RTTP: Batman: Arkham Asylum

Veelk

Banned
So with Arkham Origins coming out soon, I thought I'd go back and replay where it all began.

When I first played this game, I absolutely fell in love with the entire world and characters and everything. Rocksteady truly did something revolutionary here and it's obvious to see why so many other developers ape them. The environment is organic and the game really makes you feel like you're Batman. It's really a miracle this game managed to happen. That said, it really does not live up to my memories.

Part of it is because a lot of the charm is in not knowing exactly whats going to happen. Scarecrow is the obvious example where foreknowledge just kind of ruins what he has going for him, but there's also just not knowing what villains will show up or getting new gadgets. Cursed with a decent memory, despite not touching the game for 6 years, I remembered almost every beat, so there was no sense of discovery for me, which was a big part of the fun of both Asylum and City.

Another part of it is that, even if you think Asylum is a better game as a whole, there is no denying that City is the mechanically superior game. There were many times where Batman attacked the wrong guy despite me pointing him a different direction, for example. That and minor improvements that City implemented, like being able to grapple without having to land first, just made a monumental difference in the gameplay. It's not the games fault, because the first of anything is always going to be the least polished, but it does present a problem in returning to it.

Last part of it that the first time you play, the good parts of the game are so distractingly good that you focus on them, with the flaws not leaving as much of an impression. The second time you go through it, however, the flaws of the game are more evident. The atrocious boss battles are a given, but then there's also the statonary plants that you have to destroy in like 5 different fields. It was pure busy work and added little to the game. A lot of the interview tapes are essentially the same as well. "We're here to help you." "Fuck your help. Now I'm going to do something awful" "Oh the humanity".

Though, to be honest, what I said up there, despite being true....really doesn't matter as much as you'd think. Yeah, the combat system is rougher than what it would be in the future, it was still really fun. Yeah, the encounters lacked surprises, that didn't change the fact that you are still the goddamn Batman, going head to head with your enemies. Yeah, the story could have been utilized better, but all the extra information and interview tapes and easter eggs made the characters feel like they are more than what is shown, because there is a history to them. And of course the level design is still awesome. You can make plenty of criticisms about the game, but I feel Asylum rises above them despite that.

More than anything, this game is such a labor of love. You can feel how much the developers cared about Batman and went out of their way to do him and his world justice. And they succeeded. I'm still hopeful that we will one day see another superhero game that is made with as much care as Rocksteady did.
 
I agree, that being said i think Arkham City was better. Imo it was a more complete game but Asylum is still a fantastic game.

I'm dying to see what's next for Rocksteady.
 
The little details in this game just highlight how amazing it is, like if you target an enemy for a glide kick and your not standing at the edge Batman will take a couple of steps forward and jump off. In any other game it would have forced you to be standing on the edge already before you could target an enemy. Like I said a small detail, but so important for immersion.
 
I replayed it right after Arkham City and you could definitely feel the rough spots that had been ironed out in the combat as well as the graphics (mostly the anti-aliasing).

Do you think it's possible to keep iterating on this engine/set of mechanics to expand to all of Gotham City and include vehicles?
 
Arkham City is a bloated, unfocused, poorly-paced disappointment of a game. Certainly, it improved the mechanics of actually being Batman, but it's as if Rocksteady forgot everything that made the first game so good. What was a tightly controlled Metroid-clone suddenly became a Jak II-esque open-world nightmare.

That one boss fight was good, though.
 
The little details in this game just highlight how amazing it is, like if you target an enemy for a glide kick and your not standing at the edge Batman will take a couple of steps forward and jump off. In any other game it would have forced you to be standing on the edge already before you could target an enemy. Like I said a small detail, but so important for immersion.

Yes. Also holding the trigger to toggle the cinematic camera for the glide kicks are so damn awesome.
 
Arkham City is a bloated, unfocused, poorly-paced disappointment of a game. Certainly, it improved the mechanics of actually being Batman, but it's as if Rocksteady forgot everything that made the first game so good. What was a tightly controlled Metroid-clone suddenly became a Jak II-esque open-world nightmare.

That one boss fight was good, though.

Yeah but Asylum, going back, is claustrophic, a bit clunky, and also strangely lacking in decent boss fights.

I think the movement accomplished in City was necessary. Batman, movement-wise, doesn't feel like Batman in the first one. It's all encapsulated in the cutscene that gets you around the outside of the island (the caves by the ocean): suddenly a cutscene is doing for you what you'd rather do yourself.

Hopefully the follow-ups can convey the focus of design and still allow the freedom to be the Goddamn Batman.
 
Arkham City is a bloated, unfocused, poorly-paced disappointment of a game. Certainly, it improved the mechanics of actually being Batman, but it's as if Rocksteady forgot everything that made the first game so good. What was a tightly controlled Metroid-clone suddenly became a Jak II-esque open-world nightmare.

That one boss fight was good, though.

Yes, pretty much exactly this. A good game, just not even close to as good as Asylum. Which is a fucking tragedy, really.
 
I'll do a full RTTP when I replay Arkham City, but I think it's better to think of them as having different goals. Asylum had it's own bloat and pacing issues, lets not forget. It's perhaps a better tactic than one would think rather than trying to recreate the last in every way.

Personally, I prefer to think of Asylum as Batman on a particularly bad day, since he's trapped in a place missing half his equipment, while City has him fully equipped to take on stronger enemies.

Going off of memory, I did miss the cohesiveness of the level design, but City improves on just about everything else too much to not be considered the superior game by me. But we'll see about that soon, I guess.
 
I replayed it right after Arkham City and you could definitely feel the rough spots that had been ironed out in the combat as well as the graphics (mostly the anti-aliasing).

Do you think it's possible to keep iterating on this engine/set of mechanics to expand to all of Gotham City and include vehicles?

Vehicles would be a bad idea because it would turn a Batman game into another open world game like GTA or Saints Row. Not in the sense that you'd just carjack people but you'd be driving around like any other game instead of gliding around and feeling like the goddamn Batman.

nckillthegrimace said:
Arkham City is a bloated, unfocused, poorly-paced disappointment of a game.

and a better game in every single way over AA.
 
I was just thinking the other day how fucking weird it is that nobody else it even trying to do other "AAA" comic book games given how huge the Arkham games have been. It's been four years, and all we've had are some mediocre Spider-Man games, that terrible X-Men game, and Deadpool.

Just weird.

Vehicles would be a bad idea because it would turn a Batman game into another open world game like GTA or Saints Row. Not in the sense that you'd just carjack people but you'd be driving around like any other game instead of gliding around and feeling like the goddamn Batman.

Yeah, It's odd that people would want an open world game where you drove around. There is no possible way it would be quicker than just flying all over the fucking place with the hook shot and cape.

Not saying I wouldn't like to do a little Batmobile driving, but the idea of it being the main method of transportation is nuts.
 
Vehicles would be a bad idea because it would turn a Batman game into another open world game like GTA or Saints Row. Not in the sense that you'd just carjack people but you'd be driving around like any other game instead of gliding around and feeling like the goddamn Batman.

I agree. That said, I would love a section where you drive the Batmobile or pilot the Batplane. The temptation of them being right there, in the game, and not being able to use them is too much for me :(

I was just thinking the other day how fucking weird it is that nobody else it even trying to do other "AAA" comic book games given how huge the Arkham games have been. It's been four years, and all we've had are some mediocre Spider-Man games, that terrible X-Men game, and Deadpool.

Just weird.


Part of the problem, as I see it, is that they ape the mechanics of the game, which are great, but not the care in level design and mythology. As far as I know, only the deadpool game tried something similar (I only played the first hour or so)
 
Arkham Asylum felt like a really good self contained Batman story, whereas Arkham City felt like Rocksteady trying their hardest to shove everything Batman related that they could into it. A lot of the villains in City where in there for no discernible purpose, other than to have another Batman villain show up.
 
I agree. That said, I would love a section where you drive the Batmobile or pilot the Batplane. The temptation of them being right there, in the game, and not being able to use them is too much for me :(

Something tells me the Batwing will feature as more than a fast travel device in Origins, even if its just an on-rails thing
 
Different games that try different things from a design standpoint; It's easy to see why some would prefer asylum as it is a much tighter experience from a design and story standpoint. City tended to have higher highs and lower lows.
 
Arkham Asylum felt like a really good self contained Batman story, whereas Arkham City felt like Rocksteady trying their hardest to shove everything Batman related that they could into it. A lot of the villains in City where in there for no discernible purpose, other than to have another Batman villain show up.
It's not like Asylum was much different in that regard. Riddler, Harley, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, and Zsasz are all extraneous and Poison Ivy's part could have been cut by more than half.


But fuck it, it's batman. Why wouldn't you want as many villains in here as possible? The more the merrier.

I mean, maybe if this was a comic, I might agree. But as a videogame, this offers the experience of being batman, rather than just reading about him. So, more villains, more ways to be batman. In this regard, as long as the gameplay is good, I don't see how more villains than necessary can be a bad thing.
 
You are free to enjoy bloated and unfocused games. As the modern open world game becomes more and more popular, you shall grow fat like a hog in slop, for there are many to choose from.

I mean you can act like AA was so much better but other than vague terms like "pacing" or story (in a fucking batman game, who cares!) you don't have much of an argument. The combat was deeper and you got to play as an entirely different character with a different fighting style. AC added way more Riddler challenges and the way you unlocked them was the same as AA where you had to wait until you unlocked more abilities not to mention there were more actual puzzles involved than AA. Since there were more challenges there were more combat and predator rooms and they were tougher than AA's. The boss fights were way more interesting and intricate than AA's regurgitated Titan fights (Freeze alone confirms that) and there were more characters from the universe actually involved in the game and not just relegated to journal entries.
 
It's not like Asylum was much different in that regard. Riddler, Harley, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, and Zsasz are all extraneous and Poison Ivy's part could have been cut by more than half.


But fuck it, it's batman. Why wouldn't you want as many villains in here as possible? The more the merrier.

I mean, maybe if this was a comic, I might agree. But as a videogame, this offers the experience of being batman, rather than just reading about him. So, more villains, more ways to be batman. In this regard, as long as the gameplay is good, I don't see how more villains than necessary can be a bad thing.

Arkham Asylum never stopped having a main bad guy. Joker was the enemy in that game, and the other villains had bit parts. In City, they tried to give all the villains their own "level", which resulted in too much time devoted to some of them.
 
Arkham Asylum never stopped having a main bad guy. Joker was the enemy in that game, and the other villains had bit parts. In City, they tried to give all the villains their own "level", which resulted in too much time devoted to some of them.

First off, why does there 'have' to be a main villain? I had no problem whatsoever with being stuck in a gang war between Joker, Twoface, and Penguin, especially when Twoface was taken care of in the first hour.

Besides that, you do have a 'main' villain. Strange. Arkham City, the entire show, is his plan. Like Joker in Asylum, he only makes an appearance here and there to move the plot along, until the very end, and is mostly a voiceover throughout the game.

Again, I'd need to replay AC to confirm, but Poison Ivy's 'bit' atleast certainly felt comparable to any villain's section in AC.
 
For some reason, I have no desire to replay these games--I mean like ever. I liked asylum better than city but there's something about them that drains me.
 
First off, why does there 'have' to be a main villain? I had no problem whatsoever with being stuck in a gang war between Joker, Twoface, and Penguin, especially when Twoface was taken care of in the first hour.

Besides that, you do have a 'main' villain. Strange. Arkham City, the entire show, is his plan. Like Joker, he only makes an appearance here and there to move the plot along, until the very end.

Again, I'd need to replay AC to confirm, but Poison Ivy's 'bit' certainly felt comparable to any villain's section in AC.

Strange only shows up at the beginning and the end. He is extremely underdeveloped as a main villain. It's not nearly the same as Joker being the driving force behind everything in Asylum. You don't hear from him the whole game like you did Joker in Asylum.
 
Strange only shows up at the beginning and the end. He is extremely underdeveloped as a main villain. It's not nearly the same as Joker being the driving force behind everything in Asylum. You don't hear from him the whole game like you did Joker in Asylum.

Not true. Since he is the interviewer for essentially all the characters, he is developed at a more frequent pace. Besides, it's not like the joker 'developed' through the game. He was just doing shit to get the titan formula. You could say he is more active than Strange, yes, but his character isn't developed at all. Strange's is, through backstory and interaction. Though I don't see why it matters. Neither game's story is particularly good, and I still fail to see why the game even needs a main villain, as oppose to a few equally important villains.
 
Arkham City would've been better if they didn't shoehorn in nearly every fucking bad guy in the entire fucking series.

It was so forced and unnecessary. I'll take the Metroid esque Asylum over it any day. Still a blast to experience though. Loved the Robin DLC. Troy Baker once again. Shocker.
 
The story in Arkham City was too all over the place.

Arkham City Spoilers

It really feels like they shoved the story of two games into one. Like, the story with Strange and Arkham City feels completely separate from the story of Joker and Batman, and the infected blood.

Solomon Grundy, Mr. Freeze, Ras Al'Ghoul and Clayface could have been excised from the game without it affecting anything. Some people might like the glut of characters, but it made it feel directionless to me.
 
Not true. Since he is the interviewer for essentially all the characters, he is developed at a more frequent pace. Besides, it's not like the joker 'developed' through the game. He was just doing shit to get the titan formula. You could say he is more active than Strange, yes, but his character isn't developed at all. Strange's is, through backstory and interaction. Though I don't see why it matters. Neither game's story is particularly good, and I still fail to see why the game even needs a main villain, as oppose to a few equally important villains.

I said "underdeveloped" when I should have said "underutilized". Strange doesn't really do anything except for the beginning and the end of the game. You get more conflict from Penguin and Joker than Strange.
 
Arkham City would've been better if they didn't shoehorn in nearly every fucking bad guy in the entire fucking series.

It was so forced and unnecessary. I'll take the Metroid esque Asylum over it any day. Still a blast to experience though. Loved the Robin DLC. Troy Baker once again. Shocker.

But AC was just as much "metroid" as Asylum was. In AA the only reason you'd go back to old areas is for previously unreachable Riddler trophies or clues. Well, you do the exact same thing in AC and you do it more often. And you sometimes do it while doing light puzzles with the gameplay elements like navigating a remote batarang through a tight area or figuring out how to get several lights activated at once. Then of course you've got the actual Riddler rooms in the game that are basically puzzle rooms. AA had none of that stuff.
 
Vehicles would be a bad idea because it would turn a Batman game into another open world game like GTA or Saints Row. Not in the sense that you'd just carjack people but you'd be driving around like any other game instead of gliding around and feeling like the goddamn Batman.

Yeah but a model of a full Gotham city would include areas without tall buildings for Batmobile action, spread out areas in the countryside, the drive to Gotham from the Batcave, so on.

I mean, you're probably right and this is all pipe-dream, but I can't imagine a full gotham model leaving you spending an hour gliding across the thing.

But AC was just as much "metroid" as Asylum was. In AA the only reason you'd go back to old areas is for previously unreachable Riddler trophies or clues. Well, you do the exact same thing in AC and you do it more often. And you sometimes do it while doing light puzzles with the gameplay elements like navigating a remote batarang through a tight area or figuring out how to get several lights activated at once. Then of course you've got the actual Riddler rooms in the game that are basically puzzle rooms. AA had none of that stuff.

AC was like the Prime to AA's Super. However, similar to Prime, a lot of the backtracking to pick up items seemed "undesigned:" as in it was just a hidden item you could find or not find, and often would have to track down at length later, like checking items off a list. AA like Super Metroid had a design path which brought you past those items again in the course of the game.

Given the size of the world and the freedom they were giving players, I don't see any way this consequence could have been avoided.
 
I said "underdeveloped" when I should have said "underutilized". Strange doesn't really do anything except for the beginning and the end of the game. You get more conflict from Penguin and Joker than Strange.

I just don't see it. Penguin yells shit at you over the speakers then has a really weaksauce boss fight because he sucks. That's not conflict, that's just presence. Even in Asylum, most of Joker's 'conflict' with you is just repeating over and over how much you suck and threatening his goons.

Again, not saying Strange is particularly great, but between the interview tapes, your infiltration of his base, and all his rambling in the conflict, his involvement is more than comparable to the Joker's. The fact that Joker regurgatates the same general message over and over at you shouldn't be a significant contribution to your 'conflict' with him.

The real conflict is more the environment the villains create. Penguin's Iceburg lounge, Freeze's room, Ra's al Ghul's chambers and Wonder City, etc. All the enemies and puzzles in addition to the boss fights, those are the real conflicts that happen. In that respect, AC isn't much different from Poison Ivy's plant infestation or Killer Croc's sewers.
 
But AC was just as much "metroid" as Asylum was. In AA the only reason you'd go back to old areas is for previously unreachable Riddler trophies or clues. Well, you do the exact same thing in AC and you do it more often. And you sometimes do it while doing light puzzles with the gameplay elements like navigating a remote batarang through a tight area or figuring out how to get several lights activated at once. Then of course you've got the actual Riddler rooms in the game that are basically puzzle rooms. AA had none of that stuff.

I know dude, and all that stuff is great. I just really disliked the assload of famous antagonists they throw at you, plus there was no original Arleen Sorkin reprisal as Harley (as obnoxious as she is).

One thing Rocksteady needs to nail in these games are decent boss fights. Granted, ACs were better than AAs, but not by much. I get it though. It's Batman. Millions of people are going to play the game and they can't be including 10 minute boss fights that are at least somewhat in-depth and actually require some skill.
 
One thing Rocksteady needs to nail in these games are decent boss fights. Granted, ACs were better than AAs, but not by much. I get it though. It's Batman. Millions of people are going to play the game and they can't be including 10 minute boss fights that are at least somewhat in-depth and actually require some skill.

It was all uphill after Killer Croc!
 
I personally hated Poison Ivy's the most. Stupid fucking camera and angles messing me up
LLShC.gif
 
It's not like Asylum was much different in that regard. Riddler, Harley, Killer Croc, Scarecrow, and Zsasz are all extraneous and Poison Ivy's part could have been cut by more than half.


But fuck it, it's batman. Why wouldn't you want as many villains in here as possible? The more the merrier.

I mean, maybe if this was a comic, I might agree. But as a videogame, this offers the experience of being batman, rather than just reading about him. So, more villains, more ways to be batman. In this regard, as long as the gameplay is good, I don't see how more villains than necessary can be a bad thing.

Agreed... and when you think of some of the best Batman comic stories they are huge with a great number of villains popping in and out for 1 book... "Hush" comes to mind...
 
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but the final fight against the Joker was a fucking joke. No pun intended.

At least it was an actual... you know... fight!
 
Haven't played any game yet, but how is AA better than AC exactly? I always thought AC to be the more superior game where it really feels like you are Batman in the game.
 
Haven't played any game yet, but how is AA better than AC exactly? I always thought AC to be the more superior game where it really feels like you are Batman in the game.

You feel like Batman in both, imo. But you feel less empowered in Asylum than you do in City. Fewer tools, fewer mechanics that let you do as many things, etc. Both are great Batman experiences though.
 
I mean you can act like AA was so much better but other than vague terms like "pacing" or story (in a fucking batman game, who cares!) you don't have much of an argument. The combat was deeper and you got to play as an entirely different character with a different fighting style. AC added way more Riddler challenges and the way you unlocked them was the same as AA where you had to wait until you unlocked more abilities not to mention there were more actual puzzles involved than AA. Since there were more challenges there were more combat and predator rooms and they were tougher than AA's. The boss fights were way more interesting and intricate than AA's regurgitated Titan fights (Freeze alone confirms that) and there were more characters from the universe actually involved in the game and not just relegated to journal entries.

I didn't mention the story at all because, as you said, it's not very important. Further, I don't care about side content, so the challenge mode and the Riddler trophies or whatever are irrelevant. You didn't bring it up but I don't care about "being Batman" either because I don't even know what that means. That's like whining about immersion. And yes, credit where credit is due, the Mr. Freeze fight is excellent even though the rest of the bosses devolve into gadget spam.

AA's strength is indeed its pacing, which is a function of its linear structure. Being linear means the developer can control the rate at which things happen. Obviously there's the danger of the developer having too much control, which gives you set piece nonsense like Tomb Raider or Uncharted, but AA strikes a balance by opening up the combat and stealth scenarios to improvisation. The structure is there to quickly funnel you to the next encounter, provided that you are intelligent enough to know where to use the new tool you've just acquired. I enjoy that brevity; traveling has never been fun in any game. I just want to get to the game part. Conversely, AC is too big. You wander around doing god knows what, bouncing from arbitrarily placed encounter to arbitrarily placed encounter until you go into a building and play a shorter, easier version of AA. Then you do that again. There's too much down time between those parts even if you go straight to each objective. I don't want to take out all the snipers or trace the transmitter in the open world before I can go into the level; I just want to do the level.

I'd call it the "meat and potatoes" if I was a paid reviewer, but I'm not so "part of the game that is actually fun" works.
 
You didn't bring it up but I don't care about "being Batman" either because I don't even know what that means.

What I mean by that is basically doing the things Batman would do. The entire game is structured around it. The gliding through the city, interacting with the villains, the tactical combat system, doing the detective work, going to places that have significant meaning to the Batman Mythos, etc.

AA's strength is indeed its pacing, which is a function of its linear structure. Being linear means the developer can control the rate at which things happen. Obviously there's the danger of the developer having too much control, which gives you set piece nonsense like Tomb Raider or Uncharted, but AA strikes a balance by opening up the combat and stealth scenarios to improvisation. The structure is there to quickly funnel you to the next encounter, provided that you are intelligent enough to know where to use the new tool you've just acquired. I enjoy that brevity; traveling has never been fun in any game. I just want to get to the game part. Conversely, AC is too big. You wander around doing god knows what, bouncing from arbitrarily placed encounter to arbitrarily placed encounter until you go into a building and play a shorter, easier version of AA. Then you do that again. There's too much down time between those parts even if you go straight to each objective. I don't want to take out all the snipers or trace the transmitter in the open world before I can go into the level; I just want to do the level.

I'd call it the "meat and potatoes" if I was a paid reviewer, but I'm not so "part of the game that is actually fun" works.

*shrug* To each his own, I guess.

But aside from just disagreeing on whats fun in general (I spent hours just flying through the city in AC aimlessly, and I loved it.), I don't see how you like anything in AA then. Taking out Snipers and getting into random fights on the street and the all that: mechanically, it's not significantly different from what you do in the levels you describe. If context matters that much to you, I can see why you wouldn't be a fan of it, but the game's greatest strength is that the mechanics alone are so good that they can be enjoyed without a level structured around them.

If you don't enjoy the game's mechanics on their own, it's kind of wierd that you like AA at all. The tighter pacing might make the gameplay feel more purposeful (since you are progressing through the game) than arbitrary fights of no significance, but how in the world does that make you enjoy it? You are doing the same thing you apparently dislike in both cases.
 
Arkham City is a bloated, unfocused, poorly-paced disappointment of a game. Certainly, it improved the mechanics of actually being Batman, but it's as if Rocksteady forgot everything that made the first game so good. What was a tightly controlled Metroid-clone suddenly became a Jak II-esque open-world nightmare.

That one boss fight was good, though.

High five, brother

Asylum was damned near perfect. And City was like, "What the fuck did they do?"
 
I mean you can act like AA was so much better but other than vague terms like "pacing" or story (in a fucking batman game, who cares!) you don't have much of an argument. The combat was deeper and you got to play as an entirely different character with a different fighting style. AC added way more Riddler challenges and the way you unlocked them was the same as AA where you had to wait until you unlocked more abilities not to mention there were more actual puzzles involved than AA. Since there were more challenges there were more combat and predator rooms and they were tougher than AA's. The boss fights were way more interesting and intricate than AA's regurgitated Titan fights (Freeze alone confirms that) and there were more characters from the universe actually involved in the game and not just relegated to journal entries.

I completely agree with this. I loved both games, and I played them heaps. I just can't put AA over AC. The gameplay in the latter is just so much more refined. The story in both games is pretty bad, and I don't find AA's pacing much better. And anyway, those two aspects are pretty minimal to me when compared to the gameplay.
 
AA had some fun villains in it, still holds up very well. I hope origins is fantastic, it looks like its combining some aspects of aa and ac together.

Second playthrough, I think AC holds up better.
 
I didn't like how Batman played errand boy for a massive chunk of Arkham City. Some in this thread talk about the experience of "being Batman", but being strongarmed into doing tasks for villains made him feel weak as a character.
 
I didn't like how Batman played errand boy for a massive chunk of Arkham City. Some in this thread talk about the experience of "being Batman", but being strongarmed into doing tasks for villains made him feel weak as a character.
I only recall that happening with freeze and maybe when he has to get the cure for joker.

Also, the same thing happened in AA when he has to get the plant for Poison Ivy from Croc's lair.
 
Top Bottom