Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arsène Lupin the Third on February 2, 2013 at 3:48am

Rocksteady would be the wrong ones to work on it especially doing something similar to Arkham's combat and exploration system. They don't do long ranged weapons well in the arkham games unlesss you're sneak attacking. The Flying/gliding system at times was annoying(and I beat those stupid bat comp missions) and wouldn't transfer well to all out flight.

Also do you realize just because they haven't annouced shit doesn't mean they're not balls deep in their next project(which could be a next gen title)

Not saying it's impossible but I believe Rocksteady is wrong for it,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MahMahAfro on February 2, 2013 at 3:53pm

Also do you realize just because they haven't annouced shit doesn't mean they're not balls deep in their next project(which could be a next gen title)

Was just thinkin that as they announced Arkham City with a teaser trailer at E3 almost a couple of years before it actually came out, they woulda/coulda properly announced the next Arkham game by now. All I've heard is some vague rumours it might be set during the Silver Age (a prequel with lots of big robots by the sounds of it) and this story about domain names which I just found. All a bit sketchy and vague compared to last time.

Also regarding the gameplay of AC fitting Superman, I wasn't thinking of exactly the same gameplay, just that rocksteady have proved they can do superhero gameplay better than anyone else has, so to me they're perfectly suited to doing a decent Superman game, but if it played exactly the same as AC there wouldn't be be much point would there?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ZANIACK on February 2, 2013 at 5:02pm

Rocksteady already tainted the Batman Arkham franchise with Arkham City, so they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ultimate Snyderman on February 2, 2013 at 6:00pm

Oh right, your the guy who hates Arkham City for mostly stupid reasons.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ZANIACK on February 4, 2013 at 11:55am

What a very insightful and comprehensively evocative rebuttal.

The fact is, anyone with any genuine appraisal will take numerous issues with Arkham City as a whole. Every game receives quibbles, but as an experience, AC is objectively meager. An intolerant childish attempt at an insult can't refute that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ultimate Snyderman on February 4, 2013 at 2:21pm

The fact is that most of your reasons for why you think Arkham City is a bad game are pitiful. What is worse is that you are basically saying( and said before in your original thread)  that anyone who thinks Arkham City is a solid to great game is out of their damn mind. When you stop acting pretentious and actually give legit reasons for why you do not think AC is good, then I will shut up. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Straub on February 4, 2013 at 5:41pm

Here's my two cents on Arkham City:  Besided the gliding controls being a little less than intuitive, from a gameplay and mechanics standpoint it's a great evolution of the groundwork Rocksteady laid in Arkham Asylum.  I do wish that they would have incorporated some better long range combat, but other than that, I think they nailed it.  

The story is a completely different matter.  They really dropped the ball at the end, but it seemed clear to me that either they didn't begin writing the game with a main enemy in mind, or that someone from higher up at WB Games lacked the confidence that they could sell a Batman game without the Joker as one of the main villains.  It may have worked for me if they had made the campaign longer, and had been able to really flesh out the two plot lines, but the way they did it made you focus on the Joker disease story for most of the game, and then all of a sudden you had to take on Dr. Strange in a manner that felt like they had forgotten all about him until it was too late.  In my opinion, it felt sloppy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MahMahAfro on February 4, 2013 at 6:36pm

You saying maybe they didn't begin writing the game with a main villain in mind makes me think of my main disappointment with the story was that they totally wasted Two Face - the very first teaser poster for AC was thisThen, Two Face gets an admittedly awesome scene right at the beginning then vanishes until after the end credits and you take him down (optionally) as bloody Catwoman! I personally hated most of the Catwoman stuff (uninstalled it this time round) and it would've been infinitly better to have a storyline within the game where Batman takes down Two Face, similar to how he did the Penguin maybe.

Certain things do feel a bit sloppy in the story, especially compared to AA's tight and linear narrative - I found it helps ignoring the side missions/riddler stuff as much as possible and just plow on with the main story as much as you can (save the rest for New Game+) certain things make more sense a second time around to, like the whole Clayface thing (hell, I'd even recommend listening to the character interview tapes you unlock for extra insight into the story, but only if you've got the time and are as much of a Batman nerd as I am)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sgtcrispy on February 4, 2013 at 5:45pm

The combat in Arkham city was awful. It seemed fun for the first 20 minutes or so. Then it just became "mash attack and block" and press X to instantly beat everyone. There was absolutely no challenge in any of it. It gets worse when the game gives you more and more tools to make the combat even more automated. 

The boss battles were completely rubbish as well. I can barely even remember any of them. 

AC's a decent game, it's fun for a bit but it doesn't deserve all the hype of "10/10: The Game" that it gets. The game is very overrated. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MahMahAfro on February 4, 2013 at 6:11pm

Try playing on new game+, without the counter and other prompts, much more challenging. And I'm sure it's possible to spam your way through the game but if you take the time to learn every combat technique available to you after you've unlocked everything, there's near infinite combinations and variations you can come up with. For me the combat just keeps on giving, I'm still discovering new ways to beat enemies.

And I'll give you that some of the boss battles were a little corny, but some of them were also excellent (Mr Freeze?)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sgtcrispy on February 4, 2013 at 6:57pm

I did. It wasn't difficult at all. It was still me just spamming attack and block whenever the enemies telegraphed their attacks. I never had to learn any combos. Occasionally I'd press whatever the button was to send batarangs everywhere, or something. The combat has absolutely no depth. Especially compared to other action games.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MahMahAfro on February 4, 2013 at 7:07pm

A lot of fighting games with real depth can also be spammed through, that's all on the player - I'm not saying the game is super hard or anything cos it isn't (though it's certainly harder than the first game) but it does have depth, you're just choosing not to explore it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page