Support NeoGAF

[Spring-Loaded]

This thread has been a long time coming and I've written too much about the subject over the past couple years. Here, I'll be consolidating a few choice posts I've made about the matter. All I ask is if you have a dissenting opinion, please look through this post to see whether that subject is addressed.


EDIT:

Spoonfed bulleted list below

COMBAT

• Arkham City has much better/more extensive integration of basic gadgets/moves in combat than Arkham Asylum
• All use of gadgets during combat is optional (special enemies can be taken out using only the basic abilities that were in AA [e.g. armored thugs are new, but can be taken out with Instant Takedown, Titan thugs just need to be hit with three cape stuns)
• More diverse enemy types that demand better crowd management/timing
• Enemy types/abilities are introduced throughout the main game so that you're not merely fighting more-and-more of the same basic enemies in place of a proper pre-final boss fight like in AA
• All enemy types allow for a combo to be retained (titan thugs no longer require waiting for them to charge before attacking them, so even if they're the last enemy, a combo can be retained)
• Double/triple counters, blade counters and un-counterable attacks demand more from player, either by countering them straight-up, dodging, disabling enemies/their weapons prior to attack, or other gadgets in that instant
• Fights in outdoor areas allow traversal to be tied into combat (e.g. divebomb takedowns that can swing enemies into others for more instant takedowns, grapnel boost takedowns
• Weapon disarming with Batclaw works on stun batons, knives, bottles, guns
• Weapon dismantling works on everything
• Basic combat can be blended with predator segments due to being able to throw three batarangs in quick succession, smokebombs, divebomb attacks and quickfire functions for almost all gadgets, even outside of a combo — lack of options/traversal in AA meant Predator segments were much more separate from combat ones

STEALTH/PREDATOR GAMEPLAY

• Player can knockout an enemy during a silent takedown (e.g. DDT)
• Line-launcher has tightrope feature that can be used to make a makeshift perch
• Smoke bombs allow for tactics in between pure stealth and attacking head-on (enemies will fire into smoke even if they're not in it, can be used to divert attention
• Reverse-batarang feature for remote controlled batarang another option for misdirection
• Double-ledge takedowns, hanging ledge takedowns from above, vent takedowns, weak wall takedowns, ice smash takedowns
• Enemies frozen with ice grenade can be used as bait
• Mine detonator/gun jammer can be used to allow taking down an enemy in the open while others try to fire disabled guns or lead them into a trap as they try to get new weapons, can also detonate concussive mines near enemies
• REC shock device will cause enemies to fire wildly to distract/scare surrounding enemies
• Enemies will destroy perches when they notice they're being attacked from them, which helps force the player to mix up tactics rather than continually rely on them throughout a predator segment
• Enemies with thermal goggles will check perches and can see through smoke from smoke bombs/fire extinguishers
• Armored enemies require a non-silent takedown, puttin gmore pressure on player

OVERALL WORLD DESIGN

• City and Asylum similar in overall design to the point that a similar experience to Asylum (going from one story-beat/main objective to the next) can be achieved by going from one story-beat/main objective to the next in Arkham City. The games are not fundamentally different and are each much more about their basic gameplay mechanics than about the level design itself. Punching dudes in tight corridors isn't automatically better than punching them out in a city setting
• Nothing special done with Asylum's particular overworld design. Anythign it did could be (or was) done in Arkham City's interiors/underground areas
• AA's backtracking is scripted, there's no Dark Souls/Super Metroid-like "looping upon itself" world design; player never has to figure out where to go next, thus making it seem Metroid-like on the surface while being as linear as Uncharted, but with repeated scenery
• AA actually takes longer to traverse from one end to the next because of how most of it consists of hallways, corridors, rooms (that are devoid of enemies/objectives outside of scripted points
• Going back for Arkham ciphers and Riddler trophies/riddles only showcase how barren the game world is
• AC allows players options on how to traverse the game world — players can run around if they want, grapnel without gliding, just gliding by diving then pulling up, or combinations of both
• It takes much less time to get from any one end of AC to the other than it would in AA
• AC still manages to have labyrinth-like areas that require atypical traversal (ice rafts, climbing, line-launcher/tightrope)
• AA has no true shortcuts to unlock, and while AC doesn't really either, it isn't restrictive and full of tight hallways as AA

TRAVERSAL

• In AC, players can use the grapnel, then cancel it mid-pull which isn't possible in AA
• Players can grapnel up to a ledge without climbing it, immediately climb over it, roll over the ledge after using the grapnel directly into a run, grapnel boost past the ledge into a glide (or w/o a glide), or "grapnel boost takedown" and enemy near a ledge
• Players can glide, dive, then pull up into a glide in order to gain distance without using the grapnel
• Sliding at a ledge can be used to immediately go into a ledge-hang
• Line-Launcher can be redirected without touching the ground mid zipline, and can be be turned into a tightrope, space permitting
• AA consists almost entirely of running from point to point with very, very little choice for the player as to how to get around

BOSS FIGHTS

• Mr. Freeze isn't a slightly longer version of a fight against a previous subboss (AA's Bane), a slow walking segment, the intensity of which can be circumvented by crouching (Killer Croc), a wash, rinse-repeat fight with added minions (Poison Ivy) or a t a traversal timing minigame with regular enemies sprinkled in (Scarecrow).
• Arkham City doesn't end with a dull wash-rinse-repeat "fight" against and uncharacteristically altered enemy (you know who)
• Mr. Freeze on New Game Plus requires the player use all their takedown moves against him as he'll adapt and ice over the environment after each attack. It manages to be demanding without artificially or inexplicably gimping what the player can do.
• The other AC bosses that do fall into the wash-rinse-repeat cycle still manage to be more engaging than the average AA boss

STORY/PLOT/NARRATIVE

• Both games suffer from janky, weak narratives. While AC's story progression isn't great, AA's has nothing considerable/notable happen throughout except for one of the main characters dying in an explosion, post Bane battle cutscene, poison ivy spreading her vines throughout the island and the "conclusion." The game is continually building up to some type of resolution and/or reveal, yet it ends with another roided up boss that's even less of a fight than the previous ones. Doesn't come close to something like Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth
• AA's scarecrow hallucinations were great, each for different reasons. None have affect on the overall story at all.
• AA's optional post game reveal would've been great as an actual ending and wouldn't have felt terribly anticlimactic, but it remains optional (and boring to collect the Arkham ciphers if you missed any)
• AC actually has story developments throughout, and ends with a noteworthy finish. It's not great, but it actually delivers on some of its promise rather than not delivering at all.

SIDE CONTENT

• Both games have challenge maps. AC's added abilities allow the specific challenges for predator maps to be more creative/demanding, if the player chooses to do them
• Riddler trophies in AC are far too numerous, yet the amount of player thought/input for acquiring each one is much higher on average than for AA. There are legitimate puzzles for acquiring most of the trophies and going for them is far more engaging than it is in AA
• Riddler's informants can be interrogated to get trophy/riddle locations to show up on the minimap, integrating combat/predator gameplay into a colect-a-thon side mission (informant has to be kept conscious until they're the last one left out of their group) — a mild, minimal form of detective work which still captures Batman's detective side better than anything in AA
• Riddler trophies/riddles lead to rescuing hostages from Riddler's deathtraps. Deathtrap rooms need to be solved/traversed and demand use of gadgets, much like many of the trophies themselves — this gives tangible results for completing Riddler content unlike in AA where acquiring them only leads to acquiring them
• AA's Riddler implementation is limited only to trophies and riddles (both of which are in AC) and nothing more. Upon completion, you only get an audio resolution to the side quest without confronting Riddler yourself
• Other side-missions in AC tend to be very basic, yet they actually exist. If the player wants side content, they have it, if they don't want it, they're entirely optional.
• Player can save non-criminal political prisoners from assaults outside of scripted story points — you can straight-up swoop down and save someone from a criminal, beat the hell out of the criminal, hear the victim whisper thanks, then fly off into the night. AA does not have this sadly

General comparisons

Quoting myself because the matter of which Rocksteady Arkham game is better gets brought up too much and people take the opportunity to just say why whey like one over the other rather than attempt to explain how AA is better than AC (it isn't)

I'm quoting myself because the matter of which Rocksteady-designed Arkham game is better is brought up (without justification beyond a vague "AA's just a tighter experience" ) too much.

I'm quoting myself because the matter of which Arkham game is best gets brought up too much.

but Arkham City does everything better.

This is pretty much irrefutable truth. Even the story of Asylum isn't better overall; the premise is better and the Scarecrow sequences were great, yet the execution of AA's story was lacking, especially the godawful resolution.

AA managed to fool people into thinking they were playing a pathfinding, Metroid-type game when they were actually playing a completely linear game set against the backdrop of interconnected hubs. You never have to figure out where to go; you're always pointed in the right direction and the abilities you acquire are handed to you as you move forward. There's nothing wrong with the way the game is structured, but it's structure doesn't do anything to elevate it. The gameplay is the main draw and the setting is interesting; the structure of the game itself is not a draw like that of a Metroid/castlevania game is.

Asylum is a good game, it's just is plagued by repetition. There are no changes in enemy type, the boss encounters have good aesthetics, but poor gameplay. The only proper fight is Poison Ivy, the rest have novel ideas but are executed in a middling manner. The final boss is atrocious both mechanically and thematically; just a stain on an otherwise solid experience. The point of the whole experience is considered less important than having a big bombastic (and shallow) physical fight. To top it off, the actually interesting twist that

Spoiler

the warden is insane and was plotting to kill the inmates

was relegated to an optional side mission. It's even a plot point in AC; it should've been the proper ending.

Between the two games, AC's only unique weakness is pacing. It's premise is less plausible than AA's and there are some contrivances that are lame, yet AA suffered from having a shortsighted focus on the Titan formula and physical fights that undercut the story's potential. AC being a bit more open can overwhelm the player and makes them feel like

Everything related to gameplay is superior in AC. Everything. Except maybe throws. There are plenty of predator segments and the fleshing out of abilities (look up "grapnel boost takedown") is perfect.

The overworld is just a more open AA. Why anyone prefers running through corridors and loading screens to traversing something resembling a cityscape (as Batman, no less) is beyond me. The grapnel boost is optional when it should've been mandatory; getting around is much quicker and fun with that upgrade, something a lot of people passed up.

There are too many Riddler trophies, yet almost all of them require some sort of thought to acquire. AA's are all behind a wall or up in rafters. Not only is the process of getting them more involving than in AA, but they're tied to a Saw-style series of deathtraps from which you have to save hostages. In addition, the side missions where you can save some of the non-criminal prisoners in the asylum are good. Actually getting to save people in a Batman game? Beautiful.

The games are both dripping with potential for a good story; all the work that went into the interview tapes and back stories leading up to each game are better than the main stories. Here's hoping that work is put into the main stories of future games.

And then there's the ending of AC. I understand how someone would prefer AA's story overall to AC's, but at the very least, AC had an actual climactic ending with something resembling a considerable conclusion. Batman slipping on a banana peel and breaking his neck would've been better than AA's ending though, so that isn't saying much.

AC is just a better game and a better Batman simulator. Don't let anyone try to tell you differently. The first experience with AA might be better than the one with AC, but any further analysis will show which one is superior.

Arkham Origins has a much, much better narrative than the previous two games (not necessarily amazing, but better). The boss encounters are better than all bosses in AA except for Scarecrow and few are better than the ones in AC except for the Freeze fight. The combat is more difficult, but due in part to it being more janky; enemy attack speed + frequency was increased, but seemingly nothing else was adjusted. There are only two genuinely new gadgets; one is kind of neat but somewhat redundant (concussion bomb), the other is great, but has no mid-combo function (remote claw). The map is too big for what little it has feature-wise. The game's Riddler trophy equivalent is simple, dull and somewhat anticlimactic compared to the ones in AC. The side-missions are better than the ones in AC (and AA had none). Batman's VA's voice itself isn't necesasrily better than Kevin Conroy's but his performance was better than Conroy's in the previous two games. Joker's VA did a good job, though Hamill was better in AA and AC.

Origins is considerably glitchy and some have said the visuals are a bit worse than in previous games, though still pretty good.

Kevin Conroy's VOICE is great. Kevin Conroy has done good-to-amazing work as Batman in TAS, Justice League and various other animated media featuring Batman.

His work in the Arkham games is worse than his work elsewhere. In AA, he's pretty flat with no moments calling for much emotion. This performance seems better than AC's (I'll get to that in a bit), but only because there are fewer chances for it to be bad. What little emotion we do see paints him as kind of temperamental (he gets a random burst of anger when talking to oracle about "not letting Joker win"), when he tells the guards to "put this animal [Zsasz] back in his cell" (that was pretty good) and kind of a wise-cracking person ("I eat chumps like these for breakfast" [ugh]).

I would actually like those outbursts of anger if they were consistent with his overall personality throughout the game, but that's pretty much it. Now, Batman not showing fear/anger when, say, going into Croc's lair is great (he also gets a chance to show of his intelligence and ability to plan by spraying the explosive gel on the weak floor at the entrance of Croc's lair, character traits that gets pushed by the wayside in AC). Batman is mostly completely neutral, which makes those moments stand out in weird, "eat chumps like these"-level corny ways. There's also a few moments where Batman's thinking what he needs to do and he does it in his Bruce Wayne voice, which is just lame considering most Conroy incarnations of Batman use the Bat-voice when in private because that's his "true" identity.

Still, Conroy's AA performance doesn't seem that bad, but only because the extremely linear, stifling design limits the chance of it being noticeably bad. Batman rarely shows how smart he is and is constantly duped/at a disadvantage, but it makes sense because he's on the enemy's turf. He doesn't really show any emotion, but that's because almost everything that happens happens while he's Batman (no private moments with Alfred or anything). The story completely (completely) falls flat on its face at the end, but overall it was a steady ride because of the linearity.

Conroy's Batman in AC is more dynamic, but that just shows how little direction he must have been given. Without even focusing on the writing/plot (which has too many contrivances and questionable character decisions), the voice acting comes across weak. He tries to sound threatening to Penguin, but just sounds corny, like Adam West Batman ("I only came here for Freeze and the hostages, but now I'm taking you down too"). He gets angry at

Spoiler

Ra's Al Ghul

during the big reveal, but his anger sounds generic, and the circumstances don't really warrant any more of an angry reaction than many other situations prior (in which Batman doesn't react angrily); isn't a convincing angry voice either. He jokes about "breaking a nail" with Catwoman while in a terribly dire situation. He's all over the place.

Even outside the main game in AC, he's... weird. He snaps at Oracle during the Identity Theft murders for even suggesting that he may have killed those people while under mind control of some sort (something that does almost happen during the game) after a witness says they saw Bruce Wayne kill one of the victims. It's such a whiny, indignant reaction to a very reasonable suggestions (his rogue gallery includes the Mad Hatter who's capable of mind control, Scarecrow who uses hallucinogens, Hugo Strange who's a learned psychologist, Etc.). He's all "how could you suggest that??? I would never kill! and that's that because I said so!!" Lame. Then after the Mad Hatter sequence, he's all like "stay out of my head, Hatter!" (without calling him by his real name as he does with the other villains, which is doubly lame) as if he feels all violated. He shows no concern with why Mad Hatter was trying to take control of him (which is revealed in the inmate interview tapes), he's just offended at having his personal space invaded.

on top of all that, he gets constantly duped and only makes it through the game by ingenuity and brawn. In all the moments beyond the player's control, he's too dumb to live up to how smart Batman's supposed to be.

In Origins, Batman's VA's voice itself isn't necesasrily better than Kevin Conroy's but his performance was better than Conroy's in the previous games. He's angry at the right times, he sounds worried when he should, even his corny lines sound convincing in context; I thought that "I'm the reason the criminals breathe easier when the sun rises" line was kinda hokey in the trailer, but the scene it takes place in was so on point, and so not contrived (Alfred tried to casually voice his concern before that point, but couldn't keep up the facade) that it became awesome.

In Conroy's best performances in the DC Animated Universe, he was working with voice director Andrea Romano (who has worked on other shows like The Boondocks cartoon) and I believe that's what Conroy needs: direction. Justice League Unlimited was that long ago; he's been okay in some of the animated movies since then. He can still do a good job, but he needs more motivation beyond "sound angry here pls."

How AA isn't really Metroid-like and how AC's "open world" isn't a considerable detriment

The big difference between AA and Super Metroid or Metroid Prime is how guided the experience is. At most, SM and MP give periodic hints on where to go, but not how to get there. Even when Metroid games are at their most linear, like with Metroid Fusion, the impetus of advancing through the game is on the player.

I'd say the more open map is one of City's least notable additions. The series' bread and butter are combat and stealth/predator gameplay, both of which saw a lot of improvements. The quickfire functions of gadgets adds much to the combat which, when looking back, was incredibly basic in AA. It's hard to believe how much the combat amazed me back when the AA demo was released. It's still good, but just outclassed by AC's. Same with the stealth. All the gadgets have some practical application during those segments. It's more feasible to mix combat and stealth in AC than in AA too; Being able to drop a smoke bomb, then run in and knock out multiple goons, then vanish before the smoke dissipates is both fun and a perfectly Batman-like thing to do. having quickfire functions for gadgets beyond the batarangs helps with that too; I can quickly knock out a guy, freeze a another when he comes around a corner, pull another over a ledge or disarm him with the batclaw, all without having to cycle through or select gadgets on a menu. Whoever managed to map all that to a game pad deserves particular recognition.

I always pimp out this video by BatmanArkhamVideos, but it helps get my point across about how additions like the ice grenade and smoke bomb go far in improving the experience. the rest of that guy's videos do a good job showcasing how good AC is.

Post about how AC is better

On how one's first playthrough could seem lackluster

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=126728741&postcount=161

Click on the arrows next to my user name in the quotes to be taken to the threads they were originally posted in. I'll try to reply to individual posts when I can. Though if something you say is already addressed in this post somewhere, I'll just quote that again.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

 

[Tidus_Great]

it's not.

arkham asylum had much better design.

 

[danthefan]

I preferred AC. Testify.

 

[Ultima_5]

Dude.

 

[Fantastical]

I can not bring myself to continue Arkham City. The overworld and open world gameplay is terrible, IMO. I liked AA much more.

EDIT: Okay, maybe I should actually read the thread. I'll do that now.

 

[Sothpaw]

AA was the best to me. AC and AO both dragged for me after a few hours.

 

[Guardian Monkey]

Wtf. Bible much?

 

[Ivan 3414]

That quote tower looks like unreadable shit on my tablet.

 

[Damerman]

lol ahh, the first post... its like a fountain of youth, but for humor.

 

[Wizman23]

Nope. I finished AA and loved it. AC I tried playing about 10 times but could never get past the first 20 minutes.

 

[SJRB]

You need to rethink your OT formatting, this shit is unreadable.

Besides, apples and oranges to the max. They're both brilliant in their own way.

 

[bemusedchunk]

Thats just, like, your opinion - man.

 

[Vampirolol]

I like the passion you have for this subject, I also agree on some things I never thought about. I still prefer Asylum just because it's a tinier game, and probably the formula got me tired during City.

 

[Khrno]

Sorry OP, say again, why are you quotting yourself?

 

[MrChom]

Arkham City's actual design turned me off in the first 30 or so minutes. I got past the first Catwoman sequence and never went back...yet I've replayed large sections of Asylum. Moving to a more open world and vaguely going "That-a-way" left it as a confusing mess that never really drew me in.

It's a shame, there may be a good game under there somewhere but I just can't get to it.

Also holy hell, OP, learn to be more bloody concise. We don't all need a novel for what should be a nicely broken down set of bullet points.

 

[- J - D -]

I don't like that it was starting with AC that the series started trending towards large open-world and all the clumsiness that entails.

Disregarding all other factors I prefer the tightness of AA over all else, which also complimented the tone and ambiance due to the setting.

 

[Lrrr]

They're both great games for different reasons. While AA was smaller and, arguably, more focused in mission design, AC was open and wonderfully explorable. In the end, both games made me feel like a badass Batman on a thrilling adventure and that's all that mattered to me.

 

[Garibaldi]

Asylum was more focused which is primarily why I prefer it. It also wasn't a bag of shit performance wise on PC when first released.

Combat wise City was superior, I'll give it that.

Either way I adore them all. Including Origins.

Blackgate was shit though.

 

[SolidChamp]

I prefer Asylum. Don't need to read through the soul-devouring wall of text to know that about myself. Not to mention your line about your OPINION being "irrefutable truth" turning me off completely from reading anything more.

 

[HeartlessNobody213]

Didn't read but I agree that AC is better than AA. The only thing AA has over AC is the story.

 

[BFIB]

I liked Origins better than both Asylum and City.

 

[Supermanisdead]

ur right op. city is the better game.

 

[theechrisfox]

I guess I agree with your statement and I thought that was already pretty much the majority opinion.

 

[sappyday]

Agreed OP. Asylum was ok for me but City was amazing

 

[Sn4ke_911]

Asylum is like a demo compared to City.

 

[HardRojo]

My stance on this is that AA and AC make for one of the biggest discrepancies in games from last gen. Many people prefer AA over AC. Many people prefer AC over AA.
It's better to leave it that way.

Personally, I found AA more interesting (Gone through it about 5 or 6 times) but the combat from AC was more enjoyable.

 

[Mar Nosso]

Long, short and definitive answer: NO.

Asylum has better design, more focus and hence is more fun.

Serves Rocksteady right for going open-world.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I hope you don't seriously expect everyone to read all of that...

About the difference in world-structure: I vastly preferred AA over AC in this regard, not because it was "like Metroid" but because its environments were relatively tightly designed. In AC, like in almost every open-world game, the environment became more of an obstacle to my target and it wasn't until you get the boost that it becomes bearable. Getting it earlier (or at least it being a mandatory unlock) is one of many reasons why I prefer Origins to City.

 

[KooopaKid]

1) AA was more fresh
2) AA has better stealth scenarios
3) AA has better "dungeons"
4) AA has a better designed and interconnected world
5) AA is more focused, there's not one billion super villain after you and calls coming from everywhere.
6) AA felt longer or the story more complete at least.

AC just has a more fleshed out combat system and free flying.

Both are great but I greatly preferred AA. AK on the other hand...

 

[Brian_FETO]

I think AC does a better job of making you feel like Batman, but I enjoyed AA a lot more. It's a tighter experience. If people like big open worlds with side missions then it makes sense why they'd prefer AC. The combat is a bit better in AC and the enemy variety is nice, but some of the more gimmicky challenge rooms were more tedious than anything else (to me at least)

I don't understand your argument that it "fools" people into thinking it's a Metroidvania when REALLY it's linear. Of course it's linear. But it is cool to see multiple areas throughout the game that you aren't sure how to reach, and then seeing them used later with whatever gadget you unlock.

Also, not that it's really important in the end, but I much preferred the intro of AA. AC's just felt like they were trying to be Uncharted or whatever, like YEAH SON IT'S THE EPIC SEQUEL TO THAT GAME YOU ALL LIKED YEAAAAAH CINEMATIC.

 

[Raptor]

Asylum ain't shit compared to City.

Damn that game got boring fast while City is fun even goind by 100%

 

[Spring-Loaded]

it's not.

arkham asylum had much better design.

Please ctrl+F "design" and and read those points in the OP.

The game is a linear path through hallways that link predator rooms, sprinkled with normal fights. Both City and Asylum are the far closer in overall design than some realize and a similar experience to Asylum (going from one story-beat/main objective to the next) can be achieved by going from one story-beat/main objective to the next. There's nothing special done with Asylum's overworld design, the backtracking is scripted, there's no Dark Souls/Super Metroid-like "looping upon itself" world design and the player never has to figure out where to go.

I can not bring myself to continue Arkham City. The overworld and open world gameplay is terrible, IMO. I liked AA much more.

But how is it actually terrible

You need to rethink your OT formatting, this shit is unreadable.

Besides, apples and oranges to the max. They're both brilliant in their own way.

ctrl+F keywords and you'll find what you want

Thats just, like, your opinion - man.

I could say Bad Rats is better than Ocarina of Time, but it wouldn't mean much without explanation

Arkham City's actual design turned me off in the first 30 or so minutes. I got past the first Catwoman sequence and never went back...yet I've replayed large sections of Asylum. Moving to a more open world and vaguely going "That-a-way" left it as a confusing mess that never really drew me in.

It's a shame, there may be a good game under there somewhere but I just can't get to it.

Also holy hell, OP, learn to be more bloody concise. We don't all need a novel for what should be a nicely broken down set of bullet points.

There's nothing vague about main objectives in City. There's always a waypoint and/or clear indication on where to go.

The first time I played City, I didn't think it was anything special either.

ctrl+F keywords to find what you want

I don't like that it was starting with AC that the series started trending towards large open-world and all the clumsiness that entails.

Disregarding all other factors I prefer the tightness of AA over all else, which also complimented the tone and ambiance due to the setting.

Then you're disregarding all the objective improvements City has over AA in lieu of a single factor (that only makes a considerable difference in theory). When you have to use tunnel vision and ignore 95% of each game, what good is the comparison?

 

[Gentle Rodriguez]

I understand the points made, and I kind of agree, but the fact is....

...I enjoyed Asylum more.

We can talk differences all day but Asylum was first and everything was new. City didn't bring enough new content to the table, it just refined it, Which is fine, but I didn't enjoy it as much.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I think Origins is the best Batman game using the Arkham templte so far.

 

[SolidChamp]

Arkham City's actual design turned me off in the first 30 or so minutes. I got past the first Catwoman sequence and never went back...yet I've replayed large sections of Asylum. Moving to a more open world and vaguely going "That-a-way" left it as a confusing mess that never really drew me in.

It's a shame, there may be a good game under there somewhere but I just can't get to it.

Also holy hell, OP, learn to be more bloody concise. We don't all need a novel for what should be a nicely broken down set of bullet points.

My feelings exactly. Wasn't there like 400-700 Riddler trophies/challenges in City? LMAO Why would I want to put myself through that? Talk about unfocused, "everything-AND-the-kitchen-sink" game design.

 

[T.M. MacReady]

I love that a small minority of us recognize Arkham Origins as the best all around Batman game.

Hard to believe for many, but so true.

 

[Xav]

Arkham Asylum - The better experience.

Arkham City - The better game.

I love that a small minority of us recognize Arkham Origins as the best all around Batman game.

Hard to believe for many, but so true.

Isn't that the game that took place during Christmas Eve as a cheap excuse to explain why the city was so barren. The shock gloves also destroyed the combat system.

 

[AkimbO_Arcana]

Could someone sumarize OP's opinion for me. I'm not even going to try reading the OP. What is this, reddit?

 

[LaunchpadMcQ]

I didn't even know people had any other opinion until today.

City had the best gameplay, it refined the combat (specifically, integrating the gadgets effectively) to the point where it feels instinctive. Stealth gameplay was made ten times better by challenging level design that made sense and utilized a bunch of different contextual things. Besides that, the open world gave it a more organic feel, as Batman swooping in to beat up bad guys - that's what he does. It felt completely natural, and this is coming from someone who does not particularly enjoy open worlds. Plus, stumbling onto secrets and whatnot was a treat. Aside from that, having a multitude of diverse playable characters in challenge mode really propelled the game forward past its predecessor. Also, the Mr. Freeze bossfight alone was just the most perfect sample of Batman gameplay I've ever seen.

I will play Asylum again as I haven't played it in many years, but I'm certain I'll stand by decision that City is much better overall. I remember it dragging in certain areas, and the main problem I felt with Asylum is that they had initially conceived it as a horror/Bioshock type game. It makes so little sense with the context of the source material. I don't feel like Batman when I'm running away from Killer Croc in a sewer; I feel like Batman when I'm running away in order to get a tactical advantage to subdue Killer Croc. That's the difference between these two games.

As for Origins, sadly the only good thing about that is the story, though in that respect it is the best of the three. Also, better boss fights across the board. But the gameplay additions were messy and I didn't like them much.

I love that a small minority of us recognize Arkham Origins as the best all around Batman game.

Hard to believe for many, but so true.

Aside from the bugs, there are two very annoying things about Origins: one, the martial artists really break up the flow of combat. I've played a good amount of challenge maps and it really screws with me coming off of all the hours I spent on City; two, the Shock Gloves, which I go out of my way not to use, are too overpowered. Otherwise, I would say Origins had a real shot.

 

[ctfg23]

I prefer Arkham City, but they're both amazing games.

 

[RickGhastly]

Arkham

Spoiler

(bitch)

City had a

Spoiler

(little bitch!)

bad case of

Spoiler

(bitch)

trying to be harshest

Spoiler

(bitch)

T-Rated game on the

Spoiler

(you biiiiiiiiiitch)

market. It nearly ruined the entire experience for me when the vileness of everything was ratcheted up to "generic, smoldering rage" levels of ridiculousness. Gotham ain't pretty, but Christ.

It blew my mind that Dini was seemingly responsible for a lot of that; it's like he was channeling the worst parts of Miller.

 

[Fuz]

It's not.

 

[SolidChamp]

I love that a small minority of us recognize Arkham Origins as the best all around Batman game.

Hard to believe for many, but so true.

I enjoyed Origins more than City, that's for sure.

 

[giapel]

AA>>>AC>>>AO
All three are good games but the series is in decline. The first game was the only one that gave you a good sense of progression and the riddler puzzles were actually interesting.

Ps: I'm not reading that inception style wall of text

 

[Raptomex]

I enjoyed AC better myself. More things to do, I enjoyed the "open world" aspects to it, I liked the setting better, it just had more of everything.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I love that a small minority of us recognize Arkham Origins as the best all around Batman game.

Hard to believe for many, but so true.

they will see the light eventually

 

[Memorabilia]

No way I can be bothered to read that whole post.

I love both games equally. The end.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

You make some valid points and nothing I could effectively argue but I still feel like Asylum is the more enjoyable game even if City is technically better. Maybe it was the fresh nature of the experience. Or the "what's-around-the-corner" thrill of discovery I don't feel like City had as much of. Both are outstanding games but I can understand someone having more of an affinity for what was their first experience with the series.

 

[XShadows69]

Wonder City was dope.