• 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by michaelsuen (83 posts) -

Hey,

So i'm not sure if it's just me, but i'm really not understanding why this needs to be it's own game. I know it's being made by another studio, uses different voice actors, etc, but from what i've seen an overwhelmingly large part of Origins seems incredibly similar to Arkham City (the look, Batman's moves, the interrogations, etc).

Now i'm not saying i'm necessarily right, i'm basing this point of view on what i've seen and the recent walkthrough WB Montreal has presented us with, it seems like it'd be better off being a large piece of DLC for Arkham City than it's own game (again, I know this can't happen, but I mean theoretically).

So help me out, am I missing something super-obvious here?

Thanks!

#2 Posted by groin (847 posts) -

Online
#3 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

Tell that to CoD / BF4 / AC / SR4 / every popular franchise ever.

#4 Posted by Demoskinos (14887 posts) -

#5 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

What really makes me wonder is, how can he even have the same fighting moves when he isn't trained so well back then!
Ugh! Total disregard for the whole franchise!

No but seriously, why not?
Of course it's gonna be the same as the previous games in the series.

Playing through the Arkham games would be weird if Origins ended up being an FPS.
Then even more people would complain, I'm sure

#6 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4826 posts) -
#7 Posted by SharkEthic (1049 posts) -

Arkham City seemed more like Arkham Asylum 1.5 than a real sequel to me. This looks like Arkham Asylum 1.6. So yeah, fucking franchises man.

#8 Posted by michaelsuen (83 posts) -

@zeforgotten: Well you're clearly pulling this out into the extremes. I don't necessarily mean turning it into another genre, but i'd like to look at the new game and think, "Wow, this really couldn't have been done in the previous game.".

Like how Arkham City introduced the multiple takedowns, interrogations, the ability to traverse the world seamlessly, the open world itself, the complete change in scenery, etc.

It just sucks watching gameplay of Origins and not really seeing anything new, cos the previous iteration was such a step up.

#9 Posted by JJWeatherman (14558 posts) -

I honestly don't know why, but I'm oddly excited for this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to buy it until it's dirt cheap on Steam. But when it is, I'm totally there.

#10 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@zeforgotten: Well you're clearly pulling this out into the extremes. I don't necessarily mean turning it into another genre, but i'd like to look at the new game and think, "Wow, this really couldn't have been done in the previous game.".

Like how Arkham City introduced the multiple takedowns, interrogations, the ability to traverse the world seamlessly, the open world itself, the complete change in scenery, etc.

It just sucks watching gameplay of Origins and not really seeing anything new, cos the previous iteration was such a step up.

Well obviously you're not gonna get that from one video showing gameplay, specifically chosen so it doesn't spoil every new thing in the game as well.
As far as "Wow, this really couldn't have been done in the previous game" well, I'm sure whatever new there was (which, there wasn't really a lot of) could've been done is Asylum as well if that was what they were aiming to do in the first game.

But, we will see how alright it is.
Or hell, maybe it's the best thing ever for once?
Or maybe this is the time it turns out to be complete garbage? nobody knows


Four more days

#11 Posted by probablytuna (3684 posts) -

It just sucks watching gameplay of Origins and not really seeing anything new, cos the previous iteration was such a step up.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not excited for Arkham Origins. If I want to play more Arkham I could just load up Arkham City. When Rocksteady announces their Batman sequel, then I'll be interested again.

#12 Posted by Veektarius (4874 posts) -

A game is three things: mechanics, challenges, and story. So you're saying Origins only produces new content on 2 out of 3. Doesn't seem like a terrible issue. Maybe you could argue it should be sold as an expansion or something (even though console games don't work like that) or it should be a $40 product instead of a 60, but if there's one thing I trust an Arkham game to have, it's enough filling to make it feel worth the cost. If you're bored of the formula, though, the game was probably never for you regardless of how they packaged it.

#13 Edited by Ares42 (2693 posts) -

I would assume there's more to it than just taking the same engine and making more content for it. If anything it's probably more like a substantial expansion, which means it might as well be it's own stand-alone thing as it would probably only limit the consumer base if people actually had to own Arkham City to play it. Just think about it, how many people do you think still owns Arkham City ? and if they don't how many are willing to re-buy it just so they can play Origins ? We've already seen plenty of way less substantial DLC being sold as stand-alone products. It's just easier this way.

#14 Posted by gokaired (541 posts) -

I love how that's set in a Prison Break :P

Bonus points for the Bison Money :)

#15 Posted by leinad44 (517 posts) -

In my eyes Troy Baker doing the voice of the joker is worth the price of admission.

#16 Posted by Heltom92 (713 posts) -

I'm looking forward to it because I really enjoyed the first two and I'm sure I'll enjoy this one even if it is more of the same. Will probably wait for the reviews first though just in case they completely fucked it up.

#17 Posted by me3639 (1765 posts) -

I skipped AC, but am sort of excited for this becasue a lot of the charcters are new to me. And why is it happening, money. Why do you thnk Nintendo release a new ip every....oh yea, they dont.

#18 Posted by OldGuy (1562 posts) -

#19 Posted by michaelsuen (83 posts) -

You guys raise some good points. I'm definitely hoping i'm wrong on this. I think I had similar thoughts on Arkham City when they were first showing it off too, and I ended up really enjoying that. Fingers crossed!

#20 Edited by Rafaelfc (1352 posts) -

I thought my love for Batman would be greater than sequel fatigue.

I was wrong. Will wait to pick this game up later on when it's cheap and I have not much else to play.

#21 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1637 posts) -

@heltom92 said:

I'm looking forward to it because I really enjoyed the first two and I'm sure I'll enjoy this one even if it is more of the same.

Same for me ... I had a lot of fun with AA and AC, I am in the market for another Batman game.

#22 Posted by Morningstar (2175 posts) -

To quote a Nick Cave song: Easy Money.

#23 Edited by joshwent (2220 posts) -

@michaelsuen: I've loved pretty much every Mario platformer that's come out. Of course, those are without question practically the same game with a new ability here and there, some new enemies maybe, and not much other difference. But I (and millions other like me) love those games because although they're not revolutionary, they're still the best at what they do.

When it comes to open-world-lite exploration, and crowd combat, the Arkham series is still all these years later practically the best. So another (however extemely minor it may be) iteration of a beautifully dreary fully realized word with best in class crowd combat and cool gadgets, has me and many others, rightfully, pumped.

#24 Posted by rjayb89 (7724 posts) -

#25 Posted by SunBroZak (1144 posts) -

I'm disappointed we didn't get a sequel to Arkham City instead, considering the hooks they left in for a potential follow-up. Maybe we'll get to see that in next-gen.

#26 Posted by Killerfridge (309 posts) -

@heltom92 said:

I'm looking forward to it because I really enjoyed the first two and I'm sure I'll enjoy this one even if it is more of the same.

Same for me ... I had a lot of fun with AA and AC, I am in the market for another Batman game.

Me too! I loved the first two so much, and just generally like Batman, so I'm ready.

#27 Posted by csl316 (8776 posts) -

I was going to play it just because I like when a new developer gets to put their spin on a game.

But Rocksmith comes out the same day so I could definitely wait.

#28 Posted by laserguy (444 posts) -

Rocksteady is probably working on a next gen. Batman. I think this will be good, i'm hopeful. The problem is it's release and the Joker. Warner put it out at the end of the year, granted a Batman game in October makes sense, but putting it up against Call Of Duty, GTAV and Battlefield is tough. I bought GTA like everyone so I won't get this. If it came out next spring I would be more likely, but then you got Dark Souls. So I dont know, I'm going to Gamefly it.

#29 Posted by KoolAid (947 posts) -

I don't know man. 2 years between sequels seems like an long enough time. This one is supposedly more open world.

I mean, Arkham asylum seems like the best batman game ever. Then Arkham City was. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

#30 Edited by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

I'm just tired of Origin stories they're so unnecessary and they make no sense gameplay-story wise, if this had been Arkham City 2 I would be all over it.

#31 Posted by PhilipDuck (551 posts) -

To be fair Saints Row IV was more of a con then this is.. I bought and enjoyed SR IV and I'm going to buy this but they could have easily been developed this as DLC... Just what happens at end of console cycle I suppose..

#32 Posted by Vinny_Says (5714 posts) -

It's a game made specifically so that people don't forget about batman by the time the next gen version is released. How many people will see "Batman" on PS4/XBO and believe it's another dumb movie tie in game because they forgot about Arkham Asylum and Arkham City?

I'm still going to play it regardless. I don't need every single sequel ever to turn the series on its head if the base gameplay is still enjoyable.

#33 Posted by Milkman (16851 posts) -

#34 Edited by jimmyfenix (3855 posts) -

Money money money!!!

Also Origins might be a pretty good game.

#35 Posted by Glottery (1302 posts) -

I was really skeptic about this for a long time, then yesterday I tried Arkham City's pc-version for funs. Few hours from that I made a pre-order and they mailed my copy today, so should be playing it on thursday the latest. The combat was/is still so fun, that I'll probably end up being of those folks who're happy with just Arkham City 1.5 after all. So is life...

#36 Posted by The_Nubster (2177 posts) -

@michaelsuen said:

It just sucks watching gameplay of Origins and not really seeing anything new, cos the previous iteration was such a step up.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not excited for Arkham Origins. If I want to play more Arkham I could just load up Arkham City. When Rocksteady announces their Batman sequel, then I'll be interested again.

This is exactly what I did. Bought City for $7.50 when it went on sale on Steam, despite having played it before. Now I get to know I'm playing an incredible game, plus I get all of the DLC, and I don't have to pay full price for it.

It really bothers me that they're calling this game Arkham Origins. Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are places, it's not like this takes place on Origins Road in Gotham or something.

#37 Edited by NTM (7411 posts) -

Well, I can certainly agree that it has a lot of (perhaps too many) similarities to City especially, but it doesn't look like DLC. I'm not really impressed with the game from what I've seen. I wasn't a big fan of Arkham City, and this looks like it has more of that with additions, but it also just doesn't look all the interesting to me on the side. The only reason I follow it a little, is because I loved Arkham Asylum.

#38 Posted by Vuud (2016 posts) -

You ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light?

#39 Posted by MutieLover (36 posts) -

I like the fact they are expanding the DC universe in this series beyond Batman's rogue gallery. Having him face multiple enemies who are just as skilled in martial arts or expert marksmen could be more interesting than just punching gangsters and madmen in colorful costumes.

#40 Posted by Glottery (1302 posts) -

Having him face multiple enemies who are just as skilled in martial arts or expert marksmen could be more interesting than just punching gangsters and madmen in colorful costumes.

I did have this quickly passing nightmare scenario of the assassins/whatever main bad guys being dealt with in a giant QTE match, once Batman would finally face each of them. But noone would do something as stupid as that with such a fantastic combat system being included in the game already and bosses in the previous games being somewhat regular boss fights still, right? Right?

#41 Posted by vikingdeath1 (974 posts) -
#42 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@oldirtybearon said:

@groin said:

Beautiful.

Stunning.

You guys have watched Street Fighter, right?
I mean, sure they were stunning and beautiful back then but you guys act like you've never seen bison dollars !

#43 Edited by FLStyle (4730 posts) -

@groin said:

5 British Pounds!

Online
#44 Posted by TooWalrus (13221 posts) -

#45 Posted by zolloz89 (252 posts) -

More Batman is okay with me. Especially since I got it free with the new video card i was going to buy anyway.

#46 Posted by believer258 (11949 posts) -

A game doesn't have to introduce all-new mechanics and ideas in every single entry for it to be worth buying. Seems like Origins is taking established things about the franchise and putting them in a new setting with a new story. There's nothing wrong with doing that for an entry or two.

#47 Posted by altairre (1199 posts) -

A game doesn't have to introduce all-new mechanics and ideas in every single entry for it to be worth buying. Seems like Origins is taking established things about the franchise and putting them in a new setting with a new story. There's nothing wrong with doing that for an entry or two.

I totally agree. I understand that some people are fed up with the mechanics and if that's enough reason not to play the game then that's totally fine but I could go for one well told Batman story within the framework of the Arkham games every year or two.

That doesn't mean that I don't want them to take the franchise into new directions since stagnation is ever the best long term choice but I'm not tired of the Arkham games yet. Of course Origins has to prove that it is able to use that estabished framework well and the story has to be one that is worth telling.

I like that the premise is simple (dude hires assassins to kill young Batman) because one critique I would direct at Arkham City is that it got caught up in its own twists and turns.

They do have to be careful however not to rush out the assassins without giving them enough of a personality (another problem of AC was how throw away some of the villains ended up being) and I'm not convinced that they are able to avoid that. I'm not worried about Joker and Deathstroke getting enough time (Deathstroke is basically the coverstar of the advertising campaign and Joker is the fucking Joker) but for most of the otheres it'll most likely be like "Here's Copperhead and...that's it for Copperhead."

Here's hoping that the game will prove me wrong.

#48 Edited by hermes (1501 posts) -

Because its Batman. The only DC franchise that can justify having a game without a movie tie-in. Also:

@groin said:

This... pretty much all the explanation needed.

#49 Edited by Yummylee (21796 posts) -

@probablytuna said:
@michaelsuen said:

It just sucks watching gameplay of Origins and not really seeing anything new, cos the previous iteration was such a step up.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not excited for Arkham Origins. If I want to play more Arkham I could just load up Arkham City. When Rocksteady announces their Batman sequel, then I'll be interested again.

This is exactly what I did. Bought City for $7.50 when it went on sale on Steam, despite having played it before. Now I get to know I'm playing an incredible game, plus I get all of the DLC, and I don't have to pay full price for it.

It really bothers me that they're calling this game Arkham Origins. Arkham Asylum and Arkham City are places, it's not like this takes place on Origins Road in Gotham or something.

It's just a branding thing. Yeah, it doesn't make sense, but considering how many Batman games there are, they just want people to know that this exists within the Arkham universe established by Rocksteady and that it's to function like another one of those particular Batman games.

#50 Posted by 49th (2766 posts) -

I don't know why everyone is complaining about Batman having a similar sequel when so many other franchises are on their fourth or fifth iteration.

It's only the third game, and it's not even made by the same studio - Rocksteady is clearly working on something else so I don't see what there is to complain about.

I personally really enjoyed the Batman games and am looking forward to playing more.