Did anyone else think Arkham City was overrated?

Lol the fact that some of you guys are getting so defensive and apparently upset over differing opinions about a video game is making you look pathetic.Solid_Snake325

You might want to lay off tossing around pejoratives like pathetic when you are unable to even articulate why you feel the game is overrated.

You do realize that calling a game overrated but being unable to specifically delineate what about the game is overrated implies that you literally have no actual rationale for your opinion, which means that your opinion is entirely meritless when foisted upon the rest of us.

These aren't my rules either; we're talking argument, logic and rhetoric 101 here.

What I find pathetic is the contrarian culture of whiny cynics who deride quality because their puerile deconstruction makes them feel special and divergent. Again, I predicted this very thing when the reviews for this game started hitting the press and the reason I made the prediction is because the psychology of the contrarian is base and painfully easy to anticipate. Anything that garners praise gets labeled overrated and this pitiful cycle repeats to a point of nausea. People are so egocentric that they think if they don't specifically like something then it must be "overrated" when in actuality the game could very well be brilliant but not to their personal tastes.

What I find amusing is how no one calling this game overrated (a.k.a the vocal minority) has been able to offer a single cogent point or shred of evidence to support these inherently baseless claims. The closest they've come is a guy who would rather watch the story of a game than play it and thus predicates his entire platform of derision on this silly premise.

The onus is on the detractors because the positive consensus is well-defined and clearly justified where by glaring contrast those trying to knock this game off the pedestal are grasping feebly at straws. Generally I don't get lassoed into these types of debates but frankly, AC (and AA) are good enough to warrant a bit of a defense on my part.

Pissing on quality in general annoys me, especially when backed by vapidity and weak logic.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

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)

IndianaPwns39

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.

But you're not in here claiming that AC is the inferior game or that it is overrated. You are intelligent enough to recognize that objectively, AC is the better game but that you prefer AA because you enjoyed the more linear experience.

I respect that stance entirely and would never assume you were trying to be contrarian. Your argument isn't egocentric but rather well-defined and framed within a context that you recognize as applicable only to yourself.

None of those comments were aimed at you.

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.contracts420

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.contracts420

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.

contracts420

I've been reading Batman comics for years and Two Face's actions in the game are wholly in line with the character. He's radically unpredictable because of the two opposing forces within him warring at all times.

As to the number of villains, are we really using that as criteria to criticize? Too many villains and too much fan service is a bad thing now?

Go read something like The Long Halloween, where just about every major villain is actually in the same room at one point, and then tell me AC is strewn together haphazardly. This game is a pure injection of the Batman mythos brilliantly rendered in an interactive medium.

And the stealth in this game is fantastic and those additions you lament offer a greater challenge. In AA you were essentially invisible. In AC the stakes are higher and that's a good thing, unless you simply dislike challenge.

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

ffs the term "overrated" is getting annoying, just because you didn't like the game doesn't mean is "overrated", even the best game ever will have people that do not like it, if you are one of the few, well sucks for you, but when most people are loving it, it means is a great game, not "overrated" because a few didn't like it.

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 think the first one was better because it was so original, the world ,while being smaller, had more personality, the story was better and the riddles were fun. In AC the gameplay felt largely unchanged from AA, which made the combat very boring as I had just completed AA again before this game out. Another thing that bugged me was that in AC the riddles (not the trophies) were very hard to find based on just the clues where in AA I could read a clue look around the building I was in and find the solution. In AC I just look for the square on the map fly there and scan the obvious object. And to people call this the pinnacle of action adventure games, Uncharted 2 has that honor with 3 in a close second. AC has action but not adventure. Uncharted has action, adventure, romance, crazy set pieces and top notch writing. You can call me a fanboy if you want. But maybe the fat that I'm comparing this to uncharted is what is making this game so boring to me. I still think this game deserves an 8 or 8.5, just not 9s and 10s.

Also the Uncharted games have PERFECT pacing.

Lol the fact that some of you guys are getting so defensive and apparently upset over differing opinions about a video game is making you look pathetic.Solid_Snake325

I'm take a second to say that I am really glad this thread is staying civil and everyone is being respectful for the most part. That's rare on the internet.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

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.

But you're not in here claiming that AC is the inferior game or that it is overrated. You are intelligent enough to recognize that objectively, AC is the better game but that you prefer AA because you enjoyed the more linear experience.

I respect that stance entirely and would never assume you were trying to be contrarian. Your argument isn't egocentric but rather well-defined and framed within a context that you recognize as applicable only to yourself.

None of those comments were aimed at you.

I know. I'm just saying that there are a few of us that loved both but just preferred Asylum :)

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

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)

starwarsnut7591

I think the first one was better because it was so original, the world ,while being smaller, had more personality, the story was better and the riddles were fun. In AC the gameplay felt largely unchanged from AA, which made the combat very boring as I had just completed AA again before this game out. Another thing that bugged me was that in AC the riddles (not the trophies) were very hard to find based on just the clues where in AA I could read a clue look around the building I was in and find the solution. In AC I just look for the square on the map fly there and scan the obvious object. And to people call this the pinnacle of action adventure games, Uncharted 2 has that honor with 3 in a close second. AC has action but not adventure. Uncharted has action, adventure, romance, crazy set pieces and top notch writing. You can call me a fanboy if you want. But maybe the fat that I'm comparing this to uncharted is what is making this game so boring to me. I still think this game deserves an 8 or 8.5, just not 9s and 10s.

I would argue the opposite in regard to Uncharted and Batman. Uncharted has action, but no adventure. You don't actually get to explore anything. In the Arkham games, you actually get to explore and navigate for progression making it an actual adventure game. In games like Arkham asylum, Metroid, and zelda you actually get to live out the physical act of adventureing. In Uncharted, the story tells you that there is an adventure, but you don't get to live it. The narrative does the adventuring and you deal with the action parts.

What I find pathetic is the conformatarian culture of giddy fanboys who praise mediocrity because their puerile congregation makes them feel like they belong. Again, I predicted this very thing when the previews for this game started hitting the press and the reason I made the prediction is because the psychology of the fanboy is base and painfully easy to anticipate. Anything that garners praise gets defended to the death and this pitiful cycle repeats to a point of nausea. People are so egocentric that they think if they actually do specifically like something then it must be "PERFECT 10," when in actuality the game could very well be an 8/9 but just caters to their personal tastes.Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="starwarsnut7591"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

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)

Pikminmaniac

I think the first one was better because it was so original, the world ,while being smaller, had more personality, the story was better and the riddles were fun. In AC the gameplay felt largely unchanged from AA, which made the combat very boring as I had just completed AA again before this game out. Another thing that bugged me was that in AC the riddles (not the trophies) were very hard to find based on just the clues where in AA I could read a clue look around the building I was in and find the solution. In AC I just look for the square on the map fly there and scan the obvious object. And to people call this the pinnacle of action adventure games, Uncharted 2 has that honor with 3 in a close second. AC has action but not adventure. Uncharted has action, adventure, romance, crazy set pieces and top notch writing. You can call me a fanboy if you want. But maybe the fat that I'm comparing this to uncharted is what is making this game so boring to me. I still think this game deserves an 8 or 8.5, just not 9s and 10s.

I would argue the opposite in regard to Uncharted and Batman. Uncharted has action, but no adventure. You don't actually get to explore anything. In the Arkham games, you actually get to explore and navigate for progression making it an actual adventure game. In games like Arkham asylum, Metroid, and zelda you actually get to live out the physical act of adventureing. In Uncharted, the story tells you that there is an adventure, but you don't get to live it. The narrative does the adventuring and you deal with the action parts.

I should have said sense of adventure. All of the globetrotting makes it feel like a grandiose adventure. And the amazing graphics really fill you with a sense of wonder.

[QUOTE="contracts420"]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.foxhound_fox

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.contracts420

Well you appear to have insulted me. I very much enjoy stealth games. I am a HUGE Splinter Cell fan. I think it's a great series excluding Conviction which I believe should have been a new I.P entirely (still a great game in its own right though) but in Arkham Asylum I very much enjoyed the flow of the game. The pacing of the main narritive was near perfect in my point of view.

The stealth sections just felt faster paced, which I am fine with slow paced stealth much like Splinter Cell 1-Double Agent. But once taking out an enemy I would be subject to sitting/hiding somewhere and waiting a minute or two for the enemies to scatter away from eachother. Which I personally felt that it hurt the overall flow of the stealth segments in the game. Disagree if you will but I have my opinion and I have given good reason for my opinion regardless if you share it or not.

The Riddler trophies in Arkham Asylum were just fun to get, all you had to do was explore and find a way to the trophy. My issue with (not all) some of the Riddler trophies in Arkham City is the pressure pads. That is my only issue with that. I find those to be extremely annoying and overly used. You may enjoy those but I personally do not.

Maybe the riddles at the top of the screen do pop up in Arkham City but I have yet to notice them even though I have went through the main storyline and a few side missions.I will be sure to check into this. Would be great if you could point me in the right direction to find one of these Riddles though. Because as I have stated... I love solving those riddles.

[QUOTE="contracts420"]

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.

Grammaton-Cleric

I've been reading Batman comics for years and Two Face's actions in the game are wholly in line with the character. He's radically unpredictable because of the two opposing forces within him warring at all times.

As to the number of villains, are we really using that as criteria to criticize? Too many villains and too much fan service is a bad thing now?

Go read something like The Long Halloween, where just about every major villain is actually in the same room at one point, and then tell me AC is strewn together haphazardly. This game is a pure injection of the Batman mythos brilliantly rendered in an interactive medium.

And the stealth in this game is fantastic and those additions you lament offer a greater challenge. In AA you were essentially invisible. In AC the stakes are higher and that's a good thing, unless you simply dislike challenge.

Two-Face is one of my favourite villians. To see him come and go within minutes from a cat scratch was just insulting to the character in my eyes. He posed no threat. I was hoping the character would get more screen time and a boss battle. But that did not happen. Maybe you are fine with it but I am not. I might come to change my mind once the next Batman is released depending on what they do with him in future games. But until then my thoughts on Two-Face in the game will stand.

I do have an issue with so many villians. Not so much for side missions but for the main storyline. Can't really get in depth for this considering I may possibly spoil some of the game for others which I do not wish to do.

I do not mind a challenge but I thought they would balance it out. The way they did in Arkham Asylum. In some cases the stealth was easier and others they would toss in the suicide collars. I did not expect them to mess with the pacing and add the suicide collars to EVERY single stealth segment. Then to top that off add in mines and goggles. I explained my issue with this earlier.

But regardless of what I say you will try to pick it apart. I enjoy Arkham City as much as I enjoyed Arkham Asylum, no more, no less. Like I said... I believe both games are worth a 9 to a 9.5

I do not mind a challenge but I thought they would balance it out. The way they did in Arkham Asylum. In some cases the stealth was easier and others they would toss in the suicide collars. I did not expect them to mess with the pacing and add the suicide collars to EVERY single stealth segment. Then to top that off add in mines and goggles. I explained my issue with this earlier. contracts420

[QUOTE="contracts420"]

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.

Grammaton-Cleric

I've been reading Batman comics for years and Two Face's actions in the game are wholly in line with the character. He's radically unpredictable because of the two opposing forces within him warring at all times.

As to the number of villains, are we really using that as criteria to criticize? Too many villains and too much fan service is a bad thing now?

Go read something like The Long Halloween, where just about every major villain is actually in the same room at one point, and then tell me AC is strewn together haphazardly. This game is a pure injection of the Batman mythos brilliantly rendered in an interactive medium.

And the stealth in this game is fantastic and those additions you lament offer a greater challenge. In AA you were essentially invisible. In AC the stakes are higher and that's a good thing, unless you simply dislike challenge.

Arkham City is an incredible achievement, and if anything I consider it to be underrated (just as AA was). Never have I seen a game that's various elements come together so well. I keep hearing people say that these games get more credit than they deserve because they are good superhero games, and that without the Batman label it wouldn't get nearlyso much attention. I totally disagree, they are amazing games irrespective of the universe they take place in. The attention to detail, the level of polish, the combat engine, voice acting, music, the flawless controls. There are flaws, but they are so minor compared to what's done right.

Arkham Asylum and City deserve all the accolades they garner.

[QUOTE="cdragon_88"]

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.

Grammaton-Cleric

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.

Do i really have to quote and repeat myself a third time? (sigh) AA=good storyline/good gameplay. AC=bad storyline/good gameplay. Here's my quote......again,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. Those are your "additions" and your "additions" did not do much new for the game to say its just so much better than AA. Aside from being able to beat up enemies whenever you want now its nothing new in the gameplay department that makes it better. Having enemies to beat when possible has nothing to do with "great gameplay" nor does being able to fly around the city or the idea of an open-world. Flying around with nothing to do and beating up bad guys for no reason does not make a game better. So let me say this againEverything 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.----THIS IS THE GAMEPLAY argument that it did not change much to merit it as up and beyond AA. So again,AA=good storyline/good gameplay. AC=bad storyline/good gameplay.

Also the Uncharted games have PERFECT pacing.

starwarsnut7591

Grammaton-Cleric, you've got a serious attitude problem, mate. Not just your egotistical, arrogant and offensive posts on this thread but judging from the blogs on your profile, I'd say you've got real issues and some kind of personal axe to grind with the users on this forum. The problem is that your points are enforced with such ferocity and aggression about a topic as unimportant to the wider scheme of things as 'Batman' that your credibility goes completely out of the window. Both your blogs and your posts suggest that you believe every other user to be beneath you and unworthy of an opinion. Apart from the obvious problems with such a viewpoint, you are forgetting that this is a forum and its very purpose is for people to express their opinion regardless of how you might feel about it. Simply feeling that they are wrong does not make it so. You come across as an intelligent guy out of university or college. If that's the case, you should have been taught about the value of debate - to accept other people's point of view while making your own in order to achieve a wider knowledge about said subject. So, take it easy and accept that people's opinions differ from your own.Starshine_M2A2

Actually, I've kept my arguments rooted in the issue at hand but here you are, attacking my character while mustering up the audacity to lecture me on the methodology and value of debate.

And I'm the one with the problem?

What I have done (and will continue to do) is point out that unsupported opinions are meaningless. If a person wants to deride something and go against the grain of documented and well supported consensus the onus remains squarely on them to prove their postulation. That's argument 101.

The rest of your psycho-babble profiling is a waste of my time and yours. I do hold poor logic and weak argumentation in contempt and I also have zero respect for those who rally against something merely because it is popular. I'm always up for healthy debate and my contributions to discussion on this forum are innumerable and well known so you'll pardon me if I am unimpressed with your personal attack.

Let me know if you want to stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand because I'm more than happy to do so.

Mate.

Do i really have to quote and repeat myself a third time? (sigh) AA=good storyline/good gameplay. AC=bad storyline/good gameplay. Here's my quote......again,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. Those are your "additions" and your "additions" did not do much new for the game to say its just so much better than AA. Aside from being able to beat up enemies whenever you want now its nothing new in the gameplay department that makes it better. Having enemies to beat when possible has nothing to do with "great gameplay" nor does being able to fly around the city or the idea of an open-world. Flying around with nothing to do and beating up bad guys for no reason does not make a game better. So let me say this againEverything 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.----THIS IS THE GAMEPLAY argument that it did not change much to merit it as up and beyond AA. So again,AA=good storyline/good gameplay. AC=bad storyline/good gameplay.

cdragon_88

By what measurement do you consider the changes to Arkham City "slight'?

The gliding, grappling and open world additions are massive changes to the core gameplay. AA took place almost entirely indoors where by contrast this game gives the player an entire city to explore along with indoor environments. They've clearly extrapolated on the sandbox feel of the first in such a way as to emulate the feel of Batman as he prowls Gotham and yet you would have us believe such a change to the construct is slight.

You also fallaciously claim that the only major addition to this open world is the ability to beat up thugs when in actuality the game delivers all manner of side missions, investigations, and challenges. Again, regardless of your personal feelings, those are some hefty additions.

Then there is the issue of the massively improved boss battles, which was one of the weakest components of the first game. The boss battles in AC are varied and some downright epic in a scope and execution. These battles eclipse what was contained in the first game, which generally had weak bosses save the Scarecrow levels . Again, that is more than a "slight" improvement.

The addition to the arsenal and the tweaks to existing gadgets such as the line launcher are also significant improvements. The smoke pellets alone change the dynamics of the stealth game, as does the weapon-disarm tech.

The combat has been overhauled considerably, with multi-counters, quick-use gadgets, environmental attacks, blade-dodging and the beat-down mechanic, all of which add significant depth and variety to the engine. You also get to play entire segments as Catwoman along with the ability to use her in challenge rooms and her character plays radically different than Batman.

I would actually argue the story is better though, like I mentioned earlier, I'm still playing through it. The thing about story is that the response to it is purely subjective, which was my earlier point. By contrast, the improvements to the game play are vast and cannot be downplayed or marginalized. Even if you were to make the argument that the story in AA was superior, AC is still the better game because the game play is much improved.

I entirely respect your feelings that AA has the better story, even though I disagree. However, from an objective standpoint, AC is still the better game because of the laundry list of improvements and additions. Your analysis of these changes and tweaks seems a tad superficial considering just how many more options in gameplay those changes have facilitated.

[QUOTE="contracts420"]I do not mind a challenge but I thought they would balance it out. The way they did in Arkham Asylum. In some cases the stealth was easier and others they would toss in the suicide collars. I did not expect them to mess with the pacing and add the suicide collars to EVERY single stealth segment. Then to top that off add in mines and goggles. I explained my issue with this earlier. Well_Comma

Your assessment of the stealth as shallow is perplexing, since many of the complaints you make regarding this series could just as easily be leveled at every other stealth game made. (And like you I've played my fair share)

I would actually rank AA and AC stealth near the apex of the genre. I do agree that the move from stealth room to fighting room in the original game was a bit formulaic but AC actually does a good job of lessening that type of linear progression and it also implements a much broader variety in regards to the environments when utilizing stealth mechanics.

Your accusations that the stealth is trial and error also mystifies, since the same could just as easily be said about the Splinter Cell and Metal Gear games. Splinter Cell in particular has always been heavily reliant upon trial and error. In actuality, the numerous options in AC give you the opportunity to escape after detection much easier than in most other stealth games so it can be argued it is inherently less trial-and-error than the other titles you mention.

You also take aim at the enemy AI in Batman but I would argue it is superior in many ways, specifically in how enemies actually respond emotionally and erratically to their ranks being thinned. I also think your proclamation that the stealth is shallow is entirely nonsensical given the sheer plethora of options and tactics that can be used when taking down a room full of thugs. This deft combination of subterfuge, theatrics and technology has actually been increased significantly in AC and the variety and options afforded to the player are staggering.

As to combat, comparing a game like this to a game dedicated to combat doesn't make much sense. Even less logical is your allusion to Onimusha, which is not only an action game but a very old action game with tank controls and (relatively) shallow combat. It's just a bizarre comparison that carries zero weight when talking about this particular franchise.

You do bring up an interesting point about Batman not blocking and that was actually a very shrewd decision on the part of the developer. The free-flow combat in this franchise is among the best melee engines I've ever played and the decision to not allow Batman to block is predicated upon the contextual understanding of who this character is and how he chooses to battle his enemies.

Batman generally doesn't block but rather counters and blasts through his opponents because of his highly conditioned reflexes and superior martial arts skills. He fights in the game the way he generally fights in the comics and the films because at his level of skill, avoidance and countering is analogous with his abilities and it also makes sense within the context of the types of fights he engages in. Standing there and blocking when surrounded by a dozen thugs (literally) wouldn't make strategic sense. Instead he is constantly moving using a flurry of powerful attacks, counters and acrobatic evasions to mow down a legion of adversaries.

It's how Batman is supposed to fight.

I do take issue with your complaints claiming the combat is imprecise. I've logged countless hours playing the combat rooms and there isn't anything imprecise about any of it. When I take a hit for any reason it is entirely my fault because when I'm in the proverbial zone I become untouchable during combat. Go take a look at some of the high scores or the Youtube videos for further evidence of the malleability, flexibility and precision of the combat. It may not be as deep as something like DMC, GodHand or Ninja Gaiden but it's still got plenty to offer.

I think the first one was better because it was so original, the world ,while being smaller, had more personality, the story was better and the riddles were fun. In AC the gameplay felt largely unchanged from AA, which made the combat very boring as I had just completed AA again before this game out. Another thing that bugged me was that in AC the riddles (not the trophies) were very hard to find based on just the clues where in AA I could read a clue look around the building I was in and find the solution. In AC I just look for the square on the map fly there and scan the obvious object. And to people call this the pinnacle of action adventure games, Uncharted 2 has that honor with 3 in a close second. AC has action but not adventure. Uncharted has action, adventure, romance, crazy set pieces and top notch writing. You can call me a fanboy if you want. But maybe the fat that I'm comparing this to uncharted is what is making this game so boring to me. I still think this game deserves an 8 or 8.5, just not 9s and 10s.

starwarsnut7591

I like the Uncharted series quite a bit. I own both games and I will be nabbing 3 this week.

That understood, I could very easily make the claim U2 is overrated.

But why bother?

It's a great game, the critics and fans love it, and it deserves plenty of praise.

Did I find it as personally gratifying as others?

Nope.

But why tear down something just because I don't like it as much as you? That isn't to say some things are not genuinely overrated but Uncharted 2 is a quality games and merely because I think the huge amounts of 9's and 10's it scored is excessive doesn't mean I need to foist that opinion onto everyone else. The only reason to do that is to try and deflate the enthusiasm of others as some sort of salve to numb my own feeling of marginalization.

And to be entirely honest, I have done this type of thing in the past and in retrospect I regret it immensely.

Who the hell am I to try and kill other people's enthusiasm?

You could have just as easily made these comments in the AC Official thread but you wanted to make a statement that would garner your divergent opinion the attention of the minority that agrees with you along with the majority who do not. You also keep comparing this game to Uncharted 3 which comes off as borderline trolling. (Though for the record I don't think that was your intent)

You didn't like the game so move on. But when you make these types of comments public, expect a passionate response from those of us who disagree.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Wow, there's absolutely no point in making specific arguments against you anyway, because your fanboy nature will cause you to refute every single point made against your precious batman game.

Solid_Snake325

Fandom is merely another label for enthusiasm, though usually employed for the sake of a negative generalization.

I am a very enthusiastic person and unlike many of the people who populate message boards I don't find gratification in the constant proliferation of negative, nitpicky and pseudo-critical analysis that has become the vernacular of the Internet. That isn't to say I'm not open to healthy and robust debate but what I see posted far too often are shallow, uniformed comments and critiques filled with logical fallacies, overt subjectivism, and ridiculously inconsistent double-standards that eschew all logic.

And yes, I love this game just as I loved the original. I've been playing games for three decades and I consider this to be one of the best games I've ever played. It is a perfect encapsulation of the mythos delivered in a fully interactive form and there is very little I can find wrong with it. You will also note there isn't much anyone else can seem to fault either.

It's one of the few games I would expend such effort defending and also one of the only games I think warrants such broad and sweeping critical acclaim.

...What I have done (and will continue to do) is point out that unsupported opinions are meaningless...Grammaton-Cleric

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.

Grammaton-Cleric

An "8" suggests that there isn't much to complain about. A "9" states very clearly that you'd be hard-pressed to find something wrong with the game. A "10" states in no uncertain terms that there is nothing anyone could possibly(much less 'reasonably') find wrong with it.

Grammaton-Cleric, you've got a serious attitude problem, mate. Not just your egotistical, arrogant and offensive posts on this thread but judging from the blogs on your profile, I'd say you've got real issues and some kind of personal axe to grind with the users on this forum. The problem is that your points are enforced with such ferocity and aggression about a topic as unimportant to the wider scheme of things as 'Batman' that your credibility goes completely out of the window. Both your blogs and your posts suggest that you believe every other user to be beneath you and unworthy of an opinion. Apart from the obvious problems with such a viewpoint, you are forgetting that this is a forum and its very purpose is for people to express their opinion regardless of how you might feel about it. Simply feeling that they are wrong does not make it so. You come across as an intelligent guy out of university or college. If that's the case, you should have been taught about the value of debate - to accept other people's point of view while making your own in order to achieve a wider knowledge about said subject. So, take it easy and accept that people's opinions differ from your own.Starshine_M2A2

Also a 10 doesn't mean the game is flawless ^^^^ a 10 means its almost a perfect game. every game has flaws and its mentioned in the reviews but these flaws are not enough to not enough to reduce the score so it gets a 10.TheGuardian03

This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.Gamespot

no I dont, never have I played a game with such a rich, detailed world, AND that has not only an amazing combat system, but also amazing stealh

combine the intoxicating dark, gothic, comic book atmopshere and the sheer variety in takedowns and strike combinations and you have a near masterpeice

but in the pantheon of great games , like really great games like AC then there always gonna be some people who thinks its overrated, and they will always make their voice heard

but hey its an opinion, doesnt matter its just TC deosnt feel as many other s do

Also a 10 doesn't mean the game is flawless ^^^^ a 10 means its almost a perfect game. every game has flaws and its mentioned in the reviews but these flaws are not enough to not enough to reduce the score so it gets a 10.TheGuardian03

...but hey its an opinion, doesnt matter its just [some people don't]-El Z. feel as many other s dogillri

This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.Gamespot

I didn't go to Internet Forum Lawschool, so I don't know what an Ad Hominem is, but I will say that Gram(if I can call him that) has basically gone through each post and beaten them down with his superior vocabulary while basically calling any points they make meaningless. I applaud anyone for their wordiness, but his only purpose appears to be cutting bad arguments to shreds and dismissing good arguments("good" and "bad" meaning "valid" and "invalid" respectively) as unworthy of being arguments. If he addressed each post as a dialogue instead of viewing them as a challenge to render it devoid of validity, he might be getting more goodwill from the folks who, thus far, have been remarkably civil for participants in an internet debate.El_Zo1212o

A 9.5 or a 9.8 is "almost perfect." A 10 is indisputably PERFECT. That is why it is the top of the scale.TheGuardian03

Finally, "Flawless" is precisely what a ten-of-ten score means. A "10" states in no uncertain terms that there is nothing anyone could possibly(much less 'reasonably') find wrong with it.

I don't know any Tens, I've never played one.El_Zo1212o

but hey its an opinion, doesnt matter its just TC deosnt feel as many other s dogillri

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]I didn't go to Internet Forum Lawschool, so I don't know what an Ad Hominem is, but I will say that Gram(if I can call him that) has basically gone through each post and beaten them down with his superior vocabulary while basically calling any points they make meaningless. I applaud anyone for their wordiness, but his only purpose appears to be cutting bad arguments to shreds and dismissing good arguments("good" and "bad" meaning "valid" and "invalid" respectively) as unworthy of being arguments. If he addressed each post as a dialogue instead of viewing them as a challenge to render it devoid of validity, he might be getting more goodwill from the folks who, thus far, have been remarkably civil for participants in an internet debate.foxhound_fox

A 9.5 or a 9.8 is "almost perfect." A 10 is indisputably PERFECT. That is why it is the top of the scale.El_Zo1212o

And as far as that paradox, no game would earn a ten because no game is ever legitimately perfect. Would Batman have earned that 9.9 or 9.8 if the ten were truly unattainable? Yes. Because like others have said, it is "almost perfect."El_Zo1212o

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Finally, "Flawless" is precisely what a ten-of-ten score means. A "10" states in no uncertain terms that there is nothing anyone could possibly(much less 'reasonably') find wrong with it.

I don't know any Tens, I've never played one.RandoIph

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]And as far as that paradox, no game would earn a ten because no game is ever legitimately perfect. Would Batman have earned that 9.9 or 9.8 if the ten were truly unattainable? Yes. Because like others have said, it is "almost perfect."RandoIph