Blimey, I think I like the look of the originals throughout most of that comparison video.

I mostly enjoyed Arkham Knight though it had some big problems. The biggest for me was the way the batmobile changed the tone of the game. It was mostly OK but there were some ridiculous difficulty spikes, especially with the side missions. The story was pretty decent and the combat was still fun. I don't think it was nearly as accomplished a package as City was. A big failure was how empty the city seemed. I'm not expecting Rockstar levels of interaction but give me something for pity's sake. I will say however that I liked Origins less, not least for the mess of a story and an inferior rehashed city. It was a piss poor origin for Batman and featured none of the interesting starting from the bottom stories that the comics have explored.

I think they did a slightly better job than Origins did for explaining why there were no people, but it still felt like an excuse for not wanting to deal with how adding people would complicate gameplay.

I enjoyed Knight overall, but I found the combat a bit annoying. I liked being able to build up my combos and destroy all of the enemies' weapons in the earlier games, I thought it was a shame that so many could only be dropped rather than destroyed.

monkey wrote:

I want a living, breathing Gotham. Bank heists with hostages, society balls hosted by Bruce Wayne that get gatecrashed by Two-face and his goons. None of this locked down, evacuated city, all in one night jazz that we've had since City. It worked with Asylum though.

I agree. The bank heists were probably my favourite part of Knight. Some fun stuff.

Got an hour into Arkham Knight, did a riddler batmobile mission. Hated it. Deleted the game.

That is all.

Kow wrote:

It gets a bit better as long as you strictly follow only the story missions. The tank battles are fucking tedium ad naseum.

If I reinstall it and it’s still shit I’m coming for you.

Don’t bother with it. Shit tier of the toppers of all levels. Total and utter bobbins with no sense of cohesive world building. An absolute mess.

Yeah me too. I wasn't crazy about it first time through. I was quite disappointed - didn't hate it though. But on subsequent playthroughs I grew to really like it a lot. Once I got the hang of the Batmobile stuff, the game clicked for me. Only complaint is the character of the Arkham Knight. But Scarecrow makes for a brilliant villain so it kind of balanced out.

LivDiv wrote:

I liked it

This. And...

ChopperByrne wrote:

It's not a bad game, but it's the worst of the Rocksteady Trilogy.

This too.

It's not bad, but everything feels a bit off. It's like they added way too much sugar into the mix. Everything is more more more but not necessarily better. I did enjoy it, but it's the only one I haven't replayed. Several times.

Asylum is definitely the best of the three.

Asylum was my favourite. Very focused and most metrovania like.

Hard to choose between the two but I think City just tips it.
Asylum had some issues towards the end when every battle just ended up the same routine of leaping over the big guy, the final boss included.

City developed some of the combat further, loved the gliding around as well. Loads more Easter eggs hidden around the place. Riddler more fleshed out. Catwoman bits.

Asylum is the first so gets points there automatically. Other than that it is just a couple of stand out bosses and the Scarecrow bits, especially the fourth wall breaking bit.

Asylum for me, I like confined spaces and the Metroidvania/trad 3D Zelda new item/new area thing appealed.  

Knight was fine if you hopped between the main story triggers, but there weren't enough proper bosses and I thought the fighting felt a bit flimsier. 

I liked the Bat Tank though. 

City for me too, overall. Although the bits of Asylum mentioned were top tier.