Batman: Arkham City [MultiPlatform]
- Thread starter AzBat
- Start date
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Chk out Giant Bomb's review ! Its basically the same formula as the first game, just more of it in a new setting with more characters, new villians, etc etc. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one, if you didn't.......you won't.....!
Batman AA the game itself may be well heard of but the makers behind it isn't exactly a household name for gamers, at least not yet. I had to do a search before the name comes back to me.Not sure what did you talking about... Batman AA is recognized universally how one of the best surprise of this generation ...
Of course but I think Rocksteady coming to a masterpiece how Batman only just in the recent times, not remember any others of the same levels; ND indeed has a long history started on the ps brand...
For one, the main hub is now the city & not just the Asylum on an island. Second, you get to play against all the rogues that you didn't get to in the first game. Third, there is now a nice portion where you can play as Catwoman in the single player. Plus, you get all the normal stuff you get with a sequel: new weapons, moves, story, challenge maps etc. So I can see how the same old formula could still garner high praise.
Tommy McClain
Isn't that pretty much the same for every sequel? Halo, COD, Gears, Uncharted, Killzone, Infamous, GTA, Mass Effect, Ratchet and Clank, Lego Star Wars ... Whatever game you want to pick. Sequels are almost always a refinement of the predecessor. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if the game is a hell of a lot of fun to play, and well crafted, why not give it a near perfect score? Are games like Geometry Wars and Stardust not worthy of good reviews because they aren't innovative at all?
Batman AA was an awesome surprise. It is a very popular and well-liked game, because it was fun to play. If the sequel is an improved evolutionary step, then I don't see any reason it shouldn't be well reviewed. Hopefully I will like it just as much as the original, if not more.
Likely because there's a global conspiracy against anything PS3 related.
Without knowing which reviews or reading them, I can't comment other than to say sometimes doing the same feels tired and boring, but sometimes it feels right and fun. Why do you even care how high the scores are relative to other games. Review scores will never line up, and it's impossible to argue the numbers relative to one another. All it does is pollute game threads.
Batman AA was fantastic in offering fun, if simple, combat and stealth with a good mixture of exploration for secrets and upgrades. It also nailed the spirit and atmosphere of Batman, from the character himself in the way he moves and fights to the secondary characters, music and mood. It is pretty much Batman the way everyone feels Batman should be. No one exxpected a lot from a DC IP game from an unknown dev, but they delivered in a big way. The most common complaint I heard was that fighting was too easy, but the seamlessness of the counter moves made the fighting look fantastic. It really is a game that makes Batman seem like a total badass. Fighting the hallway full of Joker's minions towards the end really resonated with me. Also, blocking is for losers. Batman doesn'tt block, he counters and takes you out.
(((interference)))
Veteran
I want a Batman game either based on the Nolan trilogy or based on the seminal 90s animated series - I much prefer the minimalist, Dark Deco look of the latter to the rather messy look of Rocksteady's games.
This game is feeling overrated because so many people simply want a great comic book game. That's the feeling I got from the last one which felt decidedly poor compared to its contemporaries. So they opened it up a little bit and made it more like Assassins Creed and inFamous? What sets it apart from them makes it a 9+ rated title?
Your ultimate option is always the same: vote with your wallet. There is absolutely no value is debating the merits by which a game received a certain score.
Metacritic tells me that enough reviewers who played the game found it to be well done enough to give it high marks. Genre descriptions in entertainment are limited in which games can be quickly categorized and even used as a form of dismissal "oh it's just another shooter...."
The difference in the score variances comes from execution. From reading multiple reviews, it would seem Rock Steady has executed well and impressed enough reviewers.
Does 95% mean it's everyone's cup of tea? No. Nothing ever is but it does mean that if you're interested in the genre or looking to pick up a GOOD game, then this game has a very good chance of delivering.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
I think the division in opinion is mainly due to the melee fighting system. I find it boring,repetitive and meaningless, other people find it smooth, rhythmic and best melee fighting system. The side you fall on regarding this can make or break the game for you.
Sigfried1977
Legend
I'm actually kind of in the middle. Combat works, but it isn't exactly exciting either. I just prefer having a bit more control over my actions. The biggest problem I had with the combat in Batman AA was the complete lack of challenge. You may have had the means to perform like a fancy martial artist, but why bother when hammering on buttons did the trick just fine.
I'm also not a big fan of the busy and kinda messy Batman of War art style. Especially stealth segments were almost impossible without detective mode because enemies and backgrounds would just blend together.
The whole game was sort of like Metroid Prime with training wheels.
I'm also not a big fan of the busy and kinda messy Batman of War art style. Especially stealth segments were almost impossible without detective mode because enemies and backgrounds would just blend together.
The whole game was sort of like Metroid Prime with training wheels.
I think this is pretty true. Personally, I loved it. The combat is constant, and one move flows into the next. Because you can't block, standing in one spot blocking attacks in all directions, you have to respond to each movement of the enemies. Counters are very much a button press with an extended animation attached, requiring little skill, but they are seamless, complex and brutal. The disarm counters in particular are fun to watch. What you end up with is a fight with no down time. There is always action and movement. Fighting in Batman AA was maybe more about presentation than skill level, but it worked for me. That said, the combat challenges are actually pretty damned tough. Large numbers of stun sticks and knives require some strategy, especially if you have to manage a crowd to prevent people from running and breaking open lock boxes that contain guns.
...or I can simply wait for the next Assassins Creed that'll be more feature rich coming just 3 weeks later or simply download the new inFamous DLC? No. I think what you meant, is: if your interested in a comic book game that contains Batman, that takes place in this genre, it'll deliver for you on some level.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can reduce any game into a checklist of features, and try to deduce which is better, but in the end that's totally pointless. It all comes down to whatever people think is fun and enjoyable to play. Sometimes the checklist looks good, but the end result is a POS. Reviewers seem to be very positive about Arkham City. Get over it. You can't compare review scores between games or between reviewers. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't complain about it, or try to do some kind of mind reading to figure out why people like what they like.
Heh, I knew this would come up from certain posters.
A simple explanation is I only read PS3 game reviews (if at all !). ^_^
They may very well do the same for 360 and Wii reviews but I just wouldn't know. v_v
