Did anyone else think Arkham City was overrated?

El_Zo1212o, the quote featurewas acting odd so here's my response:

Logical progression of a story depends on the point of view and the context of said story. Arkham City is just that: a massive asylum housing just about every lunatic Batman has defeated over the years. When you set the story in such a place you expect there to be plenty of villain cameos and there is a well-established precedent within the comics for that very type type of narrative structure. (There is a critically acclaimed Arkham Asylum comic from the late 80's that these games have clearly drawn inspiration from)

As to the Hugo Strange/Joker issue, I can't fully decide on that until I have completed the game but based on my progression the story seems pretty straightforward and a classic slice of Batman mythos. Many of the villains in the Batman universe collaborate but they also have their own agendas. Strange is an opportunistic egomaniac who has used the events at Arkham Asylum to create his own sovereign slice of Gotham but within that construct there exists some of the world's most dangerous criminals and they are working independently of his goals. Clearly both Strange and the Joker are integral parts of the story and, at least thus far, there doesn't seem to be much confusion on how their respective storylines are intertwined. There is no rule that a story must only have one main villain and the mixture of a brilliant psychoanalyst and a homicidal lunatic, both of whom are (historically) obsessed with breaking Batman, is a pretty compelling narrative.

Also, despite your protest, I do think the open world nature of this game makes the story feel more fragmented. I think that happens with all open world games to some extent.

I stand by my assessment of the open world map in this game being large. Never, at any point, did I state it was the largest. Your allusion to something like Just Cause 2 is pointless because that is among the largest gaming worlds ever constructed and is also an entirely different type of game. As open world games go I'll be the first to concede that Arkham City is small when compared to some of the more expansive sandboxes but on its own merits and given the type of experience offered, it's quite large. Even when you compare it to something like Assassin's Creed, which technically occupies more real estate, Arkham City holds up well because so much of the interior is accessible and labyrinthine, something not true for most sandbox titles.

The 10/10 meaning flawless is a hotly contested point of debate. Logically, if you are going to utilize a numerical rubric from one-to-ten then the expectation is that a ten is achievable. The notion of perfection is entirely abstract and most sites clarify that a ten score does not necessarily mean a game is flawless.

Personally, I think the game is about as close to perfection as possible but that is ultimately heading off into philosophical territory. From an objective viewpoint the game is technically proficient, masterfully crafted, graphically and aesthetically sublime and layered with a thick sheen of polish.

If we concede (and perhaps you don't) that the full spectrum of the numerical score can be applied, then I think a 10 is justified for something of this quality.

That you have never played a ten has more to do with your own personal ideologies and methodologies than the actual quality of a game. (Or lack thereof) Games can be scored objectively and while I'm not asserting that subjective response isn't important I don't subscribe to the notion that all components of gaming are purely subjective.

I wanted to address one issue:

There is no attitude. I am using cold logic in this discussion, period. If that comes off as icy then so be it but there are well-documented explanations and parameters of what constitutes logical argumentation versus fallacy and emotionally-infused diatribes. I have been personally attacked but if you read my arguments I have never diverged from my explicitly delineated points and I have continued to defend those points with evidence, examples, etc.

In my experience logic pisses some people off, especially when you turn their inherently weak arguments into confetti. Pointing out that someone's argument is weak or highlighting the fact that they haven't even bothered to mount a viable argument is not intended to be nasty but is rather a cornerstone of argumentation and rhetoric.

I will also point out (as foxhound has already done) that I have been personally attacked even while maintaining a distance from such behavior myself. I too have resorted to such tactics in the past and in my own quest to become a more logical person I have learned to avoid such fallacious pitfalls.

I attack arguments, not people. If you can't handle that you shouldn't enter a debate space.

El_Zo1212o, the quote featurewas acting odd so here's my response:

Logical progression of a story depends on the point of view and the context of said story. Arkham City is just that: a massive asylum housing just about every lunatic Batman has defeated over the years. When you set the story in such a place you expect there to be plenty of villain cameos and there is a well-established precedent within the comics for that very type type of narrative structure. (There is a critically acclaimed Arkham Asylum comic from the late 80's that these games have clearly drawn inspiration from)

As to the Hugo Strange/Joker issue, I can't fully decide on that until I have completed the game but based on my progression the story seems pretty straightforward and a classic slice of Batman mythos. Many of the villains in the Batman universe collaborate but they also have their own agendas. Strange is an opportunistic egomaniac who has used the events at Arkham Asylum to create his own sovereign slice of Gotham but within that construct there exists some of the world's most dangerous criminals and they are working independently of his goals. Clearly both Strange and the Joker are integral parts of the story and, at least thus far, there doesn't seem to be much confusion on how their respective storylines are intertwined. There is no rule that a story must only have one main villain and the mixture of a brilliant psychoanalyst and a homicidal lunatic, both of whom are (historically) obsessed with breaking Batman, is a pretty compelling narrative.

Also, despite your protest, I do think the open world nature of this game makes the story feel more fragmented. I think that happens with all open world games to some extent.

I stand by my assessment of the open world map in this game being large. Never, at any point, did I state it was the largest. Your allusion to something like Just Cause 2 is pointless because that is among the largest gaming worlds ever constructed and is also an entirely different type of game. As open world games go I'll be the first to concede that Arkham City is small when compared to some of the more expansive sandboxes but on its own merits and given the type of experience offered, it's quite large. Even when you compare it to something like Assassin's Creed, which technically occupies more real estate, Arkham City holds up well because so much of the interior is accessible and labyrinthine, something not true for most sandbox titles.

The 10/10 meaning flawless is a hotly contested point of debate. Logically, if you are going to utilize a numerical rubric from one-to-ten then the expectation is that a ten is achievable. The notion of perfection is entirely abstract and most sites clarify that a ten score does not necessarily mean a game is flawless.

Personally, I think the game is about as close to perfection as possible but that is ultimately heading off into philosophical territory. From an objective viewpoint the game is technically proficient, masterfully crafted, graphically and aesthetically sublime and layered with a thick sheen of polish.

If we concede (and perhaps you don't) that the full spectrum of the numerical score can be applied, then I think a 10 is justified for something of this quality.

That you have never played a ten has more to do with your own personal ideologies and methodologies than the actual quality of a game. (Or lack thereof) Games can be scored objectively and while I'm not asserting that subjective response isn't important I don't subscribe to the notion that all components of gaming are purely subjective.

Grammaton-Cleric

except the fellow wasn't addressing the argument at hand- he only suggested(perhaps rudely) that Grammaton Cleric's attitude wasn't conducive to meaningful discussion(at least that's what I took from it, even if he may not have meant exactly that).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." People seem to think that my points, insignificant as some may(rightly or not) see them, lead me to call the game 'overrated.' Perhaps it isn't correct to say I think "it is overrated" as much as I think "some reviewers rated it too highly." Out of 65 reviews on Metacritic, 20 of them gave it a perfect score. That is what I disagree with.El_Zo1212o

I'd say this is food for thought, in fact I was just about to, but then I remembered that regardless of my opinion and how it's presented and perceived in this thread, I do love this game. I also dig your presentation when your not stomping folks with your superior intellect. When you finish the game I'd be extremely interested in hearing your take on the ending in the spoiler thread I linked in a previous comment.

El_Zo1212o

Thanks for the intelligent discourse. Also kudos to the Just Cause 2 reference, another one of my favorite games.

And I really don't mean to "stomp out" people so much as illogical argumentation. Your arguments were never illogical, just subjective and you also have the intelligence to support your opinion.

The outcome of most good debates isn't concession but rather a friendly stalemate where both sides acknowledge they gave the other a good battle.

And yes, I'd love to share my final thoughts on this game when I finally finish the story.

played the first one, but probably wont play the sequel for a long while.

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 could glide in and grapple in AA. They tweaked it in AC so whats your point? Again just because its open world doesn't mean its better. So wheres this major improvement of yours?

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

We had side missions in AA, it was called Riddler trophies which are your "challenges". Which means that the challenges are the riddler trophies. So bascially its riddles plus the side missions. Side missions are a addition to the riddler challenges and they are a small addition. I could argue for how weak they are but how can I when you havent beat the game yet to know that its pretty weak. It's a small addition because they provide no depth for these side characters unless you read their story just like in AA. It's like taking on Zsasz in AA but do it more to different villains. Aside from the Riddler himself all other side missions were pretty weak. Riddler himself and by itself wouldn't be called major improvements.

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.

Adding new boss means adding new tactics to take them down. The boss's were varied in AA, each boss was beat with different tactics just like AC. I don't see how the boss in AC was way better than the first other than that they added new tactics that we could have done in AA.

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.

Again, its a tweak, I don't see how that makes it a large improvement. Stealth with smoke pellets? Smoke pellets have nothing to do with the stealth. They are used to A: escape B: provide cover so the enemies can't see you so you can take them down, they still know your there. Stealth still involves sneaking for stealth takedowns--which was in AA. Weapon-disarm is an addition to help the player because of the increase in guns in AC, it doesn't overhaul anything to make it a major addition or large improvements. There are three types of disarm, Grapple disarm and combat disarm and gadget disarm, all are refinements not groundbreaking. Play this game on hard, weapons respawn pretty easily for enemies--which means you still have to use the stealth mechanics AA already had, meaning these weapon disarm and smoke pellets are used only seldomly when you really need it.

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.

Counters is a tweak from AA's already great combat system, its not a major overhaul. Are you telling me this tweak makes AC a major addition? All your other points are the same as the multi-counters--they are tweaks to AA's already great combat system. AA and AC's combat is largely the same save for these small additions. They make the combat more fun and it adds more depth but not significant depth to an already outstaninding combat system. You haven't beat the game yet, how can I argue how weak catwoman's role is in the game? She could've been a NPC and still the game would be the same. She does play differently from Batman, but so did the joker in AA when you used him for the challenge maps. This means this new character control and moves were already done in AA, its nothing new and major.

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.

You basically answered your own arguement.

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.

I respect your feelings and such. However, I still feel these changes aren't "leaps and bounds" above AA. It's basically the same, with the exception of some tweaks. So again AA has great gameplay and story while AC has great gamplay if not almost the same with a weaker story.

Grammaton-Cleric

I beat this game twice on hard mode and collected almost every single trophie/camera/lion heads/harley heads/question marks/etc save for a few because I didn't feel like going back to Wonder City after an interrogation revealed more items and I didn't feel like I should go and earn those combat trophies. After those I'd be done with everything.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

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 could glide in and grapple in AA. They tweaked it in AC so whats your point? Again just because its open world doesn't mean its better. So wheres this major improvement of yours?

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

We had side missions in AA, it was called Riddler trophies which are your "challenges". Which means that the challenges are the riddler trophies. So bascially its riddles plus the side missions. Side missions are a addition to the riddler challenges and they are a small addition. I could argue for how weak they are but how can I when you havent beat the game yet to know that its pretty weak. It's a small addition because they provide no depth for these side characters unless you read their story just like in AA. It's like taking on Zsasz in AA but do it more to different villains. Aside from the Riddler himself all other side missions were pretty weak. Riddler himself and by itself wouldn't be called major improvements.

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.

Adding new boss means adding new tactics to take them down. The boss's were varied in AA, each boss was beat with different tactics just like AC. I don't see how the boss in AC was way better than the first other than that they added new tactics that we could have done in AA.

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.

Again, its a tweak, I don't see how that makes it a large improvement. Stealth with smoke pellets? Smoke pellets have nothing to do with the stealth. They are used to A: escape B: provide cover so the enemies can't see you so you can take them down, they still know your there. Stealth still involves sneaking for stealth takedowns--which was in AA. Weapon-disarm is an addition to help the player because of the increase in guns in AC, it doesn't overhaul anything to make it a major addition or large improvements. There are three types of disarm, Grapple disarm and combat disarm and gadget disarm, all are refinements not groundbreaking. Play this game on hard, weapons respawn pretty easily for enemies--which means you still have to use the stealth mechanics AA already had, meaning these weapon disarm and smoke pellets are used only seldomly when you really need it.

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.

Counters is a tweak from AA's already great combat system, its not a major overhaul. Are you telling me this tweak makes AC a major addition? All your other points are the same as the multi-counters--they are tweaks to AA's already great combat system. AA and AC's combat is largely the same save for these small additions. They make the combat more fun and it adds more depth but not significant depth to an already outstaninding combat system. You haven't beat the game yet, how can I argue how weak catwoman's role is in the game? She could've been a NPC and still the game would be the same. She does play differently from Batman, but so did the joker in AA when you used him for the challenge maps. This means this new character control and moves were already done in AA, its nothing new and major.

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.

You basically answered your own arguement.

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.

I respect your feelings and such. However, I still feel these changes aren't "leaps and bounds" above AA. It's basically the same, with the exception of some tweaks. So again AA has great gameplay and story while AC has great gamplay if not almost the same with a weaker story.

cdragon_88

There's a pretty significant difference between grappling some ledges in a room versus zipping up several stories on the edge of the building and then gliding against the skyline. The inclusion of the ability to dive bomb and essentially use the cape as a glider is an obvious difference made specifically to accommodate the more expansive environment.

Also, the "major improvement" talk isn't merely my own. It's something that's been widely acknowledged by just about every critic on the planet. And since you ask for the obvious pointed out, that major improvement is an open-world Gotham city where you can leap from the rooftops and hide in the shadows in a manner considerably different than Arkham Asylum. The improvement is found both within the context and the scale of the environment and while you are correct that open world does not necessarily constitute a better game, in this case the character of Batman clearly flourishes in such a setting given the predilections and nature of the character. Arkham Asylum was a place of confines, corridors and dead ends while Arkham City is a piece of Gotham. That fact alone opens up greater possibilities by default.

The developers have also imbued Batman with a bit more agility and additional gadgets to make use of this broader scope. All of those things constitute major improvements to an already fantastic formula.

The side missions in AC are clearly more varied than anything seen in Arkham Asylum. As to the Riddler trophies, you are certainly in the minority when you claim they are worse than what was found in AA. From what I've played, they seem to require far more deliberation than what was needed in the previous game and they also seem to be far more creative and occasionally even dangerous. I'd certainly consider that marked improvement.

As to the bosses being more varied in AA, I'm not entirely certain where that notion even comes from. Again, this isn't just one guy spouting his opinion; just about everyone who has played the game noted the improvement in the boss battles. The several I've engaged in thus far were certainly more varied and far more creative than what was found in AA. Rocksteady purposely addressed this issue because it was one of the most prevalent complaints levied at the first title and I certainly think they've done so admirably. The Ra's Al Ghul battle for example was esoteric, multi-layered and far more interesting than the by-the-numbers stuff we saw in Asylum.

Your stealth arguments also don't align with either the consensus or my own observations. The pellets and every other gadget in his arsenal can be used as a part of the stealth toolset; you can toss a pellet to escape after being detected or you can use one to create disorientation and confusion. All of that is a part of the stealth game play unless you are trying to employ some incredibly narrow, pedantic use of the terminology. All of these additions constitute a clear and significant improvement by giving the player even more choices and strategies. Agency is something that is given a big boost in Arkham City and that alone is a big improvement.

You also keep using the term "tweak". What you are doing at this juncture is playing a game of semantics when in reality it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Even if I was to concede that all of the improvements I cite were tweaks, those tweaks still add up to a hefty sum of changes that dramatically affect the overall gameplay. I played the living hell out of Arkham Asylum and Arkham City feels so very different on so many levels. Yes, the core is the same but that is to be expected. Those tweaks can and do facilitate some pretty big changes.

Your personal rubric, infused with your chosen lexicon, doesn't negate the fact that many changes - some vast and other small - were made that make this an improved game in every regard. If the crux of your assertion is that Arkham City is basically the same as AA, you could use that same logic on practically every sequel ever created. You are splitting hairs over our differing use of terminology while ignoring the fact that by any measurement, Arkham City makes some sizeable changes to the formula while retaining everything that made the original so fantastic, which is what the best sequels usually accomplish.

And while the story issue will remain a personal preference, I do think the inclusion of Hugo Strange and his grandiose plans fused with the Joker's machinations is far more compelling than the plot of Arkham Asylum, which was good but standard Batman fare. I also think the inclusion of some of the lesser-known villains like Solomon Grundy, Mad Hatter, and Calendar Man made for an interesting journey through his rogue gallery that rivals if not surpasses what was achieved in Arkham Asylum.

All of that said, I appreciate you taking the time to intelligently and clearly delineate your arguments. They were well-written, rational and worth the effort to respond to.

[QUOTE="cdragon_88"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

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 could glide in and grapple in AA. They tweaked it in AC so whats your point? Again just because its open world doesn't mean its better. So wheres this major improvement of yours?

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

We had side missions in AA, it was called Riddler trophies which are your "challenges". Which means that the challenges are the riddler trophies. So bascially its riddles plus the side missions. Side missions are a addition to the riddler challenges and they are a small addition. I could argue for how weak they are but how can I when you havent beat the game yet to know that its pretty weak. It's a small addition because they provide no depth for these side characters unless you read their story just like in AA. It's like taking on Zsasz in AA but do it more to different villains. Aside from the Riddler himself all other side missions were pretty weak. Riddler himself and by itself wouldn't be called major improvements.

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.

Adding new boss means adding new tactics to take them down. The boss's were varied in AA, each boss was beat with different tactics just like AC. I don't see how the boss in AC was way better than the first other than that they added new tactics that we could have done in AA.

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.

Again, its a tweak, I don't see how that makes it a large improvement. Stealth with smoke pellets? Smoke pellets have nothing to do with the stealth. They are used to A: escape B: provide cover so the enemies can't see you so you can take them down, they still know your there. Stealth still involves sneaking for stealth takedowns--which was in AA. Weapon-disarm is an addition to help the player because of the increase in guns in AC, it doesn't overhaul anything to make it a major addition or large improvements. There are three types of disarm, Grapple disarm and combat disarm and gadget disarm, all are refinements not groundbreaking. Play this game on hard, weapons respawn pretty easily for enemies--which means you still have to use the stealth mechanics AA already had, meaning these weapon disarm and smoke pellets are used only seldomly when you really need it.

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.

Counters is a tweak from AA's already great combat system, its not a major overhaul. Are you telling me this tweak makes AC a major addition? All your other points are the same as the multi-counters--they are tweaks to AA's already great combat system. AA and AC's combat is largely the same save for these small additions. They make the combat more fun and it adds more depth but not significant depth to an already outstaninding combat system. You haven't beat the game yet, how can I argue how weak catwoman's role is in the game? She could've been a NPC and still the game would be the same. She does play differently from Batman, but so did the joker in AA when you used him for the challenge maps. This means this new character control and moves were already done in AA, its nothing new and major.

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.

You basically answered your own arguement.

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.

I respect your feelings and such. However, I still feel these changes aren't "leaps and bounds" above AA. It's basically the same, with the exception of some tweaks. So again AA has great gameplay and story while AC has great gamplay if not almost the same with a weaker story.

There's a pretty significant difference between grappling some ledges in a room versus zipping up several stories on the edge of the building and then gliding against the skyline. The inclusion of the ability to dive bomb and essentially use the cape as a glider is an obvious difference made specifically to accommodate the more expansive environment.

Also, the "major improvement" talk isn't merely my own. It's something that's been widely acknowledged by just about every critic on the planet. And since you ask for the obvious pointed out, that major improvement is an open-world Gotham city where you can leap from the rooftops and hide in the shadows in a manner considerably different than Arkham Asylum. The improvement is found both within the context and the scale of the environment and while you are correct that open world does not necessarily constitute a better game, in this case the character of Batman clearly flourishes in such a setting given the predilections and nature of the character. Arkham Asylum was a place of confines, corridors and dead ends while Arkham City is a piece of Gotham. That fact alone opens up greater possibilities by default.

The developers have also imbued Batman with a bit more agility and additional gadgets to make use of this broader scope. All of those things constitute major improvements to an already fantastic formula.

The side missions in AC are clearly more varied than anything seen in Arkham Asylum. As to the Riddler trophies, you are certainly in the minority when you claim they are worse than what was found in AA. From what I've played, they seem to require far more deliberation than what was needed in the previous game and they also seem to be far more creative and occasionally even dangerous. I'd certainly consider that marked improvement.

As to the bosses being more varied in AA, I'm not entirely certain where that notion even comes from. Again, this isn't just one guy spouting his opinion; just about everyone who has played the game noted the improvement in the boss battles. The several I've engaged in thus far were certainly more varied and far more creative than what was found in AA. Rocksteady purposely addressed this issue because it was one of the most prevalent complaints levied at the first title and I certainly think they've done so admirably. The Ra's Al Ghul battle for example was esoteric, multi-layered and far more interesting than the by-the-numbers stuff we saw in Asylum.

Your stealth arguments also don't align with either the consensus or my own observations. The pellets and every other gadget in his arsenal can be used as a part of the stealth toolset; you can toss a pellet to escape after being detected or you can use one to create disorientation and confusion. All of that is a part of the stealth game play unless you are trying to employ some incredibly narrow, pedantic use of the terminology. All of these additions constitute a clear and significant improvement by giving the player even more choices and strategies. Agency is something that is given a big boost in Arkham City and that alone is a big improvement.

You also keep using the term "tweak". What you are doing at this juncture is playing a game of semantics when in reality it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Even if I was to concede that all of the improvements I cite were tweaks, those tweaks still add up to a hefty sum of changes that dramatically affect the overall gameplay. I played the living hell out of Arkham Asylum and Arkham City feels so very different on so many levels. Yes, the core is the same but that is to be expected. Those tweaks can and do facilitate some pretty big changes.

Your personal rubric, infused with your chosen lexicon, doesn't negate the fact that many changes - some vast and other small - were made that make this an improved game in every regard. If the crux of your assertion is that Arkham City is basically the same as AA, you could use that same logic on practically every sequel ever created. You are splitting hairs over our differing use of terminology while ignoring the fact that by any measurement, Arkham City makes some sizeable changes to the formula while retaining everything that made the original so fantastic, which is what the best sequels usually accomplish.

And while the story issue will remain a personal preference, I do think the inclusion of Hugo Strange and his grandiose plans fused with the Joker's machinations is far more compelling than the plot of Arkham Asylum, which was good but standard Batman fare. I also think the inclusion of some of the lesser-known villains like Solomon Grundy, Mad Hatter, and Calendar Man made for an interesting journey through his rogue gallery that rivals if not surpasses what was achieved in Arkham Asylum.

All of that said, I appreciate you taking the time to intelligently and clearly delineate your arguments. They were well-written, rational and worth the effort to respond to.

There's a pretty significant difference between grappling some ledges in a room versus zipping up several stories on the edge of the building and then gliding against the skyline. The inclusion of the ability to dive bomb and essentially use the cape as a glider is an obvious difference made specifically to accommodate the more expansive environment.

Also, the "major improvement" talk isn't merely my own. It's something that's been widely acknowledged by just about every critic on the planet. And since you ask for the obvious pointed out, that major improvement is an open-world Gotham city where you can leap from the rooftops and hide in the shadows in a manner considerably different than Arkham Asylum. The improvement is found both within the context and the scale of the environment and while you are correct that open world does not necessarily constitute a better game, in this case the character of Batman clearly flourishes in such a setting given the predilections and nature of the character. Arkham Asylum was a place of confines, corridors and dead ends while Arkham City is a piece of Gotham. That fact alone opens up greater possibilities by default.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ygm399yAQ&feature=related. This is my point. Watch this video. Notice how AA was basically a mini-version of AC? You had the open-world-ish area then you traveled to buildings to do quests. It's the same in AC, this method hasn't changed. The only thing new is that they made the world bigger into the open-world and again that doesn't mean its better and they added features that made sense for traveling aka gliding. AA didn't need gliding up and down because its too small for gliding. Dive bomb was nice but even without its inclusion the game wouldn't be broken. Once you get inside the buildings of AC just like in AA its pretty much corridoors. Notice at 3:30 batman stalks his prey and goes for the stealth kill? Same as your hide in the shadows argument. You could also leap of buildings in AA- its in the video. Every critic on this planet's review is an opinion so thats not facts. I don't see where this major improvement is. I see a bigger world with tweaks to accomodate for it only.

The developers have also imbued Batman with a bit more agility and additional gadgets to make use of this broader scope. All of those things constitute major improvements to an already fantastic formula.

I wouldn't know what the agility of Batman is but additional gadgets don't make things major improvements.

The side missions in AC are clearly more varied than anything seen in Arkham Asylum. As to the Riddler trophies, you are certainly in the minority when you claim they are worse than what was found in AA. From what I've played, they seem to require far more deliberation than what was needed in the previous game and they also seem to be far more creative and occasionally even dangerous. I'd certainly consider that marked improvement.

I never said the Riddler trophies are worse. Go back and re-read my previous post. Hunting for trophies were basically the same aside from adding the idea of stepping on those things riddler plate things. It again is a small addition.

As to the bosses being more varied in AA, I'm not entirely certain where that notion even comes from. Again, this isn't just one guy spouting his opinion; just about everyone who has played the game noted the improvement in the boss battles. The several I've engaged in thus far were certainly more varied and far more creative than what was found in AA. Rocksteady purposely addressed this issue because it was one of the most prevalent complaints levied at the first title and I certainly think they've done so admirably. The Ra's Al Ghul battle for example was esoteric, multi-layered and far more interesting than the by-the-numbers stuff we saw in Asylum.

I never said bosses in AA are more varied. Perhaps you need to read my responses more slowly. Go back and re-read my response. And your assessment of the boss battles being more varied because "Again, this isn't just one guy spouting his opinion; just about everyone who has played the game noted the improvement in the boss battles." is an opinion by "these" people. Their not facts. Also I've also heard reviewers saying boss battles are more the same because its still easy. The Joker battle in AA was pretty multi-layered as well. RA's is fight his goons, he appears on that flying circle--spam electro gun and dogde blades, fight him. Joker battle was fight his goons, spam the pull him down the roof and dodge his joker teeth bombs, fight him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi57U6o7E-s&feature=related as proof of fact. Notice how it's almost the same? What I really said was, new boss's = new tatics. AA was the same, different boss's different tatics. I wouldn't say the boss were greatly improve but that they are new boss's and you need to use different tatics. AC and AA follow the same key idea of different tatics for different bosses.

Your stealth arguments also don't align with either the consensus or my own observations. The pellets and every other gadget in his arsenal can be used as a part of the stealth toolset; you can toss a pellet to escape after being detected or you can use one to create disorientation and confusion. All of that is a part of the stealth game play unless you are trying to employ some incredibly narrow, pedantic use of the terminology. All of these additions constitute a clear and significant improvement by giving the player even more choices and strategies. Agency is something that is given a big boost in Arkham City and that alone is a big improvement.

Stealth is not being seen or known. You already are seen thats why you need to use the smoke or you use the smoke to cause a distration for takedowns, again the enemies are aware that you're there but just can't put a fix on your position. These additions are used for accomodating the fact that there are more guns in AC. Its the same argument as the gliding earlier. AA didn't need these added features becasue there were less guns. It's an accomodation rather than a real major improvement.

You also keep using the term "tweak". What you are doing at this juncture is playing a game of semantics when in reality it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Even if I was to concede that all of the improvements I cite were tweaks, those tweaks still add up to a hefty sum of changes that dramatically affect the overall gameplay. I played the living hell out of Arkham Asylum and Arkham City feels so very different on so many levels. Yes, the core is the same but that is to be expected. Those tweaks can and do facilitate some pretty big changes.

These tweaks basically were created to accomodate AC new world and enemies. They didn't add any major improvements and they didn't need to because it was solid in AA already. You can add them all up anyway you wish, if AC was smaller, had less enemies, less guns, and none of these tweaks--would it really matter? No. It's not a major improvement as a total overall package.

Your personal rubric, infused with your chosen lexicon, doesn't negate the fact that many changes - some vast and other small - were made that make this an improved game in every regard. If the crux of your assertion is that Arkham City is basically the same as AA, you could use that same logic on practically every sequel ever created. You are splitting hairs over our differing use of terminology while ignoring the fact that by any measurement, Arkham City makes some sizeable changes to the formula while retaining everything that made the original so fantastic, which is what the best sequels usually accomplish.

Most sequels don't do to well in my reviews especially this day in age in gaming that usually releases expansion packs rather than a real new game. Yes AC added new things but they are more accomodations rather than innovation.

And while the story issue will remain a personal preference, I do think the inclusion of Hugo Strange and his grandiose plans fused with the Joker's machinations is far more compelling than the plot of Arkham Asylum, which was good but standard Batman fare. I also think the inclusion of some of the lesser-known villains like Solomon Grundy, Mad Hatter, and Calendar Man made for an interesting journey through his rogue gallery that rivals if not surpasses what was achieved in Arkham Asylum.

I have no problems with you liking AC storyline over AA.

All of that said, I appreciate you taking the time to intelligently and clearly delineate your arguments. They were well-written, rational and worth the effort to respond to.

NP. It wouldn't be a real argument if all I did was call you names and argue like a five year old.

Grammaton-Cleric

On a side note. I don't expect you to agree with any of my opinions, so I'm not sure why I'm still arguing LOL. :lol: Can we at least agree on one thing--that it's the best time right now to be a Batman fan?

The game isn't really much of a sandbox, nor does it really try to be. If you went into Arkham City hoping it'd be like GTA or Saints row then you had your expectations in the wrong place. The game has arguably one of the best free flow combat systems in the history of gaming, if it was to easy for you then higher the difficulty and if it's still to easy for you then you're lying because the game wasn't easy, not saying it was hard but for the average gamer it's not a easy game, unless of course you're playing on easy. (Don't quote me with your high ego claiming otherwise)

If you took your time, that means doing some of the side missions and progressing through the story the average playthrough would have been between 15-20 hours. Add in the challenge modes, new game+ mode and going for 100 completion and the game has the potential to be a 50+ Hour game. Arkham city was not overrated at all, if anything on gamespot it was slightly underrated.

Were talking #2 most critically acclaimed game of this generation according to Metacritic.

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 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 think it was overrated too. Button mashing...benweck

Grammaton, I have been on this forum for a long time and consider you a respected member and someone who adds to these forums. However, I must say that your defense of this game is a low-point in your posting history, of course, in my opinion alone. You asked for reasons why people did not like the game and when presented, all you did was dismiss them as "weak"or "illogical."

I certainly respect your pont of view and the presentation of your supporting arguments. However, you may find it a bit less troublesome debating your opinions if you didn't instatntly dismiss the ones presented to you.

That being said, I have not played the game, so I'm sorry for not adding to this conversation. I am also usually good at not posting in threads that I have nothing to add to, however, I was really compelled to say something becasue I haven't seen this level of.....debate...in quite some time. And again, I believe you are a valued member of this community.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]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.Starshine_M2A2

So now you're resorting to further personal attacks while adding in the timeless internet argument of what a loser I must be in the real world and how I should heed your sage advice because I won't get very far in life with my attitude.

I'm actually a pretty successful person out there in the big, real world you allude to.

I'm also one of the nicest and most respectful people you'd ever meet but what I don't have a high tolerance for is ignorance, which has become something of a commodity here in the States. People walk around espousing their opinions without a lick of logic, evidence or even a rudimentary understanding of the topic at hand to back up their claims because they think having an opinion is enough.

As Harlan Ellison so astutely remarked, people are entitled to their informed opinion.

I've clearly pissed you off and to be entirely honest, your initial comment did the same for me. It's not that I want or expect everyone to like the things I have a passion for but your comment suggested not only some deeper need to denounce this game (have you even played it?) but also to deride a film you clearly didn't enjoy as much as most people. Your connection of this game to the Nolan flick was incredibly tenuous and entirely nonsensical given that the developers clearly drew inspiration from classic Batman comics, along with the animated series. It was specious and shallow and it deserved to be dismantled. Perhaps my response was more brutish than I intended but it was a direct response to what you wrote.

That understood, I think I'll stay put given that I've been a member here for nearly ten years. I don't post nearly as often as I used to but certain issues will sometimes arise that inspire me to respond and despite your continued personal attacks several of the people in here who disagreed with me have managed to engage in intelligent and interesting discussion while you keep trying to paint me as some elitist snob.

With all due respect, you seem like you've got your own demons to slay and they've got nothing to do with me.

Grammaton, I have been on this forum for a long time and consider you a respected member and someone who adds to these forums. However, I must say that your defense of this game is a low-point in your posting history, of course, in my opinion alone. You asked for reasons why people did not like the game and when presented, all you did was dismiss them as "weak"or "illogical."

I certainly respect your pont of view and the presentation of your supporting arguments. However, you may find it a bit less troublesome debating your opinions if you didn't instatntly dismiss the ones presented to you.

That being said, I have not played the game, so I'm sorry for not adding to this conversation. I am also usually good at not posting in threads that I have nothing to add to, however, I was really compelled to say something becasue I haven't seen this level of.....debate...in quite some time. And again, I believe you are a valued member of this community.

Grieverr

Well, I'm sorry to have disappointed you but to be honest I don't really agree with your interpretation of events.

The talk of logic and a lack thereof came from the fact that many of the criticisms being levied against this game were backed up by nothing or next to nothing.

It is illogical and pointless to state an opinion and not back it up with something. If you or anyone else has a problem with that, you can take it up with Socrates, Plato and the rest of the founding fathers of philosophy and argumentation because that isn't my rule; I'm simply adhering to hundreds of years of tradition and the well-established parameters of logic, rhetoric and debate.

I also don't think I dismissed all arguments in the manner you claim. If you actually read my posts you will discover that I engage readily in debate and answer the challenges and postulations of those willing to forge an actual, coherent thesis. Picking apart a weak argument (or denoting it as such) isn't an act of hostility or egotism (though to be honest those things can certainly fuel a rebuttal) but rather standard procedure when debating.

If you actually look at my post history in this thread you'll notice I go out of my way to keep things from getting personal even when being assaulted by certain individuals. You may also note that several of the debates I engaged in with more tenacious and articulate members ended quite amiably and with a measure of mutual respect.

I would actually argue that my low point on this board occurred when I engaged in the very type of fallacious argumentation I am criticizing now. I am as guilty as anyone of making things personal, nasty and vicious in the past which is why I do my best to take the high ground.

And I'll be the first to admit that my argument style is aggressive but that doesn't mean that aggression or intensity is being leveled at the actual person. With the exception of that one individual who has made it very personal, I think we've all done a solid job staying on point.

Lastly, I appreciate how you framed your comments even if I don't fully agree. I do concede that I am passionate not merely about this game but in regards to the topic of cynicism and the contrarian culture that permeates online communities.

On a side note. I don't expect you to agree with any of my opinions, so I'm not sure why I'm still arguing LOL. :lol: Can we at least agree on one thing--that it's the best time right now to be a Batman fan?

cdragon_88

Actually, it's not that I disagree with you so much as I employ a very different rubric and vernacular and that merely reflects our own distinct and respective philosophies in how we measure improvement.

Considering that you freely admit AC is the better game from a mechanical standpoint, the real argument becomes one of semantics and how we chose to label those improvements we've discussed. You've done a solid job of defending your position and to be entirely truthful I shouldn't have generalized that anyone who prefers AA to AC is looking to be contrarian.

One of the things I must remember is that not everyone considers the open-world construct a blessing and prefers a more focused approach. When taking that into account, I understand why some people might prefer AA to AC.

And yes, this is an amazing time to be a Batman fan.

I cannot wait for The Dark Knight Rises.

Calling the game overrated is going too far. Taking the sequel to Arkham Asylum in an open-world sandbox direction was a bold and very risky move by Rocksteady. I shouldn't of come as any surprise that it plays like a sandbox game. Side missions being little more than fetchs quests, race from point A to point B, and scavenger hunts are staples for the genre. Anyone who wasn't expecting these in Arkham City must of had blinders on when reading the previews.

I was personally very glad the game wasn't some huge sprawling expanse of endlessly generic buildings. It allowed for a more focused game with a gamespace that was packed with content rather than feeling like travel was a timesink between set pieces. All of Arkham City was so finely crafted and had so much character that I never had to look on my map to figure out where I was. Every area was distinct enough to instantly be recognizable.

When I first beat the game I honestly said to myself "Wait that's it? There's no more to the story? That was way too short." But then I really looked and saw how much time I had clocked into the game. The main story is about as long as AA's was. It just didn't feel like it because I got so wrapped up in it.

The only real complaint I can weigh against the game was the side content wasn't paced very well with the story. I never even got the chance to progress in a lot of the side missions until AFTER I beat the game. I would of preferred having had a more direct and obvious way to partake in side content between story missions. So in that way I felt the game somewhat rail-roaded you into finishing it. But that's a minor complaint that maybe only I ran into.

That being said, I found myself wishing Rocksteady stuck with the semi-open Metroid style structure for the sequel rather than make it a sandbox. But that's honestly personal preference. I just don't much care for sandbox games anymore, and much prefer the Metroid design model. But as far as sandbox games go, Arkham City is one of the best. Coming up just short of the Assassins Creed games, which is my personal favorite.

I'm halfway through and while I don't know if it's 'over-rated' or not, I do feel as if I'm deliberately going slowly that I usually would for fear that the game will be over before I know it.

It's possible that I'm not as excited about Riddler Trophies etc because they are, for better or worse, exactly the same as the last installment.

While the main campaign feels really, really thin, I picked Arkham City up for $65 and with that in mind, feel I've already gotten my money's worth.

Overrated? No.

I think Batman: Arkham Cit ywas one of the best games to ever happen last year, alongside games like Assassin's Creed: Revelations and Saints Row, despite some of their setbacks, respectively.

Batman: Arkham City basically took all the game's best features from Asylum and improved them all tenfold.

Someone talked about button-mashing your way through the game. Let me tell you something, that is next to impossible. Batman: Arkham City is not a full-on brawler. Instead, it's a game that requires the gamer to think on their toes and figure out a way to escape Batman's current peril without the use of fighting all too much. There are certain situations where stealth is essential; there is no other way around it. Also, I've yet to conquer the game on New Game +, but from what a lot of my friends on here tell me, it's a lot harder than what the lower difficulty asks of you. And from what I've played, they are correct; early on, the thugs get their hands on weapons, guns included. So if you think you can blaze through the game with your fists, especially on a harder difficulty, go ahead and try. But you will lose and lose fast unless you play the game smart.

It's like with Splinter Cell: Conviction, for example. I've had a few people tell me that it's a full-on action game that you can blaze through when that's simply impossible. It's not a third-person shooter. Rather, it's an action/stleath game that requires you to try different tactics to win in every situation, whether it's to get past them in silence or devise effective traps to kill all the guards while remaining undected. The same goes for Batman: Arkham City.

Also, all of the gadgets are used very well and it's not like it's a total waste. I scoffed at a few reviewers who said that less is more was a better idea than the other way around. In each scenario, any or all gadgets come into play, making you really feel like you are Batman. The same is for Arkham Asylum; you had the right tools to succeed just as well.

So no, it is not overrated. It's one of the best games of 2011, period.

No. The game is brilliant in every way. Better than Skyrim to be honest.

I liked the game. I thought it was a bit short. When you press select to open the map, it shows the starting city, which ultimately ends up being the only city, and then there are 2 or 3 other cities that are greyed out. When I first started the game, I assumed that you would unlock those other cities and take the grey away, kind of like you do in GTA, but those other greyed out cities ended up playing no role in the game what so ever which was pretty disappointing for me.

I preferred Arkham Asylum to City, but City is still a great game. I liked AA's boss battles, puzzles, level design more, and I also liked the Scarecrow segments. City did have better graphics, especially in the in-game cutscenes. They also improved the lip syncing and voice acting in City.

I agree with Metal, they did make really good use of the gadgets in both games, that is something that really impressed me. That's a sign of good game design.

Wow. This has been an entertaining thread to read. I almost never go through each and every post of a thread this old, but I honestly felt compelled to keep reading. Quite entertaining.

I'm almost sad that I am on the same side as Gram. Not that Batman has anything negative I want to add, I just wish there was a call for me to debate with that dude. That seems like an entertaining challenge. Unfortunately, I'm in almost complete agreement with his points, at least where the game is concerned. I would however, not like a world where everything was measured in cold logic. But that is my choice. To me, games are art and art is not only designed to illicit, but a failure if it does not evoke some kind of emotional response. And in that, Arkham City shines for me.

Why I loved the game is that both the Rocksteady Batman games realized the most important thing when making a Batman story. Batman is not the main character, Gotham City is. And Gotham is more than some setting the characters play their parts in, it is a living breathing entity unto itself and more important to the story than any one character, even the Batman.

Also, to anyone who thinks the combat in this game is shallow or "button-mashey", friend you are doing it WRONG. Catwoman is not Batman with boobs, Robin and Nightwing are not "Batman Lite". That's like saying Ken and Dhalsim are the same because they all use the same 6 buttons. The level of nuance one can attain in the combat portions of this game is still surprising me to this day. And I have played it a lot. Like "call the clinic, this guy is obsessed!" a lot. I haven't checked the leaderboards in a while of course, but my scores have always been respectable. Not top 100, but still, respectable. The nuance is there, even if you don't choose to use it or look for it.

My one and only complaint with Arkham City is a completely subjective one. The Predator challenge rooms that command me to "save the thug with the radar scrambler for last" are forcing me to play against character. I cannot imagine a scenario where Batman would choose to do that as a combat tactic and therefore I think it lessens the experience for me personally. It still added in a ton of challenge and in that is accomplishes it's goal, but from a pure role-play perspective, I'd have rather they had gone a different direction on that one thing.

Other than that, I think the game shines in ever way we measure games. Artistically, mechanically, value to cost, I cannot remember a game that was a solid as Arkham City and feel it deserves every high review it earned. And it is easily my game of the year.

It was a good game but all in all it was way too short, extended with fetch quests that are usually in mmos as a time sink

Story was all over the place with way too many plot holes and loose ends, but hey thats good right so you can milk it more(gaming today)

on360 Gears of War 3 was more deserving of the third place ,on PS3 Uncharted3 and LBP2 should most likely be higher rated and on pc it defenetly should not beat Amnesia

But well thats just my opinion

Also people that say SC:Convivtion was a good game should keep their opinions to themselves, people like your are why most games suck nowadays

PS! sry for bad engrish, not a native speaker

The game is beyond overrated. All flash an no substance.

The battle system feels...Clunky, and unsatisfying. It's too easy to kill enemies so killing them doesn't feel rewarding. (Just like Assassin's Creed.)

It's just boring to me, it gets more attention and respect than it deserves.

Both Batman games feel too simple, easy and shallow, but they tried to make up for that by making the graphics look nice.

Batman has become such an overrated superhero. Part of the reason people like the Batman games so much is just because they're Batman games.

Not at all. I think Uncharted 3 was *slightly* overrated, but that's a different story.

The words button mashing and Arkham City shouldn't be in the same sentence. My god its such a great game, literally i have trouble understanding how people don't like it or find it overrated.

Rocksteady have the formula down, they should move on to Xmen. I'd orgasm if that happened.

Hey, Adamocracy -- don't revive old threads.