Is it true the story alone is only like five hours long? What the hell has happened there?
Umm what? Origins was good and should not be compared to this dumpster fire.This isn't Rocksteady, it's WB Montreal who made the Arkham Origins spin-off game. Which should have been the only sign anyone needed, really.
Origins was shit, it had a decent story but the rest? You cannot seriously claim origins was decent but slate GK, the issues with both are practically identical. If anything Origins is far worse because they actually managed to fuck the combat up when they had the source code for it from Rocksteady.Umm what? Origins was good and should not be compared to this dumpster fire.
Thank God. Was getting worried and thought I made a mistake ordering this. Thank you.No that is totally innacurate. Even if you rushed it, its 12+. Howlongtobeat has it at 14+ for main story.
When you finish a day are you missing out entirely on sets of side missions or do they respawn each time? Not sure if i'm leaving too many each night but they are everywhere!
I hate to read like the posters defending GK ITT, but you didn't play origins, did you?Origins was shit, it had a decent story but the rest? You cannot seriously claim origins was decent but slate GK, the issues with both are practically identical. If anything Origins is far worse because they actually managed to fuck the combat up when they had the source code for it from Rocksteady.
The Arkham series is possibly my favourite trilogy in gaming. I played Origins, it was inferior to the others in every single way. Some aspects are objective obviously, but the poorly designed, empty world, lack of engaging side content, dodgy combat...game was a joke, only the story made it a 6/10I hate to read like the posters defending GK ITT, but you didn't play origins, did you?
It is the weakest arkham game but its still good and absolutely shits on GK from a great height.
Umm what? Origins was good and should not be compared to this dumpster fire.
OK OK. I concede the point. I mean it definitely is the one game in the series I have played the leastThe Arkham series is possibly my favourite trilogy in gaming. I played Origins, it was inferior to the others in every single way. Some aspects are objective obviously, but the poorly designed, empty world, lack of engaging side content, dodgy combat...game was a joke, only the story made it a 6/10
Im not defending GK, it has plenty of its own issues. I dont see how anyone can rate Origins and think GK is a 'dumpster fire' though, its just totally irrational
Yeah, it’s weird. The game is arguably serviceable at best, but there’s something about it that makes you tolerate it more than you normally would. The context sensitive animations for combat that account for four different characters with completely different combat styles is really impressive. The game shows a lot of hard work put into it in many spots and then other aspects feel half-baked.I’m actually enjoying this?
Only a few hours in but the story is a little interesting, the combat is good enough and it’s just fun and addictive?
Open world is dead and the side content seems bad but I mean, it’s still fun.
Definitely feel like this sums up the game best.Yeah, it’s weird. The game is arguably serviceable at best, but there’s something about it that makes you tolerate it more than you normally would. The context sensitive animations for combat that account for four different characters with completely different combat styles is really impressive. The game shows a lot of hard work put into it in many spots and then other aspects feel half-baked.
I’m still having fun with it despite how folks or even myself try to parse it.
I played the Wii U version of Origins and it was fantasticI played Origins on PS3 when it came out and absolutely hated it. There was something about the framerate that made the combat incredibly bad, something about the timing was completely off.
When I replayed it on PC not too long ago I actually had a pretty decent time. There are a lot of good ideas in the game, the execution however was pretty flawed. Atmosphere was aces [snow and christmas, god-tier combo], but the city design was quite bad and annoying to move around. Having snipers on rooftops in the late game with pin-point accuracy really made traversal more annoying than it should ever be. And that massive bridge in the middle to mask loading times was super bad. Interesting to see the same mechanic back in Gotham Knights.
However I liked the story, the portrayal of Bane especially and the game has decent boss fights. I also enjoyed how brutal Batman was. He's very cool and collected in the other games but here he's full of rage and you can really see that during the fights and that was really cool.
All in all it was a step back from the Rocksteady games, which is of course not what you want from a sequel. Which, again, also applies to Gotham Knights.
It had native 4K at launch but the framerate would tank down into the teens, it was really bad. Dynamic resolution was a good choice, the game stays mostly at 30 fps with the random drop here and there, but never to the extent pre-patch. If the resolution drops, I’d never notice. But I also sit ten feet away from my 65 inch TV so, I dunno.How bad is the hit to resolution on next gen console after the patch early this month that added DRS to the game?
The game wasnt 60 fps but at least ut had native 4k. Now it no longer has that going for it and from the sounds of it DRS was a quick and lazy way to go about fixing framerate since its not GPU bound to begin with.
Did it lose that next gen sheen? The texture work and distant detail looked great in videos and id imagine thats now taken a step backwards thanks to DRS ...