Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

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

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby HaHaHa » Feb 21st, 2015, 3:02 pm

Harvey Bullock wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:
Harvey Bullock wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:
Harvey Bullock wrote:Recently made an article on this subject matter. Provocative title aside, I hope even those who don't care for Origins enjoy it. :)

http://whatculture.com/gaming/12-reason ... rigins.php


11. I did not enjoy playing as Bruce in Origins with his "arrogant and holier-than-thou" attitude. That's something I would expect more of a teenage Bruce where he's had the time to make mistakes and develop as a human being. I certainly didn't feel like I was trying to make Gotham a better place playing as Bruce in Origins.

9. The crime scene investigation rewinding and fast forwarding looking for the red arrows bored me. Enough said.

8. Yes WBM introduced the martial artist and armored enforcer but both are using animations found in the code of Arkham City I believe. Certainly the martial artist.

7. You haven't actually gone on to say why the boss battles in Origins are better than those in City.

5. As a musician I can say the Origins soundtrack is the least interesting to me. Nick Arundel's score for City is more intricate and dynamic with changes in character themes whereas Christopher Drakes score is just repetitive, loud and in your face. It has no subtleties. Actually Christopher Drakes score is a representation of the WBM ethos 'louder and bigger must equal better'.

4. As for the open world Gotham I have no idea why you're citing this as we've spoken before and both agreed it was unnecessary.

11. Sorry, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Characters don't just magically transition to an established force - it was made obvious in Origins that Bruce was in his early years as Batman and was thus bound to make mistakes. This literally just comes down to "which batman you prefer".

9. But you won't even acknowledge the attempt to innovate in that area where Rocksteady hadn't?

8. They still used them. Clearly they saw a use for it and they made the effort into bringing them into the game.

7. I said why the boss battles in Asylum and City were lame - they lacked intricacy and were often moulded on other enemy types. I don't have the word count to go into a step-by-step analysis of Arkham's bosses.

5. I don't really notice the repetitiveness - Arundel's score repeated certain themes - it's a theme after all. They get repeated.

4. I'm not allowed to discuss something because it's already been discussed? Don't be ridiculous. The point made was that the environment had more life to it than people made it out to be.

*

Also, innovation> continuity. You'd honestly want the devs to not include innovative ideas just because their predecessors didn't think to include it in the first place?

Also, I find it hilarious how Firefly seems to get such a hard time from everyone but people just seem to negate the hilariously shit job that Bane was given in Asylum and City. He was just a glorified titan thug yet I don't see anyone harping on about his terrible boss fights.


11. I'm saying that I don't feel inspired playing as Bruce in Origins when he's so skeptical and distrusting. That goes for any character in any video game.

9. Innovation is no guarantee of success. I wouldn't even call the crime scene investigations innovative. More like expanding.

8. I don't dispute that but the lack of original ideas does little for WBM's creative integrity especially when they're taking the ideas and work of others and passing it off as their own.

7. You didn't say at all in your article why you thought the boss battles in Asylum or City were inferior. The reasons you credit the Origins boss battles with are more to do with character assessment than gameplay.

I'm sorry for being so blunt Ewan but you must anticipate backlash when you tell people they're wrong about something they feel incredibly passionate about. It certainly caught my eye though which I'm sure was your intention.

I wouldn't exactly call this post a backlash...

11. Batman has always been sceptical and distrusting... he's Batman.

9. So we're arguing semantics now? Whilst innovation doesn't always guarantee success, the desire to make changes should be appreciated.

8. That's so scathing - you're making out the developers to be some sort of crooks when the assets that Rocksteady CHOSE not to use were made available to them. Chill.

7. Gameplay and character go hand in hand - point is that the cinematic scale of the bosses coupled with better interpretations of characters led to a much broader and more enjoyable set of bosses than the previous games. As boss-fights for Asylum and City go the only truly inventive ones were Killer Croc and Mr Freeze - the rest were naff.

And again, the intention of the title was to be provocative as it attracts more attention that way, but you shouldn't feel so burned by it. It's the internet.


11. Okay I'll put it more simply, Bruce moans a lot in Origins. Like you said it comes down to which Batman you prefer. I like the interpretation of Bruce in Asylum and City because he's level headed and adds a little sarcastic humour. Bruce in Origins takes everything seriously up to the point that he's actually unlikable.

9. In principal adding to the crime scene investigation is a great idea but I don't believe this is it. That's just my opinion. They weren't exactly challenging in Arkham City but I believe they were just brief enough before they too would've become irritating.

8. Chose not to use until Arkham Knight. It still doesn't change the fact that WBM were unable to come up with their own enemy types.

7. That's a fine point. Origins focuses heavily on cinematic's for emotional impact whereas Asylum and City more so integrates it seamlessly between the cutscenes and gameplay. I like the fact that Bruce shows less emotion in the Rocksteady games because that allows the player to feel how they want to about events in the game whereas Origins literally dictates the players emotions. It's the difference between being the Batman or watching the Batman.
"don't you know I'm loco"
User avatar
HaHaHa
............
............
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sep 15th, 2010, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby Harvey Bullock » Feb 21st, 2015, 3:57 pm

11. Then you should be able to grasp the fact that Bruce wasn't the Batman he is later on in life when he just started out. He's got a lot of pent-up rage and that doesn't change the instant he puts on the cowl.

9. Fair enough, I was more irritated by the lack of expansion and the 'follow the trail' mechanics than with the steps taken by Montreal to improve a significant aspect of Batman's abilities.

8. Source? And you're being far too broad here - your contempt for Montreal is lessening your ability to look at Origins faults and merits objectively.

7. "Integrates it seamlessly between cut-scenes and game play?" I don't even know how to respond to that - if a narrative has emotional story telling you should be able to notice it. 'Integrating it seamlessly' just seems to acknowledge that Rocksteady weren't as good as employing characters into their work as WBGM were because you didn't notice it.

Look, Batman isn't supposed to be emotionless - he isn't Master Chief nor is he some faceless protagonist akin to a Call of Duty title. When you adopt a character like that you should be looking at the world through his/her eyes - projecting your own feelings onto a character breaks immersion and is completely antithetical to the Rocksteady ideal of making the player 'feel like they're Batman'.
Image
User avatar
Harvey Bullock
...............
...............
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Aug 13th, 2011, 9:03 am
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: Ra's al Ghul
Favourite Graphic Novel: DC: The New Frontier

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby The Oracle » Feb 21st, 2015, 7:52 pm

Yeah, I'm with Ewan on this one.
Image
User avatar
The Oracle
.................
.................
 
Posts: 2363
Joined: Jan 27th, 2012, 5:59 am
Favourite Graphic Novel: Batwoman: Elegy

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby HaHaHa » Feb 22nd, 2015, 2:26 pm

Harvey Bullock wrote:11. Then you should be able to grasp the fact that Bruce wasn't the Batman he is later on in life when he just started out. He's got a lot of pent-up rage and that doesn't change the instant he puts on the cowl.

9. Fair enough, I was more irritated by the lack of expansion and the 'follow the trail' mechanics than with the steps taken by Montreal to improve a significant aspect of Batman's abilities.

8. Source? And you're being far too broad here - your contempt for Montreal is lessening your ability to look at Origins faults and merits objectively.

7. "Integrates it seamlessly between cut-scenes and game play?" I don't even know how to respond to that - if a narrative has emotional story telling you should be able to notice it. 'Integrating it seamlessly' just seems to acknowledge that Rocksteady weren't as good as employing characters into their work as WBGM were because you didn't notice it.

Look, Batman isn't supposed to be emotionless - he isn't Master Chief nor is he some faceless protagonist akin to a Call of Duty title. When you adopt a character like that you should be looking at the world through his/her eyes - projecting your own feelings onto a character breaks immersion and is completely antithetical to the Rocksteady ideal of making the player 'feel like they're Batman'.


8. Source? Arkhamverse forum!

7. Emotionless probably isn't the right word. Bruce isn't as vocal about his emotions in City as he is in Origins. Rocksteady's Batman has to be pragmatic and can't let emotion get the better of him or he'll start making mistakes. This happens in City when he has to decide whether to immediately go after Talia or stop Protocol 10 from killing hundreds of inmates. It is also an example of integrating emotional impact between game play and cut-scene. There's the expression "a whisper can be louder than a shout" and in this case a few lines of in-game dialogue between Bruce, Oracle and Alfred reveals just as much about the characters without having to resort to an immersion breaking cut-scene. Obviously more subtle than anything from Origins but it still holds emotional value for me if not for you.

Of course projecting your emotions doesn't break immersion! Feeling emotionally attached is what ties you to the game. The best example I can think of City and projecting your own feelings would be the death of the Joker. Rocksteady gives the player the space to feel however they want about Joker's death by not imposing how Bruce feels about it. The player might actually be really pleased by Jokers death or greatly saddened.
"don't you know I'm loco"
User avatar
HaHaHa
............
............
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sep 15th, 2010, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby Harvey Bullock » Feb 22nd, 2015, 4:50 pm

HaHaHa wrote:
Harvey Bullock wrote:11. Then you should be able to grasp the fact that Bruce wasn't the Batman he is later on in life when he just started out. He's got a lot of pent-up rage and that doesn't change the instant he puts on the cowl.

9. Fair enough, I was more irritated by the lack of expansion and the 'follow the trail' mechanics than with the steps taken by Montreal to improve a significant aspect of Batman's abilities.

8. Source? And you're being far too broad here - your contempt for Montreal is lessening your ability to look at Origins faults and merits objectively.

7. "Integrates it seamlessly between cut-scenes and game play?" I don't even know how to respond to that - if a narrative has emotional story telling you should be able to notice it. 'Integrating it seamlessly' just seems to acknowledge that Rocksteady weren't as good as employing characters into their work as WBGM were because you didn't notice it.

Look, Batman isn't supposed to be emotionless - he isn't Master Chief nor is he some faceless protagonist akin to a Call of Duty title. When you adopt a character like that you should be looking at the world through his/her eyes - projecting your own feelings onto a character breaks immersion and is completely antithetical to the Rocksteady ideal of making the player 'feel like they're Batman'.


8. Source? Arkhamverse forum!

7. Emotionless probably isn't the right word. Bruce isn't as vocal about his emotions in City as he is in Origins. Rocksteady's Batman has to be pragmatic and can't let emotion get the better of him or he'll start making mistakes. This happens in City when he has to decide whether to immediately go after Talia or stop Protocol 10 from killing hundreds of inmates. It is also an example of integrating emotional impact between game play and cut-scene. There's the expression "a whisper can be louder than a shout" and in this case a few lines of in-game dialogue between Bruce, Oracle and Alfred reveals just as much about the characters without having to resort to an immersion breaking cut-scene. Obviously more subtle than anything from Origins but it still holds emotional value for me if not for you.

Of course projecting your emotions doesn't break immersion! Feeling emotionally attached is what ties you to the game. The best example I can think of City and projecting your own feelings would be the death of the Joker. Rocksteady gives the player the space to feel however they want about Joker's death by not imposing how Bruce feels about it. The player might actually be really pleased by Jokers death or greatly saddened.

8. You'll have to be more specific. :oldyella:

7. Projecting your own emotions is different from getting emotionally attached, and I'm sorry HaHaHa, you lost me with the Talia comparison. That was an utterly atrocious moment in City that made no sense whatsoever. I think you're missing the point of Batman being a flawed character in his early days.

Regarding the last point: You're saying that Batman carrying the lifeless corpse of Joker, accompanied by a sombre instrumental and a weeping Harley Quinn, gives the player space to 'feel however they want'? Nope, not buying it.
Image
User avatar
Harvey Bullock
...............
...............
 
Posts: 5030
Joined: Aug 13th, 2011, 9:03 am
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: Ra's al Ghul
Favourite Graphic Novel: DC: The New Frontier

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby HaHaHa » Feb 22nd, 2015, 5:43 pm

Harvey Bullock wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:
Harvey Bullock wrote:11. Then you should be able to grasp the fact that Bruce wasn't the Batman he is later on in life when he just started out. He's got a lot of pent-up rage and that doesn't change the instant he puts on the cowl.

9. Fair enough, I was more irritated by the lack of expansion and the 'follow the trail' mechanics than with the steps taken by Montreal to improve a significant aspect of Batman's abilities.

8. Source? And you're being far too broad here - your contempt for Montreal is lessening your ability to look at Origins faults and merits objectively.

7. "Integrates it seamlessly between cut-scenes and game play?" I don't even know how to respond to that - if a narrative has emotional story telling you should be able to notice it. 'Integrating it seamlessly' just seems to acknowledge that Rocksteady weren't as good as employing characters into their work as WBGM were because you didn't notice it.

Look, Batman isn't supposed to be emotionless - he isn't Master Chief nor is he some faceless protagonist akin to a Call of Duty title. When you adopt a character like that you should be looking at the world through his/her eyes - projecting your own feelings onto a character breaks immersion and is completely antithetical to the Rocksteady ideal of making the player 'feel like they're Batman'.


8. Source? Arkhamverse forum!

7. Emotionless probably isn't the right word. Bruce isn't as vocal about his emotions in City as he is in Origins. Rocksteady's Batman has to be pragmatic and can't let emotion get the better of him or he'll start making mistakes. This happens in City when he has to decide whether to immediately go after Talia or stop Protocol 10 from killing hundreds of inmates. It is also an example of integrating emotional impact between game play and cut-scene. There's the expression "a whisper can be louder than a shout" and in this case a few lines of in-game dialogue between Bruce, Oracle and Alfred reveals just as much about the characters without having to resort to an immersion breaking cut-scene. Obviously more subtle than anything from Origins but it still holds emotional value for me if not for you.

Of course projecting your emotions doesn't break immersion! Feeling emotionally attached is what ties you to the game. The best example I can think of City and projecting your own feelings would be the death of the Joker. Rocksteady gives the player the space to feel however they want about Joker's death by not imposing how Bruce feels about it. The player might actually be really pleased by Jokers death or greatly saddened.

8. You'll have to be more specific. :oldyella:

7. Projecting your own emotions is different from getting emotionally attached, and I'm sorry HaHaHa, you lost me with the Talia comparison. That was an utterly atrocious moment in City that made no sense whatsoever. I think you're missing the point of Batman being a flawed character in his early days.

Regarding the last point: You're saying that Batman carrying the lifeless corpse of Joker, accompanied by a sombre instrumental and a weeping Harley Quinn, gives the player space to 'feel however they want'? Nope, not buying it.


I'm not expecting you to buy anything. We're here to get our points across, not change each others minds.

-- Mar 14th, 2015, 9:26 am --

Been playing the game and mostly enjoying it. Booted it up this morning and the whole city loaded in low texture. Thankfully restarted and was fine but scared me as I thought I might have to start over.

On topic though how the hell does Bats surmise that Joker is at the merchants bank with the only evidence being that Sionis owns it? Also why does Sionis not just shoot Joker in the back of the head when he's sneaking up on him in lacey tower rather than tackling him.
"don't you know I'm loco"
User avatar
HaHaHa
............
............
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sep 15th, 2010, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby Thirteen » Jul 15th, 2015, 6:51 pm

I really like the story of Origins and side missions, but the gameplay is the real problem. The combat feels different than the other games. Enemies will hit you when they're not suppose to or things like that. This make fighting really frustrating.
Plus the navigation is much more slower compared to City because the grapnel boost isn't really efficient with all these huge and tall buildings. Even when you dive bomb you don't gain enough momentum to go really high. I don't know if it's just me, but that's my opinion.
User avatar
Thirteen
Tyger2
Tyger2
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Jul 14th, 2015, 1:17 pm
Favourite Villain: Joker
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Killing Joke

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby Peel » Aug 2nd, 2015, 11:56 am

1. All the bossfights in Arkham Origins are just reskinned boss fights from the previous two games;

- Killer Croc - A variant of Bane's fight from AA, and nearly every other Titan boss fight
- Deathstroke - The first 2/3s of the fight is original as its just a close-encounter duel, but the part of Slade leaping down onto Batman after the smoke grenade and attacking with his sword is just reskinned of Ra's al Ghul's boss fight in AC with him attacking Batman with his sword from above
- Copperhead - The parts of Batman wandering and imagining people such as Commissioner Loeb whilst the camera angle is distorted is incredibly similar to Scarecrow's nightmare parts in AA, particularly the first two. Then the actual fight is also similar to Ra's, with a horde of Copperheads/assassins all lunging at Batman and fighting him, then all pouncing on him together
- Firefly - A variant of Poison Ivy's boss fight from AA, the fight just required Batman to dodge Firefly's attacks by jumping left and right whilst fighting off a few goons, throwing his batarangs here and there long enough until Firefly is distracted, then in this case using the batclaw to bring him down. Rinse and repeat three times.
- Bane - The first two fights seem to be reskinned of Killer Croc's earlier fight but with the added bonus of Bane having venom so his charges inflict more damage. The third fight of Bane on TN1 seems to be all original, however.
- Deadshot - A variant of Two Face's boss fight in the AC Catwoman DLC, really disapointed as I had hoped for a great assassin duel where he'd be on the other side of the map and Batman must race towards him whilst dodging all of his bullets, rather than the usual 'Take out these goons silently to get to Deadshot'. Why would Deadshot even bother with goons as well? Just didn't like it at all.
- Lady Shiva - Just another group of assassins close encounter like in AC, not really much of a boss fight.
- Anarky - Not even a boss battle, just your regular group of goons fight.

2. I didn't like how a lot of the gadgets in this game were taken directly from Arkham City, and ignored the continuity. For example having the Grapple Boost really helps ingame wise and is very neat, but Montreal didn't bother to explain as to why Batman was using it early on his career, then stopped, and then did it again as a 'prototype'. It would have been good if, near the end of the story or the Cold Heart DLC, that the grapple boost almost breaks or fails Batman somewhat, so Bruce decides that he'll shelve it until its properly developed. But alas that didn't happen. Having Freeze Grenades be reskinned as Glue Grenades felt like a big cop-out and I just didn't get how they could be put into the game and expect players to be like 'oh okay that makes sense, sure'.

I'll continue on more later.
User avatar
Peel
............
............
 
Posts: 1487
Joined: Nov 24th, 2011, 9:19 pm
Location: Sun'Land
Favourite Villain: Black Adam
Favourite Graphic Novel: Forever Evil

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby E.Nigma Show » Aug 4th, 2015, 7:56 pm

Lol. Resurrected this dino-bone thread I see?

I wonder when there will be a thread for:

"Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion"
? ? ? RiDdLe mE tHiS ? ? ?
User avatar
E.Nigma Show
...........
...........
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Jan 31st, 2012, 2:10 am
Favourite Villain: Riddler
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Long Halloween

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby TheJester » Aug 5th, 2015, 1:09 pm

E.Nigma Show wrote:Lol. Resurrected this dino-bone thread I see?

I wonder when there will be a thread for:

"Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion"

Don't tempt me to make it, they'll have pitchforks at the ready :oldyella:
Image
~ I'm not mad, I'm just differently sane. ~
Check out my latest fanfic, Clipped Wings, here!
User avatar
TheJester
...............
...............
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Feb 27th, 2011, 11:02 pm
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: The Riddler
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Killing Joke

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby E.Nigma Show » Aug 5th, 2015, 1:22 pm

TheJester wrote:
E.Nigma Show wrote:Lol. Resurrected this dino-bone thread I see?

I wonder when there will be a thread for:

"Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion"

Don't tempt me to make it, they'll have pitchforks at the ready :oldyella:


I'm pretty sure the thread will go something like this:

Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion:

1.Batmobile
2.Batmobile
3.Batmobile
4.No Proper Challenge Maps
5.Batmobile
6.Batmobile
7.Batmobile
8.No Boss Fights
9.Batmobile
10.Batmobile
? ? ? RiDdLe mE tHiS ? ? ?
User avatar
E.Nigma Show
...........
...........
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Jan 31st, 2012, 2:10 am
Favourite Villain: Riddler
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Long Halloween

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby BuNKiTZ » Aug 5th, 2015, 1:49 pm

E.Nigma Show wrote:
TheJester wrote:
E.Nigma Show wrote:Lol. Resurrected this dino-bone thread I see?

I wonder when there will be a thread for:

"Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion"

Don't tempt me to make it, they'll have pitchforks at the ready :oldyella:


I'm pretty sure the thread will go something like this:

Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion:

1.Batmobile
2.Batmobile
3.Batmobile
4.No Proper Challenge Maps
5.Batmobile
6.Batmobile
7.Batmobile
8.No Boss Fights
9.Batmobile
10.Batmobile

You forgot wasted Hush & Azrael, lack of connection to the "Arkham" story, and terrible ending, to name a few :P
Image
User avatar
BuNKiTZ
...............
...............
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sep 7th, 2010, 2:59 pm
Location: In a potato sack
Favourite Villain: Mister Freeze
Favourite Graphic Novel: Batman R.I.P.

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby TheJester » Aug 5th, 2015, 2:50 pm

BuNKiTZ wrote:
E.Nigma Show wrote:
TheJester wrote:
E.Nigma Show wrote:Lol. Resurrected this dino-bone thread I see?

I wonder when there will be a thread for:

"Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion"

Don't tempt me to make it, they'll have pitchforks at the ready :oldyella:


I'm pretty sure the thread will go something like this:

Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion:

1.Batmobile
2.Batmobile
3.Batmobile
4.No Proper Challenge Maps
5.Batmobile
6.Batmobile
7.Batmobile
8.No Boss Fights
9.Batmobile
10.Batmobile

You forgot wasted Hush & Azrael, lack of connection to the "Arkham" story, and terrible ending, to name a few :P

Add the overuse of the Joker's hallucinations, the ridiculously unneeded multiple Jokers subplot, no 'true' Scarecrow segments, and making practically all of Batman's allies seem useless as they all get kidnapped.
Image
~ I'm not mad, I'm just differently sane. ~
Check out my latest fanfic, Clipped Wings, here!
User avatar
TheJester
...............
...............
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Feb 27th, 2011, 11:02 pm
Location: UK
Favourite Villain: The Riddler
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Killing Joke

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby BuNKiTZ » Aug 5th, 2015, 4:14 pm

TheJester wrote:
BuNKiTZ wrote:
E.Nigma Show wrote:
TheJester wrote:
E.Nigma Show wrote:Lol. Resurrected this dino-bone thread I see?

I wonder when there will be a thread for:

"Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion"

Don't tempt me to make it, they'll have pitchforks at the ready :oldyella:


I'm pretty sure the thread will go something like this:

Why Arkham Knight Sucks Discussion:

1.Batmobile
2.Batmobile
3.Batmobile
4.No Proper Challenge Maps
5.Batmobile
6.Batmobile
7.Batmobile
8.No Boss Fights
9.Batmobile
10.Batmobile

You forgot wasted Hush & Azrael, lack of connection to the "Arkham" story, and terrible ending, to name a few :P

Add the overuse of the Joker's hallucinations, the ridiculously unneeded multiple Jokers subplot, no 'true' Scarecrow segments, and making practically all of Batman's allies seem useless as they all get kidnapped.

Yep, I don't mind that, yep, and definitely another yep.

Let's not forget the last moments of the story where Robin and Commissioner Gordon were at the mercy of a frail man with a pistol :lol:
Image
User avatar
BuNKiTZ
...............
...............
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Sep 7th, 2010, 2:59 pm
Location: In a potato sack
Favourite Villain: Mister Freeze
Favourite Graphic Novel: Batman R.I.P.

Re: Why Arkham Origins Sucks Discussion

Postby E.Nigma Show » Aug 5th, 2015, 4:26 pm

Lol. I never realized it. Everyone in the Bat family gets taken hostage-even Catwoman for crying out loud. So silly.

And lest we forget the horrible miss on Man-Bat having an awesome ariel boss battle.

Maybe we need to start the thread since we have all just blown the Origins hate thread to tiny bits.
? ? ? RiDdLe mE tHiS ? ? ?
User avatar
E.Nigma Show
...........
...........
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Jan 31st, 2012, 2:10 am
Favourite Villain: Riddler
Favourite Graphic Novel: The Long Halloween

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Origins & Blackgate Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest