As look at Arkham Knight I wonder will it have all the stuff City had that made it fun or will it fail to own up to its hype like Origins? Arkham City is the best super hero/Batman game ever being predecessor to Asylum which already had high standards; but when it came to Origins I was letdown by 1 its story and 2 it copy and pastes the stuff we liked from City & Asylum but doesn't have the same ring but I did still enjoy Origins and it's 1 of my Favorite games but it's also another Assassin's Creed III if you know what I mean. So what's your thought?

It's made by Rocksteady. They made City and Asylum. They did not make Origins. Ergo, supposedly it'll be better than Origins.

Exactly.

I would never compare that game to AC3. In Origins, you aren't forced to play for almost two hours as someone other than the main character, and the story isn't hidden from you in very stingy ways. Also, AC is a series that, despite having many iterations, still has flaws and needs work. The Arkham series is pretty well refined. So, mechanically, it is easily arguable to say that Origins has better gameplay than AC3, especially since they both do many similar things.

Also, how can you say it's one of your favorite games but then say that it's like AC3? It sounds more like you may just be tired of the series as a whole. Anyway, it will (ideally) be more like City. Though, I don't really know what that means. Comparing it to one or the other seems really reductive when Rocksteady has done a good job so far of differentiating the two games they developed from one another. So the most likely scenario is that it's unlike all three and has its own flavor.

I liked Origins.

Also, Origins didn't fall to its own hype because hardly anyone was looking forward to it besides die-hard fans.

This is probably correct. Origins was fine anyways--it just had some serious technical problems on release (including a bug that prevented 100% completion) that have since been cleared up.

it will be a Bore-gins, ahaha

I've heard that complaint quite a bit, but what exactly is the problem with playing as another character?

I dont understand that complaint either, I feel like Haytham was a far stronger protagonist then the second guy you run around as- and the story and gameplay was a lot more focused during that portion as well.

@junkerman: @theht: It has nothing to do with the character itself. It's more of the slow pace that the story takes in AC games. But then when you advertise and show off this main character and it takes a long chunk of time to even get to him, it makes it an overstayed prologue. It should have been 20-30 minutes tops. But again, nothing to do with Haytham at all. It's just the Ubisoft storytelling methods.

Yeah, that bait and switch would have actually been amazing if they hadn't revealed beforehand who the actual main character was. Even still, the reveal that Haytham was actually a Templar was one of the best moments in that game.

@mbradley1992: Fair point! I totally agree!

Back on topic... I have high hopes for the new Rocksteady Arkham, they have a strong pedigree and the true voice of batman returning. I feel like they have plenty of room to make at least an acceptable experience in the face of the overwhelming hype and scrutiny it will no doubt face. If they cant craft many interesting new game play innovations they can still at least tell a gripping story and 'wow' with some next gen visuals we are all waiting for.

I feel like the publishers deciding to even create Origins at all will be the bigger do or die decision down the road. Personally I skipped it, and so my last experience with Batman was running around wishing there was more story to complete as I was not yet done with the gameplay side of things and so I am very much looking forward to this next iteration. I can also see folks being less enthused in the end if Arkham Knight is just a more polished version of Origins featuring mechanics that -through no fault of their own- have simply just overstayed its welcome for some folks. We shall see!

I'm hoping it's more like an Asylum. City was bloated with Riddler crap and short on story. I haven't gotten around to Origins yet.

If you've seen the stuff you can do in Arkham Knight, I don't think it makes sense to ask this question really.

Origin's easily had the best story of all the Arkham games, but the gameplay wasn't quite as good as Asylum or City. It also didn't have the badass set piece style moments akin to the Scarecrow stuff in Asylum, or rather, it didn't have that many of them.

Hopefully neither of them. Hopefully it will be a Asylum. The Arkham franchise peaked at the beginning; the combat is amazing and both the sequel and the prequel added minor additions to it but it was already so close to perfect in the first game that I actually think they just diluted the experience with the open-world stuff. It was just completely unnecessary to have to constantly fly around from point A to point B to get to the next story mission. Cut out the meaningless traversal time. That's why Asylum is a better game. It's a much more focused and tighter experience.

But hopefully Rocksteady gets the open-world stuff right this time.

@castiel: It won't be Asylum. Asylum only worked as well as it did because it wasn't open world, like you say it's a tighter experience. This new game is an even BIGGER open world for them to try get right, so much bigger you now have a car to get around in.

I'm comparing the 2 games because they didn't live up to the Hype

@castiel: City's better that Asylum because there is more to once story is over than collect riddler trophies and solve riddles that's why when the came up with side quest you could have something else to do than collect trophies

100% of the sidequests can - and most probably are - done before the main story ends. Once those are done, you get only Riddler trophies, which were completely overkill in City.

I like City a lot, but Asylum was a tight experience with perfect pacing - something that City maybe didn't fail to be, but had problems by not modifying the Asylum formula enough to accommodate its open-world sensibilities. I hope Knight does that, because if it's a much bigger City/Origins with a billion more Riddler trophies, then no thanks.

Plus, Origins didn't really have any hype. If anything, people were wary of it due to not being a Rocksteady game. In fact, the reception to that game warmed up months later when people realized that it's the best written Arkham game.

Although I still feel Origins gets some unnecessary flack. It'll be another City-esque game. You can't make a vehicle a bullet-point and then tighten the playfield up.

Until you think about it and realize it's only so surprising because they purposely mislead you and misrepresent the characters involved. It's cheap, bad storytelling.

AC III was amazing. Easily the best in the franchise. I'm hoping this game's more like Origins because City was just downright terrible. City was the exact opposite of what I wanted and expected from a sequel to Arkham Asylum. It forced you to traverse a clunky open world with no means of getting across the map in a quick manner. It failed to fix any of the problems I had with the original game. At least Origins tried to balance out the combat by giving you the shock gloves. In Asylum and City, Rocksteady threw tons of enemies at you at one time and expected you take them out while defeating a big bad guy. I have had to do many of those boss fights over and over again because of that. I can not take down all those bad guys at once.

I have tried to play Arkham City several times and just couldn't get into it. I beat Arkham Asylum in a weekend. I probably won't buy Knight at release.

I like your thinking, friend.

As far as Knight goes, I just hope the game doesn't turn into a Batmobile fest. It's cool and flashy, but Batman isn't a top-down, music blaring kind of crime fighter, you know? Asylum is my favorite of the first three because of its stealth-oriented gameplay and it didn't need a huge, open world to feel like a massive experience.

I liked ACII better. City wasn't terrible it's the best of the series. I will have to agree with you the Shock Glove part I'm playing I am The Knight mode right now and when your in a combat encounter with a ton of enemies it's very annoying Pre-Shock Gloves. City was smarter about New Game Plus than Origins Because I had all my gadgets an stuff at the beginning but in Origins I don't so no shock gloves. Hopefully WB Games decides to include shock gloves even with Rocksteady being a part of this next project.

I think you mean an Asylum.

For the record, I finally did beat Arkham City about a month ago. It's pretty good but I think the open world causes that game a lot of pacing issues. Arkham City is a fine game but I don't want to play another game like it. Let's hope that Knight is more like Asylum.

Never played Origins. It seems like one of those games that's good, just not as good as its predecessors so it gets shat on a lot. I remember a lot of people saying it had better writing than Asylum and City.

Just wanted to hop in here to say Arkham Asylum was the best game in the series, Arkham City was a backwards step. Also Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is the best.

I can already tell by looking at the city that it will feel more like City than Origins. I found Origins' Gotham boring.

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/537cb93469bedd6a1257d10e-1920-1080/batman-arkham-knight-flying.jpg

City was a better game on NG+, with all the collectible stuff out of the way you're just free to plough through all the story content (main and side) without restriction.

City and origins are basically the same game and I liked origins more anyways. Your question should be is it going to be asylum or city in terms of quality.