On Episode Three of 'Before The Knight At Arkham', Throwing Digital Sheep's Sean Braganza, fed up with a Copy Editor who dislikes the Bat mythos and ushered by the negativity Batman: Arkham Origins has garnered, goes on to explain why it is the best game of the Arkham canon yet.
Saad from eXputer: "Despite the success of Hogwarts Legacy, WB's decided to focus on live service and I've lost all hope for a potential sequel."
Let's just chalk this game up as a fantastic one-off, and WB can go f******* rot in hell.
No, David Zaslav and everyone in the WBD executive office is scum and deserves the absolute worst.
It was actually pretty repetitive. I got bored after a few hours and forced myself to finish.
I'm hoping with the layout and foundation already done now they can spend their time in the sequel to refine things and give it a lot more depth so things don't feel repetitive.
I have no idea how eceutive teams can look at both Hogwarts and suicide squad next to each other and go hey our critical and commercial darling was a fluke suicide squad was the real success they just didn't know it.
Seemingly there's some weird ego involved someone wants to be proven right
I mean, not to necessarily give them any kind of credit, because they clearly have some pretty dumb ideas… but the reality of AAA development has meant basically all big publishers have had to look at Live Service games in one way or another to try to cope with increasingly bigger budgets and longer development times.
The 5 years it took to make HL (with no doubt a massive budget) cannot be hard to manage when they are also expected, by gamers AND shareholders, to come up with several quality releases each year, just look at how much complaining (warranted or not) there has been about Sony’s first party release drought (with Sony also going through their own Live Service issues)
I cant really fault them for trying to find a sustainable and profitable live service game or two that helps keep their quarterly and yearly numbers looking good while they would, ideally (and this is where they appear to be going wrong), using that time and money afforded by their live service games, to fund their big non-live service projects.
For this reason the industry needs to move away from so many 50+ hour long AAA games and focus on high quality but shorter stuff. Obviously they would sell at a reduced price too (don’t want £70 12 hours games) but you know what I mean hopefully!
They look at charts. One of them is how much money live service games make and the other is how much money single player experiences make. Hogwarts may have sold really well but it's a drop in the ocean when compared to an on going live service game if you manage to get a hit.
Personally I don't understand why so many people dump their money into live service games and I find it super sad that they're so popular. The kids absolutely love them.
I agree I'm the same I don't understand the appeal I've never wanted to pay for cosmetics I've always felt that should be included in the game but kids love them
Think thats the thing about getting old you aren't garunteed to know why the next gen loves something you hate I guess my parents hated the music I listened to growing up maybe this is the same thing
I bought thought it was okay first 10 hrs then boy did the repeative gameplay kick in
Yep. The castle was so fun. The overworld was just like every other overworld. They should have doubled down on the castle/student stuff.
The game overall was mid.
They will realize that live service games die pretty much as soon as they begin and then they’ll stop and we may still get a sequel.
If you strike gold with Live Service, you have guaranteed mega-income for years. If you fluff it, then you just have a single player game. This is the way publishers who don't really care about gaming see it.
I don't agree with it btw - but this is why it is how it is. Publishers see no downside - just up-sides and dollars.
PUBG, APEX, MW & numerous mobile games show that IF publisher can make a popular live-service game, they will have a cash cow in their hand. That's why publishers keep trying.
Yes, IF it’s popular. Of all live service games, something like 3 percent are “popular”
The company envisions a future Harry Potter game where you can "live and work and build and play in that world in an ongoing basis."
"Volatile" AAA. Lol.
AAA is what you make it, and its in your control because YOU MAKE IT.
Spend too much and take too long = "Volatile"
-
Take a step back, regroup, have a vision in mind, set a budget, have realistic goals and develop. We're here waiting when you make something we want
They literally hear what they want to hear. Hogwarts Legacy was a massive success, but somehow they will double down on Suicide Squad?
Mmmm......ok.
It’s volatile cuz they heavily invested in a game no one wanted. Harry Hogwarts was a game people wanted. Suicide Squad was not.
With Suicide Squad KTJL now available on PS5 and Xbox, WB Games is developing new DC Comics games, but Superman isn't a priority right now.
not another GaaS, plz WB
and plz let Monolith make another F.E.A.R game after their Wonder Women game
WB execs are big into live service games, sadly. They got the wrong memo that most other studios have gotten about live service games not being as successful because of the existing pool of them and having to be a hit immediately to truly succeed. Epic, EA, and Riot aren't making all that money to let others get in on their action. They're making it as hard as can be for people to get a piece of that pie.
With Spider-Man doing well, with an upcoming Wolverine game coming down the line, and the leak that an X-Men game is coming to PlayStation, and games like Guardians of the Galaxy doing well, just give us a Justice League game. I'm sick of just seeing Batman made even though I like Batman.
I want a Superman game. But not if the developers aren't capable of making a great game with the character. I can see different levels made with the different characters to show their powers in Justice League. Even an underwater Aquaman level where you can use his communication powers with sea creatures would be great. With a boss battle with Black Manta in and out of the water. A Flash level running through the streets against Reverse Flash, in the sky and in space battles with Green Lantern or Superman. Fighting on Paradise Island with Wonder Woman, etc. Either fighting the Legion of Doom or Brainiac controlling villains. Just something Epic. You could mix and match super heroes on different levels. But the game would be much harder to play as those characters because that hero would be at a disadvantage.
That's what I want anyway. It doesn't just have to be Superman only.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Superman character just doesn't work in a video game. Between his abilities and his singular weakness, any game where you actually *feel* like Superman will basically have you in god mode the whole time.
The whole bad guys using kryptonite to weaken him thing is super boring at this point. Also, an origin story where he's slowly learning his powers will only work for one game before you run into the same problems again. You can't take away his powers as an adult because it's a cheap gimmick and people hate it. He's just not a good character to build a game around.
Superman as the bad guy where you're struggling to survive and take him down? Eh, maybe, but it wouldn't be a Superman game anyway at that point.
A Superman game will work for a semi-open world game not set on Earth but on another hostile planet with pockets of Kryptonite debris/formations and other natural hostilities + super mutant enemies.
This will limit his ever uber powerful abilities and will force players to play accordingly & strategically.
Now don't comment below, "but what's the point? we want an open world Supes game set on Earth" coz that ain't feasible as porkChop listed above.
One Superman game like this is still better than no Superman game.
It seems like younger generations love the feeling of being OP with no struggle whatsoever if current popular entertainment is anything to go by.
... but it seems the developers don't want me to play it.
Never picked it up because of the big amount of DLC released for it, opting to wait for a GOTY/Complete edition instead. Which never came.
Even in the current sale on PSN (EU), they have the game up for sale for 10 bucks, but no complete bundle. Sadly.
Also disappointed it won't get a current-gen HD Remaster including all content, like Asylum and City are getting.
Oh well... it will be 'the one that got away'.
The story was very good, unfortunately the gameplay was garbage and plagued with bugs they didn't feel like fixing, and instead told the fans to buy Cold Cold Heart instead. I just hope that Arkham Knight doesn't have the same story crap that this game does where they try to act like a villain who isn't the Joker is going to be the big bad for once and then they turn around and bait and switch you.
The Joker did "die" in Arkham City, so hopefully it stays that way. It'd be cool if Hush really was the Arkham Knight.
This is was a great game. You a true Batman fan? You need to play this. Bottom line.