Gaming Batman: Arkham Origins Review

Neither the hero Gotham deserves, nor the one it needs.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2013/10/29/batman-arkham-origins-review/1

 

I am reading that right: 30%, not 80%?

I appreciate your opinion but there's no way this game can score that low. It's still terrific fun. 30% implies a game that you'll give up after a few minutes due to absolute frustration.

 

Well I'm gutted if it's this bad as I'd reloaded the original two games and played them through to get myself in the right mood to start this one.

Honestly, if they've messed this up so badly they should be suspended from a gargoyle and left to dangle!!!

 

Is that score based on the game alone or on the fact that it is a disappointment when compared to the other 2 games?

I am a little dubious of scoring a game in comparison to it's previous installments as that would only have relevance to those who have played the other games and not those picking up the franchise for the first time.

 

I read Destructoid's review of it and they've given the same score. Every reputable game review site (i.e. not the likes of IGN) seem to have a similar opinion.

 

I wouldn't score it that low but the game is a bit disappointing and the constant crime in progress bit has got to the point that I don't give a s**t anymore very tedious

 

I did the same thing. To be honest I'm not terribly worried. I find AC to be an outstanding game and something similar (maybe too similar in the reviewers eyes?) sounds good to me.

Even if its half the game AC was it will be worth playing.

*disclaimer: I'll either wait until its half price or see if I snap and get it free with a the 770GTX I keep eyeballing.

 

I've actually finished the game over the weekend, so let me clarify a few things:

First - This is A Batman Game™

The underlying mechanics are exactly the same
The combo-heavy combat is exactly the same
The stalking-from-masonary sections are exactly the same
The gadget line up is (almost) exactly the same
Riddler trophies are exactly the same (except they're called datapacks).
Everything is pretty much exactly the same.

That means there's zero innovation, but it is everything you expect from a Batman Game - No more; No less. If you enjoyed the mechanics of the previous two games, you'll enjoy this one.

Yes, it has launched with a few bugs, likely to be patched soon, but in the meantime there are still plenty of thugs and achievements to hunt in Arkham.

It's certainly not the best Batman Game but, bugs aside, it's still better than most other titles out there and definitely worth more than 30% (which has the whiff of metacritic political scoring to it)

 

Of course the glimmer of good news here seems to be that its only a stop gap game ! I'm really enjoying Arkham City just now, which I got in the Steam sale last summer and only just got around to playing. But I certainly wouldn't rush out to buy a new game without reading a few reviews first - So thankyou Bit tech.

If anyone is interested, Steam is taking CD Key codes for retail versions of Arkham Asylum just now because of 'games for windows' imminent demise. But a lot of folks (including me) need a photo of our CD key and a receipt to send to steam, which seems a little unfair.

 

The rating absolutely doesn't reflect the reality, and game is nowhere near "30%" rating. A 65-70% would be more realistic.

Yes, there are crashes - in 19 hours of game i had 2 (two) crashes. While annoying when it happens, it is nothing extraordinary. Except that, i hit only one glitch (Burnley Tower).

Sure, it bring nothing new - neither did most of the AC games, yet they are all rated 70% or more. But that is why people usually buy games in series - new story, with no or small changes in gameplay.

 

I'm most of the way to agreeing with the score on this review, very disappointed at the mo.

The story isn't too bad (save the obvious logical flaws), but the tweaks to make the game feel different are quite irritating. e.g. Why rearrange the inventory?

The combat is still clumsy when dealing with the knife/armoured/shielded enemies in small spaces, meaning it's a frustrating and laborious process to take them all out. This should have been tweaked before the level designers squash you in with a group of enemies.

 

Worse still is the dev's justification of the [at times] clunky combat of 'oh but he's just starting out as Bats, he isn't going to be as agile as he is in Asylum/City'...

...bollocks

 

I'm having a hard time understanding review scores this year. Which is why scores are completely irrelevant. So far my experience of this game has been excellent. I've encountered one bug so far, that meant I had to reply 5 minutes of the game and that's it. The story telling, voice acting, music and atmosphere have been top notch and exceed Arkham City in every one of those aspects.
The combat., for me, seems much more intuitive and fluid (on a controller) than both previous titles. Chaining 20+ hits is much easier and makes much more sense. The boss fights are very enjoyable and shows how quick time events can be incorporated into gameplay without breaking the immersion.
Considering how some games this year, that were obviously broken on release, scored 80+ yet this game is giving a 30 is beyond me. I mean this site gave Rome 2 96%. 96! I like that game, but it was broken for many players, had no AI on release and was (and still is to some degree) full of bugs, glitches and poor optimisation. Yet you claim 3 bugs in this review and that somehow returns a score of 30%. You should be ashamed.
It feels very much to me that reviews this year follow the old adage, "you get what you pay for".
There seems to be a large amount of 'following the crowd' of other reviewers. Considering this is the first release by this development team, nothing but praise should be heaped on to this game. Sure if you want to criticise recylcing the assets from the previous titles go ahead, but to me it feels like a new game based in the same lore as the previous titles, using the same winning formulae of the two previous games.
I have abandoned all hope for 'professional' reviews after the increasingly nonsenical scores that have been given this year. User reviews, particularly on Metacritic and such like, have descended in to nothing more than, "well someone might give this a ten so I will give it a 0" or vice versa. Now I either buy blind, or rely on the opinions of friends I know and trust, because I know what they play, I know how they feel about those games and I can gain useful insight into how that game might appeal, or not appeal, to me.
I very rarely take to commenting on reviews or articles, but this review was awful and not in any way reflective of the game I have been playing over the past 3 days.
I have been coming to this site less and less of late, but from now on, until someone I trust can honestly reccomend this site as being relevant and more than a mod hobbiest's hang out I am removing this from my bookmarks.

 

Yeah... you lost me there. All controller-centric* games for the PC should be scored low.


*By controller, I obviously mean XBox type gamepad - before some pedant chimes in to say mice and keyboards are controllers

 

Any game should be controlled by the best interface for said game. I wouldn't play a 3rd or 1st person shooter with a controller on my PC, but a game like Batman? I prefer a controller.
Best thing about gaming on the PC, choice.

 

30% ?

I've played the other two games, this is not too dissimilar and they were excellent enjoyable games.

30% is not a true reflection of the game, as every game should based on a level playing field.

The game has it's faults but really the should around 80% which would be understandable.

 

Personally I see the Batman series the same as I see the Assassins Creed series only in a different costume and from the very first games of each I had no interest after about 15 mins of playing. I find games that tell you on screen to 'Push Button 'A' NOW' to initiate a predefined set of moves or actions very tedious, condescending and about as interactive and exciting as following a SatNav.

I am not convinced by the score of the review either but then that is as normal on Bit-Tech as I don't find their judgement skills to be accurate, no matter how much information they give about the game.
(Just to clarify that, I still read the reviews but for the game descriptions, not the conclusions). I don't understand the trend of comments and reviews about games that expect a title from within a series of games to radically change and evolve each time. Games within a series should be treated as movies often are and should focus on continuity with regards to storyline AND gameplay. If you want to radically change a game then I suggest you close off the series and start another, much like the Batman, Superman and Spiderman series of movies have done frequently. Hopefully this is what 'CoD - Ghosts' will be aiming to achieve.

I am sure that if you enjoyed previous titles of this ilk then you will no doubt find entertainment from this title, which is what it is all about at the end of the day, entertainment.

 

Assuming that 50% is supposed to be average (as Joe used to argue so much when he was reviewing), then according to this review (and others), Arkham Origins is supposed to be well below average?

Harsh. While AO isn't brilliant, it isn't rubbish either. It has its moments, and it has its duller moments too, but I don't think it's worth 30%. 50-60% maybe (average to slightly above average), but it's not as bad as the score would make out.

I don't agree with much of what SchizoFrog had to say, but I will re-quote this line:

QFT. I play games for fun, not to criticise them

 

Bit-tech also gave Star Trek a %30. If you guys honestly feel that A:O is as bad as Star Trek, it becomes very difficult to take your journalism seriously.

If you had actually played either series past their intros then maybe you would find some sort of game afterwards... I'm not a fan of the AC games either but to call them the same displays a lot ignorance on your part.

The combat in all the games has always been very tight and response. You, like a lot of players are just simply bad at the combat. I felt the same way, then I had a buddy of mine actually explain the combat to me in depth. I watched as he made his way through a gauntlet of enemy types without taking a single hit even on hard. I personally have no issue with the combat because I actually utilize all of batmans equipment. Heck the devs even said most people finished the games without understanding even a quarter of the combats depth, and they're absolutely right.

 

Thought it would get a 70% wasn't expecting it to be as good.

When you have a studio like rocksteady develop everything..art direction, fight mechanics, etc and then another studio take over they seem to have kept everything that rocksteady developed.