@yummylee: Plus I think this actually feels less contrived than "Arkham City" I just couldn't understand why they felt they had to go to such lengths to keep the idea of a prison named arkham while also using the Gotham locale.

Arkham Asylum is better than Arkham City.

@oldirtybearon said:

@groin said:

Beautiful.

But How Much is that in brad Bucks?

It exists because I'll buy it.

I'll buy it so hard. I'll forcefully give them money for it.

That's the only reason anything ever exists.

Guh. Gamers are so fickle sometimes. Scratch, that, we are so fickle all the time. Make a five hour game, there will be complaints that it's too short. Make another five hour game in the same series, they'll wonder why the original game needed a sequel. So much randomness at times...

I have zero issue with this thing. I've played the crap of the previous two, and I really don't have a reason to play more DLC on the same environments with the same mechanics than Arkham City, but I am fully on board with the concept of making another Batman game under roughly the same template. The really baffling thing is why this is getting so much shit on its third iteration while game series with dozens of games under their belts keep crunching out stuff to the surprise of nobody.

I'm going to take a stab at it and say that it's because they changed developers, so somebody jumped at the notion of this being "an unnecessary sequel" and when it started looking like it was a completely competent game in its own right, the "unnecessary" silliness just kept on trucking, because gamers and bandwagons go hand in hand, it seems.

@yummylee: I know, but that it's so clearly a marketing decision rather than a creative one is really yucky.

I'm on the side of confusion over why another Batman game is such a bad thing. NBA 2K games are great every year, I'm sure Call of Duty games are still great every year even if COD4 was enough for me, there is about to be a FOURTH Street Fighter IV and nobody's complaining because EVERY Street Fighter sees at least 3 iterative sequels...

I feel like people just want something to complain about with this game. I watched about six minutes of that 17-minute video they released today and I thought, man, that looks pretty amazing, that looks pretty Arkham. If video games didn't cost $60 at launch I'd be all over it, but I waited until Arkham City was free on PS+ and won't mind waiting for a discount on this one, if I even get it. But Arkham City was CRAZY fun and if I had more disposable income I'd be on this in a heartbeat.

Why are there people giving answers in this thread that aren't "money"?

Why do people asume that some of us who think this game doesn't look up to par with the other 2 games of the series are just ok with franchises iterating stuff over and over?. My only gripe with this is the story that they decided to focus on, I just don't care for origin stories most of the time they don't tell anything of interest and aren't all that exciting, the developers keep saying how this is a "younger inexperienced Batman" yet he still kicking ass and being all Batman-y beating thughs,mercenaries like it's nothing, sure maybe Bane breaks his back or Deadstroke beats him on their first encounter in a cutscene but on the gameplay side you still have all the skills and abilities you had in AC so what's the point of it being a prequel? of course they will not remove the gadgets and moves like the dive or the multiple takedown just because he's a younger Batman but still introducing new stuff and new mechanics in a game that is supposed to take place before the first makes really no sense and if the story isn't your incentive to play the game then why not make it a side story? or better yet just move foward.

i was kinda feeling the same way for while but then i remembered though i might read the comics etc for most people this is the batman they get once every two years outside of the films.

as long as it plays well ill get it eventually. the gameplay was always pretty solid so its not a big deal. I do hope rocksteady is working on sometihng new and original though.

OH OH! I wanna play the youtube post game too!

But seriously, it's always about the money. That's the only reason anything is ever made. If you are lucky the people making it care about what they are making, but even then the only reason stuff gets greenlit is because of money. If this game tanks and no one buys it we won't see another one next year. If it does good, guess what? Rinse and repeat.

Not to say that there can't be a discussion about whether Origins plays it too close to City, but with the vision they have for this game, it seems way too big and includes too many new features to just be a bit of Arkham City DLC.

Because video game companies have employees that need to be paid.

Yeah, like, now that every big budget game is a console game by necessity because the 90s are long gone, there are plenty of sequels that are essentially "expansion pack sequels" or "roster update sequels" or "mission pack sequels" where nothing is being significantly added to the gameplay, but they've gone to the effort of making some new levels and some very slightly different enemies (or in the case of sports games, roster updates and tweaking pre-existing gameplay systems for the fuck of it).

It seems weird to randomly single out Arkham Origins for this practice. I find Arkham Origins (and the Arkham series in general) way less offensive than the way they've whored out Assassin's Creed every single year since AC II. At least AC kinda mixes it up more than some annual franchises, but it's still pretty gross. Annual or biennial sequels really bum me out.

I know it requires publisher confidence to be fucking sky high, but it's so much better when you have something like Metal Gear Solid or GTA that take their sweet-ass time, and when they finally come out you're genuinely curious what they're up to, instead of going "gee, I wonder that they slightly altered this year".

I've grown a little tired of the Arkham games now, City was a good game but I wasn't blown away by it and origin stories are not what I seek since I like stories to move forward rather than backwards. Debating whether to pick this one up right away unless Jeff is impressed by Arkham Origins.

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. I figured this series had run it's course for me, but after watching a few videos...I think I'm ready to jump back in. I think I'll wait until Black Friday though to see if there are any deals.

Follow the money.

My only complaint, if you can call it that, is that I wish they'd abandon the stupid "Arkham" naming scheme for every game. "Arkham Origins" doesn't even make sense, since it appears the game has nothing to do with the origin of Arkham Asylum.

Arkham City was a great game with a cool story, but kind of a dumb central conceit (the idea of roping off part of a major metropolitan city and calling it a "prison"). As long as Origins maintains that great gameplay, builds a few good things on top of it, and tells a good story, I'm in.

We live in a world where Call of Duty is an annual blockbuster, and people shit on the (really good!) Batman games for coming out every other year? I'd like to see the next evolution of the Batman games as much as anyone, but that will be Rocksteady's project to unveil, not WB Montreal.

I'm looking forward to seeing lesser known Batman villains, like Copperhead, in this game. Good change of pace from all Joker, all the time.

Since this thread got started, I went back and forth multiple times.

But man, those other games were so damn good. And it's been two years, I gotta go for it. These new guys seem to know what they're talking about (especially the creative director).

Arkham City is a really damn good game, Arkham Asylum is also a really good game; and these aren't games with 5 hour campaigns or what have you, it is a fully realized experience. 2 years is not 1 year and so on. Not going to buy it at launch but I'm sure I'll eventually pick it up for 20-30 bucks and probably 100% it assuming the game is up to the exceptional standards already put forth.

I love these Arkham games because I get a world I can explore and uncover all if its secrets. Sure Batman's the same old Batman, but we get a new place that's supposedly twice the size of Arkham City. That's why I can't wait to play this game. It took decades to get a game that finally got Batman right, I don't blame Warner Brothers for getting their money's worth from this engine.

Batman is the Madonna of comic book characters. When the Adam West TV show was on air it was the Neal Adams Batman comic book series where he's sword fighting Ra's Al Ghul in the desert. There's enough room for variety considering how next Rockstar game is going to be RADICALLY different.

Went ahead and pre-ordered from Amazon tonight. I probably won't get it until next week but I get a $10 Amazon credit and the pre-order goodies.

I'm just stoked that we finally get to explore Gotham City proper, instead of sub-areas like a prison, or... a city prison.

Can't wait to see what Rocksteady do next. How about a Batman game that involves some of the Justice League in the story? I'm sure DC must trust them enough at this point, to give them access to those characters. I'd also like to see a truly "open world" Batman game in a massive Gotham City, with access to all of Batman's vehicles, and maybe even stuff/missions to do as Bruce Wayne during the day, access to the mansion instead of just the Batcave, the ability to access the JLA HQ, and so on.

How about a setting in the "Batman Year One" era, and have it start with Bruce returning to Gotham, to take up the mantle as Batman - creating his gear (and starting with primitive stuff as he tries to figure things out), establishing the cave, and so on. There's so much great material to work with!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Spoilers Batman lives$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BUT GUYS MONEY ISN'T EVERYTHING!!! WHAT ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE BATMAN!?!

Fucking kids.

To be clear im sure it will be alright but after City i'll pass. I had my fun time to move on or take a big break.

Just to say, so people don't expect too much, as far as I can tell this is pretty much the same map as in Arkham City - identical. It's nice to fall back into that familiar routine but even more than Saint's Row IV it feels like playing the same game again. Given the storm keeping everyone but criminals in doors it feels like the same prison city again.

It's odd, it feels great to be back in a Batman game but I'm having to remind myself I'm even playing a new title. As I'm dashing about picking up 'Enigma' trophies, seeing the same chalk marks and rose in Crime Alley, going past the same central bridge... yeah, right now it sure doesn't feel like I'm in Gotham...

Who knows, maybe it's a huge fake out though and the game will suddenly drop me into Gotham proper... err... clearly not though.

The actual batman looks way less cartoony than he did in Arkham Asylum.

Ah okay, just read the bit on the wiki about 'New Gotham' coming in later - hopefully hit that soon as right now it's feeling like a drag being in exactly the same place. Not sure if that would ideally have come in sooner.

Damn, just realised 'New Gotham' is the bit you start in... just assumed it was a bit of Arkham City I didn't remember as well. For a whole new section of the map it's, well, it ain't exactly standing out. Still, fun game if very similar. Much, much, more similar than a COD sequel.

@ninessc2: Yes! As much as I loved the first two games I was never a fan of their character design. Batman was a walking neck with a butt for a face, he's still a walking neck, but they improved his face. In the first game Harley Quinn looked like a prostitute who found a tutu in a dumpster. I like how Origins is moving away, slightly, from the dirty, angsty look and I hope we see some bigger changes in whatever Rocksteady is cooking up next. Rumors that it may have a Silver Age tone are exciting to me, but I can see it pissing off a lot of fans.

Why is that people who have little to no interest in the game feel the need to question it's existence? I get it, a lot of people don't want to play this sequel. Be about the things you love, not the things that make you say "meh".

I know it's the internet, but come on.

Q: Video games, why?