Did anyone else think Arkham City was overrated?

I bought the game day one and was really disappointed. I beat it and tried to go back and solve all of the riddles like I did in AA but it just wasn't fun. I thought the world was huge and open at first and then I realized how small it really was. I thought the story was diluted and way too short and the side missions just felt like fetch quests with the exception of the murder investigations. Plus the combat felt exactly the same as in the first one and was way too easy. In 2 days I beat the game solved all 12 side quests and about 65% of the riddles. I've since traded this in to best buy and got 45$ towards Skyrim. I would give this game a 7.5/10. I guess I'll wait for Uncharted 3 to come out. Does anyone else feel similar to me?

P. S. Please try to keep name calling/flaming/trolling to a minimum.

I can tell from your banner that you didn't form an opinion untill you read my topic. /sarcasm

I can tell from your banner that you didn't form an opinion untill you read my topic. /sarcasmstarwarsnut7591

I've played Uc3 singleplayer and multiplayer and it's not a let down at all. The shooting is tweaked, the melee system is brand new and the set pieces and story are incredible. I'm not saying rocksteady needed to reinvent the wheel but if I pay 60$ for a game with no multiplayer I expect it to be improved at least a little bit from its predecessor. I mean all they added to the fight system in B:AC was the ability to counter multiple opponents.

I've played Uc3 singleplayer and multiplayer and it's not a let down at all. The shooting is tweaked, the melee system is brand new and the set pieces and story are incredible. I'm not saying rocksteady needed to reinvent the wheel but if I pay 60$ for a game with no multiplayer I expect it to be improved at least a little bit from its predecessor. I mean all they added to the fight system in B:AC was the ability to counter multiple opponents.

starwarsnut7591

[QUOTE="starwarsnut7591"]

I've played Uc3 singleplayer and multiplayer and it's not a let down at all. The shooting is tweaked, the melee system is brand new and the set pieces and story are incredible. I'm not saying rocksteady needed to reinvent the wheel but if I pay 60$ for a game with no multiplayer I expect it to be improved at least a little bit from its predecessor. I mean all they added to the fight system in B:AC was the ability to counter multiple opponents.

silentnightmere

Wow a whole 12 side missions that were mostly fetch quests and only took an extra hour to complete. The detective stuff was in AA and the Catwomen dlc took about 30 minutes all together. I think the most fun I had in AC was the Robin dlc. I think that the original Infamous was a much better game than Arkham City in terms of gameplay and story. Plus that game had loads of side missions, better traversal moves, awesome combat, better powers/upgrades, actual challenge and an open world that was actually open. I think the multiplayer maps in Battlefield 3 are bigger than AC's entire world.

I bought the game day one and was really disappointed. I beat it and tried to go back and solve all of the riddles like I did in AA but it just wasn't fun. I thought the world was huge and open at first and then I realized how small it really was. I thought the story was diluted and way too short and the side missions just felt like fetch quests with the exception of the murder investigations. Plus the combat felt exactly the same as in the first one and was way too easy. In 2 days I beat the game solved all 12 side quests and about 65% of the riddles. I've since traded this in to best buy and got 45$ towards Skyrim. I would give this game a 7.5/10. I guess I'll wait for Uncharted 3 to come out. Does anyone else feel similar to me?

P. S. Please try to keep name calling/flaming/trolling to a minimum.

starwarsnut7591

When I returned my defective copy I was told I could get a new copy or get my money back, I took the money.

A lot of gamers I respect are huge fans and can offer convincing reasons as to why, but I just wasn't very taken with it. Doesn't mean I think its 'overrated' or a bad game, but it just didn't work for me (though I could see myself getting it after a pricedrop or two).

[...] if I pay 60$ for a game with no multiplayer [...]starwarsnut7591

It appears that you feel marginalized that an overwhelming amount of people (critics and gamers alike) consider this to be one of the best games of this generation (which it clearly is) and because it didn't resonate with you personally you felt the need to deride it with a shallow critique.

The whole contrarian angle is something I predicted would happen with such an overwhelmingly positive reception to B:CA. I actually wrote this before the game even came out and judging by your post, it was astutely prophetic:

Reviews for Arkham City will be little more than gradients of effusive praise, and rightfully so.

The real fun will be all the trolls who'll emerge from the basements and bridges of the Internet and decry this game as "overrated."

There will probably also be a segment of gamers who, merely for the sake of being contrarian, will adopt the position that Arkham Asylum is superior.

None of it will matter though; Arkham City will be one of the defining games of this generation, of that I nearly certain.

Grammaton-Cleric

As to your complaints, they seem relatively specious. You claim the map isn't that large but I've been playing the game for nearly two weeks and I keep finding new areas. (Then again I'm not rushing through the game)

You call the story "diluted" and while I haven't finished it entirely, what I have played through has been very good and certainly better than the vast majority of those games that aim for an affecting narrative. Also, claiming the story is diluted while simultaneously calling it "too short" is paradoxical and entirely nonsensical. Were the story diluted it would (logically) be drawn out and spread too thin. A short story would generally be far more concise.

Your criticism of the combat is vapid and nonsensical; the combat in the first game was brilliant and Arkham City expands on that with the implementation of gadgets and the ability to counter multiple thugs. They also tightened up the overall feel of the fighting as well as increased animation frames for each technique. Other additions include the ability to catch hurled projectiles and the use of the environment. (Head slams into walls, etc.) This game enjoys one of the best melee engines in all of gaming that perfectly fits the style and techniques of the protagonist.

Also, your own personal completion time is quite meaningless. I've been playing this game for some time now and my completion percentage remains low because of all the exploration, side missions, Riddler trophies along with the exceptional challenge maps. (All of which are highly customizable) This game is rife with content and has actually taken a few complaints about having too much to do. You clearly played through the game with little interest in exploration or mining the deeper nuances of the combat engine (evidenced by your vapid critique) so frankly, your overall estimation of this game's inherent value isn't particularly cogent.

It's fine that you didn't personally enjoy the game but that fact alone does absolutely nothing to negate the actual quality, polish and brilliance that Arkham City represents. If you choose to look at the torrent of praise this game has garnered since release and dismiss it as "overrated" that is your prerogative but it is also a very myopic way to consider and evaluate something. There are plenty of games that I don't necessarily love as much as others but that doesn't mean I am egocentric enough to declare something unworthy of praise.

If this game is "overrated" then so is every other game ever made, period.

There is absolutely no way the OP has "completed All 12 side missions" with only "65%" of the Riddler Trophies found. You can't even unlock the last couple "resuces" until you've gotten at least 75% of the trophies.

[QUOTE="starwarsnut7591"][...] if I pay 60$ for a game with no multiplayer [...]foxhound_fox

Way to quote me out of context! I buy a lot of singleplayer only games. Like Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Infamous, God of War 3, L. A. Noire, Fallout 3, Ratchet and Clank, Assassins Creed 2 and countless others. It's not that B:AC failed to meet my expectations, it just failed to be any fun.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="starwarsnut7591"][...] if I pay 60$ for a game with no multiplayer [...]starwarsnut7591

Way to quote me out of context! I buy a lot of singleplayer only games. Like Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Infamous, God of War 3, L. A. Noire, Fallout 3, Ratchet and Clank, Assassins Creed 2 and countless others. It's not that B:AC failed to meet my expectations, it just failed to be any fun.

Fun is an abstract and relative term that has zero value when placed into the context of a logical analysis and deconstruction of the components of a game.

That you didn't find Arkham City fun is not in debate. However, the entire crux of your argument (weak as it is) is that your inability to enjoy the game renders it overrated despite the consensus that it is one of the best games of this (or any) generation.

You erroneously assume that your personal opinion somehow trumps widespread consensus and you've furthered your own myopic thesis with an incredibly vapid critiquing of the game.

Way to quote me out of context!starwarsnut7591

Haven't played it yet, but I did think Arkham Asylum was very overrated and nothing special.Solid_Snake325

Now would you care to elaborate on why the original was nothing special?

And while you're at it, could you please show me a better superhero game? Or a game that uses an established IP better? Or a game with a comparable combat engine? How about a game in a similar genre that is "special." Could you compare and contrast that allegedly superior game to Arkham Asylum and explain why AA is mediocre?

Some of you think that having an opinion, regardless of how superficially stated, is some sort of shield from having to employ evidence, examples, and some sort of logical rationale to back your assertions up. You are flatly wrong in this assumption.

So please explain in detail how and why everyone else is wrong and you are right in regards to this series.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]Haven't played it yet, but I did think Arkham Asylum was very overrated and nothing special.Grammaton-Cleric

Now would you care to elaborate on why the original was nothing special?

And while you're at it, could you please show me a better superhero game? Or a game that uses an established IP better? Or a game with a comparable combat engine? How about a game in a similar genre that is "special." Could you compare and contrast that allegedly superior game to Arkham Asylum and explain why AA is mediocre?

Some of you think that having an opinion, regardless of how superficially stated, is some sort of shield from having to employ evidence, examples, and some sort of logical rationale to back your assertions up. You are flatly wrong in this assumption.

So please explain in detail how and why everyone else is wrong and you are right in regards to this series.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]Haven't played it yet, but I did think Arkham Asylum was very overrated and nothing special.Solid_Snake325

Now would you care to elaborate on why the original was nothing special?

And while you're at it, could you please show me a better superhero game? Or a game that uses an established IP better? Or a game with a comparable combat engine? How about a game in a similar genre that is "special." Could you compare and contrast that allegedly superior game to Arkham Asylum and explain why AA is mediocre?

Some of you think that having an opinion, regardless of how superficially stated, is some sort of shield from having to employ evidence, examples, and some sort of logical rationale to back your assertions up. You are flatly wrong in this assumption.

So please explain in detail how and why everyone else is wrong and you are right in regards to this series.

That's pretty much what I had anticipated your response would be.

However, you do have an obligation to support your assertions, otherwise those assertions become entirely meaningless.

Given your reluctance to elaborate you actually leave others with no choice but to assume:

1. you haven't actually played the game or played it very much.

2. you are incapable of formulating a coherent argument to back up your initial assertion.

And please understand, I'm not trying to be rude but there is an onus upon those who share an opinion to back that opinion up with something more than a brief statement of derision. The fallacy that an opinion can't be wrong isn't really true because ultimately, an opinion can be so uninformed as to be rendered irrelevant.

I'm not stating that is the case here but you should briefly explain why the game was "nothing special."

Make some sort of case for your position.

I'm going to be honest, I seriously do not care enough about this topic to take the time to come up with specific examples of why this game is inferior to other games. Solid_Snake325

I absolutely disagree 100%. The game IMO is easily the pinnacle of the action adventure. It's ambitious, but manages to deliver on all fronts. It's combat seems simple at first, but has a good deal of depth and challenge when you get into it, the stealth is even more open ended and filled with various options than before, the riddler challenges have seen a monumental improvement this time as every thing about them is designed to baffle you (you have to figure them out using your head and many of them leave me stumped). Then there are the side missions that I feel are the best and most lovingly crafted out of any open world game I have ever played. They are extremely varied and are just as well made and entertaining as the main story missions. Then there are the challenge rooms. Those are probably my favourite things of all and expand the lasting appeal to limitless lengths. I love it when a game lets you test the games mechanics and your skills to the limit.

All in all, Arkham City has left me in awe. Rocksteady has cemented themselves as some of the greatest devs in video game design. Arkham City hits every single one of my sweet spots and does so at an unbelievably high level. It is the pinnacle of the action-adventure genre and a masterpiece

Not at all. The experience was virtually perfect in my opinion. Asylum had all of the makings to be a great game but fell short in a couple regards that left the experience a bit underwhelming for me, the linear progression and complete lack of freedom in how you took on the role of Batman being my main gripes. That was addressed perfectly in Arkham City. It has a concise, varied and interesting world to explore with a ridiculous amount of riddles to solve and sidequests that flesh out some of the interesting characters of the universe that rarely get any attention. The story was well paced and loaded with twists to keep intrigue high, the combat system was refined, the new gadgets were fun to use, and the artistic design was just fantastic (I would love to see more revolving around Mad Hatter in the next game... his level was so amazing to look at but so short).

Havent played the second one yet, but I found the first one to be boring and repetitive.

Hoping thats not the case with Arkham City.

Havent played the second one yet, but I found the first one to be boring and repetitive.

Hoping thats not the case with Arkham City.

lbjkurono23

I've never understood the "repetitive" argument.

All games are –by their very nature – repetitive. The games in your sig for example are insanely repetitive and yet I consider Zelda: ALTTP one of the best games of all time.

Boring is of course a subjective term. I've found every Zelda post ALTTP to be boring but that doesn't mean they aren't very well made games.

I am curious to know what precisely you think could have been better in Arkham Asylum. Could you elaborate?

#2. I do feel it was overrated. Overrated in the sense of not deserving PERFECT scores across the board.

#2. The map, all things considered, was generally kind of boring. Much of the map(excluding big complexes like the steel mill) looked the same and it was hard to figure out where you were without going to the map(not as huge an issue as it was in Red Dead, where you had three steps before the map appears, but still).

Hey, that's a good game!

I don't think it's over rated. I mean if you like Batman you'll love it. I even seen people on here who aren't Batman fans enjoy the game.

My only gripe is when you finally catch the Riddler, you don't punch him enough times!

I would have punched that bastard once for every riddler trophy!

Hell no it's not "overrated". Easily one of the highest quality games I've played, period. People need to realize there is a distinction intelligent human beings can make between something being "bad", or "not fun", and when perhaps truly the game just isn't for them, and is actually very high quality (maybe they demand superfluous multiplayer components in their single-player games, which I find incredibly lame). Either that, or they're just the type of person who craves the attention that disagreeing with the consensus of such a massively loved product brings.

Yawn.

nope, i consider it one of the top 10 games I've played in a long time and prolly the best game ever made of a licensed character.

Hell no it's not "overrated". Easily one of the highest quality games I've played, period. People need to realize there is a distinction intelligent human beings can make between something being "bad", or "not fun", and when perhaps truly the game just isn't for them, and is actually very high quality (maybe they demand superfluous multiplayer components in their single-player games, which I find incredibly lame). Either that, or they're just the type of person who craves the attention that disagreeing with the consensus of such a massively loved product brings.

Yawn.

Jbul

Its a great game. Overrated? No. As good as Arkham Asylum? No.

Solid game, i give it 7.0

It's slightly overrated, still a decent game, but I by far thought Arkham Aslyum was the better game.lamprey263

Well considering that The Dark Knight is the most overrated film in history, it makes sense that a game based on the same character would be released and be equally overrated...Starshine_M2A2

Batman has been around since the 1930's so your attempted connection of the film to the game is tenuous and illogical.

Christopher Nolan's film is merely one very popular take on the mythos of Batman. The reason the film was so successful critically and commercially is because it was a strikingly accurate rendition made by an auteur director and buoyed considerably by a stellar cast of actors.

Arkham City likewise is a faithful rendition of the character ad mythos and if you find the character so unappealing then why bother playing the game or watching the film?

Once again a myopic perspective subverts rationale and balanced objectivism.

I would actually challenge anyone claiming Arkham Asylum as the superior game to put forth evidence of what the first game actually does better. And bear in mind I LOVE the original but this sequel clearly surpasses it in every way.

Like I stated earlier, I predicted this very thing and as foxhound mentioned it frankly reeks of people looking to be contrarian.

(I'm so hip because I don't like what everyone else does)

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]It's slightly overrated, still a decent game, but I by far thought Arkham Aslyum was the better game.foxhound_fox

Whoa buddy calm down. LOL his opinion is that he felt part one was better just like you feel AC is the better game. I feel the same way as him. We aren't saying AC was trash. I felt that AA had better pacing. AA was like playing a great Batman movie that had a start, beginning, and end. The pacing was fantastic. AC was like a the animated TV show, each episode had its own story and such. AA focus on Joker and everything that happened was created by the Joker. AC's focus on Strange wasn't as strong as the storyline in AA when it was about the Joker. It went from Strange to Joker back to Strange then back to Joker. It lacked a proper focus and the pacing was off because of that. Where AC shined was that, it WAS like the animated TV show because each side mission had its own little thing going on. That's not a bad thing--its just that I prefer the movie to the TV show. It just felt that AC had too much going on that it overshadowed the main storyline which in itself wasn't as good as AA. Everything else such as combat, riddler trophies, gadgets, was an improvement but let's face it its a slight improvement and basically felt a lot the same, which is a good thing but to say that its leaps and bounds beyond AA is an exaggeration. That's why I felt AA was the better game. My rating for these two games AA 9.0 and AC 8.5.

Okay. This is the thread I've been waiting for:

#1. I love this game. It is an excellent game. To date, I've racked up 34 hours and completed 1 plathrough(look me up on Raptr: El Zo1212o)

#2. I do feel it was overrated. Overrated in the sense of not deserving PERFECT scores across the board.

Now the things I'm bringing up here may be subjective, but the thread is asking for subjective opinions. Also, you may find my points insignificant or 'nitpicky', but several reviewers gave this game perfect scores. So without further ado:

#1. The story was 2 threads(3 if you include Catwoman's), but they spent so much time leading you from one villain cameo to the next that you lost much of the real sense of logical progression until each thread was abruptly hammered home in the last 30 minutes of the story.

#2. The map, all things considered, was generally kind of boring. Much of the map(excluding big complexes like the steel mill) looked the same and it was hard to figure out where you were without going to the map(not as huge an issue as it was in Red Dead, where you had three steps before the map appears, but still).

#3. The writing in some places was glaringly against the grain as far as what I expected from both Batman and a mature action game. That's mature as it's original meaning, not as in "M for Mature" which is obviously not the rating the game earned. "B****" was thrown around so frequently that I was getting sick of hearing it, and day to day I've never been shy of cursing, but this is Batman, y'know? It isn't that I take any kind of offense to the word(and I still don't buy into the 'but it's sexist!' talk, either), it's just that I expected more from the writing staff than "oh, let's have the criminals say 'b****' a lot, because they're badguys and they curse and stuff!" If you could only get away with using "b****" and "ass" and keep it rated "T", then write more variety into the insults, rather than reusing the one curse word you could get away with over and over again.

Finally, again, I love this game. El, Oh, Vee, Eee: LOVE it. But there are reasons for it not to have scored a perfect 100/100 rating from so many different sites.El_Zo1212o

I haven't actually finished the story (I'm taking my sweet time) but I'm not sure how much logical progression you expect to get out of a story based on a comic book that is set in an open world construct. From what I've played the story elements trump the vast majority of gaming narratives out there but progression is largely up to the player because of all the possibilities for exploration and side quests.

As to the map, it was large, included plenty of variety, and represented a very accurate depiction of Gotham in a virtual setting. I actually think the environments are quite varied and as somebody who plays just about every open-world game on the market I'd rank it as one of the better-designed maps I've encountered.

The curse word complaint seems very pedantic and overtly nitpicky. You also exaggerate the frequency of the word, as it generally gets hurled during the Catwoman segments. Ultimately, when the strongest complaint you can muster is that they developers should have included more variety to the profanity the thugs use, I'd say you're looking very hard to find ANYTHING to complain about.

Lastly, the "nothing is perfect argument" is tired and never had much merit to begin with. Nothing is perfect but if you employ a numerical scale then at some point it is logical to assume that certain games would end up getting ranked accordingly. A 10/10 doesn't necessarily mean the game is flawless but what it does suggest is there isn't much to complain about which, ironically, your own small nitpicks actually prove.

If this game isn't a ten I'd love to know what is.

Whoa buddy calm down. LOL his opinion is that he felt part one was better just like you feel AC is the better game. I feel the same way as him. We aren't saying AC was trash. I felt that AA had better pacing. AA was like playing a great Batman movie that had a start, beginning, and end. The pacing was fantastic. AC was like a the animated TV show, each episode had its own story and such. AA focus on Joker and everything that happened was created by the Joker. AC's focus on Strange wasn't as strong as the storyline in AA when it was about the Joker. It went from Strange to Joker back to Strange then back to Joker. It lacked a proper focus and the pacing was off because of that. Where AC shined was that, it WAS like the animated TV show because each side mission had its own little thing going on. That's not a bad thing--its just that I prefer the movie to the TV show. It just felt that AC had too much going on that it overshadowed the main storyline which in itself wasn't as good as AA. Everything else such as combat, riddler trophies, gadgets, was an improvement but let's face it its a slight improvement and basically felt a lot the same, which is a good thing but to say that its leaps and bounds beyond AA is an exaggeration. That's why I felt AA was the better game. My rating for these two games AA 9.0 and AC 8.5.

cdragon_88

Your logic falters because pacing is decided by the player in AC.

If you want the cohesive, uninterrupted narrative afforded by the more linear Arkham Asylum you can opt to stick to story missions. However, even Arkham Asylum gave plenty of room for exploration and back-tracking so arguing that it had better pacing is nonsensical. At best you could make the claim that Arkham Asylum is a more focused, smaller experience where by contrast AC utilizes an open-world construct that gives the player more freedom.

That isn't an issue of pacing but rather a design philosophy that grants the player broader agency.

Also, your talk of the switching of between Strange and the Joker has nothing to do with pacing. Those are narrative decisions and they have absolutely nothing to do with the pacing of the actual game. What it actually would appear to boil down to is that you preferred the story of the first game and that factor alone determined your preference for AA. You seem to ignore the fact that AC improves on literally every aspect of the first game while opening up the gameplay with a bevy of additions.

[QUOTE="cdragon_88"]

Whoa buddy calm down. LOL his opinion is that he felt part one was better just like you feel AC is the better game. I feel the same way as him. We aren't saying AC was trash. I felt that AA had better pacing. AA was like playing a great Batman movie that had a start, beginning, and end. The pacing was fantastic. AC was like a the animated TV show, each episode had its own story and such.AA focus on Joker and everything that happened was created by the Joker. AC's focus on Strange wasn't as strong as the storyline in AA when it was about the Joker. It went from Strange to Joker back to Strange then back to Joker. It lacked a proper focus and the pacing was off because of that. Where AC shined was that, it WAS like the animated TV show because each side mission had its own little thing going on. That's not a bad thing--its just that I prefer the movie to the TV show. It just felt that AC had too much going on that it overshadowed the main storyline which in itself wasn't as good as AA. Everything else such as combat, riddler trophies, gadgets, was an improvement but let's face it its a slight improvement and basically felt a lot the same, which is a good thing but to say that its leaps and bounds beyond AA is an exaggeration. That's why I felt AA was the better game. My rating for these two games AA 9.0 and AC 8.5.

Grammaton-Cleric

Your logic falters because pacing is decided by the player in AC.

If you want the cohesive, uninterrupted narrative afforded by the more linear Arkham Asylum you can opt to stick to story missions. However, even Arkham Asylum gave plenty of room for exploration and back-tracking so arguing that it had better pacing is nonsensical. At best you could make the claim that Arkham Asylum is a more focused, smaller experience where by contrast AC utilizes an open-world construct that gives the player more freedom.

That isn't an issue of pacing but rather a design philosophy that grants the player broader agency.

Also, your talk of the switching of between Strange and the Joker has nothing to do with pacing. Those are narrative decisions and they have absolutely nothing to do with the pacing of the actual game. What it actually would appear to boil down to is that you preferred the story of the first game and that factor alone determined your preference for AA. You seem to ignore the fact that AC improves on literally every aspect of the first game while opening up the gameplay with a bevy of additions.

Welp, to be honest I already answered most your arguments in my original post. :lol: BUT:

LOL that is what I claimedandYES that is why I felt the game was better than the AC--I prefer the movie feeling than the TV show feeling, which I stated in my previous post.

Trust me, my first playthrough was story missions only.The switching between Strange and Joker was a pacing issue. It's an issue because there is no "leading the the final moment". Like I said, it tried to do too much that it lost its focus, I didn't make it clear the first time but I'm also referring to the "story only" also. The focus of a storyline is the pacing. It is placing and doing events where there aren't too many highs, lows, distractions. I'm not sure what your definition is. Joker basically put it best when he said "Hope you didn't forget about me Bats!" on that monitor at the end.

Does this mean that your opinion is right and mine is wrong? I believe not. And no I never said you were wrong.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake325"]I'm going to be honest, I seriously do not care enough about this topic to take the time to come up with specific examples of why this game is inferior to other games. RandoIph

I bought the game day one and was really disappointed. I beat it and tried to go back and solve all of the riddles like I did in AA but it just wasn't fun. I thought the world was huge and open at first and then I realized how small it really was. I thought the story was diluted and way too short and the side missions just felt like fetch quests with the exception of the murder investigations. Plus the combat felt exactly the same as in the first one and was way too easy. In 2 days I beat the game solved all 12 side quests and about 65% of the riddles. I've since traded this in to best buy and got 45$ towards Skyrim. I would give this game a 7.5/10. I guess I'll wait for Uncharted 3 to come out. Does anyone else feel similar to me?

P. S. Please try to keep name calling/flaming/trolling to a minimum.

starwarsnut7591

I agree and disagree. The game was slightly dissapointing in my eyes. Amazing game but nowhere near what I was hoping for.

The main story felt like it went all over the place. Many characters seemed tossed in just to be there. Two Face was reduced to a little girl who got scratched and ran home to mommy.

The stealth segments felt uneven, I believe this to be because of the Suicide Collars, which were in there for the entire game and really slowed down progression, which ended up getting worse as the game went on because they then introduced goggles for the enemies and mines which only hampered the stealth sections even more so.

Arkham City felt mashed together, it didn't seem as cohesive. The Riddler trophies were fun to collect in Arkham Asylum, now you jump from pressure pad to pressure pad. Those are just annoying.

They took out the Riddles that would pop up entering a new area, you then had to go and try to find something that would answer the riddle and scan it. I loved that in Arkham Asylum but they completely tossed that out the window for Arkham City.

Also... no bat cave = FAIL!

All the chatter on your scanner as you're moving about the city just got way beyond annoying. Nobody can seem to shut up in that place.

Would I say the game is better than Arkham Asylum... no. Would I say the game is as good as Arkham Asylum... yes. They are both 9-9.5 games in my opinion.

Welp, to be honest I already answered most your arguments in my original post. :lol: BUT:

LOL that is what I claimedandYES that is why I felt the game was better than the AC--I prefer the movie feeling than the TV show feeling, which I stated in my previous post.

Trust me, my first playthrough was story missions only.The switching between Strange and Joker was a pacing issue. It's an issue because there is no "leading the the final moment". Like I said, it tried to do too much that it lost its focus, I didn't make it clear the first time but I'm also referring to the "story only" also. The focus of a storyline is the pacing. It is placing and doing events where there aren't too many highs, lows, distractions. I'm not sure what your definition is. Joker basically put it best when he said "Hope you didn't forget about me Bats!" on that monitor at the end.

Does this mean that your opinion is right and mine is wrong? I believe not. And no I never said you were wrong.

cdragon_88

It's not about right and wrong but rather taking a position that you can logically and astutely defend. People act like having an opinion is some sort of impenetrable shield that you can hide behind and claim "It's my opinion and an opinion can't be wrong."

That isn't entirely true.

Without an opinion that is informed and backed by something resembling coherent logic or clear evidence, said opinion is just words and wasted effort.

As to your position, you have apparently reduced an interactive game to the sum of its interactive parts; essentially your rubric for measuring these games is predicated entirely on the narrative with absolutely no emphasis on gameplay. While you can take such a position when critiquing AC, it's a weak angle, especially when considering how much improved the game mechanics actually are. To posit that AA is the superior game without even broaching the profound additions to AC makes for an inherently weak argument. It's the intellectual equivalent of me deriding an album based on the cover art without ever addressing the actual music within.

So yes, you are entitled to your opinion but that stated opinion, as you've presented it thus far, isn't something most people would consider particularly logical.

I would actually challenge anyone claiming Arkham Asylum as the superior game to put forth evidence of what the first game actually does better. And bear in mind I LOVE the original but this sequel clearly surpasses it in every way.

Like I stated earlier, I predicted this very thing and as foxhound mentioned it frankly reeks of people looking to be contrarian.

(I'm so hip because I don't like what everyone else does)

Grammaton-Cleric

I prefer Asylum, not because I want to be different but simply because I enjoyed the game more. City is the better game from a pure gameplay stand point, as the improved combat and flight mechanics are welcome additions, but personally I just preferred Asylum's narrative. I also have a soft spot for Scarecrow, so I was a little disappointed that his mask and a secret boat are the only two things concerning him in this game.

I'm not preferring Asylum to be contradictory to the popular belief, especially considering City is my favorite game this year.