Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Talk about Arkham Origins and Arkham Origins Blackgate from WB Games Montreal, Splash Damage and Armature Studios.

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Killa_Moff » Oct 26th, 2013, 6:16 am

Holy predictability, Batman!
-Gamespot


:oldyella:
I gotta admit, that's pretty funny.
Image
User avatar
Killa_Moff
..............
..............
 
Posts: 2134
Joined: Aug 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
Location: MothCave, Australia
Favourite Villain: Killer Moth
Favourite Graphic Novel: Batman: The Mad Monk

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Wyrewho » Oct 26th, 2013, 9:09 pm

Killa_Moff wrote:
Holy predictability, Batman!
-Gamespot


:oldyella:
I gotta admit, that's pretty funny.

Batman's a bit like pizza, even when it's bad it's still pretty good.
-IGN
Image
User avatar
Wyrewho
..............
..............
 
Posts: 2613
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 4:05 pm
Location: Worshipping Arkvoodle, Lord of the Sacred Crotch
Favourite Villain: The Riddler

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby CuzImBatman » Oct 27th, 2013, 8:33 am

Some of these reviews are bogus. Fine, you don't like something about a game, but at least give tge product and the developers the dignity they deserve by writing a fair and objective review. I swear, the Gamespot review was just written so the writer could say that he/she's predictions it would suck was true, that the mighty Arkham has fallen on its face. Frkm what it said, I swear this reviewer Scored and critiqued it the way he/she did to get hits on a huge game. After all, people live to see their heroes fall, and if they don't "like" it, they'll absolutely tune it to watch it happen. The reviewer I guess gave an actual crappy game like a 9 or something, basically because it had a female protagonist. IGN was an interesting one, the game was scored a 7.8 by a reviewer that isn't Greg Miller(the guy who reviewed Asylum and City). For some reason, consistency wasn't a priority. Also, a commenter on the video review who works for IGN says the reviewer is super harsh with everything, doesn't understand why Greg didn't do the review and the reviewer chosen wasn't the beat choice because he wasn't really a huge fan of the franchise anyway, or at least not as much as others like Greg, and that the review was just the review of one person, and that this reviewer's score is not the widely held belief of IGN as a whole, in fact, he says most at IGN think it more than deserved a much higher score than what it got and that it was a fun game, regardless of some similarity and familiarity. Honestly this reviewer's review's only complaints was that it's gameplay was similar(ok fine, but it's in the same franchise whose gameplay is easily some of the best combat in gaming, so not much room to complain), the different voice actors were mentioned, though wasn't on the pros and cons next to the score, and the fact there were no crowds of civilians on the streets, deeming it empty(which the story more than justified in the first minute alone. What crowds of people would be walking and driving around when 1. It's Christmas Eve, if argued people are out last minute shopping, then, 2. Black Mask, an established crime boss m, is causing trouble, and 8 deadly assassins arrive in Gotham to claim Black Mask's bounty on Batman's head, with gang and a growing emergent super villain presence and activity escalates, and because of this, 3. police are warning people to not be out on the streets for safety, not to mention, 4. there's a blizzard picking up. People have been conditioned to think that if a game is open world, there has to loads of random NPCs to run into on the street, which makes sense for GTA, but for Batman, and this particular story, it would ruin the immersion with the improbability of roaming people. Other reviewers who gave poorer reviews weren't quite as bad, but blew some issues out of proportion and might as well have been expecting a totally different game from their whining about change and innovation(change of the basic near perfect formula being something they all DIDN'T want WBGM to do when it was announced, hypocrisy on their part). When a consistently objective(whether I personally agree or not), and in my opinion, best and most respectable reviewer, GameInformer, gives the game a solid 8.5, and gives good reason for it's score, I think something is off. when I thought about it psychologically(yeah I'm weird like that...), I realized the root of the "problem" is that people are ultimately just upset it's not Rocksready and wrongfully think they are the only team capable of delivering a worthy Batman game. When they heard it wasn't them, they were (at the time, rightfully) concerned. Many just wanted more awesome Batman Arkham goodness near as great as the last 2, but to compensate for the fact it was another dev, many probably subconsciously felt like they needed sufficient justification for the change, a change that I'm sure felt like a bit of a betrayal by WB and fans therefore not wanting to share their favorite toy with the new kid on the block. So in order to adequately justify the change, many I'm sure subconsciously wanted a drastically different game, but when what they got was very similar to it's predecessors(mayne ever so slightly to a fault sometimes, but still worth it), they reacted negatively out of frustration and reviewed over critically, not necessarily becaise they were justified or even had a legitimate basis for their harsh criticisms, but because what they got was something Rocksteady could've done and did, creating resentment toward the new dev and nitpicking what they deemed was inherently inferior to Rocksteady's games, regardless of whether the game was actually a good game or not. Gladly some(more than not it seems) stayed relatively objective, but sadly the negative reviews(by some mainstream reviewer sites no less) are definitely going to decrease potential purchases by people who only care about what a single reviewer thinks in their review, will effect the nomination of awards and aclaiim it very well may have received and likely deserved, all because some "professional" gamer/reviewer decided to feel entitled and not be professional and some normal gamers who's basis for purchasing a product solely rests upon the pointless scores of these "professional" reviewers. I doubt Origins is perfect, it may even be the "worst" of the 3, but this game may very well go down as a regrettably and likely undeservedly underrated game simply befaise it probably won't be another GOTY nominee/winner when it more than lives up to already Arkham standards
CuzImBatman
.........
.........
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 8th, 2013, 3:21 am
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Man Who Laughs

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby thegreyghost » Oct 27th, 2013, 10:18 am

CuzImBatman wrote:Some of these reviews are bogus. Fine, you don't like something about a game, but at least give tge product and the developers the dignity they deserve by writing a fair and objective review. I swear, the Gamespot review was just written so the writer could say that he/she's predictions it would suck was true, that the mighty Arkham has fallen on its face. Frkm what it said, I swear this reviewer Scored and critiqued it the way he/she did to get hits on a huge game. After all, people live to see their heroes fall, and if they don't "like" it, they'll absolutely tune it to watch it happen. The reviewer I guess gave an actual crappy game like a 9 or something, basically because it had a female protagonist. IGN was an interesting one, the game was scored a 7.8 by a reviewer that isn't Greg Miller(the guy who reviewed Asylum and City). For some reason, consistency wasn't a priority. Also, a commenter on the video review who works for IGN says the reviewer is super harsh with everything, doesn't understand why Greg didn't do the review and the reviewer chosen wasn't the beat choice because he wasn't really a huge fan of the franchise anyway, or at least not as much as others like Greg, and that the review was just the review of one person, and that this reviewer's score is not the widely held belief of IGN as a whole, in fact, he says most at IGN think it more than deserved a much higher score than what it got and that it was a fun game, regardless of some similarity and familiarity. Honestly this reviewer's review's only complaints was that it's gameplay was similar(ok fine, but it's in the same franchise whose gameplay is easily some of the best combat in gaming, so not much room to complain), the different voice actors were mentioned, though wasn't on the pros and cons next to the score, and the fact there were no crowds of civilians on the streets, deeming it empty(which the story more than justified in the first minute alone. What crowds of people would be walking and driving around when 1. It's Christmas Eve, if argued people are out last minute shopping, then, 2. Black Mask, an established crime boss m, is causing trouble, and 8 deadly assassins arrive in Gotham to claim Black Mask's bounty on Batman's head, with gang and a growing emergent super villain presence and activity escalates, and because of this, 3. police are warning people to not be out on the streets for safety, not to mention, 4. there's a blizzard picking up. People have been conditioned to think that if a game is open world, there has to loads of random NPCs to run into on the street, which makes sense for GTA, but for Batman, and this particular story, it would ruin the immersion with the improbability of roaming people. Other reviewers who gave poorer reviews weren't quite as bad, but blew some issues out of proportion and might as well have been expecting a totally different game from their whining about change and innovation(change of the basic near perfect formula being something they all DIDN'T want WBGM to do when it was announced, hypocrisy on their part). When a consistently objective(whether I personally agree or not), and in my opinion, best and most respectable reviewer, GameInformer, gives the game a solid 8.5, and gives good reason for it's score, I think something is off. when I thought about it psychologically(yeah I'm weird like that...), I realized the root of the "problem" is that people are ultimately just upset it's not Rocksready and wrongfully think they are the only team capable of delivering a worthy Batman game. When they heard it wasn't them, they were (at the time, rightfully) concerned. Many just wanted more awesome Batman Arkham goodness near as great as the last 2, but to compensate for the fact it was another dev, many probably subconsciously felt like they needed sufficient justification for the change, a change that I'm sure felt like a bit of a betrayal by WB and fans therefore not wanting to share their favorite toy with the new kid on the block. So in order to adequately justify the change, many I'm sure subconsciously wanted a drastically different game, but when what they got was very similar to it's predecessors(mayne ever so slightly to a fault sometimes, but still worth it), they reacted negatively out of frustration and reviewed over critically, not necessarily becaise they were justified or even had a legitimate basis for their harsh criticisms, but because what they got was something Rocksteady could've done and did, creating resentment toward the new dev and nitpicking what they deemed was inherently inferior to Rocksteady's games, regardless of whether the game was actually a good game or not. Gladly some(more than not it seems) stayed relatively objective, but sadly the negative reviews(by some mainstream reviewer sites no less) are definitely going to decrease potential purchases by people who only care about what a single reviewer thinks in their review, will effect the nomination of awards and aclaiim it very well may have received and likely deserved, all because some "professional" gamer/reviewer decided to feel entitled and not be professional and some normal gamers who's basis for purchasing a product solely rests upon the pointless scores of these "professional" reviewers. I doubt Origins is perfect, it may even be the "worst" of the 3, but this game may very well go down as a regrettably and likely undeservedly underrated game simply befaise it probably won't be another GOTY nominee/winner when it more than lives up to already Arkham standards


you expect me to read this?

the reviews are fair!
User avatar
thegreyghost
.........
.........
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Aug 20th, 2011, 8:56 am
Favourite Villain: Ra's al Ghul
Favourite Graphic Novel: Mad Love

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby guztov » Oct 27th, 2013, 10:33 am

CuzImBatman wrote:Some of these reviews are bogus. Fine, you don't like something about a game, but at least give tge product and the developers the dignity they deserve by writing a fair and objective review. I swear, the Gamespot review was just written so the writer could say that he/she's predictions it would suck was true, that the mighty Arkham has fallen on its face. Frkm what it said, I swear this reviewer Scored and critiqued it the way he/she did to get hits on a huge game. After all, people live to see their heroes fall, and if they don't "like" it, they'll absolutely tune it to watch it happen. The reviewer I guess gave an actual crappy game like a 9 or something, basically because it had a female protagonist. IGN was an interesting one, the game was scored a 7.8 by a reviewer that isn't Greg Miller(the guy who reviewed Asylum and City). For some reason, consistency wasn't a priority. Also, a commenter on the video review who works for IGN says the reviewer is super harsh with everything, doesn't understand why Greg didn't do the review and the reviewer chosen wasn't the beat choice because he wasn't really a huge fan of the franchise anyway, or at least not as much as others like Greg, and that the review was just the review of one person, and that this reviewer's score is not the widely held belief of IGN as a whole, in fact, he says most at IGN think it more than deserved a much higher score than what it got and that it was a fun game, regardless of some similarity and familiarity. Honestly this reviewer's review's only complaints was that it's gameplay was similar(ok fine, but it's in the same franchise whose gameplay is easily some of the best combat in gaming, so not much room to complain), the different voice actors were mentioned, though wasn't on the pros and cons next to the score, and the fact there were no crowds of civilians on the streets, deeming it empty(which the story more than justified in the first minute alone. What crowds of people would be walking and driving around when 1. It's Christmas Eve, if argued people are out last minute shopping, then, 2. Black Mask, an established crime boss m, is causing trouble, and 8 deadly assassins arrive in Gotham to claim Black Mask's bounty on Batman's head, with gang and a growing emergent super villain presence and activity escalates, and because of this, 3. police are warning people to not be out on the streets for safety, not to mention, 4. there's a blizzard picking up. People have been conditioned to think that if a game is open world, there has to loads of random NPCs to run into on the street, which makes sense for GTA, but for Batman, and this particular story, it would ruin the immersion with the improbability of roaming people. Other reviewers who gave poorer reviews weren't quite as bad, but blew some issues out of proportion and might as well have been expecting a totally different game from their whining about change and innovation(change of the basic near perfect formula being something they all DIDN'T want WBGM to do when it was announced, hypocrisy on their part). When a consistently objective(whether I personally agree or not), and in my opinion, best and most respectable reviewer, GameInformer, gives the game a solid 8.5, and gives good reason for it's score, I think something is off. when I thought about it psychologically(yeah I'm weird like that...), I realized the root of the "problem" is that people are ultimately just upset it's not Rocksready and wrongfully think they are the only team capable of delivering a worthy Batman game. When they heard it wasn't them, they were (at the time, rightfully) concerned. Many just wanted more awesome Batman Arkham goodness near as great as the last 2, but to compensate for the fact it was another dev, many probably subconsciously felt like they needed sufficient justification for the change, a change that I'm sure felt like a bit of a betrayal by WB and fans therefore not wanting to share their favorite toy with the new kid on the block. So in order to adequately justify the change, many I'm sure subconsciously wanted a drastically different game, but when what they got was very similar to it's predecessors(mayne ever so slightly to a fault sometimes, but still worth it), they reacted negatively out of frustration and reviewed over critically, not necessarily becaise they were justified or even had a legitimate basis for their harsh criticisms, but because what they got was something Rocksteady could've done and did, creating resentment toward the new dev and nitpicking what they deemed was inherently inferior to Rocksteady's games, regardless of whether the game was actually a good game or not. Gladly some(more than not it seems) stayed relatively objective, but sadly the negative reviews(by some mainstream reviewer sites no less) are definitely going to decrease potential purchases by people who only care about what a single reviewer thinks in their review, will effect the nomination of awards and aclaiim it very well may have received and likely deserved, all because some "professional" gamer/reviewer decided to feel entitled and not be professional and some normal gamers who's basis for purchasing a product solely rests upon the pointless scores of these "professional" reviewers. I doubt Origins is perfect, it may even be the "worst" of the 3, but this game may very well go down as a regrettably and likely undeservedly underrated game simply befaise it probably won't be another GOTY nominee/winner when it more than lives up to already Arkham standards


How can i read this? It hurts my eyes.
User avatar
guztov
.........
.........
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Apr 24th, 2013, 6:19 pm
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Long Halloween

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Jack out of Box » Oct 29th, 2013, 3:23 pm

Assassins Creed: Black Flag gets a free pass for using the same gameplay mechanics and mission types and being bigger for the sake of being bigger.
Almost all complaints for Arkham origins are ignored when it comes to this series and it shows that the review system is broken, inherently flawed and plays favoritism based on media stigmas and big budgets.

It's a shame because reviews from high profile sites are not just 'someones opinion'. they can affect sales and even whether a studio gets bonuses or to continue on with a series.
User avatar
Jack out of Box
.........
.........
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Apr 30th, 2013, 6:10 pm
Favourite Villain: Mr. Freeze
Favourite Graphic Novel: Hush

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Steelers4190 » Oct 29th, 2013, 7:27 pm

This may be my favorite installment thus far. Loved the city, story, the gameplay tweaks, and personally I haven't had the issues that some people have with glitches
Steelers4190
........
........
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Aug 11th, 2013, 7:04 pm

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby batman404 » Oct 30th, 2013, 7:10 am

Good Game review (spoilers).


Image
User avatar
batman404
..............
..............
 
Posts: 2211
Joined: Oct 10th, 2010, 9:38 am
Location: Australia
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: YOne and TDKReturns

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby guztov » Nov 6th, 2013, 7:51 pm

Zero Punctuation review from Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... am-Origins
User avatar
guztov
.........
.........
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Apr 24th, 2013, 6:19 pm
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Long Halloween

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Prometheus » Nov 9th, 2013, 1:08 pm

This game just keeps growing on me more and more. From a narrative, lore, and character standpoint it's probably my favorite in the series.
User avatar
Prometheus
..........
..........
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Aug 11th, 2010, 10:54 am

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby HaHaHa » Nov 26th, 2013, 7:37 pm

I wish I had listened to these guys.




-- Nov 26th, 2013, 7:45 pm --

guztov wrote:Zero Punctuation review from Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... am-Origins


Brilliant!
"don't you know I'm loco"
User avatar
HaHaHa
............
............
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sep 15th, 2010, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Joe Chill » Nov 28th, 2013, 7:48 pm

Jack out of Box wrote:Assassins Creed: Black Flag gets a free pass for using the same gameplay mechanics and mission types and being bigger for the sake of being bigger.
Almost all complaints for Arkham origins are ignored when it comes to this series and it shows that the review system is broken, inherently flawed and plays favoritism based on media stigmas and big budgets.

It's a shame because reviews from high profile sites are not just 'someones opinion'. they can affect sales and even whether a studio gets bonuses or to continue on with a series.


Exactly true. ACIV is getting 9s and 10s but has been using the same gameplay mechanics for several years.
User avatar
Joe Chill
Global Mod
Global Mod
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sep 2nd, 2010, 9:09 pm
Location: USA
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: Hush

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby BrunoBKMazing » Jan 10th, 2014, 4:36 am

Image
"CRY HAVOK!!!"
User avatar
BrunoBKMazing
.................
.................
 
Posts: 2473
Joined: May 4th, 2011, 9:59 pm
Location: Brazil
Favourite Villain: Killer Croc
Favourite Graphic Novel: Hush

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby CuzImBatman » Jan 21st, 2014, 4:40 am

thegreyghost wrote:
CuzImBatman wrote:Some of these reviews are bogus. Fine, you don't like something about a game, but at least give tge product and the developers the dignity they deserve by writing a fair and objective review. I swear, the Gamespot review was just written so the writer could say that he/she's predictions it would suck was true, that the mighty Arkham has fallen on its face. Frkm what it said, I swear this reviewer Scored and critiqued it the way he/she did to get hits on a huge game. After all, people live to see their heroes fall, and if they don't "like" it, they'll absolutely tune it to watch it happen. The reviewer I guess gave an actual crappy game like a 9 or something, basically because it had a female protagonist. IGN was an interesting one, the game was scored a 7.8 by a reviewer that isn't Greg Miller(the guy who reviewed Asylum and City). For some reason, consistency wasn't a priority. Also, a commenter on the video review who works for IGN says the reviewer is super harsh with everything, doesn't understand why Greg didn't do the review and the reviewer chosen wasn't the beat choice because he wasn't really a huge fan of the franchise anyway, or at least not as much as others like Greg, and that the review was just the review of one person, and that this reviewer's score is not the widely held belief of IGN as a whole, in fact, he says most at IGN think it more than deserved a much higher score than what it got and that it was a fun game, regardless of some similarity and familiarity. Honestly this reviewer's review's only complaints was that it's gameplay was similar(ok fine, but it's in the same franchise whose gameplay is easily some of the best combat in gaming, so not much room to complain), the different voice actors were mentioned, though wasn't on the pros and cons next to the score, and the fact there were no crowds of civilians on the streets, deeming it empty(which the story more than justified in the first minute alone. What crowds of people would be walking and driving around when 1. It's Christmas Eve, if argued people are out last minute shopping, then, 2. Black Mask, an established crime boss m, is causing trouble, and 8 deadly assassins arrive in Gotham to claim Black Mask's bounty on Batman's head, with gang and a growing emergent super villain presence and activity escalates, and because of this, 3. police are warning people to not be out on the streets for safety, not to mention, 4. there's a blizzard picking up. People have been conditioned to think that if a game is open world, there has to loads of random NPCs to run into on the street, which makes sense for GTA, but for Batman, and this particular story, it would ruin the immersion with the improbability of roaming people. Other reviewers who gave poorer reviews weren't quite as bad, but blew some issues out of proportion and might as well have been expecting a totally different game from their whining about change and innovation(change of the basic near perfect formula being something they all DIDN'T want WBGM to do when it was announced, hypocrisy on their part). When a consistently objective(whether I personally agree or not), and in my opinion, best and most respectable reviewer, GameInformer, gives the game a solid 8.5, and gives good reason for it's score, I think something is off. when I thought about it psychologically(yeah I'm weird like that...), I realized the root of the "problem" is that people are ultimately just upset it's not Rocksready and wrongfully think they are the only team capable of delivering a worthy Batman game. When they heard it wasn't them, they were (at the time, rightfully) concerned. Many just wanted more awesome Batman Arkham goodness near as great as the last 2, but to compensate for the fact it was another dev, many probably subconsciously felt like they needed sufficient justification for the change, a change that I'm sure felt like a bit of a betrayal by WB and fans therefore not wanting to share their favorite toy with the new kid on the block. So in order to adequately justify the change, many I'm sure subconsciously wanted a drastically different game, but when what they got was very similar to it's predecessors(mayne ever so slightly to a fault sometimes, but still worth it), they reacted negatively out of frustration and reviewed over critically, not necessarily becaise they were justified or even had a legitimate basis for their harsh criticisms, but because what they got was something Rocksteady could've done and did, creating resentment toward the new dev and nitpicking what they deemed was inherently inferior to Rocksteady's games, regardless of whether the game was actually a good game or not. Gladly some(more than not it seems) stayed relatively objective, but sadly the negative reviews(by some mainstream reviewer sites no less) are definitely going to decrease potential purchases by people who only care about what a single reviewer thinks in their review, will effect the nomination of awards and aclaiim it very well may have received and likely deserved, all because some "professional" gamer/reviewer decided to feel entitled and not be professional and some normal gamers who's basis for purchasing a product solely rests upon the pointless scores of these "professional" reviewers. I doubt Origins is perfect, it may even be the "worst" of the 3, but this game may very well go down as a regrettably and likely undeservedly underrated game simply befaise it probably won't be another GOTY nominee/winner when it more than lives up to already Arkham standards


you expect me to read this?

the reviews are fair!


I apologize for the length. Sometimes I just have a lot to say and sometimes I forget the filter. I'll do better at that. That being said, "do I expect you to read this?" No offence, but I don't expect "you" to read anything. That's entirely up to your discretion. Think a post is too long? (Be they my own or someone else's) Don't read it. Skip it, go to another one. Won't hurt my feelings if you decide not to read my posts. I don't personally know you so i honestly don't care. Of course, I'd more than welcome and appreciate if you did and provided constructive comments to my posts from one fan to another. And after having completed the campaign, I can definitely say most of the poor scores are in fact bogus. Is it the best of the series? I can't say yet. But beyond the initial bug problem, it didn't deserve nearly as much of the criticisms it received and most clearly lacked objectivity and sounded nitpicky.
CuzImBatman
.........
.........
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 8th, 2013, 3:21 am
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Man Who Laughs

Re: Batman Arkham Origins - Post All Media Reviews Here

Postby Bane » Oct 1st, 2017, 6:14 pm

I just want to say that in hindsight of this all. Anyone who said Arkham Origins was a bad game was overreacting dramatically. I mean, I played Blackgate, and that thing was a f'ing bad game, I literally never want to see that thing again.

Like, even if you didn't enjoy the story, the game at it's worst is a 7/10. I personally loved it but the only thing that I would say ruined the game was the inclusion of multiplayer, it was cool for a time, but it's completely dead now, and the budget spent on it could have been put to improving the single player because instead of having more content in single player, we now have a dead multiplayer mode that will never be used ever again. Also, the electro shock gloves were lame, I don't understand why they thought we needed an easy mode, it totally ruins your immersion.

If those two aspects were gone, and the single player was just slightly enhanced, the game is easily a 10/10.
Image
User avatar
Bane
................
................
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Dec 22nd, 2010, 3:56 am
Favourite Villain: Bane
Favourite Graphic Novel: Knightfall

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Origins & Blackgate Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron