GS - "Carolyn finds out what its like to be a young Batman facing master assassins in Gotham City."
Here's Carolyn Petit going for another controversial low score backed by super-flimsy, super-subjective reasoning. "it's not new and innovative enough!" Yeah Carolyn, you got it.
It's funny because the Call of Duty games are rarely new and innovative from their predecessors, YET they receive high review scores.
Activision money goes a long way. Plus people fear Activision black balling them to give it a low score.
She didn't review it smart ass.
After a while what can you do new? bigger worlds, better graphics, better resolution. You can's expect every game to be the next big thing, but this game is good for what it is! I like the game, 6/10 is much to harsh.
Let the series rest for a while. It might be having the Assassin Creed Syndrome.
That is a bit unfair Lovable. 3 games in one generation vs 6. The fact is people are just claiming this is 'milked' because Rocksteady are not making it. I bet if Rocksteady came out with this exact title it would be getting praise and half the criticisms would suddenly vanish. It is like people are forgetting the doubt surrounding Asylum before its release. I gave Rocksteady the benefit and it paid off. I feel WB game studios deserve that same courtesy, and after playing Origins they deserve it. Peoples preconceptions are clouding their judgement.
@Pintheshadows There is no way Rocksteady would have put out the same game that WB game studio is putting out right now. Lets be real here. It is no surprise that this game isn't as good as the previous ones. I knew this from the jump. Rocksteady is what made the Arkham series good. Imagine GTA or MGS being made by another developer. You think those games would have a prayer being as good as the previous ones? Heck no! Also, think about how bad games with superhero licenses usually are. Now think about the review scores those games usually get. Now look at the the review scores Origins is currently getting. Arkham Origins is just the best of the bunch of all the cash grabs on superhero licenses with WB just playing it safe by making the game as similar to Arkham City as they can get away with. When Rocksteady releases the true follow up to Arkham City you'll see what I'm talking about.
You see, i'd agree with you if any of what you said was true. Origins is just as good as the Rocksteady Arkham games. In many ways it is better. WB seemed to have sat down and planned a story which fits an open world. They have vastly improved the detective mode, the boss battles are the best the series has seen, the open world is larger and feels more dangerous, having people react to seeing Batman for the first time as he is still almost mythical offers a new take, the puzzles and non assassin characters are implemented more naturally into the world. This game, despite the opinions you seem to hold is not a cash grab. It is a legitimate game in the Arkham series and it is developed by people who know what they are doing. They have improved things that Rocksteady seemed intent on ignoring. And if that sounds like a lazily developed cash grab to you I don't know what to say. It really isn't. It is thoroughly excellent.
Too harsh* not that I agree with you, I just find it really annoying when half the internet doesn't know how to use the word "to" and it's variations correctly.
Well, Arkham Origins hasn't been seeing the best reviews from other websites either. This 6/10 is hardly surprising enough to call out, but I hear it's amazing.
Having played the game Enemy I think the content, not just the scores, of these reviews should be called out. They are criticising things that were a)ignored in the previous two games and b)are ignored in series that actually improve less than Origins does for the Arkham series. I won't call it out but I am concerned about the gaming medias flip flopping around this topic. It seems they just make a decision based on what side of bed they got out of. 'Today I have decided that all the things I previously loved about 'insert game' I now find bad'. That is how I feel about it anyway. I don't really like inconsistencies. I feel gaming media has been full of them this generation.
Wow. Usually game reviews are spot on, but lately I've found myself disagreeing with many of them. First Sonic: The Lost World and now this. I enjoyed both games.
Also Beyond two souls
w.f.t is wrong with that bitch ....
Didnt take very long http://images.wikia.com/mk/... I dont even want to see the Gamespot comment section bet its total chaos.
The problem is that, as usual, it will be used as an excuse to defend a bad review.
Oh im not making any excuses for the terribadness of the review. Im just saying, that the comment section is gonna be, anything from death threats to transgender insults.
i have seriously mixed feelings about this game.. I will try it when it becomes available as a used purchase
I'm having a blast playing it. I don't understand what's so bad about it. I honestly can't.
you have mixed feeling and you haven't play it yet?
Yeah mixed feelings about getting or not getting it. It's not a rocket science bro.
The game is simply incredible. If you liked Arkham City than you would love this. The world is at least twice as big, there's a shitload of new events/items/challenges not to mention upgrades, enemies, much improved boss fights. Also the younger Batman is much more deadly and badass (if that was even possible) and the story seems much more focused and intriguing. I can't for the life of me understand all these reviewers claiming it is not innovative enough. Like, the hell you people expect? It is a continuation of the series, the end of a trilogy. It uses the same engine, most of the fighting system and it still feels fresh. By their logic, every game from the AC universe, the Half Life 2 episodes, Borderlands 2 and its DLC, COD and its dozen sequels, Battlefield 3,4 and many other games should be called inferior. Great logic huh?
Agreed. My favorite Arkham game yet. Don't listen to reviews, everyone, play this game.
This review and most others are a lie. The combat is not the same. It's incredibly sloppy and the timing for the enemies are off. Cape stuns are pointless now. Evades no longer reset mobs with any regularity. And enemies will attack in the middle of a takedown. The upgrade systems of the first two games has been replaced with a tree that forced you down an unnecessary path like pointless armor upgrades. So instead of unlocking combat skills first to get higher combos and XP, you're stuck with armor. I don't respect reviewer that speed through games like this. I don't care about the score but almost all that reviewed this game says nothing has changed....but the most important aspect of the Arkham series has been ruined by the B Team.
Dude, it's one thing to disagree with a review. It's another to call it "a lie" when it is someone's opinion by definition.
Surely you understand the difference between fact and opinion. The critic says combat has not changed. It has. Whether that's good or bad would be an opinion but the fact that it's changed is fact. I don't know what your experience is with Free Flow but at one point last year I was #4 or better on the worldwide leaderboards for most of the FF challenge rooms. I know this stuff and I can assure you it's different. I even outlined why it's different in my original post. The review is factually incorrect. If part of it is wrong, the whole review is bogus. Part of the problem with critics these days is that they half ass everything. This is one of those cases.
I can confirm inthelab is correct -_-
Of course I know the difference, but I've read many reviews of this game and these "most others" you're talking about aren't as "factually incorrect" as you claim, even if this one is. I'm not defending the publishing of inaccurate information and using it to support a review verdict, but it's sad how a handful of poorly constructed reviews can make people provide blanket statements of how miserable the gaming press world is and vilify it. I've seen some real problems, but I can guarantee that not everyone is out to ruin it as you seem to claim.
Handful? That's not even the conversation we're having but since you are clearly wrong, I'll play ball... Gamesradar- "Bat's attacks and counterattacks fluidly debilitate foes like a whirling symphony of fists--he's Mozart when the battle begins. It was damn near perfect before, and it still is in Origins." CCC- makes no mention IGN- "Origins keeps the foundation of Arkham Asylum and Arkham City’s amazing combat intact, " Ausgamer- and this one is a blatant lie in regards to animation...."The highlight of the Arkham games has always been the combat, which remains the case here. Rocksteady’s fighting system is beautiful, and the decision by the developers to leave it largely untouched was a wise one. The electro-gloves from the Wii U’s Armoured Edition of Arkham City make an appearance, but other than that changes are limited to a few enemy types that I didn’t recognise and slightly smoother animation." Eurogamer- " Batman: Arkham Origins really recaptures is the solid middle of an Arkham game - the combat," Shall I continue? The point is, if you are proven wrong in a conversation like this one, it's best to just accept that and move on than try to shift the conversation to another point that proves what I originally said to be true. Go ahead and downvote me despite making my case on your terms...lol Edit: I didn't hand pick these either. Just went down the list on Metacritic and to be honest, that last quote was cut short a bit for space. Wasn't trying to misquote to prove a point...
Dude, chill. Firstly, you're using Metacritic specifically. Even though they're "wrong", you're giving credibility to the same type of people who you are clearly against by citing their opinions in your explanation. Metacritic is traffic-based, not quality-based. Not every one of those sites is worth your time, trust me. There are Youtube channels who could tear publications like Game Informer a new one any day of the week when it comes to expressing a respectable and worthwhile opinion. They are worth trusting; Game Informer, not so much. Also, I don't know where you got "shifting the conversation" from, because I replied to your comment. I didn't back off like you think I did. You said these reviews (and most others) were "a lie," implying that a majority of the reviews online were in fact inaccurate. Maybe the ones you listed were, but not a majority. Once again, it's all based on popularity. If you're so dead set on proving to yourself that you're right on all fronts, go ahead. I will not censor you. But I am going to play and finish Arkham Origins myself and make my own opinion before claiming 100% falsehood on others' reviews. If you've finished it, more power to you. Lastly, if you're spending more time tearing apart gaming publications that you don't like instead of supporting those you do, your time is clearly mishandled. Have a good one and enjoy Arkham Origins. I sure as hell am.
Not worth continuing this conversation as we're clearly having two separate discussions... I said the Gamespot review is a lie based on her statements on the Combat, which is the heart of the Arkham games, and that most reviews are also lying about the combat. You start talking about opinions can't be lies or some nonsense and how I'm going off a handful of reviews when you don't really know what I'm talking about or how many reviews I've read. I show you exactly what I'm on by presenting quotes for the first 5 or so reviews on Metacritic (which I use as an easy way to get to reviews that peak my interests and not for a meta score), You start talking about metacritic and how much time I spend tearing down publications(which is bulls*** btw as I pull those quotes which took less than 5 minutes)I supposedly don't like. Where you're getting that from is probably the same place you're getting the my fake schedule of time spent obsessing over reviews... I'm lost and you have no point to make aside from your last which is all you really needed to say. Almost everything you've said is a generalization and probably from a conversation you've had with others about reviews. Who knows or cares... You like the game and will defend it no matter what so....enjoy your game dude and come back when you've figured out how screwed up the combat is.
I can't understand how on any score scale this is a six. That is pretty much saying it is just above average. This game is significantly better than that, whether you want to hate on it not being Rocksteady or not. I'm sick of games like CoD getting high scores whilst this game which actually improves in many important areas that Rocksteady didn't seem concerned with is getting slayed for being too much of the same. It is just jaw dropping to me. Too many critics, not enough gamers. I feel some people have entirely forgotten how to enjoy things this generation.
shouldn't we be so glad that reviews don't decide our fate when getting a game. I've been playing Arkham Origins and to me it's better so far than Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Watch when Call of Duty Ghost come out they will be foaming at the mouth to give it above a 9
I agree. Most of the time, I don't follow reviews, and this is an examply of why. I've been playing Arkham Origins for a day now, and so far, it improves all that was wrong with the past two games and still kept some of them of the best. Call of Duty rarely innovates, yet the scores for the games are mostly high.
It's true this game is great it has some of the best boss fights in the series game play has been improved story is great I'm really enjoying it :) but when games like gtav and cod come out they get praised when they just don't deserve it GTA has been the same for ten years yet reviews fail to spot it or tell the truth cod is absolutely shit battlefield is way better than that but anyway just because wb made it there just waiting to call it rubish when its not I don't trust reviews anymore and 6/10, for this just proves it this deserves more like 8 at least lol just play it its really good :)
For me Arkham Origins is better than Arkham City and on par with Arkham Asylum. I hope these "professional" reviewers give lower scores to CoD Ghosts and Assassins Creed 4 for the same reasons otherwise it's double standards or they didn't get enough pay off :) This game deserves at least an 8 if not more for what it's accomplished.
So you thought Arkham Asylum was better than Arkham City?
Yes. For some reason I didn't enjoy Arkham City as much as I enjoyed Arkham Asylum. It felt watered down and lacked focus. Arkham Origins seems to improve on that as I'm enjoying a Batman game again like I did with AA.
I'd agree with him. From the pure standpoint of gameplay City beats Asylum, but Asylum had a lot more atmosphere to me. Each encounter with a villain felt a lot more in touch with the franchise.
I also thought Asylum was better than City. It was more focused. City was very good but the open world, for me at least, drew focus away from the urgency of the story. I feel a lot of open world games suffer from this. It always feels like you are the world as it revolves around you. Not the other way around. I know this is a limitation of the genre and I feel that it needs to be addressed in the planning stages of a game. If you are going for urgency in your story an open world doesn't always fit. Using Skyrim for an example, you could play for 100 hours without doing a story mission and Alduin and his dragons would happily wait until you choose to do it. It destroys pacing. Arkham Asylum's design and more closed environment allowed the pacing to remain intact whilst still offering plenty to do. It is addressed by WB Montreal in Origins as they clearly sat down with the intention of making Batman the focal point so everything does revolve around him.
Arkham City was like a stray cat, moving from one to the other villain, everything moved too fast, characters quickly lost their value. It was a fun experience, no doubt, but Asylum just had more interesting and scary atmosphere, which I really liked.
I was playing the game all day, I totally loved it, It seemed too familiar, yes, the fighting mechanics have gotten so into my head, that I begin to see flaws in them and get bored while fighting. But it still shouldn't have got a 6/10, it has great story, still fun to play, more things to do/explore. I'd give it 8.5/10 (or more, as I enjoyed the graphics and performance on PC), but one more game with the same core mechanics and I'm going to be sick of it.
Bad reviewer for a great game ill give this reviewer 2.9/10 and 8.5/10 to the game.
ppl need to stop crying the reviewer is right the game is EXACTLY the same nothing new
New story, new experiences with Batman character. I personally do not mind, yet. I think this is the last game with the same mechanics, that I could take, but it's still a great game and I still really enjoy it. Especially with maxed out settings on PC + Physx. It just looks so gorgeous.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.