• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

LTTP - Batman: Arkham City: GAF Lied

I felt pretty quickly overwhelmed by Arkham City. It's frustrating that you can't go from one mission to the next without at least 2-3 new side-missions popping up and demanding your attention. I finished Arkham Asylum pretty quickly, but just stopped playing AC after a couple days and never really felt like going back. AC just felt really bloated.....which is great for people that like bloat, but I just wanted a more focused experience.

I recognize thought that it's something that has just become my particular taste. I've lost all patience for games that constantly remind you of all the supplementary stuff you should be doing. It does bother me that basically any AAA single-player game is now forced to include 101-collectibles and puzzle/combat challenges just to justify its price, though.
 
When people say the Scarecrow sections were excellent, do they mean the cool story side of them with the hallucinations or the shitty sidescrolling levels with the awful controls?

I think everyone generally agrees that the hallucinations are the awesome parts and that the "shine the spotlight on Scarecrow" platforming sections are middling.
 
Interesting to read.

I have both on my backlog, so haven't got around to playing either; is there any benefit to playing one first before the other or are they both fully standalone ?
 
I love both, but I agree that city is the better of the two. AC does almost everything better or equal to AA. The only areas I felt AC was worse than AA were the sense of atmosphere, and the quality of the Riddler stuff/collectibles/interview reels.

City for one makes the combat much better with not only new toys to play with, but just better design in that you face more large groups of enemies allowing you to really get your combos up to insane heights. In AA there are a very limited few times when you face like 10+ people, in AC you can do it all the time.

AC also feels really cool in how all the villains come into play. The game really makes Arkham feel like a place where people just want to fuck with Batman. I don't think AA introduced it villains poorly so I will not criticize it's method, I just prefered AC's.

To me the overall story is way better in AC as well. I thought AA's story was rather bland. The atmosphere was top notch, but the pure storyline of Joker using titan as his device for evil was not interesting. On the other hand Joker tying his fate to Batman and deceiving him with the Clayface stuff was actually interesting rather than rote, for me at least.

Plus AC just has soooo much stuff you can do to extend your time in the game if you want. If you don't like collectibles then I can totally understand those aspects not being appealing to you, but even the stuff like deadshot/zsaaz/watcher was nice bits of extra content.

Also how can you not love grapnel boosting and flying around, that shit was fun. Both are great games, but if I were to pick one to be on my list of games of the generation I would pick AC.
 
I will say this: although I prefer Asylum, I'm glad that City exists. It would have been so easy to make the exact same game again but they resisted the impulse and made something more ambitious instead. It didn't pan out completely (because I think the series' mechanics suit themselves more to Metroidvania than open-world), but it was a somewhat brave choice.
 
The combat is by far and away my favourite thing about the Batman games, so for me it's AC > AA and it's not even close. Beat Downs, Blade Dodge, Weapon breaks, Multi-ground Takedown, the seamless way gadgets are employed. It takes the amazing format from AA and makes it all better.

Throw in dive bombing, grapnel boost (and grapnel boost takedowns) and more puzzles than you shake a stick at and it's the better game for me.

Also playing as Catwoman, Robin and Nightwing in the combat rooms adds another layer of awesome, as each play slightly different to Bats.
 
Both are terrific, but AA just feels more focused and has some memorable moments in it.
AC did technically everything better, but the fact that I remember AA better tells it all(and I beat AC two years after AA).
 
Quickfire Explosive Gel and the Multi-Ground Takedown are incredibly useful in combat, too. You plant the gel, wait for just the right moment when enemies are crowded around it, then you detonate it, throw three Batarangs and squeeze in one more punch and you can get about seven guys with the one M-G Takedown.

I once got 17 at once this way in the Penguin's arena. 17 batarangs thrown at the same time, all hitting their targets right in the face.
 
Inferior though enjoyable story but where it really shines above and beyond AA is the gameplay, the open world-ish setting that allows you to glide around to your hearts content and of course Catwoman! Man did I enjoy playing as Catwoman.
 
Added moves were great, it just controlled sloppily. Was not a good idea to simply superimpose the new functions on top of a control system that was built from the ground up to be inherently simpler. For the first several hours I had to mentally stop a do a double take remembering which button combo did what, which isn't common and just a sign of a bad control scheme in my experience.

Well, I won't try and convince you otherwise, but I just totally disagree. To me, more options in combat only makes things better, and I don't think they controlled sloppily at all. I love being able to pull off every move in Batman's arsenal with single commands, even if they do involve two buttons.

I don't really think Batman's combat was designed to be simple, or at least not in terms of having a small move list. The thing that attracted me to Batman's combat in the first place was that it took the Devil May Cry idea of single commands for moves (meaning no combo strings), and abstracted it to a form where razor-sharp reflexes and perfect timing were less important. I've always utterly adored DMC, but never had the skill to pull off the really advanced, frame-perfect techniques, or hold my own in DMD mode, so I was delighted to see that Batman encouraged the same kind of on-the-fly strategising, critical thinking, situational-awareness, etc, but with much more lenient timing windows. I love the way the games encourage you to use every move in your repertoire while simultaneously discouraging you from ever button-mashing by locking your best moves away behind higher combo multipliers. They teach you to prioritise that multiplier over all else, so taking a random hit or missing an attack because you weren't concentrating hard enough carries so much more weight than in other games.

People get bizarrely uppity when you try and talk about Batman having a complex combat system. I don't know how these games ever got lumped in with the legions of light/heavy attacks, GOW-clone rubbish out there, but I feel like I constantly see people talking about just button-mashing their way through the Batman games and I don't know how they managed it. Obviously Batman isn't on the same level as the God-tier action games, but I think it's a brilliant combat system and so refreshingly unique.

FAKE EDIT - OK, so I kind of talked myself off-track there, but all I really wanted to say was that I thought the additions to the combat in AC were really well done. I think they're extremely well-implemented from a basic control layout, too - they're there if you want to use them, and totally inconspicuous if you don't. They don't change the inputs of any of your regular moves, they just build on top of them.
 
Asylum is the better story/experience, City is the better game.

Pretty much this. Same goes for Infamous 2.

Although both have strong stories, Asylum makes more sense. Everything that's there and every character you meet has a purpose in the story, where in City it seems a little bit fanservicey in how they dabble in almost everyone in Batman's rogues gallery.
 
AC is mechanically superior in every way, but AA is still the better game overall. Highly detailed AC open world has very little in it to actually do.
 
I thought the open world in AC was pointless. It was just there to traverse, but most of the time you just flew over everything anyway, so it's just a timesink inbetween missions.
 
To each his own. I thought Arkham City was a good, but unnessecary sequel that expanded on Asylum where it didn't need to. In expanding the world you lose much of its intimacy, sense of discovery and focus. They clearly didn't have enough diverse content to make the world interesting to explore.

Technically and even mechanically speaking, yes, it's the better game, but the core experience of Asylum is vastly superior.
 
I played them in reverse, and simply do not understand the hype with Asylum. While it was obviously a good game and a fun experience, there aren't many bits that I'd have said were better than City. Does anyone who played City first think Asylum is better?
 
AA > AC ... truthfact.

AC's world is bigger but also way more confusing and the sense of place isn't as great as in AA. Also, the upgrades didn't feel as meaningful in AC and its story was inferior.

I liked Arkham Asylum better. By a pretty wide margin even.
 
Who is "GAF"?
JLDUrh2.gif
 
Im with you on this one OP. I was surprised at people saying the game was short and had a bad story. I played sidequests while playing the main game, found all the villians side missions and the game was fucking long with a great pace because there was always something mew to discover. And then the story... AA had a better story, really? The only good parts of it were the warden and the scarecrow, the main one was absolutely horrible. Then here it comes AC and the story is really fun interconnecting all this villians to the the setting in different ways and with a really good and surprising plotwist at the end after you thought the game was going to end. And the catwoman parts with the false ending are also great.
I heard a guy saying he beat the game under 3 hours and he hated it. WTF, why would gou do that?
 
I got more enjoyment out of Asylum. City felt cluttered and devoid of focus. I didn't particularly enjoy the aesthetic or design of the world much either, although I'll agree that it's mechanically superior.

It just comes down to me not liking the direction they took things in, but neither viewpoint is wrong.
 
I like Asylum better. Whenever I got into the open world of City and saw all of the collectible crap everywhere I felt like I was playing Banjo Kazooie.
 
Honestly, I find it hard to compare the two despite them being in the same series.

Asylum was built from the ground up to be a linear Batman beat-em-up featuring the most popular villains in order to sell well. City gives both players and the developers a lot more freedom, with open levels, more obscure villains (they even made The Mad Hatter look intimidating) and improved combat.

I personally prefer City. I love seeing more obscure villains getting their time in the...moon? and seeing how they look in the Arkhamverse. Plus I really felt like Batman, zipping around half of Gotham and kicking the asses of anyone dumb enough to be in my way.
 
I agree with the OP. AC is the better game.
 
This is coming from someone who put an ungodly amount of time into AA. I got the 1000 gamerscore on three different XBL accounts and the platinum trophy 4 times (i made dummy accounts) not to mention trying to compete for the leaderboards before people started cheating. It's one of my favorite games ever.
7 times ?!, wow, I got to say that is some dedication you got there, I finished it once when it came out, and twice a couple of weeks ago to get the Platinum, and right there in my 3rd playthrough I was getting really bored.

but Arkham City does everything better.

- The boss battles were far superior. Even the end boss which was pretty mediocre, still better than Titan Joker from AA.
- Combat is so much better. Even little changes like Blade Dodge makes the combat just feel better instead of just cape swipe > mash attack. Also being able to counter up to two enemies
- The added side missions add more replay value to the game while not feeling like filler content (well, the Zsasz side mission does)
- New Game+

I have to agree with everything, Arkham City is way better than Asylum, more villains, better combat system, open world -kinda-, the side quests are one of the best -loved them and how they had sensible stories behind them-, I hope Arkham III is even bigger and better.
 
as per usual with this forum everything gets oveblown to epic proportions...City ain't bad, it's great fun for about 15 hours, then it all feels a bit repetitive because of the fake open world nature. Asylum is a lot tighter and claustrophobic, and to me the better game because of it
 
Asylum is the better story/experience, City is the better game.

I don't remember liking either story very much. I just remember thinking that City was better in every possible way and my enjoyment of Asylum was hindered because it felt so restricted.
 
I agree, and have since it came out.
Asylum is by no means bad, it was just out first.
City i think is more polished and realized. It is a proper evolution, and is fantastic. Beat the game, then beat it again after. Got all the riddler stuff out of the way too.

Fantastic game. Word to the wise though, dont label the website man, we all have different opinions.
 
While still a good time, Arkham City was less focused and memorable than Asylum for my tastes. Felt like it was more open because that's what sequels do instead of in service to gameplay or design decisions. Also the setup is pretty ridiculous, even for a comic story. Still the combat system is too damn good, and I'll admit I'm a sucker for collectibles in that series. Worth playing, despite being a bit of a let down.
 
I felt pretty quickly overwhelmed by Arkham City. It's frustrating that you can't go from one mission to the next without at least 2-3 new side-missions popping up and demanding your attention. I finished Arkham Asylum pretty quickly, but just stopped playing AC after a couple days and never really felt like going back. AC just felt really bloated.....which is great for people that like bloat, but I just wanted a more focused experience.

I recognize thought that it's something that has just become my particular taste. I've lost all patience for games that constantly remind you of all the supplementary stuff you should be doing. It does bother me that basically any AAA single-player game is now forced to include 101-collectibles and puzzle/combat challenges just to justify its price, though.

I agree, although I still loved Arkham City. It felt like there was too much optional stuff, that I pretty much gave up on doing any of it and just stuck to the story missions. In Arkham Asylum I was compelled to get all the Riddler trophies. In City I said fuck that. Asylum has the more memorable, more tightly designed world, City has better combat, bosses, and storytelling.

Wasn't sure what the thread title meant.. that op was under the assumption Arkham City sucked or was the best game ever, I've seen opinions for AC run the gamut on GAF.
 
Yep. Game was fucking awesome. Story was pretty bad, but the gameplay was so fucking good. I could fly around the city beating the shit out of bad guys forever.
 
Top Bottom