Batman: Arkham Origins: The best yet?

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

Okay, I've been playing Batman: Arkham Origins - the definitive, PC version - for the last two hours or so and it's incredible. It has all of the improvements that Arkham City had over Arkham Asylum, but none of its drawbacks, namely Arkham City's faux open-world, which was about the same area as Arkham Asylum but merely more densely packed with buildings; Arkham Origins features a full blown Gotham, which is much larger than Arkham City and just as densely packed - a true open world. Additionally, it features more varied enemy types, and voice acting that is on par with the previous games, even in regard to Batman and the Joker (I personally think that Roger Craig Smith does an excellent job of creating a younger version of Kevin Conroy's Batman voice).

In regard to the game mechanics, they are just as well implemented as they were in the previous games developed by Rocksteady, and quite honestly if no-one mentioned it, I'd never know the game was developed by WB Montreal as opposed to Rocksteady. So far, I'd give this game a 10/10. $50 well spent. I don't see why this game got a review as low as it did by Gamespot.

EDIT:

You know what? I change my mind. F*ck this game. The boss battle with Deathstroke is so cheap. At this point, I'm not even enjoying the game; I just want to get past this point and continue the game. However, if this boss battle is any indication that the remaining ones will be just as cheap, then f*ck Arkham Origins.

#2 Edited by Cranler (7007 posts) -

BluRayHiDef marked this as the best answer

In regard to the game mechanics, they are just as well implemented as they were in the previous games developed by Rocksteady,

So it's another button smasher that requires no skill.

#3 Edited by foxhound_fox (85306 posts) -

I haven't played Origins yet, but the whole point of an open world shouldn't be to be open for the sake of it, but provide an organic non-linear sandbox the player can mess around in at their leisure. Something "designed" in every way rather than procedurally generated. Making something big for the sake of it loses focus and causes the player to get bored with it over time.

That said, I'm not commenting on Origins and it's world as I have not played it yet. I could be just as well-designed as City for all I know.

#4 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

Why can't I upload images? I've got some screencaptures of the game that I'd like to post, but I can't. Damn this new forum design.

#5 Posted by gameofthering (9634 posts) -

I'd give it an 8/10 (PC version)

#6 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

I haven't played Origins yet, but the whole point of an open world shouldn't be to be open for the sake of it, but provide an organic non-linear sandbox the player can mess around in at their leisure. Something "designed" in every way rather than procedurally generated. Making something big for the sake of it loses focus and causes the player to get bored with it over time.

That said, I'm not commenting on Origins and it's world as I have not played it yet. I could be just as well-designed as City for all I know.

City was horribly designed, in my opinion. It's too small in regard to its total surface area and too densely packed. I don't like that.

#7 Posted by Peredith (2302 posts) -

6/10

#8 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -
#9 Posted by Masculus (2713 posts) -

There are some changes to the gameplay that I really do not appreciate. The increased agression from enemies - while taking less damage - is really annoying. The upgrade system absolutely sucks too. Combat mechanics are also slightly less responsive. It's a less polished product, and it seens to be so by design.

#10 Posted by madsnakehhh (13915 posts) -

Looks ok i guess, the review put me on a warning, however after watching the video again i think i would enjoyed it a lot since i didn't played Arkhamn City...sadly, most of my gaming money is already destined for something this year.

#11 Edited by foxhound_fox (85306 posts) -

@Peredith said:

6/10

And? Bioshock Infinite got both a 9 and 4. This could very well get a second review that is vastly different as well.

#12 Posted by foxhound_fox (85306 posts) -

City was horribly designed, in my opinion. It's too small in regard to its total surface area and too densely packed. I don't like that.

I thought it was good.

#13 Edited by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

-6 hour campaign(I beat it on the 2nd day man and I rarely do that!)

-Glitchy as hell as most people who played it found nasty glitches that have you restarting sections and even the whole game

Game has you doing a lot of side stuff and challenges so it's really more of a 7-8 game.

#14 Edited by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

Why can't I upload images? I've got some screencaptures of the game that I'd like to post, but I can't. Damn this new forum design.

I have some screens, just upload them from your profile:

#15 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

@Masculus said:

There are some changes to the gameplay that I really do not appreciate. The increased agression from enemies - while taking less damage - is really annoying. The upgrade system absolutely sucks too. Combat mechanics are also slightly less responsive. It's a less polished product, and it seens to be so by design.

I strongly disagree. If you play the game on "Hard", you take plenty of damage during combat. As for the upgrade system, I like the layout; it's more intuitive as opposed to the older one. Combat mechanics are no more or less responsive than they were in the previous game; I'd know because I was playing it just yesterday. The game is fantastic.

#16 Edited by foxhound_fox (85306 posts) -
@mitu123 said:

-6 hour campaign

lolwut?

Wow, that's disappointing.

#17 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

@mitu123 said:

-6 hour campaign

lolwut?

Wow, that's disappointing.

Yeah it is, if you don't die much, know where to go, and couple with the fact it's the easiest Arkham game, you'll breeze through it like I did.

#18 Edited by glez13 (8350 posts) -

@mitu123 said:

-6 hour campaign(I beat it on the 2nd day man and I rarely do that!)

-Glitchy as hell as most people who played it found nasty glitches that have you restarting sections and even the whole game

Game has you doing a lot of side stuff and challenges so it's really more of a 7-8 game.

This. I played it yesterday with a friend and we even where playing it old school-if you die then it's my turn-style while fooling around here and there, and we finished it on the spot...

The city felt big for the sake of being big, the challenges we didn't complete all but managed to rush through many. Also all those bugs, ugh. It felt for the most part like replaying one of the old games. I would give it a 7, still solid for the most part but with a lot of flaws.

#19 Posted by PhazonBlazer (10977 posts) -

Wow, only a 6 hour campaign.

That is pretty disappointing.

#20 Edited by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

@mitu123 said:

@foxhound_fox said:
@mitu123 said:

-6 hour campaign

lolwut?

Wow, that's disappointing.

Yeah it is, if you don't die much, know where to go, and couple with the fact it's the easiest Arkham game, you'll breeze through it like I did.

What about the side missions and activities?

Are there still Riddler trophies, and are they fun to hunt down?

#21 Posted by Cranler (7007 posts) -

If only this franchise had combat like God of War...

#22 Posted by PSdual_wielder (10643 posts) -

I'll probably end up getting this game. Unlike old times, it's very hard to accept gamespot's reviews these days.

#23 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

@mitu123 said:

@foxhound_fox said:
@mitu123 said:

-6 hour campaign

lolwut?

Wow, that's disappointing.

Yeah it is, if you don't die much, know where to go, and couple with the fact it's the easiest Arkham game, you'll breeze through it like I did.

What about the side missions and activities?

Are there still Riddler trophies, and are they fun to hunt down?

There's quite a bit of those and should make the game last for a few more hours.

The Riddler trophies are data packs and there isn't as many as you see in previous Arkham games.

#24 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

BRHD - Yeah it's a great game. Up there with AA and AC. If I have to give a number it's somewhere between 8.5 and 10.1. Playing on PC.

#25 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

BRHD - Yeah it's a great game. Up there with AA and AC. If I have to give a number it's somewhere between 8.5 and 10.1. Playing on PC.

You're such a cute dog. Ruff! Ruff!

#26 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

I'm playing on hard and I'm struggling against Death Stroke. Damn, he's tough. My problem is that I tend to counter too early, which leaves me open for attack. I'm able to get him down to 50% health, but after that I'm a dead bat.

#27 Edited by Pikminmaniac (8276 posts) -

For me the two best aspects of City were the riddler trophy/puzzles scattered about the world as well as the combat/stealth challenge rooms. If Origins can pull those aspects off well, I'll be a happy caped crusader.

In any case, Arkham City was easily the best game I played all gen and anything that comes close to it is sure to please me greatly

#28 Posted by Kinthalis (5091 posts) -

For me this is on par to Arkham City. Super fun, fluid combat mechanics are tweaked just a bit, making them even better, IMHO. The story is interesting, in so far as a prequel story could be interesting. I'm enjoying the heck out of origins though, it might end up being my favorite of the series so far.

#29 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

I'm stuck on Death Stroke. He seems to be randomly open to attack; sometimes he counters and sometimes he doesn't, and when he does, you can't counter back, so you automatically incur damage. This is stupid and frustrating. I'm playing on "Hard."

#30 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10331 posts) -

I can't believe that I have to do this. Death Stroke is so hard that I've decided to restart the game on "Normal" difficulty. Hopefully I'll be able to beat him on that difficulty. He's cheap on "Hard."

#31 Posted by lundy86_4 (41653 posts) -

The more time I spend with it, the more I enjoy it. City layout is complete c*ck, but the story is relatively interesting. The CSI portions are rather boring, but nothing making me burn my copy.

#32 Posted by Heil68 (40489 posts) -

I'll pick up the GOTY edition for $20 like I have the last 2 games. No hurry to play it.

#33 Posted by joel_c17 (2763 posts) -

6-8 hour game? no thanks - thats a bargain bin buy in my books.

#34 Posted by DocSanchez (1102 posts) -

Feels a little buggier than the others somehow. Sometimes I can float on a wall that isn't there, or the snow isn't there and I just disappear in it.

Also, it doesn't feel as well made. They used to set up vast chasms full of enemies but these haven't been as plentiful in this version. You can certainly tell it's another team trying to recapture the glory of the original.

However, I do feel that 6/10 is a complete overreaction because this is still a well made game. It's a little over familiar but its still better than the majority of games out right now. I really like the origins concept. If anything it could have been explored more but it's nice to be a batman who is still relatively unknown and with few allies. There is still a lot to do and it's still a lot of fun.

I think for the next one they need to move to a brand new location with its own style. Also, they missed a trick. People by now know the mechanics of the game, and the concept, so they should have made it a lot harder, so you have to think hard about every single encounter.

#35 Posted by wolverine4262 (18353 posts) -

I dont see how this game is only 6-8 hours. I already got about 6 hours in it and its only telling me I have 11% completion.

#36 Edited by DJChuy (1813 posts) -

I've played a couple of hours of it, and it's good but lacks polish and focus. The framerate can get pretty bad at times, and the city feels soulless at the moment. There's not much to do as opposed to City, and I don't think there's any riddles which is disappointing. Also, the upgrade system kind of sucks.

Anyways, with that said, the gameplay is still great, and the story is interesting so far. I like that they used lesser known villains into the main story.

Asylum is currently my favorite in the series; the story & atmosphere were pretty awesome, and it had a strong focus. Though City wins it in the gameplay department.

#37 Edited by Pikminmaniac (8276 posts) -

@joel_c17 said:

6-8 hour game? no thanks - thats a bargain bin buy in my books.

well to be fair, Arkham City was an 8 hour game with over 40 hours of worth while content. Perhaps this game has the same kind of offering.

#38 Posted by chocolate1325 (32368 posts) -

6 to 8 hour game what about all the added content like side missions,Riddler Datapacks and Challenege areas and the multiplayer. About a good chunk more than 6 I'd say.

#39 Posted by Xaero_Gravity (8521 posts) -

@mitu123 said:

-6 hour campaign

lolwut?

Wow, that's disappointing.

Wow indeed. As much as I hate to say it, I think i'll wait until it drops to $20.

#40 Posted by Zidaneski (8410 posts) -

I almost decided to get this (For Troy Baker!) but I already have Arkham City. I'll play Origins some day but I despise Ratchet and Clank for staying the same so I'll pass on this rehash as well. Dislike Uncharted 3 for that reason as well but the bad texture multiplayer saved it somewhat.

#41 Posted by buccomatic (1941 posts) -
#42 Posted by TheGuardian03 (20650 posts) -

I'm stuck on Death Stroke. He seems to be randomly open to attack; sometimes he counters and sometimes he doesn't, and when he does, you can't counter back, so you automatically incur damage. This is stupid and frustrating. I'm playing on "Hard."

use the batclaw to draw him to you and beat him.

#43 Posted by seanmcloughlin (37517 posts) -

People should NEVER put stock into other player's time spent in games. They sure as hell shouldn't base their purchasing decisions off of it. The game has a tonne of side stuff to do as well as all the usual Riddler puzzles

So far it does a lot of things much better than its predecessors. The story is better, dialogue is MUCH better, it feels more like the comics than the previous Arkham games, fighting requires a bit more precise timing than just button mashing, soundtrack is outstanding and the visuals (on PC at least) are astonishing at times

It suffers from a few niggly things though like the camera is kinda buggy and running up some ledges sometimes doesn't work. Also the city is too big for its own good. At first it seems awesome to have such a huge gotham but there's a lot of running around (helped by batwing fast travel though)

I'm still only a few hours in but it's shaping up to be the best in the series. It definitely doesn't deserve a 6/10, not even close to that.

#44 Posted by seanmcloughlin (37517 posts) -

@joel_c17 said:

6-8 hour game? no thanks - thats a bargain bin buy in my books.

I'll never understand ths way of thinking

#45 Posted by uninspiredcup (4719 posts) -

I enjoyed it a lot more than the other two. They fixed Bane (and also went on to actually explain why the Rocksteady version sucks) took actual elements from Knightfall, the killing joke and even Nolan movies and implemented them into the game.

#46 Posted by Basinboy (10665 posts) -

AC is better (mainly due to plot/art style)

AO is better than the reviews indicate. It's comprised of a slew of Rocksteady's assets.

#47 Posted by uninspiredcup (4719 posts) -

@Basinboy said:

AC is better (mainly due to plot/art style)

AO is better than the reviews indicate. It's comprised of a slew of Rocksteady's assets.

AC has a crap story. The premise of Hugo Strange knowing Batmans identity and setting up a concentration camp should have been awsome but Hugo Strange ends up barely in the game and the whole "knowing batmans identity" thing is just thrown right out the window to the point of irrelevancy.

#48 Edited by TheGuardian03 (20650 posts) -

People should NEVER put stock into other player's time spent in games. They sure as hell shouldn't base their purchasing decisions off of it. The game has a tonne of side stuff to do as well as all the usual Riddler puzzles

So far it does a lot of things much better than its predecessors. The story is better, dialogue is MUCH better, it feels more like the comics than the previous Arkham games, fighting requires a bit more precise timing than just button mashing, soundtrack is outstanding and the visuals (on PC at least) are astonishing at times

It suffers from a few niggly things though like the camera is kinda buggy and running up some ledges sometimes doesn't work. Also the city is too big for its own good. At first it seems awesome to have such a huge gotham but there's a lot of running around (helped by batwing fast travel though)

I'm still only a few hours in but it's shaping up to be the best in the series. It definitely doesn't deserve a 6/10, not even close to that.

Funny thing is it's written by

Assassins creed series writer.

#49 Posted by uninspiredcup (4719 posts) -

Assassins Creed III had a good story. Ripping off starwars was jeenzsus.

#50 Posted by starjet905 (1837 posts) -

Best? Wouldn't be too sure about that. I'm rather irritated by how buggy this game is.

Combat controls tend to be really clunky. The biggest culprit is LCTRL+RMB when taking down an enemy who's on the ground. Have to try that three or four times to have it actually work, especially if there's another enemy in the vicinity. (In which time you get pounded by the said other enemy.) Wasn't like this in City.

Then there was the Burnley tower glitch. Fighting a glitch with a glitch was fun, at least.

Oh, and then the Bowery comm tower which is inaccessible until a certain mission where a hole magically appears in a grate, which is of course just bad game design.

All that said, I'm enjoying the game, but it could've been so much better.