Batman: Arkham Knight

[The Joker]

Read my comment above

I did. Doesn't change a thing regarding what I said.

 

[Dopinder]

I did. Doesn't change a thing regarding what I said.

Origins is decent, but nothing close to Rocksteady's games. I was pretty hyped for it before I got my hands on it, because I figured the foundations of the Arkham series were so strong that a game handled by another developer should at least be pretty great, but playing through Origins just gave me newfound respect for Rocksteady's talents. I feel like every change WB Montreal made from Rocksteady's formula was for the worse; they just didn't get it. Making enemies more aggressive without speeding up Batman didn't make it harder, it just made it feel jankier. Letting you upgrade your Silent Takedown speed, when it's supposed to be a risky manoeuvre that takes a while. The Remote Claw just gives you three effortless takedowns at the start of a Predator encounter, etc etc. Rocksteady's first two batman games are two of the most polished, perfectly balanced games I can think of, and Origins just came in and meddled with every little thing.

I was also disappointed that the whole story setup of Batman having to face nine assassins was mostly just a big misdirect for the big "lol we're doing Joker again" twist. Basically everyone I was looking forward to facing off against was just a one-and-done side mission; glossed over for the sake of another Joker story where they plough through his whole backstory in what's supposed to be one night. Quick Red Hood flashback, then over what can only be like three hours of in-game time he gets sent to prison, drives Harley crazy, she falls in love with him, he takes over the entire prison, and she falls out of love with him. It felt absurdly rushed, and capping it off with the most cliche line there is had me rolling my eyes.

 

[Drz]

I know they won't, but I wouldn't mind if they removed the Challenge Maps. Those are the only things preventing me from getting the Platinums on the PS3 versions.

Why not just stop caring about Platinums and trophies?

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Why not just stop caring about Platinums and trophies?

Trophies be throwing gamers priorities all outta whack

 

[The Joker]

Origins is decent, but nothing close to Rocksteady's games. I was pretty hyped for it before I got my hands on it, because I figured the foundations of the Arkham series were so strong that a game handled by another developer should at least be pretty great, but playing through Origins just gave me newfound respect for Rocksteady's talents. I feel like every change WB Montreal made from Rocksteady's formula was for the worse; they just didn't get it. Making enemies more aggressive without speeding up Batman didn't make it harder, it just made it feel jankier. Letting you upgrade your Silent Takedown speed, when it's supposed to be a risky manoeuvre that takes a while. The Remote Claw just gives you three effortless takedowns at the start of a Predator encounter, etc etc. Rocksteady's first two batman games are two of the most polished, perfectly balanced games I can think of, and Origins just came in and meddled with every little thing.

I was also disappointed that the whole story setup of Batman having to face nine assassins was mostly just a big misdirect for the big "lol we're doing Joker again" twist. Basically everyone I was looking forward to facing off against was just a one-and-done side mission; glossed over for the sake of another Joker story where they plough through his whole backstory in what's supposed to be one night. Quick Red Hood flashback, then over what can only be like three hours of in-game time he gets sent to prison, drives Harley crazy, she falls in love with him, he takes over the entire prison, and she falls out of love with him. It felt absurdly rushed, and capping it off with the most cliche line there is had me rolling my eyes.

Not "clearly" superior to me, or a lot of other people. Origins took the best of AC's game play, created a beautiful Christmas atmosphere, crafted a terrific story, the boss battles are better, the female characters are not overly sexualized in their designs, and added some of it's own touches like the crime scene reconstruction. Yes, it's not quite as polished as the other games, but the pros far out weigh the cons, and it's above the other Arkham games in quality, especially AK. Sometimes it takes a truly disappointing game to make people see how good they had it before. I suspect that is partially why Origins is a lot more appreciated now than it was on it's initial release.

I don't think you paid close attention to the story either. Harley was not driven crazy or in love with Joker by the end of the game. On the contrary she was taken hostage along with the prison guards when Joker took over Blackgate. She was still a doctor working there at the end, as you see her walking with the other guards when Joker's being taken away. All they did was sew the seeds for the beginning of Harley's obsession with him. Nothing more. Same with Joker's obsession with Batman. This sequence here alone showed more insight into Joker's mind than Rocksteady's entire three games combined;

[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]

There was no misdirection. You did get to face all the assassins. Ok Electrocutioner's encounter was more for comedic purposes, so a complaint about his is legit.

Compared Arkham City where they make a whole big hoopla about Hugo Strange knowing Batman's identity in the trailers, and Hugo being the big bad of the game, and neither he or knowing Batman's identity plays any importance in AC's story. AC is basically a chase the cure tale. Hugo and Protocol 10 only become relevant at the end, and even then they're not the finale of the game, Joker/Clayface in the Monarch theater is. And Hugo knowing who Batman is has no bearing on the game story at all. Neither does the fact that the setting is in a city prison. You could have put the chase the cure story in regular Gotham and it would have made no difference at all.

As for Arkham Knight, we were told all the villains have banded together to take out Batman, when in actuality it's only Scarecrow and Arkham Knight who actually actively go after him. All the others don't give a crap about Batman, and with the exception of Harley and Ivy, are reduced to side missions doing their own thing.

Then we have the Arkham Knight himself, who's secret identity was made so obvious from the get-go when they start placing so much emphasis on Jason Todd, who had no relevance to any of the previous games. Subtle as a sledge hammer to the kneecaps. Yeah you can complain about the Joker turning out to be Black Mask plot point, but at least they revealed that less than half way through the game, and didn't drag it out into a big obvious anti climax that didn't even make sense. Jason thinks Batman left him and replaced him, so his response is to team with Scarecrow and try and kill the whole city? The writers have no idea who Jason is in the comics. They bastardized his character.

Furthermore Origins knows how to balance it's villains. It was a master class in showing you can have two heavy hitting villains in a game, and not throw one under the bus in favor of the other. Especially in the Gotham Royal Hotel level, which is my favorite section out of all four games. Both Joker and Bane were treated as equal threats, who clearly hate each other, but reluctantly work together. They're shown as two unique threats, and two larger than life characters. Joker is wild, psychotic, unpredictable. Bane is calculating, methodical, and physically brutal. AO redeemed Bane after his crappy treatment at the hands of Rocksteady.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Every time I pop into this thread, it's always a Rocksteady vs Origins debate.

 

[Dopinder]

Not "clearly" superior to me, or a lot of other people. Origins took the best of AC's game play, created a beautiful Christmas atmosphere, crafted a terrific story, the boss battles are better, the female characters are not overly sexualized in their designs, and added some of it's own touches like the crime scene reconstruction. Yes, it's not quite as polished as the other games, but the pros far out weigh the cons, and it's above the other Arkham games in quality, especially AK. Sometimes it takes a truly disappointing game to make people see how good they had it before. I suspect that is partially why Origins is a lot more appreciated now than it was on it's initial release.

I don't think you paid close attention to the story either. Harley was not driven crazy or in love with Joker by the end of the game. On the contrary she was taken hostage along with the prison guards when Joker took over Blackgate. She was still a doctor working there at the end, as you see her walking with the other guards when Joker's being taken away. All they did was sew the seeds for the beginning of Harley's obsession with him. Nothing more. Same with Joker's obsession with Batman. This sequence here alone showed more insight into Joker's mind than Rocksteady's entire three games combined;

[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]

There was no misdirection. You did get to face all the assassins. Ok Electrocutioner's encounter was more for comedic purposes, so a complaint about his is legit.

Compared Arkham City where they make a whole big hoopla about Hugo Strange knowing Batman's identity in the trailers, and Hugo being the big bad of the game, and neither he or knowing Batman's identity plays any importance in AC's story. AC is basically a chase the cure tale. Hugo and Protocol 10 only become relevant at the end, and even then they're not the finale of the game, Joker/Clayface in the Monarch theater is. And Hugo knowing who Batman is has no bearing on the game story at all. Neither does the fact that the setting is in a city prison. You could have put the chase the cure story in regular Gotham and it would have made no difference at all.

As for Arkham Knight, we were told all the villains have banded together to take out Batman, when in actuality it's only Scarecrow and Arkham Knight who actually actively go after him. All the others don't give a crap about Batman, and with the exception of Harley and Ivy, are reduced to side missions doing their own thing.

Then we have the Arkham Knight himself, who's secret identity was made so obvious from the get-go when they start placing so much emphasis on Jason Todd, who had no relevance to any of the previous games. Subtle as a sledge hammer to the kneecaps. Yeah you can complain about the Joker turning out to be Black Mask plot point, but at least they revealed that less than half way through the game, and didn't drag it out into a big obvious anti climax that didn't even make sense. Jason thinks Batman left him and replaced him, so his response is to team with Scarecrow and try and kill the whole city? The writers have no idea who Jason is in the comics. They bastardized his character.

Furthermore Origins knows how to balance it's villains. It was a master class in showing you can have two heavy hitting villains in a game, and not throw one under the bus in favor of the other. Especially in the Gotham Royal Hotel level, which is my favorite section out of all four games. Both Joker and Bane were treated as equal threats, who clearly hate each other, but reluctantly work together. They're shown as two unique threats, and two larger than life characters. Joker is wild, psychotic, unpredictable. Bane is calculating, methodical, and physically brutal. AO redeemed Bane after his crappy treatment at the hands of Rocksteady.

I guess I just don't see the hype with origins. It's a decent game, but it's too similar to city for me. Batman arkham city was a genuinely amazing game that built upon the foundations of arkham asylum. AC had great smooth combat and an amazing, detailed environment.

On the other hand, Origins is more or less an arkham city clone, except the open world is bigger and more lifeless, the combat feels off, most of the new gadgets you get serve the same functions as the ones in AC (like the glue grenade) and many of the boss fights in Origins are just extended versions of the AC boss fights. Speaking of the combat, not only does it feel less fluid, I hate the shock gloves in AO. It turns the combat into a complete button masher.

The story is good, I see why people like it, but WB Montreal hyped up Black Mask and the assassins, but instead we got another Joker story. If you ask me, AA still has the best narrative in the entire series.

By the way, I don't think Rocksteady is perfect either. I share all of your criticisms with AK. However, what they did with the first two games is amazing. Origins to me felt like it was just trying to ape AC.

 

[The Joker]

I guess I just don't see the hype with origins. It's a decent game, but it's too similar to city for me. Batman arkham city was a genuinely amazing game that built upon the foundations of arkham asylum. AC had great smooth combat and an amazing, detailed environment.

On the other hand, Origins is more or less an arkham city clone, except the open world is bigger and more lifeless, the combat feels off, most of the new gadgets you get serve the same functions as the ones in AC (like the glue grenade) and many of the boss fights in Origins are just extended versions of the AC boss fights. Speaking of the combat, not only does it feel less fluid, I hate the shock gloves in AO. It turns the combat into a complete button masher.

The story is good, I see why people like it, but WB Montreal hyped up Black Mask and the assassins, but instead we got another Joker story. If you ask me, AA still has the best narrative in the entire series.

By the way, I don't think Rocksteady is perfect either. I share all of your criticisms with AK. However, what they did with the first two games is amazing. Origins to me felt like it was just trying to ape AC.

That's ok if you don't. Different strokes. I don't see it as a 'clone', I see it as taking the best from AC, and adding their own touches, while giving what I think was even better atmosphere (I love the Christmas setting, and the heavy blizzard snowfall as opposed to the light snowfall of AC), I love the crime scene reconstruction as it was clever and really emphasized Batman's detective side. I love we got to see the proper Batcave. I love that the enemies move faster. I love the shock gloves. I love Deathstroke's grapple gun etc.

I also think as far as DLCs go, Origins has Rocksteady whupped again, as 'Cold Cold Heart' is way better than any DLC they've done.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Rocksteady games to death, they're terrific, and will be buying this remaster pack for the PS4. But they have plenty of flaws, and compared to Origins, I think they come up shorter overall as Batman games.

I agree that AA had the best narrative out of the Rocksteady games. It actually made an attempt to have a story. It wasn't just a standard Joker taking over the asylum to build a monster army. They added in all these little twists like Dr. Young draining Bane of his venom in secret, Officer Boles was on Joker's payroll, the Warden was a nutcase who thinks he's the spirit of Amadeus Arkham etc.

 

[Havok83]

I guess I just don't see the hype with origins. It's a decent game, but it's too similar to city for me. Batman arkham city was a genuinely amazing game that built upon the foundations of arkham asylum. AC had great smooth combat and an amazing, detailed environment.

On the other hand, Origins is more or less an arkham city clone, except the open world is bigger and more lifeless, the combat feels off, most of the new gadgets you get serve the same functions as the ones in AC (like the glue grenade) and many of the boss fights in Origins are just extended versions of the AC boss fights. Speaking of the combat, not only does it feel less fluid, I hate the shock gloves in AO. It turns the combat into a complete button masher.

I dont see why thats a problem. AC was an amazing game. WB just gave us more of that with Origins. Its the same series. I have no problem with it playing similar to AC and it was a gap title, not sequel to AC, so maybe your expectations were off bc I wouldnt have expected it to be the next jump or evolution for the series. They were never going to reinvent the wheel. They took an existing formula that worked and crafted a very well written story around that. Origins was great for what it set out to be

 

[The Joker]

Why was Dopinder suddenly banned?

 

[Drz]

Here's something I want to see in Asylum HD: Change the Scarecrow glitch a little bit, so veteran players can be surprised again.

 

[Tron Bonne]

People thought that about Arkham Origins as well. The GOTY Edition to City was announced 6 months after release. Its been almost a year for AK and they went and announced this collection instead

Didn't the DLC for Arkham Knight just end, though? Unlike City, Knight had a substantial amount of DLC. They almost always wait until the DLC cycle is either done or near done before releasing those. They may not, but I really don't know why they wouldn't. Origins is sort of the black sheep of the franchise for some reason.

EDIT: I'm mistaken, I guess. Well, maybe they just aren't.

 

[Nardz937]

$65 Canadian.....

 

[spiderman2]

I am not sure if i am going to get these remasters or not. I love the arkham games i really do. City, knight and origins are all in my top 10 games of all time list and aslyum like top 20 but i have always said i think it is kind of sily to rebuy something you already have like a dvd buying on bluray or a remasterd game in less there are new special features or something and i also think they should have wanted in till ps5 so the graphic jump could be bigger and also they should have had origins has part of this to.

When it comes to origins its story is like the most overrated thing in the history of the universe. Its story is the only thing that kept the game from being better than City. Too biggest problems with origins where that it was to much like city and its bad overrated story. Its story is so overrated it makes me want to

 

[spiderman2]

One thing i find interesting is that all the arkham games even including knight where on unreal engine 3 and this remaster is going to be unreal engine 4. I wonder what that like means for this? Could it maybe look even better than knight than or like the same? I Just thought that was odd. I thought it would just be unreal engine 3 again and that if rocksteady did either some new game or another new arkham game that than it would maybe be unreal engine 4.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Where is my Origins remaster?

 

[Nardz937]

 

[spiderman2]

So I just saw this graphic comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLphm9f3Bw8#t=19

Pretty solid difference

 

[Nardz937]

Here is some comparisons.....

Mother of eyebrows, they butchered Hugo .

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

I think the originals look drastically better than how they do now. What do you guys think?

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

wow

the original PS3 versions do look much better based on the pics

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It looks worse. What the hell? It has a higher resolution, but the actual design is all messed up. It looks like they got botox.

 

[Nardz937]

I can't get over Hugo. I'm traumatized.

They turned his eyebrows into caterpillars made in MS Paint.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

wow

the original PS3 versions do look much better based on the pics

Hugo looks like he is wearing a fake beard, like he is in Witness Protection or something.

 

[spiderman2]

Here is some comparisons.....

Mother of eyebrows, they butchered Hugo .

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

PS4. UE4.

PS3. UE3.

I think the originals look drastically better than how they do now. What do you guys think?

Ok now i am confused in that video i posted the old one clearly looked worse but with these photos the game looks worse now like the opisite of that video.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Those can't be legit. The remaster shots look awful