Batman: Arkham Origins Review Thread

Mogwai said:
After a couple of hours I gotta say that Origins definitely doesn't feel like a Rocksteady-quality game. My main gripes after 2 hours:

* After facing Deathstroke the door to the exits were locked. Reloaded the game and they could be opened.
* Fighting a random group of thugs there was one enemy remaining that just couldn't be attacked and walked around in a defensive position with a bat. I gave him a remote batarang and he fell, but it didn't give any XP.
* During the Anarky mission I had to traverse the Arkham bridge several times. How fucking boring is that?
* The cutscenes are awesome but on PC the quality is fucking horrible. I'd expected more than blurry 720p cutscenes...

And that's probably just the beginning... All in all, I'm not that impressed at all.
Click to expand...

Jesus,. you did all that in 2 hours haha? I guess I've about 5-6 hours in and I'm only at
Penguin's boat, jsut *fought* the electroutioner
. Not sure who that says more about hahah.
 
From what I've played, 7/10 seems about right. It's competent, but really stale. There's a very going-through-the-motions feel to all of this, despite the production values. And it just seems jankier than Rocksteady's last effort.
 
AniHawk said:
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.
Click to expand...
And Beyond actually turned out to be far more competent than Heavy Rain (in story).
 
Here's the thing I want to know...

I'm one of those rare people who actually felt that Arkham City's open-world ambition hurt the formula that was put in place by Arkham Asylum. (A friend of mine didn't even bother to finish AC because he felt it was all over the place and threw too much at him...he feels Arkham Asylum is superior)

Don't get me wrong, I still think AC is an outstanding game, but I prefered the focus of Arkham Asylum a lot more. I kind of get annoyed that AC is "the standard" to which critics are holding this one up to.

I want more of AA, not more of AC.

Will I like this one?
 
Strange that this game caught so much critical flak for repackaging old mechanics when it easily does as much Arkham Asylum/City than Call of Duty does with each proceeding entry. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
doniewhalberg said:
Jesus,. you did all that in 2 hours haha? I guess I've about 5-6 hours in and I'm only at
Penguin's boat, jsut *fought* the electroutioner
. Not sure who that says more about hahah.
Click to expand...

Alright alright, it was actually 3 hours when I checked Steam afterwards. :)
 
Messofanego said:
Ugh, I don't like this kind of developer loyalty.
Click to expand...

An IP is fucking useless without the talented people BEHIND the IP who made you value the IP in the first place.

Seriously, if we're going to talk about video games as creative works, then they're creator driven. And without the creators... what, anyone else will do just as well?

I don't understand valuing an IP more than the talent behind it. Thinking like that has given us a ton of decidedly un-Silent Hill-like Silent Hill games.
 
SolidChamp said:
Here's the thing I want to know...

I'm one of those rare people who actually felt that Arkham City's open-world ambition hurt the formula that was put in place by Arkham Asylum. (A friend of mine didn't even bother to finish AC because he felt it was all over the place and threw too much at him...he feels Arkham Asylum is superior)

Don't get me wrong, I still think AC is an outstanding game, but I prefered the focus of Arkham Asylum a lot more. I kind of get annoyed that AC is "the standard" to which critics are holding this one up to.

I want more of AA, not more of AC.

Will I like this one?
Click to expand...

I am in the same boot. I enjoyed Arkham City quite a bit but it surely was all over the place and much more packed with stuff that was then only utilized in a brief moment, IMO, just to have said villain in the game etc. I liked the manageable space and focused narrative and space in Arkham Asylum much more. When you see the Garden right at the beginning but cannot access it yet (what will await you there, when can I get there etc) or when you finally able to climb the largest building to glide across the Island.

I am sure I will enjoy Arkham Origins. I just hope it is a bit more focused than City was.
 
A lot of these reviews are basically telling me its as good as the other 2 mechanically and the story is decent but there are no SHOCKING NEW AMAZING THINGS.

So I will still buy it and get what I want out of it. More Batman.
 
The game's pretty much a hybrid between City's open world point to point and Asylum's authored levels. You know how you spend quite a while in the steel mill in City and it has some basic traversal/puzzles? Most of the game's story is similar to that. There's a lot of side content in the open world and it is often more than "turn up to location and beat up a bunch of guys", but there's still a bunch of that too.

It expects you to have played the previous titles and wastes little time explaining things or trying to build on mechanics/combat. There are no Asylum-style Metroid elements to speak of.

If you hated City's style you aren't going to like Origins. Personally? Loved both.
 
Night_Trekker said:
Seriously, if we're going to talk about video games as creative works, then they're creator driven. And without the creators... what, anyone else will do just as well?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of creative works in all sorts of mediums that survive, or indeed thrive, beyond their original creators... for example, comic book characters like, I dunno... um... Batman, spring to mind. Songs are another example: Jimi Hendrix's All Along The Watch Tower wipes the floor with Dylan's original.
 
Your personal review is the only one that should matter. I'm not surprised by the scores but having played the game last night for awhile I think its great! Give me more of the same thing that was awesome before without messing it up is fine, not every game needs to be super innovative to be fun. I might go read some reviews but try not to let them spoil what so far for me has been a positive experience.
 
dragonbane said:
Ah reviewers using the full scale again. Loved Beyond despite the scores and will probably enjoy this too. Will check it out on PC.
Click to expand...

I finished Beyond and I think it deserves the scores it gets. It does many things brilliantly but also have some major flaws. If you can get over those flaws, you will give it 8-10. If you don't, it's a 7-8 game. If you think it's not a game, you will give 5-7. Personally, despite worse graphic, I like Heavy Rain more.
 
doniewhalberg said:
Have you been reading the reviews though? I've read a good few and none of them have read like that. All have been fair, and seem to be putting across what the game is and isn't, and under what circumstances it might still be for you. Read the eurogamer review. I don't know, your statement reads like you caught the numbers, not the reviews. It kind of comes across as you perpetuating the assumption that 7 is that bad. The eurogamer review is a really fair one and I think they justified the 7 despite it's sitting that much higher in my mind.
.
Click to expand...


Well no, none of the reviewers have come out and said "we only grade on a scale between 7-10 when it comes to major triple A releases" but its commonly known that they do, i dont expect reviewers to be self aware of any of this. And 6's and 7's are bad, these are bad scores for video games, there is no two ways about it.

Ive read the reviews, and it sounds like a much lesser game than the previous 2. It does nothing new and even the stuff it does is of lesser quality than previous games.

Even FIFA and CoD, which are very similar to last years releases get 8s and 9s, and have for years.
 
Those reviews do not surprise me. Going all the way back to the first footage reveal, I got the impression that something was missing, and that feeling never really went away ever since. Words like "bland" and "uninspired" comes to mind. Batman: AO feels like a safe game designed to make easy cash for WB.

The Arkham universe was getting long in the tooth anyway this gen. I felt that AA and AC (both excellent games) were enough.
 
ev0 said:
Sorry guys, I was really, really bored (not bashing, I'm still interested in playing it eventually)

V2Y0sFp.jpg
Click to expand...

GAME OF THE MEH EDITION would be better.
 
This quote from the IGN review puzzles the hell out of me:
Batman games are like pizza: even when they’re not very good, they’re still pretty good.
Click to expand...

There have been like 3 good Batman games out of dozens, yet it accepts that all Batman games are pretty good. No they're not. We're in a golden age of Batman games, you dunce.
 
masterkajo said:
I am in the same boot. I enjoyed Arkham City quite a bit but it surely was all over the place and much more packed with stuff that was then only utilized in a brief moment, IMO, just to have said villain in the game etc. I liked the manageable space and focused narrative and space in Arkham Asylum much more. When you see the Garden right at the beginning but cannot access it yet (what will await you there, when can I get there etc) or when you finally able to climb the largest building to glide across the Island.

I am sure I will enjoy Arkham Origins. I just hope it is a bit more focused than City was.
Click to expand...

Very well put, especially the phrase "manageable space". AA had the great ability to make the world feel like it had depth without being overwhelming. AC just sort of tried the "everything AND the kitchen sink" approach, and it didn't work nearly as well for me.

Batman didn't need a "sandbox-styled" game, IMO.
 
Into said:
Well no, none of the reviewers have come out and said "we only grade on a scale between 7-10 when it comes to major triple A releases" but its commonly known that they do, i dont expect reviewers to be self aware of any of this. And 6's and 7's are bad, these are bad scores for video games, there is no two ways about it.
Click to expand...
There are two ways, though. Some reviewers may not subscribe to this idea that 7 is a bad score only meant for bad games. You cant just apply a universal 'this is how it is' for all reviews. By their very nature(being one person's opinion), reviews are entirely prone to fits of fancy and changing standards and individual oddities compared to 'the norm', however you want to personally define that(which further muddles the whole thing).
 
Into said:
Well no, none of the reviewers have come out and said "we only grade on a scale between 7-10 when it comes to major triple A releases" but its commonly known that they do, i dont expect reviewers to be self aware of any of this. And 6's and 7's are bad, these are bad scores for video games, there is no two ways about it.

Ive read the reviews, and it sounds like a much lesser game than the previous 2. It does nothing new and even the stuff it does is of lesser quality than previous games.

Even FIFA and CoD, which are very similar to last years releases get 8s and 9s, and have for years.
Click to expand...

Uh, not sure what to say in response man, you obviously have some interesting set views, that I have no real interest in challenging. As long as you actually read the words, then of course your free to stick with your thoughts. I think if you read the reviews and look at the numbers accompanying them, they are literally contradicting what your saying. Many of these reviews are giving it 6-7 while appreciating its a good game too, but sure.

Seanspeed said:
There are two ways, though. Some reviewers may not subscribe to this idea that 7 is a bad score only meant for bad games. You cant just apply a universal 'this is how it is' for all reviews. By their very nature(being one person's opinion), reviews are entirely prone to fits of fancy and changing standards and individual oddities compared to 'the norm', however you want to personally define that(which further muddles the whole thing).
Click to expand...

This words what I'm thinking pretty well too.
 
SolidChamp said:
Very well put, especially the phrase "manageable space". AA had the great ability to make the world feel like it had depth without being overwhelming. AC just sort of tried the "everything AND the kitchen sink" approach, and it didn't work nearly as well for me.

Batman didn't need a "sandbox-styled" game, IMO.
Click to expand...

He does need a City, though. Gotham is - not always, but often - one of the most important characters in a really great Batman story.
 
Screaming Meat said:
He does need a City, though. Gotham is - not always, but often - one of the most important characters in a really great Batman story.
Click to expand...

AC was not a great Batman story, though

It was a great game, but the city was kinda dull and the side missions pretty whatever. The best parts about it were the closed-off locations that were similar to Arkham Asylum.
 
people saying 'wait for a sale'. The game is a nvidia promo item, so you can easily find a code off ebay for 20-25 bucks right now.


why wait for a sale to a similar price in a year or so?
 
Screaming Meat said:
He does need a City, though. Gotham is - not always, but often - one of the most important characters in a really great Batman story.
Click to expand...

The city works, but I'm looking forward to seeing a city where it's not just criminals but regular people too. Arkham City just felt like a larger prison than the Asylum, which in a way it technically was. I'm looking forward to seeing a city that isn't just a bigger prison than the previous.
 
Devilgunman said:
I finished Beyond and I think it deserves the scores it gets. It does many things brilliantly but also have some major flaws. If you can get over those flaws, you will give it 8-10. If you don't, it's a 7-8 game. If you think it's not a game, you will give 5-7. Personally, despite worse graphic, I like Heavy Rain more.
Click to expand...
Your first two points are fair. The third one is bullshit though, especially for reviewers. If a reviewer thinks it is not a game, he shouldn't even be allowed to review it in the first place. It's a bullshit claim that holds no water. No one was able to prove it.

Besides there are also a couple of scores out there ranging from 2-4. Nonsense. Every score between 5-10 can be justified IMO, but not below that. That's on a full scale.
 
Night_Trekker said:
An IP is fucking useless without the talented people BEHIND the IP who made you value the IP in the first place.

Seriously, if we're going to talk about video games as creative works, then they're creator driven. And without the creators... what, anyone else will do just as well?

I don't understand valuing an IP more than the talent behind it. Thinking like that has given us a ton of decidedly un-Silent Hill-like Silent Hill games.
Click to expand...

I think you misread my post. I'm not against developer loyalty but that brand of loyalty where you won't give another developer a chance and can't imagine anyone else doing it better is stifling. About the Silent Hill thing, if the publisher owns the IP, they can do whatever they want with it including disbanding the original talent. This is not the case here with WB, Rocksteady will still make a future Batman game. Which is why developers are now trying to wisen up about IP ownership (Double Fine, Remedy).
 
ViewtifulJC said:
AC was not a great Batman story, though

It was a great game, but the city was kinda dull and the side missions pretty whatever. The best parts about it were the closed-off locations that were similar to Arkham Asylum.
Click to expand...

That's true, but in terms of, I guess, player generated stories (AKA the film running in my head as I actually play) swooping down on criminals in a dark alleyway or scouring the cityscape from a gargoyle is pure Batman. Maybe "the City is important for the authentic Batman experience" would've been a better way to put it? Personally, I loved the city...

ttocs said:
The city works, but I'm looking forward to seeing a city where it's not just criminals but regular people too. Arkham City just felt like a larger prison than the Asylum, which in a way it technically was. I'm looking forward to seeing a city that isn't just a bigger prison than the previous.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but it was a good stepping stone towards that, I think.
 
WTF, I didn't even see any marketing for this game, no trailers, nothing. Didn't even know it was coming out now.

edit: That being said, I hope the Next-Gen Batman is shown at E3.
 
El_TigroX said:
This quote from the IGN review puzzles the hell out of me:

There have been like 3 good Batman games out of dozens, yet it accepts that all Batman games are pretty good. No they're not. We're in a golden age of Batman games, you dunce.
Click to expand...

Also, bad pizza sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Batman: Arkham Shadow | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
57
5K
Romulus replied
Dynasty Warriors: Origins | Review Thread
Analysis Review 
38
4K
adamsapple replied
  • Locked
Dynasty Warriors: Origins | Review Thread
News Analysis Review 
0
360
Draugoth replied
FBC: Firebreak | Review Thread
Review 
49
585
lughnasadh123 replied
Dune: Awakening - Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
65
1K
Luipadre replied
Top Bottom