Batman: Arkham City reviews are out

[Saltyk]

So our faith in Rocksteady has been rewarded is what you're saying?

Sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded. Arkham City is the game Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

/sorry, that was a really lame joke.

OT: I've already preordered an am very excited for this one. Although my excitement is based SOLELY on the trailers and gameplay videos. I'm rather skeptical about anything a company paid to preview has to say about it.

If it's any consolation, I thought it was a great joke. Brought a smile to my face after a long day at work.

Not only have I preordered it, I paid off that preorder a couple weeks ago. Actually of my three preorders, I only owe about $25.

Same. I always pay everything off in full at the first opportunity. I'm horrendously debt-averse. It's gonna suck when the time comes for me to buy me first home lol.

[looks at mortgage statement]
Tell me about it. T.T

 

[Primus1985]

Just checked out the ratings of Arkham City on Metacritic. Average of 95, so far. But I just love how there's the one reviewer who has to say, "Wellll...it's not QUITE as good as the last game was."

Jim Sterling said that, actually...

He said that the 'open world' actually hurt the game because it was still a linear progression of events as far as the story goes. (There aren't like five separate crises that you can take care of in any order for instance)

Jim Sterling is a pretentious(all critics are a little but he takes it to a new level), conceded, d-bag, who wouldnt know a good game from a hole in the ground unless you pointed it out to him.

Anything he says should be taken with a large dose of salt and maybe a little antibiotic so you dont catch something from the utter shit that drips from his mouth.

So in short I should do the same for him as I'm going to do for you, because you're hyperbole and garbage spewing mouth are kinda dulling me to the praise Arkham City is getting. If you read Jim's review, something I severely doubt you did, you'd see that he didn't hate the game, pointed out some very interesting quirks and flaws of the game and branded it great, but not as great as its predecessor.

So get your head out of your ass, not every critic is going to jerk off your favourite game, and some of them actually have legitimate criticisms for the game too.

At the risk of sounding like a *gasp* Troll *rollseyes* no I didnt read Jim's review, as a point I stay away from anything related to him so I dont catch a case of Bat-shit crazy. I might actually, even though it'll grate at my soul, just to hear what he had to say, seeing as he's the only one that not only found fault but the only reviewer that said Arkham Asylum was better.

Im not really just going on rabid fanboyism, I get my gaming news and reviews from like 7 different sources at least and all of which have given B: AC near perfect or perfect scores. Even if one or two where bought (which I have difficulty believing Rocksteady needed to buy reviews) thats 5 that wheren't so it stands to reason that its scores reflect the game.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Just checked out the ratings of Arkham City on Metacritic. Average of 95, so far. But I just love how there's the one reviewer who has to say, "Wellll...it's not QUITE as good as the last game was."

Jim Sterling said that, actually...

He said that the 'open world' actually hurt the game because it was still a linear progression of events as far as the story goes. (There aren't like five separate crises that you can take care of in any order for instance)

Jim Sterling is a pretentious(all critics are a little but he takes it to a new level), conceded, d-bag, who wouldnt know a good game from a hole in the ground unless you pointed it out to him.

Anything he says should be taken with a large dose of salt and maybe a little antibiotic so you dont catch something from the utter shit that drips from his mouth.

Uh...you do understand that Jimquisition isn't how he actually acts, right? It's just a persona for the show. Yahtzee does the same thing.

Jim's actually one of the best, fairest reviewers that I know of.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Gamespot gave Black Ops a 9/10 so tbh I don't think they're very credible

 

[Primus1985]

Uh...you do understand that Jimquisition isn't how he actually acts, right? It's just a persona for the show. Yahtzee does the same thing.

Jim's actually one of the best, fairest reviewers that I know of.

Yea see I would believe that except the way he acts and says stuff is so straight faced it doesnt sound satirical in the least. You can tell when Yahtzee is kidding or ribbing something that needs it.

 

[Primus1985]

Gamespot gave Black Ops a 9/10 so tbh I don't think they're very credible

On the contrary, if B:AC can score higher than even COD then something must be right.

 

[DustyDrB]

Uh...you do understand that Jimquisition isn't how he actually acts, right? It's just a persona for the show. Yahtzee does the same thing.

Jim's actually one of the best, fairest reviewers that I know of.

Yea see I would believe that except the way he acts and says stuff is so straight faced it doesnt sound satirical in the least. You can tell when Yahtzee is kidding or ribbing something that needs it.

Are you serious? You can't tell his putting on a farce when he switches to the ultra-snooty voice and offers several hyperbolic praises for himself?

 

[AnarchistFish]

Gamespot gave Black Ops a 9/10 so tbh I don't think they're very credible

On the contrary, if B:AC can score higher than even COD then something must be right.

Gamespot's reviews are all over the place though. The big titles practically always get 7.5+/10 and it's pretty much a lottery apart from that.
And B:AC got the same as Black Ops, not more.

 

[Lost In The Void]

Just checked out the ratings of Arkham City on Metacritic. Average of 95, so far. But I just love how there's the one reviewer who has to say, "Wellll...it's not QUITE as good as the last game was."

Jim Sterling said that, actually...

He said that the 'open world' actually hurt the game because it was still a linear progression of events as far as the story goes. (There aren't like five separate crises that you can take care of in any order for instance)

Jim Sterling is a pretentious(all critics are a little but he takes it to a new level), conceded, d-bag, who wouldnt know a good game from a hole in the ground unless you pointed it out to him.

Anything he says should be taken with a large dose of salt and maybe a little antibiotic so you dont catch something from the utter shit that drips from his mouth.

So in short I should do the same for him as I'm going to do for you, because you're hyperbole and garbage spewing mouth are kinda dulling me to the praise Arkham City is getting. If you read Jim's review, something I severely doubt you did, you'd see that he didn't hate the game, pointed out some very interesting quirks and flaws of the game and branded it great, but not as great as its predecessor.

So get your head out of your ass, not every critic is going to jerk off your favourite game, and some of them actually have legitimate criticisms for the game too.

At the risk of sounding like a *gasp* Troll *rollseyes* no I didnt read Jim's review, as a point I stay away from anything related to him so I dont catch a case of Bat-shit crazy. I might actually, even though it'll grate at my soul, just to hear what he had to say, seeing as he's the only one that not only found fault but the only reviewer that said Arkham Asylum was better.

Im not really just going on rabid fanboyism, I get my gaming news and reviews from like 7 different sources at least and all of which have given B: AC near perfect or perfect scores. Even if one or two where bought (which I have difficulty believing Rocksteady needed to buy reviews) thats 5 that wheren't so it stands to reason that its scores reflect the game.

I don't call people trolls because people seem to have lost sight what that word even means so there's no fear of that. I will however, call you misinformed and slightly pretentious; no scratch that, very pretentious. The fact remains that even if you don't agree with his review, its not a bashing of the game, in fact, as someone else said, since he's one of the fairer reviewers out there; its likely more down to earth than say IGN or Gamespot. To call his show bullshit, something that I would also disagree with but since you seem to be a little slow and miss the satire of it, I'll let you have that, but to call his reviews shit, is just plain wrong.

 

[radioactive lemur]

Ah, I see - positive reviews are clearly only paid and untrustworthy if they're for a mainstream game like Call of Duty.

Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy EVERYWHERE.

Somebody likes a game you don't! The publishers are OBVIOUSLY paying reviewers to give the game good reviews, nothing else explains it!

OT: Looks fantastic, gonna pre-order the Collectors Edition today.

I really don't care about Arkham City at all. I'm sure it's a wonderful Batman game. But I'm surprised I am, apparently, the only one to notice how selectively people view reviews. On threads about, say, CoD (disclaimer: I actually don't like that game all that much) people usually dismiss the positive reviews, saying that they must be paid, and can't be trusted. Meanwhile, Batman gets good reviews and everyone gets psyched for it.

I think I understand why. I personally like Batman, sandbox, stealth, and beat-em-up. That is to say, I like the kind of thing that BAC is, so if it's good at doing what it does (as it seems to be), then I will likely enjoy it. Contrary to popular opinion from those who prefer other genres, COD is actually very deserving of a 10/10 rating (I'm not necessarily disputing the fact that bribes and politics may play a part though). The bottom line is that it is an excellent game IF YOU LIKE THAT KIND OF THING. I personally don't. I prefer a good story and third person interface to endless rounds of TDM with 8 year olds who communicate entirely by raising questions about each other's sexuality. But I don't believe it can even reasonably be argued that as far as FPS games with a heavy multiplayer focus go, there is a title that can stand up to COD. Therefore, it deserves it's 10/10 ratings for being the best at what it does. Saying BAC or Skyrim will be better is an almost meaningless statement given the extreme difference in genre. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing Hagen Datz ice cream and Kobe steak.

 

[Primus1985]

Just checked out the ratings of Arkham City on Metacritic. Average of 95, so far. But I just love how there's the one reviewer who has to say, "Wellll...it's not QUITE as good as the last game was."

Jim Sterling said that, actually...

He said that the 'open world' actually hurt the game because it was still a linear progression of events as far as the story goes. (There aren't like five separate crises that you can take care of in any order for instance)

Jim Sterling is a pretentious(all critics are a little but he takes it to a new level), conceded, d-bag, who wouldnt know a good game from a hole in the ground unless you pointed it out to him.

Anything he says should be taken with a large dose of salt and maybe a little antibiotic so you dont catch something from the utter shit that drips from his mouth.

So in short I should do the same for him as I'm going to do for you, because you're hyperbole and garbage spewing mouth are kinda dulling me to the praise Arkham City is getting. If you read Jim's review, something I severely doubt you did, you'd see that he didn't hate the game, pointed out some very interesting quirks and flaws of the game and branded it great, but not as great as its predecessor.

So get your head out of your ass, not every critic is going to jerk off your favourite game, and some of them actually have legitimate criticisms for the game too.

At the risk of sounding like a *gasp* Troll *rollseyes* no I didnt read Jim's review, as a point I stay away from anything related to him so I dont catch a case of Bat-shit crazy. I might actually, even though it'll grate at my soul, just to hear what he had to say, seeing as he's the only one that not only found fault but the only reviewer that said Arkham Asylum was better.

Im not really just going on rabid fanboyism, I get my gaming news and reviews from like 7 different sources at least and all of which have given B: AC near perfect or perfect scores. Even if one or two where bought (which I have difficulty believing Rocksteady needed to buy reviews) thats 5 that wheren't so it stands to reason that its scores reflect the game.

I don't call people trolls because people seem to have lost sight what that word even means so there's no fear of that. I will however, call you misinformed and slightly pretentious; no scratch that, very pretentious. The fact remains that even if you don't agree with his review, its not a bashing of the game, in fact, as someone else said, since he's one of the fairer reviewers out there; its likely more down to earth than say IGN or Gamespot. To call his show bullshit, something that I would also disagree with but since you seem to be a little slow and miss the satire of it, I'll let you have that, but to call his reviews shit, is just plain wrong.

Well Im glad, you seem like an educated and well informed poster. That being said...

Me? IM VERY pretentious? Really I think IGN is pretty fair when it comes to reviews, Ive disagreed with them a few times only on the notion that they should have rated a game higher because they couldnt come up with enough flaws to justify their score. Sterling is like 10x worse than Yahtzee when reviewing. Yahtzee may joke and tease but he only picks at the glaring flaws and bad design choices that games have, Sterling OTOH just likes to nit pick everything down to the last detail so as to find anything to ridicule.

Ya know, if I have to I'll go to destructoid *shudder* look up his reviews and if I still have the same opinion I'll put up a new thread discussing why I think he sucks.

 

[prince_xedar]

gamesradar UK 10/10
Lol i preordered this months ago
bitches are just grabbing onto the review train, i got AA first day as well

 

[radioactive lemur]

Just checked out the ratings of Arkham City on Metacritic. Average of 95, so far. But I just love how there's the one reviewer who has to say, "Wellll...it's not QUITE as good as the last game was."

Jim Sterling said that, actually...

He said that the 'open world' actually hurt the game because it was still a linear progression of events as far as the story goes. (There aren't like five separate crises that you can take care of in any order for instance)

Jim Sterling is a pretentious(all critics are a little but he takes it to a new level), conceded, d-bag, who wouldnt know a good game from a hole in the ground unless you pointed it out to him.

Anything he says should be taken with a large dose of salt and maybe a little antibiotic so you dont catch something from the utter shit that drips from his mouth.

So in short I should do the same for him as I'm going to do for you, because you're hyperbole and garbage spewing mouth are kinda dulling me to the praise Arkham City is getting. If you read Jim's review, something I severely doubt you did, you'd see that he didn't hate the game, pointed out some very interesting quirks and flaws of the game and branded it great, but not as great as its predecessor.

So get your head out of your ass, not every critic is going to jerk off your favourite game, and some of them actually have legitimate criticisms for the game too.

At the risk of sounding like a *gasp* Troll *rollseyes* no I didnt read Jim's review, as a point I stay away from anything related to him so I dont catch a case of Bat-shit crazy. I might actually, even though it'll grate at my soul, just to hear what he had to say, seeing as he's the only one that not only found fault but the only reviewer that said Arkham Asylum was better.

Im not really just going on rabid fanboyism, I get my gaming news and reviews from like 7 different sources at least and all of which have given B: AC near perfect or perfect scores. Even if one or two where bought (which I have difficulty believing Rocksteady needed to buy reviews) thats 5 that wheren't so it stands to reason that its scores reflect the game.

I'm not exactly up on these things. Who exactly is Jim Sterling and why does he seem to have such a horrible rep on here?

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Well, first game was good, and from what I've seen yesterday from that one walkthrough put up on youtube by... uhh... not sure who that apparently went "private" as of today, it's a pretty darn solid game. Definitely one worth playing. But I get the feeling Saints Row 3 will be more fun. (and I have a feel that Skyrim will dissapoint somehow, even though I'm a great fan of the TES series and Bethesda)