Anyone else not really getting into Arkham City?

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by TranceQuina (150 posts) -

I was excited to play this one, and it certainly isn't bad, but it just isn't really "doing it" for me. There are just so many tiny 'meh' elements to it in my eyes. And I'm really not trying to be a killjoy here.

Anyone else who's been anxious to play this game and just isn't all that into it?

#2 Posted by N7 (3678 posts) -

When I saw that the same combat issues still existed from Arkham Asylum, my "Awww shit!" meter for the game dropped considerably. Seriously. Batman goes in fucking slow-motion but the enemies don't. And sometimes I'll be in the middle of a 50 hit combo chain, and he'll just randomly start punching at the air. Like, seriously?
 
I don't know. I was really excited for the game, but it was just so... "Lackluster". They had already revealed all of the bosses and was like "DON'T WORRY GUYS! THERE'S A BUNCH MORE!" and it turned out to only be like TWO bosses. I knew what I was doing from the moment I got into the game. It didn't have anything that made Arkham Asylum amazing, which is weird because Arkham City isn't bad by any means. In fact, it's probably the best game I have played this year. But... It's just off.
 
And whatever happened to that "taunt" you could use to scare off hoards of enemies? Whatever happened to using the radio to scan for signals and find secret enemies and track down bad guys and whatnot? They have only used that for cutscenes and to track down the next Riddler clue.
 
Arkham City is a three-star game wrapped up in a five-star package, and it shows at every chance that it can. But it's so damn weird because I LOVE THIS GAME. It's just wrong sometimes.

#3 Posted by kalmis (1549 posts) -

Actually yes. Was thinking earlier that I am definately not enjoying this as much as the first game. Catwoman sections were somewhat tedious, especially the minigame-esq climbing stuff. Also one of the sidemissions that you get from a payhone was terrible. Requires you to travel as fast as possible to the other side of the map. Maybe I need more time with the controls to nail this better. So far it doesn't feel like 5 star game though.

#4 Posted by Still_I_Cry (2494 posts) -

I can't really get into it, which is highly disappointing considering my initial desire to play it.

When I actually got a chance to play it I wasn't blown away and it felt pretty much like Arkham Asylum in a different setting.

Pretty much my reaction :P

#5 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

Didn't really like the first Batman game either, think it's just because I really don't get why people find Superheroes so fascinating, unsurprisingly Arkham City did not change my mind, but oh well.

#6 Posted by Veektarius (5031 posts) -

Wow. I think this is one of the best games ever. You guys are unfortunate.

#7 Posted by Freezer_Burn (207 posts) -

I was at first, but then I got the hang of the controls, and the Grapnel Boost, and everything fell into place.

#8 Posted by sawtooth (459 posts) -

I dig it. It's not perfect but the combat is improved, and still pretty distinct.

#9 Posted by OtakuGamer (1291 posts) -

I’ve just started and I'm trying my hardest to get some sort of understanding on what the fuck is going on. :s

The controls are a bit janky right now for me, I might get used to it later on though.

#10 Posted by huntad (1958 posts) -

I think the combat issues are kind of a bummer if you want Achievements/Trophies, but just because my large combo broke in an unfair way doesn't ruin the rest of the game. I got over it and fully enjoyed the rest of the game. As of now, It's my GotY.

#11 Edited by Ares42 (2800 posts) -

@OtakuGamer said:

I’ve just started and I'm trying my hardest to get some sort of understanding on what the fuck is going on. :s

The controls are a bit janky right now for me, I might get used to it later on though.

Sorta got the same thing. The game just does a terrible job at tutorializing. It might just be because I haven't just gone straight to next main objective etc, but if you're gonna put me in an open world and give me side-missions etc at least explain some shit as I go. Been playing it for a few hours and most of it I've spent in a "what am I supposed to do? how am I supposed to do that?" mode. I'm starting to think that making it more open-worldly was a bad idea. Also the fact that you start with quite a lot of gadgets and moves etc (which the game doesn't necessarily tell you how to use or anything) doesn't help. It sorta feels like they expect people to come straight off playing the first one.

Also, the constant radio-chatter is fucking annoying. I even ran into situations where I had two story conversations going at the same time, which is just bad.

#12 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4702 posts) -

I'm somewhat feeling that. The game is good yes but it's no Arkham Asylum. Many of the smaller elements that make a good game great are not handled as well. To me the Asylum is a superior setting, by a large margin. bigger is not necessarily better.

#13 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4702 posts) -

@Ares42: On one hand it's neat that they expect the audience to be familiar with the first game so they can avoid lots of tutorials at the start. A bit more explanation in the main game would of been nice instead of having to read the about the abilities yourself. My proplem with this is the lack of progression it creates. Asylum had a sort of metroid feel with the way the world was designed, this is all but lost in City.

#14 Posted by Bestostero (2750 posts) -

GASP! D:

#15 Posted by CaptainObvious (3000 posts) -

This game is fucking amazing.

Online
#16 Posted by DeanoXD (630 posts) -

@TranceQuina said:

I was excited to play this one, and it certainly isn't bad, but it just isn't really "doing it" for me. There are just so many tiny 'meh' elements to it in my eyes. And I'm really not trying to be a killjoy here.

Anyone else who's been anxious to play this game and just isn't all that into it?

God here i was thinking i was the only one who felt this way. like you said i don't think the game is bad or anything but its just not compelling me to sit for long stretches and play. And i think what has done it for me is some of the stupid story elements they decided to use, on more than one occasion i have said out loud, really you are using this again for the same boss character as last time and it breaks the game for me, but at the same time i can see why people really love the game there is just something that isn't clicking for me.

@N7: Arkham City is a three-star game wrapped up in a five-star package, and it shows at every chance that it can

Agreed.

#17 Posted by uniform (1838 posts) -

@TranceQuina said:

There are just so many tiny 'meh' elements to it in my eyes.

Any examples?

#18 Posted by nrain (1274 posts) -

I completely agree with the OP, there is just something missing from this that the original had. I suppose it was just that AA was such a fresh take on a classic formula with fantastic production values. Arkham City has even better production values, but well, there is so little new here that it just kinda feels stale, I am only a few hours in however (came out today in UK) and as I get used to the glide controls and quick gadget combat, I may warm to it more.

I was hoping this would be an Assassins Creed Brotherhood to AC 2, if you know what I'm saying, but yet to be convinced.

#19 Posted by Burns098356GX (1366 posts) -

I felt that way to, but its growing on me. I think its one of those games you have to give some time before you start enjoying it. Same thing happened for me in AA.

I still think the combat sucks though.

#20 Posted by sixpin (1309 posts) -

@Veektarius said:

Wow. I think this is one of the best games ever. You guys are unfortunate.

#21 Edited by MrMazz (1036 posts) -

I love it I've wanted more Batman and I got it. The combat I still suck at and getting hit out of a combo despite mashing counter is kinda bs but there are way more things to do in this than AA.

Has anyone else found new game+ to be actually pretty hard?

#22 Posted by EndlessObsidian (477 posts) -

I am totally fine with it being similar to the first one and I am fully into it.

#23 Edited by Village_Guy (2667 posts) -

I'm getting a little more into it now, but it just doesn't feel... right yet.

I recently replayed Arkham Asylum and I feel like that game did the formula better than Arkham City does. I love Arkham Asylum and I am just not getting the same enjoyment out of Arkham City that I did the first time I played Arkham Asylum, makes me a little sad...

#24 Posted by DonChipotle (2855 posts) -

I echo my thoughts on the first one: It was so well received because it was a functional Batman game in a sea of shit Batman games. A lot of Arkham Asylum was tedious and not fun and, surprise surprise, it's still the same in Arkham City.

Online
#25 Edited by Divina_Rex (351 posts) -

I think it is better. They made the combat much harder (I'm playing on hard), since there is now a huge variety of enemies and different attack styles. I feel like they upgraded everything and I really like the game because of that.

#26 Posted by TranceQuina (150 posts) -
@uniform Sure, glad you asked. :) I'm trying not to nitpick, but...

The level-up upgrades don't do anything for me. I don't think they add very much at all to how Batman plays. Basically, I don't feel like I'm really leveling up, so I don't have much incentive to go do 5,000,000 sidequests.

I'm not getting a lot of enjoyment out of Hamill's performance this time. It doesn't feel to me like he is either.

The game leans so much on the 'freedom' part of the open world build that it isn't *crafting* any kind of experience for the player. This is my central issue with sandbox games in general: I get bored more quickly with a big toybox than if each toy gets special attention and mileage one at a time.

Other sandbox game issues I have is that I never, EVER enjoy the story as much because of how it's told (audio logs or some variation while I'm dicking around on rooftops), as if I can't really pay attention if it doesn't seem to matter to the developer if I do or not. It's extra bad when multiple important conversations are happening at the exact same time. Also, I've never had a real sense of exploration in these big New-York-clone maps, especially when I can fly over the whole damn thing in half a minute.

On the gameplay side, I don't like how complicated the knife-dodge-takedown is, I hate those AR training things, some Riddler trophies are way to hard to get in terms of reflexes (the whole idea of the Riddler is you have to be CLEVER, not good at video games, to best him), and I don't like that the hardest fights are just asenine amounts of thugs.
#27 Posted by Tophat666 (236 posts) -

I see where you guys are coming from, but the only reason why I stop playing is ether too tired from work or Dark Souls.

I think the one thing putting me off is seeing riddler stuff & not being able to get it. Yes I can save the location of where I found it, but when am I going back there & with the right item to get it?

But that's just me, & I should really just play the story.

#28 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

@TranceQuina said:

@uniform Sure, glad you asked. :) I'm trying not to nitpick, but... The level-up upgrades don't do anything for me. I don't think they add very much at all to how Batman plays. Basically, I don't feel like I'm really leveling up, so I don't have much incentive to go do 5,000,000 sidequests. I'm not getting a lot of enjoyment out of Hamill's performance this time. It doesn't feel to me like he is either. The game leans so much on the 'freedom' part of the open world build that it isn't *crafting* any kind of experience for the player. This is my central issue with sandbox games in general: I get bored more quickly with a big toybox than if each toy gets special attention and mileage one at a time. Other sandbox game issues I have is that I never, EVER enjoy the story as much because of how it's told (audio logs or some variation while I'm dicking around on rooftops), as if I can't really pay attention if it doesn't seem to matter to the developer if I do or not. It's extra bad when multiple important conversations are happening at the exact same time. Also, I've never had a real sense of exploration in these big New-York-clone maps, especially when I can fly over the whole damn thing in half a minute. On the gameplay side, I don't like how complicated the knife-dodge-takedown is, I hate those AR training things, some Riddler trophies are way to hard to get in terms of reflexes (the whole idea of the Riddler is you have to be CLEVER, not good at video games, to best him), and I don't like that the hardest fights are just asenine amounts of thugs.

wow... thanks for the warning. was going to buy it tomorrow but after reading all that i think i'l give it a miss.

#29 Edited by uniform (1838 posts) -

@TranceQuina said:

@uniform I'm not getting a lot of enjoyment out of Hamill's performance this time. It doesn't feel to me like he is either.

You know, I was left with this impression as well. The energy from the previous game, as well as his work in the DCAU, just wasn't there. You could hear it was supposed to be there in the script, but it felt like Mark wasn't at 100%. Most people will probably deny it, as he's God in that role, but to me it was painfully obvious that he wasn't fully into it. I justified it by telling myself the man is getting old, this happens all the time with VAs. I then thought it possible the man's burnt out doing the character, and that enthusiasm just isn't what it was. Finally, I wondered realistically how many more opportunities does he have to play the character, he should play it like it's the last hurrah.

#30 Posted by firecracker22 (561 posts) -

I don't know. I'm a huge Batman fan, and absolutely loved the first one.

I think for people who loved the first one, will love this one. If you had problems with the first one, chances are...you'll still have the same problems with this one. They didn't break what they built with Arkahm Asylum, simply added to it.

#31 Posted by m0rdr3d (472 posts) -

I'm not really into it either.... Cause I haven't played it yet. Har! I'll likely need to finish Dark Souls before I give it a go.

I never really got all the hype about the first one though. Solid game, but seemed more like an example of COD-bro hysteria except from the comic book geek variety.

#32 Posted by TranceQuina (150 posts) -
@doobie Don't take me too seriously, though. Again, it isn't bad. Only a part of the story stuff is told as described; much of it is still done with cutscenes. It just has hints of all the reasons I don't get glued to sandbox games, and to be fair, most of the meaningful gameplay does take place in real levels and indoor environments. This entry just isn't quite as *dedicated* to the reasons AA was so great, IMO.
#33 Posted by TranceQuina (150 posts) -
@firecracker22 That's the thing, I loved AA, had almost no problems with it. My issue is, with more variety comes less focus, and AA was great to me because it had that focus.
#34 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

@uniform said:

@TranceQuina said:

@uniform I'm not getting a lot of enjoyment out of Hamill's performance this time. It doesn't feel to me like he is either.

You know, I was left with this impression as well. The energy from the previous game, as well as his work in the DCAU, just wasn't there. You could hear it was supposed to be there in the script, but it felt like Mark wasn't at 100%. Most people will probably deny it, as he's God in that role, but to me it was painfully obvious that he wasn't fully into it. I justified it by telling myself the man is getting old, this happens all the time with VAs. I then thought it possible the man's burnt out doing the character, and that enthusiasm just isn't what it was. Finally, I wondered realistically how many more opportunities does he have to play the character, he should play it like it's the last hurrah.

There's something "off" with his performance for story reasons.

Do NOT check the spoiler tag. I'm not being cute or clever. These ARE serious spoilers.

Those reasons being he's either Clayface, or deathly ill. The Joker is desperate for the cure for Titan, which is slowly killing him over the course of the game. He enlists Clayface to act as an overseer/impostor so that the other gangs can't see how weak and feeble he has become. Hamill sounds tired during parts of the game, and that's a good thing. Joker is at the end of his rope and trying badly not to show it.
#35 Posted by super_psycho (18 posts) -

@N7 said:

When I saw that the same combat issues still existed from Arkham Asylum,

That combat issue is pissing me off specially when i try to batclaw enemy.

#36 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7100 posts) -

@sixpin said:

@Veektarius said:

Wow. I think this is one of the best games ever. You guys are unfortunate.

#37 Posted by glyn (382 posts) -

Just looks like the most boring bland game ever.

#38 Posted by GunstarRed (5483 posts) -

I feel like all my time with the game (about 7 or so hours) I go from being "YEAH, I'M FUCKING BATMAN!" to a fiddly " just. hit. the swit.... No, I didn't want to grapple there... aghhhh!!" I feel like I'm being overwhelmed with information all the time whether it be riddle puzzles, trophies or side missions and no real direction. I'm pretty early in the game I assume because I just beat penguin and for the most part have had a ton of fun with it, but I can't help feel like some of the riddler stuff is designed for a completely different type of game/controls. I never feel 100% precise with any of the switch hitting or platforming which is fine for gaining ground over long stretches, but in a tiny alleyway and a strict time limit it can be frustrating to miss your target and have to return over and over. Theres a ton of improvements to things over AA, but I do feel like it would have been nicer if they'd have kept a little more of that Castlevania/Metroid style.

#39 Posted by Double0hFor (410 posts) -

Arkham Asylum is 10x better then this game IMO, mostly because I liked the atmosphere better, knowing you're trapped with a bunch of psychos, plus the cameos were awesome.

#40 Posted by bearshamanbro (284 posts) -

I haven't played Arkham City yet, but have been playing Arkham Assylum as I want to catch up in the series first. As someone fresh to this series, I wonder if it's just a matter of AA being a little overated in people's memory because of it being suprisingly good at the time. So far (pretty close to end) I think that AA is a pretty solid game but nothing amazing. That kinda a bummer if AC isn't a step up from AA.

#41 Posted by Icemael (6364 posts) -

Yeah. I haven't played a great deal at this point, but so far I'm not feeling it. The open world seems like a cluttered mess. I much preferred the previous game's tighter, more focused metroidvania-style world. Also, the combat and stealth mechanics are just as mediocre as in Arkham Asylum.
 
I'll probably get rid of the game in the near future. Not even sure I'll bother finishing it.

#42 Posted by DeanoXD (630 posts) -

i just finished the story with batman and didn't even see it coming, it just happened. the story is actually pretty short.

#43 Posted by Peanut (955 posts) -

For me, I feel like the game is just full of those "set piece" moments from AA that do absolutely ZERO for me this time around. The Scarecrow stuff in AA had some impact, at leas the first time, then they kinda do that same sort of "Woah, what is this!?" thing like 3 times in a row in Arkham City and it feels super forced. Also, I honestly think the game has an awful story. I haven't finished it, but what's there so far is just...not good. I also don't really find that the game is that impressive visually anymore? I dunno, I feel like with AA I was going "this looks great" and now I'm going "this looks ok". Whenever the camera closes in on anyone that isn't Batman it looks kinda...shit. Voice acting is pretty all over the place as well. Sometimes Batman sounds ridiculous and the constantly repeating enemy dialogue is a drag. 
 
My main gripe is detective mode, though. Because everything is black or shades of grey and brown, you've pretty much got to use it 90% of the time to be effective and I hate it. I dunno, I really liked AA, but it seemed like I was one of few who kinda said "this game has problems, but is still awesome" instead of "THIS GAME IS NEARLY FLAWLESS" which is insanity. I feel like City has all of those same flaws, it's just that I dealt with them in AA cause it was something new and now it's not. Not enough changed, but too much stayed the same, if you know what I mean. 
 
I feel like a ton of people really REALLY fell hard for the hype on this game. It's fun and Batman is awesome, but it's far from the mind-blowing BGE everyone is making it out to be and calling it GOTY before Uncharted 3 and Skyrim drop is INSANITY!

#44 Posted by grimmspectre18 (70 posts) -

Yeah, me too. I loved Asylum and I'm still enjoying City, but I can't shake the feeling that I don't feel as much like Batman as I did in Asylum. My entire time has felt like I am just stumbling through performing whatever task is nearest at the time. Consistently, I find myself trying different methods of getting into buildings or taking out a group of armed guards with little success. It's not that I can't do it any more, but rather that the actual execution doesn't have the elegance I took for granted in Asylum. City's greatest failing is it's omnipresent sense of being lost. I hope that I eventually break in this new cowl, but for now it's a tight fit. I still think it's a fantastic game though.

#45 Posted by TranceQuina (150 posts) -
@bearshamanbro That is the case to me. The sandbox elements don't do it any favors (though that depends on how you feel about sandbox games), and what was good about AA - the linear areas and enclosed encounters - is less present and is just about identical to the first game.
#46 Posted by BonOrbitz (2252 posts) -

I'm not, only because my copy doesn't arrive until November 15 on Steam. :( All the reviews paint it as a great game, so it's disheartening to hear that some people feel a bit "flat" about the experience.

#47 Posted by JokerFrown (305 posts) -

I actually completely enjoyed playing through the story. It did have some pretty interesting twist and turns, and easter eggs (anyone catch that Lost reference???). Once you get use to the controls for moving about the city, the game just feels...right. I'm having a hard time picking between this and Gears 3 as my personal GOTY

#48 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

There's an age, when for the first time you do very few things for the first time anymore. Good things will bum you out, because they aren't as awesome as they were when you did them for the first time.

Eventually you'll grow up and get over diminishing returns. You'll stop fucking your wife every day and put her on a cooldown timer. Blizzard knows best, all good things need 10 years to cool down to be hot again.

Buy Diablo 3 this Spring! And fuck your wife trice a week. Or is it twice?

#49 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Haven't played AC, but AA certainly wasn't amazing or revolutionary like the press made it out to be. I think folks are finally starting to see it for what it is, without the bat goggles on. Just a good superhero game, and nothing more.

#50 Posted by JerichoBlyth (1044 posts) -

There's fuck all plot.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.