Support NeoGAF

[Bebpo]

Just started playing AC because of this thread. After a couple of hours, not really feeling it so far. Feels really, really shallow in everything outside the stealth. Just totally on-rails and the combat for some reason seems a lot faster, easier and more simple than I remember from AA.

I liked AA because of the slower pacing with a batman that felt vulnerable so you have to sneak around and take out puzzle rooms and dungeons to advance. AC seems like just RB grapple and glide from one spot to the next and do smaller, more simple dungeons that mainly involve beating up two dozen guys in 30 seconds. Basically I feel too strong and it's not compelling right now.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Just started playing AC because of this thread. After a couple of hours, not really feeling it so far. Feels really, really shallow in everything outside the stealth. Just totally on-rails and the combat for some reason seems a lot faster, easier and more simple than I remember from AA.

I liked AA because of the slower pacing with a batman that felt vulnerable so you have to sneak around and take out puzzle rooms and dungeons to advance. AC seems like just RB grapple and glide from one spot to the next and do smaller, more simple dungeons that mainly involve beating up two dozen guys in 30 seconds. Basically I feel too strong and it's not compelling right now.

AC is absolutely less linear than AA in terms of traversing through the environment and there's more the player can do during combat and predator segments. I don't get what you mean by "on-rails" here.

Fights have fewer enemies in AA, and of course, fewer special enemy types to manage. I remember finding AC much harder than AA, so I'd love to hear more specifics about what you're going through here. The late game enemy encounters that involve armored, shield, stun baton and gun-wielding enemies are far more difficult than anything AA offered.

 

[Hypron]

Yeah I agree with pretty much everything in the OP. I played the games so much that's I'm just burnt out at this point and not even looking forward to arkham knight... And AC is just better in every way.

The combat and stealth is just so simplistic in the base game compared to the sequels and traversal sucks too in the first game. The story in both AA and AC kinda sucks too, while AO's is a bit better.

 

[Astral Dog]

Origins is better than both.

:O


I agree, but Asylum is pretty cool, the way all the game takes place at Arkham and fleshes out the story of the place and its characters is great, makes for a more unique setting than Gotham city again.

 

[The perfect Dark]

Arkham Asylum is better.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Arkham Asylum is better.

How so?

 

[LiquidSolid]

Asylum left me wanting more, City left me wanting less. Asylum wins.

 

[JaseMath]

How so?

Better pacing, better story, and they don't try to shoehorn villains in simply as fan service.

 

[lonedigitalwolf]

Well i hope AA is better... AC bored me so i ended up getting rid of it before actually finishing it.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Better pacing, better story, and they don't try to shoehorn villains in simply as fan service.

Even if these were objectively true (I address each in the OP if you're interested), these wouldn't make the AA a better game.

 

[- J - D -]

Asylum left me wanting more, City left me wanting less. Asylum wins.

This...is an amazingly concise way of putting it.

 

[gocubs]

I loved everything in Asylum but the boss fights. I would rather have a second Asylum game then go back to a open world of Gothem City.

 

[The perfect Dark]

Better pacing, better story, and they don't try to shoehorn villains in simply as fan service.

Yeah, pretty much. Pacing is great, level design is better, story is better

Spoiler

scare crow parts were awesome

and I really think the "secrets" were better in Arkham Asylum.....also:The villains.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

This...is an amazingly concise way of putting it.

It doesn't say much at all. Are there too many gameplay options? If so, how do they make experience worse when they're optional? Same with ... all the other content.

Yeah, pretty much. Pacing is great, level design is better, story is better

Spoiler

scare crow parts were awesome

and I really think the "secrets" were better in Arkham Asylum.....also:The villains.

I see people mention those points all the time without bothering to explain why, as if everyone just accepts that as law.

 

[User 479360]

Origins is better than both.

Blasphemy!

You're entitled to your own opinion, though.

 

[overcast]

AC is my favorite of the franchise thus far. Had more fun playing in the world. Though I have a fond memory of renting AA and beating it in a single day.

 

[Hypron]

Better pacing, better story, and they don't try to shoehorn villains in simply as fan service.

Better story? Maybe, but that's like comparing two turds. It's still bad and Asylum's finale is a lot worse than AC's.

Plus, I like how the "AA is better" crowd just glosses over the entire gameplay, which is what you are doing 99% of the time, and that stuff is a lot better in every way in AC.

 

[ElTopo]

I still think NES Batman is the best Batman game.

 

[Prototype]

Just started playing AC because of this thread. After a couple of hours, not really feeling it so far. Feels really, really shallow in everything outside the stealth. Just totally on-rails and the combat for some reason seems a lot faster, easier and more simple than I remember from AA.

I liked AA because of the slower pacing with a batman that felt vulnerable so you have to sneak around and take out puzzle rooms and dungeons to advance. AC seems like just RB grapple and glide from one spot to the next and do smaller, more simple dungeons that mainly involve beating up two dozen guys in 30 seconds. Basically I feel too strong and it's not compelling right now.

On the rails? Wtf does that even mean in regards to this game. In every measurable way Asylum is more" on the rails"

 

[The perfect Dark]

It doesn't say much at all. Are there too many gameplay options? If so, how do they make experience worse when they're optional? Same with ... all the other content.


I see people mention those points all the time without bothering to explain why, as if everyone just accepts that as law.

To be honest I can't explain why. I think the atmosphere was better. Arkham City seemed "rushed" in most parts. Many good ideas but not so well executed. And AA was more "metroidvania" than AC.

 

[Cronox]

I'm not willing to decide whether AA or AC is better, but I definitely agree that Kevin Conroy wasn't given good enough direction in his acting. He is the voice of Batman, but he seemed too even-keeled when talking with criminals and it bothered me. Especially interrogating Riddler informants in AC was a bit strange because Batman didn't sound intimidating at all.

Both games make me wonder why criminals are so afraid of a batman that simply knocks them out, but AC's interrogations really stressed the problem for me. As the OP says, there are many times when he could show emotion and doesn't, or does show emotion when it's uncalled for. I think they simply gave Conroy the lines before they'd properly worked out some of the context, or what the criminals would sound like. Between the scared-sounding criminals and calm Batman, something was just off.

Conroy is Batman, but they need to bring him back in to rerecord things if his takes don't line up with the people he's having conversations with.

 

[JaseMath]

Even if these were objectively true (I address each in the OP if you're interested), these wouldn't make the AA a better game.

But that's just, like, you're opinion, man.

 

[jett]

AC is better than AA from every single vantage point.

 

[JaseMath]

Better story? Maybe, but that's like comparing two turds. It's still bad and Asylum's finale is a lot worse than AC's.

Plus, I like how the "AA is better" crowd just glosses over the entire gameplay, which is what you are doing 99% of the time, and that stuff is a lot better in every way in AC.

AA is more Detective Comics Batman, while AC is more of the Action Comics Batman. Depending on your preference, AC is not a lot better in every way.

 

[Zoned]

AC is better than AA from every single vantage point.

This guy knows the truth.

 

[- J - D -]

It doesn't say much at all. Are there too many gameplay options? If so, how do they make experience worse when they're optional? Same with ... all the other content.

You know, I respect your commitment to fighting the good fight for Arkham City through incredibly dense clinical dissection of every minute aspect of the game, bulletpoint by bulletpoint, but sometimes it's enough just to glean from a brief statement a person's sentiment, especially if you have a collective of similar sentiments to build upon a fuller picture. Let's be honest here, you're not looking to be converted on your stance, and I doubt the people here who prefer AA over AC have any intention on doing so either.

 

[D1renegade]

Yeah I can't think of one thing Asylum does better than City

 

[Sentenza]

AC is absolutely less linear than AA in terms of traversing through the environment and there's more the player can do during combat and predator segments. I don't get what you mean by "on-rails" here.

He's probably barely finishing the tutorial.

 

[LurkerPrime]

It's difficult to decide between the two. On one hand, Asylum was genre-defining, innovative, and surprising, and on the other Arkham City gave me moar of what I wanted, while even improving on the formula in some respects...

I prefer City, but I can respect someone who prefers Asylum. You Origins-lovers are whack, though.

Asylum left me wanting more, City left me wanting less. Asylum wins.

I think this solves the conundrum. Well done.

You've probably earned an accolade of some sort, perhaps a trophy.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Both games make me wonder why criminals are so afraid of a batman that simply knocks them out

 

[L4DANathan]

Totally true, OP. People don't seem to realize that you can actually compare the two fairly well objectively, and that it's perfectly reasonable to like AA more than AC, but it doesn't make it a better game.

 

[daftstar]

You know, I respect your commitment to fighting the good fight for Arkham City through incredibly dense clinical dissection of every minute aspect of the game, bulletpoint by bulletpoint, but sometimes it's enough just to glean from a brief statement a person's sentiment, especially if you have a collective of similar sentiments to build upon a fuller picture. Let's be honest here, you're not looking to be converted on your stance, and I doubt the people here who prefer AA over AC have any intention on doing so either.

He's giving a detailed insight into why AC is objectively the better game (combat, traversal, environment, story, boss battles, side missions). It's a clear step forward to what AA achieved.

Most people prefer AA solely because of the atmosphere and tighter narrative and that's the only thing going for it after AC improves basically on every other aspect. Rocksteady has stated that fans have wanted the Batmobile and an explorable Gotham ever since AA. It just wouldn't make sense to go back to an enclosed game-world after what they've already done.

It's strange how AC still offers the great indoor sections that fans of AA prefer (Museum, Steel Mill, Wonder City) but somehow are overlooked since it becomes a "open-world" game that's a "chore" to traverse.

 

[mr teaspoon]

I didn't even know this was a thing, Arkham City seems clearly superior to me.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Even if these were objectively true (I address each in the OP if you're interested), these wouldn't make the AA a better game.

This is the problem. You're discussing the quality of a video game. There's no objectively true when it comes to quality outside of technical details like "Does the game crash on this type of hardware?" or "what's the framerate?" A review of a game by its very nature is subjective and it's doubly subjective when you're dealing with two of them. Different people value different things differently as this thread has proven again and again.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

I preferred Asylum definitely. But I can easily see people making an argument for any of the 3 games as the best. They are all fantastic.

 

[ghibli99]

Loved them both. Preferred the story in AA better, but I liked purely playing and doing everything in AC more. OK, maybe not those VR things.

 

[Hindle]

Rocksteady started chasing the AC money with Arkham City, the overall level design wasn't has complex as AA. The game was more about beung an errand boy then Batman.

 

[Htown]

I mean how can you not like gliding across the entire map without ever touching a building?

 

[Htown]

Rocksteady started chasing the AC money with Arkham City, the overall level design wasn't has complex as AA. The game was more about beung an errand boy then Batman.

yeah man, I want to pretend to be a superhero, not cross a city environment stopping crimes as they happen on the way to foiling the bigger plans of a villain. what am I, a UPS driver?

 

[family_guy]

I won't even argue combat because 90% of sequels have better combat than the original. No big achievement there. I just preferred the atmosphere/missions and story in AA. Its more memorable to me and AC was forgettable other than Mr Freeze fight. Anyway, people don't talk much about Arkham Origins which to me beats out both games and it didn't even have Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill.

 

[Bl@de]

OK ... I guess ...

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

people don't talk much about Arkham Origins which to me beats out both games and it didn't even have Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill.

They don't talk about it because they haven't played it, because the press took a huge steaming shit all over it for some reason.
There's folks in this topic that know what's up though.

 

[Cronox]

They don't talk about it because they haven't played it, because the press took a huge steaming shit all over it for some reason.
There's folks in this topic that know what's up though.

Basically, I heard the PC version has problems that were never fixed. I'll give it a try eventually though.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

I agree. I think AC is better in almost every way but it's not like the games are THAT different. If someone prefers AA or AO I won't really question it.

 

[family_guy]

Basically, I heard the PC version has problems that were never fixed. I'll give it a try eventually though.

I finished it without any problems on PC.

 

[inm8num2]

I never realized that AC had a sizable share of detractors. My impression of the game had always been that most loved it alongside AA as a great sequel to a great game.

The number one thing about AC is that it upped the "be like Batman" feeling of AA. I never found all the side missions a distraction - they were a welcome challenge that I could choose to pursue if I wanted to get some upgrades before continuing the main story. I honestly felt like a protector of Gotham. AC nailed that.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Fights have fewer enemies in AA, and of course, fewer special enemy types to manage. I remember finding AC much harder than AA, so I'd love to hear more specifics about what you're going through here. The late game enemy encounters that involve armored, shield, stun baton and gun-wielding enemies are far more difficult than anything AA offered.

I could not agree with this more. This hit me in the face more so during my completion of the challenges than on the main game (I 100%'d both AA and AC).

Spring, my man... a most excellent OP and thread. I can't even add anything at the moment because you've put everything down so well. Get that A- out of here man, that OP is an A+!

Also, as for those who are potentially not having as much fun with AC's combat as they did with AA, two words for y'all: BEAT-DOWN. Doing a beat-down on any enemy, especially a Titan thug, is one of the most satisfying and fun game things I've encountered like, ever. From a strategic point, it also allows you to "catch your breath" (sort of) so that you can calculate how you're going to take down your next foe and continue your 50- or 100- or 150+ hit combo.

Arkham City is in my top 5 favorite video games of all time. It does navigation/platforming, stealth, and beat 'em up, and truly excels at all 3 things.

EDIT: To me, AA and AC go together pretty well, almost like companion pieces (sort of like the movies The Godfather 1 and 2; hopefully Rocksteady doesn't pull a "Godfather 3" with Arkham Knight).

 

[LosDaddie]

After being amazed by AA, I was so let down by AC that I didn't even play AO, and I'm debating whether or not to even buy the new Batman game (I forget the name).

I can recognize that, as a sequel, AC is technically a "better" game since it was built upon AA's groundwork, but I still had a better time with AA.

 

[MUnited83]

Arkham Origins is still the best one though.

 

[LurkerPrime]

I never realized that AC had a sizable share of detractors. My impression of the game had always been that most loved it alongside AA as a great sequel to a great game.

The number one thing about AC is that it upped the "be like Batman" feeling of AA. I never found all the side missions a distraction - they were a welcome challenge that I could choose to pursue if I wanted to get some upgrades before continuing the main story. I honestly felt like a protector of Gotham. AC nailed that.

Yeah, I agree. It really felt like a day in the life of Batman, also showing us why they're called superheroes.

The thing that I really appreciate about City is the absolutely phenomenal use of its environment. Every spot - seen or not - has something there for you to do, find, or complete. It's incredibly well done - and, much like Gears of War 2, it's almost too well done, to the point of overwhelming the player.

It's a super fun journey.

Arkham Origins is still the best one though.

Thanks to the Humble Store's sale on Arkham Origins I'll find out for myself. That Bruce growing up gif sold me.

Hopefully it's as good as you say... 'cuz otherwise I'm going to be real sad if it's a buggy bummer.