Batman: Arkham Origins VS Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

Started by Estacado6 pages

Lulz how people are hating at AO for basically no real reason.Also most excuses are pretty weak....

Originally posted by Estacado
Lulz how people are hating at AO for basically no real reason.Also most excuses are pretty weak....

To be fair, the game does have its faults, so some criticism is fair. The game isn't perfect, after all.

Shut up!uhuh

Originally posted by Estacado
Shut up!uhuh

😂

hey, I like the game more than Asylum. I'm definitely a fan of it, and I think that, in doing a lot of things right, it's being unfairly judged in a lot of ways.

There are just some in which that judgement is completely valid.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I think Origins is the worst of the series.

Aslyum is fantastic, AC did something different and Origins is AC 1.5.....with shitty boss fights.

I ****ing hate how Origins world is devoid of anything that makes it memorable. The first two had so many cool little tidbits about the Batman series while Origins has none of that.

👆

Anyway, of the two games I had more fun with Black Flag. However, I'd recommend just waiting for them to get cheap before buying either. Neither of the games are "must haves" and are merely decent at best.

I was looking forward to Black Flag more than AO. I played AO first though, and thought it was ok. It was no AC, but better than AA.

Black Flag, on the other hand, looks like it may become my favorite AC.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I think Origins is the worst of the series.

Aslyum is fantastic, AC did something different and Origins is AC 1.5.....with shitty boss fights.

I ****ing hate how Origins world is devoid of anything that makes it memorable. The first two had so many cool little tidbits about the Batman series while Origins has none of that.

I really do agree with that last paragraph. It does feel very bland compared to the others.

There is a lot of reasons why Origins is not as good as the previous games.

The main one: its a sequel that doesn't do anything new for the series while the game play elements are actually worst than previous games.

I don't understand why they tinkered at all with the combat. They made Batman slower, presumably as an attempt to make the game harder, but in reality all it did was make the combat feel more clunky than other games and make it easier to get stuck in animation, which cause the counter button to pretty often do nothing.

Gonna have to disagree about the world; I thought the design, including several of the interiors, was excellent. The easter eggs are harder to find, but they are there. Maybe not in as high a number, but they do exist.

The only part that I thought was memorable or really even comparible in personality and atmosphere was

Spoiler:
the hotel level that Joker had taken over. That part was great.

Originally posted by Estacado
Lulz how people are hating at AO for basically no real reason.Also most excuses are pretty weak....

So are ACIII's but I digress; that didn't stop ACIV from doing good on III's best new additions.

The interior scenes are still pretty good. I enjoyed them. The good parts of Origins.

The main city, completely generic. I remember Arkham City environment, they were stellar. The world was filled with memorabilia about Batman. The side missions were excellent, filled with original content. Chasing Zasz down and then infiltrating his hideout while he talks to you and threatens the hostage was great.

In Origins, both the Penguins and Black Masks have identical missions. It screams filler to me. Hell, Deadshot's mission takes place in area that you have already visited once already....

I was wondering why I kept on failing with the counter button. I see the guy, hit Y and I still get pummeled....

Overall, the game is good and fun to play but I don't know if I will ever play it again when the previous two are much better games. The first two games made me feel like Batman, this game makes me feel like that guy in the Dark Knight you pretends to be Batman.

Deadshot was still executed better in Origins than he was in City though, not to mention the design actually looks more like his usual self, as opposed to... what he had on in Arkham City. The Mad Hatter mission in AO was certainly more memorable than the one in AC as well. Those mind-controlled thugs singing that song to you out of nowhere, and then actually being in Hatter's twisted fantasy world, a la Scarecrow...

Some of AO's side missions like Penguins' and Black Mask's were rather filler, I agree, but the others still felt worthwhile enough.

AO's main city being basically Arkham City with some tweaks I can understand since it'd be hard to top the kind of open world-ness that City had, but the whole Christmas theme in AO was kinda.. random. Maybe if they had released the game closer to Christmas instead of in October it would've made sense, but... I don't know. Perhaps they figured Christmas was the time most would get the game?

Have yet to really encounter certain problems with the combat gameplay like countering, but did notice it being kinda harder. Not having as much freedom with the order in which you can choose your upgrades when leveling up (not being able to have critical hits and such until after you got ballistic armor 4.0, for instance) probably contributed to that though.

Overall, despite the game's obvious flaws, still a solid title, and don't feel it deserves as much mean spirited feedback as it's gotten. Can't expect every next game to always top the previous installments. Though I still have yet to completely finish it (almost at the end, I think), AO has pretty much met my expectations of not being as good as City, but better than Asylum, IMO.

Originally posted by Smasandian
The interior scenes are still pretty good. I enjoyed them. The good parts of Origins.

The main city, completely generic. I remember Arkham City environment, they were stellar. The world was filled with memorabilia about Batman. The side missions were excellent, filled with original content. Chasing Zasz down and then infiltrating his hideout while he talks to you and threatens the hostage was great.

In Origins, both the Penguins and Black Masks have identical missions. It screams filler to me. Hell, Deadshot's mission takes place in area that you have already visited once already....

I was wondering why I kept on failing with the counter button. I see the guy, hit Y and I still get pummeled....

Overall, the game is good and fun to play but I don't know if I will ever play it again when the previous two are much better games. The first two games made me feel like Batman, this game makes me feel like that guy in the Dark Knight you pretends to be Batman.

I dont know about all that, but i will agree on them downplaying Black Mask

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Deadshot was still executed better in Origins than he was in City though, not to mention the design actually looks more like his usual self, as opposed to... what he had on in Arkham City. The Mad Hatter mission in AO was certainly more memorable than the one in AC as well. Those mind-controlled thugs singing that song to you out of nowhere, and then actually being in Hatter's twisted fantasy world, a la Scarecrow...

Some of AO's side missions like Penguins' and Black Mask's were rather filler, I agree, but the others still felt worthwhile enough.

AO's main city being basically Arkham City with some tweaks I can understand since it'd be hard to top the kind of open world-ness that City had, but the whole Christmas theme in AO was kinda.. random. Maybe if they had released the game closer to Christmas instead of in October it would've made sense, but... I don't know. Perhaps they figured Christmas was the time most would get the game?

Have yet to really encounter certain problems with the combat gameplay like countering, but did notice it being kinda harder. Not having as much freedom with the order in which you can choose your upgrades when leveling up (not being able to have critical hits and such until after you got ballistic armor 4.0, for instance) probably contributed to that though.

Overall, despite the game's obvious flaws, still a solid title, and don't feel it deserves as much mean spirited feedback as it's gotten. Can't expect every next game to always top the previous installments. Though I still have yet to completely finish it (almost at the end, I think), AO has pretty much met my expectations of not being as good as City, but better than Asylum, IMO.


Thank You, that's what i have been trying to say, my only problem is Roger Craig Smith not getting any Credit

I don't understand how people can say AO doesn't add anything to the series. While the story is kinda short it sets up the relationship between batman and the joker. It gave me that same feeling that The Dark Knight did when the joker said "I don't want to kill you, you complete me". It didn't advance anything but in a way it really shouldn't. Being a prequel the best it can hope to do is set things up and I feel it did that well enough. I won't say its my favorite of the series though. I give....

AO- 8.5/10 They did a great job. I loved the addition of the Batcave and Alfred. Deathstroke was cool. It still had the feeling the others gave me. The story is a little short though. They could have spent more time on making it a little longer and fixing bugs then trying to add the mutiplayer.

AA-10/10 My favorite. I think its a lot to do with I will always remember it gave me that "IM THE BATMAN!" feeling for the first time.

AC- 10/10 I mean it had practically everything. The only thing I was dissopointed about in this game was that I couldn't patrol Gotham with any of the DLC characters besides Catwoman.

For each game in the series, I expect developer to change things up, make things better and add new elements.

Origins did none of that. Just because it's a prequel, doesn't give the developers a day off.

If it had been the same developers, I would agree with you. But this wasn't Rocksteady, iirc, so I think it's unfair to expect them to be able to make the same leaps as Rocksteady did.

It's not like AC 4 did anything new gameplaywise you only have 4 weapons swords,pistols,darts and smoke bombs and you can buy different swords and pistols nothing more for Edward.Gameplay barely changed since the 1st game....there are new stuff like harpooning but it's really minor change.

AC4 refined the gameplay that AC3 already had so at least now you're more inclined to get weapon upgrades and counter-kills don't sap all the fun out of the game. Also the addition of taking down forts and boarding ships was added and the world in general felt more open. In addition the collecta-thons are more tolerable and actually do have some value. Besides even if the core gameplay is constant that's not really a bad thing. So AO and AC4 are both even in that regard though AC4 impressed me more.