Why Arkham Knight is the last Batman game from Rocksteady

Just a friendly reminder for people to cool their jets. You are entitled to see Batman Arkham Origins however you wish, but lets not throw words around aimed at people who disagree with what you think.

Thanks.

In terms of the news, I hope Rocksteady work on something new as well. I feel the same with Uncharted (I will end up getting Uncharted 4 though if/when I get a PS4) so it is more franchise burnout I think than developer burnout (on my end anyway).

@Lulu_Lulu: Amazing Spiderman actually managed that- and any time you could use the web retreat to pull yourself out of an encounter then sneak around and take out another two baddies or so then go back in fists first.

@ El_Zo1212o

Can't wait for them to finaly nail down this concept properly.

Did you enjoy that Amazing Spider-Man game?

@ZZoMBiE13: On 3ds, I thought it was amazing(ha ha). On 360, it was less impressive. All the little issues you could overlook for the sake of having a complex 3d brawler on a handheld are pretty glaring and harder to forgive in a full on console release.

Overall, I'd give it a 6.5, 7. For a movie game, it's almost a solid 8.

As great as Rocksteady is as a developer and the way they up-the-ante on superheroes games I think I am A okay with Arkham Knight being their last batman game developing. WB Games Montrel has already proven themselves that they can produce a Rocksteady quality game even if the game was kinda of a rehash and didn't do anything new. Also, it will be nice so a nice new afresh perspective on the batman game franchise from any developer.

So I think I am okay with Rocksteady leaving to do bigger and better things. I mean, they have changed the face of both gaming and super hero games, so they can get a gig with any publisher who will be willing to write a blank check for them.

i think we can expect good things from them

But the developer was a completely different lot of people, doesn't matter what way you spin with the logo, the name what ever, different people mean's different skills in writing and whatever, you can't judge arkham knight off of City when Arkham Knight are being made by the amazing Rocksteady who made Asylum and City.

Yes CoD:MW, BLACK OPS, MW3 are completely different studio's you can't judge one and hold the same judgement over the next game, because they are from different people, and WB Studio's who made Origins isn't in the same league as Rocksteady

@bezza2011: You're just not getting it. This isn't about a game- it's about the franchise. A weak third entry killed the anticipation for the fourth entry. Will I play it? Sure. Someday. But I won't spend the cost of buying next ten hardware to play it. If it weren't for AO tanking the overall hype for the series, I absolutely would have. Different studios or no, AO carried the Arkham brand name and they killed my hype for it. I'd rather play TMNT: Out of the Shadows or Captain America: Super Soldier than Arkham Origins or even City, at this point.

I played the demo for Blackgate Deluxe and I can't help but agree it's better on 3DS or possibly PS Vita than it is on console. The controls felt awkward and the combat didn't feel as precise as the console ones did.

I can't wait for Knight. I'll only say this about Origins; I had no compulsion to play it and I can't properly articulate why. Perhaps Pikmaniac alluded to it best....Origins felt so obligatory. Aside from design decisions and a few gameplay issues of Origins that made me continually not want to reboot it back up, Rocksteady's games felt like products of real passion. Labors of love for the source material. Every element was so polished and well thought out. Origins just felt so.....dead.....to me.

@El Z: that's too bad you won't be playing Knight on release, one less person to chat about it with. :( Ah, you'll be giving me an up on challenge maps. Better not wait too long though, man.

October, October, October. Never have I wanted Halloween to get here so fast.

@El_Zo1212o: and yet the Arkham Origins is a standalone game and has nothing to do with the main series.

@bezza2011: You're still not getting the concept of a *franchise*...

@MirkoS77: Don't waste any time- in a couple/few years I'm going to start climbing the leaderboards on whatever passes for an endurance challenge in AK.

@Metamania: we were talking about the Amazing Spiderman game. AO: Blackgate deluxe kinda confuses me, though. I mean, fixing the map was a pretty important move, but did they expand Batman's combat ability? Just like I let Spiderman slide in some ways on 3ds, so did I cut AO: Blackgate some slack. My biggest complaint was that Batman's move set was so limited- strike, counter, stun, beat down. That's it. No combo gadgets, no combo finishers, no aerial attacks or blade dodges. It wasn't the handheld game Bats deserved, that's for damned sure.

A new Turtles game would be dope but it would be another dark setting and more sewers to explore just like Batman. What I really want to see is a fresh spin on a new Superman game.

Imagine a Superman game with Batman combat, being able to use eye beams, fly around whenever, doing flying drop kicks, even fist fight in air with certain villains while floating above the city, dodging cars and buildings being thrown at you. Having to chose being finishing the fight another day or risking civilian causalities on the fly.

Random events like stopping a train from derailing off a cliff, stop bridges from collapsing, stopping bank robberies with a huge ass sandbox to explore. A day / night cycle where shit gets even more hectic at night time.

Flying from Metropolis back to Superman's ice cave. Even having a chance to let Lois Lane die and romance Supergirl or Wonder Woman instead, lol. With villains like Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Bizzaro this could be epic.

@HipHopBeats: You scare the crap out of me.

I'm not stupid enough to Judge a franchise off a game which is a standalone and done by a completely different company than the company who made the 2 game of the year games before it, which the arkham knight follows on from :S

@bezza2011: See my previous response.

@El_Zo1212o: You know you'd want to play it!

@El_Zo1212o: I do get a concept of a franchise. but I also no and i'm logical in thinking hey wait Origins was made by completely different people o and wait it is a prequel to this franchise and it's a standalone game using the name, but wait arkham knight is coming out created by the guys who made asylum and city, can't you not see past a game just because of it's title and not the creator??

@HipHopBeats: That's exactly why you scare me. I've heard a ton of Superman game ideas, and most of them stink almost as bad Superman 64.

@El_Zo1212o:

Arkham Origins was not a bad game, so why the hate?

@BluRayHiDef: it was absolutely not a bad game. But it was very much a bad *Arkham* game. Everything that was great about Arkham City was either poorly implemented or tweaked into near uselessness by comparison.

The only good change to the series that came out of Arkham Origins was the martial artist enemy archetype. It added a new dimension to the combat, but they even botched that when they dressed them up in colors associated with a previous(and returning) enemy type, which in the midst of combat can lead to muscle memory confusion.

Plus, the martial artist was the only thing that made sense about the combat, as it added a little bit more of a challenge than the typical thugs we are given with. It would have been nice to do some kind of sequencing martial arts fight before getting the drop on them, similar to the fight you had with Deathstroke. That would have been a lot more exciting.

Also, I'm in the firm belief that while Asylum is better in terms of focus on the story and character development, Arkham City improved everything that made it spectacular, from combat to missions. I felt that Batman was slower in Asylum, but was faster and more powerful to use in City. I'm hoping they continue with this route in Knight.

Here's some good reasons as to why it does deserve the hate:

-First off, the combat, while it feels the same and fun as ever, it also felt clunky and uncomfortable. Truth is, I've had multiple problems of facing an enemy and trying to hit them while facing them in their direction and they hit nothing but air. Batman is supposed to fly over and hit them and a lot of the times, he didn't, so you have to be really close to do so. In Batman AA and AC, that wasn't a problem at all. The same thing goes for countering; the counter icon pops up, I hit the Y button as they are attacking, and yet I STILL GOT HIT. That's a problem.

-There have been multiple reports of glitches and bugs, such as the game freezing up on you (which has happened to me), not to mention saves that get corrupted and force you to start all over again, which was a pain in the ass to go through. At least I knew what to do from start to finish, but that didn't make things any easier for me. Also, glitches such as Batman disappearing into the ground of a rooftop also happened. All of that and it's something that WBM REFUSES to fix because they prefer to be all freaking happy about the DLC that's coming out. What a load of bullshit if you ask me! A good developer always makes sure that their games are free of much glitches and bugs as possible. Unfortunately, not every game does this and still receives a ton of praise and awards, etc (Skyrim, I'm looking at YOU!)

-The story isn't all that good, to be honest. The only memorable thing that I remember from it was how the rivalry between Batman and Joker started, at least in the Arkham universe. Other than that, the voice acting was good, but not up to par (except for Troy Baker's performance as The Joker, that was pretty good, though I miss Mark Hamil as the voice of the Joker).

-The Dark Knight system. That was a terrible idea, especially when one has to consider the fact that you have to do them, one by one, instead of ANY ORDER. Having to go through the tracks that involved the predator rooms in story mode only absolutely sucked. I had to do a lot of restarts for certain tracks just to get them done. Rocksteady allowed you to tackle any challenge in any way you see fit! Why the hell did WBM not do the same here as well? It's absurd game design at least!

These are just few of the reasons why I feel Origins is the worst in the series. I've been hearing rumors of WBM possibly making more games out of the Origins timeline. If they do, I hope they learn from their mistakes and not screw it up big time, like how they did with Origins.

Edit: I also forgot to mention the boss fights. Most of them weren't bad, but Bane? Holy crap, that was BAD! The fact that WBM programmed him to act like a homing missile was insane and I mean insane in a bad way! No matter how hard you try to dodge over his shoulder rush, he can somehow do a 360 and STILL HIT YOU. It was also not easy having to get three quick cape stuns as he was somehow faster enough to punch you. That is one of the worst boss fights I've ever had the pleasure of going through. He's not like Bane in AA, where you could throw a batarang to confuse him, giving you enough time to roll out of the way. And it's worse because I completed the game THREE TIMES (the first time, then on NG+, then on I Am The Night, which really isn't that bad at all). To quote the Angry Video Game Nerd, "What were they thinking?!?!"

@Metamania: funny you should mention how they sped up Batman from AA to AC- when I first played Arkham City, I was really annoyed at how fast Batman moved. It sparked a big debate with Gram in the Great Arkham City thread, if I remember right. It just didn't seem right to me that someone that big could move so fast.

So far as the issues you enumerated in the next post, the glitches I could shrug off(though I never suffered the data loss bug), but the combat issues that were the real killer. I don't specifically remember losing a combo because Batman's reach failed, but often I lost it because he would inexplicably attack some random goon who posed no immediate threat, rather than the one carrying the combo-breaking weapon who I was actually aiming for.

O, and yeah, Bane was a real bastard.

Arkham Knight will probably be in the running for GOTY, I'll throw my chips in on it. But after that, I could care less what Rocksteady does afterward if it is associated with a licensed title. They need to use creativity and come up with a new concept for a series. Maybe something like horror associated but with insane combat, like a Resident Evil on steroids. Going on with licensed games will get old, I almost didn't even play Origins because I knew it was going to be too similar to Arkham City. And I was definitely right. I didn't really see much of a difference besides the Anarchy things which were almost identical to the Riddler Challenges in Arkham City. And, well, the plot obviously. But now thanks to our amazing next-gen consoles and the addition of the Batmobile and an enlarged Arkham map, I have to see how Rocksteady bangs out the series finale. Probably in an epic way that will leave most series nuts in tears. Or close to.

That's another thing that I'm glad you pointed out, when it came to hitting the goons that is. I would often go for a special takedown by facing the person with the weapon and executing the move, right? But instead of going for my original target, he would instead destroy someone that posed no threat to me whatsoever and the next thing I know, I get hit by the guy that did! It's incredibly ridiculous!

Also, you have to keep in mind something; in Origins, Batman just started out his career, so he isn't as fast enough as he should be (although I would have liked him to be!). In Asylum and City, due to how far he's gone in his career, he should have been able to go much faster than before and I'm glad Rocksteady made sure of that. Not sure how much speed or power he'll have in Arkham Knight though.