I'm having a hard time coming up with examples where light visibility played into the stealth gameplay. At least on my playthroughs, everything relied on silence and attacking from behind. Smoke would be the only exception.
I don't think it's too hard to animate the Chest to light only when you enter combat. The game knows how to auto-detective mode when theres smoke, surely they can light up a piece of armor when entering combat.
Arkham World sticks with the 'Arkham' theme, which I think will only keep it in tradition, but I don't expect it to have some kind of Arkham idea, like Arkham City. I think it'll just show how bat-**** crazy Gotham has become, and further on. With Azazel mentioning 'hell on Earth' and what not, it would make sense if the entire world is in stake, but I don't think Batman will be traveling abroad, though.
But it's such a bad name, though. Will the fourth be called "Arkham Universe", simply to keep with the naming convention? And then the fifth one will just be called "Arkham", because that's the weird trend nowadays.
I realise I'm a little late coming and commenting like this but I finished the game a while a go and already traded it in (while It was still worth something significant)..
I thought the game was really good and imrpoved considerably on AA. It perhaps does suffer a bit from trying to cram a few too many villains in as a few of the higher tier ones feel under-developed..
I mean the game kinda made out that Dr. Strange was going to be the main villain to defeat and he was hardly in it and easily rid of
Another note to make and this is something my friend agreed on with me but from the hype/trailers/perception, I thought the actual game world was going to be a lot bigger than it actually was. Me and my friend also noted that City felt a bit like a stop-gap game and that they were saving all the bigger and better ideas (massive game world, driving the batmobile around etc) for a 3rd and final game. Still an enjoyable game though.
I didn't really like the ending though for 2 reasons.... the first being that it was pretty much just a rehash of the final boss from AA (waves of little thugs to interspearse beating up a guy bigger than you). However, I thought the venom Joker in AA was quite hard (it took me a couple goes to defeat him) and they seem to have gone the opposite end of the spectrum and made Clayface too easy (I beat him first time) IMO. I just expected something bigger and different from what was in the first game... they changed it up a bit but ultimately, it wasn't that different.
The 2nd reason was
the killing off of The Joker. Now I'm not a fan of the comics so perhaps I can't appreciate this as much, I don't know. I know Batman didn't do it himself but I thought there was a whole 'two sides of the same coin/can't do without each other' type thing going on.. so it just seemed off and unnecessary.
I suppose they could write him back in (another double) but then what would really be the point... Using Joker as the main bad guy all the time could start getting a bit tiring so the only point in killing him off that I can see (besides some stupid come back/joker in the shadows thing) would be to focus on other villains... which I think would be a good idea.
We've had 2 games with Joker as the main bad, I wouldn't mind seeing someone like Black Mask, Two Face, Hush or even the Great White Shark being the main villain... I think the mob angle could be quite good and it would be good to see a boss fight with someone that Batman can take on on a more one on one level without resulting to making them take Venom to make them more of a physical threat for example... The Azrael character was quite cool so maybe, with what he said to Batman, there will be more than just Gotham at stake or more than a single threat in the 3rd one, which could be interesting.
It would be good to see a boss fight that doesn't result in Batman solely relying on physical beat ups and using the skills he uses through out the game too.. Like perhaps they could do a fight where you can choose to take the boss on head first and beat them up or if you wanted, you could use your stealth and have to navigate a equally perilous route to get around them and take them out from behind (several times)... that would be different and cool IMO.
Look at Mr Freeze for example. I thought that was an ingenious mini-boss fight. It didn't rely on beating him and instead required you to use many of the skills you had learnt through out the game in defeating him. Or going back to an earlier point about Strange being an important character but hardly there - When you scale his HQ tower and have the confrontation with him, that could have made a cool ending.. Throw in more of a physical threat (more henchmen, gun turrets to navigate and take out etc perhaps Strange having his own Venom powered bodyguard) and then when the tower explodes and you hadto freefall and avoid all the debris. I was a little disappointed that it didn't let you freefall back down the City and just went to a cutscene...
Another and probably more prominent issue I had with the game was the Catwoman thing. Firstly I bought the game pre-owned so had I wanted to play as Catwoman (which I did want to try out) I would have had to buy a new Catwoman download code... Nice way to make some extra money out of us Rocksteady although I suppose that is maybe a fair enough 'penalty' for not buying it new but how many people will buy it pre-owned and unbeknownst at first, have to fork out extra...
The other thing with this issue is that I'm not actually on Xbox Live (I do hope to be one day, not to play Live but to download from the marketplace). But IMO the game was marketed as being able to play as Catwoman and you can only play as Catwoman and therefore get 100% completion if you are on Live. Now maybe this is partly my fault for either not reading up in detail on the game or perhaps this information was advertised and I missed it but I think this was quite a bit unfair... I mean there must be quite a lot of people out there who do have an xbox but aren't on live and will miss out on what was a largely hyped part of the game...
This is a problem I have with a lot of games now that have exclusive downloadable content... extra maps, outfits, skins etc that's fair enough but I don't think playable parts (even if it's not essential to the main story of the game) should only be available via download... People might disagree but as I say, I don't really think it's fair on those who don't have the ability to download.
Sorry, I didn't mean to rant, was just trying to point out my issue with the game. Like I said, it was still an enjoyable game.
Yeah, but remember it's you who we're talking about.
Theres nothing better than scaring the crap out of criminals with letting yourself known to them right the moment you hit them, not to mention that sexy Cod Piece.
I keep hearing "Batman Beyond" as a suggestion. I think that would be a good way to instantly kill off the Arkham franchise. They're not selling to fanboys ... they're selling to the general public.
They're not going to base the third game in a successful franchise on a decade-old canceled cartoon ... with villains nobody knows, a wiry teenager nobody's heard of as a knockoff Batman, patrolling a Gotham nobody will recognize. The reason Arkham Asylum and Arkham City worked is they made people feel like Batman ... fighting recognizable villains, in a recognizable Gotham. Playing a Beyond game won't feel like Batman ... it'd feel like the spinoff Saturday morning cartoon it was.
To the vast majority of the public, Bruce Wayne is the only Batman. Switching from Wayne to Terry McGinnis for the third installment would be as bad as that MGS game where you played as some random guy rather than Snake. Nobody wants to play a game centered entirely around Bruce Wayne's understudy.
If they're hellbent on doing a title set in the future, I think Miller's Dark Knight Returns universe has a better shot than Batman Beyond. Wouldn't work.
Nice way to make some extra money out of us Rocksteady although I suppose that is maybe a fair enough 'penalty' for not buying it new but how many people will buy it pre-owned and unbeknownst at first, have to fork out extra...
But it's such a bad name, though. Will the fourth be called "Arkham Universe", simply to keep with the naming convention? And then the fifth one will just be called "Arkham", because that's the weird trend nowadays.
Who is thinking we'll be getting more than a trilogy? Rocksteady could move on to other ideas rather than still providing games within this continuity.
Arkham World fits, and it seems like it's more than just something for the fans since it was two years ago at the VGAs when we received insight on the sequel to Arkham Asylum.
I think he meant a future where the main character is Bruce Wayne as Batman would work better than someone who was created for a cartoon. It doesn't have to be exactly like the book it can be set in the future of the games rather than 1986.
Well, thanks a lot money grabbing WB's in that case then. Like I said, I just personally don't think it fair on those who don't have access to Xbox Live... Rockysteady and/or Warner Bros, whoever it was, should have taken that into account I think.
And while one might begrudge having to pay out extra for something which should come with the game (the download code), on the other hand, it could be fair to say that it's a fair price to pay for not buying the game brand new.
I presume Gamestop is an american shop or is a local shop to your area because I have never heard of Gamestop. All the local pre-owned shops in my area here in England were selling the game pre-owned without a download link.
There may have been copies with the download included (I never saw any) but I would then have to assume that copies with a link would then be re-sold at a higher price than copies without the link...
Which brings up the point, if a retailer was to get hold of a link to bundle with pre-owned games but would have to bump up the price to cover getting the link, then why don't WBs sell the game on launch with a slight discount for not having the download code to begin with so people who have no need for the code aren't paying for something they can't use...
I'm not trying to start some sort of crusade against this sort of thing but I do think it's a valid issue.
The only thing that would make it seem fake is that it was the Joker and well considering his fate in AC, why would he even have a script of the game, unless its like breaking the fourth wall and admitting that the game is really just a story or something and its not real.
Yeah, but remember it's you who we're talking about.
Theres nothing better than scaring the crap out of criminals with letting yourself known to them right the moment you hit them, not to mention that sexy Cod Piece.
Yes, which is why you don't want a light-up bat symbol on your chest. I wouldn't them to know of my presence until I punched them in the face. I certainly wouldn't put a light right where my heart, lungs, and other important internal organs are to help them shoot said organs.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
The game knows how to auto-detective mode when theres smoke, surely they can light up a piece of armor when entering combat.
