Batman: Arkham Origins: The best yet?

7/10 for me, bordering on 6/10. Combats worse and it shows on hard difficulty, open world is bigger but with no added benefit but to space things out. I've put in a few hours and it's a bit of a cluster f*ck of a game to be honest. Arkham City is the definitive Batman game.

All the hard work was done for the new developer by Rocksteady, but they couldn't even get it right.

I heard it's poorly optimised.
Lots of people are reporting bugs, some can't even proceed the story because of them.

Ick, no. God Of War has the most boring combat. Let me sit here and button mash for hours on end without ever bothering to do anything else. :|

That is a flaw I would say I suffered from alot of slowdown yesterday in the game so much that I had to turn the game off because of it. I am enjoying it but Asylum and City kick the hell out of it still.

City was my GOTY in 2011 because of the massive overworld,cool new gadgets and amazing cast as well as the Riddler Trophies.

I am stuck with the same bug as Angry Joe, inside that communication tower.

My main complaints with the games are

1. It´s a complete copy/paste of the previous installments. Like no innovations at all. And don´t start with the crap that AC was already perfect. LOL

2. Enigma´s trophies puzzles are too generic and lack any inspiration. They are too easy to beat.

3. So far, there is no play on worlds riddles.

4. Graphics got some weird bluish tint. Seriously, it´s annoyingly aweful.

5. The game is poorly optimized compared to AC.

Getting some 50 fps on highest settings at 1080p on

i5 4670k

8GB

GTX780

while I was getting some 100+fps in B:AC with the same settings

6. The game is glitchy as hell.

Some time during the fight, bodies get frozen in the air, or fall through environment.

7. The city is f..n HUGE. The problem is there are not many things to do there. As I said, puzzles are too generik and uninspired. It´s just takes you double time to get to the points of interest.

Definitely 6/10.

@TheGuardian03:

@TheGuardian03 said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

People should NEVER put stock into other player's time spent in games. They sure as hell shouldn't base their purchasing decisions off of it. The game has a tonne of side stuff to do as well as all the usual Riddler puzzles

So far it does a lot of things much better than its predecessors. The story is better, dialogue is MUCH better, it feels more like the comics than the previous Arkham games, fighting requires a bit more precise timing than just button mashing, soundtrack is outstanding and the visuals (on PC at least) are astonishing at times

It suffers from a few niggly things though like the camera is kinda buggy and running up some ledges sometimes doesn't work. Also the city is too big for its own good. At first it seems awesome to have such a huge gotham but there's a lot of running around (helped by batwing fast travel though)

I'm still only a few hours in but it's shaping up to be the best in the series. It definitely doesn't deserve a 6/10, not even close to that.

Funny thing is it's written by

Assassins creed series writer.

Also Batman has the voice of Etzio in AC. Revelations. Lol.

Agreed. The story does draws story elements better from batman sources.

only played a couple hours so far, seems okay, if uninspired.

Glad I decided to purchase anyway despite some bad reviews. The game in 3D is stunning! Yes, it might be more of the same but I loved Arkham City all the way to the end and wanted more.

Its nothing new. Basically Arkham City with a new skin for the city and they expanded it a little bit. But of course with that expansion they didn't actually add anything to it except more buildings so its useless.

Though I did play this with my newly acquired DualShock 4 and it played swimmingly on PS3.

I've heard quite a few people call it "best in the series" actually....

The game seems to resonate a lot more with consumers than reviewers; I wonder if that's about to change.

Runs better for me than Arkham City.

Looks repetitive and boring to me.

@starjet905:

Why on earth are'nt using a gamepad?

These kinds of games are always designed for it anyway, so why not indulge?

FPS rates aside, Arkham City never had this many bugs. http://steamcommunity.com/app/209000/discussions/0/792924952554932514/ Several of them are pretty much game-breaking.

I prefer mouse and keyboard for this type of game. I only use a controller for racing, fighting, and then games that don't have a proper KB/M control scheme, like TT's LEGO games, for example. Personal preference and all that.

From what I remember the controls are the same from City. The real problem is that the timing is a little off in most combat situations in Origins compared to the other two.

The Hugo Strange plotline is still far better than

Joker has stolen Black Mask's identity to offer a reward for assassins to kill Batman, whom Joker has never met

Plus all the marketing around Black Mask & Deathstroke and they were barely in the d*mn game

lol

Yeah. I thought this avatar would look about as silly as possible.

Hahaha. The game is 6 hours long?! That's like half the length of the other two. They were around 12-15 hours for the campaign alone! Its kind of laughable the way people have tried to defend this game against the GS review just because its Batman.

I would have thought the omission of that fact is yet another reason to question the integrity of the review[er]. :|

The integrity of the reviewer? I think you need more to worry about in your life.

Probably, but the quality of coverage here has degraded to the point where such questions are difficult to ignore.

What's degrading is this ugly culture on this site of making personal attacks against people because users aren't getting what they wanted and feel entitled. They shouldn't be getting away with it. Have you read some of the comments on that Batman review? Its the place to be if you want to feel bad about the world.

Lets be honest: its not the quality of the coverage. The writers are trying their best here. Its the fact that people just don't agree. Gamers have a terrible attitude towards any form of criticism.

Play the game with an XBOX 360 controller, like I do, and you won't have those problems. As for bugs, the only ones I've had are the following: The game went mute at a checkpoint and the game froze while saving. Aside from that, I've had no problems.

You know what? I change my mind. F*ck this game. The boss battle with Deathstroke is so cheap. At this point, I'm not even enjoying the game; I just want to get past this point and continue the game. However, if this boss battle is any indication that the remaining ones will be just as cheap, then f*ck Arkham Origins.

If I can beat him, you definitely can.

I believe in you.

I know that I can beat him, but at this point I'm so frustrated that I don't even care to try hard enough. I don't like cheapness in games; it makes me feel cheated. What a waste of $50.00.

Damn. I paid $33.

I don't remember him being that cheap. Maybe just take five from the game dude.

I started a campaign on "Hard" and decided to start a new one on "Normal" when I reached Death Stroke. He's easier on "Normal", but he's still cheap. I could have spent that $50 on a street walker.

I liked Arkham Asylum and City but haven't played this game yet. If its only 6 hours long I think I'll just wait for a price drop!

I don't understand this mentality... Why do people let credits decide for them when they are done with a game? Arkham City only had an 8 hour campaign, but well over 40 hours of content... Why would you pay for a game and throw away 80% of it?

On launch Arkham City's DX11 was so poorly implemented the developers recommended people not to use it until they got a patch out. It was completely filled with stuttering issues and practically unplayable for anyone with an AMD card on dx11. Still has performance issues for a lot of people with dx11

The game gets better, but it is damn short. Predator parts are too few. Just ended the hotel part (to keep spoilers to a minimum) and already am at roughly 90% if the synopsis meter is any indication of the length of the story. I hope I'm wrong.

I didn't find Deathstroke to be hard, however, if he's difficult just wait till Bane. You'll get your ass handed to you in a silver plate.

If by best you mean worst, then yes of course it is!

Nope, still Arkham Asylum.

I thought it was OK, but I still prefer the Rocksteady games. This just didn't feel as polished to me... the controls didn't feel as tight and there were sections where I got horrible frame rate drops (PS3 version anyway). The boss fights were good (although quite tough) but yeah, I found it a little tedious.

You know, I haven't played it, but oddly enough I felt no hype for this at all. Like, I loved Asylum. When I heard about City I was all "ooh, this is neat!" And City's good, adds a lot as a sequel, it's a good sequel.

Then I hear about Origins. And I just think "Okay... what's the point?"

I've played both Asylum and City with keyboard and mouse, and I love that control scheme. Why should I have to get used to a new control scheme just because of WB Montreal's incompetence?

Oh, and another nasty bug I forgot to mention. Glide kick doesn't work while Batman is actually gliding. The prompt appears, but it doesn't work at all. It only works if you use it from a stationary location such as a vantage point.

Haha that made me laugh xD but sorry about the game man.

lol that's what this game is like, starts out good and then it's down hill. Everyones talking about how great the boss battles are, i'm not seeing it. Just beat Bane first time round on Hard and it's just bs.

I'm having trouble saying this game is as good as Arkham Asylum. It's not even in the same league as Arkham City imo.

@BluRayHiDef:

I was really enjoying it and wondering how it could have possibly got bad reviews. Then I ran into a game breaking but which wont allow me to continue until they decide to patch it.