Support NeoGAF

[Gully State]

I was too quick to judge you Arkham City. After being pleasantly surprised and thoroughly impressed with the focused design of Arkham Asylum, I bought Batman:AC day one preparing to be absolutely blown away but dropped the game about halfway just feeling largely overwhelmed due to the game incessantly bombarding you with objectives. Due to the implied sense of urgency, these goddamn quests just completely killed all the narrative pacing that the main campaign set out to deliver. The game suffered from "too much crime, too little time" syndrome. Every few steps or so, someone's calling for help and it always feels like if the call isn't answered, you're screwed. Now before you go "Hey Gully, you're playing it wrong..it's you not the game," consider this. Arkham Asylum's narrative and side missions were nicely done in such a way that the main narrative was elevated significantly by doing them in conjunction with the main quest. Finding the clues for the Spirit of Arkham along with locating Riddler's riddles yielded huge payoffs in the end while complimenting your quest to take down Joker. It was always within reach of the main path, which isn't the case in AC.

Anyhow with its recent conversion to full Steam on PC, I found myself picking up the game again deciding only to play through the main storyline ignoring any sidequests unless they're easy to complete. Playing this way has been infinitely more enjoyable as the main quest is paced really well without the distractions of Riddler's bullshit, Zsazz's pay phone tagging, cries of political prisoners and everything in between. Perhaps there'll be blood on my hands for my neglect (not like Batman isn't dying by the minute or anything- oh wait he is!!) but whatever, I'm Batman not Superman.

 

[Neiteio]

I don't recall there being any real "missables." I think you'll be able to reach everyone later if you ignored them now.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

You're damn right, you were wrong.

 

[Aske]

I'm having the opposite experience. After feeling disappointed by the game after my frist play through back when it released, I started it up again on NG+ a few days ago. Even without the Riddler sidequests, and starting with a fully upgraded Batman, the game feels oddly hollow compared to Arkham Asylum. I never got tired of AA. I fully completed it several times, and I can't quite identify what's missing from Arkham City. AC isn't a bad game by any means, far from it - I just find I don't want to actually spend time playing it.

Haven't played Origins yet (hoping for a new gen re-release) but it sounds much more similar to the first game from the impressions I've read.

 

[Gully State]

I don't recall there being any real "missables." I think you'll be able to reach everyone later if you ignored them now.

Yeah, I know that you probably get a mode to tackle all this stuff but just going through the main quest, you're a superhero and it's hard to not resist answering the call of someone in distress given everything feels like a now or never situation

I'm having the opposite experience. After feeling disappointed by the game after my frist play through back when it released, I started it up again on NG+ a few days ago. Even without the Riddler sidequests, and starting with a fully upgraded Batman, the game feels oddly hollow compared to Arkham Asylum. I never got tired of AA. I fully completed it several times, and I can't quite identify what's missing from Arkham City. AC isn't a bad game by any means, far from it - I just find I don't want to actually spend time playing it.

Haven't played Origins yet (hoping for a new gen re-release) but it sounds much more similar to the first game from the impressions I've read.

Arkham Asylum didn't feel as "gamey" as Arkham City does. Asylum perfectly captured the experience of Batman going through one really miserable night behind enemy lines whereas Asylum feels like going through a fucked up amusement park. I still maintain that Asylum was a better experience even though I think City is probably the better game.

 

[BishopLamont]

How is Origins compared to the first two games?

 

[thetrin]

I know I'm in the minority, but I thought AC was a considerably better game than AA. I liked Asylum a lot, but I loved the level of content in AC, and the game didn't feel empty or lacking in things to do.

 

[Gully State]

I know I'm in the minority, but I thought AC was a considerably better game than AA. I liked Asylum a lot, but I loved the level of content in AC, and the game didn't feel empty or lacking in things to do.

Did you try to complete all quests in one play through or did you finish the main campaign first?

 

[Soodanim]

I remember not being able to trigger some side missions after I finished the main story, which was annoying. The

Spoiler

Deadshot

ones, to be specific.

 

[TheZjman]

Once you skip the side quests it becomes and much better and much shorter game.

Asylum is still king. Just the perfect craft of everything.

 

[deim0s]

How is Origins compared to the first two games?

It's good IMO, just too many issues that peg it down.

AA >>>> AC = AO.

 

[BeberMan]

How is Origins compared to the first two games?

Better than City, on par with Asylum.

 

[Noisepurge]

Yup, the first game had great balance with the sidequests in a Metroidvania inspired gameplay environment.

 

[eot]

I know I'm in the minority, but I thought AC was a considerably better game than AA. I liked Asylum a lot, but I loved the level of content in AC, and the game didn't feel empty or lacking in things to do.

I think opinions are split quite evenly. I vastly prefer AA though.

 

[Setsuna]

origins is to buggy to be better than anything

 

[Zoc]

City was all basically all right, but the game had an insane level of constant, annoying distractions. Ringing phones, endlessly repeated radio conversation between thugs, helicopter chatter, neon green Riddle shit all over the screen everywhere, mission beacons, etc, etc. If there had been options to turn all shit off I would have enjoyed the game a lot more.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I'm quoting myself because the matter of which Arkham game is best gets brought up too much.

but Arkham City does everything better.

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

Spoiler

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.

Arkham Origins has a much, much better narrative than the previous two games (not necessarily amazing, but better). The boss encounters are better than all bosses in AA except for Scarecrow and few are better than the ones in AC except for the Freeze fight. The combat is more difficult, but due in part to it being more janky; enemy attack speed + frequency was increased, but seemingly nothing else was adjusted. There are only two genuinely new gadgets; one is kind of neat but somewhat redundant (concussion bomb), the other is great, but has no mid-combo function (remote claw). The map is too big for what little it has feature-wise. The game's Riddler trophy equivalent is simple, dull and somewhat anticlimactic compared to the ones in AC. The side-missions are better than the ones in AC (and AA had none). Batman's VA's voice itself isn't necesasrily better than Kevin Conroy's but his performance was better than Conroy's in the previous two games. Joker's VA did a good job, though Hamill was better in AA and AC.

Origins is considerably glitchy and some have said the visuals are a bit worse than in previous games, though still pretty good.

 

[Hypron]

How is Origins compared to the first two games?

It's not as polished as the other two games and it's got some balancing issues. However, it's got by far the best scenario of the bunch, the best boss fights, the best character design and the combat has gotten some nice improvements (the new enemies -enforcers, venom users and martial artists- all add variety to the fights). I would put it about the same level as Arkham City. It does some things better but it's not as polished so things balance out a bit.

I put Arkham Asylum below the two other games though. I recently replayed through the whole series. I even 100%'d AA again. And the improvements AC made are just too massive for me to even consider putting AA above it.

AC (and thus AO since it takes a lot from AC) has way better combat: you've got more types of enemies, more moves (which are all useful, whereas the throw was pretty useless in AA). You can be attacked by more than one enemy at a time which makes the combat seem more credible and flow better. The encounters can involve a lot more enemies at a time. The combat is also more challenging than AA in my opinion. The time you have between two subsequent attacks has also been increased - this change is probably a result of the added enemy types and just the sheer number of them - it gives you a little bit more time to think about what your next move should be. This is the only thing I can see some people not liking. On my part, I actually liked having this extra time to think. Other improvements include focus mode which gives a nice alternative to combo takedowns, or the ability to use most of the gadgets during the fights.

The stealth was also improved. You've got more gadgets to play with, the triple grappling gun has been removed (this shit was completely OP - even more than the remote claw in AO), you've got more special enemies to deal with (the guys with jammers are just awesome for example - they force you to rely on your memory rather than detective vision).

The riddler trophies are also more interesting to find. In Arkham Asylum getting them was just a matter of having the right gadget. In Arkham City some of them actually involve little puzzles which I found interesting. Furthermore, saving hostages in the riddler's rooms was actually a nice change of pace.

Something else that was greatly improve was just how batman flies around. Flying in AA just feel incredibly stiff when compared to AC, and that's not even taking into account the grapnel boost. Even on the ground, Batman is a bit more manoeuvrable and the slide makes getting into vents a lot easier.

The bosses in AC are for the most part pretty bad, but AA's were really bad as well. At least AC has the Dr Freeze fight which is really awesome. AA has no good boss fight. AO has them both beat on that aspect though.

AC has also a vastly superior challenge mode. It just has way more content, and the improved combat and stealth really shine there. Some of the predator challenges were even pretty challenging, which I really appreciated.

I found the story in both games to have lots of potential but to never quite achieve it. The ending of both AA and AC were pretty had, especially AA (roided joker... WHY). Arkham Origins is way, way, way better on that aspect.

What I did like better about AA (compared to AC) were the hallucination sequences, especially the last one. AO has better ones though in my opinion.

Spoiler

The mad hatter's is really creative visually and the Joker dream really surprised me

.

So yeah. Overall I just can't put AA above AC. It's just not a better game (or experience or whatever) in my opinion.

And I didn't even talk about the open world in AC that really brings something to the franchise: it makes you feel like Batman. Or how the graphics are better in AC.

Edit:

Origins is considerably glitchy and some have said the visuals are a bit worse than in previous games, though still pretty good.

I don't about the game on consoles, but on PC the game definitely looks better than AA, and is at least on par with AC. The character models look better and the rest is of similar quality.

 

[elhav]

These side missions and the sandbox nature of the game is what made me love it much more than Arkham asylum. Origins is just a copy pasta of Arkham city with more glitches and bugs(Which is still pretty good tbh) but I would just skip Origins(The story has its moments, but it's not as good as Arkham city's one)

Solving some of the tough riddler's challenges is really fun and rewarding. Though it does make the story missions seem less urgent than they should be.

 

[Gully State]

I'm quoting myself because the matter of which Arkham game is best gets brought up too much.




Arkham Origins has a much, much better narrative than the previous two games (not necessarily amazing, but better). The boss encounters are better than all bosses in AA except for Scarecrow and few are better than the ones in AC except for the Freeze fight. The combat is more difficult, but due in part to it being more janky; enemy attack speed + frequency was increased, but seemingly nothing else was adjusted. There are only two genuinely new gadgets; one is kind of neat but somewhat redundant (concussion bomb), the other is great, but has no mid-combo function (remote claw). The map is too big for what little it has feature-wise. The game's Riddler trophy equivalent is simple, dull and somewhat anticlimactic compared to the ones in AC. The side-missions are better than the ones in AC (and AA had none). Batman's VA's voice itself isn't necesasrily better than Kevin Conroy's but his performance was better than Conroy's in the previous two games. Joker's VA did a good job, though Hamill was better in AA and AC.

Origins is considerably glitchy and some have said the visuals are a bit worse than in previous games, though still pretty good.

It's not as polished as the other two games and it's got some balancing issues. However, it's got by far the best scenario of the bunch, the best boss fights, the best character design and the combat has gotten some nice improvements (the new enemies -enforcers, venom users and martial artists- all add variety to the fights). I would put it about the same level as Arkham City. It does some things better but it's not as polished so things balance out a bit.

I put Arkham Asylum below the two other games though. I recently replayed through the whole series. I even 100%'d AA again. And the improvements AC made are just too massive for me to even consider putting AA above it.

AC (and thus AO since it takes a lot from AC) has way better combat: you've got more types of enemies, more moves (which are all useful, whereas the throw was pretty useless in AA). You can be attacked by more than one enemy at a time which makes the combat seem more credible and flow better. The encounters can involve a lot more enemies at a time. The combat is also more challenging than AA in my opinion. The time you have between two subsequent attacks has also been increased - this change is probably a result of the added enemy types and just the sheer number of them - it gives you a little bit more time to think about what your next move should be. This is the only thing I can see some people not liking. On my part, I actually liked having this extra time to think. Other improvements include focus mode which gives a nice alternative to combo takedowns, or the ability to use most of the gadgets during the fights.

The stealth was also improved. You've got more gadgets to play with, the triple grappling gun has been removed (this shit was completely OP - even more than the remote claw in AO), you've got more special enemies to deal with (the guys with jammers are just awesome for example - they force you to rely on your memory rather than detective vision).

The riddler trophies are also more interesting to find. In Arkham Asylum getting them was just a matter of having the right gadget. In Arkham City some of them actually involve little puzzles which I found interesting. Furthermore, saving hostages in the riddler's rooms was actually a nice change of pace.

Something else that was greatly improve was just how batman flies around. Flying in AA just feel incredibly stiff when compared to AC, and that's not even taking into account the grapnel boost. Even on the ground, Batman is a bit more manoeuvrable and the slide makes getting into vents a lot easier.

The bosses in AC are for the most part pretty bad, but AA's were really bad as well. At least AC has the Dr Freeze fight which is really awesome. AA has no good boss fight. AO has them both beat on that aspect though.

AC has also a vastly superior challenge mode. It just has way more content, and the improved combat and stealth really shine there. Some of the predator challenges were even pretty challenging, which I really appreciated.

I found the story in both games to have lots of potential but to never quite achieve it. The ending of both AA and AC were pretty had, especially AA (roided joker... WHY). Arkham Origins is way, way, way better on that aspect.

What I did like better about AA (compared to AC) were the hallucination sequences, especially the last one. AO has better ones though in my opinion.

Spoiler

The mad hatter's is really creative visually and the Joker dream really surprised me

.

So yeah. Overall I just can't put AA above AC. It's just not a better game (or experience or whatever) in my opinion.

And I didn't even talk about the open world in AC that really brings something to the franchise: it makes you feel like Batman. Or how the graphics are better in AC.

Edit:

I don't about the game on consoles, but on PC the game definitely looks better than AA, and is at least on par with AC. The character models look better and the rest is of similar quality.

I can agree with pretty much everything said here and yet still find AA better. I suppose better isn't the right word but rather more satisfying experience overall. It was the first big budget AAA game that captured the feel of Batman by laying down fundamental mechanics and its treatment of the source material was just so refreshing at the time. Whatever the case I'm finding myself really enjoying AC this time around. Maybe I'll feel differently after finishing it.

Spoiler

I going through the steel mill in pursuit of the joker for the second time after Harley stole the serum from Freeze

 

[Gully State]

Ok just finished the game last night..

Spoiler

if clayface and joker were working together this whole time. Why didn't joker cure himself? He could've easily taken a swig of the serum prior to Batman showing up.

 

[Derrick01]

It really is a hugely superior game to Asylum in every possible way. Where the discussion gets interesting is how Origins compares to City as it does several things better but other things either the same or a tad bit worse than City.

 

[Junior Mint]

Own both and prefer AA. If I were forced to play through one again, I'll take AA every time.