I loved both Arkham games. The first one,to me,seemed more dark and dangerous though. Maybe the fact that it was an entirely new IP/experience had something to do with it. Arkham City was a great game but the secondary weapons/detective puzzles felt removed where in Arkham Asylum I felt a huge need right from the start to try and upgrade my skills/solve puzzles. Arkham City really played up the "human" aspect of Batman. Guns and knive attackers were to be feared but the repetitive gargoyle hopping sequences became more of a hassle then fun after a while.
If WB was going to do origins with expanded co-op play with multiple character options then I think Arkham Knights is a great play on words that fit with the current naming trends and don't sound like a cheesy fisher-priced version of a game/IP that should be considered a dark and moody game. Just my thoughts on a series that I LOVE. Just being objective.
I'm a survival snob. I HATE to die. I think that's why Dark Souls scares me a bit. The damn name of the game is DarkSouls:Your GOING to Die. I understand that's a part of the mechanics but I still have my survival snob gamer type that rules my play style. I'm not one for grinding,replays,or reloads. I am compatible with the hoarders and ghosts though I myself am not a total ghost I still feel the need to stay alive.
I'm not a multiplayer gamer. I did however choose PS3 over Xbox 360 for my console purchase based on the Xbox Live subscription model alone. If I did ever get into multiplayer gaming I didn't want to shell out for that part of a game if I chose to do so. PS+ is a pay to play option but it gives you tons of games you can download and other features that hardcore gamers might find useful. I don't subscribe to PS+ but if I had a vita I would. You get something like 15 downloadable vita game plus all the PS3 discounts. I agree with the authors point of rewards vs withholding.
freesoulvw's comments