Why Arkham Knight is the last Batman game from Rocksteady

Such a shame, but i am also excited for what they are doing next

"Go out in style" I hope this is true and I hope Arkham knight will be a masterpiece.

Rocksteady are great. But Origins was a great game as well (regardless of with gamespot says).

Sad to see but i kinda love them for not milking it.

Its better to look back on a few great games then look back on a lot of terrible games like Arkham Origins was.

But then again we all know that if Knight becomes a huge massive success money talks so they might reconsider.

It sounds to me like he's not really ready to leave the Bat behind. Whatever they do next, though- whether it's licensed, picked up from another Dev, or a new IP- I hope it involves punching bad guys in the face.

Also love how GI is bound and determined to keep the Rocksteady TMNT rumor alive.

If the TMNT game that Rocksteady has in mind is confirmed to be in the works, then I have full confidence in that team.

It's a shame you won't be playing AK unless you go next-gen. But Shadow Of Mordor comes out one week before Batman AK, if the release date is confirmed that is.

@Metamania: What's an even bigger shame is that if it weren't for AO souring my taste for the series, I would've gone next gen just to play it.

Yeah i laughed at that :P

I though they said it was the last in the Arkham Series.

It sure as hell is not the last Batman game thats for sure !

Having trouble with his english accent or something? because i think he says like 20 times that its the end of ANY batman game being developed by Rocksteady.

If WB games will take over who knows, but with the disaster that was Arkham Origins , i think most will skip any future games by them, particular since they dont fix bugs either.

@ Jacanuk

Disaster ?

Origins was slightly better than City !

Just like Bioshock 2 was better than Bioshock.

Just like Max Payne 3 was better than Max Payne 2 and 1.

This is just another case of "Developer/Franchise Attachment" Bitching.

Origins WAS a disaster. It had a lot of interesting moments and ideas, but are you aware of the glitches and bugs that plague the game, such as the game freezing, corrupt save files, etc?

It's so bad that WBM refuse to do the right thing and fix the game at all. Instead, they've said, flat-out "Screw all that, we're focusing on the DLC instead". It's disgusting!

@ Metamania

Its also not true. Granted they refused to patch the game but the so called game breaking you mention were isolated incidents that had nothing to do with Origins.

i just hope that the Montreal studio becomes better and continues the Batman series

I am soooooo hoping that they do a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game next.

I'm very happy they're ending it before it meets the Assassin's Creed fate. Same with how they're avoiding the tacked-on multiplayer trend to focus on making the best game possible. They're such an amazing and talented studio, and I'm really looking forward to Arkham Knight, and whatever comes next.

I take my hat off to Rocksteady, such a an awesome team. Loved what they've done with Batman thus far and looking forward to their future projects, Batman or not.

Wrong. It had a lot to do with Origins.

@ Metamania

Whatever you say Rocksteady Fanboy. :p

"Only Rocksteady can make a Bug Free Batman Game thats fun to play".

in case you missed it... I am mocking you. ;)

Why do people just want to keep thinking they have another game lined up, like the guy said himself, they are one team, they focus on one game at a time and he hasn't looked or even decided what there going to do next, they don't have this other team doing something at the moment. This is the end of Batman for Rocksteady.

for some people who seem still confused Batman ARKHAM ORIGINS. Was not from ROCKSTEADY. so this whole sour taste in your mouth so you won't by this game is completely idiotic

@Lulu_Lulu:

LOL. AO wasn't a total mess but let's not sugar coat it--compared to AA and AC it was trash. Rocksteady=polished game, WB games=not polished and unwilling to patch. If you couldn't tell the difference in quality between AO and AA/AC then I believe "you" are the fan boy not the other way around.

Spot on Metamania.

Origin was not only a disaster because of the bugs and playability for some, but also for its terrible story and art design.

Origins gets a lot of hate, but the only thing I feel justifies that hatred is the lack of polish. It did contain game breaking bugs and many other issues. But that stuff aside it was a solid entry to the series. It was missing Riddles and a number of other things the series had become known for but that does not warrant the pile of crap that gets tossed on it. I actually enjoyed the story and it's characters quite a bit. I felt the tone of the game was perfect and some of the boss battles were very memorable.

This goes back to that Ricky Bobby way of thinking so many people have. If it ain't the best... then it must be absolute trash. People seem to have no middle ground any more, it's either 9.5 or a 1.0. I agree that Arkham City is the better entry, but Origins is by no means terrible. It was a good game that disappointed. That's all.

Also, I agree with Lulu about Bioshock 2 as well as Max Payne 3.

@ cdragon_88

Whatever you can find Wrong with Arkham Origins. I bet bet I can find in Arkham City aswell, Gameplay, Story, Graphics, Voice acting, whatever, I swear to god I'l find it. they all have their flaws. All three games. Equally! Seems like people only see them when the Developers Change. I don't even like Batman, not the Cartoon, not the Books, not the Movies. I just like Beating up people and all three games deliver that in nice packages.

@ Jacanuk

Art is Subjective. It wasn't bad. You just didn't like it. Don't feel bad I didn't like it either. Gotham is so damn depressing, atleast Origins brought you back to Arkham North BEFORE it became a depressing prison and before whatever natural disaster hit it. Lol "bad artstyle" my foot. As for the Story. Unlikely Arkham City and Asylum, Origins manage to weave Multiple famous DC Characters into a single coherent plot instead of Jaded Cameo Appearences that were there just for sake of fan service.

Not that it matters. Twas all just cutscenes. Not even Real Time Cutscenes. Half of them were prerendered.

Theres a fuckton of Batman shows and movies that do a damn good job of making me a passive of observer last thing I need from the game adaption is more passivity. The only time Batman was able to relay a story Actively was all the Scarecrow sections of Arkham Asylum.

I guess what I'm trying say is. If you're gona be hater. Be a fair one.

You know what. This is The Devil May Cry reboot fiasco all overagain. People thought The entire franchise's Identity boiled down to the colour of Dante's hair.

@bezza2011: look closer. What I said was that Arkham Origins soured my taste for the franchise to the point that I will not go next gen just to play it, whereas if it had been 3 years since Arkham City with nothing in between(except, perhaps, AO: Blackgate), I would have. If that hype train had spent that three years gaining momentum, rather than stopping at the substandard AO station, I would have bought my $460 ticket and ridden it all the way in.

I've since played games that were less polished, and less well-organized competitively, but were just more fun to get good at. Batman: Arkham just isn't top of the heap to me anymore.

Hmm, a decent post until you reach the point where you show your age and show that this is a post that shouldn't be taken serious. Hater is something you use when you are 12 or in system wars.

First being a fanboy like you is fine and all but please try to at least read up on the facts before you come into a debate , also if i recall you have a tendency to jump into debates of games you havent even played, so have you played Arkham Origins.

And Art is subjective, game is not art , its entertainment and its obvious to anyone with 2 eyes that WB games have taken a huge decision and redid a lot of the previous two games art, which i guess is an attempt at making it their game, but i hope you have heard the saying "if it aint broke, dont fix it" and that is something they should have listen to here.

Also as to the story, well its weak and some of the villains are just badly done. But in the core the story is weak and its a stupid idea that he meets all the bad guys on the same night

Besides the critic of Batman is nothing about being a "hater" its a legitimate critic, but i will wait until i hear if you have actually played it before continuing this debate.

Because they don't want to oversaturate the market with Batman games. It's noble, to be sure, but I have to wonder how smart it is, financially speaking.

I don't think Rocksteady have to worry too much about the finances, they have a pretty solid base and they always make quality games, which is also shown in that they spend the last 7years on this game.

Origins lack of polish is not a case of subjectivity. It's objectively broken when compared to it's progenitors. Bugs, crashes, glitches, these are what the term "unpolished" was coined to represent. Further, art may be subjective, but there are conventions that work, and conventions that don't. Origins washed out color palette hurt the one most important thing; the gameplay. It made mobs more difficult to manage and that broke the combat loop that the series was known for.

It's fine to like Arkham Origins. I like lots of things that are objectively bad when subjected to honest critique. The Jason movies for example. But I don't pretend they're some grand vision that people who dislike them are just "hating" against. Or to put it in a pithy one-liner: If you want to write your name with a turd that's your business, but don't call it a crayon when people ask why it stinks.

@ Jacanuk

No I haven't played it. Still anything I have to say about City and Asylum is still vallid, since I played them, there for I'l just point out that those games aren't the master pieces you've deluded yourslelf into thinking they are. And I'm a fanboy now am I ? A fanboy of what exactly ? As I said, don't really like Batman. Anyway:

Disregarding my post because of my choice of vocabulary is too young for? Whats it called when critisize others for doing something and then turn around and do that samething ? Oh thats right. You're the Internet !

Anyway Mr. "Jump to Conclusions Face" (Hows that for immature words?)

1. how is art broken in the 1st place? Whats wrong with rebuilding Arkham North ? It was ugly in City and it was slightly less ugly in Origins. Just say you don't like it and save your self the headache because thats just stupid. Broken Art, doesn't make sense.

2. The Story. Black Mask put 100 000 000 dollar bounty on the bat. Yes, the villains cancelled whatever plans they had that night and immediately went to go and get this winged moron, easy money. Infact whats implausable is why only 8 of them showing up, why didn't more show up ? Its alot of money. 20 Assassin's couldve been the more acceptable number. And you know this is the same universe where people where skin tight out fits and fight crime because they're bored, many of whom have superpowers. You expect too much From Batman

Also don't you have something bad to say about the gameplay ? Theres no point in Me playing the damn thing if you can't even find something wrong the the most important part of the game. Of any video game for the matter. and believe me I know Rocksteady's Gameplay scew ups very well. I'm confident you won't find something in Origins that I won't find in City. Hell you can go ahead and make up a game play issue, I'l still find an equivalent in City. Try Me !

So you haven't played it, then why are you even debating the game? what makes your opinion worth anything? or better said, do you have anything to actually base your claims on that would make the people who actually have played it, and have experienced the problems, the insane game breaking bugs, the bad design choices or a lot of the other glitches invalid? like guards getting stuck and you can't continue because the games script is designed around you beating all guards, or the Vent problems, and the shit ton of glitches on the X360 which is not even being considered by WB Games.

And haters, by using that you are actually belittling the other person since hate is a irrational feeling that isn't based on anything, and its not about hate, its about stone cold facts that you experience like the above.

If you want something bad about the gameplay? well, we can take the batarangs, the "ceiling" height, which is just ludicrous, the weak batman combat that sometimes is most frustrating then anything because its designed crappy.

There a plenty of things to "bitch" about which is why Arkham Orgins is an absolute disaster of a Batman game.

@ Jacanuk

Because I haven't played the game. I'm not the ideal person to represent Origins. But since I'm the only one who Rocksteady Zealot then I'l just have to do.

What I don't get is if you actually played the game then why does your arguments sound so stupid ?

What Bad Design Choices ?

What Bugs and Glitches ?

All I've gathered from this encounter with you is you very talented at saying something sucks in 5 different ways without any examples.

I'm glad you finaly brought up the gameplay. Dissapoint that that all you you did was say "crappy this crappy that".

Details Are Important !

Arkham City's Gameplay is no Rosetta stone either.

traversing the Enviroment was rather annoying because you can't move and Manipulate the camera simultaneously, making grapling cumbersome since you need to move the camera to pin point exactly which ledge to latch the grapel on to.

In Combat the Wasn't perfect to begin with. You would contantly get attacked by off screen characters, the one with guns and chairs would shoot you in the back disrupting the flow and not in a fun, challenging way. Catwoman in Predator Mode for some reason could stil be spotted on gargoyles.

Some areas with weak structures are next to a wall so using the explosive gel will sometimes wind up being applied on the wrong surface.

Back to grappling. In Predator Mode Batman would sometimes jump over the guard rail when grappling towards it instead of hanging on the ledge to remain hidden.

I don't understand tho, Origins is a completely different game to Arkham Asylum/City, there completely different developers, the new batman will be a massive and better upgrade to Arkham City. you can't really compare the 2 when both games are from different developers all together.

So really Origins isn't anything to do with Rocksteady's Franchise, it's a stand alone game

I had a lot of fun with origins and think it did a few things better than City, but City was still a superior game for the following reasons.

-the riddler collectibles in Origins had almost no thought put behind them which is a far cry from the many incredibly well designed riddler puzzles in City that had you using all your abilities and gadgets in fun and interesting ways. Most of the collectibles in Origins were simply behind a wall you had to blow up.

-The level design in general felt uninspired in Origins. Everything felt like it was just there to be there whereas City had some very well thought out inside spaces that felt truly enjoyable to explore.

-Origins didn't introduce much of anything new. It was just City again with less skilled design. It felt rather lazy.

-The glitches in Arkham Origins were pretty bad. There were many times in predator missions where a thug would be stuck in walking animation and not notice you when you're standing right in front of him. Also you couldn't hit him or knock him out and the challenge wouldn't end until you did so. The only way to fix this is to use explosive gel several times (each time he'd get stuck somewhere else until he was free).

Again, I really enjoyed the game, but it's very clear to me that this one had a lot less care put into it. It wasn't a labor of love the way Rocksteady's Batman games feel. Rather it's a game that banks off of the quality Rocksteady produced before them.

You need to read before posting.

Otherwise there is no point in continuing since you mostly seem to post to be opposite.

IT's the last game for Rocksteady in the Batman series

@ Pikminmaniac

Well. Its pretty good for a Studio's 1st Project that consists of developers Ive never heard of before.

But then again... One Could say the same about Arkham Asylum and then some.

@ The_Last_Ride

Well. They nailed down a working formula that WB's other subsidiries can draw from. So its not all bad. Plus theres like a hundred other characters who are in dire need of an interactive adaptions. Ironinically... Superman isn't one of them. :D haha.

@bezza2011: False. Same assets, same logo, using the series subtitle, all these things tie it intrinsically to the franchise. Would you claim that CoD: Modern Warfare, Black Ops and MW3 are three different series because the developers are all different?

But again, the final point is this: If I'd been left waiting 3 years for the next gen sequel to the stellar Arkham City, I would buy a next gen console to play it. My last experience with the Arkham series, however, cooled my ardor and so I'm just not going to spend the money to get a new system just to play it.

@Lulu_Lulu: as ever, you're being contrary without ever having played the game up for discussion. Play it and then when you say it's as good as the others in the seres we'll be able to take you seriously.

@Lulu_Lulu: Also liking how you complain to Jacanuk about lacking detail in his criticisms, but don't bother to respond point-by-point to PikminManiac.

Bad Design choices:

• UNLIKE City, Origins did not evenly distribute hook points for the Grapnel Boost which makes the simple act of traversal a needless chore.
• UNLIKE City, Origins implements poorly designed new enemies that took focus away from controlling the battlefield and instead forced you to focus on just one enemy. This sounds like a small change, but it isn't. It completely changes the encounters with mobs and it breaks the gameplay loop by taking away from fun enjoyable encounters to a needlessly convoluted button presses. It made FreeFlow combat into Quick Timed Events.
• UNLIKE City, Origins Stealth segments were poorly designed. Since you like specifics, I'll elaborate: The stealth segments have always been elegantly designed. Certain spaces allowed certain takedowns to be done. Origins though, made far too many options, so rather than knowing you can lure an enemy to a given space to perform a takedown, you had to struggle with making sure you triggered the proper takedown. Further, the Quick-Fire weapons had a horrible implementation in that they would often misfire and go past the enemy you were intending to attack and hit a different enemy altogether which instead of dealing with the enemy you want, you've given away your position to more than one enemy plus still have to deal with the one you were attempting to takedown. This makes the stealth segments needlessly difficult and very frustrating where they used to be a symphony of movement and quick attacks working in concert. This NEVER happened to me in City and I tried desperately to discern a pattern to the madness. None exists however. It's simply implemented poorly where it used to work fine. I'm all for change when it's necessary, but making a change that hurts the gameplay is not subjectively just different, it's bad design choice.
• UNLIKE City, Origins targeting was broken. Where City and Asylum used a battlefield priority approach, Origins was slapdash in it's implementation of simple maneuvers. Multiple times the player could build up enough combo to pull off a takedown only to fly past the intended target and do the move against a different enemy. This is disconcerting and it makes dealing with the enemies a crapshoot instead of an elegant free form gameplay mechanic.

Bad Art Design choices:

• The washed out color palette does not work in service of the gameplay you keep claiming is the only important thing. Again, I'll elaborate: City and Asylum had a purpose for every design choice. Enemies are designed with purpose because you need to identify them quickly so you know what move to employ to take an enemy down at a moments notice. When the color palette is as washed out and grey as Origins, this becomes difficult. And it leads to hurting the gameplay when you can't keep a simple combo chain going in a game with combat that is all about building combo chains and varying up your moves to gain bonuses.
• Further, the new enemies look too similar to simply identify them easily. So it's nearly impossible in the heat of combo-battle to identify which red and black ninja type you're about to face which pulls focus from controlling the battlefield and leaves you locked into an overlong and over complicated QTE if you engage with the enemy. These bad art design choices simply hurt the gameplay, there's no other way to say it.

And the bugs weren't some imaginary thing that only affected a few of the players. It was a significant amount of the player base who were afflicted by the poor coding on the developers part. If wanting my game to work properly means I'm a fanboy of studios who DO bother to bug test, I'll wear that label on my sleeve as a badge of honor. And if calling out studios who can't be bothered to do the work because they have a successful brand to milk and they know it will sell anyway makes me a "hater", well call me a "hater" then. Your scorn will not change the fact that Origins is simply not as well designed, objectively, as it's predecessors. A fact you'd probably know if you bothered to actually play the game instead of assuming everyone but you is a stupid fanboy.

The grappling in City may not have been perfect, but it was a damn sight better than it was in Origins. And jumping over the rail instead of hanging was something you did by how you held the stick, not a gameplay flaw. Player error.

As for the combat in City, it's up to the player to control the battlefield in the game. If you can't be bothered to keep your eye on the enemies when they are holding throwables, that's on you not the game. Dispatching throwing enemies was never a chore when a small amount of diligence was employed by the player. Simply angling the camera to keep an eye out for possible attacks is part of the arsenal at your disposal. It's up to you to use it. Furthermore, gun toting enemies always had an audio cue so the player should know to watch out for them. Your arguments against City only make your points weaker, which is impressive since you're arguing in favor of a game you haven't even played.

@ El_Zo1212o

I know right ?

Somebody had to say something. Thats absolutely no way to Bash a game.

It was lazy and uninspired.

Plus I've been thinking about getting the game soon. You learn alot more when argue the way I do than from any written or video review.. ;) It rhymes so it must be true. :D.

@ ZZoMBiE13

This is way more informative than reading a review.

Also may not have played the game but Ive seen it. And the art style was just fine. I could identify everything.

Actually in Arkham City you also flew right past regular inmates into Armour Thugs constantly breaking the flow. The targeting was never good to begin with.

Why are you using Quick fire gadgets in Predator mode ? They don't need to be fired quickly. Well, things like Explosive gel are better off used in zoom mode.

Thanks for the heads up. Will definately consider those points when buying the game.

I use Quick Fire to pull enemies off the rails for a quick takedown. Although, like I said, Origins implemented it so poorly that a tried and true gameplay mechanic in City ended up broken by sloppy implementation.

And the targeting in City was not the same as Origins. In City, you would point towards an armored foe and do the takedown because they were the clear and present danger that needed to be dealt with. In Origins, you could fly past the one or two or three armored enemies, even fly through them on occasion, and target an unarmed thug who was no threat at all. It's really not the same thing.

Battlefield priority means taking out the enemies that are the biggest threat first, that's why the team who built City added in the ability to take out the more dangerous foes with your specialized attacks if you were pointing the stick at them. What you call a flaw, I call a feature. And what Origins has was neither, it was broken. So much that they put in a stupid God of War style RAGE MODE thing where you become unstoppable for a short time. Which is insane because you're playing as BATMAN already. In City the players skill is what made you unstoppable... you know, that and Batman already being pretty much unstoppable.

Also, seeing the enemies in screenshots or even videos isn't the same as dealing with them in gameplay. The question wasn't "was the art fine", it was "did it affect gameplay or was it merely an aesthetic choice". Sure, it's serviceable. But the question of which was better implemented comes down in City's favor. City was set in a winter timeline as well falling on Christmas. Yet it still managed to be colorful and pleasing to the eye and not feel washed out and drab like Origins was. The only reason for the white and grey palette was a story conceit of a blizzard which otherwise doesn't affect the gameplay at all. It's a design choice that makes the game less fun than it's predecessors.

If you do decide to pick up Origins, I can't physically stop you. I assume you're spending money that is yours on a thing you supposedly want and you're well within your rights to do so. But if asked if I'd recommend it, probably not. I didn't enjoy Origins despite finding City and Asylum to be a near perfect blend of story and gameplay. "Perfect Blend" meaning a little story to justify strong core gameplay in case you're wondering. Asylum and City seemed like well crafted experiences built by a passionate team who wanted to deliver on the promise of a strong license. Origins was a bunch of needless conceits in service of nothing other than pushing another game with the Arkham name on it to rake in some cash. It's an uninspired soulless effort that is riddled (pun intended) with bugs and glitches that have affected more players than they didn't. Caveat Emptor my friend.

If you're interested, here's the review I wrote for Origins.

@ ZZoMBiE13

Don't know what you're on about but Arkham Asylum and City were ugly dark and dull, but I could still see, Origins was just sticking to the same depressing formula.

City definately did the samething with me multiple times. Batman would frequently go for the guy I didn't intended. Even before we get to how well its executed, the idea itself still seems flawed, in all 3 games you could more or less choose the general direction but you had no control over the depth of thugs in tight clusters. Also the takedowns are boring. I use the cape stun, it can stun up to three guys simultaneously so no aim issues or use the throw because even if I miss my guy I can still redirect the throw at him also because I'm a sadist and I wana milk ever beat down for all its worth, those thugs better hurt when I'm done . What sucks is when I use disarm and destroy but he performs a takedown on an unarmed thug instead. Or when I try to grapple an unarmed thug and it misfires and hits a guy with a stun rod, which in turn hurts me.

I have no Battlefield Priority, I do microcontextual situational assessments that yield the most amount of Baddassery in that one Particularly moment. Its just more fun and challenging like that. I can't tell yeah how many times Ive had one Armoured thug and one regular inmate and instead of instinctively taking down the thug I stun him, ricochet off him (B> A A>^X) and into the regular thug, then instead of counter attacking approaching thugs I dodge back a safe distance and quickfire grapel one out of them from the group then gel the spot, then counter, , then detonate, then triple batarrang before the others get too close. If I do this fast enough, I can down up to 8 guys with out knocking them out which means I can use the standard long animation Grounded RT+Y take down in the middle of combat instead of at the end and thats so damn satisfying, thats much better than the following the Priority Beat Chain. I don't use the Batarrang Multitaked down and Freeze blast because of obvious fair fight reasons.

I didn't know you could pull them with the grapnel gun in predator mode.

Probably because it doesn't seem like a smart Idea.

Do you do it on the same level as them or higher or lower. It just doesn't seem like thats what the gadget was made for. Since you could kill somebody like that way.

Thanks but rants are better than Reviews.

@Lulu_Lulu: that crack about the targeting in Arkham City is totally false. Batman(that is, the game itself) prioitized enemy contact beautifully based on any number of variables: who is in the direction you're pointing at, what weapon they're holding(if any), whether or not they're armored, and what attack you're using. The only problem I ever had with it is that he prioritized knives over bats/pipes when doing D&D.

In AO, I could never figure out how the game prioritized.

Lulu- what's your high score on the Iceberg Lounge VIP Room challenge?

@Lulu_Lulu:

Well my reviews are like a cacophony of mini rants lol (OK not really. But I do pride myself on tortured metaphors, so there's always that).

I have heard a lot of people use a lot of terms to describe Asylum and City. But dull, that's a new one. I'll concede to dark, but that's kind of Batman's thing. Unless your Adam West, it's hard to be the Dark Knight without the dark part.

@ El_Zo1212o

My Priorities for what attack I use on what enemy differ from the game engine's priorities. Its probably why Peoples success rates always fuctuate because nobody's priority matches the the systems priorities.

I never actually made it to the Ice Berg Lounge. I started with Catwoman, working my way sequentially through riddlers revenge challenges. I never made it past Wonder Towers Predator mode. Haven't played it in years.

@ ZZoMBiE13

It doesn't start out as Dull. That comes afterwards. Afterwhile a super prison is still just a prison. The grafiti, the cages, and fences stop being ominous and just become uninspired.

Which is weird because Bioshock Never had this problem. I think the Groaning sounds of non hostile big daddies and their heavy loud foot steps preserves the game's atmosphere most, played it 4 times and still quick save every 5 minutes like its Doom 3 and something is about to jump me from behind.

@Lulu_Lulu: the Iceberg Lounge is the most objective measure of Arkham combat prowess. A nonstop endurance challenge packed with thugs, melee weapons and armored thugs. No titans, no Twins and no ninjas, so it's all about making the most of the moves and upgrades available to you in a straight up brawl.

And except for the one instance I noted above, for taking on the bad guys and scoring as high as possible, Batman's priorities are tops.

@ El_Zo1212o

If theres one thing thats weird in Batman Games is the clear and obvious different play styles between Predator and Combat mode. I wish they could fuse them in such a way that not only allowed you to approach any scenario discretely or violently but also allowed you to switch freely in between the two even right in the middle of a heated encounter.

The only game I've played thats even closer to mimicking a blurred version of stealth and action, is the Human enemies in The Last Of Us. The abilty to break line of site at anytime allowed you to go sneaky or go loud on command.

I wish Batman was this organic in regards to fusing action and stealth.