bit-gamer.net

Batman: Arkham Origins Review

Comments 26 to 50 of 79

Reply
Spreadie 30th October 2013, 09:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
On a personal note, I've not played the first two games, and only played an hour or so of this new one yet I've been thoroughly unimpressed so far. Feels rushed and generic. Just "here's an environment, here's a vague story, now go mash some buttons".
TBH, I got that feeling from Arkham City - it isn't a patch on AA, and it gets boring pretty quickly - so I think I'll give Origins a miss.
Krikkit 30th October 2013, 09:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd
Yes, the devs acknowledged this, why do you think there's a training simulator in the newest game? You sound like a lot of crappy gamers today who simply suck at video games because of how easy most of them are today. God forbid you actually have to sit and think about how to use the tools given to you in combat without having to be given a tutorial. You should try dark souls it's right up your alley.

Ouch, harsh much?

FWIW, I'm not a lazy gamer. I enjoy a challenge, I enjoy learning to work with a game to better it, but the combat here doesn't feel like that... Maybe it's a consequence of using a KB+M rather than the joypad it was designed for, but it feels clumsy and rushed. AA felt much more fluid, it was much easier to string a combo together. To me that's a retrograde step.

Trying to get a decent combo strung together in Origins is an exercise in frustration - my most common failing is that enemies rush in, with a counter offered, a split-second after committing to another move, one which Batman won't break out of.

Anyway, I think I'll try a joypad tonight.
Deders 30th October 2013, 10:14 Quote
Someone must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed. 30%, Seriously?!?!?!

I've played halfway through this game and although it is hard to live up to Arkham City (which in at release did have a few issues) especially as it had already pushed the mechanics and ideas in the series almost to their foreseeable limits.

One of the things I like about it is despite playing the previous 2 titles over and over again, I am finally getting the hang of all the extra combat moves, critical strikes, batclaw clotheslining etc because the game takes more time to encourage you to do so. The first big boss fight is a prime example of where I had to completely re-think my fighting style.

I do appreciate that Rockstar put a lot time into the finer details, and possibly even the script but Warner brothers have done a good job of taking what Rockstar have already created and turned it into a fun experience. Granted not quite the same calibre or as refined as AC or AA but it definitely deserves a score somewhere between 75-85%.
Michaeljcox24 30th October 2013, 10:16 Quote
If WB Montreal had broken the mould for Arkham Origins, you can bet your bottom dollar there would be a significant proportion of people moan that the original formula wasn't broke, and there was no need to fix it.

So they stick with the same system, use the same engine, and people moan that they haven't been innovative and broken the mould.

I'm glad I'm not a software dev. Seems like sometimes, you just can't win.
Griffter 30th October 2013, 10:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
Just in response to talk of comparing it to other games in the series. It's only natural there will be some comparison but the score isn't only based on this. It's a reflection of our judgement of whether you should buy this game based on a number of different reasons. On this occasion Mat felt the game fell well short of making a case for justifying your money.

On a personal note, I've not played the first two games, and only played an hour or so of this new one yet I've been thoroughly unimpressed so far. Feels rushed and generic. Just "here's an environment, here's a vague story, now go mash some buttons".

I would respectfully disagree that this review and/or any review from BT is solely about if you should buy the game or not. if so the scoring should or would be based on "buy it" "dont buy it" "wait for a discount of $5" or something along those lines and not percentage.

BT have always seem to be , IMHO, as with all reviews to inform potential players and buyers of the game of how it shapes up to other games and what are the pitfalls and is it fun.

at the end i really think reducing BT reviews and site down to a buyers watchdog site is doing you and your users a great disservice...
Gareth Halfacree 30th October 2013, 10:31 Quote
As a singular data point: a friend of mine, playing the game on console (couldn't tell you which one), had a bug corrupt his save game 20 hours in. He's genuinely considering pushing the disc through a shredder.
bawjaws 30th October 2013, 10:32 Quote
Is this review just another example of Bit-tech clickbait? I'm finding it hard to believe that the score is representative of the body of the review, and instead it seems to me to be an attempt to be controversial in order to generate clicks. Unfortunately, reviews like this actually undermine the credibility of this site, imo.

edit: I'm not sure what point Gareth is trying to make - sadly, a lot of games ship with horrid release-day bugs, like RTW2 or Skyrim, for example. One anecdote of a guy experiencing a really annoying bug on an unknown platform doesn't really add much to the debate :)
Deders 30th October 2013, 10:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
As a singular data point: a friend of mine, playing the game on console (couldn't tell you which one), had a bug corrupt his save game 20 hours in. He's genuinely considering pushing the disc through a shredder.

Should probably wait for a patch like everyone else? maybe consider anger therapy?

(I do agree it can be really frustrating)
Deders 30th October 2013, 10:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
The combat is still clumsy when dealing with the knife/armoured/shielded enemies in small spaces, meaning it's a frustrating and laborious process to take them all out. This should have been tweaked before the level designers squash you in with a group of enemies.

The combat disarm combo move is very helpful in this situation in AC, although Batman hasn't seemed to have learned it at up to the point I've played up to so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
Worse still is the dev's justification of the [at times] clunky combat of 'oh but he's just starting out as Bats, he isn't going to be as agile as he is in Asylum/City'...

...bollocks

I actually felt the combat was just as fluid, if not more so, he may not have learned quite as many moves by this point but I do see their point as to why they can't go all out with this game. It's interesting to see the areas in Arkham before they got so colourful and corrupted.

I also get the feeling that enemies get quicker and better AI as you progress through the game. As well as more challenging with the equipment but yes at times it can be frustrating but that is part of the challenge. Imagine if the battles were easy all the way through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
Just in response to talk of comparing it to other games in the series. It's only natural there will be some comparison but the score isn't only based on this. It's a reflection of our judgement of whether you should buy this game based on a number of different reasons. On this occasion Mat felt the game fell well short of making a case for justifying your money.

On a personal note, I've not played the first two games, and only played an hour or so of this new one yet I've been thoroughly unimpressed so far. Feels rushed and generic. Just "here's an environment, here's a vague story, now go mash some buttons".

I think if this had been released prior to Arkham City (although an obvious impossibility), people would have responded to it better. I urge you to not only play this game through as there is a lot more to it then button mashing, the story is quite gripping and well executed (although not quite the same calibre as the previous games) but to go and play Arkham Asylum and then Arkham City in that order. You are really missing out on 2 of the best single player experiences I've played in a long time.
Gareth Halfacree 30th October 2013, 10:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawjaws
edit: I'm not sure what point Gareth is trying to make - sadly, a lot of games ship with horrid release-day bugs, like RTW2 or Skyrim, for example. One anecdote of a guy experiencing a really annoying bug on an unknown platform doesn't really add much to the debate :)
I have no point to push - I didn't write the review, I haven't bought the game, I'm not planning to buy the game. I was merely adding a data point: there were plenty of people sharing their own anecdotes of playing many hours without any major glitches, so I presented the counterpoint of someone hitting a game-stopping bug 20 hours in and losing all progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
Should probably wait for a patch like everyone else? maybe consider anger therapy?
The patch won't recover the save: he's lost 20 hours of gameplay, and quite rightly doesn't fancy spending another 20 hours just to get back to where he was last night. As for waiting for a patch: how long should a gamer wait before trying to play a game? A week after launch? Two? A month? Six months?
runadumb 30th October 2013, 11:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
As for waiting for a patch: how long should a gamer wait before trying to play a game? A week after launch? Two? A month? Six months?

Easy, 6. Especially if its on PC. That puts you between the summer and Christmas steam sales ;)

Bar the very odd game each year you just must have there and then how hard is it to wait 6 months?
bawjaws 30th October 2013, 11:11 Quote
Gareth, maybe your pal should have waited until he'd read the bit-tech review? :D
Deders 30th October 2013, 11:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I have no point to push - I didn't write the review, I haven't bought the game, I'm not planning to buy the game. I was merely adding a data point: there were plenty of people sharing their own anecdotes of playing many hours without any major glitches, so I presented the counterpoint of someone hitting a game-stopping bug 20 hours in and losing all progress.The patch won't recover the save: he's lost 20 hours of gameplay, and quite rightly doesn't fancy spending another 20 hours just to get back to where he was last night. As for waiting for a patch: how long should a gamer wait before trying to play a game? A week after launch? Two? A month? Six months?

I was being a little harsh here and I do see your point. A friend of mine never got to finish the original Far Cry due to getting so far into the game but something caused his savegame to corrupt It's a real shame.

I would say once the patches have been released take the time to play the game. My playtime on steam for Arkham city is now at 293 hours due to it being a highly enjoyable experience. And I welcome Origins as a way of giving me more situations and experiences in the same immersive world.
David164v8 30th October 2013, 11:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
As for waiting for a patch: how long should a gamer wait before trying to play a game? A week after launch? Two? A month? Six months?

Easy, 6. Especially if its on PC. That puts you between the summer and Christmas steam sales ;)

Bar the very odd game each year you just must have there and then how hard is it to wait 6 months?

I think you might be joking, but it really isn't okay for games to be broken on launch. "Just wait a bit" is a terrible argument.
Griffter 30th October 2013, 11:43 Quote
293hrs hahahahahahahahahahaha

you liked the game so good on you. but damn this made me laugh.
Deders 30th October 2013, 11:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by David164v8
I think you might be joking, but it really isn't okay for games to be broken on launch. "Just wait a bit" is a terrible argument.

Unfortunately it is the state of play at the moment. Developers are forced to reach deadlines to compete with other developer's games release dates to maximise sales, and due to the nature of PC's, not all hardware will work the same way so compatibility testing is a huge task.

I do remember despite having to wait at least a month for both the Arkham Asylum and Arkham city to iron out all the bugs, it didn't stop me playing through and enjoying it thoroughly though those first months.

Games like Rome II on the other hand I'm going to wait for at least a few patches to come out before I start thinking about playing that again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
293hrs hahahahahahahahahahaha

you liked the game so good on you. but damn this made me laugh.

It surprised me too, but I think some of that time was spent whilst alt-tabbing out of the game and browsing the internet, or even benchmarking.
Shirty 30th October 2013, 11:48 Quote
I don't much care for these sorts of games, so the review score is right up my street.
Meanmotion 30th October 2013, 12:04 Quote
Regarding Gareth's anecdote, he's talking about a console. It's simply unacceptable for a game to be game breakingly buggy for a console. No buts.

Regarding click bait. Trust me, an article like this is not link bait. Had it been titled "Arkham origins - worst game ever?" Then maybe.

Regarding whether reviews are about purchase advice. No clearly that's not the only point. We also aim to to make them entertaining and informative but the indication of whether to buy is still the bottom line.
runadumb 30th October 2013, 12:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by David164v8

I think you might be joking, but it really isn't okay for games to be broken on launch. "Just wait a bit" is a terrible argument.

I'm not joking. I'm not saying its okay games launch a buggy broken mess but I buy very few games in their first month of release.

Not that it always helps, having just replayed Arkham asylum and City back to back the last 2 weeks I encountered numerous bugs in both. AA actually crashed me to the desktop 3 times in a row when trying to leave the morgue.

I waited years to play Far Cry 2 and at the very start of the game a character is leaning against a doorway while sliding up and down it, clipping through the ceiling and floor. Which was the least of my problems with that game.

Waiting around 6 months means you get the game in a fitter state and for at least half the price. Win win.
wafflesomd 30th October 2013, 13:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
@Wafflesomd

Your comments are so inconsistent and contradictory I don't even know where to begin to reply and now you are attacking my 'gaming skills' when you don't know me or the games that I play. I have my opinions and reasons for them, I also stand by them. You may not agree with them and that is up to you but don't start criticising me on a personal level.

The internet might not be the place for you if you can't handle criticism.

Were on the topic of discussing video games. What I know about you on this topic is entirely based on what information you've provided. You stated you only made it 15 minutes into AC and batman games (not even sure which ones). Are you really that naive that you can't acknowledge how your view of the games might be skewed based on the fact that you didn't even play them?

[QUOTE=Krikkit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wafflesomd


Maybe it's a consequence of using a KB+M rather than the joypad it was designed for.

You'll have a much better experience with a controller.

I think my harsh tone is more a product of watching this site die. I just witnessed some of the worst gaming journalism that I've seen in a long time, and I'm watching the user base devolve into posts like this crap.


" don't much care for these sorts of games, so the review score is right up my street."

....
Syphadeus 30th October 2013, 17:06 Quote
Obviously a review is just an opinion and the score should reflect the reviewer's feelings, but 30%? Wow, considering the higher scores handed out to what I would consider far lesser games, 30 percent really stinks of an unbalanced point of view.

AO re-treads a by-now well trodden formula and there is a lack of much that's genuinely innovative but why such a low score? This review fixates and accentuates all of the negative aspects and doesn't really say anything positive about it. Point being that however bad you think it is, it's not THAT bad.

I hope if you're going lambaste games for their lack of innovation or originality, or otherwise over reliance on same rubbish different name, that COD and Battlefield are going to be receiving equally low scores from your reviewers. Because unless they each bring something that is utterly ground breaking to the table, which neither shall, then surely neither deserve more than, what? 60% - apparently that's how BT's reviews are now weighted.
Deders 30th October 2013, 17:26 Quote
I'm now getting further into the story and loving it more and more. At first I was under the impression that there wasn't much new from the old formula but what Warner have implemented has made things much more fun in battles.
faugusztin 30th October 2013, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
As a singular data point: a friend of mine, playing the game on console (couldn't tell you which one), had a bug corrupt his save game 20 hours in. He's genuinely considering pushing the disc through a shredder.

I think i seen that kind of problem before, but where it was.... Ah, i know ! Arkham City completely deleted save files. Didn't corrupt them - deleted them. So nothing new to see here :).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
I do appreciate that Rockstar put a lot time into the finer details, and possibly even the script but Warner brothers have done a good job of taking what Rockstar have already created and turned it into a fun experience. Granted not quite the same calibre or as refined as AC or AA but it definitely deserves a score somewhere between 75-85%.

Rocksteady Studios, not Rockstar.
Pete J 30th October 2013, 18:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
I'm now getting further into the story and loving it more and more.
Exactly what I found! It gets better and better.
PingCrosby 30th October 2013, 20:51 Quote
I once knew a scouse Batman, he couldn't go out without Robin
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums