Is it just me or does everything we've seen so far from AO look a lot more generic and uninspired than what has come before, particularly in Arkham Asylum.

The first game was a nightmarish foray into the crazy world of the Asylum and had more exaggerated and interesting villains such as Killer Croc, Scarecrow etc. and a really wonderful visual style with moments such as the Scarecrow sequences, Poison Ivy taking over for a while and so on. Arkham City maintained a lot of this of course with Joker and the brilliant over the top nature of Penguin etc. particularly with his Great White Shark and the like.

Everything I've seen of Arkham Origins looks a lot plainer and more generic - the idea of the numerous assassin's is cool but they all seem a bit uniform in design. I don't know, it seems to be wheeling more towards Nolan Batman than comic book Batman which I think is what gave the first two games their appeal.

Hopefully it'll be a case of there being a lot in there that will surprise but at the moment it just seems a slightly blander and more dull experience.

I've completed both through to completion twice and Arkham Asylum gets my vote, purely because I believe it has that little bit more atmosphere and cohesion - also it is more original compared to God of War III which, whilst suitably epic and majestic, was still very very similar to what has came before it in God of War 2 and 3.

And on a separate note, what is it with all these pompous windbags going on about how it's not *fair* to compare the two games? You're posting on a website whose purpose is just that! I appreciate people saying they're very different games but the OP didn't ask for definitive exhaustice critique of which game is undoubtedly the superior example of a videogame, merely which in our opinion was the better game! This is what happens far too often on the internet - people circumvent a simple, straightforward and perfectly reasonably question with ego-inflated disruption and moaning.

Definitely the PAL version - why do the American versions always have to be so busy and cluttered? Without making an over-generalisation, its just another case of Americans not seeming to be able to do or appreciate a bit of subtlety.

Having recently completed Silent Hill 4 for the first time, but having completed the other 3 games years ago, you don't need to have completed the first 3 to understand the story of the game at all.

However - not only is the 4th the weakest game in the series, but it also contains some knowing nudges and winks to the previous games that will go right over your head if you don't play them first. This isn't a bad thing nor will it impede on your experience, but playing the first 3 beforehand will enrich your SH4 experience - particularly the first as there are numerous references and allusions to the antagonist of the first game and her mother.

VERY MINOR, NON-STORY (GAMEPLAY)SPOILERS AHEAD

In terms of difficulty, Silent Hill 4 can lull you into a false sense of security in that the 'room' is a central hub and safe haven for about 3/4 of the game. However, after that it becomes an increasingly hostile and dangerous place, and the difficulty curves considerably. If you play it on difficult mode and you're a fairly experienced gamer then the main bulk of the game shouldn't prove very problematic, but you WILL notice a sudden spike in considerable difficulty once the room begins to turn against you and suddenly you have nowhere safe to go, and you will need to be going back to the room a number of times after it starts getting hostile. You can pick up items to ward you against the dangerous nature of the room but not only are these fairly sparse, but you also have to use them very quickly and in quite specific areas, before which your health will be draining very quickly.

I would recommend playing it through on normal difficulty if you've not completed any of the series beforehand, as I believe the puzzles in the game are also more cryptic and difficult on hard mode, and given the above mention about the room itself, you might struggle all told.

I'd also recommend playing the first 3 beforehand, not as a necessity but because they are strong, and generally better games. In terms of story Silent Hill 4 is one of the more interesting and strongest of the series, but in terms of gameplay etc. it's more unique (And in some ways works better than the first 3) but is generally accepted as a slight dip in quality.

A) Batman: Arkham Asylum (3 points)

B) Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks (2 points)

C) Resident Evil 5 (1 point)

Haven't played Dragon Age, Uncharted etc. yet hence them not getting votes!

Hhmmm this is a toughy, but still, here's my ten for what it's worth (in no particular order):-

* THE ORANGE BOX (if not legible then HALF LIFE 2)

* SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS

* THE ELDER SCROLLS IV: OBLIVION

* METAL GEAR SOLID 4: GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS

* GRAND THEFT AUTO 4

* RESIDENT EVIL (remake)

* RESIDENT EVIL 4

* FINAL FANTASY VII

* TOMB RAIDER (original)

* RESIDENT EVIL 2

I'd definitely say yes, and the PS2 may be in second but I definitely think it's trailing far behind the 360's in terms of numbers.

I've had the same PS2 since launch and it's working absolutely fine still.

360 however - 2 years and 3 models down already, ridiculous.