What do you do when making a sequel, or in this case a prequel, to a series of games that have made so many great achievements? Do redo everything to have the game be a new and exciting addition, or do change almost nothing in order to be faithful to past installments and deliver a similar experience? If done right, both directions could lead to a great game. If done wrong, it could lead to a disappointing game. In the case of Batman: Arkham Origins, it had to follow up the two amazing games of Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Which direction did it take? The second one. Did it do it right? No. Is it still a good game? Yes. Arkham Origins does everything the previous games did better than ever, but it uses them as a crutch rather than a spring board thrusting the series forward.
Story - 9.0: The story is Batman: Arkham Origins's greatest achievement. It arguably boasts the best story in the trilogy. The game is a prequel to the previous Arkham games and takes place about two years into Batman's career as the Dark Knight. I'll try to avoid spoilers as much as possible. The story is focused around Batman's first encounter with the Joker and is centered around the very nature of their "rivalry." The rest of the Joker's role is best left for you to discover on your own. Although the Joker takes the center stage, there are plenty of other great villians that need your attention. Crime lord Black Mask has put a hit on Batman for $50,000. There are a lot of people who want that money including corrupt Gotham Policeman. The real threat though is that eight assassins are after that bounty including Deathstroke and Bane. All eight of them are willing to go to extremes including attacking civilians to get that money. Here is sort of a SPOILER ALERT: Bane has a much larger role than I anticipated which I appreciated. I always wanted more of him in the previous games. Deathstroke has a smaller role than I had hoped. He's a very interesting and BA villain. Although, it looks like there will be more of him in upcoming DLC. End of SPOILER ALERT. The story also centers around the morality and potential consequences of Batman's actions. This is reflected well in the much more fleshed out relationship between Bruce and Alfred, and the formation of the trust between Gordon and Batman. The acting is also worth noting. Both the iconic voices of Batman and the Joker of the previous games were replaced for the third installment. Honestly, the new actors do a great job. The actor replacing Mark Hamill as the Joker did a fantastic job. He sounds almost the same except a little younger which is good since it's a prequel. The actor for Batman did a good job. I'm not really convinced he did a worse or a better job than the previous actor. He did a good performance in his own right. The story is the highlight of the game. So from here, it's all down hill.
Gameplay - 7.0: Batman: ArkhamOrigins's gameplay does almost everything very well: enemies are varied, combat is smooth, and stealth is tactical. But despite how great everything is, nothing is new. Every gameplay feature found in Arkham City is very evident. Arkham Origins only adds a couple of new gadgets and new enemies, most notably the martial artist, to the combat. Nothing is new here. Origins does have some great boss fights however particularly with Deathstroke and Bane. Most of the bosses do have you repeating the same moves, but that doesn't make them less enjoyable. The fight with Deathstroke is my personal favorite. Although you spend most of the time countering, they have to be so well timed and the animations during make it an intense martial arts battle. Now for Origins, its boss fights, even though they're good, are still negatives towards the gameplay. Why? Because the previous two games had absolutely phenomenal boss fights that were extremely varied, intense, and often required great tactical thought. Origins's boss fights pale in comparison. One of the most notable changes for Origins is its larger city. The game offers large amounts of side missions to perform that can take up a great deal of your time. The downside, a large chunk of the city is directly from Arkham City but far less interesting. They quite literally copied and pasted the city from the previous game and added another section of Gotham. The other large addition to the game is the new detective mode. Using his Batman's new gadgets, you can reconstruct the crime. By "you reconstruct," I actually mean Batman reconstructs. You're involvement in the detective process is very minimal; it's more like you're watching it happen rather than using any deductive skills. The gameplay is good in its own right, but its lack of any good new innovative feature take away from the experience.
Visuals - 6.5: To be blunt, the visuals aren't impressive. The graphics are stunning during cutscenes but look ordinary during gameplay. The Bat suit particularly looks bland during gameplay. There is nothing remarkable about the visuals. The real negative is the city itself. What made Arkham City so great was the atmospheric city that it took place in. It gave you a desire to explore the city and learn more about it. The city in Arkham Origins may be bigger, but it is so lifeless! It may be night on Christmas Eve during a snow storm, but the city looks like no one lives there. It's so bland and uninteresting. As said before, half the city is the exact city from Arkham City. First off, that's just lazy developing. Second, the game ruins the great Arkham City by making its setting lifeless and uninteresting.
Multiplayer - 6.0: The most bold and innovative addition to the Arkham trilogy is multiplayer. The game pits Joker's gang versus Bane's gang with Batman and Robing silently taking down both teams. It's a very interesting and unique idea. It's quite the challenge to fire at one team and keep your eyes out for the dynamic duo. Like wise, it's a challenge to apply the skills from the single player to actual people online. What's the problem? It's sloppy, unfinished, and straight up frustrating. First, the controls for the gang members is awful. It functions very much like Gears of War or Mass Effect but makes stupid controls for it. Meaning, you press and hold A to sprint, but instead of smoothly running into cover, you have to confusingly press B to move in and out of cover. It sounds minor, but when your on the move during a fire fight with Batman and Robin taking people out, it's important to have smooth controls. Second, the shooting is abysmal. Even when you're in cover and aiming down the sites, the accuracy is still miserable. Third, playing as Batman and Robin doesn't feel nearly as smooth or as empowering as it does in single player. Obviously you can't have all the abilities from single player; that would give them an unfair advantage. But it's so significantly worse than single player. Sure, it's oddly satisfying to take another player down. But, it's very frustrating when a takedown doesn't work because of lag or somehow they're still shooting you when your bashing their face in. It was a interesting and unique idea that clearly needs more work down on it. It could be something truly great. But how it is right now, it's simply sloppy.
Verdict - 7.0: Batman: Arkham Origins is a good game. The excellent gameplay that we've come to love from the previous games is as good as ever. But, its lack of good innovative additions to the game, its bland and lifeless city, and its sloppy unfinished multiplayer make this game disappointing. I still very much enjoy this game and I think it's definitely worth playing, but it's not worth paying $60 for it.