I always took this as a game that didn't need to be made. Not that it was crap or not.
Superman 64 is one of the worst games to be made but there wasn't a huge amount of superhero games released on the 64 so I can understand the idea of somebody making one. It just happened to be shit.
Arkham Origins was an adequete game but it's a carbon copy of the first two and Arkham Knight was being developed. It's a cash grab. I rather have that money for development put into Arkham Knight. It doesn't need to exist.
I'll take something that played off the formula of what's still considered the best game of the series (Arkham City) over taking away a good chunk of what people liked about Arkham in the first place in favor of driving the batmobile and having boring repetitive tank battles over fun unique bosses.
A cash grab would be more like Knight's $40 season pass.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
I'll take something that played off the formula of what's still considered the best game of the series (Arkham City) over taking away a good chunk of what people liked about Arkham in the first place in favor of driving the batmobile and having boring repetitive tank battles over fun unique bosses.A cash grab would be more like Knight's $40 season pass.
👆
Seriously, something that's a copy of a great game...... is still a great game. Origins issues were mostly that it was rougher than City in terms of combat. Just frustrating things like inputs misfiring and the challenges being super dumb. Also no Riddles. 🙁
I really liked the story. It was better than City's, which I felt was pretty slapdash.
Originally posted by Smasandian
I always took this as a game that didn't need to be made. Not that it was crap or not.Superman 64 is one of the worst games to be made but there wasn't a huge amount of superhero games released on the 64 so I can understand the idea of somebody making one. It just happened to be shit.
Arkham Origins was an adequete game but it's a carbon copy of the first two and Arkham Knight was being developed. It's a cash grab. I rather have that money for development put into Arkham Knight. It doesn't need to exist.
Maybe, but to me there's a difference between needing to be made and whether it should be made or not.
I'm happy Origins was made, personally.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
I'll take something that played off the formula of what's still considered the best game of the series (Arkham City) over taking away a good chunk of what people liked about Arkham in the first place in favor of driving the batmobile and having boring repetitive tank battles over fun unique bosses.A cash grab would be more like Knight's $40 season pass.
I still consider Knight the better game, but that's me I guess.
I think Arkham Origins gets a lot of undeserved flak. The biggest problem it had was that it had so many glitches at launch. Such as the game freezing. But most of those have been patched since then. Beyond that, I found it a perfectly cromulent game. The gameplay was virtually identical to City, so no, it wasn't innovative. But no less fun.
It had a FAR superior version of Bane, in both looks and story. Origins' Bane felt like a primary mastermind and a threat, whereas Asylum/City's Bane was... more of a sub-boss/side-quest lunkhead. I think Origins' Bane was the best portrayal of him outside the comics. Furthermore, it introduced a lot of new villains to the franchise and gave some obscure ones exposure, without over-using most of the already established ones.
And speaking of Bane, it's actually kind of funny how WBM gets a lot of flak for Origins, but they managed to do villains like him and Deathstroke justice compared to how Rocksteady handled them. Slade's appearance in Knight was just insulting.
All and all, Origins wasn't a bad game, freezing problems not withstanding. It's DLC story was also much better than the one in City's. And now people can't go around saying it's not canon as not only has Rocksteady said that they consider it canon, but Knight also makes some references to Origins.