Kotaku: Harley Quinn's Revenge has had the opposite effect on me than whatever its creators likely intended.
The linear, two-hour $10 PS3/Xbox 360 epilogue to last October's excellent Batman: Arkham City has diminished my desire to return to that game and give me new worries about this Batman series' future.
This add-on is as delicious a dessert as a poison-filled Joker pie to the face.
DLC is more common and controversial than ever. But are we really getting mad at the right things?
Thats not a bad idea to discount the price of DLC for early adopters once the complete edition drops which is usually a year later. So if you bought the game within the 1st 2 months of release you would get a 25% discount on all of the DLC. That discount would always be there so if you time it right, you could get the DLC at an even cheaper price if they have a sale on it.
A lot of games don't get complete edition's though. Most of the games i own that have DLC never had a complete edition released for it.
I don't mind DLC to some extent. It's just that the majority of DLC I've ever picked up has either been way too short, for example the Harley Quinn DLC for Batman Arkham City. And other times the DLC isn't even good.
I'm fine with DLC like what GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption has done. I'm even cool with some map packs here and there. I think season passes are the big problem, especially when some draw in the $50 price tag and don't really give out much.
Boss fights are an important element of video game design. Here's what they need to be successful.
Forgotten? no, but i've given up on them since most games don't feature them, and most that do are diminished to lame ass QTE segments. People may love to talk mess about Arkham Origins, but one thing it did better than any other Arkham game (or most games in general for that matter) was bossfights, seriously had some of the best bossfights i've played in YEARS
This week on 'Before The Knight At Arkham', Throwing Digital Sheep revisits the sequel that turned The Dark Knight into a video gaming Phenomenon - Batman: Arkham City.
"were the series creators at Rocksteady holding back here, saving their new ideas for a new game or have we evidence that a lovely two-game formula has run its course?"
This seems a bit dramatic to me... Say what you will about the DLC but I doubt that means Rocksteady is washed up. I think they're one of the most exciting developers out there and I look forward to what the future holds for them.
I think I'd rather see the story of AC end with a dead Joker. The idea of Joker and Batman is all about the fact that they would eventually come to a deadly clash, whether they wanted to or not, and Arkham City EMBODIES that idea.
Thus, AC ended perfectly. There is no need for a tack-on of Batman going head to head with Harley. Especially if it ends up being some "Joker is actually alive!" crap.
Let me say it again:
ARKHAM CITY ENDED PERFECTLY.
I'll give it a chance, but the whole idea makes me uneasy.
edit: oh, I didn't realize this DLC was already out.
I finished it just a few minutes ago. it was alright but
*spoilers of AC and to the dlc*
nothing really major happens plot wise. All you get is harley is pissed at batman(already a given), batman is depressed because of what happened to the joker and talia(once again, already a given), and harley is pregnant(which was already hinted at twice with the main game). Besides all of that though, it was still pretty fun.
"Here at Kotaku, we love Rockstar and BioWare. We defend them to the last straw, so we save a bad look on a major title for others. PS Max Payne 3 is awesome."
Okay?
I hope joker returns he is my favorite please