Gaming Batman: Arkham Origins Review

I liked what PC Zone tried to do with scoring in its heyday, whereby:

100% = Perfection - impossible to achieve
75% = Very good, as in better than 75% of other games in the same genre
50% = Average. As good as the majority of games in the genre. Enjoyable but not groundbreaking.
25% = Poor. Either poorly coded/buggy and/or unentertaining to play.
0% = Broken code, unreviewable.

By that logic this game is somewhere between average and poor, which I think is neatly summarised by the reviewer's words in this case. Doesn't mean nobody will like it, it's just an indication of the reviewer's take on the game.

 

30% is a tad low. Considering the formula and ground work is very similar to it's two former and highly successful games. I'm aware of a few bugs and changes, but 30%? Any breakdown as to why?

Find myself complexed by a lot of recent game reviews on the site.


Edit: Yes I know it's just one mans opinion "I can post whatever I like" shenanigans but it's still a daft score.

I give your review 30%, because I feel like it.

 

I know that reviews (and scores) are totally subjective, and we all remember Joe sticking up two fingers at the orthodoxy of games reviews and giving Dishonoured 99% (shortly before quitting the industry, of course). However, I think this review sums up why percentage scores for games are a waste of time - I'd rather see a game reviewed entirely in a narrative than being summed up in an arbitrary score at the end of a review.

I know bit and CPC always loved to bang on about their super scientific and objective review processes for hardware, but I don't think you can reduce games to an "objective" score. As an example, you don't listen to Mark Kermode reviewing a film and then concluding his review with "This film scores 42%"

 

Between Garbageman & Batm'eh.

I don't get scores neither, nagged if they add a score & nagged if they don't, double, triple or mega nagged if they add a silly score.

 

Well, a patch was released today fixing the main bugs (I say main because there may be others that I'm not aware of):

Fix for the issue that was causing credits, consumables, and profile progress to not be saved in Multiplayer.

Fix for the Burnley Tower vent that Batman wasn't able to climb up

Fix for Free Flow Focus mode not unlocking upon unlocking Shadow Vigilante rank 3

Fixed player falling through elevators/world in most cases. For players that were stuck in free fall loop; if you are not back into the game or if it looks weird around you when you load the game, here are the steps.

1. Go in pause menu and select Restart from Checkpoint.
2. If Restart from checkpoint didn't work, trying beating up all enemies around you.
3. If there aren't any enemies around you, try going through a door.
4. Those steps should get you back into the game.

True, but then Mark Kermode strikes me as having a bit of respect for his profession, so I wouldn't expect him to say something like

"I haven't watched the prequels and, having only watched an hour of the new movie, I decided I didn't like it. I can tell you with uninformed, ignorant authority that this film scores 42%"

 

Can i just rage?
I can't be bothered to restrain myself.
Yeah, i'm a fanboy.

30% my arse!
I'd give 60% respecting some want more of the same.
70% as *I* want more.

I'd drop another 5% on top if Mark Hamill still did the Joker.
It's by far the weakest of the 3 games. But worse than Duke Nukem Forever?

I thought i'd read it wrong.

 

Things I don't like are bad. -- the review in a nutshell.

 

Isn't that half the basis of every review, ever.

The other half being: Things I do like are good.

 

That's what I think is missing from this review.

 

I think some of the fans of the game are stuck in the 7 out of 10 era. Score anything below 7 and you're basically saying it's a pile of poo.

Remember when MW3 scored 55%? It wasn't a bad game - it was polished and worked perfectly but it was just more of the same and uninspired.

With that in mind, what's wrong with 30% for more of the same, uninspired and broken?

 

I find 30% a very harsh score, for a game I've so far enjoyed

 

The problem is that an actual "pile of poo" (Total War: Rome II) got high rating here. Sim City which was pretty much bugfest still got 40%, more than Batman:AO. SR4 is pretty much the same thing as SR3, yet it got 80%. Batman Arkham Origins got the same rating as the Star Trek game, which is a completely flawed game.

The only big error for me outside of 3 hard crashes during 22 hours of gameplay was the Burnley Tower bug, which is already fixed. Repetition can't be the reason either,... My best guess is that rating is so low because it wasn't exactly what the reviewer expected - bugs aren't the reason to lower the score (see Rome II), neither is recycling older materials and maps (Saints Row 4), so i have no idea what did the game actually do to deserve such low rating.

Can you explain ?

 

MW3 was far worse than Origins IMHO, Warner studios were attempting to make the player feel what it was like to be the batman in the early days, and how he had to up his game. Parts of the game were truly inspired but because of the confines of the plot history and partly because Rocksteady did such a fantastic job with AA and AC, it did leave some moments lacking in comparison.

MW3 on the other hand felt more like a cash cow compared to the previous MW titles, especially the first which really was inspired.

I hope the Batman series doesn't go the same way.

 

Oh come on! I express an opinion and now you want me to explain the reviewer's reasoning?

Personally, I don't think Rome II deserves 96%. However, your charge that it is a pile of poo is just as subjective as the reviewer's opinion of Origins. He went as far as writing a review to put his point across, whereas you have made a simple statement.

I said I disagree with Rome II's score but I would also argue it would score higher AO based on the depth of innovation it has over the older games (according to the review). Plus, other than a couple of random crashes, the review doesn't say it's a fundamentally flawed game.

So, a sequel that improves on the previous high quality game, and not fundamentally broken (at the time of the review), why wouldn't they score it high?

 

Not from a professional review, they are supposed to be subjective. Not "it's a game all about fighting as batman and I don't like that therefore this game sucks." 1/10

 

My bad, thanks for the correction. I will punish myself accordingly

 

Fun fact: i just did replay Arkham Asylum (as i got the GOTY version for free as everyone with non-GOTY version). Not only i finished the game in half time compared to Arkham Origins, but i had more crashes with Asylum in one hour than in the all 20+ hours in Origins.

 

Maybe he should poke the disc up a WB or said console manufacturer's bim-bam.
It's not the disc's fault and i'm sure it would be happier

Fair one, dude. Still find Mat's disdain for the game baffling at best.
I've calmed down since going on a mad one the other day, bit i've still got some serious going on...

 

would be okay to play if we could actually install it -

http://steamcommunity.com/app/209000/discussions/0/648811126460953448/


http://community.wbgames.com/t5/Support-for-PC/Steam-game-is-not-avaible-in-my-country/td-p/40933

Basically, steam is saying we have bought a version for another region and thus will not let us install - this is not just limited to the UK - there have been posts from Singapore, Croatia, Malaysia, Italy, Sweden - but WB have not responded other than saying it may be sorted in 48 hours but nothing since - this is a joke. Maybe if we make it more public WB may get off there collective backsides and allow us to play a game we have legitimately purchased