It's currently on sale at the Humble Store, and I kinda want to play some more Batman, but it's also been pretty widely panned, so I figure I'd solicit input as to whether or not it's worth a significantly reduced price
Arkham Origins worth $9?
- Thread starter guitarsniper
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I played it and made a mini-review of it on the PubClub Forum:
So take my opinion with a grain of salt since I haven't played City but I would recommend Origins for $9. I think it was partially franchise fatigue (since there really was not a lot of changes made between Asylum to Origin) and that City had an open world and did it better. I never played City so my opinion may be skewed accordingly.
Fuck yeah, it's worth $9. The biggest complaints are that it's buggy and it doesn't do anything new. Well, bugs have been fixed (at least on the PC) and just because it doesn't do anything new doesn't mean it's a bad game. It's far from a bad game. And the story is actually quite good. Dialogue is the best in the series. Dialogue doesn't suffer from cheesy one-liners like the previous two games. The tone is a lot darker as well, and some of the boss fights are really fun.
Origins is honestly more of the same compared to Arkham City. It was fun but just do not expect anything new. On the plus side, I found the story in Origins vastly superior to Asylum or City. It didn't do anything amazing it was a well crafted story and the voice acting was top notch.
I'd buy that for 9 dollars.
Look, it's not a bad game, it just got panned because 1) it plays and feels a lot like Arkham City and 2) the game wastes the potential of doing something radical with Batman's origins. Also bugs, lots of bugs, though those seem to have been patched up ever since. So if you really liked Asylum and you really liked City, go for it. I would.
Look, it's not a bad game, it just got panned because 1) it plays and feels a lot like Arkham City and 2) the game wastes the potential of doing something radical with Batman's origins. Also bugs, lots of bugs, though those seem to have been patched up ever since. So if you really liked Asylum and you really liked City, go for it. I would.
I got it for free with my video card, but I enjoyed it.
its not as good as city. the definitely could have done more with the setting but it was a mostly enjoyable 10ish hours
the best thing it had going for it was the shock gloves. I really liked the shock gloves lol
its not as good as city. the definitely could have done more with the setting but it was a mostly enjoyable 10ish hours
the best thing it had going for it was the shock gloves. I really liked the shock gloves lol
If you limit yourself to the story missions: it's a very fun game with a really good story(the new devs definitely loved the Batman lore). It's made with a lot of enthusiasm so I can forgive the gameplay not being as entirely seamless as the ones by Rocksteady. Ofcourse they had to work with an engine they had no experience with so I think they still did a really good job considering the differences are so subtle. Also the game is supposedly all patched up by now.
However I feel Gotham itself is too big for the game(bigger is not always better). The side-missions feel like padding(moreso than in previous games) and there just seems to be less detail. It's spread too thin and moving around feels like a drag.
Other than that the game is really fun and if you ask me the best $9 you'll most likely spend all year.
However I feel Gotham itself is too big for the game(bigger is not always better). The side-missions feel like padding(moreso than in previous games) and there just seems to be less detail. It's spread too thin and moving around feels like a drag.
Other than that the game is really fun and if you ask me the best $9 you'll most likely spend all year.
I really liked it a lot, and I enjoyed the Joker performance in this one a little more than Mark Hamill's (Please don't burn me at the stake for heresy). Sure, it was a little buggy, and true it does nothing new, but it's not like the Arkham games are getting tiresome yet. I also really enjoyed the DLC Cold, Cold Heart, but I am a fan of Mr. Freeze (not played by Arnold).
I'd say that Arkham Origins is easily worth full price for Batman-fans and that for anything below 20 dollars you should be getting your moneys worth out of it. It is a solid game, it just can't live up to the pressure created by its' outstanding predecessors.
Arkham Origins plays everything safe, so it has awesome foundation but not much else going for it. If you played Asylum/City, you could pass it but if not, then go for it for at least one playthrough.
I personally love the 100v1 map that came with my Nvidia (and I believe you can obtain it otherwise with Deathstroke DLC).
I personally love the 100v1 map that came with my Nvidia (and I believe you can obtain it otherwise with Deathstroke DLC).
I personally thought Origins was better than City, definitely worth $9. It's not really anything new like people have said but the story is brilliant and it gives some less famous villains a bit of the spotlight. My xbox version also didn't have any problems with bugs so I think that's all been sorted out. If it didn't have such great games to live up to I think it would've got better ratings then it did.
I'd say the story was way more engaging. And the few crime scenes that came up, had some more interactivity and more "story" to them. Like when you start rewinding one of the story-centric crime scenes, and you go back and forth, and you realise some crazy madman must've done this, but you can't really see who, because the picture is blurry, and then you realise "OH MY GOD IT'S
".
The riddles got mostly cut though, it's been boiled down to solving puzzles and taking down radio towers, but no actual riddle-solving. I do like how they portray Edward Nigma though, as some kind of Snowden gone rogue and slightly mad.
The visual style also received an overhaul, more reminiscent of the "realistic" Nolanverse, which also seems to have influenced the new Arkham Knight game as well.
Other than that, it's mostly the same deal as Arkham City, and not a bad game in itself.
The riddles got mostly cut though, it's been boiled down to solving puzzles and taking down radio towers, but no actual riddle-solving. I do like how they portray Edward Nigma though, as some kind of Snowden gone rogue and slightly mad.
The visual style also received an overhaul, more reminiscent of the "realistic" Nolanverse, which also seems to have influenced the new Arkham Knight game as well.
Other than that, it's mostly the same deal as Arkham City, and not a bad game in itself.
Honestly, I don't know, but I would bet that it is worth it.
I don't have anything to add of use, but I wanted to post here to thank yo for informing me about this. I bought it because you told me it was available for that price. So take that as you will. I certainly THINK it's worth it, but I'd rather trust those who have played it and actually said so.
I don't have anything to add of use, but I wanted to post here to thank yo for informing me about this. I bought it because you told me it was available for that price. So take that as you will. I certainly THINK it's worth it, but I'd rather trust those who have played it and actually said so.
Sure, I'd pay under $10 for it. Probably wouldn't bother if it was up closer to $20, though.guitarsniper said:
On the surface, the game isn't terrible. The story is alright (though it's once again based heavily around The Joker and a lot of people were getting tired of that). The replacement voice actors do a pretty good job at filling the shoes of the real voice actors. And pretty much everything people enjoyed about the first two games can be found in this game.
That said, here's a quick run-down of the faults.
Fighting Area: For some reason this game is absolutely obsessed with having you fight 15 bad guys in the area of a postage stamp. There's very little room to manuever in most combat situations as there's always a wall or fence or some kind of obstacle like a parked car in the middle of the fighting area.
Enemies: They said they wanted to make the fights a bit more challenging in this game. Alright, I've got no problem with that. They added in a couple new enemy classes such as the heavy elites (basically the armored guys from Arkham City only with MORE armor that you actually have to break off) and martial artists, guys that are capable of countering your attacks and even countering your counter attacks. That seems like a nice way to spicen up the fights: new units requiring various tactics! However they didn't stop there. They decided to make all the thugs hyper aggressive, ensuring that if you get punched once, you're going to get punched by 5 more guys. Your flow will be completely ruined and you'll likely have trouble getting back into it. Sadly this means that, like Assassin's Creed, you'll be doing pretty much nothing but counter attacks through the fights.
Mechanics: They mucked about with some of the mechanics as well. Batman used to have a target prioritizing system for things like the quick-fire gadget or techniques like Disarm-Destroy. Now more often than not they just target the closest thug in the direction you're pointing. So if there's a guy with a baseball bat in front of a guy with a gun and you use Disarm-Destroy, you'll go after the guy with the bat rather than the guy who poses the biggest threat with the gun.
Then there's some knit-picky stuff like "why bother making a fast travel system if half way through the game most of the rooftops have snipers on them that are more than happy to shoot you out of the sky?" As a disclaimer, though, I should mention that this was what the game was like when it was first released. I haven't played it in a good long while so maybe they've fixed some of the above-mentioned issues. The game isn't terrible, though some of the boss fights (against Bane in particular) can be pretty frustrating. All in all, though, I'd say I liked Asylum and City better.
I don't think it's as good as previous entries in the series but those set a pretty high bar so this is still a really good game. I did enjoy a few of the boss fights and that is one of the few things it did better then the previous games and it was nice to see Bane doing something for once in this series.
Yes, it is absolutely worth 9 bucks! It actually ended up being my favorite of the Arkham series, largely for how it tells its story. But the core gameplay, which is fairly unchanged from City, still remains fun, and the new younger voice actors do a great job.
Definitely worth 9 bucks, and I highly recommend it as a huge fan of the Arkham series!
Definitely worth 9 bucks, and I highly recommend it as a huge fan of the Arkham series!
