Poll: Arkham Asylum or City

[Zhukov]

Playing Arkham City at the moment.

I'm pretty "meh" on both of them. I wish all that design and polish had been spent on a non-Batman game.

If I had to choose I'd go with City over Asylum. The combat has been tuned up and playing as Catwoman is surprisingly fun.

No idea what everyone else is talking about with regards to Asylum having atmosphere. I sure didn't feel any of it.

The atmosphere is SOOO GOOD because it makes you feel VULNERABLE as the all-powerful Batman which is what I really suspect.

Seriously?

The game never made me feel vulnerable. In fact, one of my major complaints with it (as well as the sequel) is that you're hugely overpowered. Combat is mostly just a case of mashing attack and hitting counter when prompted. It's fun and all, but there's no sense of vulnerability.

The stealth sections are a breeze too. Every area is covered with completely safe hiding points that you can move between at will. It feels like Baby's First Stealth Game. Even when I handicap myself by not using the hiding spots, I'm still bristling with overpowered gadgets.

Playing batarang-whack-a-mole with the crocodile guy didn't impress me either.

 

[devilofthemist]

wow this is really even, i prefered city over asylum but i don't know why, but i never did complete asylum unfortuanatly

i will say i disliked it in city when suddenly BAM everyone has sniper rifles, they see you, you're fucked

 

[endtherapture]

Playing Arkham City at the moment.

I'm pretty "meh" on both of them. I wish all that design and polish had been spent on a non-Batman game.

If I had to choose I'd go with City over Asylum. The combat has been tuned up and playing as Catwoman is surprisingly fun.

No idea what everyone else is talking about with regards to Asylum having atmosphere. I sure didn't feel any of it.

The atmosphere is SOOO GOOD because it makes you feel VULNERABLE as the all-powerful Batman which is what I really suspect.

Seriously?

The game never made me feel vulnerable. In fact, one of my major complaints with it (as well as the sequel) is that you're hugely overpowered. Combat is mostly just a case of mashing attack and hitting counter when prompted. It's fun and all, but there's no sense of vulnerability.

The stealth sections are a breeze too. Every area is covered with completely safe hiding points that you can move between at will. It feels like Baby's First Stealth Game. Even when I handicap myself by not using the hiding spots, I'm still bristling with overpowered gadgets.

Playing batarang-whack-a-mole with the crocodile guy didn't impress me either.

Well I liked the atmosphere - the first time through the game you have no idea you are overpowered and it's all genuinely atmospheric for me.

City was just well...a smashed up City. There was no crazy hidden backstory, no sense of danger from anyone or anything, the stealth was easier even with the new mechanics and it was just an overall worse game.

 

[blackdwarf]

city. both games are great, really amazing. the start of asylum was waaay better, but the end was a bit meh. structure wise asylum was better, because there was more control in the story and because i held place in a relativity small place. city suffered from the open environment in the start. suddenly you get everyone on your ass at once and you have no idea what is happening with 5 major villains, but when it gets going... it is great with a end that was everything i wanted and more.

both amazing games, with both great elements. really a milestone in licensed games.

 

[Darthbawls77]

The first one was awesome! New distinct ip with fresh ideas done well and the story was put together in a way where all us Batman fans have read a million times. But its pulled off with such style and care that we didnt mind. The second game was also based off of another popular Batman story "No mans land," which was a great story about survival and the primal instincts that we all have that surfaces during a city wide crisis. I was more like "Im still alive," were all the baddies wanted gang like control over Gotham and popular things in trade were batteries and medical supplies. While in City you get the same feel as No mans land, but without that gritty gritty sense of urgency and I think that comes from the part were you only see police and medical staff stuck in the City while in the comic it was just most of Gotham which gives it a way WAY bigger sense of "I need to save the city!" But with just mainly criminals you just get a grander scale of Asylum instead of an expanded game with the story. But sandbox batman that can glide around the city! o man it was sooooooo awesome. I cant pick a favorite cause I loved both but I would love to see in the next game a mash-up of the last two, keep the controls and open city but a thicker story that doesnt end with just everyone dying or being threatened to die maybe.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

While City had a more interesting story, Asylum feels like a more cohesive game, rather than the jumble of gameplay elements that was Arkham City.

 

[SwimmingRock]

Well I liked the atmosphere - the first time through the game you have no idea you are overpowered and it's all genuinely atmospheric for me.

Ummm... what? I figured out Batman was OP as shit during the combat tutorial (those first few goons). You can tape down the left mouse button, take a nap and the game will sort itself out. Everything about it was so damn easy, predictable and unimpressive. I remember getting to the cinematic in the Batcave where Bats rests his head on his hand and thinking:"He looks as bored as I am." I continued for a bit longer, but I just could not finish that game.

Maybe it's because I read the comics and watched all the cartoons with Batman in them, but it just felt like the same old shit the whole way through. This counts for the gameplay too, which was just so motherloving bland. Sure, it looked snazzy, but I don't give a flying shit about graphics and the rest just didn't measure up. I was deeply disappointed by Asylum. As such, I didn't/won't purchase City. Cannot vote on poll until there's a "meh" option.

 

[Zhukov]

[snip]

Well I liked the atmosphere - the first time through the game you have no idea you are overpowered and it's all genuinely atmospheric for me.

First time through?

I've only played the game once and I was fully aware of how overpowered I was.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

The first time I beat Arkham Asylum, I turned off the system and went to try to trade it in for another title.

The first time I beat Arkham City, I started playing it again.

I suppose that describes my feelings on the matter.

 

[MrGseff]

I preferred Asylum but that could be because it focused more on the Joker who is my favourite (especially when voiced by Mark Hamill) so City didn't seem to have enough of him).

 

[DanielBrown]

I'll go with Asylum. While they're both amazing games, the first one felt more thought through. In City it often felt to me that they just threw in as many bad guys as they could. Many disappeared as quickly as they appeared.

 

[Iwata]

I really liked both games, but I prefered Asylum overall. It felt perfectly contained, and with brilliant atmosphere that fit the theme.

City, while great, over-extended itself at points, and ironicaly, despite taking place in a bigger area, the map just felt smaller somehow.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Asylum. City was good, but it did not feel that close to a "cohesive whole". Basically, it felt like it tried to cram too much in there, story-wise and character-wise, while Asylum had just enough.

And, while the atmosphere of both is different, but I do not think one is worse than the other. Asylum is more of a "haunted-house" style atmosphere, while city is more of a "dark cyber-punk" atmosphere. Like comparing The Shining to Escape from New York. Just depends on which you want.

So yeah, Asylum for me. While City improved most everything, gameplay wise, I just did not find it was that cohesive of a whole. And I guess there was something about Asylum's atmosphere that appealed to me more. :/

 

[Abedeus]

Have yet to play the City for more than the first encounter with Mr. Dent, but I liked it. I did finish Asylum twice, but I somehow... forgot about AC. More games came out in the meanwhile.

Downloading DLCs now, so waiting while they FINISH MAYBE WITHIN NEXT HOUR OR TWO.

I hate GFWL so much.

 

[DustyDrB]

I didn't love Arkham Asylum. It was OK, but I sold it as soon as I finished it and was pretty annoyed with it in parts.
Arkham City fixed everything. It has the distinction of being the most fun I've ever had simply getting from point A to point B. I also prefer the story, side missions, and boss fights. It's a keeper game for me.

 

[Iwata]

Have yet to play the City for more than the first encounter with Mr. Dent, but I liked it. I did finish Asylum twice, but I somehow... forgot about AC. More games came out in the meanwhile.

Downloading DLCs now, so waiting while they FINISH MAYBE WITHIN NEXT HOUR OR TWO.

I hate GFWL so much.

You're forgiven, man. I assume most of us are still trying to catch up to those frantic few months when City (and everything else) was released.

 

[Khanht Cope]

I can't credit the developement teams enough for how well they handled Batman with these games. I really appreciated the horror elements in Asylum. Like that part where after you've been through a huge room full of REALLY freaky maniacs, someone lets them all loose and you have that "aw shit, no!" reaction. Then as you make your way back you have to say to yourself "It'll be alright, I'm the Batman."

Shame of course that they didn't set up more jump scares, and detective mode could spoil them...

Similarly the Scarecrow part with the morgue. It's a great way for a game to capture horror. Because you don't want to go back out with all those crazies loose, or open up that last bodybag; but you know that you have no other choice. Similar to door-handle suspense, but without the "no turn back. Don't open the door!"

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Arkham City is a superior game. The game has everything AA had, and more. It's pure bullshit that Batman game mechanics don't work well in open world environment. That was Yahtzee's opinion. Why do people just accept everything he says as some kind of gospel? Most of the time he's just plain fuckin' wrong. He doesn't even have the time to play the game enough to appreciate it. That's why games with a lot of content feel like too much for him to handle. It's only a bad thing if you're a video game reviewer/critic who doesn't have the time to truly sit down and play the game like a normal person. For regular gamers who actually have the time to sit and play the game for as long as they want to, more content is A GOOD THING.

I always felt like something was missing in Asylum. It's because it was too small, and all the stuff Batman was able to do in AA didn't really help make the player feel like Batman. All you got were glimpses of Batman awesomeness. Don't get me wrong, it's still an amazing game. But AC did everything so much better. I was finally able to do everything Batman should be able to do. Gliding across the big city environment was a HUGE contributor to immersion.

 

[endtherapture]

Asylum. City was good, but it did not feel that close to a "cohesive whole". Basically, it felt like it tried to cram too much in there, story-wise and character-wise, while Asylum had just enough.

And, while the atmosphere of both is different, but I do not think one is worse than the other. Asylum is more of a "haunted-house" style atmosphere, while city is more of a "dark cyber-punk" atmosphere. Like comparing The Shining to Escape from New York. Just depends on which you want.

So yeah, Asylum for me. While City improved most everything, gameplay wise, I just did not find it was that cohesive of a whole. And I guess there was something about Asylum's atmosphere that appealed to me more. :/

This sums it up for me completely.

Arkham City is a superior game. The game has everything AA had, and more. It's pure bullshit that Batman game mechanics don't work well in open world environment. That was Yahtzee's opinion. Why do people just accept everything he says as some kind of gospel? Most of the time he's just plain fuckin' wrong. He doesn't even have the time to play the game enough to appreciate it. That's why games with a lot of content feel like too much for him to handle. It's only a bad thing if you're a video game reviewer/critic who doesn't have the time to truly sit down and play the game like a normal person. For regular gamers who actually have the time to sit and play the game for as long as they want to, more content is A GOOD THING.

I always felt like something was missing in Asylum. It's because it was too small, and all the stuff Batman was able to do in AA didn't really help make the player feel like Batman. All you got were glimpses of Batman awesomeness. Don't get me wrong, it's still an amazing game. But AC did everything so much better. I was finally able to do everything Batman should be able to do. Gliding across the big city environment was a HUGE contributor to immersion.

I personally think that a Batman open world game could be great - but for some reason City didn't do it. It crammed far too much into the game in terms of useful gadgets etc. but spread itself too thin in other areas (eg. characters, villains, "dungeon" areas). In Asylum you had the 6 or so areas that were completely distinct and intertwined within the story with a "boss" at the end of each bit. In City, we had like...4 of these areas...and a lot of it was retreading as well. The City was also not full enough of things to do, there were side quests but there were like 2 or 3 of these in the entire game, not enough to fill out the entire city. I say they should've cut down on the Riddler content and expanded the "gang war" aspect of the game more, added more "dungeon" areas and outdoor predator areas, and also given more time to each individual villain.

Freeze was cool I suppose but we didn't see enough of him. Penguin was awesome and so was Joker...but Ra's and Hugo Strange were just shit to say the least.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I prefer Batman Arkham Asylum. I loved the story and the overall feel of this game.

The beginning in City was a big WTF moment and felt poorly executed and i hated the ending. Overall the story felt tacked on just to have an excuse for a bigger Asylum with more villains.

Things that went better with City are gameplay(improved combat), the riddler puzzles and the sidemissions. The freeroam was great too and i love the whole design of the characters (this goes for Asylum too, they did an awesome job in both titles).

I hope Rocksteady starts a new ip in the future. I just can`t imagine how they manage to expand the whole "Arkham"concept. A freeroam Gotham City game sounds a bit to hard to realize but it seems that`s what they are going to do next. I just hope they deliver a better story next time.


Offtopic:
The Turtles sounded great, to bad it was an rumour. I would love to see the Rocksteady version and they wouldn`t even need to change the combat system.