Video Games Uncovered plays Batman: Arkham Origins and finds it isn't all that we were hoping for
fair score. It's not a bad game by any strecth of the imagination, but it does very little new and feels very fan servicey. I'm guessing Rocksteady didn't want to mess it up, so they didnt change anything out of fear.
Rocksteady didn't make this, Warner Brothers Games Montreal did.
Completely unfair score then . If its biggest fault is not reinvinting the wheel , it just deserve a bit more .
They even said it in all the dev diaries. This goes to prove that gaming journalism is a joke. I wish we had gamers that knew how to write instead of writers that play a game every now and then.
It gets bad scores by the people that have no clue what the game is about. I had a guy review this game, then say he's never played the old games yet says this game can't stand on its own merits. How can you tell which was part of the old game and which was new?
Seriously, all of us that commented on this game should be the ones reviewing it because it seems like you guys are playing it the most. Personally, I haven't put the game down. I'm on new game plus with the original game at 50% total competion after story. You're telling me all that playtime and addiction is worth a measly 60%?! No.....just....no.
People need to drop this assumption that anything under 7/10 is terrible. I've had great fun on some 4/10 scoring games, but that doesn't mean they deserve to score any higher. Invent something cool and it will score well. Expand on it and it will score well. Just rehash it and add nothing of value and it will score less well. I'm still playing this now doing all the side quests and when I'm done I'll dive right back in for New Game Plus and I am the Night modes, but it just doesn't deserve a higher score than this (maybe 7/10). If we're all happy to give this the 8/10s and 9/10s people are claiming it deserves then we are basically saying "this is it, this is as good as it gets, you don't need to try any harder than this" and then we'll just end up with another Call of Duty on our hands.
no one said anything about giving it an 8 or a 9 . But a sequel to an excellent game that seems as good as previous ones , with possibly even more roaming freedom and better boss fights shouldnt just get a 6 . You can easily punish it form being to much of the same by rating it just below enough at 7 or 7.5 compared to a previous game usually sitting at 8 or 9 .
it's WB Montreal not rocksteady.
@IAN...would you consider this game a "C average"? Because where I went to school, anything under a 70% was failing. This got a 60% which is 10% higher than half, ya know?
Just saying this game deserves way better!
I am about 90% of the way to full completion and I don't understand these low review scores. It's still a very good game overall. 6 is pretty low but score IMO but the 3's I have seen are simply ludicrous. Jim Sterling and ilk like him are just hypocritical trolls. Personally I would give B:AO a solid 8.
My bad, I meant WB Montreal. Rocksteady were the good ones, got confused lol.
I would probably give it an extra 1.5 points. The boss fights were well done (especially Deadshot and Firefly), i liked the huge map. I thought i would be disappointed by the new voice actors for The Joker and Batman but i was pleasantly surprised. It was way too short though, and felt too samey. I guess they wanted to play it safe. Good game overall in my opinion.
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.