Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which game is better to get ?

Not saying AC sucks, it doesn't, but I've stop being into AC really since pt.2 While Batman's Arkham games just get better and better for me. Like, they're just more fun to play. Like it's a much better beat 'em up. AC's story is better though. But that's just me.

Imo, you definitely won't go wrong with Batman Origins if you had to pick outta the two.

100% agree with Fistofthe North!

I like both Ac is longer cause of the bigger landscape ,sidequest,hunting,treasure search..etc...
Im a big comic fan and Batman is awesome so I choose it over Ac.

Arkham Origins for me, AC is Good but it's timeline and Assassins are all over the Place, like it completely screws over Connor and doesn't continue his story, and we have Yet to have a BLACK ASSASSIN.

Batman on the Other hand just gets Better and Better and Origins Story IMO is Better than any of the previous Arkham games mainly because its more Focused, even though it SCREWS OVER BLACK MASK

I haven't played AC4 yet but if it's like other AC games, I would go for Batman.

One thing I like about the Batman games is that the side missions/collections are fun to play. There is a puzzle to them. I find in AC that a lot of them are collect a thons without any reason to them.

Originally posted by RedX1852
Arkham Origins for me, AC is Good but it's timeline and Assassins are all over the Place, like it completely screws over Connor and doesn't continue his story, and we have Yet to have a BLACK ASSASSIN.

Batman on the Other hand just gets Better and Better and Origins Story IMO is Better than any of the previous Arkham games mainly because its more Focused, even though it SCREWS OVER BLACK MASK


I stopped playing Batman games after, Arkham Asylum because they kept casting white people to play, Batman.

Originally posted by RedX1852
Arkham Origins for me, AC is Good but it's timeline and Assassins are all over the Place, like it completely screws over Connor and doesn't continue his story, and we have Yet to have a BLACK ASSASSIN.

Batman on the Other hand just gets Better and Better and Origins Story IMO is Better than any of the previous Arkham games mainly because its more Focused, even though it SCREWS OVER BLACK MASK

There is indeed a black assassin in black flag! He's a former slave turned assassin..


"Freedom Cry", planned downloadable content for Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, will star Adewale, a former slave and protagonist Edward Kenway's second-in-command, Ubisoft confirmed today."


http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/8/4815900/assassins-creed-4-black-flag-freedom-cry-dlc-season-pass-adewale

Can't speak to AC4, but AC4 has the better reviews. Also AO is very buggy right now.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
There is indeed a black assassin in black flag! He's a former slave turned assassin..


"Freedom Cry", planned downloadable content for Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, will star Adewale, a former slave and protagonist Edward Kenway's second-in-command, Ubisoft confirmed today."


http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/8/4815900/assassins-creed-4-black-flag-freedom-cry-dlc-season-pass-adewale

YEAH

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I stopped playing Batman games after, Arkham Asylum because they kept casting white people to play, Batman.

LOL

Originally posted by BackFire
Can't speak to AC4, but AC4 has the better reviews. Also AO is very buggy right now.

Thats Because people are to Butt Hurt to admit that WB Montreal did a Good Job and had a Better Story than City and Bugs are nothin that cant be fixed with patches

Originally posted by RedX1852
BOO liberation Sucks

I never played it so I wouldn't know. I was only pointing out that there've been two playable black assassins at this point.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can't speak to AC4, but AC4 has the better reviews. Also AO is very buggy right now.

Not for pc it isn't.

Originally posted by RedX1852
Thats Because people are to Butt Hurt to admit that WB Montreal did a Good Job and had a Better Story than City and Bugs are nothin that cant be fixed with patches

That doesn't make sense. Why would reviewers be butt hurt about a company doing a good job? It doesn't affect them at all.

Also yes, bugs are something that can be patched, still worth mentioning, though. As some can be actual game breakers (such as one that corrupts your save game).

Originally posted by BackFire
That doesn't make sense. Why would reviewers be butt hurt about a company doing a good job? It doesn't affect them at all.

Also yes, bugs are something that can be patched, still worth mentioning, though. As some can be actual game breakers (such as one that corrupts your save game).

it very well does, every gamer that has played the Arkham Trilogy say this one is Better and has a more Focused story, but the critics are saying its repetitive magically when WB Montreal wants to make a Batman Game, it wasn't a problem for the last 2 made by Rocksteady but when WB wants to make a batman game, i gets hit with the repetitive card yet Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and Battlefield are repetitive but no Game site is Complaining. i just find it odd that when a series that's being doing the same thing for the past 2 games, gets acclaimed but when another company wants to make the same game and add their input, their attacked with a bunch of BullSh!t so yeah Critics dont want to admit WB Montreal did a good job, or their Hypocrites

I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody that played it said that it's the best of the series.

Originally posted by RedX1852
Thats Because people are to Butt Hurt to admit that WB Montreal did a Good Job and had a Better Story than City and Bugs are nothin that cant be fixed with patches After beating it, the story was definitely not as good as City. The only thing this game did better than City was the boss fights. Montreal did do a good job though.

Originally posted by RedX1852
it very well does, every gamer that has played the Arkham Trilogy say this one is Better and has a more Focused story, Slow down. More focused story? Perhaps. Better?
http://media0.giphy.com/media/GgSlRWjU3NjSU/giphy.gif

Originally posted by -Pr-
I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody that played it said that it's the best of the series.

they wouldn't say its the best, but it has a better and more focused story, it just feels more like a batman game with all the stuff that we were given in this Game, like Access to the Bat-Cave and Fast Travel with the Bat-Wing. a lot of my Friends also acknowledged how it has a Better and more Focused Story than City

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Slow down. More focused story? Perhaps. Better?
http://media0.giphy.com/media/GgSlRWjU3NjSU/giphy.gif

Yes Better, and Yes more Focused, i never said better game, but it has a Better Story and Boss Battle's, tell me how Arkham City's story is Better

Originally posted by Arachnid1
After beating it, the story was definitely not as good as City. The only thing this game did better than City was the boss fights. Montreal did do a good job though.

How, its more Focused, City was Good but it was to jumbled around,and embedded a lot of annoying quests when he was supposed to be Saving him self from dying.

You do you know you could'eve put those 3 posts into one whole one.

Originally posted by Kazenji
You do you know you could'eve put those 3 posts into one whole one.

NO i did not know that, i tried to find out

Originally posted by RedX1852
they wouldn't say its the best, but it has a better and more focused story, it just feels more like a batman game with all the stuff that we were given in this Game, like Access to the Bat-Cave and Fast Travel with the Bat-Wing. a lot of my Friends also acknowledged how it has a Better and more Focused Story than City

Focused? Yes. Better? No. Imo, it's because it doesn't quite hit the emotional and narrative highs that city does.

Then there are the bugs/gameplay issues, as few as they may be.

Alfred >>> anything AC can offer...emotionally.

I can see why you're saying that, but I don't agree.

When Bane tells Bruce that he is in his house and Alfred is about die if he doesnt hurry then Batman screamingAlfred was totally emotional.Same when he begins to have doubts that he can stop them because he couldnt even protect his own home or when he finds Alfred under thewrecks and remembers his parents death making him fill hopeless and powerless.
It's almost the same scene but it's very well done.

Originally posted by Estacado
When Bane tells Bruce that he is in his house and Alfred is about die if he doesnt hurry then Batman screamingAlfred was totally emotional.Same when he begins to have doubts that he can stop them because he couldnt even protect his own home or when he finds Alfred under thewrecks and remembers his parents death making him fill hopeless and powerless.
It's almost the same scene but it's very well done.

Oh, I agree completely. I really do. And that scene at the end with Joker, where you literally just get to beat the living shit out of him, and you know how much he'll do in later years was powerful stuff.

Origins was a LOT better written than I had expected, and it's a better game than a lot of people realise, I think.

Originally posted by RedX1852
Yes Better, and Yes more Focused, i never said better game, but it has a Better Story and Boss Battle's, tell me how Arkham City's story is Better

Originally posted by RedX1852
every gamer that has played the Arkham Trilogy say this one is Better and has a more Focused story

Am I missing something? In interpreted the above as you claiming it's the best game.

Is the story more cinematic and focused? Perhaps. Is there better characters work done here? Yes, I've already stated that what Warner Bros Montreal did with Alfred, Joker, and Gordon is to be commended. Hell, they even got Bane right up until the climax.

But the gameplay, overall look, atmosphere, etc. Rocksteady had in spades and IMO Warner Bros Montreal struggled to recreate. No, Arkham Origins doesn't feel more Batman than the previous two. That's exactly what got the first two critical acclaim.

The Batcave is nice but not a huge deal. There was a Batcave in the first game and the second one had the whole "trapped" theme going on and the game went fine without one.

Arkham Asylum 9.5/10
Arkham City 10/10
Arkham Origins 8/10

The only reason I give Asylum a lower score is due to the gameplay and replay value going down after City released. Only natural, since it came out first and laid the foundation. So you may can see where I'm coming from with this game. Instead of improving overall in big leaps like Rocksteady did between their two Warner Bros Montreal made some nice touches and besides the improved characterizations and focuses on the story made no real improvements to the gameplay.

Don't get it twisted. Not saying the game isn't dope. I've actually enjoyed playing it more than GTA V. Just doesn't bring the magic the previous two do. It scratches the surface but I don't get the full effect.

Originally posted by RedX1852
it very well does, every gamer that has played the Arkham Trilogy say this one is Better and has a more Focused story, but the critics are saying its repetitive magically when WB Montreal wants to make a Batman Game, it wasn't a problem for the last 2 made by Rocksteady but when WB wants to make a batman game, i gets hit with the repetitive card yet Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and Battlefield are repetitive but no Game site is Complaining. i just find it odd that when a series that's being doing the same thing for the past 2 games, gets acclaimed but when another company wants to make the same game and add their input, their attacked with a bunch of BullSh!t so yeah Critics dont want to admit WB Montreal did a good job, or their Hypocrites

This is a false dilemma, perhaps they simply think that AC and AA are better games.

And every gamer that has played the trilogy doesn't think that. I don't. AC is my favorite. It has the best atmosphere and progressed the series forward in more meaningful ways than AO does. AO is more or less just AC with a couple tweaks (not all for the better). I will agree that AO has the best storyline in the series, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
I will agree that AO has the best storyline in the series, though.

Originally posted by Estacado
Alfred >>> anything AC can offer...emotionally.

Exactly, thats why i said this Game has a Better story and had more emotional moments and had Comic Book Accuracy, IMO A Better Story equals a better Game, and you get more drawn to it.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Am I missing something? In interpreted the above as you claiming it's the best game.

Is the story more cinematic and focused? Perhaps. Is there better characters work done here? Yes, I've already stated that what Warner Bros Montreal did with Alfred, Joker, and Gordon is to be commended. Hell, they even got Bane right up until the climax.

But the gameplay, overall look, atmosphere, etc. Rocksteady had in spades and IMO Warner Bros Montreal struggled to recreate. No, Arkham Origins doesn't feel more Batman than the previous two. That's exactly what got the first two critical acclaim.

The Batcave is nice but not a huge deal. There was a Batcave in the first game and the second one had the whole "trapped" theme going on and the game went fine without one.

Arkham Asylum 9.5/10
Arkham City 10/10
Arkham Origins 8/10

The only reason I give Asylum a lower score is due to the gameplay and replay value going down after City released. Only natural, since it came out first and laid the foundation. So you may can see where I'm coming from with this game. Instead of improving overall in big leaps like Rocksteady did between their two Warner Bros Montreal made some nice touches and besides the improved characterizations and focuses on the story made no real improvements to the gameplay.

Don't get it twisted. Not saying the game isn't dope. I've actually enjoyed playing it more than GTA V. Just doesn't bring the magic the previous two do. It scratches the surface but I don't get the full effect.

I don't get it, how can City get a better rating because of Gameplay and not Story, i mean i liked City but it didn't have me emotionally and the story was all over the place with all these annoying Penguin Appearances got on my Nerves, City was good, but the story wasn't as strong as Origins and the only emotional part, if you call it emotional is the end when Joker Dies, but not even that was emotional for me so i don't get why Good Gameplay and Scrambled Story makes for a Better game than one that has already Good Gameplay and an even Better Story

Another thing that upsets me is all the people complaining about not having Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill not voicing the Joker and Batman, i LOVE Kevin Conroy as Batman, he is the definitive Batman but he Cant live forever, and if he was to pass before the next Batman Game comes out, than we need a replacement and Roger Craig Smith has done an excellent young, gritty Batman and Captured how he would sound if he was younger and more angry Perfectly, and he has proven himself to be an excellent Replacement but he Gets NO CREDIT, Nope Non at all, instead it all goes to Troy Baker, who is excellent but dang give some credit to Roger, and all the people complaining about Mark Hamill clearly don't know that he Retired from the Joker after Arkham City, i get it Troy Baker is a Damn Good Joker, but its like People Don't GIVE A FVCK about Batman's Voice and Voice Actor, instead its all about Troy Baker and the Joker, like come on man Roger Craig Smith has been doing good Voice Work for many Famous Heroes in Series, like Ezio in Assassins Creed, Sonic, Chris Redfield from Resident Evil, Siegfried from Soul Calibur, and Captain America and hopefully Batman, but its like people don't Admire his Good work because their all Joker, Conroy, Hamill, Troy fanatics, Seriously give Roger some Credit he did an amazing Job and he's Getting no Acknowledgment and Recognition for his work, it kinda makes me feel like they wouldn't care if Tom Kenny Voiced Batman cuz its all about the Joker like come on he was Awesome

For me it's City > Origins > Asylum.

Might be just me though.

I just finished the main story yesterday and am working on the Riddler stuff. I'll post my review soon enough, I'm thinking.

Originally posted by RedX1852
Exactly, thats why i said this Game has a Better story and had more emotional moments and had Comic Book Accuracy, IMO A Better Story equals a better Game, and you get more drawn to it.

It's very clearly the story that HELD BACK much of the potential that could have made Origins more than a re-hashed Arkham City with a mini-hub and better bosses. No amount of effort put in a story can make an inferior game among its predecessors a masterpiece, period, especially when the game itself is limited based on it narrative placement. A good sotry doesn't excuse lackluster effort in gameplay, and I think that's what Ubisoft kept in mind making ACIV. More emotional storytelling didn't keep Beyond Two Souls from failing to live up to any of its never-warranted-from-the-start hype. Yes, I only feel AO is all that underwhelming compared to its predecessor as opposed to in general, ACIV doesn't suffer from that setback within its own series IMO.

Normally, I'm pretty even between the Arkham games and Assassin's Creed, but I feel in this case Ubisoft simply did a better job at both elevating the gameplay elements that worked best in its predecessor and maintaining the core of the series' nature. The game's priorities were pretty clear on what they wanted to emphasize-sea faring and naval battle-and they set, in my opinion, a new standard for that as a gameplay element in the adventure genre.

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 honestly don't agree. I actually like some of the boss fights, and I really enjoyed the design of Gotham and the various little bits and pieces that made it "feel" like Gotham.

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 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.

Originally posted by -Pr-
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.

I don't know...

I just needed something new.

Things like the remote claw and stuff didn't suffice as "new" ?

For story and boss battles, Arkham is my cup of tea but I'm also into open world exploration and upgrading the crap out of everything which is something I find very more addicting in Assassin's Creed than in the Batman games IMO. I would say it's a tie for me.

Originally posted by Smasandian
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.

Im not saying innovations shouldn't be made but I don't think Batman that is only two years into things, without a Batmobile, and takes place 5 years before asylum should be rolling with tech and fighting abilities that are better then the other games.

Plus the shock gloves, remote claw, and the "enhanced" detective mode are pretty good innovations imo. Not to mention now you can access your challenges and batsuits from in game in the Batcave. All along with having drop points for the Batwing all over Gotham. Much more innovation and you may as well have made a sequel instead of a prequel.

ooh and honestly im happy with the h2h combat. I honestly thought it was going to be worse because in interviews they said he was going to be "unrefined". I assumed his fighting style was going to be much more sloppy then what it was.

HAvent played black flag but I thought, Origins was boring.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Im not saying innovations shouldn't be made but I don't think Batman that is only two years into things, without a Batmobile, and takes place 5 years before asylum should be rolling with tech and fighting abilities that are better then the other games.

Plus the shock gloves, remote claw, and the "enhanced" detective mode are pretty good innovations imo. Not to mention now you can access your challenges and batsuits from in game in the Batcave. All along with having drop points for the Batwing all over Gotham. Much more innovation and you may as well have made a sequel instead of a prequel.

ooh and honestly im happy with the h2h combat. I honestly thought it was going to be worse because in interviews they said he was going to be "unrefined". I assumed his fighting style was going to be much more sloppy then what it was.

Except the fact that in Origins, all of his gizmo's are there already. Doesn't really seem like Batman is "learning" the trade. In that case, why is the story about assassins trying to kill Batman? Doesn't really make sense if he is not very well known with the thug community.

1. Shock gloves are just more powerful fists. Nothing really new.
2. The remote claw is just a fancy line launcher.
3. Drop points is a staple in open world games. Check out Far Cry 3 and its strongholds that act as drop points.

It's a solid game but it's generic. Aside from Fire Fly and a section of the end boss, all boss battles are roughly the same. You fight them and then guys show up, and then fight them again...it's boring.

Originally posted by RedX1852
I don't get it, how can City get a better rating because of Gameplay and not Story, i mean i liked City but it didn't have me emotionally and the story was all over the place with all these annoying Penguin Appearances got on my Nerves, City was good, but the story wasn't as strong as Origins and the only emotional part, if you call it emotional is the end when Joker Dies, but not even that was emotional for me so i don't get why Good Gameplay and Scrambled Story makes for a Better game than one that has already Good Gameplay and an even Better Story The atmosphere was way better. The graphics were much more detailed, Strange was awesome as well as Penguin. Seriously, I was disappointed in the lack of Penguin for this game. Nolan North's Penguin>>> to me. Origins was a really fun game, man. But I'm not just gonna claim it's the best when they copied the exact template from AC without really adding anything too substantial all the while making improvements here and there. AC mad significant additions to the gameplay from AA.

xLG9qtb6FFU

Originally posted by RedX1852
Another thing that upsets me is all the people complaining about not having Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill not voicing the Joker and Batman, i LOVE Kevin Conroy as Batman, he is the definitive Batman but he Cant live forever, and if he was to pass before the next Batman Game comes out, than we need a replacement and Roger Craig Smith has done an excellent young, gritty Batman and Captured how he would sound if he was younger and more angry Perfectly, and he has proven himself to be an excellent Replacement but he Gets NO CREDIT, Nope Non at all, instead it all goes to Troy Baker, who is excellent but dang give some credit to Roger, and all the people complaining about Mark Hamill clearly don't know that he Retired from the Joker after Arkham City, i get it Troy Baker is a Damn Good Joker, but its like People Don't GIVE A FVCK about Batman's Voice and Voice Actor, instead its all about Troy Baker and the Joker,

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Surprisingly, I actually thought the voice actors for Batman and Joker did really solid jobs in their roles. The guy who voiced Joker sounded very reminiscent of Mark Hamill. Eventually, I just bought in to the other guy as Batman as well.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Except the fact that in Origins, all of his gizmo's are there already. Doesn't really seem like Batman is "learning" the trade. In that case, why is the story about assassins trying to kill Batman? Doesn't really make sense if he is not very well known with the thug community.

1. Shock gloves are just more powerful fists. Nothing really new.
2. The remote claw is just a fancy line launcher.
3. Drop points is a staple in open world games. Check out Far Cry 3 and its strongholds that act as drop points.

It's a solid game but it's generic. Aside from Fire Fly and a section of the end boss, all boss battles are roughly the same. You fight them and then guys show up, and then fight them again...it's boring.

Why wouldn't he have gadgets on him? The batcave is open to roam...It really wouldn't make sense to have complete access without access to the gadgets. He has been around for 2 years at this point so no he shouldn't be the best of the best but he certainly isn't a noob. He may not be refined but he is still trained. I would assume that the story entails batman being hunted down by assassins because The Joker is fairly new to the crime scene but not stupid. Hes heard all the talk about the batman and wanted to make preparations to cover his bases. No one ever said batman isn't well known. But he was mostly "myth" in this game. Nobody seems to know if he exists or not.

Actually the shock gloves are very new considering they allow you to attack through shields and teasers and allowing you to actually counter the shield bash attacks....

The Remote claw is a line launcher that also gives the addition of tagging enemies together, into fire extinguishers, into propane tanks, or even hanging people from gargoyles from a distance. If thats not innovating something then idk what is......

And yeah they normally are BUT drop points were not in the first two so it is in fact an innovation to the series.....

If you don't like the formula then thats fine and its all a matter of opinion but thats different then claiming it adds nothing to the series.

I think you should look up innovating.

Allow me....

Innovate: to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.


Originally posted by BlackZero30x


Actually the shock gloves are very new considering they allow you to attack through shields and teasers and allowing you to actually counter the shield bash attacks....

The Remote claw is a line launcher that also gives the addition of tagging enemies together, into fire extinguishers, into propane tanks, or even hanging people from gargoyles from a distance. If thats not innovating something then idk what is......

And yeah they normally are BUT drop points were not in the first two so it is in fact an innovation to the series.....

And im the on that needs to look up the word?....Face palm.

Eh, I honestly think the game did innovate some. Should it have innovated more? Maybe, but considering that this was a fresh studio, I can't hold them to the same standard as I would rocksteady. I don't think it's fair.

Origins has a lot going for it, but it also has some glaring flaws. I don't think it's as good as City, but I think the gameplay alone puts it above Asylum (not to mention the writing, in many ways is almost as good if not as good, to me).

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Allow me....

Innovate: to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.




And im the on that needs to look up the word?....Face palm. A few new gagdets isn't innovation. Innovation is legitimate new gameplay features. Something that actually sets the bar higher than the last game.

This game played the dead same as City, but didn't have the atmosphere. The only thing it greatly improved was the boss fights. That's about as innovative as AO got.

I agree that the Origins boss fights are slightly better than Asylum but I don't think it's as good as City.

The boss fights are roughly the same. One of the assassins attacks you, then it devolves into the typical thug brawl and make sure you hit your counter button.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
A few new gagdets isn't innovation. Innovation is legitimate new gameplay features. Something that actually sets the bar higher than the last game.

This game played the dead same as City, but didn't have the atmosphere. The only thing it greatly improved was the boss fights. That's about as innovative as AO got.

Maybe compared to other games that already have more advanced innovations the the Arkham series in general. When you compare AO to the others it did in fact innovate on gadgets which in turn allowed new gameplay. But if you are talking about his straight up h2h then as I said before there is no reason to innovate it. If anything he should have been a little worse at it then he was. I mean they could have added a the ability to drive the batmobile or actually fly the batwing but I can understand why they didn't. So it could have been more innovative then it was but I think what they did with it was enough.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Except the fact that in Origins, all of his gizmo's are there already. Doesn't really seem like Batman is "learning" the trade. In that case, why is the story about assassins trying to kill Batman? Doesn't really make sense if he is not very well known with the thug community.

1. Shock gloves are just more powerful fists. Nothing really new.
2. The remote claw is just a fancy line launcher.
3. Drop points is a staple in open world games. Check out Far Cry 3 and its strongholds that act as drop points.

It's a solid game but it's generic. Aside from Fire Fly and a section of the end boss, all boss battles are roughly the same. You fight them and then guys show up, and then fight them again...it's boring.

How is it Generic but AC isn't,they haven't changed anything since the First Game and no ones Complaining, but when Batman does it, it gets Panned by Critics and Narrow Minded Gamers who think that in no way that Call of Duty, or God of War, or Assassins Creed, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War, Devil May Cry, Tekken, Street Fighter, Naruto UNS Series, Portal and many other series are repetitive, But Batman's is after its 3rd Game come on explain that Logic For Me

Originally posted by Smasandian
I agree that the Origins boss fights are slightly better than Asylum but I don't think it's as good as City.

The boss fights are roughly the same. One of the assassins attacks you, then it devolves into the typical thug brawl and make sure you hit your counter button.

You sound Ungrateful, i bet you think you could do a better job yourself

Originally posted by Arachnid1
A few new gagdets isn't innovation. Innovation is legitimate new gameplay features. Something that actually sets the bar higher than the last game.

This game played the dead same as City, but didn't have the atmosphere. The only thing it greatly improved was the boss fights. That's about as innovative as AO got.
WHAT?, Every Game in a Series plays almost the Exact Same as its previous one and only adds a few new things and rehashes and polishes its Graphics, no Game in a Series will be Completely different from the other ones, thats just asking for to much. and Developers and Game Series stick to a Style, Graphic, and Mechanics that works for them like Call of Duty, Gears of War, God of War, and Assassins Creed, and if thats the case AC4 isn't innovative ,because all its doing is expanding AC3's Naval Battles and making it a Campaign with Shark Hunting, WOW HOW MIND BLOWING AND DIFFERENT AND IS IN NOW WAY LIKE ITS PREVIOUS GAME , But when Batman adds the Bat-Cave, Fast Travel, and alters the Detective Vision and Investigator Mode a little Bit and Adds Multiplayer and does the exact same thing, Narrow Minded Biased Fans Go "OH THAT NOT IN ANY WAY ORIGINAL, ALL THESE GAMES PLAY THE SAME, IT DOESNT ADD ANYTHING TO THE SERIES, AND DOESNT CHANGE THE EXPERIENCE, ITS PREDICTABLE AND ISNT AS GOOD AS THE OTHERS" Come On Now wheres the Logic in their Hypocritical statements and yours?

While it doesn't make sense from a story perspective, they have to balance the gameplay part of it too.

In the context of the story, should he have less gadgets? Yes, definitely, but if they'd done that they'd have been lambasted for changing the game too much and restricting players.

Same goes for the combat system. Oh, he has MORE options now? That totally makes sense from a story perspective (not).

TBH, If this was Rocksteady, I would have been more critical of them. But this was WB Montreal. They were given these resources and a relatively complete game engine, and they were forced to learn every bit of it before coming out with a game of their own. This isn't the same as the guys that built and modified the unreal Arkham engine from the ground up doing the grunt work, knowing the shortcuts and workarounds, etc. The most these guys had been able to work with the assets beforehand was in porting Arkham City to WiiU, so they were not exactly in the best position imo.

TBH, while Origins does have it's faults (grappling far too limited, bugs and lag etc), I think it's unfair to expect it to be the leap from City that City was from Asylum. This was a relatively untested studio, and had they changed too much, they might have easily ended up alienating people.

They were very much in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and I don't envy them that.

I think they did add some neat features to the game that even improve on City (the crime scene mechanic, upgrades, the interiors, the batcave and fast travel), but all in all, I think that given the background behind the games' development, it's being judged more harshly than it is.

I will say this, though: If you're not a huge comic book fan and you've played/own City, I couldn't justify buying this game. It only really shines for those that are a certain kind of Batman fan, imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
While it doesn't make sense from a story perspective, they have to balance the gameplay part of it too.

In the context of the story, should he have less gadgets? Yes, definitely, but if they'd done that they'd have been lambasted for changing the game too much and restricting players.

Same goes for the combat system. Oh, he has MORE options now? That totally makes sense from a story perspective (not).

TBH, If this was Rocksteady, I would have been more critical of them. But this was WB Montreal. They were given these resources and a relatively complete game engine, and they were forced to learn every bit of it before coming out with a game of their own. This isn't the same as the guys that built and modified the unreal Arkham engine from the ground up doing the grunt work, knowing the shortcuts and workarounds, etc. The most these guys had been able to work with the assets beforehand was in porting Arkham City to WiiU, so they were not exactly in the best position imo.

TBH, while Origins does have it's faults (grappling far too limited, bugs and lag etc), I think it's unfair to expect it to be the leap from City that City was from Asylum. This was a relatively untested studio, and had they changed too much, they might have easily ended up alienating people.

They were very much in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and I don't envy them that.

I think they did add some neat features to the game that even improve on City (the crime scene mechanic, upgrades, the interiors, the batcave and fast travel), but all in all, I think that given the background behind the games' development, it's being judged more harshly than it is.

I will say this, though: If you're not a huge comic book fan and you've played/own City, I couldn't justify buying this game. It only really shines for those that are a certain kind of Batman fan, imo.

How does anything you just said Make Sense? if your in first years of crime fighting you should have more gadgets and bulkier armor, ya know what forget it, your just as hypercritical as any other gamer

Originally posted by RedX1852
How does anything you just said Make Sense? if your in first years of crime fighting you should have more gadgets and bulkier armor, ya know what forget it, your just as hypercritical as any other gamer

lol, no, he would have less gadgets, as he'd still be refining his crime fighting technique.

Batman becomes better as years go on. He develops better countermeasures for certain villains. He progresses, not regresses.

But sure, bash away. Be mad for no real reason.

Originally posted by -Pr-
lol, no, he would have less gadgets, as he'd still be refining his crime fighting technique.

Batman becomes better as years go on. He develops better countermeasures for certain villains. He progresses, not regresses.

But sure, bash away. Be mad for no real reason.

no ones mad here, i just cant tolerate hypocrites

Originally posted by RedX1852
no ones mad here, i just cant tolerate hypocrites

Then show me where what I said was hypocritical, please.

I agree with you in most cases PR.

The only I disagree with is the leeway for the developer. I guess I have less tolerance for a developer for creating the third game in the series. I would expect it would be less difficult then creating the series from scratch. There is a lot of instances where a new developer takes over and gets lambasted for creating a less than good sequel to some beloved games. (creators of Bioshock 2 for example).

Also, I ****ing hate when people go, " you try making a game and then you have to right to complain". It's such a bullshit arguement. Do you have right to complain to restaurant about bad service/bad food? According to RedX, you don't so **** off if the food tastes like shit.

I live near Toronto, Canada and the mayor has been in a video where he smokes crack!.....I can't complain because I never been a mayor.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I agree with you in most cases PR.

The only I disagree with is the leeway for the developer. I guess I have less tolerance for a developer for creating the third game in the series. I would expect it would be less difficult then creating the series from scratch. There is a lot of instances where a new developer takes over and gets lambasted for creating a less than good sequel to some beloved games. (creators of Bioshock 2 for example).

Also, I ****ing hate when people go, " you try making a game and then you have to right to complain". It's such a bullshit arguement. Do you have right to complain to restaurant about bad service/bad food? According to RedX, you don't so **** off if the food tastes like shit.

I live near Toronto, Canada and the mayor has been in a video where he smokes crack!.....I can't complain because I never been a mayor.

No, I get that there is an expectation of them to put out a good game. It's still the third game in the Arkham series after all. They don't get a complete pass to make a shit game just because they're a new company. I just think expectations were set somewhat higher than they should have been, personally.

I, tbh, just wanted a new Batman game. I wanted it to play as well as (or at least, close enough to) Arkham City that I would enjoy it, and I wanted a decent Batman story. I wasn't asking for innovation or for them to do what Rocksteady did by leaping forward.

I just wanted a good Batman game to add to my collection, with new content and an engaging, playable story. I feel like I got that.

I think it comes down to whether people think it's a worthy game in the series. I think it is.

And it some cases, I do too.

For instance, I just bought CoD: Ghosts knowing full well that SP will be less than 5 hours and it will bring nothing new to the series but considering I have the day off and there's a special place in my heart for CoD SP (from the days of the original Allied Assault), I bought the game.

And enjoying it as well.

Originally posted by Smasandian
And it some cases, I do too.

For instance, I just bought CoD: Ghosts knowing full well that SP will be less than 5 hours and it will bring nothing new to the series but considering I have the day off and there's a special place in my heart for CoD SP (from the days of the original Allied Assault), I bought the game.

And enjoying it as well.



I'll probably get Ghosts when it goes cheap. I'll only now be playing MW3 properly.

Yeah, I would of waited but CoD games never go on sale on Steam unless its three years old.

Originally posted by RedX1852
You sound Ungrateful, i bet you think you could do a better job yourself


WHAT?, Every Game in a Series plays almost the Exact Same as its previous one and only adds a few new things and rehashes and polishes its Graphics, no Game in a Series will be Completely different from the other ones, thats just asking for to much. and Developers and Game Series stick to a Style, Graphic, and Mechanics that works for them like Call of Duty, Gears of War, God of War, and Assassins Creed, and if thats the case AC4 isn't innovative ,because all its doing is expanding AC3's Naval Battles and making it a Campaign with Shark Hunting, WOW HOW MIND BLOWING AND DIFFERENT AND IS IN NOW WAY LIKE ITS PREVIOUS GAME , But when Batman adds the Bat-Cave, Fast Travel, and alters the Detective Vision and Investigator Mode a little Bit and Adds Multiplayer and does the exact same thing, Narrow Minded Biased Fans Go "OH THAT NOT IN ANY WAY ORIGINAL, ALL THESE GAMES PLAY THE SAME, IT DOESNT ADD ANYTHING TO THE SERIES, AND DOESNT CHANGE THE EXPERIENCE, ITS PREDICTABLE AND ISNT AS GOOD AS THE OTHERS" Come On Now wheres the Logic in their Hypocritical statements and yours?
Innovation is Arkham Asylum to Arkham City, Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed II, Resident Evil 3 to Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 (or 3 to 4), Uncharted 3 to TLOU (different franchises, but same exact developer with similar gameplay), Indigo Prophecy to Heavy Rain (etc...). The games that are fan favorites that completely changed the series for the better and are remembered the most fondly are usually the ones in the series than innovate.

Innovation is not Arkham City to Arkham Origins. That doesn't mean its a bad game, but it's still a mostly linear game that copied and pasted almost everything from its predecessor. All the people who agree with that statement (which is the majority, BTW) aren't hypocrites. They're just right.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah, I would of waited but CoD games never go on sale on Steam unless its three years old.

I only really play them on console. I got MW3 for 15 euro the other day, but I'm saving it til Christmas. I love the COD story modes, but I don't play MP at all.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Innovation is Arkham Asylum to Arkham City, Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed II, Resident Evil 3 to Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 (or 3 to 4), Uncharted 3 to TLOU (different franchises, but same exact developer with similar gameplay), Indigo Prophecy to Heavy Rain (etc...). The games that are fan favorites that completely changed the series for the better and are remembered the most fondly are usually the ones in the series than innovate.

Innovation is not Arkham City to Arkham Origins. That doesn't mean its a bad game, but it's still a mostly linear game that copied and pasted almost everything from its predecessor. All the people who agree with that statement (which is the majority, BTW) aren't hypocrites. They're just right.

to be fair, the crime scene mechanic was something I would call innovative. the power gloves too, though less so.

Oh yeah, the new mechanics/feature to the crime scenes don't get nearly as much credit as they should, surprisingly. I felt more like a detective there than I did in any of the side missions of Arkham City.

Same. Reconstructing a crime scene, if you did them all, were actually fun, I thought. It really helped with immersion, I found.

The problem with the reconstructing the crime scene is that there is nothing to it.

I think they missed a really good chance of putting some gameplay elements into it instead of just hitting a button to do so....

Just got the dart rope it's pretty phuckin dope!
Makes you feel like Scorpion.
Hanging people on trees with it is fun.

Reminded me of being the Predator with the dart rope in AC3.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Reminded me of being the Predator with the dart rope in AC3.
Exactly!
It's new for me cause the last AC I played was 2.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Innovation is Arkham Asylum to Arkham City, Assassins Creed to Assassins Creed II, Resident Evil 3 to Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 (or 3 to 4), Uncharted 3 to TLOU (different franchises, but same exact developer with similar gameplay), Indigo Prophecy to Heavy Rain (etc...). The games that are fan favorites that completely changed the series for the better and are remembered the most fondly are usually the ones in the series than innovate.

Innovation is not Arkham City to Arkham Origins. That doesn't mean its a bad game, but it's still a mostly linear game that copied and pasted almost everything from its predecessor. All the people who agree with that statement (which is the majority, BTW) aren't hypocrites. They're just right.

yeah but people expecting the next game not be exactly like the other is just being nit-picky, ungrateful, have high expectations, and over all asking for to much. if you want to play a game that doesn't play the same as the last one, just play GTA, they take like 5 years between games and the only thing they add is Abilities and Customization of Clothing and polished graphics.

I Like what you call "Innovation" as much as the next guy, but the world we live in, Businesses are just like "**** YOU GIVE ME MONEY" i would love to see Batman take 7 years to be produced as long as we get the best quality, story, "Innovation" and playability possible, but your asking for to much in a world like this, where $$$ is the only thing that matters, especially to some gaming companies, if you ever have high expectations for a series, it should be GTA and RDR by Rocksteady, cuz they really seem to care about their fans and take the time to produce their games, you cant expect every game in a series to be different, i would too, but as long as we buy the product they dont give a Shit, their doing the Call of Duty, where as long as they make **** Loads of Cash, the Gamers complaining could go **** themselves cuz their rich, and their B!tching about something they cant change.

Originally posted by Smasandian
The problem with the reconstructing the crime scene is that there is nothing to it.

I think they missed a really good chance of putting some gameplay elements into it instead of just hitting a button to do so....

You too are asking for to much smh, the world we live in only cares about money, and as long as their making Bank, and if their like CoD, they don't give a shit, i get what you guys are saying and i get what you wanted out of this Game, but its to much to ask for in a $$$$$$$$$$ Loving World like this, maybe WB Montreal does care, and maybe you guys are being ungrateful, but overall your asking for to Much, from a game that didn't start out with the Foundation Rocksteady did

Originally posted by Smasandian
The problem with the reconstructing the crime scene is that there is nothing to it.

I think they missed a really good chance of putting some gameplay elements into it instead of just hitting a button to do so....

While I think the addition to crime scene detection was really cool I will admit they really could have taken that to a whole new level.

I wished they did. I think it could of been a really awesome game play element.

When I received a notice that there was a crime, it was kind of cool, I would admit but it was essentially a scripted event.

Well Arkham Origins does have an "I am the night" mode for those perfectionist. Personally though I'll pass on it. I will say that I found the Lady Shiva fight lacking. I don't know I just wanted something like the Ras fight in City or at least Shiva doing more ninja stuff.

Originally posted by Estacado
Exactly!
It's new for me cause the last AC I played was 2.

Don't know why no one hasn't done a decent Predator game

i know we got one for the PS2/Xbox era but that one was mixed.

The only good one was Alien Vs Predator 2.

Originally posted by Smasandian
The only good one was Alien Vs Predator 2.



I still play it from time to time.

Originally posted by Utrigita


I still play it from time to time.

a little off topic, No?

Originally posted by RedX1852
a little off topic, No? But either way how can you guys not Like Arkham Origns and downplay, and bash it for not being completely different from City and Aslyum, cuz if i remember correctly WB Montreal didn't start off with the Series, Rocksteady did, so you cant have high expectation for a company that borrowed a series from another one, and try to add some stuff on their own, they didn't start with the Foundation that Rocksteady did, so bashing it is kinda useless and unnecessary

Originally posted by Smasandian
The only good one was Alien Vs Predator 2.

I'm thinking more of third person.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I'm thinking more of third person.
That was the best predator game ever.