@iGoTKiDs2FeEd: Gears of War effectively innovated third-person cover-based shooting mechanics. No other third-person shooter on the Xbox 360 console had the same type of cover and movement mechanics as this franchise did.
@valtair: I know it was Microsoft who made the decision to release the game around the time of the Holidays in November and December. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they told 343 not to include split-screen in the game. I just think it's a shame that Microsoft in this instance (and with the Master Chief Collection) seem to care more about sales than about the quality of the game. I'm not exactly sure what you mean in your fourth sentence by cramming in playing time, so you'll have to elaborate on that. Despite all of the shortcomings, I'm not saying that the actual game wasn't enjoyable to play - I'm saying it's inexcusable to release a game for the same price as its predecessors while only including around half of the content that was in the previous games.
I agree it would make them look bad to push the game back after the split-screen controversy. It seems like they would've been better off originally releasing it in October of 2016 with all of the game modes in it and taking the time to optimize split-screen. That's my take on it. What they've done instead would be somewhat akin to a studio releasing half of a movie for the full price of admission, and then releasing 10 minutes more of it for free each month for the next several months. Just because the content being added later on is free doesn't entirely excuse the fact that said content should've been in the game/film/product at launch, at least not to me.
I'm saying that they should've released a more fully-featured game at launch. Sure, it's great that they're finally getting around to adding Firefight, Infection, more maps, but it's a shame that players have to wait out the better part of a year to experience several game modes that were in the previous two Halo games at launch. In a sense, yes, I think they should've released the game a few months later and put their best foot forward by making it the very best game it could be at launch. Not push back the release date from an earlier one that they had already announced per say, but simply make the original release date later. Instead, the game we got at launch and up until the first 2 months after its release date felt stripped-down and bare-bones, with a campaign that is at least 1-2 hours shorter in duration than its predecessors, and multiplayer that contained only a handful of maps and modes. I don't know about you, but I would much prefer to wait an extra few months for a game to be released with more features and in a more polished state than receive one in a half-assed state with little content, so I don't care as much about games being pushed back. The newest Mass Effect game was reported to be delayed by at least a few months, and I'm actually happy about it because I'm sure the game will be better for it. That's just me though.
@cboye18: Sorry about such a late response to this - I meant to respond much earlier but just never got around to it.
I think it really depends on the difficulty setting. On Easy or Normal, sure, the Batman games are pretty easy, and you most likely won't perish more than a handful of times throughout the game. Then again, a game doesn't need to be difficult in order to be enjoyable. However, if played on the hardest difficulty setting, the player is forced to use different tactics in order to progress through the different encounters, especially without the counter indicator above enemies' heads, which makes me question why you believe there's a lack of button timing. For example, in Arkham Origins during the Deathstroke boss fight, it's almost completely a matter of timing your counter properly without the indicator. Simply mashing down on the X or square button won't cut it on Hard or if you're trying to attain high scores in the Challenge maps because the enemies will clobber you.
The actual mechanics might not have a whole lot of depth to them, but the context in which they are used have variety. Different enemy types require different types of dodges or attacks to effectively defeat, such as enemies with shields, the Titans from Arkham City, enemies with knifes or stun rods, etc...Often times all of these enemies are present in a single encounter, and so the player must resort to using different attack combos and such to defeat them, which, in my view, always keeps the combat fresh.
Again, I think your points are valid if you play on the easier difficulties, but I think the game requires a bit more mastery on Hard and is more challenging than you give it credit for. I certainly respect where you're coming from because I think a recent game that is akin to those you listed is Rocket League, which is easy to pick up and play casually but requires practice and skillful technique to actually be good at.
The problem is that most of this free DLC should've already been included at the game's launch. While it is nice that they're releasing this content for free, I believe it only partly makes up for its absence during the first few months' of this game's release, during which time I don't believe this game was worthy of the $60 price tag because it was so bare-bones (especially with the lack of split-screen).
If you think COD is identical with every release, you should try out the Dynasty Warriors series, LOL. In that series it's not so much sequels but rather a remake of the same game several times. Also, different team rosters have nothing to do with the actual gameplay mechanics or core design of the game, at least for the NBA 2K series. That series hasn't made any significant gameplay changes for at least half a decade.
I agree with everything except that this will actually be probably be one of the best-selling COD games in recent years because they've bundled the Remaster of Call of Duty 4 with the new game. Not sure if they'll sell it individually, though.
@FBohler: Why? I suppose the combat can be repetitive if you rinse and repeat the same two moves again without using any combos or equipment, but the actual mechanics are responsive and fluid.
@cboye18: Honestly, it sounds like the problem has less to do with the Batman games and more to do with how you prefer to play very difficult games that require many hours to master. Ratcheting up the difficulty level to hard and removing the counter indictors in these games is plenty challenging for the majority of players. If you still deem it to be too easy, then I'd recommend either trying the challenge maps or hopping back onto the Dark Souls series. The combat mechanics are fine in these games - making a game deliberately challenging just for the sake of it usually isn't beneficial (not to say that a game being too easy is good, either). The fact of the matter is that most people aren't looking for Dark Souls-esque level of difficulty in T-rated Batman games (with the exception of Arkham Knight being rated M). There are plenty of other options for you to look into if what you primarily care about is challenge. That's just my two cents.
AmuricanPatriot's comments