Batman: Arkham Knight

M'ichal said:
man, I really don't understand all this hate towards Origins. It was a fun game. Yeah, it was not as big a step as Asylum->City. It was a bit more of the same but is that really so bad? I would definitely recommend getting it if there's a nice sale if you liked the other games. The story was decent and the boss-fights were fantastic, especially the Bane one. Detective mode was great but it could've been utilised in a much better way and in many more places.

just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Modred189 said:
Actually none of that entered into the equation. I loved Asylum and City (kind of, I felt it was a bit of rinse-repeat). What killed me re Origins was the announcement tha they were not going to patch game-breaking bugs in favor of developing DLC.
Click to expand...

I had long given up on Origins by the time they told everyone to fuck off and just buy DLC for a broken game.

Anyway I enjoyed the first two games and I know this game is being done by the same developer but I don't know if I'll pick it up. The third game was a series destroyer. Broken gameplay, mechanics, shitty story/setup, etc. That and I really don't want to support WB after the we have your money, were not fixing crap... umm buy dlc idea they had.

I had bought the third game on the 360 and had game breaking bug after game breaking bug.
 
Last edited:
A definite preorder for me :). So far the only Batman Arkham game I thought wasn't that great was Blackgate that I have on my Vita. I guess I just don't like that 2.5d type style for a Batman game. But these open world ones I just really really like a lot. Overall I liked them all even Origins.
 
I missed this on the original announcement: Kevin Conroy returns as the voice of Batman! And no multiplayer - but, pffft, I play these games for the singleplayer story/challenge modes anyway. With that said, my kid said the multiplayer for Origins was fun and popular, so I'm kinda surprised they stripped it out. Perhaps they could've had the Origins developer update and expand the multiplayer component while Rocksteady worked on the singleplayer campaign.

http://kotaku.com/batman-arkham-knight-wont-have-multiplayer-will-hav-1536502499

Getting really excited for this title now, and really digging Batman's new suit. It reminds me a lot of the New 52 style, with all of the armoured bits. Might possibly be a day one purchase for me (last day one purchase was Mass Effect 3).
 
I loved the first 2, and I thought Origins was pretty good too.
I also had avoided the game because of all the bad press, but decided to get it when it was on sale. I did not regret my purchase.
Sure, there wasn’t anything new really, but I like the first 2 games, and this one is more of the same…good. The story was also pretty good, even better than City IMO.
New dev? I couldn’t care less. New voice? Didn’t bother me one bit (although I do prefer K.Conroy). No more bug fixes? All the game breaking bugs were already addressed, and I was able to complete the game without any problems, so again, I’m fine with it.

Anyway, if you like the first 2 games, there is no reason you will not enjoy Origins, especially if you get it on sale.

As for Arkham Knight, I thought the trailer was ok. I am excited that they finally have thrown in the Batmobile (hoping it is driveable, and not like the Bat (plane thing) from Origins).
I really didn’t like Harley’s look. But it’s not a big deal really…

I do have the feeling they are turning this franchise into a yearly thing like COD or AC…especially if they are planning on continuing having a rotation between two dev teams.

Also, I read somewhere that Arkham Knight might have parallel timelines, which would make it both a sequel to City and a prequel to Origins.
I’ll try to find the source.
 
Gigantism said:
I do have the feeling they are turning this franchise into a yearly thing like COD or AC…especially if they are planning on continuing having a rotation between two dev teams.

Also, I read somewhere that Arkham Knight might have parallel timelines, which would make it both a sequel to City and a prequel to Origins.
I’ll try to find the source.
Click to expand...

Rocksteady said this is the last Arkham game and Arkham Knight takes place one year after Arkham City.
 
Haven't played Origins yet, but I'm really pumped about this game. Rocksteady hasn't screwed up yet, and the quote about not tacking on an unnecessary multiplayer component and sticking with the true focus makes me happy. Hopefully that's not a lie like with some devs. (oh hi Bioware)
 
drako said:
Haven't played Origins yet, but I'm really pumped about this game. Rocksteady hasn't screwed up yet, and the quote about not tacking on an unnecessary multiplayer component and sticking with the true focus makes me happy. Hopefully that's not a lie like with some devs. (oh hi Bioware)
Click to expand...
In all fairness, the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 was very fun. The multiplayer DLC was also free and added a lot of content. It's pretty much all I played for an entire year after it came out once I experienced the abortion of the original ending...
 
Kinsaras said:
Rocksteady said this is the last Arkham game and Arkham Knight takes place one year after Arkham City.
Click to expand...

It could very well be the last Arkham game made by Rocksteady, but it doesn't mean it will be the last Arkham game (and I'm dead sure that it won't be as long as they make money from it).

The fact that Arkham Knight takes place one year after City doesn't mean there won't be flash-back segments that serve as Origins prequel (it was mentioned after seeing a much younger Bruce Wayne is the new trailer)
 
Gigantism said:
It could very well be the last Arkham game made by Rocksteady, but it doesn't mean it will be the last Arkham game (and I'm dead sure that it won't be as long as they make money from it).

The fact that Arkham Knight takes place one year after City doesn't mean there won't be flash-back segments that serve as Origins prequel (it was mentioned after seeing a much younger Bruce Wayne is the new trailer)
Click to expand...

No this is the end.

"We kind of feel like this is the natural end to the story," says Rocksteady co-founder Sefton Hill in an interview. "We want to kind of go out in style."
Click to expand...

Paul Tassi covered the announcement, which brings Rocksteady’s Arkham series to a close in 2014, with the final game in the series also the first to run on next-gen systems.
Click to expand...
 
Armenius said:
In all fairness, the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 was very fun. The multiplayer DLC was also free and added a lot of content. It's pretty much all I played for an entire year after it came out once I experienced the abortion of the original ending...
Click to expand...
Agreed. It seems like ME3 has become the poster child for bad, unnecessary, "tacked-on" multiplayer despite the fact that it was a) really fun and b) heavily supported by the company after release.

I'm torn about how they encouraged (some would argue "forced") people to play the multiplayer component in order to increase assets in the single-player campaign. On the one hand it's bad because those who loved the Mass Effect franchise were less likely to be into the kind of multiplayer experience offered, on the other hand I, for one, might never have given the multiplayer a try if I hadn't wanted to maximize the single-player game.

Overall, though, the people I played ME3 with found that the multiplayer was great and helped to cleanse their palates after the disappointment of the ending.
 
I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just say that I didn't have a problem with the quality of the MP experience in ME3 (I actually never played it). My problem was that it was included after Bioware said they weren't going to do MP in the game. Even that would have been okay if the singleplayer hadn't felt rushed. I know, supposedly a different team worked on the MP... but maybe they should have had that team working on SP assets as well if Bioware couldn't get the job done under EA's deadline.

So I'm glad Rocksteady is focusing on the core strength of the Arkham series. I'm sure they could make an intriguing MP experience, and maybe they could do that for their next project... but not here.
 
I REALLY REALLY Wish that they would make a Justice League game after this last installment of the Batman: Arkham games.

Can you imagine having a huge open world and the main Justice League heroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc) and having co op play, would be a dream game if done right and with enough care.

Is nice to see you'll finally be able to drive the Batmobile though.
 
So did Paul Dini write the story for this one? I think I remember somewhere reading that they showed him the door after Batman AC.
 
Stiler said:
I REALLY REALLY Wish that they would make a Justice League game after this last installment of the Batman: Arkham games.

Can you imagine having a huge open world and the main Justice League heroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc) and having co op play, would be a dream game if done right and with enough care.

Is nice to see you'll finally be able to drive the Batmobile though.
Click to expand...

Normally I would agree but the power level gaps are so extreme it would be hard to keep the story coherent, "believable" and e in a game format. People would want to play Superman and he pretty much punches through problems which might cater to people who don't care too much about plot, exposition and good story telling in general. Basically Super powered heroes have zero substance because their powers negate any obstacles while non-super powered heroes struggle with their limitations + the story which makes it interesting.
 
fdiaz78 said:
So did Paul Dini write the story for this one? I think I remember somewhere reading that they showed him the door after Batman AC.
Click to expand...

No, Paul Dini did not write this. Notice that Harley is now less sexualized; that's pretty good proof.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Normally I would agree but the power level gaps are so extreme it would be hard to keep the story coherent, "believable" and e in a game format. People would want to play Superman and he pretty much punches through problems which might cater to people who don't care too much about plot, exposition and good story telling in general. Basically Super powered heroes have zero substance because their powers negate any obstacles while non-super powered heroes struggle with their limitations + the story which makes it interesting.
Click to expand...

That's what people always say about Superman.....but there's a reason he's been a popular comic book hero for so long.

Do you think he's faced zero problems in all those years? Would make for a pretty dang boring character/story if he never faced any problems he couldn't easily solve.

No, there's plenty of things to give him problems and he can't simply "punch threw" them.

He's vulnerable to Red Sun, Kyrptonite, extremely strong foes (Doomsday, Darkseid, Brainiac, etc), lack of yellow sun to keep him powered, but his most obvious weakness is people.
 
So I finished Origins last night, and I honestly don’t get all the hate the game got.
The only negative thing I can think of is the lack of innovation from previous entries, but that’s about it.
The story is great, the combat mechanic is just the same, the ambiance is great, the super villains are plentiful, and the boss fight are a lot of fun. This is perhaps where the game is better than the first 2, boss fights.
In all honesty, if I didn’t know that Origins wasn’t a Rocksteady game, I wouldn’t have noticed the difference from Asylum and City.
I also didn’t encounter a single bug in my playthrough.

If you enjoyed the first 2, and can find Origins on sale, you should buy it and play it, you won’t regret it.
 
1394852906-4.jpg


Definitely looking more "next-gen". The sooner devs stop catering to the superseded consoles the better.
 
Looks like Bruce bought some Tony Stark tech after Arkham City.

I likely will pick up Origins during a Steam sale and play it before Arkham Knight. Just to refresh myself up on the game mechanics and whatnot.
 
SeymourGore said:
Looks like Bruce bought some Tony Stark tech after Arkham City.

I likely will pick up Origins during a Steam sale and play it before Arkham Knight. Just to refresh myself up on the game mechanics and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I'm liking the armoured look, just disappointed that it kind of looks like they took design cues from The Dark Knight Rises.
 
I like the look. Hopefully a visual upgrade doesn't entail a major performance downgrade. The current engine isn't perfect, but it's adaptable and runs smoothly.
 
Domingo said:
I like the look. Hopefully a visual upgrade doesn't entail a major performance downgrade. The current engine isn't perfect, but it's adaptable and runs smoothly.
Click to expand...

New consoles mean a raise in PC requirements. It's inevitable.
 
I wonder who 'Arkham Knight' is. The most likely conclusion would be it's Joker - but that seems almost too easy. Looks like he uses a gun like Hush - so perhaps it's him?

Either way, really looking forward to this game (though my wallet's not looking forward to the parts upgrade I'll need for it).
 
SeymourGore said:
I wonder who 'Arkham Knight' is. The most likely conclusion would be it's Joker - but that seems almost too easy. Looks like he uses a gun like Hush - so perhaps it's him?

Either way, really looking forward to this game (though my wallet's not looking forward to the parts upgrade I'll need for it).
Click to expand...

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2014...character_is_stealing_the_caped_crusaders_gig

Arkham Knight is in fact not the caped crusader, but a completely original character called – you guessed it – Arkham Knight. The new man about town was created exclusively for the game in a collaboration between the developer and DC Comics.

"The opportunity is exciting, but the expectation is off the scale," studio producer Dax Ginn said in an interview with VG247. "That’s why working with DC is so awesome for us, because those guys are so experienced, and it’s obviously something that they do a lot of. So when the idea was on the table for us to develop our own character and introduce that into Batman’s world, there was so much energy and excitement around it at Rocksteady."
Click to expand...
 
fdiaz78 said:
Wow that has to either be UE4 or a heavily modified version of three. Looks fantastic and may be the game that retires my 560TI.
Click to expand...
It's most likely running on UE4. UE3 is really long in the tooth, and UE4 has been in the hands of developers for awhile now. If Arkham Knight is still running on UE3 I'll be extremely disappointed.
 
Not only will this be a day 1 buy for me but it might finally be enough reason to finally upgrade my rig. I got apathetic when AMD abandoned Steamroller for AM3+ and need a good push to refresh. The graphics on this look like it might be worthy of an upgrade. I absolutely loved all 3 games and while I think I'm the only person in the world that thinks so, I enjoyed Origins best. No game series since Mass Effect has roped me in like these Arkham games have.
 
It could be UE3.5. I'd say those screens look a lot like the Samaritan demo that Epic put out a couple of years ago. Either way, it looks awesome and it's the first game in a while that makes me want to purchase on graphics alone (probably since the original Crysis). Good thing Rocksteady is behind it and the gameplay should be satisfying as well.
 
Just after the press release of AK I remember somewhere that said it was using the UE3 heavily modded again.


Back before the release of AC there were alot of magazines with pictures for the game was better than what the game ended up looking like. In a way they over sold on marketing before so why believe they are doing anything else now.

They are probably down-sampling those images.
 
From an interview

"This is Unreal Engine 3, but with a load of bespoke code that we have written for lighting and physics and rendering…"

Most exciting things that I read wrere that a) it's 5 times the size of Arkham City and b) they took the same programmer who wrote all the code for Batman himself and put him on the project of working on the Batmobile so that they did not bring in a "driving team" group of programmers and have it end up being a disconnected driving game
 
Gigantism said:
So I finished Origins last night, and I honestly don’t get all the hate the game got.
The only negative thing I can think of is the lack of innovation from previous entries, but that’s about it.
The story is great, the combat mechanic is just the same, the ambiance is great, the super villains are plentiful, and the boss fight are a lot of fun. This is perhaps where the game is better than the first 2, boss fights.
In all honesty, if I didn’t know that Origins wasn’t a Rocksteady game, I wouldn’t have noticed the difference from Asylum and City.
I also didn’t encounter a single bug in my playthrough.

If you enjoyed the first 2, and can find Origins on sale, you should buy it and play it, you won’t regret it.
Click to expand...

That is the problem with the game. You just end up feeling like getting ripped off at the end. Arkham Knight should have been Arkham Origins.
 
mdma11 said:
That is the problem with the game. You just end up feeling like getting ripped off at the end. Arkham Knight should have been Arkham Origins.
Click to expand...

Huh? Origins was an extremely solid game, I definitely didn't feel 'ripped off' getting 30+ hours out of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top