario 3D World, and Donkey Kong score no higher than a 7 for each.

#107 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16610 posts) -

From what I got, the only reason it's rated low is because it is incredibly similar. Might check out at a price drop.

#108 Posted by Solaryellow (459 posts) -

Has anyone heard the saying "If it isn't broke, why fix it?" Asylum, City and Origins remind me of the Metroid Prime series in that each game had small changes and improvements over the last but ultimately all were strikingly similar to the point where the you are familiar in what you needed to do. Sure, the similarities are there when you play Origins but what series doesn't have them?

#109 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8720 posts) -

@Solaryellow: I actually feel like Arkham City is one of the most improved sequels I have ever played. Literally every single aspect of City was several levels above Asylum. I feel like the problem with making a sequel to Arkham City is that maybe that it's standards are set too high. Before anything was announced on Arkham Origins, I seriously believed that not even Rocksteady could top what they did. All that's left are minor tweaks.

#110 Posted by glez13 (8594 posts) -

I don't know, I played some with my friend this morning and it seemed as solid as the other two. Also most other reviews are higher than 7.

#111 Posted by bobbetybob (19136 posts) -

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

#112 Edited by picklesurprise (177 posts) -

This would probably be my score for the series.

I just can't get into it.

#113 Edited by Thecongregation (56 posts) -

I'm surprised the guy did not complain about th elack of females.

#114 Posted by Animal-Mother (26438 posts) -

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

My question is does it warrant a low review score than? I mean bigger games have gotten the pass. If Cod Ghosts is the same as it's predecessors will it get a similar score to this or will it get the pass that it always has?

#115 Posted by bobbetybob (19136 posts) -

@bobbetybob said:

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

My question is does it warrant a low review score than? I mean bigger games have gotten the pass. If Cod Ghosts is the same as it's predecessors will it get a similar score to this or will it get the pass that it always has?

Yeah I was thinking the same thing actually, it really depends on the person I suppose, personally I don't see the problem with giving a game a good score if it's still enjoyable, even if it is similar.

#116 Posted by 1oh1nine1 (779 posts) -

@bobbetybob said:

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

My question is does it warrant a low review score than? I mean bigger games have gotten the pass. If Cod Ghosts is the same as it's predecessors will it get a similar score to this or will it get the pass that it always has?

Good question. I'd prefer if the bigger games don't get a pass anymore. Annual rehash that still plays well cuz it's the same game again? Give it a 6!

Normally this reviewer gets a bit preachy and political for my taste, but this criticism of predictability and nothing new is valid imo, and I hope it starts to get used more and more, because plenty of games are deserving.

#117 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17243 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.

Carolyn didn't review MW3. If she had I'm sure she would have given it a low score.

#118 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (13164 posts) -

@bobbetybob said:

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

My question is does it warrant a low review score than? I mean bigger games have gotten the pass. If Cod Ghosts is the same as it's predecessors will it get a similar score to this or will it get the pass that it always has?

Great Sig.

I miss team Silent :(

#119 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11530 posts) -

I would love if COD: Ghosts got a 9.0 lel

#120 Edited by chocolate1325 (32438 posts) -

Well she only gave Luigis Mansion Dark Moon a 6.5. I will say the framerate is pretty bad and whilst it hasn't really changed in terms of combat it isn't really a bad thing just not taking it to the next level. The other two games which are massive successes also gave this game a challenge but overall I think this game is still a solid 8. I thought Gametrailers gave it a fair review.

#121 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (17243 posts) -


Funny, Sessler agrees with Carolyn. The game is redundant and lacks innovation.

#122 Posted by cainetao11 (16672 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

What was the SW hype for this?

Not made by Rocksteady/10

Don't believe there was official hype. There seems to be a trend lately of people calling such and such a flop, without any hype. Never was how it worked from my memory.

#123 Posted by uninspiredcup (7689 posts) -

I would love if COD: Ghosts got a 9.0 lel

Next generation fish AI.

#124 Posted by Animal-Mother (26438 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

@bobbetybob said:

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

My question is does it warrant a low review score than? I mean bigger games have gotten the pass. If Cod Ghosts is the same as it's predecessors will it get a similar score to this or will it get the pass that it always has?

Great Sig.

I miss team Silent :(

Thank you! I highly Miss team silent as well.

#125 Edited by Masculus (2827 posts) -

Seens like they are being very harsh just for the kicks (or clicks). This gen has been all about repetition for maybe six years, and just now they figure they should slash points on account of that? Eh, well at least they are improving. But it's hard to take her reviews seriously after that Gone Home game.

#126 Edited by Animal-Mother (26438 posts) -

@1oh1nine1 said:

@Animal-Mother said:

@bobbetybob said:

Sounds like it's still a good game but there's nothing really new except the story.

My question is does it warrant a low review score than? I mean bigger games have gotten the pass. If Cod Ghosts is the same as it's predecessors will it get a similar score to this or will it get the pass that it always has?

Good question. I'd prefer if the bigger games don't get a pass anymore. Annual rehash that still plays well cuz it's the same game again? Give it a 6!

Normally this reviewer gets a bit preachy and political for my taste, but this criticism of predictability and nothing new is valid imo, and I hope it starts to get used more and more, because plenty of games are deserving.

I agree whole heartily and though I play whatever the hell I wanna play, reviews do matter in some light.I think they've made a decision to write reviews from a reflective standpoint rather than a factual standpoint. Think about it... They believe they're writers at heart, so they're doing what fuels their ID.... They're writing reviews that put themselves at the center of the review. It will never work on a mass level because we want to read the facts not the fluff... I also believe they've begun to use the scores to increase the hits... Shit the numbers never even line up with the content of the review...I think they're pretentious because they are actually pretentious... ( A borrowed though from someone <3) *cough*Cough* Eroica

#127 Edited by princeofshapeir (13638 posts) -

Funny, Sessler agrees with Carolyn. The game is redundant and lacks innovation.

Yet Rev3 gave it a 4/5.

You don't need innovation for a game to be "good," i.e. 7.0/8.0. 6.0 is a mediocre score; I don't think a game that has solid mechanics should be labeled mediocre just because it's not reinventing the wheel like Asylum and City did.

And to clarify, I think if a game has good mechanics, it deserves a good score. But hey, GameSpot as of late has taken a page from Gawker media and decided to go for click-baiting exclusively.

#128 Posted by Lumpy311 (673 posts) -

Unless COD gets a 6, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.

Carolyn should be fired.

#129 Posted by Zensword (3885 posts) -

people focus too much on scores. Read review, watch vids, then decide if it's good or not.

#130 Posted by GhoX (4689 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.

Ace Attorney Dual Destinies had 2 points cut off because its Bad is "n/a". Damnit "n/a", it's such a game-breaking flaw! The scores on Gamespot are starting to become completely senseless and arbitrary.

#131 Posted by DerekLoffin (8749 posts) -

@GhoX said:

@starjet905 said:
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.

Ace Attorney Dual Destinies had 2 points cut off because its Bad is "n/a". Damnit "n/a", it's such a game-breaking flaw! The scores on Gamespot are starting to become completely senseless and arbitrary.

Starting? They've been that way for a while. I lost confidence in their reviews about 2 years ago.

#132 Posted by princeofshapeir (13638 posts) -

@GhoX said:

@starjet905 said:
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.

Ace Attorney Dual Destinies had 2 points cut off because its Bad is "n/a". Damnit "n/a", it's such a game-breaking flaw! The scores on Gamespot are starting to become completely senseless and arbitrary.

Well, everyone knows games don't just start at 10 and get deducted for each flaw, but there should be some points written under the "bad" column.

#133 Posted by Allicrombie (25122 posts) -

still gonna play it. =P

#134 Edited by Zensword (3885 posts) -

@Lumpy311 said:

Unless COD gets a 6, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.

Carolyn should be fired.

No you're dead wrong, COD brings something new every year

#135 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (3978 posts) -

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

regardless of reasons, at least 9/10 is a good score. 6/10 is crazy. The game is not that bad.

#136 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (3978 posts) -

From what I got, the only reason it's rated low is because it is incredibly similar. Might check out at a price drop.

Ok, so what if it's looked at as an expansion with more than enough content to make it full price.

#137 Posted by Bigboi500 (29229 posts) -

FLOP! I thought this Batman series was supposed to be good? 6/10 is not good.

#138 Posted by princeofshapeir (13638 posts) -

@Zensword said:

@Lumpy311 said:

Unless COD gets a 6, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.

Carolyn should be fired.

No you're dead wrong, COD brings something new every year

AO brings about as much new stuff to the Arkham series as the CoD games, or the Assassin's Creed games... It's not a complete rehash like many are saying, but it's certainly not on the level of Arkham Asylum to Arkham City (nor did WB ever claim it was).

#139 Posted by OneInchMan99 (1127 posts) -

And this is why review scores are so pointless to me.I already know I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this game just like I did the other two.

Also,I'm looking forward to COD Ghosts scoring a 5 this year due to it being the same game they've been making forever,lol

#140 Posted by foxhound_fox (87416 posts) -

Two words:

Carolyn Petit

Wait for the second opinion before deciding whether or not to get it. From other opinions, it sounds like it's Arkham City 2. Which apparently is a bad thing now.

#141 Edited by TheEroica (13251 posts) -

I agree with Animal-Mother :P

#142 Posted by Trail_Mix (2021 posts) -
#143 Edited by Zensword (3885 posts) -

UC3 brought virtually nothing new to the table yet it got a 9 from McSh*t

#144 Edited by Blabadon (25732 posts) -

The more I read and watch about this game, the more excited for it I suddenly am. Quite liked Sessler's review.

#145 Posted by Allicrombie (25122 posts) -

@Blabadon said:

The more I read and watch about this game, the more excited for it I suddenly am. Quite liked Sessler's review.

Ditto.

#146 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10646 posts) -

I'm surprised the guy did not complain about th elack of females.

Whether or not this game is bad it's still very difficult to take reviews from gamespot seriously.

#147 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29087 posts) -

I'll probably play this at some point but it's pretty low on my priority list.

#148 Posted by Big_Pecks (5240 posts) -

This site is basically as bad as IGN with reviews now.

#149 Posted by Animal-Mother (26438 posts) -

@Blabadon said:

The more I read and watch about this game, the more excited for it I suddenly am. Quite liked Sessler's review.

Sesslers review was the most balanced out of the one's i've seen.

#150 Posted by Fizzman (9869 posts) -

The score is irrelevant. If you loved Batman AA/AC, you will love AO.