Support NeoGAF

[keltickennedy]

Was at the arkham city panel today at the new York comic con. Pretty freaking awesome. They showed the launch trailer, then talked about the game. After Sefton Hill gave another walkthrough of the game. This time taking place right after what was shown in the previous walkthrough that was shown at e3. I'm not going to spoil anything, but I will say that the environment size blew my mind. Mostly how detailed everything was.

I also got to get my hands on the game later at their booth. It didn't seem to be the retail build, but the demo that was playable at e3. Had an awesome time messing around with the new fighting moves and gliding mechanics. Also got to play a small predator section where I was able to perform some new silent takedowns. For example, double takedown, wall break takedown, and a really cool ledge takedown where batman swings over a ledge to takedown the enemy underneath him, choking him out with his legs.

Might go back and play it tomorrow and try some of the riddle stuff. Man the 18th can't come soon enough. HYPED!!!!

 

[Jintor]

Whoa . I remember on the bombcast a couple of weeks ago, he didn't seem THAT much into it.

Jeff doesn't sound really into anything. If you read the Arkham City review in his streaming voice he doesn't sound super into that either. But that's just Jeff.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Fuck me...between this, Dark Souls and Skyrim...alright people, who has a goddamn clone machine?

 

[bigdaddygamebot]

I don't know if I am going to trust that gentleman with my clone...

 

[Mindlog]

eh, the game's going to be so-so at best.

Yeah, this was the only game I had pre-ordered for myself. I just canceled it because I am going to be picking it up at TRU.

So I decided to check on the reviews. I hadn't kept tabs on them since the 'Best Game Ever' malarkey. Pretty good reviews I guess. I can see Rocksteady being a bit disappointed. Hopefully they'll be able to fix these issues in the next game.

In related news: Warner Brothers has to be one of the luckiest goddamn publishers in the world. They found the perfect developer exactly when they were looking for one. I have never seen such opportune timing before. There has to be some black magic voodoo and several dead goats involved.

 

[Inferno313]

So I decided to check on the reviews. I hadn't kept tabs on them since the 'Best Game Ever' malarkey. Pretty good reviews I guess. I can see Rocksteady being a bit disappointed. Hopefully they'll be able to fix these issues in the next game.

Wtf, my sarcasm detector must not be working.

How is "best reviewed game of the year, tied with Portal 2." Something for Rocksteady to be disappointed over?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

So I decided to check on the reviews. I hadn't kept tabs on them since the 'Best Game Ever' malarkey. Pretty good reviews I guess.

Yeah, I guess they're pretty good...

 

[Epcott]

Was going to cancel my preorder and switch it to Rocksmith, Monday. Not going to happen now after those reviews.

How will I ever find time to play this and Dark Souls?

 

[pahamrick]

Sorry, Moop, that leg's gonna have to come off.


Are there any stores selling the Arkham City Steelbook in US / Canada? I would gladly double dip to get one of those.

 

[Socreges]

I never said gadgets and gameplay would be less awesome, I said you'll appreciate the awesome gadgets and gameplay. Unlike other games where sequel is a fresh start, in AC the sequel continues off AA and will have all the weaponry that you unlock. By appreciate I meant that you mean enjoy the progress and have the nostalgia feeling when you jump to sequel and everything you had will be presented to you...

AA has a fantastic story and yes... some gameplay elements will not be present that you'll miss out on. You will not know why Joker ended up the way he did, where were the other villains, and return of past villains and more. Call my bullshit once you experience it!

Why can't you just let me BE?

I'll try AA first then. But if I'm not totally engrossed, I'm dumping it and moving on to AC.

 

[Tom Penny]

Fuck me...between this, UC3 and Skyrim...alright people, who has a goddamn clone machine?
.

Fixed

 

[Vire]

Giant Bomb Video Review

 

[subversus]

so the overall impression is that the game is good...

 

[Inferno313]

Giant Bomb Video Review

Dat Map.

 

[Amir0x]

eh reviews could be better, kinda disappointed honestly. Arkham Asylum had a metacritic average of 92 and this game is only slightly better than that. After all the time they had to develop this game, that's the best they could do?

I mean I'm not saying the game is bad I'm just slightly disappointed that they couldn't put more effort. At this point any developer who can't even oust the horrendously overrated Zelda: ocarina of time N64 edition metacritic/rottentomatoes average could obviously stand to put a little more effort into the product. Maybe it was the fast turn around time but it's inexcusable imo.

 

[Jintor]

lol ami

 

[Amir0x]

why do you settle for less than shitty 20fps or less N64 titles that came out in 1996? I mean, if people at this point can't make a game that averages higher than that shit, then I personally don't want to play it. It's just lazy is all.

Maybe you can swallow that down but I can't.

 

[FatCat]

Amazing scores all round. I just hope it lives up to the hype. And then even if its as good as AA, I'll be pleased.

Edit: how spoilerish is the gametrailers review? Probably very spoilerish but I'm tempted to watch it.

 

[SmithnCo]

...Huh.

 

[Salsa]

holy shit at ami trolling! lol

 

[keltickennedy]

eh reviews could be better, kinda disappointed honestly. Arkham Asylum had a metacritic average of 92 and this game is only slightly better than that. After all the time they had to develop this game, that's the best they could do?

I mean I'm not saying the game is bad I'm just slightly disappointed that they couldn't put more effort. At this point any developer who can't even oust the horrendously overrated Zelda: ocarina of time N64 edition metacritic/rottentomatoes average could obviously stand to put a little more effort into the product. Maybe it was the fast turn around time but it's inexcusable imo.

Ahhh....have YOU played it yet?

 

[Amir0x]

Ahhh....have YOU played it yet?

I've played a bit, yes. I think it's ok and all but I'm just trying to demand more from developers. It's been nearly 15 years and a developer cannot even beat out a sub-20fps N64 action adventure game so ugly that the characters in it look like abstract geometric pieces of modern art their polygon count is so low, and we have an Arkham City whose main attraction - rehashing Arkham Asylum - can't even muster enough improvements to out average Ocarina of Time.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I'd rather them be too high than too low. And anyway, I highly doubt you could make a reasonable argument that I'm expecting too much. One game is 15 years old and plagued by problems systemic to titles of the age, and the other is utilizing the groundbreaking UNREAL ENGINE 3.0™ to produce its "cutting edge" graphics (i say cutting edge, but really even Uncharted 3 is beating it and that's on a fucking ridiculously underpowered Sony PS3 platform). Rocksteady simply has no excuse at this point.

I could accept Arkham Asylum because it was their first shot at the license, but enough is enough.

 

[bounchfx]

it's getting uniformly GOTY reviews, high 9s, tons of 10s, and a lot of 5/5s and people seem disappointed

uh

Amir0x are you really comparing reviews of a 15 year old game that happened to be one of the best made at that point to a time now where games and the way they're rated has scaled? I'm just a bit confused what you're getting at comparing review scores to a really old game. It's almost irrelevant, imo

 

[TheExodu5]

amir0x trolling at its finest.

P.S. you said you pre-ordered that Batman statue. Where?

 

[Jintor]

These guys must never have seen Ami before

 

[Tanolen]

it's getting uniformly GOTY reviews, high 9s, tons of 10s, and a lot of 5/5s and people seem disappointed

uh

Amir0x are you really comparing reviews of a 15 year old game that happened to be one of the best made at that point to a time now where games and the way they're rated has scaled? I'm just a bit confused what you're getting at comparing review scores to a really old game. It's almost irrelevant, imo

Completely relevant

 

[Uno Venova]

Hooked, line...

 

[SmokedMeat]

eh reviews could be better, kinda disappointed honestly. Arkham Asylum had a metacritic average of 92 and this game is only slightly better than that. After all the time they had to develop this game, that's the best they could do?

You're kidding right? You have to be.

 

[Feep]

I've played a bit, yes. I think it's ok and all but I'm just trying to demand more from developers. It's been nearly 15 years and a developer cannot even beat out a sub-20fps N64 action adventure game so ugly that the characters in it look like abstract geometric pieces of modern art their polygon count is so low, and we have an Arkham City whose main attraction - rehashing Arkham Asylum - can't even muster enough improvements to out average Ocarina of Time.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I'd rather them be too high than too low. And anyway, I highly doubt you could make a reasonable argument that I'm expecting too much. One game is 15 years old and plagued by problems systemic to titles of the age, and the other is utilizing the groundbreaking UNREAL ENGINE 3.0™ to produce its "cutting edge" graphics (i say cutting edge, but really even Uncharted 3 is beating it and that's on a fucking ridiculously underpowered Sony PS3 platform). Rocksteady simply has no excuse at this point.

I could accept Arkham Asylum because it was their first shot at the license, but enough is enough.

God, you're an asshole.

Can't see the forest for the pixels.

 

[Dead]

Giant Bomb Video Review

omg

dem

Spoiler

alternate catwoman suits

!

 

[Tanolen]

I've played a bit, yes. I think it's ok and all but I'm just trying to demand more from developers. It's been nearly 15 years and a developer cannot even beat out a sub-20fps N64 action adventure game so ugly that the characters in it look like abstract geometric pieces of modern art their polygon count is so low, and we have an Arkham City whose main attraction - rehashing Arkham Asylum - can't even muster enough improvements to out average Ocarina of Time.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I'd rather them be too high than too low. And anyway, I highly doubt you could make a reasonable argument that I'm expecting too much. One game is 15 years old and plagued by problems systemic to titles of the age, and the other is utilizing the groundbreaking UNREAL ENGINE 3.0™ to produce its "cutting edge" graphics (i say cutting edge, but really even Uncharted 3 is beating it and that's on a fucking ridiculously underpowered Sony PS3 platform). Rocksteady simply has no excuse at this point.

I could accept Arkham Asylum because it was their first shot at the license, but enough is enough.

If you weren't so busy counting pixels and instead played with your heart, you wouldn't have these critisms.

 

[ZoddGutts]

Must be that time of the month for Amir0x.

 

[Salsa]

bahahahahaha at the responses

 

[cackhyena]

I've played a bit, yes. I think it's ok and all but I'm just trying to demand more from developers. It's been nearly 15 years and a developer cannot even beat out a sub-20fps N64 action adventure game so ugly that the characters in it look like abstract geometric pieces of modern art their polygon count is so low, and we have an Arkham City whose main attraction - rehashing Arkham Asylum - can't even muster enough improvements to out average Ocarina of Time.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but I'd rather them be too high than too low. And anyway, I highly doubt you could make a reasonable argument that I'm expecting too much. One game is 15 years old and plagued by problems systemic to titles of the age, and the other is utilizing the groundbreaking UNREAL ENGINE 3.0™ to produce its "cutting edge" graphics (i say cutting edge, but really even Uncharted 3 is beating it and that's on a fucking ridiculously underpowered Sony PS3 platform). Rocksteady simply has no excuse at this point.

I could accept Arkham Asylum because it was their first shot at the license, but enough is enough.

This can't be real. You can't be serious with this shit.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Amir0x being very insightful and thorough with his argument as usual. I like that.

 

[Otrebor Nightmarecoat]

I could accept Arkham Asylum because it was their first shot at the license, but enough is enough.

Yeah, I think youve convinced me to pass up this dissapointing game. Ill instead use my money to buy that batman doll that we were fawnig over earlier in the thread (or similar batman thread)

 

[Amir0x]

See this is what's the problem with GAF. The second someone spends time typing up a completely valid opinion, just one man's opinion, it's "troll this and troll that" and 'you can't be serious.' Why don't you guys try telling me why I'm wrong and providing a detailed response in kind? if I put the effort into my post, certainly you can have the courtesy to do the same.

I'm not saying Arkham City is going to be a bad game I'm saying it is time developers stop merely doing just what they "have to" to get the game to sell enough and get developers to start putting in the true effort to surpass outdated ancient titles like Ocarina of Time or even Mario Galaxy. It shouldn't be that difficulty for Rocksteady if they just put in the proper time and effort, but nooo.. it had to be out in two years, they rushed the title, so now we have a decent title which is "Just good enough" for those who are willing to accept any title that comes their way with even general positive consensus from irrelevant game reviewers.

It's a sad state of affairs imo.

 

[Draft]

Batman is better than Zelda.

 

[Amir0x]

Not Skyward Sword, but in any case the reviews should reflect that. The reviews don't reflect that the game is even better than Twilight Princess (maybe it's a tie or something), and that's unacceptable in this day and age. Enough is enough. If a metacritic/rottentomatoes shows the laziness people need to stop making excuses. You can still enjoy the game without making those excuses.

 

[Otrebor Nightmarecoat]

It's a sad state of affairs imo.

I judge women the same way. Glad im not alone.

 

[Kusagari]

This is some delicious trolling.

 

[Draft]

There hasn't been a great Zelda since the N64.

Batman has surpassed the Zelda series.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

If the 'UNREAL ENGINE 3.0™' part didn't set people off, I don't know what will.

Largely stay out of threads for games like this since as much as I loved Arkham Asylum and have the limited version of City preordered, it's kind of boring just chatting with people about just how good a game is going to be for years on end. With things of uncertain quality like Sonic Generations GAF the conversation takes way more unexpected and (sort of!) fun turns.

Anyway after seeing a bit of the opening segment I am hyped beyond belief for this. Having Hugo Strange as the main villain of this is going to be amazing.

Spoiler

Wonder if due to Jack Ryder being in the intro Creeper will show up.

 

[Feep]

See this is what's the problem with GAF. The second someone spends time typing up a completely valid opinion, just one man's opinion, it's "troll this and troll that" and 'you can't be serious.' Why don't you guys try telling me why I'm wrong and providing a detailed response in kind? if I put the effort into my post, certainly you can have the courtesy to do the same.

I'm not saying Arkham City is going to be a bad game I'm saying it is time developers stop merely doing just what they "have to" to get the game to sell enough and get developers to start putting in the true effort to surpass outdated ancient titles like Ocarina of Time or even Mario Galaxy. It shouldn't be that difficulty for Rocksteady if they just put in the proper time and effort, but nooo.. it had to be out in two years, they rushed the title, so now we have a decent title which is "Just good enough" for those who are willing to accept any title that comes their way with even general positive consensus from irrelevant game reviewers.

It's a sad state of affairs imo.

This has been your old stand-by for years, and I suppose it's reasonably valid.

I just don't think your opinions are worth the effort to refute. We both know you'd never change your mind.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Not Skyward Sword, but in any case the reviews should reflect that. The reviews don't reflect that the game is even better than Twilight Princess (maybe it's a tie or something), and that's unacceptable in this day and age. Enough is enough. If a metacritic/rottentomatoes shows the laziness people need to stop making excuses. You can still enjoy the game without making those excuses.

Ultimate truth right here.

 

[Gouty]

You almost got me.

Not today troll, not today.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

These guys must never have seen Ami before

Or they don't have to worry about being banned now...

 

[cackhyena]

See this is what's the problem with GAF. The second someone spends time typing up a completely valid opinion, just one man's opinion, it's "troll this and troll that" and 'you can't be serious.' Why don't you guys try telling me why I'm wrong and providing a detailed response in kind? if I put the effort into my post, certainly you can have the courtesy to do the same.

I'm not saying Arkham City is going to be a bad game I'm saying it is time developers stop merely doing just what they "have to" to get the game to sell enough and get developers to start putting in the true effort to surpass outdated ancient titles like Ocarina of Time or even Mario Galaxy. It shouldn't be that difficulty for Rocksteady if they just put in the proper time and effort, but nooo.. it had to be out in two years, they rushed the title, so now we have a decent title which is "Just good enough" for those who are willing to accept any title that comes their way with even general positive consensus from irrelevant game reviewers.

It's a sad state of affairs imo.

You've stated how it hasn't beaten older games in what they did, it's just prettier. You aren't stating what you want out of a new title. Unless I'm not looking far enough back here.

They give you tight game play, story ( I mean it's Batman, it's good enough, right? ) and graphics that are on par with anything out there right now for the most part. The way they expanded it to have a hub system that doesn't compromise the the flow of the game by having it be some open world un controllable shit fest isn't good enough? Am I missing the part where these guys became a Valve and get to say when it's done it's done? Seriously, what are they missing that you've thought of. I'm curious.

I'm not even a Batman fan or anything. I just thought the first was a well designed, tightly packed, engaging experience. Surprisingly so, to be honest. The "enough is enough" thing really gets me.

 

[Amir0x]

I judge women the same way. Glad im not alone.

one must only accept Salma Hayeks and Monica Bellucci's, anything less is just wasting your life.

Or they don't have to worry about being banned now...

They never had to worry about being banned during conversations with me. Never did once, never would ever. Anyone who participated in conversations with me knew this, and anyone who claims they didn't were just scared pussies who wanted any excuse to avoid defending their positions. But it's ok, I never held it against these people. They'll just say 'troll' and call it a day, because that's all they are good for. Wasting space.

But what I do hold against these people is making excuses for developers not pushing the boundaries of high quality. We should have steamrolled past these ancient flawed games like Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime, but instead we're still discussing why Rocksteady wants to settle for a 95 or 92 metacritic.

You've stated how it hasn't beaten older games in what they did, it's just prettier. You aren't stating what you want out of a new title. Unless I'm not looking far enough back here.

They give you tight game play, story ( I mean it's Batman, it's good enough, right? ) and graphics that are on par with anything out there right now for the most part. The way they expanded it to have a hub system that doesn't compromise the the flow of the game by having it be some open world un controllable shit fest isn't good enough? Am I missing the part where these guys became a Valve and get to say when it's done it's done? Seriously, what are they missing that you've thought of. I'm curious.

I'm not even a Batman fan or anything. I just thought the first was a well designed, tightly packed, engaging experience. Surprisingly so, to be honest. The "enough is enough" thing really gets me.

I'm not saying the game is bad, please note that. I'm saying they could have made it better and they settled for whatever reason which is clear from the metacritic average. Maybe they could have made it longer. Maybe they could have hired Christopher Nolan for pointers on how to integrate Chicago and improve the action cinematography. I don't know every way, I'm not a developer. But it's clear there must be some ways they are missing, and some LARGE ways to boot.

 

[Feep]

Okay, yeah, he's trolling.