Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Mild-Mannered Reporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    28,899

    Default REVIEW: "Batman: Arkham Origins" Retreads Old Ground

    While fun, "Batman: Arkham Origins" fails to significantly improve on the "Arkham" formula in a game that feels almost like a clone of "Batman: Arkham City."


    Full article here.

  2. #2
    Junior Member darima80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    354

    Default

    How do you improve on perfection? I'm sorry, but that's what Arkham City was. I'm playing Origins now and I'm enjoying the hell out of it. Like most, I was a bit disappointed with the shift of main villain focus early on in the game, but aside from that, so far this is a very enjoyable game and well worth my money.

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm enjoying this game, but then again I never expected it to be a Step Forward for the franchise. Rocksteady is working on the true sequel for next gen consoles; Origins is more of a spinoff/placeholder to keep the series in circulation rather than abiding a 4-5 year gap between Akrham City and the next gen sequel. Taken as that, I think Origins works perfectly.

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Arkham Asylum and Arkham City both make my top 5 games and I have replayed both of them several times. I don't think reviewers are giving Origins a fair review and I'm not sure why. I think the game is familiar but improved. With the leveling system to make the game a little more complicated and and the unique boss battles, Origins improves upon a great game. I think the only complaint that I've had with any of the Arkham games was the boss fights: they were basically just "fight some guys, dodge a boss, fight some more guys, throw stuff at the boss" and Origins has made each boss fight original and far more entertaining.

    I'm very pleased with Origins so far and I'm not sure what everyone expected them to do above and beyond what has already done, but I think they came pretty close. If I gave A.A. a score of 9 out of 10, then I gave A.C. 9.8, and Origins (so far) is an easy 9 as well.

  5. #5
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Another unfortunate casualty of the origin story angle are the nods to the greater DC Universe and Batman universe at large. Previous games would have tiny Easter Eggs all over the game for eagle-eyed Bat-fans. Unfortunately, there isn't much in "Origins" for players to find. Other than a Flying Graysons circus poster and a few communications from Barbara Gordon, the hints to a greater world beyond Gotham City just aren't there.
    I don't know what game you were playing. There are references to Queen Industries, Ferris Aircraft, Metropolis, Coast City, Keystone City, Central City, Chesire, and David Cain littered around the game world, and I'm not even finished with my first playthrough yet.

  6. #6

    Default

    I haven't beat it yet but this game is awesome and I really don't understand the majority of complaints. The story is kind of problematic for me as a fan of the comics, but then again, so were the stories for the previous two games. What matters here is the gameplay and feeling like Batman, which like Arkham City is pretty spot on. Also, this reviewer missed the Oliver Queen easter egg, so that tells me there might be even more that people haven't noticed yet. I think the critical knives were sharpened and ready for this game before it was released.
    Basically, this game is more of the same thing you likely experienced while playing Arkham City but with some fun new additions. That is exactly what I expected / wanted, so I am really satisfied. I am glad they didn't attempt to re-invent the wheel with this.

  7. #7
    Junior Member MegaGearX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Camden, NJ
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JokersNuts View Post
    Basically, this game is more of the same thing you likely experienced while playing Arkham City but with some fun new additions. That is exactly what I expected / wanted, so I am really satisfied. I am glad they didn't attempt to re-invent the wheel with this.
    Tell me about it! Too many times, video game sequels try to reinvent the wheel and lose something. When the Arkham series changed hands from Rocksteady, I feared that they would mess around with the gameplay and I would feel as though I was playing a different game. I'm glad that this isn't the case.
    "Who fights an army with purple tape over their nipples?"
    Starfire can. She destroyed 3 tanks inbetween panels while wearing purple tape over her nipples.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    150

    Default

    In a way it's almost like more Harley Quinn's Revenge; more levels of Arkham City. And there is nothing wrong with that.

  9. #9
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by versak View Post
    Arkham Asylum and Arkham City both make my top 5 games and I have replayed both of them several times. I don't think reviewers are giving Origins a fair review and I'm not sure why. I think the game is familiar but improved. With the leveling system to make the game a little more complicated and and the unique boss battles, Origins improves upon a great game. I think the only complaint that I've had with any of the Arkham games was the boss fights: they were basically just "fight some guys, dodge a boss, fight some more guys, throw stuff at the boss" and Origins has made each boss fight original and far more entertaining.

    I'm very pleased with Origins so far and I'm not sure what everyone expected them to do above and beyond what has already done, but I think they came pretty close. If I gave A.A. a score of 9 out of 10, then I gave A.C. 9.8, and Origins (so far) is an easy 9 as well.
    I have to disagree about the uniqueness of the boss fights. They are unique from the prior games and others of its ilk, but they are not unique unto themselves. When you mention the boss fights of the last game being more like glorified henchmen hordes, you neglected to mention that that was only a few instances, and not necessarily the norm. Look at the Killer Croc fight from AA, Scarecrow from AA, Poison Ivy from AA, Solomon from AC, Clayface, and most importantly Mr. Freeze. These were varied experiences, all within a single game, whereas Origins' bosses have all been essentially the same for me so far (Only about 3/4 of the way in so far, just fought Bane). Granted they take slightly different tactics combat wise to beat, but I'm never having to utilize my gadgets or any kind of acrobatics or any other features than the combat.

    That said, it's not a bad game by any stretch so far, I just hit a really cool set piece type level that feels like it was ripped straight from the books. The difference is, the prior two games had already hit me with multiple moments like these by this point in the game, in fact the whole game gave me that immersive feeling, whereas this one has flashes of brilliance but something about it just rings a little more hollow than the other 2. Part of this is down to the amount of bugs, screen tearing, freezing, and audio issues I've dealt with so far, Rocksteadys games were smoothly refined experiences straight out of the box, and the difference is enough to notice, and something that truly makes a player appreciate the level of craft and care Rocksteady put in, it makes this effort feel rushed and a bit more slapped together than the others.

    The story is the other issue for me. You are literally fed the whole premise through an exposition dump in the first few scenes and it prefaces a game that feels much more Mega man than Metroidvania. I don't dislike the idea, but the execution was lacking, it seemed like they put some villains in just as a means to get a new gadget. Losing Paul Dini was a bigger disappointment to me than losing Rocksteady, because the Arkham games felt like what Dini was trying to write: a darker extension of the classic 90s animated series. This game doesn't feel like that much at all, it's its own thing. Its turned out much better than I thought it would, even if some of the writing still left a lot to be desired, and I think if they make another game for the series and get a better writer on board, both series could co exist because the important parts are just that much different. It would be awesome if Rocksteady put out big, open world experiences while WB put out more level focused affairs. Either way, it's still a great game, but it's no Asylum or City for me personally

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default arkham origins, not batman origins

    Quote Originally Posted by CBR News View Post
    While fun, "Batman: Arkham Origins" fails to significantly improve on the "Arkham" formula in a game that feels almost like a clone of "Batman: Arkham City.

    I agree that it is very similar but did you get the feeling that the writer of that review missed the point. When discussing the title of the game. Its called arkham origins not batman origins, its the story of arkham as it was prior to the previous two games. Not an origins of batman story arc.


    Full article here.
    ................(3vE)

  11. #11
    Junior Member dregj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    248

    Default

    hated arkham city the whole idea was bullshit
    walling off the city for an escape from new York style thunderdome
    no goddam way even for a comicbook game it was utter bollix
    origins was the game city should have been
    but wasnt
    Knight is not dead he's just waiting for a new steed

  12. #12
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,266

    Default

    I enjoy the game so far, I think City has a bit more "flavor", Origins is a bit more procedural but I enjoy the bigger area and its execution is handled well
    Support your local roller derby league

  13. #13
    14 Time Rita's Champion SUPERECWFAN1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Somewhere In....AMERICA!
    Posts
    50,349

    Default

    Even if its retreading old ground...its still a fun , awesome game .
    "Heads up-- If Havok's position in UA #5 really upset you, it's time to drown yourself hobo piss. Seriously, do it. It's the only solution." - Rick Remender

    Sucks 200 character limit.

  14. #14
    He's Always Right Ismail's Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    580

    Default

    The storyline is vastly superior to Arkham City's, I'll give them that.

    For one it's much more tightly focused altogether, while still managing to be somewhat deep, while AC just went all over the goddamn place, and ending up with a massively underwhelming second half and ending.

    And the twist with Black Mask and Joker worked much better than the one with Hugo Strange and Ra's in City. Then, it felt like Rocksteady pointlessly punking a completely awesome mastermind villain for a lame twist that made no sense anyway, while here it felt somewhat more organic and understandable.

    The cut-scenes also look much neater, Roger Craig Smith sounds more like an actual human being when voicing Batman, instead of a Kevin Conroy's lifeless delivery, and the general game-play seems to be upgraded just enough as to be fresh, but not too dissimilar.

    And honestly, many of the criticisms leveled against Arkham Origins could just as easily be directed at Arkham City, but for some reason the latter is an untouchable, sacred cow that is considered flawless.

  15. #15
    Observer Vibranium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    19,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ismail's Light View Post
    The storyline is vastly superior to Arkham City's, I'll give them that.

    For one it's much more tightly focused altogether, while still managing to be somewhat deep, while AC just went all over the goddamn place, and ending up with a massively underwhelming second half and ending.

    And the twist with Black Mask and Joker worked much better than the one with Hugo Strange and Ra's in City. Then, it felt like Rocksteady pointlessly punking a completely awesome mastermind villain for a lame twist that made no sense anyway, while here it felt somewhat more organic and understandable.

    The cut-scenes also look much neater, Roger Craig Smith sounds more like an actual human being when voicing Batman, instead of a Kevin Conroy's lifeless delivery, and the general game-play seems to be upgraded just enough as to be fresh, but not too dissimilar.

    And honestly, many of the criticisms leveled against Arkham Origins could just as easily be directed at Arkham City, but for some reason the latter is an untouchable, sacred cow that is considered flawless.
    agreed...these games have always had a "huh, didn't see that coming" moment, and that was handled so well...also the cutscenes seem to be a lot better...especially the one between Batman, Bane, and The Joker

    I always like the deeper look you get into the Joker
    Support your local roller derby league

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •