I'm enjoying the story a fair bit so far, some narrative pacing issues aside, but I think one of the most obvious narrative fumbles (and this is subjective, I guess) made by both City and Knight is the excessive assumed knowledge of the Batman universe. It scatters the narrative.
Using a comic book origin franchise requires the writers carefully balance material taken from external sources and also presenting a world/narrative that is self contained. Asylum and Origins do this very well; they operate as an "Arkham universe" narrative that requires very little external franchise knowledge, yet both are littered with details, easter eggs, and secrets that pay homage to Batman so the most hardcore fans have something to look forward to.
City and Knight's narrative just pull characters and scenarios out of nowhere under the assumption the audience will know the background and relevance to the story. It disconnects the ongoing narrative between the games as it toes the line between being the "Arkham universe exclusively" and "Arkham universe that also is kinda parts of other Batverses too". If you're entrenched in the latter it's fine, but if you're not it feels like the story too often draws on external fiction that's never been addressed in previous games.
I don't at all mind the series pay homage to the various Batverses and being true to Batman stuff, as it shows the devs are legitimate fans of all things Batman. But I feel in terms of presenting a coherent, self contained narrative, and continuing that narrative between the games, this is where City and Knight are at their worst, and why Asylum and Origins work so well.
