Batman: Arkham Origins - Part 7

[ProjectPat2280]

Nops. If you're facing him without jumping around, he'll attack you and it won't slow down. It only slows down for a second when the camera gets close.
I repeated this battle so many times to beat him without losing health that I memorized most of his attacks. After you take his mask off, you'll have to counter his counter twice. It slows down on both times that he is countering, but if you press the counter button before that, you'll be hit. After he grabs his knife, it means that he'll counter your counter 3 times. That's when it gets a little harder. You have to pay close attention when the time slows down in his counter moves. I pressed the counter button on the wrong time so many times, that's why I kept repeating.
I recommend doing this on medium.

Yea i figured out all his patterns last night, still couldnt get a damn flawless on him though, got tired and just said eff it. Ill have to try in my next play through, but yea ill play through it on medium or something.

 

[Jick]

Having thugs is the only way to make the boss fight challenging. Otherwise, it's just two people hitting each other.

That's why the Mr. Freeze fight from AC is still the best villain fight in the series. It forced you to actually sneak around and use your skills instead of just countering and punching.

Two people hitting eachother can be good if well done. The Bane fight should have been more well thought instead of throwing thugs to make it more challenging, like the Shiva battle, which is almost the same thing. Each time we made the beatdown on Bane, we should have to vary our tactics. For example, no jumping over him to hit him. Make us think of other ways to exploit his weakness, to find an opening to apply the beatdown. Kinda like the Freeze battle.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Two people hitting eachother can be good if well done. The Bane fight should have been more well thought instead of throwing thugs to make it more challenging, like the Shiva battle, which is almost the same thing. Each time we made the beatdown on Bane, which should have to vary our tactics. For example, no jumping over him to hit him. Make us think of other ways to exploit his weakness, to find an opening to apply the beatdown. Kinda like the Freeze battle.

Im with you. The Slade battle was my favorite. Loved the back and forth fisticuffs without having to worry about damn goons. Iv always thought adding in goons to a battle was a cheap way of making it tough.

 

[Shikamaru]

Shiva should have been a more difficult Deathstroke fight, considering she is supposed to be THE ultimate Martial Artist. It was disappointing that you fought her basically like any other martial arts thug.

To be fair, she wasn't even trying. She was only in Gotham to test you (under orders from Ra's). Deathstroke was actually trying to kill you.

 

[SpideyVille]

I really have to get around to finishing this. I had to push this back on the list of games I needed to catch up on every though I started it about a week after it came out.

 

[Parquagh]

To be fair, she wasn't even trying. She was only in Gotham to test you (under orders from Ra's). Deathstroke was actually trying to kill you.

It kinda makes sense when you play the Initiation DLC. There, everytime she connects a punch she does mayor damage, there are no counter icons and I don't know if it's only me, but it is difficult to increase your hit count, after a beatdown, you may have 4, 5 hits, and then she just goes into defense position and breaks your combo...

 

[The Joker]

Just finished this game for a third time. The story really is terrific, with some fantastic character moments and scenes. I wish the first two games had stories as good as this one. Especially AC.

 

[Shikamaru]

All three games had good stories IMO, but this game definitely had the best story of the three. There is so much to love about it, especially the character dynamics explored.

 

[Drz]

I can't say the 2nd game had a good story at all. It will be interesting how the hype clashes with reality again once we get to see the 3rd Rocksteady Batman game offering.

 

[Shikamaru]

I still disagree that the second game didn't have a good story. I think people are too fixated on the Protocol 10 thing that they forget everything else, when the story wasn't just about Protocol 10, although I do admit that Strange and Ra's could have used more screen time and development.

I think the problem with the way some people judge the AA/AC stories is that they're looking at the wrong story.

In Arkham Asylum, the main story isn't really the stuff with the Joker taking over the asylum; it is Batman in the asylum itself. The asylum is the main villain. The main story is essentially him coping with one of his greatest fears - the idea that maybe he is just as insane as his rogues gallery and belongs in the asylum with them. The Joker story is just the filter used to tell that story and the side stuff (interview tapes, Amadeus Arkham, etc.) play as much of a part in Batman's internal struggle as the Joker/Titan story.

In Arkham City, the main story isn't really the Hugo Strange stuff or the Joker cure; it is Gotham having become the asylum and Batman coping with one of his other greatest fears - that all of this is his fault. That he created his own villains and that part of Gotham now having become the same ****hole of insanity the asylum is has been entirely caused by him. In that sense, Arkham Asylum questioned the (in)sanity of the asylum and its people whereas Arkham City questions the (in)sanity of Gotham and its people. Much like in the first game, what is presented as the "main story" (in this case we have two stories (Joker cure + Strange/Ra's)) isn't really the main story, but simply filters through which the real main story is told. And much like in the first game, all the side stuff are just as important to the real main story as the main stuff. The real main story is filtered through the side stuff as much as it is filtered through the main stuff. The fact that Batman has two major mastermind plots to solve and all the side missions in one night also plays into another theme: that Batman has to deal with all this crap in one night because there is complete chaos everywhere, which goes back to the ideas that Gotham has now become Arkham Asylum and that this is all Batman's fault.

As a side note, I once saw a superhero reviewer on YouTube do an in-depth analysis of Arkham City's story. I'll just leave this here:

[YT]V5lIhVhlmeo[/YT]

He did an in-depth analysis for Arkham Asylum as well.

[YT]yHNr1GuwwUs[/YT]

 

[TheVileOne]

Good stuff and points Shikamaru. I agree with most of it as well.

I think my main problem though with Arkham City is that it just kind of ends and there's no real catharsis or resolution of Batman dealing with these things. Maybe it will come in the next game.

Origins did have a more satisfying conclusion to me. Batman's arc felt more complete. By the end of the story, it appears the events had really changed him and had a profound affect on him as well.

I love Captain Logan's videos. Hope he does one for Origins as well.

 

[Shikamaru]

Good stuff and points Shikamaru. I agree with most of it as well.

I think my main problem though with Arkham City is that it just kind of ends and there's no real catharsis or resolution of Batman dealing with these things. Maybe it will come in the next game.

Origins did have a more satisfying conclusion to me. Batman's arc felt more complete. By the end of the story, it appears the events had really changed him and had a profound affect on him as well.

I love Captain Logan's videos. Hope he does one for Origins as well.

Regarding your points on Arkham City "just ending", I think there are several things to keep in mind:
1) Batman returns to Arkham City after the Joker's death. I think that signifies his will to keep going and his refusal/closure to the idea that everything is his fault.
2) It kinda-sorta ends on a cliffhanger. We know from Harley Quinn's revenge that Joker's death had a permanent affect on Batman. We'll probably see more of that in Arkham 3.
3) Batman doesn't change by the end of AA either. He doesn't have to change by the end for the story to be complete. A proper story just needs to offer the protagonist an opportunity to change, even if the protagonist doesn't take it. The protagonist simply has to go through either a character arc or character study. If the protagonist takes that opportunity and changes, he undergoes a character arc. If he doesn't, then he undergoes a character study. Batman in general - specifically the veteran experienced Batman that we all know - usually doesn't change. He is one of the most static superheroes created. However, that is the reason why we like him in the first place - his indomitable will is so strong that he refuses to let anything or anyone change him (for the worse). The reason he undergoes a character arc in Origins as opposed to a character study is because he is still a young inexperienced Batman. He still has/had much to learn to become the Batman we know, unlike the Batman we know.

Another point I want to make: Despite Origins having the best cinematic story of the three, I don't think it manages to connect its main story to the gameplay environment anywhere as well as the first two games did. That was essentially what the first two games were about, why they were told in the video game medium as opposed to other mediums and what made them the games they are IMO. On the other hand, Origins feels more like a movie, with the gameplay part being almost entirely separate. I didn't feel the gameplay environment played as much of a part in the events that happen in the game, other than Batman learning on Christmas Eve that he is not alone (in both having allies and having enemies with similar psychologies to him).

I'm glad there are other SHH users that watch Captain Logan.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Arkham City had the best story concept/potential... they just never capitalised on it properly.

 

[The Joker]

Arkham City's story was basically chase the cure, with the Protocol 10 sub plot thrown in at the end as a mini finale before the main finale with Joker.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

Honestly, my only complaints were the stuff with Black Mask and how Bane was completely wasted.

 

[Shikamaru]

Arkham City's story was basically chase the cure, with the Protocol 10 sub plot thrown in at the end as a mini finale before the main finale with Joker.

That wasn't the main story.

 

[Broseph44]

Honestly, my only complaints were the stuff with Black Mask and how Bane was completely wasted.

Wait a second, you think Bane was completely wasted in Origins? Are you kidding me? Did you not play all 3 games? Origins Bane was the best of the arkham series so far. You must be joking.

 

[The Joker]

That wasn't the main story.

Yes, it was. Joker poisons Batman. Go to find Freeze for the cure. Penguin has him so you have to save Freeze from Penguin. Freeze says he needs some enzyme for the cure. Batman says it's in Ra's Al Ghul's blood. So you go after Ra's to get a blood sample. You bring it to Freeze, who makes the cure, then destroys one vial and sticks the other in the safe, which Harley steals. You have to go after Joker to get the cure back. Talia shows up. Joker takes her hostage and demands his cure. Talia has the cure. Joker kills her. Clayface absorbs the cure vial. You beat him, take the cure. Joker tries to get the cure but accidentally breaks it, and dies.

That's the main plot of AC.

 

[Nathan]

That wasn't the main story.

Then the main story wasn't strong enough to make me overlook the shortcomings of the events I was following. Maybe it's my fault for not looking deeper and realizing that I'm dealing with Batman's fear that he's the cause of all this and Gotham might have been better without him. I was focused on trying to find a way to stop this craziness created by Hugo Strange, and ultimately I barely had any interaction with that person. Which just made it a disappointment to me.

 

[Shikamaru]

Yes, it was. Joker poisons Batman. Go to find Freeze for the cure. Penguin has him so you have to save Freeze from Penguin. Freeze says he needs some enzyme for the cure. Batman says it's in Ra's Al Ghul's blood. So you go after Ra's to get a blood sample. You bring it to Freeze, who makes the cure, then destroys one vial and sticks the other in the safe, which Harley steals. You have to go after Joker to get the cure back. Talia shows up. Joker takes her hostage and demands his cure. Talia has the cure. Joker kills her. Mr. Freeze absorbs the cure vial. You beat him, take the cure. Joker tries to get the cure but accidentally breaks it, and dies.

That's the main plot of AC.

I still disagree that the second game didn't have a good story. I think people are too fixated on the Protocol 10 thing that they forget everything else, when the story wasn't just about Protocol 10, although I do admit that Strange and Ra's could have used more screen time and development.

I think the problem with the way some people judge the AA/AC stories is that they're looking at the wrong story.

In Arkham Asylum, the main story isn't really the stuff with the Joker taking over the asylum; it is Batman in the asylum itself. The asylum is the main villain. The main story is essentially him coping with one of his greatest fears - the idea that maybe he is just as insane as his rogues gallery and belongs in the asylum with them. The Joker story is just the filter used to tell that story and the side stuff (interview tapes, Amadeus Arkham, etc.) play as much of a part in Batman's internal struggle as the Joker/Titan story.

In Arkham City, the main story isn't really the Hugo Strange stuff or the Joker cure; it is Gotham having become the asylum and Batman coping with one of his other greatest fears - that all of this is his fault. That he created his own villains and that part of Gotham now having become the same ****hole of insanity the asylum is has been entirely caused by him. In that sense, Arkham Asylum questioned the (in)sanity of the asylum and its people whereas Arkham City questions the (in)sanity of Gotham and its people. Much like in the first game, what is presented as the "main story" (in this case we have two stories (Joker cure + Strange/Ra's)) isn't really the main story, but simply filters through which the real main story is told. And much like in the first game, all the side stuff are just as important to the real main story as the main stuff. The real main story is filtered through the side stuff as much as it is filtered through the main stuff. The fact that Batman has two major mastermind plots to solve and all the side missions in one night also plays into another theme: that Batman has to deal with all this crap in one night because there is complete chaos everywhere, which goes back to the ideas that Gotham has now become Arkham Asylum and that this is all Batman's fault.

As a side note, I once saw a superhero reviewer on YouTube do an in-depth analysis of Arkham City's story. I'll just leave this here:

[YT]V5lIhVhlmeo[/YT]

He did an in-depth analysis for Arkham Asylum as well.

[YT]yHNr1GuwwUs[/YT]

Plus, even the Joker cure story wasn't that bad of a story IMO. I thought it had a great and emotional ending.

Then the main story wasn't strong enough to make me overlook the shortcomings of the events I was following. Maybe it's my fault for not looking deeper and realizing that I'm dealing with Batman's fear that he's the cause of all this and Gotham might have been better without him. I was focused on trying to find a way to stop this craziness created by Hugo Strange, and ultimately I barely had any interaction with that person. Which just made it a disappointment to me.

Fair enough.

To be fair, I was also disappointed by the Hugo Strange story. I thought the Protocol 10 thing was way too rushed and was wrapped up too easily. That's one of the things I would list in a "Top 5 wrong things with Arkham City" that I would have fixed. However, I don't think that stuff completely butchers the story as a whole to the point where nothing (or almost nothing) in it is good. What we seem to disagree on is the extent to which the Hugo Strange/Ra's stuff affected the story overall, not the quality of the Strange/Ra's stuff specifically.

 

[The Joker]

Plus, even the Joker cure story wasn't that bad of a story IMO. I thought it had a great and emotional ending.

I'm sorry, Shika, but the story barely if ever addressed Batman having any fears this was his fault. In fact the only time it's mentioned is by Strange at the end. I can't think of one scene where Batman acts like he feels this may all be his fault.

The Joker cure story was fine. I loved his final scenes. But the problem is it's the whole meat of the story. Running around Arkham City looking for that cure. That is the main driver of the plot. Hugo Strange and his Protocol 10 story was an after thought.

 

[Jick]

Wait a second, you think Bane was completely wasted in Origins? Are you kidding me? Did you not play all 3 games? Origins Bane was the best of the arkham series so far. You must be joking.

Indeed he was, but only regarding his personality.
He's almost all I wanted to see of Bane in this series. He had an imposing figure, he was threatening, he was intelligent, he was strong...just not tactical while fighting.

The fight against him is nearly the same as before. Jump around then beat him. They had to add thugs to the fight to make it more challenging, but it only became more annoying. The battle against the TN-1 Bane was a little more interesting, since we had to put some thought in our next move.

At least he wasn't the dumb brute that we had in previous games. Until the end, at least.

 

[Shikamaru]

I'm sorry, Shika, but the story barely if ever addressed Batman having any fears this was his fault. In fact the only time it's mentioned is by Strange at the end. I can't think of one scene where Batman acts like he feels this may all be his fault.

I would say that it is there in more than just the Strange speech (I remember seeing it in a few other places), but I can't remember any examples off the top of my head. I haven't touched the "main story" since 2011 when the game came out. So I'll have to go back to that.

However, I can think of a few examples of the other themes being present: the themes of Gotham having become the asylum and the theme that Batman has all this crap to deal with in one night.

Maybe it is just my interpretation though .

The Joker cure story was fine. I loved his final scenes. But the problem is it's the whole meat of the story. Running around Arkham City looking for that cure. That is the main driver of the plot. Hugo Strange and his Protocol 10 story was an after thought.

See, I never saw it as "the whole meat of the story". There was so much side stuff that was just as good as the main stuff they kinda balanced it out at the end of the day. And although Strange/Protocol 10 doesn't get the same screen time that the Joker does, the game also creates this whole mystery and hype over Protocol 10 while it kinda downplays the Joker-cure stuff. Due to that, I was still thinking about Strange and Protocol 10 even while chasing the cure. Those 2 factors might have played a part in my own perception.

 

[Jick]

It's your interpretation, which isn't bad.
That could be an interesting thing for the games to explore, but if they ever intended to do that, they simply forgot or downplayed it to a level where it wasn't considered as important as the other plots anymore.

 

[Nathan]

It definitely didn't come across as Batman feeling guilty and feeling as if he's responsible for the state of Gotham.