The only thing I don't like...

Avatar image for scottybro1970
#1 Edited by scottybro1970 (126 posts) -

Is something they did to combat. In the challenge maps you now are being forced to use the variation bonus if you want to have a better chance at 3 medals. Variation focusing on gadgets. In AC I managed to get 3 medals and some very decent scores without a major bonus to variation. I never liked using gadgets in combat; they always broke my combo. Some people are good at them and some are not.

I don't do too bad at all in the story mode, but the challenge maps are a different story. In AC, the variation bonus was an option. In AO it's a requirement. This was a real let down for me.

Other than that, I like the game a lot. But, if you're not good at the variation bonus, 3 medals will be very tough to get.

Avatar image for jozzzeb2004
#2 Posted by jozzzeb2004 (31 posts) -

This game is worse than the last 2 this is what happens when you let amateurs make a game.

Avatar image for scottybro1970
#3 Posted by scottybro1970 (126 posts) -

# Yep, you got that right. For the first time in my history of playing AA and AC, I got my butt handed to me by one of the Black mask maps. No chance to build a combo, as the frakking enemies were attacking every 2 seconds I had no time to do anything except counter. And since the timing now required to successfully counter has been extremely shortened and added to the enemies attacking you in mid-animation (thus breaking your combo) it can be completely impossible to get past x5. Even more frustrating is that when you have a venom thug or an enforcer in the mix you can't evade fast enough to avoid his grapple attack!!!!!

So I was forced to take hit after hit after hit and was not able to do anything about it. Couldn't get past x5 to use my special moves. And the final insult: 3 medals was 100,000 points!

The game is finished for me. I'm done. It would be a criminal act to put this complete and total let down back into my PS3. While I wait for the sequel to AC from Rocksteady, it's back to DCUO.

Avatar image for blazeingcxh
#4 Edited by blazeingcxh (62 posts) -

It's really sad that you believe the game is total let down...because it's hard.....
When amateurs make games, they screw them up by making them difficult?

I disagree. Challenge maps are challenge maps for a reason. Your going to be disappointed if you want them to be easy. In the past two games the combat challenge maps were not difficult at all. The Predator maps were. I think WB did a good job finally balancing that.

If you going to call this game "worse than the last two", and say that WB failed, pick a real reason (Like the very very common bugs) other than your apparent lack of skill.

Avatar image for darkknight9174
#5 Edited by darkknight9174 (240 posts) -

If a game offers multiple difficulty levels, and all of them are too hard, then yes that is a problem. For the story mode, Arkham Origins provides three different difficulties, but you are correct in saying that there is only one difficulty for the challenge maps. I suppose that the medals are indicative of the difficulty, meaning that if you get three medals for a challenge that means you could probably hold your own on "hard"; however, since a lot of people like the feeling of accomplishment that comes with getting the three medals, perhaps in future games they should have explicit difficulty levels for the challenge maps that alter the score necessary to reach the different medals.

This doesn't really change how enjoyable a game is in most cases, but you should know if you do not already that making games is an incredibly difficult process, involving dozens of computer programmers and artists over a period of a couple years, in most cases. Basically where I am going with this is that you shouldn't really call the makers of the game amateurs unless you really know what you are talking about.

Avatar image for scottybro1970
#6 Posted by scottybro1970 (126 posts) -

I didn't say AO's developers were amateurs, a poster above me did but I generally agreed with it. They were handed a flawless program from Rocksteady and they twisted it. They just should have left it the heck alone.

There are things I liked about AO. I did like the story, I liked the larger world, the batwing sequence was good, Bane made the titans look puny, I liked the new enemies in combat; the only thing I didn't like was the combat. There WAS a difference between AC's system and AO's. The laggy game made it all worse.

For the posted who claimed my, "apparent lack of skill," I don't think you were trying to be rude, but I do have skill with the combat system. From AC:

Survival of the Fittest: 102,275

Funhouse Brawl: 147,440

Prison Riot (Extreme): 102,950

Iceberg Lounge: 224,890

Wayne Manor Armory: 122,500

Joker's Funhouse: 233,660

If they had left the combat alone in this game it would have rocked.

Avatar image for Jasper_73
#7 Posted by Jasper_73 (51 posts) -

Not sure if it is just me or not, but reading this, it seems that some people are having no trouble at all. However the free flow combat for me, just doesnt seem to work as well as AC. Batman hardly ever targets the enemy i want. Countering doesnt seem to be too much of a problem. Its just that quite often batman targets the wrong guy or he doesnt perform a strike at all and punches the air, when in the same situation at other times he does? I was never an expert in the combat in AC, but when ever things didnt work out it felt like it was my fault and not the games, where as in AO it doesnt. It certainly feels like the game is to blame. If they have tweeked it. Then in my opinion they should have left as it was.

Avatar image for wildhoney66
#8 Posted by wildhoney66 (281 posts) -

than wouldn't that be the issues with the game? City is a perfect game and is easily one of the best out there. let's face it they had a tough act to follow and yes they failed but than so did form my understanding Rocksteady as well when they did Arkham Knight. by paying much to attention to the damn batmobile rather than the game play.

i haven't played the last Arkham game only because i currently don't own a PS4. but this yeah it's a weak ass game don't get me wrong. but let's face it all games have glitches you will see that on all games that are out there going back to the games from the Atari 2600 and prolly even before that as well. i always put these games on easy cause unlike most people who love these games they are hard as **** and i prolly will never beat any of them but i can only try to get so far ya know? i think people AK has a great story i think it's just from what i hear not a great game. this one has a great story but the game play from what is said here isn't as good, well they are like it's been

said done by different people. i think 2 great games with Asylum and City is still a pretty damn good accomplishment over the 3 games they made. and if you really think about it. the final part in a story in games or movies/ books are sometimes the weakest and it wouldn't surprise me if they did another batman game that since they made i think 2 of them they may be getting better at making them. i'm curious if this and blackgate were rushed? does anyone know?