Bylines. Wipe the fanboy spittle from your chin and read them.
I would like to compliment Mr. Cackowski-Schnell not only for a really entertaining review, but also for using the term "widening gyre" in a headline.
This is a very poorly written review. Sentences like "Well, until the end of the game when a slog through one interminable boss battle after another brings your 360 to its knees and the end villain repeatedly tears you a new one because the game stutters so much that you can’t dodge his attacks and getting knocked into a corner means that Alfred will need to find a new angry orphan to shepard (sic) through crazy nights of vigilantism" and "But, you say, I already had awesome combat in Arkham City, I’m here for the story. Ha! That’s funny. It’s funny because this story makes very little sense" are clunky and are the kinds of things I expect from a high school newspaper.
I come to this site for valid and well-written criticism. Spending two paragraphs complaining about an optional item is not good criticism. Spending two sentences - one of which uses a cheap "multiplayer games are for immature people!" cop out - for coverage of the multiplayer aspect of the game is not good games writing.
I don't know what your system is for receiving guest reviews, Tom, but you should take the time to edit them to be more like your writing, or simply not accept them.
The point was they picked the plot points, but didn't make them connected, believable or interesting.
It's odd, I expected to dislike this game immensely, but I ended up completing it in like 2 days. I agree with most of the criticisms Brandon makes, but when I played it, they just didn't bother me all that much. It's definitely the weakest Arkham game, but it also feels like the folks making it put some effort into the game (even if most of that effort went to aping rocksteady). I guess you could say the plot is fairly bad, but it's not like the first two games had stellar writing (pretty good voice acting though).
My problems with the game? Combat feels... off, for some reason. It doesn't flow as nicely as rocksteady's games, but by the time I was getting sick of it the shock gloves came, and it was nice to just blow past all the fights. The level design sometimes feels wonky, and it felt like it took a long time to get to the first "predator" room. And I guess they're also scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Batman villains in this one because I haven't heard of half these guys before I played this (not much of a comic guy, personally).
That said, If you've played and enjoyed Arkham Asylum and City, and just want more of the same, I'd recommend it. It's not bad, but it does absolutely nothing to innovate either. For me, that's apparrently enough, as I'm not as sick of the Arkham formula as I thought.
But it's a 1 star review! It must be edgy and edgy is good. Right? Right??
As true as it is that reviews must be subjective and biased, which is the common refrain around here, it's also true that some biases and subjective viewpoints are vapid, petty and/or unfounded. That is the case with this review.
Tom,
You're being pedantic. Of course you can't literally copy & paste any code. (At minimum you'll probably have to rename some variables.) But that doesn't mean that you can't reuse code in a such a way that it is effectively identical; and describe it with an illustrative metaphor "copy & paste"
But the combat system is so damned close, I agree with Gregg, that it is accurate to call it "copy and paste". If there is a difference, I too would appreciate some specifics.
p.s. If your gripe is with the modifier "literally", don't blame Gregg. Blame the Oxford English Dictionary, for redefining the word "literally" to mean "figuratively".
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...
See definition 1c: "virtually, as good as"
It is kinda weird to see people complaining about contrived & nonsensical plots in a superhero game....
Why do you have no desire to play Origins? You seem to really like the previous game in the series.
First of all...I LOVE BATMAN. STUPIDLY. There's a high school yearbook picture of me out there somewhere, circa 1990-1991 and I'm wearing a Batman shirt and a denim jacket COVERED in Batman pins. My daughter's first word was "Batman". I just _re_read the Grant Morrison run and spent a long, long time reading most of the better 1970s material (Adams, Englehart, etc.). I loved Arkham Asylum, but LOVED Arkham City and literally teared up at the end- "What happened in there?" So powerful.
That said, I have zero interest in playing this cash-in title. Regardless of the apparent quality, it's not that far removed from shovelware.
If you'll recall, early last year there was a news item circulating that Origins was going to be a Silver Age-era Batman game. I was THRILLED. As somebody that loves all eras and interpretations of Batman barring the Joel Schumacher ones, I was really excited that the game might be closer in tone to the Brave and the Bold show than the endless riffing on Frank Miller's version. I was also reading the Morrisson books then, and one of the many great things about those books were that he really wanted to unify all the different versions of Batman and he didn't shy away from the campy or colorful.
Then Origins screenshots hit. Yep, gritty, grimy, dark, bleak. Unreal Engine. Bleh.
So this game gets a big *shrug* from me, and by the sound of Brandon's review and others I've seen it looks like I'm not missing much. I also think anybody that dropped $60 on this is a sucker. You'll be able to buy this game for $20 within three months. If not by Black Friday.
I'm sure you've gotten this a million times, but why not change your avatar to something less unsettling?
I think the real issue here is that video game reviews are heavily colored by information that reviewers get about the industry and the people involved; information that is either not public or that your average reader is unaware of.
Warner Bros. lacks the industry cachet that Rocksteady has. It may very well be the management at Warner Bros Montreal is awful and the developer may be dysfunctional and packed with disgruntled employees. It is possible that the decision to produce this game was not made amicably with Rocksteady. People in the know may rightly see this as Warner Bros seizing the hard work and technology produced by Rocksteady.
This might be a great reason to punish Warner Bros. But regardless of how they brought this game to market, the quality of the game did not seem dischordant with previous releases from Rocksteady, in my opinion. It might have been easier for reviewers if it had been.
From the few hours I've played, you're correct, it's not a direct copy paste job. Maybe some months away from the franchise has diluted my button mashing abilities but it feels significantly less responsive when I try to counter and on Hard and this makes the game very, very difficult. Essentially, if I'm not countering as a bad guy starts his attack animation then it won't go through. Given the number of dudes in a lot of the early encounters, this makes for an awful, grindy experience where I have to spam counter and wait out guaranteed opportunities for offensive attacks.
I believe it's just an off-shoot to cash in on the success of the franchise. Rocksteady is currently developing another game in the series. You may be right about Rocksteady having hard feelings but I'm not sure how that would factor into the development of Origins.
this game is actually decent , the combat is not as spammy as the first 2. The villains are underdeveloped as usual except for joker who steals the scenes again.
Because Mark E. Smith is godhead. We should all have Mark E. avatars. Or Brix avatars. Or something.
I don't mean to imply it has consequences for the development itself. I think it has consequences for the reviewer opinions of the result.
Sheesus, you should be so lucky to be half as talented as his "unsettling" avatar.
Alright, alright, I didn't mean to be offensive! Just a suggestion. Also, The Fall ain't that great. /covers head, runs.
The game releases for the Arkham series seem to mirror the Batman movie triliogy. There were some terrible Joel Schumacher movies that were foils to how unexpectedly good Batman Begins turned out to be. There should be little debate that the Dark Knight is the finest of that
trilogy, but reading these comments suggests I may be wrong...
In the same way, Batman games had been, mostly, a joke to gamers. Asylum knocked everyone on their ass. It is a joy to play, and I am currently replaying it. City took all that was good in Asylum, and then added sweet open-world action. Is it GTA or Saints Row degree of open world action? No. Would the look and feel of the game suffer if it were? Yes; without question.
Overall, I think that it was a dumb move to call it Arkham Origins. Why
not, Batman: Gotham City Origins? I am concerned that trying to stamp
the word "Arkham" on the title might be a quick cash-out, but a foolish
long term strategy. Maybe they built the Asylum in the game? Not sure.
While I haven't played newest game, I don't understand the vitriol about the review. Brandon didn't like it. He told you why. Reviews are the end result of a specific gamer's experience, put down on paper or the internets. This comment board would be better suited if people asked questions
about Brandon's particular problems with it, instead of just trying to
tear down the author, or the website.