• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Batman: Arkham Knight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed.

It's kind of sad looking back and seeing what Rocksteady decided to innovate on, and what they chose to just ignore. I think in retrospect I would've preferred more tight narratives like Asylum without the side quests, in parts of Gotham city that were actually populated, as opposed to increasingly large streets populated by nothing but criminals.

It's funny how each game has managed to expand off the previous one yet they each do something better and worse than the others. My order would go:

Arkham City. (Great combat expansion. Good boss fights. Pretty big sandbox but still plenty of interior locations. Some good side missions.)

Arkham Origins. (Best story. Best boss fights. Expanded on detective mode. Had some good interior locations like the hotel and Blackgate.)

Arkham Asylum. (Finally gave us a great Batman game with predator and free flow combat. Excellent atmosphere and flow of gameplay and story.)

Arkham Knight. (Completed the Batman experience with the batmobile. Gave us a big beautiful Gotham City. They overdid the tank battles but I actually thought most of the Riddler races and puzzles were pretty good. Not too tedious.)

AK is still a great game but after finishing off the Riddler trophies and getting the full ending I feel like it's the weakest entry. Mainly because of no real boss fights and some problems with the story.
 
So after finishing AK on normal mode and New Game Plus, I decided to replay Arkham City just to see how I feel after just playing the next gen Arkham game.

City is almost like a breath of fresh air. I've done several hour's worth of gameplay and it felt so refreshing for it all to be just straight up Batman antics, and not having to jump into the Batmobile every 5 minutes for some tedious task. Also I can't put my finger on it, but there is a more epic air to AC. Even though AK is a bigger scale game, AC feels like a grander game by comparison. That opening with Bruce being ambushed at the press conference and locked up in AC, I think it was better than the cafe fear gas intro. That first shot where Batman suits up and surveys Arkham City's landscape, with the music and all, just felt so much cooler than when we see him for the first time over the city in AK.

Also the villains feel more incorporated into the game in a more significant way. Joker, Penguin, Freeze, Ra's etc are all part of the main storyline, whereas so many of the interesting villains in AK (Penguin, Two Face, Pyg, Man Bat, Deathstroke, Firefly, Blackfire etc) are just side missions.

After having been so used to AK's controls for the last couple of weeks I found myself making little mistakes and pressing the wrong buttons, like for detective mode, or weapon selection. Also in the thug fights, every time a thug comes running up to me I keep expecting him to charge into me and tackle me to the ground so I instantly start hurling batarangs lol.
 
Last edited:
Yahtzee's "review" brought up some great points. Like, if the villain was just smart enough he'd tie humans to those tanks, or simply use manned tanks, since that would obviously cause conflict for Batman.
My 14 year old sister saw the tanks and said;

"Batman doesn't kill."

Me: "They're unmanned."

Sis: "Why are they unmanned? Batman would be screwed if they were MANNED!"

When she found out the Knight's identity.

[BLACKOUT]"Jason should know that Bruce doesn't kill. Put people in those tanks idiot!"[/BLACKOUT]

She thought this out better than Rocksteady. :funny:
 
I was actually thinking the same thing. Especially considering how it's never explained how the Arkham Knight got his army. Even the thugs around Gotham mention the money it must have cost to fund an army. Who was funding it?

I think Ra's, Scarecrow and the Arkham Knight should have been working together.
Didn't someone already state that with in this game it was Lex luthor behind the money for the army of Arkham knight? I know some one in this thread did say that.
 
Just because people have unrealistic expectations all the time doesn't mean that is the basis for their disappointment with this game. You might as well say that about anything that is seen as a disappointment or bad. People have unrealistic expectations. You have no basis to make such a claim unless their complaints reflect such a thing. Nothing in the critical response to this game has suggested that people had ridiculous expectations for it. All the complaints that I've seen, and not just on here, have been reasonable and valid. If you have evidence to the contrary then please post it.

My basis is my opinion. Once again, something I don't need to defend. People do have unrealistic expectations all the time, especially in this ADD inflicted, entitled and spoiled generation of gamers. If all people can say is the tank battles suck (which are about 35-40% of the game to beat scarecrow and get the 1st ending) and they wanted boss battles, well, I think that's a pretty damn good game.

On the contrary the improved boss battles was one of the things AC was praised for. AO as well. And even if they had not been, why would the developers think that instead of trying to improve it they just cut them out altogether and replace them with dreadfully dull tank fights, which are worse than the weakest boss fight in any of the previous three games?

As for the side missions, it's got nothing to do with what is a very Batman like thing to do. Yeah it's a Batman like thing to do to chase down guns or save firefighters, but is it fun or interesting to go looking for firefighters 17 times over? No. It's dull and repetitive. Like the bulk of the side missions. Though if you want to go into the area of what is a very Batman like thing to do, the bulk of the Batmobile stuff in this is not very Batman like, which is probably why the game is being commonly called the least Batman like game of the bunch. Easy to see why. I don't associate Batman with massive tank battles, or even ludicrously trying to be stealthy in a tank mobile sneaking up on other tanks lol. Even for a comic book world that is stupid.

On the contrary, Rocksteady had nothing to do with AO, so whatever happened in that is moot. As far as AC, outside of Freeze, tell me what Boss battle was really good, that still stands up today? I can't think of too many. Whether you think it was fun to look for firefighters or not, is also just your opinion. To me, it wasn't dull specifically because if that situation was occurring, it felt like something a superhero should be tasked with doing. On the other hand, the Riddler stuff is completely dumb, just as it has been for the previous games, thus I have no motivation or interest in trying to do that.

As far as the tank mode is concerned, obviously he's used similar vehicles in the Nolan films and in DKR, so it's not implausible in Batman lore. And if there's a huge tank that can destroy the Batmobile with ease, it would make sense that you should have to sneak up behind it. Is it very "gamey" to make that design decision? Absolutely. Did I love it? Absolutely not. But if it's really the only issue with the game, it's not going to be big deal for me personally. Others feel differently, that's fine too, but I can't wrap my head around how that can destroy the whole experience for someone either...
 
Last edited:
sorry Doc samson they had one of the dev's from rock steady help create AO. I put up the articles Wwwwway before you ever started talking on this games series inthis forum & Joker was present for it.

Told to EPN.TV & game informer
 
Last edited:
My basis is my opinion. Once again, something I don't need to defend. People do have unrealistic expectations all the time, especially in this ADD inflicted, entitled and spoiled generation of gamers. If all people can say is the tank battles suck (which are about 35-40% of the game to beat scarecrow and get the 1st ending) and they wanted boss battles, well, I think that's a pretty damn good game.

Every good opinion has a basis. You don't just believe the disappointment for the game is because people had unrealistic expectations unless you've seen evidence of such a thing reflected in the criticisms. That's when you know people were expecting the unreasonable. If you're going to accuse the legion disappointed fans of something, then at least have some proof of what we're being accused of. It's only fair.

Obviously the tank battles are just one of many criticisms against the game. It would be so nice if that was the only flaw.

On the contrary, Rocksteady had nothing to do with AO, so whatever happened in that is moot. As far as AC, outside of Freeze, tell me what Boss battle was really good, that still stands up today?

I never said Rocksteady had anything to do with AO. I said AC and AO were praised for improving the boss fights.

Grundy's and Ra's fight were really good, and stand up very well today. Better than any fight in AK.

EDIT; zenith just informed us one of the dev's from Rocksteady helped create AO. So they had a hand in that, too. Even if they had not, are they so stupid that they couldn't have learned from AO on how to do good bosses?

Whether you think it was fun to look for firefighters or not, is besides the point and also just your opinion. To me, it wasn't dull specifically because if that was occurring, it felt like something a superhero should be tasked with doing.

It's a lot of people's opinion. In fact I'd say it's the majority given the tedious side missions are also one of the common complaints about the game. That's exactly the point. Which is what you're trying to argue against here right. You're trying to defend this and saying it's just people having unrealistic expectations as opposed to them genuinely finding this stuff weak or bad.

On the other hand, the Riddler stuff is completely dumb, just as it has been for the previous games, thus I have no motivation or interest in trying to do that.

AC is the only other game that had Riddler challenges, as in actual challenges not just finding riddles. The Riddler challenges in AC were great. Each room was a unique puzzle you had to work your way through to save someone. As opposed to five Batmobile based ones on top of the myriad of other Batmobile quests, both side mission and main game based you had to do.

As far as the tank stuff, obviously he's used similar vehicles in the Nolan films and in DKR, so it's not implausible in Batman lore. And if there's a huge tank that can destroy the Batmobile with ease, it would make sense that you should have to sneak up behind it. Is it very "gamey" to make that design decision? Absolutely. Did I love it? Absolutely not. But if it's really the only issue with the game, it's not going to be big deal for me personally. Others feel differently, that's fine too, but I can't wrap my head around how that can destroy the whole experience for someone either...

I'm not talking about Batman driving a tank like Batmobile. I'm talking about Batman going around endlessly blowing up dozens of other tanks in drawn out battles, and even ludicrously trying to be stealthy in it sneaking up on other tanks. They are as non Batman like an activity as you can get. Not to mention so tedious. Especially all that skulking around with the Cobra tanks, the AK tank, and the Deathstroke one.
 
Last edited:
The TDK suit has the tagline "The suit Gotham deserves" so I doubt they'd use the AO suit, and I can't find the post but it was "confirmed" that it's the Batman Inc. suit and the Keaton suit is in fact not in the game.

That's one of the things that would be make it (sadly) funny, is if essentially Rocksteady was trolling us with that tagline. Someone had posted a comparison pic of the grooves and designs that can, barely, be made out in the thumbnail and it kinda looked like the Origins batsuit. Now, the thing that probably throws it for a loop is that the Origins batsuit was heavily influenced by the Bale Batsuits, so there being similarities probably speaks to that.

And yeah, I just saw a photo of the Batman Inc. tagline of that skin, which seems like there's no Keaton batsuit.

Truthfully, the thing that has me still expecting a Keaton batsuit is the Season Pass description of "Legendary Batmobiles", because the Burtonmobile is definitely a legendary Batmobile...and I figure if they do that, then they might as well get the suit as well. I don't know if they can do unique or different Batmobile models that are of classic "legendary" batmobiles without doing that one. It'd be a glaring omission.

I certainly do hope it is TDK batsuit.
 
My 14 year old sister saw the tanks and said;

"Batman doesn't kill."

Me: "They're unmanned."

Sis: "Why are they unmanned? Batman would be screwed if they were MANNED!"

When she found out the Knight's identity.

[BLACKOUT]"Jason should know that Bruce doesn't kill. Put people in those tanks idiot!"[/BLACKOUT]

She thought this out better than Rocksteady. :funny:

Eh, he wasn't interested in having him break his number one rule. I think if he wanted to show him to be a hypocrite, by having him break his rule, then yeah. He just wanted him dead, so there's room for them to breathe on not filling the drones (which I guess would be impossible if they're drones) with people.

I could see the argument that having unmanned vehicles would consolidate troops, and avoid the need for vehicle training cutting down on cost and time, meaning they'd have more boots on the ground taking up posts around Gotham. So going with drones saves manpower, money, and time. That could be the argument in defense of it, I think.

I'm afraid we could be overthinking it all, but I think that could be the line of logic more or less in explaining the gameplay requirement.
 
EDIT; zenith just informed us one of the dev's from Rocksteady helped create AO. So they had a hand in that, too. Even if they had not, are they so stupid that they couldn't have learned from AO on how to do good bosses?
Well I'm gonna jog peep's memory a bit I didn't feel like hunting the very article's down. but I knew it was syndicated .


so I went here I'll high lite in Red the quote & they linked the article with game informer's at least for me. here it is below



Batman: Arkham Origins To Be A “Year Two” Story. April 12, 2013 . 2:30pm


“The challenge for us coming in after Rocksteady is to do something that hasn’t been done,” says Eric Holmes, creative director.

In a short development diary video at Game Informer, WB Games Montreal, the developers of Batman: Arkham Origins, explain their approach to the game. Rocksteady say they wanted to develop a “Year two” story, and this is the reason the game is set several years prior to Batman: Arkham Asylum.

Batman: Arkham Origins takes place on Christmas Eve in Gotham City, with the city divided into two sections. Old Gotham is the part of the city that would eventually go on to become Arkham City. Meanwhile, New Gotham, separated from Old Gotham by a bridge, is the more modern part of the city, and is an entirely new, much more metropolitan environment filled with skyscrapers.

“The challenge for us coming in after [Arkham Asylum developer] Rocksteady is to do something that hasn’t been done,” says Eric Holmes, creative director. “Something that isn’t a retread and isn’t [a] copy-paste of their game. It has to add value, it has to bee new. To me, the key to that prequel is the invigoration that it adds to things.”

That having been said, Rocksteady have been available for assistance whenever required. The studio was able to assist with technological aspects of development and explain things like how Batman’s cape simulation system works and so on.

Holmes adds that WB Games Montreal are being careful with what they add to Batman: Arkham Origins in terms of new features and characters. “We’re not adding 20 things that suck,” he says. Instead, they’re cherry-picking things to add based on their creative vision for the game.

“We are very aware we are standing on the shoulders of giants,” says senior producer Ben Mattes. “We are playing in the space of some of the most critically-acclaimed games of all time and we’ve greatly benefited from that.”

You can watch the full development diary over at GameInformer.com.

Read more stories about Batman: Arkham Origins & PC & PlayStation 3 & Wii U & Xbox 360 on Siliconera.
source: Siliconera


there's more then that as well from the site's I mention cause those two covered them the most. DC& wb gave them the most access. so I suggest you look them up.

There's a reason why sefton talked about AO parts being in knight despite your dislike of it. Doc samson
 
Last edited:
It was technical assistance, and not creative, it seems.

Don't know if the timeline works, but wouldn't Rocksteady have already been rather deep in development on Arkham Knight by the time Origins was released? It might have been too late for them to take too many, if any, notes on what they did. Especially if what we've heard about them having a hard time optimizing the game and having it run at all on consoles is true.

I love the Batmobile in Arkham Knight. But, I thought it was a mistake to form boss battles around the Batmobile combat (both AK tank fights). I thought those were mistakes, probably the only ones that stuck with me.

Well...those and the fact that there was no ****ing Batcave.
 
there was more from game informer it's self in other articles I just don't feel like hunting them down. but there was a dev lent to them for more then that. For the combat & more

each of the arkham threads are prolific cause of how busy they get & I have busy day when day light comes. Comic con other stuff out side of that.
 
Last edited:
There's nearly a 2 year gap between the release date of Origins and AK. They had plenty of time to take notes and incorporate it into the game. Especially given the multiple times they kept pushing AK's release date back.

They slotted in AO's crime scene reconstruction, and multiple other AO references into the game. All of which I greatly appreciated. It was nice to see AO being acknowledged in Rocksteady's Batman world as canon.
 
So after finishing AK on normal mode and New Game Plus, I decided to replay Arkham City just to see how I feel after just playing the next gen Arkham game.

City is almost like a breath of fresh air. I've done several hour's worth of gameplay and it felt so refreshing for it all to be just straight up Batman antics, and not having to jump into the Batmobile every 5 minutes for some tedious task. Also I can't put my finger on it, but there is a more epic air to AC. Even though AK is a bigger scale game, AC feels like a grander game by comparison. That opening with Bruce being ambushed at the press conference and locked up in AC, I think it was better than the cafe fear gas intro. That first shot where Batman suits up and surveys Arkham City's landscape, with the music and all, just felt so much cooler than when we see him for the first time over the city in AK.

Also the villains feel more incorporated into the game in a more significant way. Joker, Penguin, Freeze, Ra's etc are all part of the main storyline, whereas so many of the interesting villains in AK (Penguin, Two Face, Pyg, Man Bat, Deathstroke, Firefly, Blackfire etc) are just side missions.
After having been so used to AK's controls for the last couple of weeks I found myself making little mistakes and pressing the wrong buttons, like for detective mode, or weapon selection. Also in the thug fights, every time a thug comes running up to me I keep expecting him to charge into me and tackle me to the ground so I instantly start hurling batarangs lol.
And I have a bit of trouble getting used to controls of both Origins and City on PS3 cause one have L1 to hold gadget and L2 for detective mode, while the other game reverse it.
If I leave Arkham Knight and returning to City and Origins, it won't be easy for me.

I'm playing City on New Game+ on PC, and did not expect to beat that, but I did, idea of needing 100% of Arkham Knight to have the full ending made me want to see if something similar could be said about City, but I couldn't complete all sidequests in the older game before completing the campaign, so no luck in that.

I still hate Two-Face fight portion in the last Catwoman mission in Arkham City.
 
The Joker said:
Also the villains feel more incorporated into the game in a more significant way. Joker, Penguin, Freeze, Ra's etc are all part of the main storyline, whereas so many of the interesting villains in AK (Penguin, Two Face, Pyg, Man Bat, Deathstroke, Firefly, Blackfire etc) are just side missions.

See, the fact that all of those villains were put into the main story in City made it too distended for me. There was not enough room for all of those villains to be given their due so the Dr. Strange plot line, for instance, ends up collapsing on itself by the end of the game to leave more space for Joker. Knight alleviated that issue by having just a couple villains be the locus for the main story. Leaving the rest for side missions didn't bother me because it gave about as much time for characters like Two-Face as the main story of City did. Plus I love transporting them to the GCPD and getting to see and speak to them afterwards.
 
There's nearly a 2 year gap between the release date of Origins and AK. They had plenty of time to take notes and incorporate it into the game. Especially given the multiple times they kept pushing AK's release date back.

They slotted in AO's crime scene reconstruction, and multiple other AO references into the game. All of which I greatly appreciated. It was nice to see AO being acknowledged in Rocksteady's Batman world as canon.

It's a 2 year gap in release, but not development. My understanding is that games development is a moving target, and that any changes made later in development are bigger problems than gamers assume.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But, considering the report that Rocksteady had to delay the game because they were having a hard time getting the game to even run on consoles...I dunno, I don't think it's as easy as we might think to have changes like that.

That, and there was so much ******** noise about how Origins was a bad game (which still bothers me), I could see them ignoring it out of how vocal the negative voices seemed to be over Origins. I loved Origins, so I must be biased, but man I sometimes cannot believe the hate it gets from people who didn't even beat it.

I could believe either, or both, played a role in any notes not being taken from Origins. Even though, they did seem to take the Investigation stuff.
 
Btw, has there been confirmation on it being Tim as Robin in 'A Matter of Family' DLC? There seems to be a ****storm over in the WB forums over it being Tim.

I would say the Arkhamverse timeline has always seemed kinda wonky to me, but that seems like it would make it even wonkier...somehow.
 
How is it making it wonkier? The first game barely addressed Robin, so there's not much contradiction.

Also, there's a lot of people still trying to apply the comics' timeline to this game, which needlessly complicates matters.

I do think it was a bit lazy that Tim looks EXACTLY the same.
 
Btw, has there been confirmation on it being Tim as Robin in 'A Matter of Family' DLC? There seems to be a ****storm over in the WB forums over it being Tim.

I would say the Arkhamverse timeline has always seemed kinda wonky to me, but that seems like it would make it even wonkier...somehow.

People were silly for ever getting their hopes up about Robin not being Tim. This game already has a playable version of Batman, Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing, Red Hood, Harley and soon Batgirl. Why would the developers waste their time creating a 2nd playable Robin character (as Dick) when we already have a Robin, as well as Dick in the form of Nightwing?
 
Driving around Gotham and yeah I'm definetly ready for a new game direction and a real open-world sandbox type of game with tons of options,I really would like stuff such as..

-Walking around the cave,mansion and city as Bruce while we interact with characters including villains like penguin at the Iceburg casino or lounge club.

-Training at the batcave like in Origins

-Saving citizens and stopping various crimes besides just kidnapped firemen and thugs in taxis that cops are chasing

-A lively Gotham with people reacting to batman gliding around or busy during the day with Bruce doing undercover detective work

-Gangsters and Thugs can still be at various hideouts waiting to get their asses kicked by batman.

-Free roaming with the bat family

-Exploring the museum for tons of easter eggs

-Taking certain criminals to Arkham Asylum and Blackgage while then interacting at the places like the GCPD in AK

-Expanding the universe by at least referencing characters on the bat computer in the cave,such as Justice League existing and its members being away on missions

-Free roaming and story taking place various days,weeks or months

I love the batmobile but in the story/side missions,it should only be used once or twice. If the batmobile and pedestrians together is an issue then I'd sacrifice the car by having it and the bat cycle destroyed during a level in the main story and just have the bat boat and batwing be used for travel.
 
sorry Doc samson they had one of the dev's from rock steady help create AO. I put up the articles Wwwwway before you ever started talking on this games series inthis forum & Joker was present for it.

Is "one of the dev's from Rocksteady" the actual Rocksteady team? If not, then I don't understand your point. The article you posted makes it clear that they're "standing on the shoulders of giants" and a completely different team from the original developers, whether they had technical help from them or not. I actually like a few aspects from AO, particularly all the detective work that's been incorporated into AK and also the Joker, which was the best interpretation out of all the games IMO.

And when exactly do you know when I started talking about this game series, you sound almost offended, as if I've never been in here before or aren't supposed to be here now. I just don't frequent these parts, but I do go where I please.

Every good opinion has a basis. You don't just believe the disappointment for the game is because people had unrealistic expectations unless you've seen evidence of such a thing reflected in the criticisms. That's when you know people were expecting the unreasonable. If you're going to accuse the legion disappointed fans of something, then at least have some proof of what we're being accused of. It's only fair.

I believe people of this generation have unrealistic expectations about everything. I don't need to document every occurrence of that happening to feel justified in it's truth. You seem to just take exception that I don't share your opinion and happen to think this game isn't nearly as bad as you say it is.

I also wouldn't use this place as some gauge for a "legion of disappointed fans" because virtually across the board the game has been praised and is deemed a success. If critics are telling you before you even play the game that the Batmobile inclusion is a weak part, it's expected that most people will already have their mind made up about it.

Most gamers nowadays have a sheep mentality that way, or a totally opposite contrarian view just to be different. If that many people are upset about the Batmobile, no boss battles and dislike the side quests (which most aren't really necessary to see the gist of the ending) to that extent that it ruins the whole experience for them, then that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Doesn't mean I can't think it's utterly ridiculous though.

Obviously the tank battles are just one of many criticisms against the game. It would be so nice if that was the only flaw.

I think the tank battles are the only thing universally viewed as a flaw. Some reviews I saw or read didn't even mention the side quests and for a few that did, they praised them and gave kudos to the wheel and how much it streamlines and prioritizes your objectives. Some didn't like having no boss battles, others liked that they weren't just shoved in there just to be there.

It's a lot of people's opinion. In fact I'd say it's the majority given the tedious side missions are also one of the common complaints about the game. That's exactly the point. Which is what you're trying to argue against here right. You're trying to defend this and saying it's just people having unrealistic expectations as opposed to them genuinely finding this stuff weak or bad.

I'm not trying to defend side missions, tank mode or boss battles. I'm saying the game overall is fantastic, and if some fans are saying it's not, then they probably had unrealistic expectations for it. Or maybe they didn't, whatever, that's fine.

But I don't understand how you can sit here and say your view is the majority, apparently just because you feel like saying it, then turn around and try to demand factual statements from me in order to defend my viewpoint. There's no difference there, it's simply differing opinions. There's no consensus among the general population who have this game, the only metric there is, is professional reviews. And by and large, the game has been a critical and commercial success. That's really the only fact here.


AC is the only other game that had Riddler challenges, as in actual challenges not just finding riddles. The Riddler challenges in AC were great. Each room was a unique puzzle you had to work your way through to save someone. As opposed to five Batmobile based ones on top of the myriad of other Batmobile quests, both side mission and main game based you had to do.

Challenges, finding riddles, it's all the same to me, and it's all terrible. And that's my opinion on that. I had AC and AA (and played AO), so I know the difference. I just didn't bother to make the distinction because I've never bothered with any of it in the first place, in any game, unless I stumbled across a trophy on my way to doing something a lot more fun.

I'm not talking about Batman driving a tank like Batmobile. I'm talking about Batman going around endlessly blowing up dozens of other tanks in drawn out battles, and even ludicrously trying to be stealthy in it sneaking up on other tanks. They are as non Batman like an activity as you can get. Not to mention so tedious. Especially all that skulking around with the Cobra tanks, the AK tank, and the Deathstroke one.

So that's tedious, but the Riddler crap isn't? Well, that's just another example of two people seeing things differently. I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling that way, I just can't share in the sentiment...
 
Last edited:
People were silly for ever getting their hopes up about Robin not being Tim. This game already has a playable version of Batman, Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing, Red Hood, Harley and soon Batgirl. Why would the developers waste their time creating a 2nd playable Robin character (as Dick) when we already have a Robin, as well as Dick in the form of Nightwing?

I dunno, I guess I just thought since it was a flashback when Babs was Batgirl that it'd be a great opportunity to see Dick as Robin. Though, You think it was to cut corners? I would hope it was for storytelling. I think if they wanted to, they used the the older Robin suit, and hair from the already modeled skins they have.

They also could have just used the Robin model they had in Arkham Origins that was only used for multiplayer. It was pretty good, too.
 
Will the general opinion on the game improve in time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"