Support NeoGAF

[nictron]

Arkham Asylum - The better experience.

Arkham City - The better game.

 

[SuperDowns]

I think they are different games, personally.

 

[FLAguy954]

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

Quoted for truth, word for fucking word. I could not bring myself to get past the first 30 minutes of Arkham City.

 

[Phaethon0017]

Arkham Asylum - The better experience.

Arkham City - The better game.

I can get behind this. It was new, never before seen Batman experience. But c'mon people, Arkham City was superior in every way.

 

[Ellite25]

I'm not reading the entire thing, but the open world was boring and pointless. I struggled to even finish the game. AA on the other hand is one of my favorite last gen games.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Isn't that the game that took place during Christmas Eve as a cheap excuse to explain why the city was so barren.

Sure, same as TLOU was set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland as a cheap excuse to make linear corridor levels without any NPCs you're not supposed to kill

 

[keltickennedy]

 

[AkuMifune]

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.

Yeah. All points valid, but I prefer Asylum. It felt like a tighter, more focused experience and I hated City's horseshoe-shaped pseudo open world.

Still a great game, but if you force me to choose, Asylum.

 

[- J - D -]

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?

Disregarding because the improvements are iterative and not drastically enough so that it makes much difference to me. Combat is certainly expanded upon, but it doesn't retroactively make AA's combat terrible, and because AC's world in comparison to AA's is now larger, there are combat scenarios that feel less like precisely designed encounters and more like any given open-world combat moments.

The stories in each respective games being what they are isn't a deciding factor for me. AA's story wasn't particularly compelling, but it felt like a more natural progression (and pacing) given its setting, which was much aided by the inherent ambiance. AC's doesn't succeed in any of that and most of the time is incapable of reconciling its open-world state with storytelling.

It's not tunnel vision, its appreciating new things when they were fresh than when they were repeated to less effect. It's why I and I bet many people tired so quickly when the same members of the rogues gallery are used over and over in Batman stories. It's not to say that satisfying twists on established things can't be good, but there's a tendency to go bigger that sometimes acts as a detriment to any given work.

 

[Skux]

Platinumed both and IMO AC is the better game by far. It feels like the vision of AA was fully realised in AC.

 

[Neiteio]

They're both fantastic. They each offer their own unique flavor, and they're best experienced together. Super-stoked for Arkham Knight!

 

[King Gilga]

I had more fun with AA so AA is the better game.

 

[Give War A Chance]

All I'll say is, after playing Asylum, I wanted to play more Batman.

After playing City, I didn't play Origins, and am very standoffish towards Knight.

 

[MrChom]

ctrl+F keywords to find what you want

Nope. Sorry. It's up to you to present a cogent and concise argument, not up to me to extract one from a multi-level quote that you're putting out there for us to discuss.

In normal discussion we use paragraphs, bullet points, and even formatting to draw the eye to what we're saying and we keep it to a minimum to convey a clear idea. As I said....we don't need a novel here

 

[Guevara]

Batman:AC?

More like Batman: ADHD

 

[gelf]

I've said this a million times but I'll say it again. Asylum had the Scarecrow scenes and nothing in City was as good as that so Asylum wins for me even if City has slightly better gameplay.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

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 say that like it's a bad thing. Some people prefer more linear games. Some people do not.

I liked the tight linearity of AA, but by the time I beat the game I was ready to be done. AC took the mechanics of AA, made everything slightly better, but added the filler inherent in most open world games. I probably would have felt differently if AC came out first, but I didn't really feel like essentially replaying the game now with more bloated level design and better core mechanics.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

We've discussed this before, so I'll summarize my rebuttal again here. No, AA is not a Metroidvania or "like Super Metroid" for the reasons you attested. You can only make meaningful progress in one direction at a given time and any secrets are minor and just off the beaten path. I think when people compared it to Super Metroid, it wasn't an apples-to-apples comparison and they were more amused that a modern AAA game would have some superficial Metroidvania elements back before it became chic again. The combat and traversal in AC are better, as you'd expect for a sequel, so that's a big plus in AC's favor, although the leveling in AA was better.

So I agree with you on the points above. I still like AA better because the world design and mission structure are better. Yeah, AA isn't a real Metroidvania, but it does one important thing that AC does not. It has larger "levels" that you have to experiment to make your way through. Maybe not on the second or third playthrough. But the first time through AA was more satisfying than AC because it felt like I was trapped in huge, dangerous locations and had to survive and find my way out. I didn't get that from AC. AC felt more like "do GTA style missions in an open world, then go to a small building with narrow corridors and get from point A to B". For my tastes, that's not as enjoyable, but I know others prefer that.

For the record, I really enjoyed both games, but I was hooked on AA while I just kinda powered through AC.

 

[chrishackwood]

Asylum is like a demo compared to City.

Agreed. There are reasons why it won like a gazillion awards. So much fun and for a relatively open world game it a) didn't feel to daunting and b) had a great and focused story!

 

[TheGreatDirector]

After finish Asylum, all I wanted to do was leave the island and explore the city that laid before you.

After playing City, all I wanted to do was go beyond the walls and fully explore Gotham that laid before you.

Both are spectacular games that leave you wanting more. While playing asylum, the atmosphere breathes brings to life the universe of Batman. Here in one of the darkest corners of Gotham, the developers fully realized the strange, disturbing institution for the insane.

In City, the tiny changes they made to the combat and controls made me feel like I was actually controlling the definitive Batman, being able to dive off building and glide kick a gang of rogue criminals.

Both are amazing games but there are tiny differences that each one has that adds to the experience in ways the other doesn't.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Long, short and definitive answer: NO.

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

Serves Rocksteady right for going open-world.

What do you mean by "better design"?

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

I don't. I expect most to ignore the opening sentence in the OP and post a short dissenting opinion without ctrl+F'ing or ust skimming through those quoted posts.

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.

In what areas does Asylum's level design showcase deliberateness, and in what ways are those segments fun?

I think of when the player has to takeout a sniper and use the line-launcher to get to a new area as being a good example of that, but I can't think of any more off-hand that weren't (or wouldn't be possible) in AC. AC still has interior areas that require some thought/gadget use to get through (without having the "unstable structure" areas in AA that were serires of auto-platforming a la Uncharted).

I can't understand people saying traversal is a chore in AC, while it's fun in AA. It takes a long time to get from one side of AA to the other, and the scripted backtracking moments (or even worse, any unscripted backtracking) are wrought with loading screens, empty hallways and just running (since you can't grapnel to everything). In AC, you can get from one end to the other in a couple of minutes even without the grapnel boost. The player can choose to run around if they so choose, or zip/glide around, and/or beat up enemies along the way. I don't see how a game being extremely restrictive in comparison to its sequel makes it more fun to move around in. Even if you don't like gliding/running around... it takes, at most, three minutes to get from one end of the "horseshoe" in AC to the other. With teh grapnel boost, it takes less. I don't even want to think about how long it takes to get from one of AA to the other. I just remember going for the Riddler trophies in tha tgame being exceptionally dull as the Aslyum was completely empty.

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...

1) Very true. I suspect this plays into people's preference for AA since most people will play though games once, then shelve them. First exposures to a series tend to be most memorable too.
2) Very debatable. There are more stealth segments in AA than in AC (main stories), but the breadth of abilities/gadgets and enemy types in AC simply make those better, specially in challenge maps.
3) You'll have to specify what segments in AA you're talking about. AC still has "dungeons" and interiors that involve more than just running through hallways.
4) AA's world must be traversed in what is essentially a single path. That scripted path does double upon itself, but it's not up to the player where it takes them. You'll need to explain what you mean further, because all you're saying here is "linear is inherently better designed."
5) Simply ignore the side mission updates, and the game becomes a lot like AA, just with better ... everything. If mere mission indicators on a map bother you, then idk. All side content is optional.
6) AA's main story was longer when blazing straight through both games (something tha tmade me think it might have been better my first time through AC), but that's all it has.

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.

The bolded is true. It is cool to access a place you couldn't previously, but that's never up to the player to figure out in AA like it would b ein Super Metroid or Dark Souls.

All games "fool" people to a degree — we're not actually fighting/saving people or blowing stuff up, Etc. — but there are degrees of player agency. If you're told in a game where to go or how to get somewhere, and can only do it at a certain point, it will feel more like you completed an assignment rather than you actually figuring out where to go and how to get there.

AA only lets the player go certain places at certain times throughout the entire game (aside from Riddler trophies that are just off the beaten path). AC doesn't have any flexibility in its main game either, but there are side missions the player can do if they want. The player can just run around beating up thugs at any point in the game if they don't feel like going to the next main objective. There's some semblance of freedom compared to AA. Even in Super Metroid, a game consisting of "linear" paths, you can still go exploring and make significant progress in multiple directions, whereas in AA, you can't do jack if you go an unintended way.

Both intros in AA and AC were really good. I don't think AC's was overly bombastic, even though the concept of Arkham City is crazy (though, it's supposed to be)

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.

And that's fine. I don't want anyone to think the yshouldn't prefer whichever game they played, but it's helpful to look at why one thinks/feels a certain way about a given game.

Like I've said, I didn't think AC was that great the first time I played it. I would've missed out on all the game had to offer if I never picked it back up again. I'd hate for others who only blitzed through each game once to never give AC a fair shake when it might end up being one of their most enjoyed games.

 

[dancingphlower]

But but pacing! And...atmosphere! Lol I've yet to see someone make a convincing argument that Asylum is better.

 

[- J - D -]

But but pacing! And...atmosphere! Lol I've yet to see someone make a convincing argument that Asylum is better.

Convince who? you? Convince me why those aren't valid and significant aspects of an experience.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

City's city was awful. Jump off building > glide > grapple > glide > grapple > repeat.

This was incredibly boring compared to Asylum's tightly crafted areas. I also ignored all random brawls in city as well since the fucking distance I was trying to travel was already absurd, why make it worse.

I'm not even sure how much better city's combat was since I just skipped most of it due the shitty level design.

The level design continued to be shit once you got into a mission area, usually a subway, and proceeded to look for whatever random hole to crawl through to progress

Then theres the story, which I dont have much to say other than telling my brother "Im not really having fun with it, but I'm going to finish it then you can borrow it. iIl play it tonight and finish it up on thursday then toss it your way." And as I beat the game on Wednesday all I could think was "what the fuck, thats it" as it abruptly came to a close.

TL;DR city was awful and I didnt play origins and wont be buying AK because of city. AA was an incredible game and remains an incredible game.

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

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

This just boggles my mind.

It's like, "Yeah, I enjoyed getting a blowjob, but I just didn't care for getting a blowjob by two supermodels at the same time."

It's the same thing, only better. How could you possibly not like it at least a little bit?

Anyway, after 20 minutes, how far are you? You've barely made it to the stealth tutorial in the church.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Disregarding because the improvements are iterative and not drastically enough so that it makes much difference to me. Combat is certainly expanded upon, but it doesn't retroactively make AA's combat terrible, and because AC's world in comparison to AA's is now larger, there are combat scenarios that feel less like precisely designed encounters and more like any given open-world combat moments.

The stories in each respective games being what they are isn't a deciding factor for me. AA's story wasn't particularly compelling, but it felt like a more natural progression (and pacing) given its setting, which was much aided by the inherent ambiance. AC's doesn't succeed in any of that and most of the time is incapable of reconciling its open-world state with storytelling.

It's not tunnel vision, its appreciating new things when they were fresh than when they were repeated to less effect. It's why I and I bet many people tired so quickly when the same members of the rogues gallery are used over and over in Batman stories. It's not to say that satisfying twists on established things can't be good, but there's a tendency to go bigger that sometimes acts as a detriment to any given work.

AC's combat doesn't make AA's terrible in retrospect. AA set the stage for AC. We can acknowledge that AC's combat is as good as AA's, and the player can limit themselves to the same moves available in AA, or choose to use all the other options available to the player. There are no combat scenarios in AA that are any more tightly/deliberately designed than the ones in AC. You come across groups of guys in AA just like you do in AC. Sometimes, one guy has his back to a vent/door/window. Then you fight them all. AC is simply better than AA in that regard.

I truly believe AC's open world fundamentally changes very little about the series' structure and only allows more for the player to see/do. AA was a very guided experience with only a few parts that did something special with that linearity, things that couldn't have been accomplished in AC's (more) open world. I'd like to hear more specific examples of AA's design (really specific) since I haven't played it in a while.

Convince who? you? Convince me why those aren't valid and significant aspects of an experience.

They're valid for why someone would prefer one game to another, but when it comes to saying which is objectively better overall (something some people try to argue, in favor of AA), it is unconvincing. Especially when AC achieves arguably everything AA does, and then some.

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

I'm not even sure how much better city's combat was since I just skipped most of it due the shitty level design.

You must be a MASTER of sequence breaking, considering how 90% of the combat sequences in the game were unskippable.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Arkham City's combat is undeniably superior to Asylum's. I think I may prefer the Predator encounters in the first game though.

 

[Sephzilla]

I just straight up prefer Asylum over City. AA feels more focused and polished compared to AC in my opinion. Story is also better too. Both games have kind of crappy endings, but at least Asylums makes sense where as City's ending turns into a series of "what a twists" along with a few general head-scratching writing decisions.

 

[rich7sena]

As a big fan of both, City is easily the better game for me. I can't imagine that anyone would say Asylum>City if Asylum was the sequel.

 

[jimi_dini]

Quoting myself because the matter of which

I'm quoting myself because the matter of which

I'm quoting myself because the matter of which

It's like a time loop.

It's not.

This has actually convinced me. Arkham Asylum >>> Arkham City.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Nope. Sorry. It's up to you to present a cogent and concise argument, not up to me to extract one from a multi-level quote that you're putting out there for us to discuss.

In normal discussion we use paragraphs, bullet points, and even formatting to draw the eye to what we're saying and we keep it to a minimum to convey a clear idea. As I said....we don't need a novel here

You don't have to do anything I suggest, but I can guarantee all the basic points are addressed in that OP. I'll put together a bulleted list later though so that there's no question from anyone as to why AC is better.

I'll add an edited version of this to the OP too:

I've got to step out for a while, but I'll try to respond to more posts later.

 

[MormaPope]

Arkham Asylum sorta felt like a Batman combined with Die Hard 1.
Arkham City IS Batman combined with Die Hard 1.
Arkham City wins.

 

[LaunchpadMcQ]

City's city was awful. Jump off building > glide > grapple > glide > grapple > repeat.

This was incredibly boring compared to Asylum's tightly crafted areas. I also ignored all random brawls in city as well since the fucking distance I was trying to travel was already absurd, why make it worse.

I'm not even sure how much better city's combat was since I just skipped most of it due the shitty level design.

The level design continued to be shit once you got into a mission area, usually a subway, and proceeded to look for whatever random hole to crawl through to progress

Then theres the story, which I dont have much to say other than telling my brother "Im not really having fun with it, but I'm going to finish it then you can borrow it. iIl play it tonight and finish it up on thursday then toss it your way." And as I beat the game on Wednesday all I could think was "what the fuck, thats it" as it abruptly came to a close.

TL;DR city was awful and I didnt play origins and wont be buying AK because of city. AA was an incredible game and remains an incredible game.

What the hell did I just read? You do know you can perpetually dive and glide across the city without having to grapple to literally anything, right? The entire map is designed so that you can traverse it without having to stop at all, how is that shitty map design?

I don't even know what to say about the rest of your complaints, not sure how much better the combat is because you skipped most of it? Seriously, what?

 

[Sheroking]

Asylum has fewer flaws. It's paced better, it's collectable sidequests are far more enjoyable and I think it works better as Batman fan-service.

That's not say Arkham City isn't also a great game, and definitely more ambitious. If you really love traversing the open world and exploring, you will probably be able to look past the flaws in game design that an open world invariably creates.

This is a "whynotboth.gif" discussion for me.

 

[Schweinehund]

Arkham Origins = City > AA for me.

 

[McLovin]

I loved both games, but the only reason AA seemed like it was better was because no one had done anything like that prior to its release. It took everyone by surprise. We already knew AC was going to be good so it was harder to be blown away. But fact is that AC is better in pretty much every way imaginable.

 

[Windam]

Is there a tl;dr for the OP?

 

[LaunchpadMcQ]

Asylum has fewer flaws. It's paced better, it's collectable sidequests are far more enjoyable and I think it works better as Batman fan-service.

Obviously, I agree with "whynotboth" for the most part, but I can't concede that Asylum is better Batman fan-service when it goes to all these great lengths to take Batman's strengths away from him.

I loved both games, but the only reason AA seemed like it was better was because no one had done anything like that prior to its release. It took everyone by surprise. We already knew AC was going to be good so it was harder to be blown away. But fact is that AC is better in pretty much every way imaginable.

I think this is probably what's going on here, as I'm legitimately struggling to wrap my head around some of these opinions (people straight up saying City is terrible or unplayable, wot). I played Asylum first, but City does everything it did better and you just can't overlook that.

 

[Dang0]

I agrre, I've always prefered city to asylum. I love grappling across the city, doing the various sidequests, and listening to the rannd conversations between mooks. Asylum was awesome, but the repeating titan boss (which was a repeat of bane) and the final boss, as well as the meh ending to the riddler sidequest bring it down somewhat for me.

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.

It has the best story, but the gameplay felt worse to me, plus the lack of new gadgets mean I cant really agree with this.

 

[CastorTroy]

The only area which City is better is just the mobility of being Batman has increased...and the graphics, I suppose?

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I'm giving the edge to Arkham City.

One of the big reasons is that the boss-battles are actually good. They're varied, creative, epic, all the things that the bosses in AA weren't. AA has fantastic buildup, but the payoff was just....what?

AA is the better experience, I'll agree with that.

AO is...well it's alright. It reminded me too much of the previous games (similar bosses, not really any new ideas, etc)

 

[U n i o n 0015]

AA team represent. I love both games, but AA was better to me.

But we're talking the difference between a 9 and a 9.5 here.

 

[The Lone Courier]

I still stand by saying that Origins is the best.

 

[chronomac]

They're valid for why someone would prefer one game to another, but when it comes to saying which is objectively better overall (something some people try to argue, in favor of AA), it is unconvincing. Especially when AC achieves arguably everything AA does, and then some.

Well there's your problem right there. Stop evaluating the two in an "objective" way, since that's rather pointless. Some people just like the tight, controlled world of Arkham Asylum to the more open nature of Arkham City.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Also, Arkham Asylum doesn't have the Batclaw Slam move.

City wins.

 

[gioGAF]

it's not.

arkham asylum had much better design.

Pretty much this. While I liked AC when playing it, 1 month after being done I couldn't remember any of it. I still remember AA.

 

[dancingphlower]

Okay, let's say you prefer the linear experience of Asylum over City/Origins. Fine. But the people saying that Arkham City is terrible? I mean really? They're so similar at their core that I can't believe people can say that with a straight face. Especially if you loved Asylum. The core of City is the same. How can you love Asylum but straight up hate City? Are you the same people that hate Uncharted 3 but love 2? Because those two games are like the same damn game.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Sometimes I imagine Spring-Loaded sees "Asylum > City cuz metroid or something I think" and just like...comically revolts from his keyboard.

 

[inm8num2]

Recently played AC and I think it's better than AA. Both are great, but AC keeps up the story and action while expanding the environment and giving the player a little more freedom. It was a great all around sequel that improved upon its predecessor.