Do you think Arkham Origin's scores are coherent?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by padaporra (3370 posts) -

I just finished Arkham Origins today and what I played was a very good game. It's definitely not as good as Arkham City, you can notice that that superb talent is gone, yet the game still amazing. It has a superb capaign and a improved combat system that make your time very enjoyable.

Yet it bombed with reviewers, with the main problem being it was to similar to Arkham City. But here is the thing, Arkham City was one of the best games of this generation, so being similar to it is certain good, right? The reviews say no, not really.

Do you agree with this? See, I'm not asking if you would score it low, but if you think that reviewer, in particualr gamespot since we are here, have a coherent way to score sequels. I mean, Call of Duty just score 8 here, compared to Origins 6, not to mention all the Assassin's Creed sequels. Do you think that fallows a logical way of analysing a game? Or some games are judged in a different light?

#2 Edited by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

It's absolutely great, but I think this falls in line with the point that we take scores to seriously. I actually found the story very enjoyable, and I thought Troy Baker as the Joker did an excellent job. I'm trying to remember if it actually added anything over City. It's been a while since i've played it.

#3 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

TC.

I agree with everything you say. Arkham City was Titanic, I can't even imagine setting a goal of making a game vastly superior to AC.

I've been having a lot of fun with Knupellman Arkham Origins. As myself and another gentlemen were saying the other day, even though this is a sequel it should be assessed on it's own merits - it stands up tall next to most modern games.

#4 Posted by Animal-Mother (26235 posts) -

It's absolutely great, but I think this falls in line with the point that we take scores to seriously. I actually found the story very enjoyable, and I thought Troy Baker as the Joker did an excellent job. I'm trying to remember if it actually added anything over City. It's been a while since i've played it.

But yet call of duty and other games get the same scores with the same "predictability" and so on get a free pass.

I'm sorry but this site has become a joke for reviews.

#5 Edited by Heil68 (42731 posts) -

Without playing it I know it's better than a 6.

#6 Edited by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

@lundy86_4 said:

It's absolutely great, but I think this falls in line with the point that we take scores to seriously. I actually found the story very enjoyable, and I thought Troy Baker as the Joker did an excellent job. I'm trying to remember if it actually added anything over City. It's been a while since i've played it.

But yet call of duty and other games get the same scores with the same "predictability" and so on get a free pass.

I'm sorry but this site has become a joke for reviews.

Oh, I definitely agree. The big-money games get free passes. Still, it kinda proves that scores weigh far too much to the individual. Shit, even to the publishers. Just look at MC. Though, It seems that GS has been a little stricter recently, but not by much.

I just ended up buying Origins based on the previous games alone. Even from a different developer, I just really enjoy the series.

#7 Posted by Ballroompirate (21787 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

It's absolutely great, but I think this falls in line with the point that we take scores to seriously. I actually found the story very enjoyable, and I thought Troy Baker as the Joker did an excellent job. I'm trying to remember if it actually added anything over City. It's been a while since i've played it.

But yet call of duty and other games get the same scores with the same "predictability" and so on get a free pass.

I'm sorry but this site has become a joke for reviews.

Sadly this site has been a joke for reviews the past 5-6 years. This site is slowly becoming the next Kotaku. Also I find it funny how this site scores Battlefield and CoD the same when clearly Battlefield is always better on a technical stand point.

#8 Posted by Basinboy (10932 posts) -

It's a good game. Plays virtually identical to AA & AC, but the art direction and overall story is better in the former.

It's worth playing if you have previously enjoyed the franchise.

#9 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

I do freakin' hate the freezing. Anybody else had the issue? I'm on the 360.

#10 Posted by padaporra (3370 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

@lundy86_4 said:

It's absolutely great, but I think this falls in line with the point that we take scores to seriously. I actually found the story very enjoyable, and I thought Troy Baker as the Joker did an excellent job. I'm trying to remember if it actually added anything over City. It's been a while since i've played it.

But yet call of duty and other games get the same scores with the same "predictability" and so on get a free pass.

I'm sorry but this site has become a joke for reviews.

Oh, I definitely agree. The big-money games get free passes. Still, it kinda proves that scores weigh far too much to the individual. Shit, even to the publishers. Just look at MC. Though, It seems that GS has been a little stricter recently, but not by much.

I just ended up buying Origins based on the previous games alone. Even from a different developer, I just really enjoy the series.

What does?

#11 Posted by charizard1605 (54541 posts) -

If it plays as good as the previous games, that makes it an incredible game.

Reviewers are a joke.

#12 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6632 posts) -

I don't have any problem with reviewers docking the game points for basically being a clone of Arkham City if that is indeed the case. I just wish they would have enough integrity to do that with other franchises that are also guilty of that practice.

#13 Posted by fend_oblivion (6110 posts) -

I finished the game today and I must say, the game is definitely not a 6. The campaign is simply stellar. The only problems I find with the game are the bugs. Some of the bugs ruin combat by leading to the premature end of freeflow combos. Also ground takedowns are broken. The game was rushed to meet the deadline, no doubt about that.

I think it's forgivable that the game plays similar to the previous Arkham games seeing as there are only 3 main titles in the Arkham series. It's not like Assassin's Creed which has 6 main titles that play more or less the same.

#14 Edited by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

I do freakin' hate the freezing. Anybody else had the issue? I'm on the 360.

My friend got the 360 version, he's complaining about freezes also.

#15 Posted by wolverine4262 (18816 posts) -

Yeah, its fantastic. It should get higher than a 6 based solely on its story. Only problem is how buggy it is, and they are squashing that issue.

#16 Edited by Senor_Kami (8269 posts) -

These things aren't objective. They can't be objective unless you want a review purely on the technical merits. Different reviewers rate reviews in different ways. Opinions change over time. This is only a negative if you're playing System Wars or want all game reviews to be strictly Consumer Reports where they list the features and tell you how well they execute the features with no personal opinions added.

Personally I'm fine with. No other medium is reviewed in the way you guys want games reviewed in. Albums aren't reviewed like, "the last one had 13 tracks, production by [insert producer] and writing by [insert writer]. This one does as well so the scores are equal by default."

#17 Edited by Kaze_no_Mirai (10894 posts) -

The game definitely has been getting reviewed harshly. As others have said the only real problem are the bugs. The story is fantastic along with the voice acting. Some of the boss fights are pretty damn good.

#18 Posted by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

No, I don't think the scores are coherent.

I get the impression Arkham Origins picked up all the flak over the shortcomings of the AAA model, while other games like BF4, CoD Ghosts, or even AC Black Flag, are being given a free pass. Now, I don't consider any of those games bad, and I don't have any problems with a harsh scoring system and a full use of "1-10" scale, I only think, if you're going to be a more harsh critic regarding the lack of "innovation" in AAA franchises, be consistent about it.

#19 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

What does?

Scores. It said that in the sentence :P

@lundy86_4 said:

I do freakin' hate the freezing. Anybody else had the issue? I'm on the 360.

My friend got the 360 version, he's complaining about freezes also.

It really sucks. I believe it's on all systems, and it's annoying as hell. A simple restart resolves it for a while, but that gets old.

#20 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38170 posts) -

I don't think it deserves critical acclaim or anything but I do think it deserves to be averaging a bit higher overall. it's a MUCH better game than some reviews gave credit for

#21 Edited by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

No, I don't think the scores are coherent.

I get the impression Arkham Origins picked up all the flak over the shortcomings of the AAA model, while other games like BF4, CoD Ghosts, or even AC Black Flag, are being given a free pass. Now, I don't consider any of those games bad, and I don't have any problems with a harsh scoring system and a full use of "1-10" scale, I only think, if you're going to be a more harsh critic regarding the lack of "innovation" in AAA franchises, be consistent about it.

I'm gonna be super lazy, and simply ask: are any of these the same reviewer? I do think the editors need to be more on the ball, in order to guarantee some consistency.

#22 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

@psymon100 said:
@lundy86_4 said:

I do freakin' hate the freezing. Anybody else had the issue? I'm on the 360.

My friend got the 360 version, he's complaining about freezes also.

It really sucks. I believe it's on all systems, and it's annoying as hell. A simple restart resolves it for a while, but that gets old.

i've found the pc version very robust. only had a couple of issues. once, i couldn't grapple into a vent, batman just hung there. another time i had a complete freeze, had to restart.

haven't finished though, i just beat bane for the first time.

#23 Posted by NameIess_One (559 posts) -

@NameIess_One said:

No, I don't think the scores are coherent.

I get the impression Arkham Origins picked up all the flak over the shortcomings of the AAA model, while other games like BF4, CoD Ghosts, or even AC Black Flag, are being given a free pass. Now, I don't consider any of those games bad, and I don't have any problems with a harsh scoring system and a full use of "1-10" scale, I only think, if you're going to be a more harsh critic regarding the lack of "innovation" in AAA franchises, be consistent about it.

I'm gonna be super lazy, and simply ask: are any of these the same reviewer? I do think the editors need to be more on the ball, in order to guarantee some consistency.

Nah, they aren't the same reviewer... but yeah, they should really work on being a more consistent group.

While I understand they're all different people with different preferences, as far as the industry and gamers are concerned, they represent Gamespot as a site, and not themselves individually, so some compromises to insure at least some level of consistency should be made.

#24 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@NameIess_One said:

No, I don't think the scores are coherent.

I get the impression Arkham Origins picked up all the flak over the shortcomings of the AAA model, while other games like BF4, CoD Ghosts, or even AC Black Flag, are being given a free pass. Now, I don't consider any of those games bad, and I don't have any problems with a harsh scoring system and a full use of "1-10" scale, I only think, if you're going to be a more harsh critic regarding the lack of "innovation" in AAA franchises, be consistent about it.

I'm gonna be super lazy, and simply ask: are any of these the same reviewer? I do think the editors need to be more on the ball, in order to guarantee some consistency.

Nah, they aren't the same reviewer... but yeah, they should really work on being a more consistent group.

While I understand they're all different people with different preferences, as far as the industry and gamers are concerned, they represent Gamespot as a site, and not themselves individually, so some compromises to insure at least some level of consistency should be made.

I agree, which is why editors need to be more consistent. More people need to understand that Gamespot is a group of people, but GS need to understand that they are a singular identity on the internet (to many). It's ridiculous on both ends.

#25 Edited by chocolate1325 (32368 posts) -

Take all the glitches and issues out of the game it's a sound 8 out 10.