Why Batman: Arkham City is better than Batman: Arkham Asylum

Spring-Loaded bangs his head against his keyboard every time somebody says that Asylum is better because it's "tighter".

Seriously though, what does that even mean.
 
I can understand people playing Arkham City and not liking it as much as Asylum, but giving up on it after playing it for 10-30 minutes?

Hell's the matter with you?
 
For how I wanted to play the game, the open world just got in the way. It's not there in service of the critical path, it's there in service of having a bunch of random tedious shit to do. So instead of having a fairly well designed metroidvania style map (or not, argue it all you want it was still a well designed world) you get an overworld you need to traverse to get to discreet pockets of interesting content.
 
Spring-Loaded said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I've played either game, so I do apologize if I can't present exact scenarios where I feel AA's design is superior, but there's an early encounter in a large underground control room, maybe it was Arkham Asylum's sewage treatment area or something, where it felt like the stealth and combat were designed to a tee for maximum Batman-style efficiency and ingenuity. And then you have on the storytelling side of design the Scarecrow sequences and how it used the Asylum setting to its advantage to emphasize Batman's place among the criminals he fights. That and the hallucinations made certain parts of the Asylum all that much more sinister.

I'm not going to sit here and deny that AC is a good game with improved combat and more expanded use of Batman's unique abilities and gadgetry, but it doesn't make for a better game to me simply because I got tired of its open-world nature and fluff quickly, and I feel the same fatigue will set upon people once Arkham Knight is out if Origins hasn't already done so.

As for convincing a person why one is objectively better than the other, there are aspects in which this is possible (combat perhaps), but there's no objectivity to be found in an all-encompassing fashion, even if you tried to reason them all piecemeal. It's like saying having a more focused, guided experience is objectively worse concept in video games than open world gameplay. That's not true. There's no objectivity in it.

MormaPope said:
Arkham Asylum sorta felt like a Batman combined with Die Hard 1.
Arkham City IS Batman combined with Die Hard 1.
Arkham City wins.
Click to expand...

This rings false to me given that Die Hard 1 takes place in one building and involves the protagonist moving through said building to thwart his enemies.

If anything, Arkham City is like Die Hard 3 or 4.
 
Guevara said:
Batman:AC?

More like Batman: ADHD
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with this. AC had too much going on at once for me. I have similar issues with most open world games. Every time I was getting into the story the damn pay phone would ring or Riddler would interject something that would distract me.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed AC. However, AA's story seemed more cohesive to me, despite AC having a stronger ending.

Haven't played AO yet to know how it compares. Was hoping it would get a new gen release before AK is released. Kind of doubt that now though. Will probably pick it up and play it soon. I have Blackgate on the Vita but was holding off on it until I played AO.
 
eot said:
For how I wanted to play the game, the open world just got in the way. It's not there in service of the critical path, it's there in service of having a bunch of random tedious shit to do. So instead of having a fairly well designed metroidvania style map you get an overworld you need to traverse to get to discreet pockets of interesting content.
Click to expand...

...with clearly marked waypoints and the ability to cross from one side of the city to the other in a couple of minutes.

Robert at Zeboyd Games said:
In this context, tighter means less filler.
Click to expand...

Most of the filler is caused by the nature of the story. Origins' game design is near identical, but didn't suffer from derailment or filler. You can't say City is less "tight" because the story derails at points when Origins proves the design of the game can be as focused as Asylum with a proper plot. Asylum isn't universally "tighter," just has a more focused plot. In spite of that, City is the better game across all other aspects.

dancingphlower said:
It's not like anyone is forced to do any of City's side content. And the side content in City was much better than the side content in Asylum.
Click to expand...

And this. I mean, to say that the side content was obtrusive is one thing, even though it can be avoided. But the side content actually has smaller plots and is much more exciting and diverse than Asylum. Also, I get the sense they mean stuff like having to derail the plot to go chase after yet another bad guy to get X or whatever, which I understand.
 
Wreck-It Ralph said:
Spring-Loaded bangs his head against his keyboard every time somebody says that Asylum is better because it's "tighter".

Seriously though, what does that even mean.
Click to expand...

yPuqfVd.jpg
 
Open world games always feel fluffy and aimless to me. Storyflow is always janky. AC was alright but other than the ending I barely remember anything about it.
 
It's kind of like this:

AA = 15 hours. 70% is awesome, 20% is great, 10% is merely good.
AC = 40 hours. 25% is awesome, 50% is great, 25% is merely good.

The numbers I picked aren't carefully formulated but they get the gist across. AA is a lot shorter, but the quality is more consistent. AC is much longer, but less consistent. You should be able to see how some people would prefer one over the other.
 
Robert at Zeboyd Games said:
It's kind of like this:

AA = 15 hours. 70% is awesome, 20% is great, 10% is merely good.
AC = 40 hours. 25% is awesome, 50% is great, 25% is merely good.

The numbers I picked aren't carefully formulated but they get the gist across. AA is a lot shorter, but the quality is more consistent. AC is much longer, but less consistent. You should be able to see how some people would prefer one over the other.
Click to expand...

The main plot of City clocks in at under 13, so your numbers definitely need some work there. It didn't even take me 40 hours to Plat the game, I don't think.
 
AC is only +/- 25% awesome? What?

Also those numbers are definitely stretched.

I have 8.6 hours logged on AA (via Steam). That's a play-through plus some challenge maps and other stuff.
Currently at 9.5 on AC. I'm maybe 1 or 2 hours (at the most) from completing the story. I've also done some side-quests and fussed around for awhile.
 
Your post is pretty scary......i like AA so much more, apart from mr freeze city is dull and not every game needs to be an open world...please dont hunt me down sir
 
I agree with you, OP; City wasn't just better, it was much better, superior in every way. And I've argued why a few times.

However, I have to say - that skyscraper of text above is too much. You need to realize that you probably won't change a single person's mind.
 
matrixman92 said:
I thought it was all generally agreed city>asylum>origins
Click to expand...

That's the general agreement, judging from review scores (City has the highest metacritic/gamerankings average) which is why this thread's existence is so weird. Not sure why the thread creator is so insistent on making sure that the small group of people who prefer Asylum "know" that they're wrong.
 
I used to think it was even a competition between the two.

Then I replayed Asylum. Well, most of it. I stopped at Killer Croc, because that part is absolutely terrible. And I realized how much better City is in every single way.

It would be awesome if Knight did that to City.
 
family-guy-i-disagree-1.jpg


If you have to write that much to convince someone of an objective point... you have lost your objectivity.
 
I have finished both about 10 times each across multiple platforms. While Ac had some great elements, I will take AA any day of the week. Asylum was near perfection from a gameplay and story angle. It was very focused in a much smaller playable area than in AC.
 
I vastly prefer Arkham Asylum. Some others have explained why I might feel this way due to their own sentiments, but that's that. I hated that Arkham City was all over the place. Too many villains for its own good, at that.
 
TL:DR

Anyway, AA >>>>>> AC for me. Big time. The open city didn't do anything for me whereas I loved the design of the first game's world. Also, I found the story more tense and engaging, the ability progression way more satisfying and the bosses more interesting/fun (yep, even Killer Croc). In general, AA felt way more coherent.
 
Amentallica said:
I vastly prefer Arkham Asylum. Some others have explained why I might feel this way due to their own sentiments, but that's that. I hated that Arkham City was all over the place. Too many villains for its own good, at that.
Click to expand...

I hear a lot of people talk about too many villains. Being a fan of the comics, it seemed like a standard 6 issue story arc to me. Something along the lines of Hush.
 
Leondexter said:
Sure it is! If you're having a discussion rather than an argument, someone might even admit it.

It's rare, but I've seen it. Even had my own mind changed a time or two.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no lie, all of this discussion has assured me that I need to replay Asylum. It's been ~5 years, after all. I want to be able to say City is better with certainty, but I'll be willing to accept that I'm wrong if I turn out to enjoy Asylum a lot more this second go around.

keltickennedy said:
I hear a lot of people talk about too many villains. Being a fan of the comics, it seemed like a standard 6 issue story arc to me. Something along the lines of Hush.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Hush is a great example, but there are always stories where villains who are mostly irrelevant or that only have a small role appear.
 
Only thing i really fault AC for is the terrible horse shoe design of the city and the terrible dual narrative that it had going. The whole hugo strange knowing your identity played a huge role in the immediate beginning, gets completely abandoned by the wayside during the middle of the game and then comes flying in fast for some bullshit wrap up at the end. It added nothing to the narrative overall and it would have been a far better story without it. It just seemed like they were trying to throw a red herring to suggest that joker wasn't gonna be the main villain again

AA has the best experience because it was fresh and new essentially revolutionized the industry with it's combat that is now ripped off shamelessly by countless other games ever since. Above and beyond all that, lets face it, no one expected that game, a superhero game, to be as good as it turned out

AC is the best game in the series for how it refined and enhanced what it already created in AA

AO has the best story out of the three (which was a low bar to begin with) everything alse about it is subpar (don't get me started on the open world and that fucking bridge)
 
batman AA was my favorite game last gen, along with the last of us. the game was fucking amazing, and it's get so much better when you collect all the riddles, reminded of zelda.
 
My opinion on why Arkham City is better than Arkham Asylum: Arkham City has the absolute best travel mechanic I've ever had the joy to use.

The Glide Boost and Grapnel Boost are the best. I used to just fly around the city and divebomb into unsuspecting enemies.

The bosses in Arkham City weren't as fun as in Arkham Asylum though.
 
Slate Soda said:
That quote tower looks like unreadable shit on my tablet.
Click to expand...

I genuinely cannot make it out in my phone. The text in quotes-within-quotes is too small to be legible.

OP, I'd like to read your points, but seeing as you wrote all that there's no need to quote yourself. It might be helpful if you don't mind to just drop the quote format and list your points under sub-headings.

Also, just to add to the discussion, I preferred Asylum. City felt padded out and needlessly bloated, and I didn't feel the pacing was as neat as Asylum. There was also one occasion where the structure worked against me, but honestly I can't be bothered to detail it here. They are both great games though regardless.
 
Arkham Asylum fan here. I prefer it purely for its atmosphere and focus. The single location, the way the Asylum shifts and changes throughout the game, the creepy, mysterious vibe, it's just done really, really well. Arkham City is a well done game, and many facets of it are superior to AA, but in my opinion the increased scale of the game is to its detriment. I found it harder to get immersed and pulled into what was going on with the game constantly throwing shallow side quests, challenges, tons of characters, cheesier dialogue and sequences (the conversations with Catwoman, dodging a shark in a flooded room, etc.) at me. It's like eating too much candy. I totally understand why they went in the direction they did but it wasn't for me.
 
Ive beat all three Batman games when they released and use to think Asylum was better but after recently replaying them after beating Origins, I agree that City is better than Asylum.
 
AA is just fucking superior and actually had level design where as AC was a giant clusterfuck where you had zero direction and a lot of crap missions hindering the pace of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Batman Arkham Shadow on Quest 3 is the best batman game ever made!
2 3
126
8K
Romulus replied
DF: Yes, It's Faster: Switch 2 Back Compat vs Batman Arkham Knight + The Witcher 3!
2 3
102
1K
GigaBowser replied
LTTP: Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009) PS3
15
1K
Physiognomonics replied
Over 1 Million People Have Now Played Batman: Arkham Shadow
News 
33
2K
BlackTron replied
Batman: Arkham Shadow | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
57
5K
Romulus replied
Top Bottom