Batman: Arkham Origins Review Thread

Hey guys, news flash, this is the best game in the best new series this gen.

- Better story (You care for once!)
- Better music (Probably the best Batman soundtrack un any médium)
-Better combat! (Deeper, faster, harder)
-Great sound design (absolutely impressive)
- Varied locales (Even side missions have their own enviroment. Almost Zero recycling)
- Bigger world (A taste of the inevitable next gen full gotham)
- The same killer gameplay.
- First half reminiscent of City, second half is Asylum on steroids.

Granted, it could be a case of a sequel that is good because of luck of the little needed improved, but wb montreal nailed it.


BUY THIS GAME, SATISFACTION GUARANTEED

Damn you, I have had absolutely no interest in this game up until reading this single post.
My interest is piqued.
 
There is no third game curse.
I think the only way "a curse" exists is if a situation happens like here where a developer does a great game, does a fantastic sequel, then because they're done or are going to be busy with something else a new team gets thrown on it, but that can happen at ANY point in a series, just look at DMC2 having a new team and generally being considered the worst of the series. Likewise it's not inherently bad: Metroid Prime and Deus Ex HR turned out fantastic, this sounds like it's equal-at-worst, and even DMC2's team went on to make the much better regarded DMC3 and DMC4.

Oh yes another 3rd entry: Super Metroid. 3rd game curse what the hell is that nonsense.
 
So you score it a 10 out of Yes?

I hear the story is pretty stupid, but I can probably overlook a story for solid gameplay.
Story is very comic-y, at least it's not video game-y.

I wouldn't give it a 10 because of some rough edges (most don't interfere with gameplay), they are

- Clipping. The cape clips through enemies, you can walk past the not combating characters. The Rocksteady games didn't have that problem.
- Transition animations: Batman's neck has a werid reaction when he goes from "posing" to "talking".
- Gamma is botched on 360. For some reason.
- Camera is not that well positioned in those "final punch" slowmos.
- There are amazing bossfights, but 2 or them are, well, past Akham Quality. It's a step up though.

That's the thing, the game perhaps shares flaws with the past 2 ones, and because of that it's not a 10/10, but it polishes things that needed it and improves greatly things like story, buff models (no more Hulk Gordon!) and boss fights, while keeping the great world and detail.

I'd give it a YES/10
 
I meant in terms if impact it left on people. Quality is one thing, but drastic changes to the formula leave a stronger impression. Much of the delight of playing Arkham City was that it wasn't Asylum 2.0. It built off those foundations but still went on to construct its own systems that differed it from the original. You went from a relatively confirmed Metroid-like structure to an open city overworld that gave you the freedom to explore at your own leisure. It gave you something instrumental to the design of the game that Asylum never had.

Origins isn't going to have that, and I think Rocksteady are going to have a hard time one upping that leap with whatever their next Batman is too. No matter how good Origins is, it's going to be a game based on what City did. It might even be the better game, but it won't leave the same immediate impression.

I just hope people keep that expectation in check. It may very well be superior to City, if not as original.

This makes sense because it's hard to imagine where they can drastically go from City. But man I'm still waiting for a Gotham game where it's unscripted in that there's a bunch of little events that can be timed like muggings or beatdowns (like saving a dude from getting mauled by radioactive dogs in STALKER) and that you can straight up fail those events. You can use the police tracker to initiate your own vigilante justice at your own pace, like how you could progress with the villain side missions in City. Some more adventure elements where you play as Bruce Wayne in businessman/playboy mode.

I want a more reactive open world.
 
Any word on the Wii U version? I want to know if I should invest the additional $10 into the PS3 version or if the Wii U version is serviceable.
 
Those reading plots praises should temper their expectations a bit; its still very much an arkham game, plotwise, and is very similar to the first two. The pacing is better than city, however, and it doesnt feel like villain overload like that game did at times.
 
Working up the review. The game is definitely more Batman and far more focused in the villiany department.
 
Tempted to skip ACity which has been sitting in my backlog since forever, played the first 3 or 4 hours but wasn't grabbing me like Asylum did, and get straight to this one.
 
Tempted to skip ACity which has been sitting in my backlog since forever, played the first 3 or 4 hours but wasn't grabbing me like Asylum did, and get straight to this one.
Acity is more interesting and diverse in my opinion. Especially with catwoman missions and cool themed levels for each boss. AO is such a chore to play.It looks amazing though.
 
Any word on the Wii U version? I want to know if I should invest the additional $10 into the PS3 version or if the Wii U version is serviceable.

I would think the Wii-U would be easier to pull this off than PS3 just based on architecture alone, not even including the additional (albeit not large) power difference.
 
Any word on the Wii U version? I want to know if I should invest the additional $10 into the PS3 version or if the Wii U version is serviceable.

The PS3 version allegedly has some framerate/screen tearing issues. No impressions on the Wii U version yet but the team who made this game did the Wii U version of Arkham City, so they definitely have experience with the platform.
 
Acity is more interesting and diverse in my opinion. Especially with catwoman missions and cool themed levels for each boss. AO is such a chore to play.It looks amazing though.

Oh really? Bummer, I guess you've played it and I honestly haven't followed this game like at all, but I was hoping it was a more tight experience like AA was even if I understand with an open world it is kinda difficult to achieve that. Is the metroidvania unfolding of events more resembling of AA or is it even more far off from that than AC was?
 
Going by those I guess people did call it right that it'd be just a rehash cash-in, but as it's not a smoldering wreck of one I don't mind having jumped on it immediately (with GMG's deal of course.)
 
why is it when a game gets reviews in the 6-8 range, i'm more inclined to believe it's actually good than when it gets reviews in the 9-10 range? there was even a small interest in beyond because of this and david cage killed my dog.
 
I read the Eurogamer review and, even though most would see 7/10 as disappointing (works against dat Metacritic), the text makes it sound pretty good. Expected these lesser scores, same range games like the Gears and God of War prequels got. And at least one of those was a good game.
 
It will most definitely be a good game. Those are not bad scores. But when you compare these to the ones Asylum and City got, it's clearly not on par. Makes sense since it's a new developer.

I just hope Rocksteady is working on something that isn't Batman. Let's move on.
 
I skim-read over a couple of those reviews and what I got from them was that the game was good but too much like its predecessors for their tastes. Which is convenient for me because I just wanted more of the same.
 
Top Bottom