Gaming Batman: Arkham Origins Review

@wafflesomd:

I played the game and made my opinion, that is not the definition of ignorance. They are both 3rd person adventure games with elements of first person. They both feature periods of action and of stealth with combat often set if predefined actions. They are both console ports and as such have control systems that are designed and developed for console controller use. I would, and I would think that most people would liken the two together rather than with games such as the CoD or Battlefield series. So I would definitely say that it is not a display of my ignorance but that of your own pedantry.

As for your further comments about the combat, if most players get through the game without understanding the majority and depth of the combat then maybe it is not the players fault but that the game's combat system is convoluted and over worked. Combat should be intuitive.

 

The games simply control better with a controller. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are on consoles as well as pc. Driving games, platformers, they simply work better with a controller.

You can't seriously look at the graphics options in A:O and tell me it's a console port.

Gross oversimplification.

You claimed to have only played 15 minutes of each game. You don't know **** about either game if that's true. If you had actually played either game, you wouldn't compare them.

Ignorance is the state of being uniformed, which is exactly where you stand after playing 15 minutes of any game.

Yes, the devs acknowledged this, why do you think there's a training simulator in the newest game? You sound like a lot of crappy gamers today who simply suck at video games because of how easy most of them are today. God forbid you actually have to sit and think about how to use the tools given to you in combat without having to be given a tutorial. You should try dark souls it's right up your alley.

This is a pointless argument. I'm trying to discuss the merits of two franchises with someone who hasn't even finished one of the games.

 

this game is not 30% im sorry...

 

I apologise for having another comment about this score, but be aware that this rating is lower than Duke Nukem Forever.

I'm also wondering if it's fair to judge a game by its predecessors. After all, in court the defendant isn't judged by his previous convictions! Arkham City is an amazing game (95% IMHO) and to use it as a comparison is bordering on unfair. I reckon 70% minimum, 80-85% if I were the reviewer.

Glitch/crash wise, I've had no crashes while playing the game. I've encountered two glitches: the infamous Burnley Tower glitch and a single enemy on a rooftop that was stuck in the ground up to his waist (dispatched with a batarang to the head). This is over the course of 21 hours of gaming so far.

Ultimately I suppose I shouldn't care. Fact is, I'm having a lot of fun with this game and that's what counts!

 

@Wafflesomd

Your comments are so inconsistent and contradictory I don't even know where to begin to reply and now you are attacking my 'gaming skills' when you don't know me or the games that I play. I have my opinions and reasons for them, I also stand by them. You may not agree with them and that is up to you but don't start criticising me on a personal level.

 

Just in response to talk of comparing it to other games in the series. It's only natural there will be some comparison but the score isn't only based on this. It's a reflection of our judgement of whether you should buy this game based on a number of different reasons. On this occasion Mat felt the game fell well short of making a case for justifying your money.

On a personal note, I've not played the first two games, and only played an hour or so of this new one yet I've been thoroughly unimpressed so far. Feels rushed and generic. Just "here's an environment, here's a vague story, now go mash some buttons".

 

TBH, I got that feeling from Arkham City - it isn't a patch on AA, and it gets boring pretty quickly - so I think I'll give Origins a miss.

 

Ouch, harsh much?

FWIW, I'm not a lazy gamer. I enjoy a challenge, I enjoy learning to work with a game to better it, but the combat here doesn't feel like that... Maybe it's a consequence of using a KB+M rather than the joypad it was designed for, but it feels clumsy and rushed. AA felt much more fluid, it was much easier to string a combo together. To me that's a retrograde step.

Trying to get a decent combo strung together in Origins is an exercise in frustration - my most common failing is that enemies rush in, with a counter offered, a split-second after committing to another move, one which Batman won't break out of.

Anyway, I think I'll try a joypad tonight.

 

Someone must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed. 30%, Seriously?!?!?!

I've played halfway through this game and although it is hard to live up to Arkham City (which in at release did have a few issues) especially as it had already pushed the mechanics and ideas in the series almost to their foreseeable limits.

One of the things I like about it is despite playing the previous 2 titles over and over again, I am finally getting the hang of all the extra combat moves, critical strikes, batclaw clotheslining etc because the game takes more time to encourage you to do so. The first big boss fight is a prime example of where I had to completely re-think my fighting style.

I do appreciate that Rockstar put a lot time into the finer details, and possibly even the script but Warner brothers have done a good job of taking what Rockstar have already created and turned it into a fun experience. Granted not quite the same calibre or as refined as AC or AA but it definitely deserves a score somewhere between 75-85%.

 

If WB Montreal had broken the mould for Arkham Origins, you can bet your bottom dollar there would be a significant proportion of people moan that the original formula wasn't broke, and there was no need to fix it.

So they stick with the same system, use the same engine, and people moan that they haven't been innovative and broken the mould.

I'm glad I'm not a software dev. Seems like sometimes, you just can't win.

 

I would respectfully disagree that this review and/or any review from BT is solely about if you should buy the game or not. if so the scoring should or would be based on "buy it" "dont buy it" "wait for a discount of $5" or something along those lines and not percentage.

BT have always seem to be , IMHO, as with all reviews to inform potential players and buyers of the game of how it shapes up to other games and what are the pitfalls and is it fun.

at the end i really think reducing BT reviews and site down to a buyers watchdog site is doing you and your users a great disservice...

 

Is this review just another example of Bit-tech clickbait? I'm finding it hard to believe that the score is representative of the body of the review, and instead it seems to me to be an attempt to be controversial in order to generate clicks. Unfortunately, reviews like this actually undermine the credibility of this site, imo.

edit: I'm not sure what point Gareth is trying to make - sadly, a lot of games ship with horrid release-day bugs, like RTW2 or Skyrim, for example. One anecdote of a guy experiencing a really annoying bug on an unknown platform doesn't really add much to the debate

 

Should probably wait for a patch like everyone else? maybe consider anger therapy?

(I do agree it can be really frustrating)

 

The combat disarm combo move is very helpful in this situation in AC, although Batman hasn't seemed to have learned it at up to the point I've played up to so far.

I actually felt the combat was just as fluid, if not more so, he may not have learned quite as many moves by this point but I do see their point as to why they can't go all out with this game. It's interesting to see the areas in Arkham before they got so colourful and corrupted.

I also get the feeling that enemies get quicker and better AI as you progress through the game. As well as more challenging with the equipment but yes at times it can be frustrating but that is part of the challenge. Imagine if the battles were easy all the way through.

I think if this had been released prior to Arkham City (although an obvious impossibility), people would have responded to it better. I urge you to not only play this game through as there is a lot more to it then button mashing, the story is quite gripping and well executed (although not quite the same calibre as the previous games) but to go and play Arkham Asylum and then Arkham City in that order. You are really missing out on 2 of the best single player experiences I've played in a long time.

 

Easy, 6. Especially if its on PC. That puts you between the summer and Christmas steam sales

Bar the very odd game each year you just must have there and then how hard is it to wait 6 months?

 

Gareth, maybe your pal should have waited until he'd read the bit-tech review?

 

I was being a little harsh here and I do see your point. A friend of mine never got to finish the original Far Cry due to getting so far into the game but something caused his savegame to corrupt It's a real shame.

I would say once the patches have been released take the time to play the game. My playtime on steam for Arkham city is now at 293 hours due to it being a highly enjoyable experience. And I welcome Origins as a way of giving me more situations and experiences in the same immersive world.

 

I think you might be joking, but it really isn't okay for games to be broken on launch. "Just wait a bit" is a terrible argument.