LTTP - Batman: Arkham City: GAF Lied

O

Omega

Banned
I was putting off playing it for so long because I kept seeing people on GAF saying Arkham Asylum was so much better. Finally decided to play it so I could get through my backlog and I have to say, GAF totally has this wrong.

This is coming from someone who put an ungodly amount of time into AA. I got the 1000 gamerscore on three different XBL accounts and the platinum trophy 4 times (i made dummy accounts) not to mention trying to compete for the leaderboards before people started cheating. It's one of my favorite games ever.

but Arkham City does everything better.

- The boss battles were far superior. Even the end boss which was pretty mediocre, still better than Titan Joker from AA.
- Combat is so much better. Even little changes like Blade Dodge makes the combat just feel better instead of just cape swipe > mash attack. Also being able to counter up to two enemies
- The added side missions add more replay value to the game while not feeling like filler content (well, the Zsasz side mission does)
- New Game+

I haven't gotten around to playing the Riddler Challenges yet but even if they're terrible, the rest of the game is fantastic and one of the few sequels that actually improves on it's predecessor.
 
I think people just felt that Arkham Asylum was a tighter experience. Nothing in Arkham City was as good as the Scarecrow sections in Arkham Asylum.
 
I didn't even realize people thought the first one was better than this.


Great game, glad you liked it as much as you did.
Only gripe was the sidequests where he just sorta puts a pin in it for later...and now later isn't coming for a while.
 
I felt the media "lied" about it more than GAF. Part of my issue was I finished the main story well before I thought it would end. When I next replay AC, I'll make sure to do a lot more sidequests.
 
This is such a subjective topic. Arkham Asylum is very Metroidvania like. Arkham City kind of ditched this for a more open world concept. There is really no right or wrong answer as to which is the "better game". Yes Arkham City improved on a lot of stuff but by doing so kind of impacted the overall experience.

I like Arkham Asylum more, you like Arkham City. I'm sure we could both counter any arguments the other presents as to why they like the game they do and that's absolutely fine in my opinion. GAF didn't necessarily lie, you just happened to encounter the people who feel Asylum is the better game.
 
Arkham Asylum despite being an awesome game and my personal surprise of the generation has some of the worse and tedious boss battles in gaming indeed. They are nearly all the damn same thing except for the
Killer Croc
boss fight which was totally different and unique from all the steroid, super buffed up
Bane
and
Joker
bosses.
Poison Ivy
also comes to mind as being different, but it felt like it was one department of the game that was either outsourced a la Deus Ex: HR or rushed because of time constraints.
 
Arkham City isn't a bad game by any means, but I much preferred the Metroidvania nature of Arkham Asylum. The levels in Arkham City were too disjointed and felt broken down into unnecessarily small chunks.
 
I felt GAF lied to me saying Arkham Asylum was really good. It was alright but City did everything better. I quickly lost interest in AA by the Poison Ivy fight. City I got every thing that I could.
 
I agree with you. I didn't play the first game as much as you (I just 1000G'd it once), but I also find Arkham City superior. I care mostly about the gameplay in games, and AC's is just superior in every conceivable way. You should really play the riddler's challenge: they are more entertaining and more challenging (especially some of the predator challenges, where you really need to think about what you're going to do to get max rank): I finished all of them with all 4 characters and had heaps of fun.
 
I agree, Asylum was great but City is just so much better. Using the grapple to basically fly through the levels, the side quests having interesting stories, the bosses, and the finale... Such a good game!

Phaethon0017 said:
Correct. Arkham City is The Dark Knight to Asylum's Begins.
Click to expand...

Here's hoping Origins isn't the Dark Knight Rises.
 
I loved Arkham City. Easily in my top 5 for this gen.

That atmosphere. Those playable characters. Fucking almost perfect Batman game.

It has the characters we love from the cartoon, the atmosphere from the Tim Burton movies, and the grounded violent undertones of the Nolan films. It is Batman and it is good.

All wrapped up in a completely awesome game with tons of side missions, costumes, and bonus missions outside the main game.

I give it 5 out of 5 fucks. All of my fucks.

The only flaw is that you don't actually feel like much of a detective, but screw it, action and Catwoman butt and combo chains let's do this.
 
Uh, I think GAF more or less loves this game and it was rated pretty highly in the GOTY awards. I can see why some people would like Asylum better, as the overall layout of the game is pretty different. I really enjoy both about evenly, but I agree the boss battles were much better in AC (especially Mr. Freeze). I could go without the ugly Riddler logos everywhere though.
 
Buckethead said:
Asylum is the better story/experience, City is the better game.
Click to expand...

ricochetguro said:
If nothing else everyone can agree they both share the same, awful steroid ridden character design.
Click to expand...

these are both very true

Maddog said:
This is such a subjective topic. Arkham Asylum is very Metroidvania like. Arkham City kind of ditched this for a more open world concept. There is really no right or wrong answer as to which is the "better game". Yes Arkham City improved on a lot of stuff but by doing so kind of impacted the overall experience.

I like Arkham Asylum more, you like Arkham City. I'm sure we could both counter any arguments the other presents as to why they like the game they do and that's absolutely fine in my opinion. GAF didn't necessarily lie, you just happened to encounter the people who feel Asylum is the better game.
Click to expand...

Thorakai said:
Arkham City isn't a bad game by any means, but I much preferred the Metroidvania nature of Arkham Asylum. The levels in Arkham City were too disjointed and felt broken down into unnecessarily small chunks.
Click to expand...

Good points, didn't really look at it that way

Don't get me wrong, if I had to recommend one of the Arkhams for someone to play, it would definitely be Asylum. I just think the amount of content AC delivers makes up for some of it's shortcomings and makes it the better game.
 
Story should have been a bit different to accommodate all the free roaming you end up doing. But yeah, really amazing game. One thing that really bugs me is how you can't disable the counter markers until your second game... you could do it in the first game.
 
Forkball said:
Uh, I think GAF more or less loves this game and it was rated pretty highly in the GOTY awards. I can see why some people would like Asylum better, as the overall layout of the game is pretty different. I really enjoy both about evenly, but I agree the boss battles were much better in AC (especially Mr. Freeze). I could go without the ugly Riddler logos everywhere though.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's overwhelming when you've barely started the game and you already have a counter going for 0 OF 5 MILLION OPTIONAL SHIT COLLECTED and actively see all this stuff you won't be able to do until you get the gadgets and abilities. It's like if the Metroidvania formula was dumped into one big open area.
 
Problem with Arkham City was way too much shit happening. This design cluttered everything from story to gameplay. Asylum was perfect.

I agree, AC has better gameplay.
 
They're both so freaking incredible. Asylum and City are seriously some of the best action-adventure games ever. I rank them up there with the better Zeldas and Metroids of the world.
 
Actually you can counter up to 3 enemies at once. It's not super common but it's awesome when it happens. I loved both games but City definitely was an improvement, bigger and better in my opinion.
 
Arkham City is one of the best games of the generation to me. I agree that the story isn't as tight as the first game, and there's nothing that just crushed my face as much as the third Scarecrow encounter, but City is just a better game in every other measurable way. Rocksteady has a masterful touch when it comes to leaving what worked, improving what needed improvement and building on everything all around. I adore Asylum, and I still replay both games every few months, but I spend most of my time in Asylum wishing I had Batman's upgraded moveset.
 
My problem with AA is when Ivy is introduced and a game that's quite grounded goes right off the edge of a cliff. I also love how the Island just goes right back to normal after she's beaten....so stupid.
...and that end game? Fucking awful. So phoned in.

"let's have the player fight some titans and thugs....and then do it again....also, lets make that the actual final boss too!"

Arkham City is sitting pretty close to the top of my backlog pile, really looking forward to playing it in the next few weeks. Especially after playing the Arkham Origins beta so much this past week.
 
Anyone else think that of all the forms of Batman (comics, cartoon, movies, etc), the Arkham series is the best? It combines all of my favorite elements -- the voices and vibe of The Animated Series, the "heightened reality" of the Nolan films, the flamboyant colors of Schumacher, the lore of the comics, etc. LOVE THE ARKHAM SERIES!
 
Rob N Banks said:
but Arkham City does everything better.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much irrefutable truth. Even the story of Asylum isn't better overall; the premise is better and the Scarecrow sequences were great, yet the execution of AA's story was lacking, especially the godawful resolution.

AA managed to fool people into thinking they were playing a pathfinding, Metroid-type game when they were actually playing a completely linear game set against the backdrop of interconnected hubs. You never have to figure out where to go; you're always pointed in the right direction and the abilities you acquire are handed to you as you move forward. There's nothing wrong with the way the game is structured, but it's structure doesn't do anything to elevate it. The gameplay is the main draw and the setting is interesting; the structure of the game itself is not a draw like that of a Metroid/castlevania game is.

Asylum is a good game, it's just is plagued by repetition. There are no changes in enemy type, the boss encounters have good aesthetics, but poor gameplay. The only proper fight is Poison Ivy, the rest have novel ideas but are executed in a middling manner. The final boss is atrocious both mechanically and thematically; just a stain on an otherwise solid experience. The point of the whole experience is considered less important than having a big bombastic (and shallow) physical fight. To top it off, the actually interesting twist that
the warden is insane and was plotting to kill the inmates
was relegated to an optional side mission. It's even a plot point in AC; it should've been the proper ending.

Between the two games, AC's only unique weakness is pacing. It's premise is less plausible than AA's and there are some contrivances that are lame, yet AA suffered from having a shortsighted focus on the Titan formula and physical fights that undercut the story's potential. AC being a bit more open can overwhelm the player and makes them feel like

Everything related to gameplay is superior in AC. Everything. Except maybe throws. There are plenty of predator segments and the fleshing out of abilities (look up "grapnel boost takedown") is perfect.

The overworld is just a more open AA. Why anyone prefers running through corridors and loading screens to traversing something resembling a cityscape (as Batman, no less) is beyond me. The grapnel boost is optional when it should've been mandatory; getting around is much quicker and fun with that upgrade, something a lot of people passed up.

There are too many Riddler trophies, yet almost all of them require some sort of thought to acquire. AA's are all behind a wall or up in rafters. Not only is the process of getting them more involving than in AA, but they're tied to a Saw-style series of deathtraps from which you have to save hostages. In addition, the side missions where you can save some of the non-criminal prisoners in the asylum are good. Actually getting to save people in a Batman game? Beautiful.

The games are both dripping with potential for a good story; all the work that went into the interview tapes and back stories leading up to each game are better than the main stories. Here's hoping that work is put into the main stories of future games.

And then there's the ending of AC. I understand how someone would prefer AA's story overall to AC's, but at the very least, AC had an actual climactic ending with something resembling a considerable conclusion. Batman slipping on a banana peel and breaking his neck would've been better than AA's ending though, so that isn't saying much.

AC is just a better game and a better Batman simulator. Don't let anyone try to tell you differently. The first experience with AA might be better than the one with AC, but any further analysis will show which one is superior.
 
I just got done with them both and I enjoyed City a lot more than Asylum. Just felt more like Batman in city going from rooftop to rooftop instead of air duct to air duct.
 
I ended up liking Asylum better.

-I enjoyed the Metroidvania style more than open world. Felt more structured and focused. Really learned the ins and outs of one set location rather than only getting to see a handful of rooms of a hundred different ones.

-They kept the engine more or less intact but didn't adapt it to the sprawling open world. This was especially bad outdoors. The camera still zooms in very close even on top of a rooftop, you have a hard time seeing grappable ledges because of said camera, etc. The game desperately needed the camera to zoom out the way it does when you're running at all times when outdoors. The close camera for walking only made sense in Asylum, when you were walking across small corridors. In City it makes no sense when outdoors, and many indoor areas were bigger, so they should've still zoomed it out a bit in those instances (not as much, though)

-Story was crappy. I really liked the story in Asylum, as they perfectly captured the feeling of being put straight into the worst night of Bruce's life. Everything that can go wrong does, and there's just one shit-hitting-fan moment after the other. It was brilliantly paced and very well written, with the obvious exception of the final 10-ish minutes. City, however, did an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach. Too many villains, too many stories, too many everything. The game didn't let me care or like any of the characters because they're practically yanked out of the picture almost as suddenly as they barge in. Not to mention the (end of AC spoilers)
whole "I know your identity, Batman" storyline went absolutely nowhere, Joker's death was nonensically shoehorned in right after the entire climax of the game already happened as a failed attempt at gravitas, and there was just no sense of closure even to the story presented in AC at all.
It just wasn't nearly as strong all around.

-Combat suffers similarly. They pile on moves but run out of buttons, so they do the whole "button + modifier combo" deal to effectively double their button inputs, except it makes the control scheme a confusing clusterfuck. Some refinement definitely could've gone a long way.

City wasn't bad, but I felt it was definitely inferior to Asylum.
 
Spring-Loaded said:
This is pretty much irrefutable truth. Even the story of Asylum isn't better overall; the premise is better and the Scarecrow sequences were great, yet the execution of AA's story was lacking, especially the godawful resolution.

AA managed to fool people into thinking they were playing a pathfinding, Metroid-type game when they were actually playing a completely linear game set against the backdrop of interconnected hubs. You never have to figure out where to go; you're always pointed in the right direction and the abilities you acquire are handed to you as you move forward. There's nothing wrong with the way the game is structured, but it's structure doesn't do anything to elevate it. The gameplay is the main draw and the setting is interesting; the structure of the game itself is not a draw like that of a Metroid/castlevania game is.

Asylum is a good game, it's just is plagued by repetition. There are no changes in enemy type, the boss encounters have good aesthetics, but poor gameplay. The only proper fight is Poison Ivy, the rest have novel ideas but are executed in a middling manner. The final boss is atrocious both mechanically and thematically; just a stain on an otherwise solid experience. The point of the whole experience is considered less important than having a big bombastic (and shallow) physical fight. To top it off, the actually interesting twist that
the warden is insane and was plotting to kill the inmates
was relegated to an optional side mission. It's even a plot point in AC; it should've been the proper ending.

Between the two games, AC's only unique weakness is pacing. It's premise is less plausible than AA's and there are some contrivances that are lame, yet AA suffered from having a shortsighted focus on the Titan formula and physical fights that undercut the story's potential. AC being a bit more open can overwhelm the player and makes them feel like

Everything related to gameplay is superior in AC. Everything. Except maybe throws. There are plenty of predator segments and the fleshing out of abilities (look up "grapnel boost takedown") is perfect.

The overworld is just a more open AA. Why anyone prefers running through corridors and loading screens to traversing something resembling a cityscape (as Batman, no less) is beyond me. The grapnel boost is optional when it should've been mandatory; getting around is much quicker and fun with that upgrade, something a lot of people passed up.

There are too many Riddler trophies, yet almost all of them require some sort of thought to acquire. AA's are all behind a wall or up in rafters. Not only is the process of getting them more involving than in AA, but they're tied to a Saw-style series of deathtraps from which you have to save hostages. In addition, the side missions where you can save some of the non-criminal prisoners in the asylum are good. Actually getting to save people in a Batman game? Beautiful.

The games are both dripping with potential for a good story; all the work that went into the interview tapes and back stories leading up to each game are better than the main stories. Here's hoping that work is put into the main stories of future games.

And then there's the ending of AC. I understand how someone would prefer AA's story overall to AC's, but at the very least, AC had an actual climactic ending with something resembling a considerable conclusion. Batman slipping on a banana peel and breaking his neck would've been better than AA's ending though, so that isn't saying much.

AC is just a better game and a better Batman simulator. Don't let anyone try to tell you differently. The first experience with AA might be better than the one with AC, but any further analysis will show which one is superior.
Click to expand...
All of this.

Asylum might be a bit more potent in its effect, though, due to the more concentrated scale.

But I agree City is, objectively, an improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rumor: Batman: Arkham Shadow sequel in the works.
Rumor VR 
42
402
Arsic replied
LTTP: Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009) PS3
15
1K
Physiognomonics replied
DF: Yes, It's Faster: Switch 2 Back Compat vs Batman Arkham Knight + The Witcher 3!
2 3
102
3K
GigaBowser replied
Batman Arkham Shadow on Quest 3 is the best batman game ever made!
2 3
126
9K
Romulus replied
Over 1 Million People Have Now Played Batman: Arkham Shadow
News 
33
2K
BlackTron replied
Top Bottom