The Arkham Knight was one the games I have been looking forward to get my hands on since it was revealed. I felt I owed to the series as I didn't purchase Asylum in fear of it being just another rubbish superhero game. I didn't buy City at launch as I feared the open world structure would make it more generic, the story would be diluted and it will be filled with rubbish side quests that would make up most of the game. However, both these games proved how wrong I was and so to make it up to the series, not only did I pre-order the Arkham Knight, I pre-ordered the £79.99 Collectors edition from Amazon.
I write this review as someone who has watched the animated cartoons including the Redhood, read some of the comics and has friends who are constantly discussing the comic book universe, movies, games and series. This is also one the essential reasons why I have absolutely loved the previous entries as the story and characters have been put to use pretty good and they have done the source - the comic universe they are based on justice. Understandably, if you haven't watched and read these and you are coming in blind, your opinion may vary greatly, but here goes:
Story
The story is one of the weakest elements of this game and hangs onto the dialogue and performance of the Joker, which essentially is the saving grace. The entire story pretty much is about Batman going around telling his allies to get lost as he is the Batman and he can deal with it. The villains have been reduced to side quests with very little story behind them if any, Scarecrow is totally wasted compared to Arkham Asylum and the Arkham Knight is biggest lie ever told by Rocksteady when they say he is someone entirely different and new when every comic book fan guessed from the off set the identity behind the mask.
On top of a weak story, there are several things which simply do not make sense - whether this is Bruce Waynes secretary sitting calmly at her desk when an entire city has been evacuated, whether it is how Batman defies time to get everything sorted literally over night, whether it is something which there is only one off some how now having another one off... the list can literally go on.
The most criminal act however comes in the form of having to collect the 200+ Riddler trophies to get the ending. The core story isn't complete until you have collected every bloody Riddler trophy and for people like myself who are not 100% completionists when it comes to trivial and monotonous side quests such as collecting, then in a nutshell, you will never be able to complete the game. Had it been a 100 trophies, it would have been better, but to collect over 200+, and only getting the locations by repeating Riddler Henchmen takedowns again and again across every single area within the game makes this more of a punishment than anything else.
The combination of all the above makes this feel like the laziest attempt Rocksteady have ever made making everything story related feel forced and shoe horned in. It seems that the title which would have had the biggest budget and the most time has been given the least amount of love and attention.
Graphics:
The graphics are okay. They are not the best you will see, nor are they the worst you have come across this gen. They don't push the bar, add anything significant or deliver anything amazing. GTA V looks better in a bigger world, with day and knight cycles than this does. Far Cry 4, an fps open world games looks miles better. The graphics are not bad by all means, but they certainly aren't anything to write home about.
The biggest disappointment for me however is the lack of themed areas, especially when you have villains like the Penguin, Scarecrow, Harley Quinn, Deathstroke etc. Nothing has been done to play to the villains character and theme which is for me laziness on part of the dev and serves as another disappointment.
Sound:
Like the graphics, the sound isn't bad, but again, it is nothing to write home about. The soundtrack is forgettable, the voice acting is okay and the only stand alone performance in sound and voice acting is delivered by... surprise, surprise! The Joker and Harley Quinn. Again, I am not saying everything else is bad, it just so average, it is easily forgettable.
Gameplay:
If you have played any of the Arkham games before, it will come straight back and you will be gliding around Arkham like you had never left. The changes made to the grapple, the skill tree, gadgets, and yes the Batmobile are all awesome! However, (how many of you guesses that was coming?!) as great as all these individual elements are, the way they have been applied to the game is what lets it down.
The need for using your gadgets in detective mode, solving puzzles and doing something other than button mashing through the games battle system has been reduced to barely relevant. Outside of a couple of sections in the game where you are introduced to some amazing gameplay mechanics to find clues to progress there literally is nothing else in the core game. The Riddler provides a few puzzles, but again they are reduced to less than a handful of missions. The rest just feels like a copy and paste job from start to end.
There could have been a way of making this more fun by adding co-op support. This game bring in several of Batman's allies across several different missions, but again, it is another lost opportunity. Far Cry 4 was in a similar position where a lot of the missions were copy and paste jobs, but having co-op made these segments feel fresh and fun. The lack of co-op makes you wonder why Rocksteady chose to leave it out - whether it was a a lack of time, laziness or lack of realising the opportunity that was before them.
The greatest point of debate possibly is the inclusion of the Batmobile - is it good or is it bad? I am of the opinion it was great they had included it. It feels great to be able to control it, it is powerful, it makes you feel powerful and it surely looks the part! However (yet again), the car has been reduced to literally the same old tank based missions again and again and again. Driving around the city makes little to no sense as the combination of grapple and gliding is not only quicker, but hassle free. The grunts on the streets serve almost zero purpose, so even when it comes to taking out drive by vehicles and grunts, there is no purpose. After a few mins, you will just start to ignore them.
There were a few sections in the game where the car was used to solve puzzles or let you be more creative when tackling missions, but unfortunately, they were literally just that, a few and not enough.
The greatest let down for me however was not the lack of creative use when it cam to the Batmobile, but the complete lack of being able to control the Batwing. It is in the game, it is integral to the story, without it Batman would be doomed, it is available yet Batman never uses it. It makes no sense at all I am sure a few dog fighting missions, Mass Effect style scanning and deploying missions would have gone down well to break up from the cycle of repetitiveness.
Now here comes the biggy - The game has questionably 1 boss fight which is part of a side mission. It is not great, or clever, but it is the only boss fight in the entire game! Rocksteady, what the hell were you thinking off?! Penguin, Arkham Knight, Deathstroke, Scarecrow, Two Face etc no boss fights. Cop outs - yes. Boss fights - no!
Longevity:
The core story mode is very short. It took me around 25hrs to complete the core story along every side mission (with the exception of collecting every Ridder trophy). This includes the boring sections where you are expected to fly around with detective mode on to look for firemen being held hostage (which is a pain in the ass), sections where you have to glide around the city looking for burning bat signals on the roof (another pain in the ass), missions where you drive around hearing out for a beep (another pain in the ass), and sections where you need to fly around heearing out for opera music (another pain the ass). If you get fed up of any of these, then the chances are your play through will be shorter.
For me, there is no reason to go back to this game. I have no motivation to collect every Riddler trophy. My friend who rates this game a 10/10 won't go back to get the trophies and he loved this game. There is no cop op, the online scores tables weren't, working when i played through, but even if they were, they aren't good enough a reason to go back.
Discover the best Batman Arkham games ranked from Asylum to Knight, including Origins, VR and more, with a focus on combat, story, and world design.
Games such as Mad Max, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Batman: Arkham Knight desperately deserve a modern-day revisit.
RDR2 still looks astounding on PS4 Pro. i cannot imagine how it could look with a next gen upgrade.
Probably not very different.
No idea why this article is highlighting recent beautiful graphically-advanced games and saying they need current gen makeovers. They already look better than most new releases; just compare Arkham Knight and Suicide Squad!
It's obviously never gonna happen since Sony killed the game and studio, but Driveclub. Even in its current state, 10 years after release, it still puts many competitors to shame ...
It's a shame they cancelled the game. Definitely the best racing game I've ever played on Playstation. Just got GT7, but it feels so slow and less arcade-y, which is to be expected of a sim racer of course, that I just enjoy it less.
Driveclub also graphically looked insanely good for its time. I wonder what a Driveclub 2 would look like for the PS5.
Mad max ikr! Far cry primal, it amuses me how ubisoft just left ac unity hanging, sadly most of the good staff left from rocksteady while being forced to make that abomination smh
One way or another, these games provoked strong reactions.
I don't think Days Gone divided fans. For the most part, gamers loved it. It was the reviewers who were divided. Self-loathing racist pieces of shit that took exception to the main character being white. This was a fantastic game, one of the best open-world games I ever played, and I've played them all.
Second you on this.. I had absolute blast playing this game!! Memorable!
TLOU 2 I thought was utter s***.. I still haven’t finished it and stopped about halfway (apparently).
It wasn’t fans divided around The Order, it was a period where xbox fanboys were thinking Rise was a more engaging game so they were spreading a lot of hate..
Today they are hibernating with nothing to play
The Order was short, no denying, but a great game with huge potential
I enjoyed days gone and last of us 2. PeoPke trippin.
I always thought the order was kinda whack seeming so I never tried it. Id like to now though.
No thr order was a short, clunky mediocre yet visually stunning game. I thoughts so and pretty much every other reviewer did too.
The Order, where length was a criterion for rating a game, but only this particular game and no others.
While I enjoy what is there in Days Gone, I mourn what was lost. The first trailers for Days Gone showed a morality system that looked interesting. For example, in the beginning when you are chasing down Leon and after you caught him, you could choose to shoot him or leave him for the freaks. You can see hints of it in other places, like if you catch a bandit unaware sometimes they will disarm and it seems like Deacon had the option to shoot them or let them go (he automatically lets them go).
Whatever...those systems unless revolutionary don't add much...they rarely do in games that do have them.
For the most part, when it comes to Last of Us 2, incels, homophobes, and closet national socialist types didn't like it. I repeat not all, but most.
Days Gone is a great game and it was attacked by the leftist socialist people that are actually closet fascists. As a great poet once said: "Socialism is the mother of fascism."
The Order got hit from anti-Sony Xbox fans.
Out of these 3, Last of Us 2 stands above as being a work of art. It's still generating a ton conversation to this day.
-"Last of Us 2, incels, homophobes, and closet national socialist types didn't like it. I repeat not all, but most."
It's so weird & cringe to see other gamers paint this broad brush of *who* didn't like Part II. Why take the "most who disagree with me are Hitler" type of mentality over game tastes?
-"The Order got hit from anti-Sony Xbox fans."
No other community I've dabbled in - be it social media or gaming forums - has built up such a dedicated defense for The Order like N4G. This attitude fundamentally blows my mind, especially in the face of similar older titles (hello Uncharted 1) that already did a marginally better job at storytelling and gameplay. It almost feels like some N4G group chat made this reflexive defense as a meme and a bunch of posters are still playing along with it. No offense to genuine Order fans, but I simply can't shake that feeling.
Well to be fair, I remember being only one of a few people on this site that actually praised The Order when it for came out and got alot of flack for it. Over time it seems opinions have changed about it.
saying something is "cringe" doesn't prove me wrong. You just throw words out and hope they stick. Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise.
I got:
Letizi, R., & Norman, C. (2023). “You Took That From Me”: Conspiracism and Online Harassment in the Alt-Fandom of The Last of Us Part II. Games and Culture, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/155...
You're up. Maybe you can change my mind.
Because NG4 defended it doesn't mean NG4 is the gospel of gaming.
Yeah Yui, it was "the game to hate" at the time. What was bizarre was the, as usual, journalists that were lying about the game and their stories were approved.
It was all clickhate all the time for the Order. I defended it too.
@Yui
-"I remember being only one of a few people on this site that actually praised The Order when it for came out and got alot of flack for it."
That could've been the case right at release, but you should see more recent opinion articles on here. There's a pretty substantial cadre who defend it on here as being "unfairly tarnished" that I simply don't see elsewhere.
Most of the backlash against The Last Of Us 2 was people upset that Joel was killed off, simple as that.
There is that too, but the other groups pilled on too, which increased the numbers. I really don't see why we have to ignore everything but Joel being killed.
I didn't like Part 2 and I'm not any of. The game sold like crazy, it's just hard for people to understand that most found the story to be arse.
Prove what I say is wrong. I will need evidence. I didn't not say all. Your exception rule doesn't work. Find evidence that counters mine. So, we can have a real discussion.
There are plenty of legitimate criticism in hours long analysis videos and reddit posts actually critiquing Part 2. The people you're talking about are such a minority, and they attack just about everything because they see the "wokeness" in the most subliminal ways. They're insignificant because the game still sold pretty well, and reviewed well regardless. Keep in mind the game released world wide, and western politics and views can't be applied to every corner of the world. I can agree that Days Gone was attacked, and unlike Part 2, due to these sites being so heavily political biased it did do some damage.
I am at least showing the group was large enough of a concern for a journal to publish an article.
Where's your evidence?
The last of us part 2 was bad story wise. Not some nonsense that you speak of...most of the negative people were random...lots of the critical reception from anything other than mainstream journalism thought that the game had huge problems.
Angry Joe and skill up being prime examples of that...unless of course like most socialists out there you wanna just lable people.
@anast
Oh geez...Twitter is full of trolls...common sense.
The YouTube critics I mentioned are innocent till proven guilty. And proven with facts not opinions. I gave you evidence of 2 prominent youtubers and yet you ask for more...either you can't read or you aren't looking for evidence.
As far as groups being "large" for journos to get their panties all tied up...well then again you must be extremely gullible. As if we haven't seen thousands of articles claiming players are offended, angry or backlashing based solely on 1 or 2 posts. They love grabbing very specific individuals and using them to represent a much larger base....whatever is convenient to them making the case that gamers bad and journos good.
-"saying something is "cringe" doesn't prove me wrong. You just throw words out and hope they stick. Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise."
It doesn't "prove" it, but I have a solid success rate with the term - which seems to be the case here too. With regards to your article, I should break this down into parts:
1.) For starters, bleating for countering "evidence" after brandishing a media analysis paper (or papers) shouldn't be treated as some kind of trump card. That's not to say these researchers did nothing, mind you. Only that expecting counter-ideologies within this field who'll make this specific kind of work for TLOU Pt. II is absurdly demanding on its face. Nevermind the probability of non-progressive types getting the administrative approval being next to nil, but that's another can of worms.
2.) While I have critiques about x or y (some anecdotes being more flimsy than others, GG speculation, etc.), let's say for this argument that it's a solid piece overall. Having read the whole thing, there is literally *NOTHING* that validates the broad brush with which you painted TLOU2 critics in your first comment (speaking as someone who thinks it's a good game). The discussion about alt-fans, anti-fans, etc. does paint an ugly picture about the TLOU subreddit, Twitter users, certain YouTubers, and more; however, there's no positive declaration about TLOU2's critics ending at these particular clusters either. Even if you say "most, not all" in your first comment, that still seems overly broad compared to the text I read. (EDIT: That's not to disregard the nastiness or modest size in its own right.)
It's also worth noting how much of that paper's material is inspecting a pre-/at-release sort of backlash. But the game's been out for several years now. More and more people who AREN'T incels, homophobes, closet Nazis have played it past 2020 and you don't really see this new broad consensus about its accomplishments; in fact, you see more of a continued split over whether or not it deserves such monumental praise. Here's just a few other sub-communities near its release that don't fit your description:
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
- https://www.youtube.com/wat...
-"Because NG4 defended it doesn't mean NG4 is the gospel of gaming."
Correct, but you're just solidifying my point. Even PS fans elsewhere (social media or gaming forums) don't go to bat for The Order with the enthusiasm and consistency they do here in my experience. That's what makes your assessment of "anti-Sony Xbox fans" so fascinating to me.
1) Speculation and emotion
2) Speculation and emotion
2a) Might be an argument if you gave me something other than your own opinion and emotions over the subject, but it's left as an anecdote without any real research. By the way, we can't negate the at release behavior, because it fits your narrative. It existed and those groups were involved.
The article is not a trump card and the fact that you seem to think so is more troubling on your end than mine. The article was to see if you could find other people that researched this phenomenon and we can have a conversation, but you still refuse to do this. Instead you wrote a sermon, which is a shame because maybe you had something with point "2a: It's also worth..." But this point still tries to side step actual events.
The final point doesn't solidify anything unless you are trying to solidify your own opinion. Albeit, it is passive aggressive, which is strange.
-"Speculation and emotion"
I mean... okay? Where am I wrong on 2.) though? Asking for a conflicting media studies research paper on this specific topic is already a random ask, given the environment with which these are made.
-"Might be an argument if you gave me something other than your own opinion and emotions over the subject, but it's left as an anecdote without any real research."
Wait. Just so we're clear: a research paper that focuses most of its attention towards a subreddit and social media comments to Neil Druckmann means you get to sustain your overly broad claims while contrary social media sources that don't exhibit the same kind of "alt-fan/anti-fan" rhetoric can't be counted? Now I feel even more confident in my initial assessment b/c all you're after is just whatever can be found with some accreditation behind it - regardless of quality.
-"By the way, we can't negate the at release behavior, because it fits your narrative. It existed and those groups were involved."
That's the thing: I never said they wasn't a sizable contingent of that either. From the start, my response was just how wild it was to paint *MOST* detractors with such a broad brush. I still don't think I'm off-base in saying it's cringe to just say "most people who shit on x game are closet Nazis or bigots of some sort," especially when your research doesn't really validate that.
-"The article is not a trump card and the fact that you seem to think so is more troubling on your end than mine."
Bro, you literally responded with "Bring some evidence to prove me otherwise.... You're up. Maybe you can change my mind." I don't really see how I'm speaking out of turn there given this and your original comment.
-"The article was to see if you could find other people that researched this phenomenon and we can have a conversation, but you still refuse to do this."
If no other people *HAVE* researched this phenomenon, then I don't see how the next best option is highly-popular sources which counter your original claim. Given that all you're promoting is a media studies paper hyper-focusing on a specific cluster of media, why wouldn't other forms of media work as some kind of substitute? That's not side-stepping events in the slightest.
-"The final point doesn't solidify anything unless you are trying to solidify your own opinion. Albeit, it is passive aggressive, which is strange."
I don't know what that first sentence means, honestly.
Look, I'll just put it like this: try to have a frank conversation about The Order on some other non-N4G gaming forum. There isn't going to be this clean split between 'Sony fans' and 'Xbox fans' that love it or hate it. Ask Sony fans how they'd feel about paying full-price for it and you're not going to get the ardent defenses compared to some of its most popular comment sections here.
Still no evidence. I ask for you to bring contrary evidence, so maybe I might change my mind, all research can be falsifiable. This is what you are missing. We are thinking in two different universes.
You are writing sermons, which is a waste of everyone's time including yours. Bring some research and we will discuss it. As of now you have only brought superstitions.
-"I ask for you to bring contrary evidence, so maybe I might change my mind, all research can be falsifiable."
But I literally read YOUR evidence and it doesn't support the broader claims you made at the start. I'm not sure where else to go with that.
-"Bring some research and we will discuss it. As of now you have only brought superstitions."
Bro, leveraging this kind of language is so wild in the face of what you've provided. It's like unless those different communities I linked where fused together in a random media studies paper, you'd magically consider it valid. I don't understand how you're leveraging that, especially when it doesn't fortify your initial claim. You're basically retorting to me writing too much, regardless of the content itself. Just the oddest conversation with you thus far and I don't quite get it.
Amazing gameplay, but TLOU2 had one of the worst, most convoluted and uneccessary plots I ever seen in a sequel. Terrible story and the characters were forgettable. I didn't give an F about anyone in the story.
I don't think any of these divided fans, other than LoU2. The rest were either victims of biased reviews or just generally agreed that they weren't as good as they could've been or just overall disappointing.
a perfect review, and -this is rare for me- one that I agree with word for word.
My biggest problem and a quick look at my comment history shows how adamant I am about this, is that the lack of themed areas. There is nothing about this city that screams "batman" to me. Each and every island looks identical. The best part about "Arkham City" was that you knew where Mr. Freeze was, and where other baddies were located.
The fact that major baddies were relegated to minor side quests, and the missions themselves were mundane, and routine without character and flavor.
The riddler trophies were not fun to collect.
Scarecrow proved to be one hell of a boring character.
The batmobile. Fun for the first hour or so, becomes mindless fluff, and about as interesting as pulling teeth by the end.
The game was not horrible, by any means. It has that incredible free flow combat, and traversal has been perfected by Rocksteady. They can do no wrong in those areas.
I do not know what happened. Where's the spirit, the ingenuity of City and Asylum? By the time the game ended, I flicked off the screen, and was like "yup. I guess I am done." I certainly do not plan on collecting all the riddler trophies.
An underwhelming experience, for sure.
Oh, and thought the secretary being perfectly calm, even BORED was so surreal, and completely unbelievable.
Have to agree with you. The game is a let down compared to previous ones. Arkham Asylum remains the best in my eyes. It was fresh, had great enemies, the pacing and story were much better.
It's a shame as I will think twice before buying Rocksteady's next game.
What do you guys think happened or what ate up a lot of their development time?
I read your review twice and I couldn't disagree more with you on almost everything you said (not to mention to the overall quality of your review) and in the end your review can be summed up with:
"Everything is ok, but meh ..."
To write a negative review is not an easy task and to be believable you need to be more fair and a score of 7 at the graphics and gameplay is not a fair score at all.
Now, I know opinions (...) and everything, but a score of 6.5 sounds more like a click bait.
I mean, you gave a 9 to Destiny, so I think your standards are pretty high ...
Ps I hope I'm not writing a comment to a teenager (no offence meaning).
You are unfairly critical of the game. You gave the game a 7 for graphics, stating that it could look better ; yet few games on console look as good as Arkham Knight. Your score for the sound (a 6) is even more perplexing. This review reads like you were disappointed by the game. I was disappointed by the game as well, but that is not a just reason to unfairly grade the games' technical aspects .