The Game We Can't Stop Buying

I was just about finished with my mid-morning gaming news check, where I bounce from site to site, scouring the net for any and all tidbits of game related news I can find, when I came across a “17 Minute Walkthrough” of Batman: Arkham Origins. Normally I would have skipped a video like this, as I don’t like to spoil my $60+ purchase with oversaturation of the game through previews, interviews, trailers, and weekly clips. But this is a game that I already decided to pass on, so there was no concern of spoiling anything. I clicked the link and settled in with my cup of coffee to see just what this game had in store for those that intended to purchase it. I watched Batman glide through the air gracefully. He flip kicked from one enemy to the next seamlessly without a hitch with the freeflow combat system. He visited the bat cave and underwent a training tutorial on a concussion detonator. Then something became grossly apparent to me……nothing has changed, and not in a good way.

Now, some will say, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. But when it comes to video games, repetitive is the one thing we can all agree is not a desired feature. The first game, Batman: Arkham Asylum, was hands down the best Batman game we’d ever seen up to that point. So clearly a sequel was a good idea. Who wouldn’t want more of a good thing? But that’s where things get tricky, right. When iterating on an idea, there’s a fine balance required of keeping what worked, getting rid of what didn’t, and serving it all up in a manner that’s fitting with what came before, but doesn’t tread so close to the original that it feels redundant. That’s no easy task. However, having also played the second game in the series, Batman: Arkham City, it was clear that developer Rocksteady had done it again. They superbly achieved that elusive task of replicating what worked, while still managing to give us enough “new” without us noticing it was essentially the same game.

So what parts made up the whole that led to enjoying this game a second time? Well first of all there was the gear. New gadgets that improved Batman’s arsenal, which really fleshed out the gameplay, leading you to better feel like you were “the Batman”. Most notably, was the open world and enhancements to the freeflow combat system. Arkham City also features a rich narrative with several big name Batman villains to take down. Each of these areas of improvement was critical to the acclaim of Arkham City. Without them, the game would just be Arkham Asylum, right?

That brings us to the upcoming game, Arkham Origins. After viewing this 17 minute walkthrough, I’m inclined to believe my initial gut feeling about this 3rd installment was right. With nothing new on offer, why make the purchase. I can’t help but wonder, if after the success of the first two games, if this third game isn’t just a reuse of the games’ assets with some story twists in an effort to milk the series for more money. Honestly, this $60+ retail game could have more likely been a $4.99 DLC pack called “Arkham Assassins”.

And it’s not just Batman games that are doing this. Think about Assassin’s Creed and Watch Dogs as great examples. Assassin’s Creed has had so many iterations, with so little change that it has worn itself too thin, almost to the point of worn out. Now look at Watch Dogs. Here’s a prime example of overly reusing assets. Ubisoft, seeing that Assassin’s Creed is wearing thin; decide to repaint, reskin, and call it Watch Dogs. Isn’t it essentially still an Assassin’s Creed game? The similarities are uncanny both in gameplay and in mission structure.

We find ourselves yearning for a new game, a new…experience. Why then do we continue to gobble up these carbon copies of games? Is it simply because most people just don’t see it? Is it because we don’t care, we liked the first one so the next one has to be just as good?? Or has this convention of re-skin, reuse, and repeat become so accepted by the gaming industry, that we can’t tell the forest from the trees anymore. Take a good hard look at your buying habits concerning video games. Are you guilty of perpetuating this cycle? I know I have been. Are you tired of the video game industry being comprised of the same 9 or 10 experiences??? Don’t spend almost $100 on a game you’ve already bought 2 or 3 times. We speak with our wallets; let them know this next generation of gaming has to be different, filled with innovation and new ideas, not just reused, re-skinned, and reiterated.

-Rendermonk

I think the justification, as it so often is, comes from the fine details. Especially in this case.

Gaming is often compared to films, but it is more reminiscent of the old movie house serials. Or perhaps television mini-series. And I don't mean that as a knock against them. The investment we feel from the characters and settings lends itself to sequential story telling. We learn of the characters, if we like them then we naturally want more. The gameplay gets an upgrade, the textures get a new coat of paint, the poly count rises, but why we go back is the next adventure. The next cycle of bad guys to fight, the next way to take down the Joker or Two-Face. The next challenge to be met by our intrepid heroes.

The character work and story arcs are still kind of new to gaming only really showing up in earnest a little over a decade or so during the last two generations of hardware. Stories were around before then of course, but with the rise of story telling in games so to has risen the central character. That is why we go back to see their newest adventure the same way people used to make a point to go see the latest episode of Captain Lazer (or whatever) in the movie houses of our parents and grandparents era.

Sometimes, a game absolute nails the mechanics it was driving for. This is rare, but it happens. Sometimes, the core gameplay itself doesn't need to be changed in order to justify purchasing a sequel. In fact, I'm more inclined to dislike a game because it deviated too far from what I found so attractive in the first place.

Batman is one of those games. Watching videos for Origins I can say that I completely agree and understand where you're coming from. The only difference is that when I saw "more of the same" I let loose a sigh of relief. The Arkham games have phenomenal gameplay, and really, I want more of it. See, by the time I was done with Arkham City I knew all the fine details. I solved every Riddler puzzle, I completed virtually all the challenges, I knew all the dialog, I explored (and practically memorized) every nook and cranny of that game. Arkham Origins offers the prospect of being able to continue onward with the gameplay that I love, but giving me a world and story that's completely unfamiliar to me.

This is similar for many frequent releases that are often trashed. Yeah, the mechanics in Assassin's Creed haven't changed all that much, there's some franchise fatigue at this point certainly, but this is a franchise that let me explore the Italian Renaissance and take part in battles during the American Revolution. Pokemon had years upon years of similar, same ole' gameplay but it was about exploring new towns, fighting new foes, and collecting new monsters. Dark Souls' gameplay is virtually unchanged from Demon's Souls, but it pulled me into a more engaging world with dozens of new characters.

You can call it reskinning or rehashing, sure, and you'd be right. However, I'm fine with that so long as I get that same, familiar (yet tweaked to perfection) gameplay that I loved in a fresh new world for me to explore and get lost in. What's the alternative? Resident Eviling it?

I totally get what you mean. But you can still improve a game a lot. Hell look at AC 2 compared to the first. Probably the biggest difference in a sequel. Asylum and City had also big changes. That being said, it's not the main team of Rocksteady that are taking this project on, but another team. But i think there are bigger changes in this game than in yearly released games. On principle i would rather get Arkham than FIFA or COD

What seems to happen is when a great game comes along and is truly a ground breaker that is where it stops. The game(Series) will slowly start to go downhill from that point but it is only natural. It's like anything else in life, everything has a peak and from that point there is nowhere else to go but down to make room for next best thing. You will have the die hard fans that will stick with the the game series through thick and through thin but you will also have the group that wants nothing to do with it and forsaking it as if its the worst thing ever created. There are very few game developers that have avoided this. Hideo Kojima comes to mind, considering how successful Metal Gear Solid is,the game truly makes huge leaps in innovation with every new installment. There are other developers out there that stay true to the art form but they are far and few in between. The way I see it is gamers should see games like Assassins Creed,COD, and soon to be Battlefield as the games to play and entertain us while waiting for the true masterpieces to be released.

Honestly, no, I'm not. Your stance of Arkham Origins is exactly the same as mine. I loved AA. AC is one of my favourite games this gen. Origins is more AC, it doesn't seem to screw anything up, yet I won't play it. Ever. I won't buy it, I won't read its reviews, I won't watch videos of it. I just don't care. If I want to play AC again, I'll play AC again.

I'm allergic to rehashing. Hell, I'm allergic to repetition in general. I can't stand repetition within a game, so why would I put up with game-to-game repetition? Thankfully, there is so much variety in gaming today that I don't even have to take a second look at these rehashes. I won't play AO or the next Assassin's Creed. I won't even acknowledge the existence of the next Halo, Battlefield, COD, Mario, Zelda, Forza or Gran Turismo. Yet, I'll never run out of quality, interesting games.

you're thinking under the premise that the people who buy CoD/AC/halo/madden/whatever every year do want new experiences. it seems pretty clear that they don't. they want more of what they liked before and publishers know it. i mean, ubisoft producers have been banging the "quality" drum in their messaging in recent years. surely other developers aren't trying to make games that aren't quality. it's just an indirect way for ubisoft to say "i know you're conservative and don't want risk buying a bad game for $60, so we are going to take that formula you like and keep polishing it." i suppose whether or not that strategy actually prevents them from making good games depends on who is playing, but clearly plenty of people keep going back.

i don't mean to disparage anybody's gaming habits either. i certainly wouldn't want to buy a sequel from the same series every year, but there are sequels that i like plenty. i think pretty much everybody is interested in some game because they liked a game much like it. it's natural.

I agree with @LoG-Sacrament,@IndianaPwns39and@ZZoMBiE13. What I want to add is that for me personally there's enough variety in gaming so that coming back to sequels feels like starting a new thing. I must admit I play none of the yearly sequels, because those games do not appeal to me. But I love the GTA and ME series, no matter how guilty they are of reskinning and rehashing (but even with loved series I always critically assess if I'll like the game. I never buy it at launch). I've played so many different games in between that a new version of a series becomes interesting again. And as some of the people above have said, if you like something a lot you'll want more of that. There's nothing wrong with building on existing concepts or even copying those concepts if it makes for a great experience. And again, I find plenty of innovation and unique experiences in other games.

But it is a bit worrying that only a few big AAA titles (usually sequels) make a decent profit and that there is a lot of risk control to make sure the big prior investments aren't wasted. There's too much at stake to try something new. If publishers can guarantee good sales based on rehashing then they'll go for that. And it makes sense, because apparently it's what the majority of consumers like. The majority of the consumers will buy titles on the launch date, based on reputation and marketing. I guess you could say that's a bad thing, because it might hinder innovation. But more money might in the long run also result in investments in a completely new game or in more innovative developers.

It's an illusion to think that any form of entertainment can be a continuing innovative process when it comes to a mainstream market. Innovation almost always happens slowly and in the margins (in film, literature, music, etc.). That's how the economy works. Looking at where video games are at right now you want something that will never happen. Be patient and look at the margins. There's penty of interesting stuff happening there.

@ZZoMBiE13: The point I think you're missing though, is not that we can't have sequels, but rather how those sequels are handled that determine if we should be buying them or not. That's why I bought the first TWO Batman games, but won't be getting the 3rd. Not enough has changed from the second installment to the third, to make a difference.

@IndianaPwns39: This is my big worry with gaming. Is that by pandering to our same basic instincts with the same 8 or 9 games,....we never know we might like something new even better. Devs aren't pushed to do more, try new things, or branch out into unknown territory. Then our gaming habits and patterns begin to grow stale and repetitive, and we wonder why nothing feels truly FUN or truly GREAT....It's because we aren't actually playing anything for the first time, as it's just a replica of what we played 4-6 months ago.

While I agree with some of what you are attempting to convey here, there are a number of points I have specifically quoted and rebutted because I take issue with the truth and logic quotient of these assertions.

“That brings us to the upcoming game, Arkham Origins. After viewing this 17 minute walkthrough, I’m inclined to believe my initial gut feeling about this 3rd installment was right. With nothing new on offer, why make the purchase. I can’t help but wonder, if after the success of the first two games, if this third game isn’t just a reuse of the games’ assets with some story twists in an effort to milk the series for more money.”

I’d venture to state that the probative value you could glean from watching the first 17-minutes of this (or any game) is far too limited a sampling to make such a pronounced and bold claim regarding redundancy. I too share your concerns but the developers have been actively revealing the many tweaks and changes they are implementing to the existing formula for the last several months and that information strikes me as more illuminating than a brief walkthrough of the admittedly limited introductory portion of the game.

"Honestly, this $60+ retail game could have more likely been a $4.99 DLC pack called “Arkham Assassins”.

This seems like a particularly nonsensical statement and assuming this game is comparable in length to the previous entries, expecting it to be delivered in the form of five-dollar DLC is asinine given the production values, new voice cast, etc.

“Assassin’s Creed has had so many iterations, with so little change that it has worn itself too thin, almost to the point of worn out.”

While I won’t contest the notion that Ubi Soft has overplayed this series by making it a yearly endeavor, the insistence that the franchise has seen little change or evolution is demonstrably false. The jump from AC to AC2 was massive and the shift from the Enzio Trilogy to ACIII was also significant, even if those changes weren’t universally acclaimed.

“Now look at Watch Dogs. Here’s a prime example of overly reusing assets. Ubisoft, seeing that Assassin’s Creed is wearing thin; decide to repaint, reskin, and call it Watch Dogs. Isn’t it essentially still an Assassin’s Creed game? The similarities are uncanny both in gameplay and in mission structure.”

At this juncture you simply go off on some inane tangent about a game none of us have played being a re-skinned version of Assassin’s Creed, an interesting postulation given that nothing that has been shown in regards to Watchdogs looks anything much like the AC franchise. You even go into some detail when accusing WD of being a blatant rehash, claiming that mission structure and assets are being recycled, which is bizarre given that AC is (mostly) set in the past where by sharp contrast Watchdogs looks to be set in a contemporary or near-future city with a clear disparity in both available weapons and the overall conceit of the narrative.

Outside of the developers and publisher, I fail to see even a tenuous link between the two and given that Watchdogs won’t see a release for another six months I am curious as to what you predicate this scathingly negative assessment upon?

And finally, the last paragraph of your blog contains a plethora of contestable points:

“We find ourselves yearning for a new game, a new…experience.”

I don’t presume to speak for anyone other than myself (And I don’t recommend you do either) but from my own vantage point I can honestly state that I enjoy both the familiar and the new. The notion that you cannot enjoy and appreciate both seems absurd and given the manner in which this medium evolves, I would assert that videogame sequels, unlike their filmic counterparts, are often superior to their predecessors, thus severely damaging the integrity of any ideology where sequels are espoused as inherently redundant and therefore negative.

“Are you guilty of perpetuating this cycle?”

I am an informed consumer and I purchase whatever it is I wish to play. I don’t see a need to make a stand with every individual purchase in order to prove a point nobody will notice or acknowledge.

“Are you tired of the video game industry being comprised of the same 9 or 10 experiences???”

I am not fatigued because my experiences with this medium are not reflective of yours. I have played hundreds of games this generation and a great many of them offered unique and divergent experiences dissimilar from one another so I flatly reject the notion that this medium has stagnated. If you sincerely believe that most games are this redundant and recycled, I would submit that you are playing the wrong games.

“…let them know this next generation of gaming has to be different, filled with innovation and new ideas, not just reused, re-skinned, and reiterated.”

This generation has enjoyed plenty of innovation; arguably more than at any other time within the medium’s history.

I’m a tireless advocate for innovation but I am also pragmatic enough to understand that sequels are both necessary and inevitable to propel the business of gaming. To be certain some developers and publishers exploit their franchises in such a way as to wring the very life from them but others seem to be cognizant of this potential pitfall and are careful to ensure that each sequel cleverly and inventively extrapolates on the pre-existing foundation to deliver something both familiar and compelling.

Indeed, many of the best games every made are sequels, thus I think calling for a ban or mitigation of them isn’t a viable pathway towards greater diversity and variety.

For me seeing the continuation of something I enjoy is perfectly fine. I bought the first two Batman games and I'll buy this one. The gameplay is great and fits Batman perfectly so I really don't see why or even how that the gameplay needs to be changed. What do people expect or want from it outside of changing the genre of the game? I typically buy and enjoy most games sequels because I'm interested in the characters and stories in them, the gameplay has either proven or disproven itself to me in the first game so if I already like it well enough I don't expect or necessarily even want it to change dramatically from sequel to sequel.

Well clearly I have struck some nerve with you. I won't go point by point to refute or counter what you've said, as it's your opinion, just as mine was. BUT, what I will say, is if you can't see the thought behind the article, as it was written, and find ANY merit to it, then you must not be the type of gamer I'm referring to. I personally have been playing games for more than 25 years, and can honestly say, that while the games we play now are fun, and pretty, they don't hold a candle to previous generations of gaming when it comes to new ideas, and innovative games. You can contest every word I say, and choose to disagree with all points made, that's your opinion. My views/opinions, as I so thoughtfully wrote out, varies vastly from yours.

Also, it's easy to sit back and disagree with someone. What's not so easy, is to take a step back, from all the media mania, that says "Games are great, don't think for yourself, don't take issue with the lack of inventive uses in gaming. Just keep buying our $60 product. If you can't see how what I wrote, specifically details this line of thinking with how redundant Batman:Origins is, versus Arkham City, then you must be one of the blind followers I'm calling on to wake up, and think for yourself. Either that or you were particularly pumped for Origins, and my lack of excitement for it has "Crossed you" in some way. That's the more likely scenario.

EDIT: After looking at your profile, I see that most, if not all of your comments, are purely combative. You very rarely, if ever, support another persons thoughts or comments. You just take the opposite side and run with it. Between that and not sharing any info about yourself, I can make a pretty good assessment of your character. Thank you for taking the time to comment on my article non-the less.

A lot of the time when I buy sequels or follow ups it's not something new that I'm after, it's just more content. The Arkham series has never really been my cup of tea but 3 games with two years between each isn't exactly massively repetitive and hardly even rates on the milk-o-meter compared to various other franchises from over the years. It does happen, but it's more because it generally works as a strategy and the titles it happens with tend to run their course then disappear. But repetitive sequels aren't a new phenomenon, it's not solely applicable to the current generation. I can certainly remember playing 5 almost identical Tomb Raider titles over the space of just 5 years.

What's much more pervasive and which has really become apparent over the last ten years, as development costs have spiralled out of control, is the notion that only certain types of games can possibly appeal to people. It even happened to Tomb Raider as well, someone decided Uncharted was successful and should be aped and so the Tomb Raider franchise was dragged out of retirement because people remember the name and it has a similar backdrop. The puzzle and platforming elements were all completely sidelined in favour of combat because that's what Naughty Dog did and people bought that, and they can get the added benefit of not having to be a platform exclusive, bam, Game of the Year 2013 nomination for multiplatform Uncharted: Added breasts edition.

Similar things happened to lots of the older franchises during the course of this generation as they all raced to copy the market leaders, because all of them were developed with the mindset of "Go big or go home". Poor Ghost Recon wound up a Call of Duty clone. Command & Conquer tried to be a moba. Splinter Cell doesn't know what it's doing. Resident Evil just went all over the place. Hell, even poor old Syndicate got dragged through the mud and it looks like Thief is next on the chopping block.

I get your point, and I do respect it. But I do not share it.

The prospect of a new Batman Arkham game is exciting because I know what to expect. Now, this is not like a Madden or a CoD in my view. The new setting, new game world to explore, and new story are why I'm eager to play Origins. The gameplay being radically different would actually put me off because they already nailed it. It's essentially a perfect balance of "easy to pick up/hard to master" and more of that is fine. I typically pick up games at launch so it's been nearly 2 years since I played Arkham City and the idea of revisiting the Batcave to live another series of events through Bruce Wayne's ample boots is one I am looking forward to.

Now as a contrast, I'll cite WWE 2k14, 13, and 12. These are long running franchises with yearly iterations that only really change up the roster and add in new decorations for the latest PPVs. If we were talking about something like those, I'd be right there with you. Even CoD, which I do like to play from time to time, I won't buy each year. Every two or three years I'll pick up one on the cheap(used), play whatever single player is there and a bit of the zombie mode and I'm good on that one. I don't think any yearly franchise can stay interesting to me because when you release a game so regularly there's no way for it to stand out. It's essentially competing with it's own last game of the cycle. But a game with a strong central character, that has had 2 good stories to tell so far and added new gadgets and refinements to the mix, I find that perfectly reasonable. Now if this one turns out to be crap, then maybe I'll rethink my position. But as you say, it does seem like more of the same thing. The difference is I'm not tired of that thing even though the game ended so I'm happy to dive back in with my cape akimbo and beat up some street thugs with overly acrobatic attack maneuvers.

I suppose I don't share the level of fatigue you're showcasing due to the sheer amount of games I play each year. I can't say I agree with the notion that there aren't any devs out there trying new things or experimenting with unique ideas. There have been a significant amount of fresh titles this generation. However, I think that some of these franchises became the very problem you're pinpointing. Assassin's Creed was something new and wonderful, but yeah, I get why it'd feel redundant by now.

Still, I prefer a sequel to feel familiar. I like to balance the fresh with the familiar, as I almost always do. For example, I just finished up Assassin's Creed III and now I'm playing Persona 4 Golden. ACIII was familiar, P4G feels fresh to me.

I will add this though: I hate it when a franchise replicates another. This happened a lot with CoD this gen. There were several shooters that simply lifted CoD's template and because of it the entire genre went stagnant, imo.

The problem you are having is what most people have and also the reason why you only have one Mona Lisa, one David and for most franchises only 1 true epic game. The developers can only hit that golden spot once, after that they get stuck in not wanting to change to much, because after all "if aint broke, dont fix it" and also trying to implement new and make the game exciting, which only locks them down and in most cases it ends bad, like with Assassin Creed, Splinter Cell and many other franchise and also Batman, because despite what some on this forum say, Arkham City was a good game, but it wasn´t Arkham Asylum. and AC felt stale and used. Which is the second reason, there is only one first time, after that its all downhill even if it gets better, because nothing beats that first time.

Which is also why i wont get Batman AO on release, because i think like you that this one is a pass, its just the same as Batman Arkham City with a bigger more open world and not the same closed off sections. Its almost like they think bigger is better, which isent the case.

@dvader654: Here's how I look at the "17 min walkthrough" deal. If a developer is going to show off 17 minutes of their up and coming game (with developer commentary I might add), you'd think they would want to show case some of the "new" content in the game. Sure, 17mins is not enough to judge an entire game by, but from my viewpoint, to see nearly 20mins of gameplay that includes NOTHING new....NOTHING?? That to me says "we have nothing new to add to this game" and/or "We have so little that's new, we can't risk showing it off before release." Either way, that's really bad. I mean, they chose the 17mins to show off, they could have included new gadgets, shown off new environments, even given us a taste of some new enemies. But we got none of the above. That speaks volumes.

Concerning the game of old, there were plenty of stinkers, but there were masses of good ones, well beyond the most popular like zelda and mario. But to be fair, I don't think this gen sucks, or even that game of those days were "better". What I said was, that games of the past had more variety, and included much more innovative gameplay than we see in today's games....and it gets worse with each passing year/sequel. Yes, there are a crap ton of FANTASTIC games that came out this generation, but as far as which era had more variety and more innovation, I still think it has to be PS2 era and older.

Also, how old are you? You don't have any personal info like age available in your bio either. I'm 31, and grew up with NES, SNES, etc. (while I did get my hands on Atari and the like, I consider my gaming hobby to have started during the NES years) so when I say 25 years of gaming, I mean I've been around long enough to see things change/evolve/devolve first hand. Many forum posters claim they are a certain age, or have been around, but few are actually telling the truth. I've never understood why people would hide their age in their bio unless they had something to hide.

I only ask, because it's very VERY uncommon for anyone who actually grew up playing games of the 80's and 90's to say something like, "and in general games of today take a massive giant turd on games of old" about games of that era.

I wish I knew how any of this had any relevance to the discussion you were trying to have going, all it's going to do is cause this to take a massive detour from the original post. You say many forum posters claim they are a certain age, but few are telling the truth. How can you tell? Why would they lie about that? Why would having their age in their bio matter? Anyone can put any number in their that they want to. Dvader is a respected long time member who has contributed massively to this community.

If he says he has been gaming for 27 years, then I think I can safely speak for all of the GGD community in saying he's earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt on that claim.

Not sure why the ad hominem, but that wasn't directed at me and Randy already touched on it so I won't elaborate.

I'm 41 and I have literally grown up with gaming. Feel free to check all the bio info you want. From my first PONG console to arcades and the Atari VCS. I'd still take the stuff of today and put it on a pedestal. It's important to remember the past, but the current gen has had some amazing titles. And the "good ol days" were littered with sequels as well as trash games just like today is. Mega Man, Mario, Ninja Gaiden, Double Dragon, all got sequels in the NES era. There were even sequels in the arcade days of the late 70s, though they were often overshadowed. But even Asteroids got a coin-op sequel. It was the NES era that brought us the very concept of a game not being good enough to buy, just to rent. So no, I don't think the NES or SNES/Genesis era had a higher ratio of quality titles to crap titles. If anything, the more standardized models of today mean we can expect a certain level of quality is a given which is why we can focus more on the games artistic merits as opposed to generations past.

Also, no new gadgets and no new environments is not really true. They showed off multiple uses for the Deathstroke grapple claw gadget, and the entire 17 minutes was centered around the new city section, the batcave (which we've not spent but a moment or two in through the previous 2 games but is now an explorable hub zone) and the entire stealth segment was in an entirely new location: Gotham Police Department HQ. As for new enemies, I'll give you that one to a degree. But they did mention that the cops are no longer on your side, showed that the leader of SWAT was also trying to get the bounty on Batman's head, and there's been a number of videos showing the new assassin villains in detail.

Complain that nothing has changed if you like, it seems to me like you are choosing a myopic view. If you just don't want to buy in to the game, that's fine. It's perfectly fine to vote with your wallet and say this one isn't for you. Good on you. But for those of us who are interested in the game, Batman's new adventure with the already superb gameplay is the selling point. Not some check boxes of features that must be met to justify it's existence.

For me it has all the relevance in the world. Younger, faceless, nameless nobody's lurk behind screen names online all the time. So to act as if age has no bearing is just wrong, it does. And I believe I was pretty descriptive as to why I was asking about his age. His statement including about "massive turd" on previous generations, is what led me to believe he was a little kid. He may be some demi-god to you here on GS, but I've been here a long time myself, and never heard of him. So forgive me, if I don't take the word of two faceless, nameless, ageless strangers on the internet. (Sorry if that sounds mean, it's just the way it is)

You make some excellent points about the early days of gaming. And like said a few posts back, I never said one era was better than the other, just that the level of innovative game mechanics and ingenuity in game titles (I feel) is severely lacking this generation as compared to those days. Both eras have their faults. As of late, I've been noticing some rather repetitive, canned, reused gameplay in some of the AAA big name titles, that's completely off-putting (hence the OP).

Back to Batman: Origins. Deathstroke grappel claw gadget, come on...it's not really a big change, from the original bat claw, but I'll at least give you that one (although, it wasn't SHOWN in the video, only mentioned). As for the new city section....IT LOOKS THE DAMN SAME!!!! If it's not the same environment it was before, it sure as hell looks and feels the damn same, in my book, that's the same. The batcave, while cool, isn't some explorable hub world...that's PR speak to hype up a room. It's a glorified training room/check in point. That's not to say that it's not still cool to be able to walk around the batcave, but again, we've done this already, in both the other batman games!! To call the Gotham Police dept a new area, again is laughable....we've literally been there, and done that. The only thing we didn't do, is fight the police.

The only thing this game has going for it, IS the new assassin villains. Which is what I said in the original article. If they would have made this a DLC pack, with the new assassins spread out through Arkham City, it would have been just as good....but who would buy that right? I mean, isn't that the point? ...Nevermind. Starting to feel like I'm beating a dead horse. I'm inclined to believe that a lot of people actually feel this way about his game, but refuse to believe or admit to themselves that it's true. Guess we'll just wait and see how the reviews look. See if they don't score it low for the reasons mentioned in my original article. Not that reviews mean everything, but as a whole they can be quite indicative of what to expect.

The whole point of the article in the first place, was to inform my fellow gamers, not to start some flame-bait war over "is batman a good/fun game". I know I'm disappointed that this is how the new Batman game looks to be, and won't be caught up in buying it a 3rd time, when it's not really a new game (again, to me that is). Just wanted to try and save some gamers $60 bucks on a similar disappointment.

Actually to act like age has any importance is wrong, why would someone´s age matter? what about just looking at what the person wrote and judge that and not some number which means absolute nothing on a forum. And the same goes for what people claim or not claim, who cares if someone actually have been around since the dawn of gaming. Again if what that person writes is insightful and intelligent, then why care? and if its not, well then again why care.

You seem to be creating some kind of vicious circle: if you like Origins you must be influenced by the media and only if you take a step back from all the media you'll see that Origins offers nothing new. It seems that according to you there's no way someone can look forward to the game based on their own critical assessments. Several people have given examples of what is new and interesting about Origins. I would like to know what your opinion on those comments is... I mean, you dismissed Grammaton-Cleric, but he raised some good points. You should be able to 'take a step back' from his 'combative' attitude and consider some of his arguments. You can't ask for a discussion (at least, I assume that's what you want) and then claim someone simply has a different opinion or is being too agressive and fanboy to be taken seriously. That's taking the easy way out.

And maybe you should also explicitly state what's not new about Origins and Watch Dogs, even if that means repeating mechanics and concepts from previous games. In that case people will actually have a chance to more directly discuss the arguments you use to prove your point. Claiming that Origins offers nothing new and that Watch Dogs is a rehashed Assassin's Creed (without pointing at specific aspects) can't really lift this discussion beyond a very basic this opinion vs. that opinion. People have given you every reason to elaborate on your OP, but so far you haven't done that.

EDIT: apparently if you leave the page open and go away for a while and then return to finish your reply, the page doesn't update... I hadn't seen the latest reply. My apologies. There has indeed been elaboration on the OP. Disregard some of the things I said.

Just for the record, there was no flaming or anything. Just conversation. Reasonable people can disagree. It is allowed. ;)

Take care bud. I don't agree with your point, but enjoyed discussing it with you.

If you've been here a long time yourself, why are you completely unfamiliar with the community and culture of this forum? Why come here saying you want to be a part of the community and add to the discussion if you are going to be dismissive to opposing viewpoints, including the use of ad-hominem personal attacks? It seems to me you just wanted to put yourself on a pedestal and preach, and just have everyone agree with you. Sorry, we don't work that way here.

It’s unfortunate that your ideas are so inherently weak and unsubstantiated that you must resort to attacking my character or generalizing my posts when clearly you know very little about me or why I choose to rebut certain arguments. I was in no way rude but I do refute those postulations I feel are tenuous and poorly supported and your blog is rife with such breaches that undermine if not outright obliterate any cogent point you might have achieved.

And clearly, the reason you don’t directly address my counterarguments point-by-point is because you can’t; many of the things you claim in your initial blog cannot be shielded by subjectivism so while it may be comfortable for you to retreat under the covers of opinion like a frightened child, much of what you wrote really is disprovable nonsense and unmitigated speculation and conjecture. I took the time to clearly delineate the flaws in many of your specious and utterly disprovable claims so the onus is on you to either rebut and disprove me or concede the vapidity of those assertions.

My arguments are clearly defined and stand so feel free to address them.

It’s also telling that you claim I found no merit in what you wrote despite the fact that I actually prefaced my response by clearly stating I agreed with some of your sentiments but took issue with the rationale you employed to justify them. Perhaps, instead of getting knotted up emotionally because I dared to question your logic and interpretation of the facts, you should more carefully read what I wrote and not take such things overtly personally. I also find it adorable that you accuse me of not grasping the greater thematic arc of your post, as if such tired, banal and pedestrian musings haven’t been parroted a thousand times over.

Do you truly operate under the delusion that what you have written here is, in any way, of unique or profound insight?

Also, I mentioned I had similar trepidations regarding Batman: Origins but unlike you, I actually did a bit of research and was relieved that the developers are clearly attempting to implement some welcome changes. Whether or not those changes are enough to save the game from redundancy is yet to be seen but I certainly have no emotional investment in this game’s success or failure outside of wanting one final great Batman game to finish this generation.

But feel free to cling to your fandom theory since clearly, you are not one to let reality get in the way of making a point. (Even when said point is hollow and inconsequential)

I’m also a bit mystified that you are benumbed by the notion of a combative post in a place designed, specifically, for discussion and debate. This mystification is only further compounded by how overtly combative and hostile your response to me actually is; a bit of droll irony that further demonstrates the measured illogicality that saturates your prose.

And again, I wasn’t rude in that initial rebuttal and I would happily engage you in a more protracted discussion but your decision to attack me instead of staying on point defines you as just another Internet man-child not yet ready to substantiate your opinions beyond the superficial.

Let me know when you move beyond that and we can have a nice, civil discussion.

Or not.

See, I thought when I saw his first reply to Gram I should warn him, but I think it's best for people to just learn these things on their own.

No what I was hoping for was to inform and educate, based on my years as a gamer. Unfortunately that's not something that's welcomed here, at least by most. Thanks for the lively debate and discussion anyway.

@Grammaton-Cleric: And you, you're probably the worst offender of what I stated in my last reply to Randolph. Just because you can click on "synonyms" in microsoft word, doesn't make you intelligent. If people can look past your ostentatious use of the thesaurus, they'll see that you have little substance to actually offer in your replys.

Also, the reason I didn't refute each and ALL of your points, is because they were simply counters to the points I originally rose. I don't need to re-counter them, as I brought them to the table in the first place, so you already know where I stand on them, if you had bothered to read (both the OP and the many many replys to others), my reasons were explained over and over, and they all have clear merit. You're allowed to disagree. But to disagree, just to disagree....seems small. But hey, to each his own. And to repeat myself, I didn't spend the time writing the article, and answering posts, just to start arguements, or to "combat" strangers on the internet. I wrote it to try and inform, and educate....again, a sentiment that seems lost on what apparently is the more veteran members of these forums. A shame really, as you guys should be setting the tone for new comers. All it seems you're well known for is "handing out the smack down" as Randolph made so blatantly clear in his last post, regarding you, Grammaton-Cleric.

When in a hole, you need to recognize continuing to dig is a foolish pursuit.

Your assumption is that the people on this board require elucidation from you, which is both an erroneous and arrogant supposition.

I’ve been gaming longer than you and I will happily and publically place my knowledge of this medium against your own because clearly, you need a protracted and continued lesson in humility as evidenced by your decision to swagger into an established forum and begin lecturing and deriding veteran members you clearly do not know in a place you clearly do not understand.

You are also an unabashed hypocrite because while you attempt to hide behind age as a validation of your opinions (a bullshit tactic you were called out on) you ironically come into a place where you are decidedly inexperienced and begin making any number of presumptions which highlight said inexperience. You are the rhetorical equivalent of a train wreck; an amalgamation of twisted, incongruous notions and ideologies that spew forth all manner of debris and rubble, none of which is salvageable from a logical or coherent standpoint.

Consider for a moment that you chided me for having no information in my profile. Clearly you are unaware that Gamespot has undergone an entire overhaul and the previous profiles, including blogs I had written, etc. are gone. Yet you foolishly try and use that as proof of my character, demonstrating how entirely unfamiliar you are with me, other members, or this board in general.

Gram has been making so many new friends lately, goodness. ;)

For what it's worth, Rendermonk, and I doubt it's worth much to you at this point but I'll say it anyway, I'm sorry this didn't work out for you. I read but did not respond to your first blog, and you seem like a guy with a genuine passion for gaming who could be a welcome contributor. You just went about breaking into this community the entirely wrong way.

When entering a new community, it's better to slip in quietly and simply join the discussion and acclimate yourself to the existing culture of the forum, rather than just bust in and preach at everyone and tell them they are parched idiots desperately in need of the thirst quenching knowledge bursting forth from your every word.

Respect is earned, not given. Certainly not demanded.

Firstly, kudos for following the “newbie flowchart” of accusing me of using a thesaurus (I rarely use them) while claiming that my vocabulary obfuscates the supposedly vacuous content of my arguments. Your retorts are as tedious and unimaginative as your blogs but at least you are consistent.

As to the notion that you don’t need to substantiate and defend YOUR arguments, well, that is a bit of a thorny issue given that is precisely your responsibility if you expect anyone outside of children to take your arguments seriously. To be certain I meet people like you so very often; individuals who think opinion alone makes their ideas infallible but even a student new to argumentation and rhetoric knows that any opinion rises and falls on the evidence and logic it is predicated upon.

And no, many of your notions and assertions do not contain any real quotient of merit. In actuality much of what you wrote was factually incorrect, illogically argued, or was so entrenched in rampant speculation that it might as well been labeled as fiction. For example, to call Watch Dogs a re-skinned Assassin’s Creed and comment on the mission structure and assets being reused from the latter is utterly nonsensical given that the game hasn’t yet been released. Even when looking at the media that has been shared thus far, what is so similar about these disparate games? Outside of some vagaries, can you demonstrate, on any level, why you think these games are basically the same?

Because if you can’t, then who gives a shit what you think?

Also, as it is with everything else you blather on about, we don’t require any advice from you regarding forum etiquette. And might I remind you that it was YOU who has engaged in hostility and personal attacks that detract from any salient point you might have achieved. It was YOU who accused DVADER of being a child and attacked his comments as immature and it was YOU who asserted that your age automatically imbued your observations with merit.

And I’ll happily assume the role of enforcer because frankly, many of the people you have insulted are people I respect and have known for years where by contrast you are nobody. Randolph astutely pegged it when he stated that you clearly thought we were going to be in awe of your insight; that we could only humbly kneel and squint at the blinding cascade of your illumination manifested in the sweet prose that drips from your divine fingertips as you edify us lowly plebs.

But that just isn’t going to happen, especially when your message is both tired and poorly substantiated.

Glad to hear some understanding on your part of where I was coming from. It's games that I love, and care about. And that's what I was trying to bring to the table. Trying to offend and defend is not what preoccupies my time. I guess my passion for writing about games, tends to leading down roads with people that I cannot follow. Grammaton-cleric is one of those people. He's the type of person who you can never reach on a place like this. (not sure how he is in real life, but here, not gonna happen). I would encourage people not to get caught up with people like that, on forums such as these, because what they are looking for, is the "back-n-forth" not the actual end result. I know I should have disengaged from him several posts ago, but it took me longer than it should have to glean his character (at least on theses forums that is). Thank you for the kind words Randolph, as that was the goal, to contribute something of meaning. While I may not be a regular poster on the forums, I've frequented the site for years, posting comments on articles/vids....but this back in forth with Gram.....the main reason I tend to stay OFF the forums. It's just counterproductive to what I'm trying to do, both personally and to those I'm trying to write to. I'll be around. Plan on writing a few articles a week. Check in on me from time to time. Would love some constructive feedback on the writings.

If I like a game, then it follows that I'll at least be interested in its sequel. If I feel the series is getting stale, for me personally, then I won't continue buying it. It's why I'm not getting ACIV.

Not really my place I suppose, but I have to defend Gram here. He isn't the type you can't reach, really. He's usually pretty damn understanding and civil, he's just really good at picking apart posts and arguing against them. However, that doesn't mean he's sitting on a pedestal and saying "you're wrong", he's plenty open to opinions and ideas. For example, he loved Bionic Commando, I don't, he gave his reasons why he loved it but he wasn't saying "you're wrong, enjoy the game damn it" but rather giving me reasons why he felt that way.

He looked to be doing that here too. He gave his reasons for why he felt different, practically agreed on some level that's he's cautious about the potential redundancy with Origins, but then you called out his high vocabulary?

Anyway, just saying, I think you've got him wrong. I hope you become an active member on these boards though. Always nice for new debate :)