What is your final verdict on Arkham Knight?

I thoroughly enjoyed the game and really welcomed the addition of the batmobile, but they definitely went a little nuts with the tank gameplay. They should have mixed it up a bit more because it got really repetitive at the end. I also thought the endings were kind of meh, but I did enjoy the last parts with the Joker. Overally I really liked the game and easily spent 35+ hours on everything. The challenges are awesome and keep you coming back. The one thing that definitely could have been better was the boss fights. They just aren't very interesting. Luckily, the core Batman gameplay is great and awesome to execute. It's still a 9/10 for me.

What say you, SW? What do you give it?

It's a good game. I don't think it holds up to City, and it really squandered the Arkham Knight reveal/"boss fight" which just kinda dulled the ending.

Incredibly fun game. They brought in the Batmobile at a great time because the core Batman gameplay was growing a little stale after three games.

The Arkham Knight reveal was shmeh. The ending was shmeh. Tank combat was shmeh. But the rest of the game was great. The weakest out of Rocksteady's entries, but great nonetheless.

Dull 5/10, that can only be enjoyed by pigs and nerds who got fooled into its "open-world" nature.

I really enjoyed it... it definitely has some problems, but overall it is a brilliant game. Easy 9/10.

It's disappointing and trash.

7/10

That ending sequence was just awful. Way too dragged out and pointless. Overall the game was super bumpy in terms of quality, with copious amounts of filler thrown in. I really liked the added variety but the stealth and melee sections weren't nearly engaging as the past three games. Scarecrow was an awful villain; I hated how he was written, I hated how he was a shitty caricature, I hated how he wouldn't shut the **** up. Arkham Knight is pretty awful too, because someone at Rocksteady needs to learn how to foreshadowing subtly.

Bat Kart was alright. Felt good to drive but outside of its repetitive sections it added little to the game. The variety was nice and I'm sure this was why there were much less stealth and melee sections than before, but it was way too fucking ubiquitous. Without it, would I be complaining the game is too similar to the first two? Maybe that's not a hypothetical question since Origins exists, but nonetheless there could have been a better balance.

@MonsieurX: Jesus, that's lazy even by your standards

6/10

worst arkham game released so far. the most disappointing game released this year.

I haven't gotten to play it yet, but judging by what others have said and what is known about the game it sounds like a good game overall, but with many glaring issues, such as a predictable story which is lame, Riddler trophies influencing the ending, (like literally the least interesting character of the Batman game series and collecting the trophies is so very dull) the huge PC issues are inexcusable, Batmobile is cool, but sounds overdone, and the gameplay/characters sound about the same as those who appeared in the previous games, which isn't bad necessarily. I'll still dig it and I'm sure it's still miles better than Origins even though I didn't dislike/hate that game.

Good; great, if not for that damn bat tank.

I liked it. I think it might be the worst one of the three main ones (never played Origins and don't really want to tbh), but its close to Arkham Asylum. It has been years since I played that one though so I'm not really sure if its just nostalgia, but I don't really think so. My order is probably Arkham City>Asylum>Knight in the end.

Some of the vehicle stuff and the lack of real boss fights dropped my enjoyment of it somewhat. There was a lot to like but ultimately it was these two main problems that dropped it to third.

It's so much better on the Xbox One than on the PS4, I tell you hwat

I agree TC. 9/10 and a nominee at this point for GOTY. MGS5 still to come though.

My verdict is guilty for not caring about PC gamers...**** you WB & Rocksteady...still can't play a game I paid semi-hard earned money for.

Worse than origins?

7/10 for me. Way too much Batmobile. Glad they added it, but damn did they go over board with it.

The game was pretty much like AC for me. The main story was very good, but the open world just became repetitive and boring. Could never force myself to bother looking for the remaining Riddler trophies. Eddie can just stay in his hole as far as I'm concerned. Asylum is still my favorite Arkham game. And no I don't care that you like City more.

Still a good Batman game but I still think Asylum is the best in the series.

I had a good time with it, probably would have been better if the PC version wasn't so busted.

easily

Not as good as Asylum and City. Haven't played Origins. Still a solid game that I had fun with.

Very disappointed with it.

6/10 but I was never a fan of the series. Beat it and now going to trade it in. Forgettable experience.

Still waiting for that PC patch :(

It was fun for a bit. Story was good in places, but let down by throwing massive hints in your face. The gameplay and city design is a backward step from City and Origins. Combats not fun anymore, neither is predictor mode. Didn't like the art style as much either. Previous games had a much better balance between realism and Gothic.

Arkham City and Arkham Origins are just better. I've barely gone back to Arkham Knight since completing it.

Final score: Arkham Origins and WB Montreal Vindicated/10.

The truth. I'd give it 6/10 as well. Can't believe I'd been waiting for this for so long. It's the most disappointing game of the gen for me so far.

the worst game in the series

I'm sorry you didn't like the game.

I don't know if they are vindicated, as much as in Rocksteady's attempt to freshen up the formula they bet the farm on the wrong mechanic. Because every game design failure in that game from how riddler stuff became more lame, how side missions became more lame, how the open world stuff became less zelda and more...well modern open world game has everything to do with finding bullshit to do with the Batmobile.

On one hand I guess I can't bitch too much, because I actively tend to sequels need to freshen it up, but execution sure as **** matters, and they bet on a terrible design idea lol

It's vindicated as in, it deserves more respect than it gets. It's better than Knight. People that haven't given Arkham Origins a try are really missing out.

Arkham Knight is what happens when you change up a game for the sake of it. I'd rather see sequels make small really good changes than massive terrible ones. The problem is Arkham Knight now sets a precedent. So any future Batman games from WB will likely copy and paste a lot of those annoying traits.

The three biggest issues in Arkham Knight, are the Combat, Predator and the Batmobile (which leads to everything else). The combat is no longer fun, it feels like a button masher affair now. It's tedious. Predator, is somehow no longer fun, also tedious. The Batmobile can be fun, but it just feels out of place, the novelty wears off and the city built around it is terrible. Everything looks the same. I've completed it, and I still can't tell which island i'm in. If it wasn't for the arrows showing you where to go, this game would be completely fucked.

I don't like the graphics. The characters, everything looks off, I'm not excited about the extra costumes in this game, because they don't fit-in.

I disagree that they are missing out, Arkham Origins came off exactly like tribute band game usually does. It has the basic outline of the formula, but comes across the dev had no idea why certain decisions were made they were.

Knight made the combat window too open to mash, but Origins add cheap gimmicks like a rage mode/devil trigger crutch that Arkham never needed, and predator stuff was Knight actually does them outside which I actually think are some of the highlights. Origins for instance has very few of them in comparison to asylum, city, and knight, and thus loses the pacing and rhythm that Asylum and City has (Knight loses it because of that bullshit Batmobile).

Origins comes off as a cash in, Knight at least comes off as misguided. In the long haul I'd still have more faith in Rocksteady to bounce back than WB Montreal, because they were basically the task of make a carbon copy of Arkham City, and their game was an actual step down. Rocksteady at least tried, they just choked. As far as I'm concerned you either die a studio who made underappreciated gems, or you're alive long enough to make a disappointment. Apparently Rocksteady did that by game 3.

It's bad.

What rage mode? That thing when your combo hits 12x and the screen goes blurry?

It was no more a tribute act than every CoD is to CoD 4 and thus many other games. There were some design problems such making you grind to get critical hits. But it was mostly fun. Arkham Knight only makes me appreciate it more.

Asylum wasn't perfect. Detective mode in that was almost game ruining, it just showed everything. And Critical hits was given away far too easily in City.

Origins has some issues in design, but it's still a damn good Batman game. It isn't a cash in, just made by an inexperienced developer with limited vision. They added a lot to the city. It's not as good as Arkham City but it's still good. I didn't like it at first either, but I've spent a lot of time in it and I can't fault it too much. I'm not going to rubbish it because of the lack of originality. Especially since Knight is what you end up with when you make changes for the sake of it.

Origins was a minor step down, but nothing game ruining. Knight was a massive step down, borderline cluster ****.

It's a really good game. It might not be as good as Arkham City (mostly due to the weaker challenge maps) , but it still outdoes most action adventure games on the market.

P.S. It also had a much better ending to its batman trilogy than what Nolan did in Rises. Rocksteady understood the character better.