Batman Arkham Origins Blew Me Away

[Danbo Jambo]

As a big fan of Arkham Asylum, I was massively disapointed by the short, and "cash-in" feel which, IMO, Arkham City had. You spent more time hearing about DLC characters than you did anything else. Strangely, AC was/is hailed as the best in the trilogy.

So, after reading similar criticisms against Origins, I decided to leave it until it was bottom dollar to play.

Having now played it, I thought it was stunning, absolutely stunning. I thought they took WAY more time and care with the main story, gave you plenty to do with the sidequests whilst keeping it feeling significant, and honed down the mechanics to a tee.

The sandbox element of City also felt really "filler" like, whereas in Origins - whilst still a tad "filler" - it just seemed to fit in with the main game better.

Just wanted to spread a little love for a game which I think got a bit of a hard rap. I absolutely loved it.

 

[tippy2k2]

I don't know if "Loved" was the right word for me but I certainly thought it was good. (Note: I have NOT played City, though I did play Asylum).

I didn't think it was better than Asylum but in the game's defense, I am not a big fan of open-world games. I find that most open-world games are more or less traveling simulators where instead of getting to do something cool like punch someone in the face, I have to spend five minutes flying over there so that I can get to the person I'm going to punch in the face.

I don't think it was good enough to have spent $60 on but that shouldn't be a problem you're going to run into. It's certainly worth a bargain bin play-through.

Come to think of it, I wrote a mini-review on it because...honestly, I don't really remember all that much about the game. Maybe that should be a point against it that I don't remember anything but one boss fight...

Spoiler

Just Beat: Batman Arkham Origins for the 360

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of hate that this game got. I played Asylum as well and I thought this was a great game. I know a big complaint people had was that it was more of the same so maybe that's the problem. I never played through City (I evidently bought it for I found it on my 360 halfway through Origins) so maybe Origins is bad only in comparison. A lot of interesting "lower level" villains that you normally don't get to see unless you are a big fan of comics. Some of the boss fights got really tedious but other than that, I thought it was a very solid game. I'd consider it a...8/10. Let's go with that.

My guess in reading my own review and not remembering much is that the game was incredibly solid and worked really well....which is exactly the kind of game we got with Asylum and City. I was fine with Origin because it was the second one I ended up playing but with such little change between the games, fatigue is likely a bigger factor in the low scores than anything.

 

[SoreWristed]

I should get back to it then. I got it on release and I had to put it away because of all the venomous bugs. After ten minutes of play I was watching batman ragdoll around a lamppost.

I was similarly let down by arkham city for their 'more of the same' feel, but mostly because there seemed to be less threat now that batman wasn't confined to such a tiny island. Arkham asylum really gave the feel that batman was outnumbered and outgunned and had to resort to stealth and fear. The large open world design just meant that I could very succesfully escape whenever I felt cornered.

City had the best bossbattles though.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Having now played it, I thought it was stunning, absolutely stunning. I thought they took WAY more time and care with the main story, gave you plenty to do with the sidequests whilst keeping it feeling significant, and honed down the mechanics to a tee.

I think that was the game's main criticism - it felt like a continuation of Asylum and City rather than the origin story it was supposed to tell (I mean it's right there in the title). Batman has access to every gadget and combat move from the get-go, and fighting stays the same as AA and AC: attack > attack > counter. So what's the point of making it an origin story? The game's narrative stresses out how Batman is encountering every villain for the first time (most of whom are crap) and that the GCPD treats him like any other costumed villain. So there's a narrative element to the origin story, fair enough. But it doesn't come up in gameplay, so Arkham Origins becomes a case of Gameplay and Story Segreation: you're supposed to be exploring the origins of a well-established character but the game does nothing new or innovative about it and is content to just crank out another Arkham City. Maybe it's a 'better' Arkham City, but it still fails to do what it sets out to do, which is conveying an origin story.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it's a missed opportunity and a waste of potential. Which is why it drew so much criticism: the game was supposed to let you play as Fledgling Batman.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

I don't know if "Loved" was the right word for me but I certainly thought it was good. (Note: I have NOT played City, though I did play Asylum).

I didn't think it was better than Asylum but in the game's defense, I am not a big fan of open-world games. I find that most open-world games are more or less traveling simulators where instead of getting to do something cool like punch someone in the face, I have to spend five minutes flying over there so that I can get to the person I'm going to punch in the face.

I don't think it was good enough to have spent $60 on but that shouldn't be a problem you're going to run into. It's certainly worth a bargain bin play-through.

Come to think of it, I wrote a mini-review on it because...honestly, I don't really remember all that much about the game. Maybe that should be a point against it that I don't remember anything but one boss fight...

Spoiler

Just Beat: Batman Arkham Origins for the 360

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of hate that this game got. I played Asylum as well and I thought this was a great game. I know a big complaint people had was that it was more of the same so maybe that's the problem. I never played through City (I evidently bought it for I found it on my 360 halfway through Origins) so maybe Origins is bad only in comparison. A lot of interesting "lower level" villains that you normally don't get to see unless you are a big fan of comics. Some of the boss fights got really tedious but other than that, I thought it was a very solid game. I'd consider it a...8/10. Let's go with that.

My guess in reading my own review and not remembering much is that the game was incredibly solid and worked really well....which is exactly the kind of game we got with Asylum and City. I was fine with Origin because it was the second one I ended up playing but with such little change between the games, fatigue is likely a bigger factor in the low scores than anything.

You see the story was really, really intersting for me. One part in the middle had me really gripped.

Add to that the superb, finely honed gameplay and I personally would rate it 9/10

I should get back to it then. I got it on release and I had to put it away because of all the venomous bugs. After ten minutes of play I was watching batman ragdoll around a lamppost.

I was similarly let down by arkham city for their 'more of the same' feel, but mostly because there seemed to be less threat now that batman wasn't confined to such a tiny island. Arkham asylum really gave the feel that batman was outnumbered and outgunned and had to resort to stealth and fear. The large open world design just meant that I could very succesfully escape whenever I felt cornered.

City had the best bossbattles though.

I played 360 and the game never once bugged out on me from start to finish.

Having now played it, I thought it was stunning, absolutely stunning. I thought they took WAY more time and care with the main story, gave you plenty to do with the sidequests whilst keeping it feeling significant, and honed down the mechanics to a tee.

I think that was the game's main criticism - it felt like a continuation of Asylum and City rather than the origin story it was supposed to tell (I mean it's right there in the title). Batman has access to every gadget and combat move from the get-go, and fighting stays the same as AA and AC: attack > attack > counter. So what's the point of making it an origin story? The game's narrative stresses out how Batman is encountering every villain for the first time (most of whom are crap) and that the GCPD treats him like any other costumed villain. So there's a narrative element to the origin story, fair enough. But it doesn't come up in gameplay, so Arkham Origins becomes a case of Gameplay and Story Segreation: you're supposed to be exploring the origins of a well-established character but the game does nothing new or innovative about it and is content to just crank out another Arkham City. Maybe it's a 'better' Arkham City, but it still fails to do what it sets out to do, which is conveying an origin story.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it's a missed opportunity and a waste of potential. Which is why it drew so much criticism: the game was supposed to let you play as Fledgling Batman.

I mean I guess it's down to taste, but I really liked the story. I thought the villains were portrayed way better than in City, and the whole thing drew me in big time.

I also thought the fighting style was way more fun than both the other 2 games. It actually fekt as if your actions mattered, and it often got quite difficult, whereas previously it felt a bit autopilot like the Ass Creed games.

I think the critics criticisms for being a missed opportinuty is a bit of game snobbery tbh. When all said and done it's a blast of a a game and, IMHO, the best of the 3. I'm not sure that a game not being what people wanted is a good enough reason to write it off as a "failure", when it is in it's own right a great game?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Having now played it, I thought it was stunning, absolutely stunning. I thought they took WAY more time and care with the main story, gave you plenty to do with the sidequests whilst keeping it feeling significant, and honed down the mechanics to a tee.

I think that was the game's main criticism - it felt like a continuation of Asylum and City rather than the origin story it was supposed to tell (I mean it's right there in the title). Batman has access to every gadget and combat move from the get-go, and fighting stays the same as AA and AC: attack > attack > counter. So what's the point of making it an origin story? The game's narrative stresses out how Batman is encountering every villain for the first time (most of whom are crap) and that the GCPD treats him like any other costumed villain. So there's a narrative element to the origin story, fair enough. But it doesn't come up in gameplay, so Arkham Origins becomes a case of Gameplay and Story Segreation: you're supposed to be exploring the origins of a well-established character but the game does nothing new or innovative about it and is content to just crank out another Arkham City. Maybe it's a 'better' Arkham City, but it still fails to do what it sets out to do, which is conveying an origin story.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it's a missed opportunity and a waste of potential. Which is why it drew so much criticism: the game was supposed to let you play as Fledgling Batman.

I mean I guess it's down to taste, but I really liked the story. I thought the villains were portrayed way better than in City, and the whole thing drew me in big time.

I also thought the fighting style was way more fun than both the other 2 games. It actually fekt as if your actions mattered, and it often got quite difficult, whereas previously it felt a bit autopilot like the Ass Creed games.

I think the critics criticisms for being a missed opportinuty is a bit of game snobbery tbh. When all said and done it's a blast of a a game and, IMHO, the best of the 3. I'm not sure that a game not being what people wanted is a good enough reason to write it off as a "failure", when it is in it's own right a great game?

I don't think it's snobbery, and I don't think it's hype backlash either. It'd be like doing a Batman game based on Dark Knight Returns (i.e. Old Batman) and having it play exactly like Arkham Asylum. Tweaks are fine here and there, but if you're not going to do anything with the concept, why bother coming up with a new scenario in the first place? Story aside of course. Gameplay is virtually unchanged from previous games. Again, bar stuff like tweaking reaction time and all that.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I really didn't like Troy Baker's Joker. I feel that every Joker should try to make the role his own, but Troy just sounded like he was doing a riff on Mark Hamill.

 

[sXeth]

Story-wise, I think it ate a rather deserved backlash after marketing itself out with the setup with Black Mask and the Assassins, then

Spoiler

Becoming another Joker game, with our tired tired tired tired friend Bane thrown in as the big muscle (although its one of the better Bane's out there

. The absolute C-lister villains (or not-really Batman villains like Deathstroke and Deadshot) wouldn't even have looked so random if they'd gotten decent screentime.

Mechanics wise, it just felt like a fairly large DLC for Arkham City. From the same map, starting you with all the gadgets, and basically adding only the one gun (that I recall) from Deathstroke.

 

[Silvanus]

I enjoyed Origins a good deal, and don't think it deserves most of the criticism it gets, but I certainly wouldn't place it above City.

The City felt underdesigned to me in Origins; one area was difficult to differentiate from another, and few had character. I didn't get that sense in City. City and Asylum also put a deal of effort into the Riddler challenges and scannable easter-eggs and references, which Origins lacked, meaning there was little to actually do walking around the samey streets.

One thing Origins nailed was the boss battles, though. They were awesome.

 

[Nuuu]

PC Player here:

Origins was good, but not as good as City in my opinion. I feel like it didn't bring enough new to the table to separate it from City in some aspects. The city feels and is mostly the same. Most of the boss fights were REALLY good, although the final boss fight was a bit underwhelming and didn't feel "THIS IS THE END" at all.

I would have liked Origins, but the PC version is riddled with bugs. On my first play through (started near release), i only encountered 3 bugs: One was with one of the radio towers being unfinishable because a vent was glitched (Could glitch it finished), batman would sometimes fly wierd, and the karate enemies would sometimes glitch out after a counter (This bug i didn't notice much at the time)

A little while ago, i went for another playthrough on "I am the Night" mode, and had significant difficulty. Now an ENTIRE BLOCK of the city around a radio tower doesnt load, making it impossible to finish and batman just falls through the map.
The karate enemies are also extremely annoying to fight on the hardest difficulty because of the bug, so much so that it made me stop playing. When you are doing the 3 step counter (where they counter your counter 2 times) half the time they freeze after the second counter, leaving you standing there like an idiot, your freeflow completely messed up, and likely that a random punch flies at you because the counter combo stopped early (This is New Game+, you can't see the counter symbols).

It's good to see that the 360 version is relatively bug free, but the PC version has gotten worse since launch.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

City was actually a kickass step forward. Origins pissed me off for being an incompetent prequel rehashing the gadgets from City (and causing problems with the timeline), idiotic boss fights (fuck Deathstroke so much) and just plain terrible detective sections. That's what you get for tossing a successful series to a studio that's never done something like it before.

 

[King Billi]

Story-wise, I think it ate a rather deserved backlash after marketing itself out with the setup with Black Mask and the Assassins, then

Spoiler

Becoming another Joker game, with our tired tired tired tired friend Bane thrown in as the big muscle (although its one of the better Bane's out there

. The absolute C-lister villains (or not-really Batman villains like Deathstroke and Deadshot) wouldn't even have looked so random if they'd gotten decent screentime.

Mechanics wise, it just felt like a fairly large DLC for Arkham City. From the same map, starting you with all the gadgets, and basically adding only the one gun (that I recall) from Deathstroke.

To be fair Arkham City did the exact same thing, Hugo Strange was promoted heavily in that as being the main antagonist then but didn't amount to much in the actual game.
To be honest this is just making me suspicious of Arkham Knight now and how much Scarecrow is being promoted as the main villian.

In any case I also thought Arkham Origins was an excellent game, then again it seems I was one of the few who didn't encounter any bugs or game breaking glitches that it seems a considerable number of other players did.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

To be fair Arkham City did the exact same thing, Hugo Strange was promoted heavily in that as being the main antagonist then but didn't amount to much in the actual game.
To be honest this is just making me suspicious of Arkham Knight now and how much Scarecrow is being promoted as the main villian.

In any case I also thought Arkham Origins was an excellent game, then again it seems I was one of the few who didn't encounter any bugs or game breaking glitches that it seems a considerable number of other players did.

Exactly. A lot of the negativity I'm reading is because people bought into a concept they were sold, or what they wanted, before release.

When you actually isolate the game itself as a stand alone game to play, and play it like I did - not paying attention to any of the promotion and not expecting anything in particular - it's a brilliant stand alone game.

Having now played it, I thought it was stunning, absolutely stunning. I thought they took WAY more time and care with the main story, gave you plenty to do with the sidequests whilst keeping it feeling significant, and honed down the mechanics to a tee.

I think that was the game's main criticism - it felt like a continuation of Asylum and City rather than the origin story it was supposed to tell (I mean it's right there in the title). Batman has access to every gadget and combat move from the get-go, and fighting stays the same as AA and AC: attack > attack > counter. So what's the point of making it an origin story? The game's narrative stresses out how Batman is encountering every villain for the first time (most of whom are crap) and that the GCPD treats him like any other costumed villain. So there's a narrative element to the origin story, fair enough. But it doesn't come up in gameplay, so Arkham Origins becomes a case of Gameplay and Story Segreation: you're supposed to be exploring the origins of a well-established character but the game does nothing new or innovative about it and is content to just crank out another Arkham City. Maybe it's a 'better' Arkham City, but it still fails to do what it sets out to do, which is conveying an origin story.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it's a missed opportunity and a waste of potential. Which is why it drew so much criticism: the game was supposed to let you play as Fledgling Batman.

I mean I guess it's down to taste, but I really liked the story. I thought the villains were portrayed way better than in City, and the whole thing drew me in big time.

I also thought the fighting style was way more fun than both the other 2 games. It actually fekt as if your actions mattered, and it often got quite difficult, whereas previously it felt a bit autopilot like the Ass Creed games.

I think the critics criticisms for being a missed opportinuty is a bit of game snobbery tbh. When all said and done it's a blast of a a game and, IMHO, the best of the 3. I'm not sure that a game not being what people wanted is a good enough reason to write it off as a "failure", when it is in it's own right a great game?

I don't think it's snobbery, and I don't think it's hype backlash either. It'd be like doing a Batman game based on Dark Knight Returns (i.e. Old Batman) and having it play exactly like Arkham Asylum. Tweaks are fine here and there, but if you're not going to do anything with the concept, why bother coming up with a new scenario in the first place? Story aside of course. Gameplay is virtually unchanged from previous games. Again, bar stuff like tweaking reaction time and all that.

Snobbery's probably the wrong word, but just take a step back and read your post and some of the others on here mate. It's mostly criticisms based on what people expected pre-release. If you take that expectation out of the equation and just play it to enjoy it, I think it's great.

I think this is quite a key thing with gaming as a whole because when devs don't get the credit they deserve for greta games, and people slate them because they didn't get what they in particular wanted or expected, we run the risk of more games that are "give them what they want to shut them up", as opposed to "let's create something fantastic"

It's all opinions obviously, but I just found AO brilliant, from tip to top.

Playing it on the ps3... I hated it. The plot was bad, and seemed like the devs started with a Mega man style idea only to abandon it after spending too much time, thus wasting a lot of interesting battles just to put the Joker again, not to mention Bane which seems to have a vendetta against Batman for no reason what so ever.

Again though, that's criticisms based on comparisons to previous games. I don't know why that's an issue tbh?

I am interested as to why you thought the plot was bad? I loved it, and thought Joker's seduction of Harley Quinn when he's talking about "true love", and that someone special changing your life was absolute 10/10, some of the best writing I've ever heard in a game. Stunning.

I actually loved the surprise of Joker turning up.

 

[lord.jeff]

The game wasn't bad but overall it was a step down. The story had some pretty stupid moments in it, like Bane not being able to decide if he's the luchador Bane from the comics or the Russian whatever Bane popular from the movie and the Penguin just disappearing from the story. Plus I agree they could of done a lot more with Batman being less experienced at fighting.

 

[endtherapture]

I enjoyed Origins more than City but less than Asylum. City was an ambitious game but the open world was kinda aimless and it look the claustrophobic feel that was good in Asylum. Origins brought some of that back which means it is was a better game for me and definitely had a tighter direction than the second game. Also some fights were genuinely challenging. I found City very easy in comparison.

Was a bit disappointed that Black Mask wasn't more of a focus of the game and they just went back to making a game about Joker again.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Arkham City is definitely my favorite of the three games. Origins' story lost me after Black Mask took center stage and revealed the plot twist. It was, disappointing. Though similar to Hugo Strange, at least Strange managed to pull off his plan and remained a main threat. Black Mask became a side mission after the twist! Just, so very disappointing.

The boss fights were also hyped up, but they weren't that good. Deathstroke was one long QTE, Deadshot took City's Two Face boss fight, Lady Shiva and Black Mask were both mob fights, Electrocutioner..., Copperhead was a mob fight on LSD, Firefly was repetitive, Bane was a Titan Soldier and then copied Mr. Freeze unsuccessfully. The Devs said they were going to make them challenging, but the only one was annoying was Bane's first and second fight. The constant charging coupled with my inability to properly dodge him, for whatever reason, made the fight frustrating, not challenging. That isn't to say Arkham City did better, I just sort of expected much more.

Combat also felt weird in Origins. In City I never had much of a problem, even in large mobs, but in Origins the enemy seemed to attack faster. It felt like they managed to hit me with an attack that started after mine. Either Batman was much slower, or the grunts got faster. There was also the issue with the AI knowing where I was at all times. It was irritating to get spotted by a sniper, sneak around to another rooftop only to notice the snipers are still on me. Do they have X-ray vision or something? It was the same with just about everyone. I get spotted by a grunt with a gun on a rooftop, jump off and try a different angle only to notice they're still trained on me.

The final nail in the coffin for me, was this one persistent glitch that reared it's ugly little head whenever I least expected it. It's very annoying to fly around as Batman only to go through the ground and buildings like a ghost, unable to grapple up to any rooftops or gargoyles. Fast travel didn't help so I had to restart the game to fix the problem, but it would always come back.

tl;dr Origins is my least favorite of the three games for many, many reasons. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as I did City or Asylum.

On a side note, did anyone enjoy Origins' multiplayer?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

As a big fan of Arkham Asylum, I was massively disapointed by the short, and "cash-in" feel which, IMO, Arkham City had. You spent more time hearing about DLC characters than you did anything else. Strangely, AC was/is hailed as the best in the trilogy.

So, after reading similar criticisms against Origins, I decided to leave it until it was bottom dollar to play.

Having now played it, I thought it was stunning, absolutely stunning. I thought they took WAY more time and care with the main story, gave you plenty to do with the sidequests whilst keeping it feeling significant, and honed down the mechanics to a tee.

The sandbox element of City also felt really "filler" like, whereas in Origins - whilst still a tad "filler" - it just seemed to fit in with the main game better.

Just wanted to spread a little love for a game which I think got a bit of a hard rap. I absolutely loved it.

I'll agree with you on a lot of this, I was a lot more impressed with "Origins" than I expected to be considering all the hate the game got. The things I loved about it:

-This was, bar none, the best depiction of Bane I had ever seen. He actually felt cool and intimidating, not like this cheese-ball 'roided up Luchador with an over the top Hispanic accent.

-I liked the much grittier and more brutal feel of Origins, especially compared to the somewhat cheesy feel of City.

-Besides that, it was, as you said, generally just a very good game.

But, there was also a lot I didn't like:
-Bugs. I tried to play the game on 360 and it was literally unplayable. I eventually downloaded it off Steam when it was super cheap, and I generally got it to work, but it still froze and crashed on occasion. I don't remember a single issue ever with Asylum or City.

-I hated the arbitrary restrictions they put on some of your upgrades throughout the game. Oh, you want this upgrade? Sorry, you have to complete this mission, even though it has nothing to do with the upgrade. Or you need to do 5 aerial stunts, or something along those lines.

-This wasn't huge, but they really should have made Deathstroke one of the bigger bosses. Having him be the first boss was pretty lame.

-It didn't really make sense that you were running around this entire city, and literally EVERYONE is a thug or criminal. In Arkham City it made sense: you were running around this section of the city that was basically a huge prison complex, so of course everyone there is a criminal. I get that this is Gotham and it's horrible, but there's hardly a single civilian walking around?

Spoiler

One thing I was happy about when I got it was "Finally! The Joker isn't the main villain! Oh woops, that lasted about 5 minutes, sorry you get the same main villain as the last 2 games". I like the Joker, but damn it, I wanted a new villain.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

First, the Harley Quinn is taken from the comics/animated show and also was in Asylum.

Second, while plots can be YMMV, the plot still sucked, a lot of wasted characters (especially Slade and Lady Shiva who can carry a game by themselves and got reduced to mooks), the time frame makes no sense with the best example being the Joker getting arrested, getting into arkham and manipulating Quinn in the span of a SINGLE NIGHT, some characters made absolutely no sense (like Bane) and the plot just feels disjointed, the entire premise of fighting all the baddies gets dropped for a generic Joker story while trying to cram as many Dark Knight references as possible.

I'm not talking about the character, I'm talking about the specific part in the game where Joker "seduces" her. For me that was just a stunning bit of scriptwriting.

And character-wise again mate, it's down to your expectancy of what you wanted, not the game itself.

And if your criticizing a game about a billionare who dresses up as a bat to fight gangs of men dressed up as clowns and who have crocodile skin, who throws himself from building to building via a hook, who decides to do all this not using a gun, and who's hated by most the people he's trying to protect for "not making sense", I think that you need to have a rethink lol. None of it is real and it requires the observer to suspend disbelief in reality a certain amount to even enterain the entire concept. In that world, I can live with a few timeframe issues.

I'll agree with you on a lot of this, I was a lot more impressed with "Origins" than I expected to be considering all the hate the game got. The things I loved about it:

-This was, bar none, the best depiction of Bane I had ever seen. He actually felt cool and intimidating, not like this cheese-ball 'roided up Luchador with an over the top Hispanic accent.

-I liked the much grittier and more brutal feel of Origins, especially compared to the somewhat cheesy feel of City.

-Besides that, it was, as you said, generally just a very good game.

But, there was also a lot I didn't like:
-Bugs. I tried to play the game on 360 and it was literally unplayable. I eventually downloaded it off Steam when it was super cheap, and I generally got it to work, but it still froze and crashed on occasion. I don't remember a single issue ever with Asylum or City.

-I hated the arbitrary restrictions they put on some of your upgrades throughout the game. Oh, you want this upgrade? Sorry, you have to complete this mission, even though it has nothing to do with the upgrade. Or you need to do 5 aerial stunts, or something along those lines.

-This wasn't huge, but they really should have made Deathstroke one of the bigger bosses. Having him be the first boss was pretty lame.

-It didn't really make sense that you were running around this entire city, and literally EVERYONE is a thug or criminal. In Arkham City it made sense: you were running around this section of the city that was basically a huge prison complex, so of course everyone there is a criminal. I get that this is Gotham and it's horrible, but there's hardly a single civilian walking around?

Spoiler

One thing I was happy about when I got it was "Finally! The Joker isn't the main villain! Oh woops, that lasted about 5 minutes, sorry you get the same main villain as the last 2 games". I like the Joker, but damn it, I wanted a new villain.

Great shout with Bane, he did feel very badass.

I must have fell lucky with the bugts, throughout my entire playthough (which saw all the side missions comleted except the Enigma ones, which I've left at 72% currently to return to later) I didn't have one bug or one crash. that was on an installed 360 version.

The upgrade restrictions is a valid criticism. It didn't bother me personally, but I can't disagree there.

And I have to say, the way they

Spoiler

introduced the joker and made him the main villain I absolutely loved. I can understand why others wouldn't, but I personally thought it was a great introduction to him, especially the way they portrayed his facsination and "love" for Batman