bit-gamer.net

Batman: Arkham Origins Review

Comments 51 to 75 of 79

Reply
Spreadie 30th October 2013, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PingCrosby
I once knew a scouse Batman, he couldn't go out without Robin
http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=1472&pictureid=28187


:)
Thorton Reed 31st October 2013, 09:46 Quote
Did they try justifying this score?

Fair enough, I have a hard justifying this site as a place for game reviews.
Chris_Waddle 31st October 2013, 11:16 Quote
I haven't played this game yet but I do have a code for it (came with an Nvidia card) so I thought I'd read the review to see your thoughts (amongst others) to see if it was worth the download.

A lot of what has been said of this game in the review is how I felt about Arkham City. I've read so many comments on AC about how great it was; when personally I didn't like it. I've just looked on Steam and I have played Asylum for over 70 hours and still love it. I played AC for 2 and a half hours and got bored. It was the same thing again but a bigger world and the fights were pretty much the same but with more villians. To me it didn't grow and evolve, it just got fatter.

I personally wouldn't have given AC more than 50% and if Origins is just another re-hash (but with glitches and crashes) then I can understand the rating of 30%. Not having played it I can't agree / disagree but I can understand it from what I read.
wafflesomd 1st November 2013, 01:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorton Reed
Did they try justifying this score?

Fair enough, I have a hard justifying this site as a place for game reviews.

I think most users just come here for the forums. The front page articles took a massive nose dive when ownership changed hands.
Thorton Reed 1st November 2013, 11:36 Quote
Looks more like the lunatics took over the asylum :)
GeorgeStorm 1st November 2013, 11:41 Quote
I would just ignore the score and read the comments, I don't think game/film/anything scores are particularly good really.

Just read the opinions and comments on the game, that's what actually matters.
PingCrosby 1st November 2013, 11:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Quote:
Originally Posted by PingCrosby
I once knew a scouse Batman, he couldn't go out without Robin
http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=1472&pictureid=28187


:)

Mind you, I also knew a scouse Red Indian, he was called, erm ahem.........Angonamo.......I'll get me coat
triprunner 1st November 2013, 15:18 Quote
I agree with the score.

AO is a glorified expansion pack with reused assets, hell, it doesn't differ from AC apart from the falling snow (best thing in the game) and reskinned Batman and henchmen...
Story is pure shambles, written by a committee of fanboys without any focus or logic.

It seems WB has decided to go back to their roots of releasing ****, licensed games, developed by their in-house hacks who are way cheaper than professionals at Rocksteady...
x5pilot 1st November 2013, 15:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J
I am reading that right: 30%, not 80%?

I appreciate your opinion but there's no way this game can score that low. It's still terrific fun. 30% implies a game that you'll give up after a few minutes due to absolute frustration.

Totally agree!

This game is admittedly similar to the other ones but the game is brilliant fun!
Shirty 1st November 2013, 15:59 Quote
I liked what PC Zone tried to do with scoring in its heyday, whereby:

100% = Perfection - impossible to achieve
75% = Very good, as in better than 75% of other games in the same genre
50% = Average. As good as the majority of games in the genre. Enjoyable but not groundbreaking.
25% = Poor. Either poorly coded/buggy and/or unentertaining to play.
0% = Broken code, unreviewable.

By that logic this game is somewhere between average and poor, which I think is neatly summarised by the reviewer's words in this case. Doesn't mean nobody will like it, it's just an indication of the reviewer's take on the game.
MjFrosty 1st November 2013, 16:02 Quote
30% is a tad low. Considering the formula and ground work is very similar to it's two former and highly successful games. I'm aware of a few bugs and changes, but 30%? Any breakdown as to why?

Find myself complexed by a lot of recent game reviews on the site.


Edit: Yes I know it's just one mans opinion "I can post whatever I like" shenanigans but it's still a daft score.

I give your review 30%, because I feel like it.
bawjaws 1st November 2013, 16:10 Quote
I know that reviews (and scores) are totally subjective, and we all remember Joe sticking up two fingers at the orthodoxy of games reviews and giving Dishonoured 99% (shortly before quitting the industry, of course). However, I think this review sums up why percentage scores for games are a waste of time - I'd rather see a game reviewed entirely in a narrative than being summed up in an arbitrary score at the end of a review.

I know bit and CPC always loved to bang on about their super scientific and objective review processes for hardware, but I don't think you can reduce games to an "objective" score. As an example, you don't listen to Mark Kermode reviewing a film and then concluding his review with "This film scores 42%" :D
Waynio 1st November 2013, 19:28 Quote
Between Garbageman & Batm'eh.

I don't get scores neither, nagged if they add a score & nagged if they don't, double, triple or mega nagged if they add a silly score.
VipersGratitude 1st November 2013, 19:54 Quote
Well, a patch was released today fixing the main bugs (I say main because there may be others that I'm not aware of):

Fix for the issue that was causing credits, consumables, and profile progress to not be saved in Multiplayer.

Fix for the Burnley Tower vent that Batman wasn't able to climb up

Fix for Free Flow Focus mode not unlocking upon unlocking Shadow Vigilante rank 3

Fixed player falling through elevators/world in most cases. For players that were stuck in free fall loop; if you are not back into the game or if it looks weird around you when you load the game, here are the steps.
  1. Go in pause menu and select Restart from Checkpoint.
  2. If Restart from checkpoint didn't work, trying beating up all enemies around you.
  3. If there aren't any enemies around you, try going through a door.
  4. Those steps should get you back into the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawjaws
I don't think you can reduce games to an "objective" score. As an example, you don't listen to Mark Kermode reviewing a film and then concluding his review with "This film scores 42%" :D

True, but then Mark Kermode strikes me as having a bit of respect for his profession, so I wouldn't expect him to say something like

"I haven't watched the prequels and, having only watched an hour of the new movie, I decided I didn't like it. I can tell you with uninformed, ignorant authority that this film scores 42%"
Crunchy 2nd November 2013, 19:51 Quote
Can i just rage?
I can't be bothered to restrain myself.
Yeah, i'm a fanboy.

30% my arse!
I'd give 60% respecting some want more of the same.
70% as *I* want more.

I'd drop another 5% on top if Mark Hamill still did the Joker.
It's by far the weakest of the 3 games. But worse than Duke Nukem Forever?

I thought i'd read it wrong.
dolphie 4th November 2013, 06:13 Quote
Things I don't like are bad. -- the review in a nutshell.
theshadow2001 4th November 2013, 06:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphie
Things I don't like are bad. -- the review in a nutshell.
:?

Isn't that half the basis of every review, ever.

The other half being: Things I do like are good.
Deders 4th November 2013, 11:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
The other half being: Things I do like are good.

That's what I think is missing from this review.
Spreadie 4th November 2013, 11:57 Quote
I think some of the fans of the game are stuck in the 7 out of 10 era. Score anything below 7 and you're basically saying it's a pile of poo.

Remember when MW3 scored 55%? It wasn't a bad game - it was polished and worked perfectly but it was just more of the same and uninspired.

With that in mind, what's wrong with 30% for more of the same, uninspired and broken?
woods 4th November 2013, 13:14 Quote
I find 30% a very harsh score, for a game I've so far enjoyed
faugusztin 4th November 2013, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I think some of the fans of the game are stuck in the 7 out of 10 era. Score anything below 7 and you're basically saying it's a pile of poo.

The problem is that an actual "pile of poo" (Total War: Rome II) got high rating here. Sim City which was pretty much bugfest still got 40%, more than Batman:AO. SR4 is pretty much the same thing as SR3, yet it got 80%. Batman Arkham Origins got the same rating as the Star Trek game, which is a completely flawed game.

The only big error for me outside of 3 hard crashes during 22 hours of gameplay was the Burnley Tower bug, which is already fixed. Repetition can't be the reason either,... My best guess is that rating is so low because it wasn't exactly what the reviewer expected - bugs aren't the reason to lower the score (see Rome II), neither is recycling older materials and maps (Saints Row 4), so i have no idea what did the game actually do to deserve such low rating.

Can you explain ?
Deders 4th November 2013, 13:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I think some of the fans of the game are stuck in the 7 out of 10 era. Score anything below 7 and you're basically saying it's a pile of poo.

Remember when MW3 scored 55%? It wasn't a bad game - it was polished and worked perfectly but it was just more of the same and uninspired.

With that in mind, what's wrong with 30% for more of the same, uninspired and broken?

MW3 was far worse than Origins IMHO, Warner studios were attempting to make the player feel what it was like to be the batman in the early days, and how he had to up his game. Parts of the game were truly inspired but because of the confines of the plot history and partly because Rocksteady did such a fantastic job with AA and AC, it did leave some moments lacking in comparison.

MW3 on the other hand felt more like a cash cow compared to the previous MW titles, especially the first which really was inspired.

I hope the Batman series doesn't go the same way.
Spreadie 4th November 2013, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
The problem is that an actual "pile of poo" (Total War: Rome II) got high rating here. Sim City which was pretty much bugfest still got 40%, more than Batman:AO. SR4 is pretty much the same thing as SR3, yet it got 80%. Batman Arkham Origins got the same rating as the Star Trek game, which is a completely flawed game.

The only big error for me outside of 3 hard crashes during 22 hours of gameplay was the Burnley Tower bug, which is already fixed. Repetition can't be the reason either,... My best guess is that rating is so low because it wasn't exactly what the reviewer expected - bugs aren't the reason to lower the score (see Rome II), neither is recycling older materials and maps (Saints Row 4), so i have no idea what did the game actually do to deserve such low rating.

Can you explain ?
Oh come on! I express an opinion and now you want me to explain the reviewer's reasoning?

Personally, I don't think Rome II deserves 96%. However, your charge that it is a pile of poo is just as subjective as the reviewer's opinion of Origins. He went as far as writing a review to put his point across, whereas you have made a simple statement.

I said I disagree with Rome II's score but I would also argue it would score higher AO based on the depth of innovation it has over the older games (according to the review). Plus, other than a couple of random crashes, the review doesn't say it's a fundamentally flawed game.

So, a sequel that improves on the previous high quality game, and not fundamentally broken (at the time of the review), why wouldn't they score it high?
dolphie 5th November 2013, 03:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
:?

Isn't that half the basis of every review, ever.

The other half being: Things I do like are good.

Not from a professional review, they are supposed to be subjective. Not "it's a game all about fighting as batman and I don't like that therefore this game sucks." 1/10
Gareth Halfacree 5th November 2013, 10:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphie
Not from a professional review, they are supposed to be subjective. Not "it's a game all about fighting as batman and I don't like that therefore this game sucks." 1/10
I think you mean objective ("not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts") rather than subjective ("based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.")
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