• 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by jimmyfenix (3859 posts) -

The 3rd game in the Arkham franchise is out today but how good is it ?

Eurogamer – 7/10

AusGamers – 7/8/10

Polygon – 7/10

Gamespot – 6/10

GameStar Hungary – 8.6/10

OXM – 8/10

IGN – 7.8/10

Videogamer – 8/10

OPM – 8/10

CVG – 7/10

Xbox 360 Achievements – 92/100

Game Informer – 8.50/10

GameFront – 86/100

El33tonline – 4/5

Kotaku – Yes

I guess If it ain't broke, don't fix it ? From the reviews it says although this is an average game it is still better then most games in the genre.

Will you be picking this game up or are you waiting for next week when BF4 , AC IV and WWE 2K14 hit store shelves ?

#2 Posted by Tearhead (2197 posts) -

Kinda what everyone expected, especially after hearing about the lack of review copies. I was only going to pick this up at full price if it did something new, but seeing that it's basically the same thing for a third time, I'll wait for a significant sale on the steam version.

#3 Posted by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

Where's Ben Affleck?

#4 Edited by sissylion (679 posts) -

As someone who thought Arkham City was a bad video game, hearing "this is notably worse than Arkham City" doesn't exactly have me hustling to purchase it.

#5 Posted by joshwent (2327 posts) -

Sweet! I was basically hoping that this just wasn't horribly broken or anything like that.

More of a good thing, is still a good thing.

GLHB!

#6 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11448 posts) -

I'm sure that when I get around to playing it, I'll have a good time (never mind the frame rate), but with it being a side story, and me putting my money ahead for next gen, I'll probably wait on getting this.

#7 Posted by Morningstar (2231 posts) -

I'll wait for a price drop for this one. I don't need to play it right now, and my funds are going towards Ps4 and WiiU at the moment.

#8 Posted by Ferros (223 posts) -

I've got about four hours into it, mostly just flying around the Gotham doing some collectibles and general crime fighting. It's more Batman so it's good, some weird chugging frame rate on 360 and the fighting doesn't feel as smooth as the previous two also the design of Batman is a bit iffy, far too heavy looking for my liking. On the good side very atmospheric, well acted and lots and lots to do. Enjoying it so far but definitely getting a samey vibe in the early game.

#9 Edited by ArtelinaRose (1859 posts) -

I've been playing this game most of the night and I really like it! I enjoyed Arkham Asylum and Arkham City quite a lot as well, and this game feels like more of stuff that I know I enjoy. The combat feels... heavier? It's hard to explain. The hit sound effects have been modified and it feels like animations were made just a tad slower or tweaked in some way so that the combat just feels like every hit is much harder. I really dig it. I like the way Batman's suit looks as well. I've always been a big fan of the more high tech look or the Batman suits that actually look like armor and this one's pretty good.

It also looks reaaaaaaaaal pretty on PC.

#10 Edited by CaLe (4039 posts) -

Doesn't meet my standards.

#11 Posted by EuanDewar (5094 posts) -

Unfortunate timing for this game for me. Any other year I would go straight out and pick this up but with all the other crazy stuff coming up soon I'm gonna hold off for a while. Good to hear that's it still a quality game though.

#12 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4867 posts) -

No Conroy, no Dini, no Rocksteady, this is an Arkham game in name only. With my PS4 purchase and looking into next-gen games to go along with it, I can't justify dropping $60 on this.

#13 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

Really annoyed about the DLC scenario here, which is just becoming far too common. If I'm getting a lesser experience for playing it on the platform I want to, I can more than happily hold off for a complete version of the game to release.

#14 Posted by Castiel (2704 posts) -

I can't justify dropping $60 on this.

From a dark secluded alley you hear: "How about zero bucks? Can you justify dropping zero bucks? Come a little closer. I won't do anything... I got a copy of Batman: Arkham Origins right here. Why don't you come a little closer? Come on. It's free."

#15 Edited by Deranged (1856 posts) -

From my perspective, I don't take reviews personally as a motivator to purchase a game but I'm glad to see that the general consensus is that WB Montreal did a good job with this. As much as I expected truthfully and to be honest, I'd be a fool to miss out on another Batman experience!

#16 Posted by Mars (310 posts) -

I'm liking this way more than I expected! To be fair, I got it for free when I bought a graphics card, but it's still exceeding expectations. It also probably helps that I'm playing on pc. The graphics are GREAT and I've had no frame rate issues. Having played all of AA but very little of AC, it still feels fresh and fun.

#17 Edited by ShaggE (6634 posts) -

Sounds good to me. "Ghost Arkham Problems More" is all I wanted from this. I won't be so forgiving if they do a second sequel as iterative as this one, but I see Origins as a victory lap (despite the different devs).

#18 Edited by Humanity (9855 posts) -

When I saw the 6/10 on GameSpot I jokingly thought "Carolyn Petit hates men!" So I was surprised when I clicked the link and realized she actually did review it.

As a disclaimer, I don't ACTUALLY think that she hates men.

Edit: As an aside, the animated header for the review on GameSpot is amazing.

Online
#19 Posted by Levius (1205 posts) -

Well, that is totally unexpected.

Sarcasm aside, a part of me feels really sad that a game as unexpected and original as Arkham Asylum has fallen into just going through the motions with its sequels, but that's modern video games I suppose. Hopefully Rocksteady is brewing something special, but I think its going to be real tough to hit the highs of the original.

#20 Posted by GunstarRed (5401 posts) -

It was Adam Sessler comparing the games writing to Scott Snyder's and that big discount at GMG that finally sold me on getting the game. Now I have to wait till like monday to play the damn thing...stupid internet speeds.

#21 Edited by MildMolasses (3228 posts) -

Well, that is totally unexpected.

Sarcasm aside, a part of me feels really sad that a game as unexpected and original as Arkham Asylum has fallen into just going through the motions with its sequels, but that's modern video games I suppose. Hopefully Rocksteady is brewing something special, but I think its going to be real tough to hit the highs of the original.

I hear ya. I was tempted to get this, but then I noticed that they just patched in cards and steam achievements on Arkham Asylum, so I'm going to play that yet again

#22 Edited by Briggs713 (223 posts) -

I have a weekend completely to myself and am wondering if I should go out and buy this right now. If Rocksteady is potentially working on a next-gen follow-up to the series, why does this game have to exist? To qualify that, I mean that the proper amount of time should be taken to make a sequel that meaningfully iterates on the series. Otherwise, what's special about the Arkham series gets diluted. The reviews make it sound like its a perfectly O.K. version of the Batman games. It reminds me of Assassin's Creed Revelations. Let's just put another one of these to make a quick-buck and make sure people don't forget the brand. That game was so much of the same and the little changes they made were awful. I'm not sure I want to support that anymore. Without having played this game, my impressions are tempered by games seemingly like it that have come before.

#23 Posted by TruthTellah (9423 posts) -

I'm pleasantly surprised, and apparently, even the 3DS Batman Origins game is good. Like Super Metroid with Batman.

It's wild. I was not expecting anything of these games.

#24 Posted by development (2573 posts) -

I didn't play Arkham City, so I'll get this. It's been long enough since Asylum that I'm down for more of the same.

#25 Posted by billymagnum (837 posts) -

Where's Ben Affleck?

in each and every person's heart

after arkham city. i think im burnt out on this series. pass until CHEAP.

#26 Edited by Nals (81 posts) -

I've played a good 5-6 hours so far.

It's worse then Asylum, but tighter/better then City. The story is more interesting at least then both Asylum/City, and goes in some interesting places. Feels like Gotham, feels like younger Batman/Joker. Honestly sounds exactly like Conroy/Hamill except a good 10-20 years younger, which fits perfectly for the setting. Whoever is voicing Bats is really goddamn good, as he is able to hit the "I'm young Bats who hasn't fully adjusted to being an asshole yet/I'M GOING TO FAR ON THIS INTERROGATION, OH GOD." cords perfectly.

Combat is much tighter, in previous Arkham games, you had a huge window of opportunity to get off a hit/counter, in this, the window is both much smaller, and you can't go from a hit to a counter as quickly, so you have to play it smart. I honestly like it. Much greater incentive to use your gadgets in combat, and you start with all of them unlocked.

A really great thing that you can't really see from the previews is the fact nobody believes he exists still, since it's still so early in his career. Gordon going on about how a man dressing up like a bat is absurd, and he needs to be taken in to custody before he hurts someone, thugs going off about how silly you look, guys like Penguin/Joker asking what the hell you think you are doing wearing a Bat suit, etc. It's nice to see really early Batman stuff, back when it was just Batman ( because even the cops are corrupt/against you ), with all the major villains still getting themselves situated/not nearly as powerful/known as they are by later Batman material.

From where I am in the game/how things are going, I'd say it's also decently long, and may be longer then Asylum/City.

Honestly I'm enjoying it. Had people not went on a rant about how it's not Rocksteady/Conroy, I'd have never known, they match the styles so well. If you liked the last two Batman games, you'll like this, especially if you liked Asylum over City.

#27 Posted by Demoskinos (15103 posts) -

Im too busy diving into Tales of Xilla while still feeding a rampant GTAO addiction.

#28 Posted by Deusx (1910 posts) -

Sounds like a batman game... I'm cool with that.

#29 Edited by RonGalaxy (3263 posts) -

Whats the word on the story? If its better than arkham city (which I thought had a bad story) I might consider it. As long as everything else is equal to previous entries-gameplay, the world, side stuff, characters.

#30 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

I like it a lot more than city so far, that's for sure.

#31 Posted by jimmyfenix (3859 posts) -

@naru_joe93: I found this. Hope it helps

The events of Arkham Origins are set approximately five years before Batman: Arkham Asylum, in the middle of winter in fictional Gotham City. Batman is an experienced crime-fighter in the second year of his career, but has not yet become the veteran superhero portrayed in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City He remains a mysterious force with even the police unsure if he is a vigilante, a myth or supernatural. Batman has battled with traditional criminals and gangsters and is used to being stronger and faster than his targets. However, on a snowy Christmas Eve, he is confronted by far more dangerous foes: eight professional assassins aiming to collect the $50 million bounty put on Batman's head by Black Mask. Rogues such as the Joker take advantage of the assassins' arrival to launch their own nefarious schemes, while Black Mask's henchmen help instigate a rise in crime and gang activity in the city

#32 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Sounds like saints row 4 like game to me. Good, but nothing more. I'll ppick it up for25% off during the steam chriatmas sale.

#33 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4867 posts) -

@nals said:

I've played a good 5-6 hours so far.

It's worse then Asylum, but tighter/better then City. The story is more interesting at least then both Asylum/City, and goes in some interesting places. Feels like Gotham, feels like younger Batman/Joker. Honestly sounds exactly like Conroy/Hamill except a good 10-20 years younger, which fits perfectly for the setting. Whoever is voicing Bats is really goddamn good, as he is able to hit the "I'm young Bats who hasn't fully adjusted to being an asshole yet/I'M GOING TO FAR ON THIS INTERROGATION, OH GOD." cords perfectly.

Combat is much tighter, in previous Arkham games, you had a huge window of opportunity to get off a hit/counter, in this, the window is both much smaller, and you can't go from a hit to a counter as quickly, so you have to play it smart. I honestly like it. Much greater incentive to use your gadgets in combat, and you start with all of them unlocked.

A really great thing that you can't really see from the previews is the fact nobody believes he exists still, since it's still so early in his career. Gordon going on about how a man dressing up like a bat is absurd, and he needs to be taken in to custody before he hurts someone, thugs going off about how silly you look, guys like Penguin/Joker asking what the hell you think you are doing wearing a Bat suit, etc. It's nice to see really early Batman stuff, back when it was just Batman ( because even the cops are corrupt/against you ), with all the major villains still getting themselves situated/not nearly as powerful/known as they are by later Batman material.

From where I am in the game/how things are going, I'd say it's also decently long, and may be longer then Asylum/City.

Honestly I'm enjoying it. Had people not went on a rant about how it's not Rocksteady/Conroy, I'd have never known, they match the styles so well. If you liked the last two Batman games, you'll like this, especially if you liked Asylum over City.

You've made a good case for Origins so far, but one thing bothers me. Namely, the change to the counter system. You say the window is much smaller, but the window wasn't terribly large to begin with and canceling from attack to counter is what made the combat feel so great (and manageable). As someone who quite enjoyed that system (and getting 150 hit combos in some of the larger arenas), do you find yourself getting hit more often due to the inability to counter cancel? If so, are there other ways to work on the gangs?

I ask because some late game mobs had you dealing with assault rifles, stun batons, mutants, riot shields, and some other nasty surprises. You needed to use every tool at your disposal to get through the fight let alone unscathed. I'm worried that removing the counter window and the attack canceling for quick counters will drastically change the flow of mob encounters.

#34 Edited by RonGalaxy (3263 posts) -

@jimmyfenix: I know what the story setup is. A great idea for a story doesn't always translate to a well told one. With that aside, Adam Sessler says that the story is great, so Im strongly considering it now. And he has the same issues with city that I had.

#35 Posted by Humanity (9855 posts) -

I was not a big fan of City and this looks very similar. Then again some of the praise from this thread has me interested. At one point I need to stop playing GTA Online because I'm honestly not getting anything out of saving up money for a virtual car to put in my virtual garage.

Online
#36 Posted by spraynardtatum (3513 posts) -

Is the city the same as Arkham City? Is it all of Gotham or the same closed off area?

#37 Posted by Nals (81 posts) -

Whats the word on the story? If its better than arkham city (which I thought had a bad story) I might consider it. As long as everything else is equal to previous entries-gameplay, the world, side stuff, characters.

It's a lot better then City. Honestly, I'd say this is a much better sequel to Asylum then City was overall.

#38 Edited by Happenstance (467 posts) -

Im enjoying the story and the gameplay is as you would expect but technically its not great. I'll be glad when the series goes back to Rocksteady.

#39 Posted by NipCrip66 (126 posts) -

@naru_joe93: Adam Sessler raved about the story in his review. It's about the only thing that's made me consider buying it.

#40 Edited by RonGalaxy (3263 posts) -

@nals said:

@naru_joe93 said:

Whats the word on the story? If its better than arkham city (which I thought had a bad story) I might consider it. As long as everything else is equal to previous entries-gameplay, the world, side stuff, characters.

It's a lot better then City. Honestly, I'd say this is a much better sequel to Asylum then City was overall.

Second Question: how does the world compare to Arkham City? Because that was the best aspect of that game

#41 Edited by bybeach (4977 posts) -

@castiel said:

@oldirtybearon said:

I can't justify dropping $60 on this.

From a dark secluded alley you hear: "How about zero bucks? Can you justify dropping zero bucks? Come a little closer. I won't do anything... I got a copy of Batman: Arkham Origins right here. Why don't you come a little closer? Come on. It's free."

you should of said 'along with cigars and whiskey' Because you didn't I figured out what you are doing there.

#42 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2565 posts) -

I'll wait for a price drop or ask for it for Christmas. Game looks good and I loved Arkham Asylum and City but $60 seems a little much to spend on this right now.

#43 Posted by CircleNine (381 posts) -

Let's wait a week or two and see how the review score averages change after all of the people they decided to not send review copies to get their hands on it and put out reviews. Day one reviews are completely meaningless when they've so visibly been parsing out the game only to a select number of outlets.

#44 Posted by Nals (81 posts) -

@nals said:

@naru_joe93 said:

Whats the word on the story? If its better than arkham city (which I thought had a bad story) I might consider it. As long as everything else is equal to previous entries-gameplay, the world, side stuff, characters.

It's a lot better then City. Honestly, I'd say this is a much better sequel to Asylum then City was overall.

Second Question: how does the world compare to Arkham City? Because that was the best aspect of that game

It's City but fixed up, with a bridge to the rest of Gotham, and a few more zones down there. It's also got christmas stuff everywhere. It's just familiar enough to feel comfortable in, but different enough to constantly be finding new things/keep it interesting.

@nals said:

I've played a good 5-6 hours so far.

It's worse then Asylum, but tighter/better then City. The story is more interesting at least then both Asylum/City, and goes in some interesting places. Feels like Gotham, feels like younger Batman/Joker. Honestly sounds exactly like Conroy/Hamill except a good 10-20 years younger, which fits perfectly for the setting. Whoever is voicing Bats is really goddamn good, as he is able to hit the "I'm young Bats who hasn't fully adjusted to being an asshole yet/I'M GOING TO FAR ON THIS INTERROGATION, OH GOD." cords perfectly.

Combat is much tighter, in previous Arkham games, you had a huge window of opportunity to get off a hit/counter, in this, the window is both much smaller, and you can't go from a hit to a counter as quickly, so you have to play it smart. I honestly like it. Much greater incentive to use your gadgets in combat, and you start with all of them unlocked.

A really great thing that you can't really see from the previews is the fact nobody believes he exists still, since it's still so early in his career. Gordon going on about how a man dressing up like a bat is absurd, and he needs to be taken in to custody before he hurts someone, thugs going off about how silly you look, guys like Penguin/Joker asking what the hell you think you are doing wearing a Bat suit, etc. It's nice to see really early Batman stuff, back when it was just Batman ( because even the cops are corrupt/against you ), with all the major villains still getting themselves situated/not nearly as powerful/known as they are by later Batman material.

From where I am in the game/how things are going, I'd say it's also decently long, and may be longer then Asylum/City.

Honestly I'm enjoying it. Had people not went on a rant about how it's not Rocksteady/Conroy, I'd have never known, they match the styles so well. If you liked the last two Batman games, you'll like this, especially if you liked Asylum over City.

You've made a good case for Origins so far, but one thing bothers me. Namely, the change to the counter system. You say the window is much smaller, but the window wasn't terribly large to begin with and canceling from attack to counter is what made the combat feel so great (and manageable). As someone who quite enjoyed that system (and getting 150 hit combos in some of the larger arenas), do you find yourself getting hit more often due to the inability to counter cancel? If so, are there other ways to work on the gangs?

I ask because some late game mobs had you dealing with assault rifles, stun batons, mutants, riot shields, and some other nasty surprises. You needed to use every tool at your disposal to get through the fight let alone unscathed. I'm worried that removing the counter window and the attack canceling for quick counters will drastically change the flow of mob encounters.

I've not really had any problems with it so far. I think I described it less then I should have. It's not so much the window is smaller, as there is less chance of a mistake. In Asylum/City, I could, and usually did just spam the attack button until I saw a counter icon pop up, then countered. It worked for the vast majority of the game, outside of Challenge Rooms/endstuff. In Origins, if you are pounding the attack button, you won't be able to counter fast enough. You need to really plan out your attacks as you go, which in my mind, makes the combat more interesting, while not really making it more difficult.

I honestly found that I had adapted fully to it by an hour or so in. As I said, it's a minor change, not a huge one. Batman just feels like he has more weight behind him now ( which he does, he's in a gigantic heavy suit which he later swapped out for a more agile suit in Asylum/City. ).

#45 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3971 posts) -

The previous two Batman games, as good as they were, had glaring flaws so its a shame a new dev couldn't come in and fix some of those and add more flavor of their own. The bossfights, the open world (not dynamic enough, the map was rather terribly designed in City) etc.

#46 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12004 posts) -

Yep, sounds about as I expected. In order to celebrate, I'm going to play that copy of Arkham Asylum that I've had in my steam library for years.

#47 Edited by GaspoweR (3359 posts) -

I played about a few minutes last night on the PC version and there were no frame rate issues whatsoever. So far still interested in continuing with the game when I've got time. The few minutes I've played left a great impression.

#48 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

This game was $32.50 on PC so that seems about the right price.

#49 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@gaspower said:

I played about a few minutes last night on the PC version and there were no frame rate issues whatsoever. So far still interested in continuing with the game when I've got time. The few minutes I've played left a great impression.

It's a bit odd when people mention the PC having no framerate issues, that has no bearing on the discussion because obviously it's dependant on the computer's individual hardware specification. (unless the game is flat out a terrible port, but even so high end hardware can brute force past that)

#50 Posted by Krullban (1062 posts) -

I'm slightly disappointed about the city feeling lifeless and there not being any of those many many cool eastern eggs that the other games have. But oh well, I will play for the story. Love the Arkham games.