"Usually you put on a happy face and say the right things because that's where you are. But secretly you're thinking, 'God, if only they'd given us six more months.' But, honestly, this game we've created is the game we set out to create. It is exactly the story we wanted to tell with exactly the areas of focus we aimed to do.
Spock wrote:I'm going to avoid this. Seems like a cash in on tried and tested mechanics and formulae.
Sasukekun wrote:3.5/10 at Destructoid. Damn I got to read this.
There are few things more dismaying in the videogame industry than a publisher that's willing to throw its own creative successes under the bus for a chance at easy money. This is what Warner Bros. has done with Arkham Origins. It's contemptuously pissed all over what Rocksteady accomplished with the previous Arkham games and shat out a soulless wreckage of a game. The only good in Origins comes from work already accomplished in previous games, with a whole lot of bad added in. If all you want is to re-experience Arkham City's gameplay, I'd recommend you just replay Arkham City
If Batman: Arkham Origins does one thing well, it's epitomize the kind of exploitative garbage that has steadily eroded so much faith in the so-called "AAA" gaming scene. When publishers whine and moan about piracy or used sales, this is the kind of game you can point to when you ask if it's any surprise that so few customers are unwilling to gamble $60 on a brand new game. This is the kind of game that, when publishers panic over flagging sales, you can hold up and say, "You did it to yourselves."
In that regard, Batman: Arkham Origins is not the game this industry needs. It's the game it deserves.
Plan_XIII wrote:Each release seems to be getting worse then, shame. I ADORED Arkham Asylum. Arkham City was ok.
Liveinadive wrote:Hate reviews like that. Review the game not the industry.
That's not what they say. But yes Warner have devalued their IP through excessive milking. Not the first time in videogames history (or Batman's).Sasukekun wrote:I reckon the devs would have put a decent game together if they had been allowed an extra month or so. From announcement to release it's been less than a year right? Seems to me that Warner are the ones to blame here.
Sasukekun wrote:I reckon the devs would have put a decent game together if they had been allowed an extra month or so. From announcement to release it's been less than a year right? Seems to me that Warner are the ones to blame here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!