Arkham knight was a bad game

>arkham knight was a bad game
when will this shitty meme die.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/mZWdxmlvyWs?t=2m35s
youtube.com/watch?v=cRXtjPRIj7U&t=287s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It would've been a hell of a lot better without the batmobile.
City>Asylum>Origins≥Knight>>DS shit

Main series arkham games is the most sound trilogy in the current industry

wat the hell was wrong with the batmobile?
it controlled very well and the sound design on it was godlike
if you used it to travel around the city and felt burned out because of that then you're just a retard

Knight = City > Origins > Asylum

Knight would be definitely better than City if not for the over reliance on the batmobile for EVERY SINGLE FUCKING NIGGER CANCER RIDDLE and boss fight, although some boss fights were still very good. Also the Knight himself was shit villain and should have been replaced by someone else.

It’s not bad, just incredibly underwhelming and disappointing. The storyline was just plain awful and the side missions were handled so much more worse than the prior games.

>what was wrong with the batmobile
>answers own question

all the Arkham games are shit after Asylum

Your second paragraph was my entire problem with the batmobile.

>too retarded to understand difference between batmobile and mission design
sorry user.

Another thing I forgot to mention, but I didn't like the ending of Knight. Bruce Wayne just faking his own death and retiring as batman goes against everything he believes in and is fucking retarded. DC Comics should have just let Rocksteady kill off Bruce Wayne like they most likely wanted to do, with a very dark and sad hero sacrifice ending.

>wat the hell was wrong with the batmobile?
the tank

The original post wasnt being literal. That extreme reliance can really affect how one reacts to the batmobile. It controlled fine but when even deathstroke(a known melee specialist) was relegated to the mussion structure of a tank fight, something was going wrong.

controlled perfectly well

>retiring as batman
someone didn't 100% the game and I don't blame you

Is he manbat now?

no it didn't, you had to hold down a button instead of toggling it

doesn't the game imply that it's the crusader fag?
But even if it isn't, it still doesn't make a lot of sense for Bruce & Alfred to survive that explosion. It's dumb as fuck. I mean the entire mansion came down 3 seconds after Bruce put a foot past the front door. It's the biggest ass pull ever and I think the story really suffered as a result, because Rocksteady clearly wasn't very interested in that route.

youtu.be/mZWdxmlvyWs?t=2m35s

It's a good game but not as good as City and Asylum.

The Batmobile parts sucked really hard and I was dissapointed that there was no final boss fight
I loved the joker part though

didn't bother me
but I played with a controller so I don't know

I also played with a controller, so fuck off

well then git gud faggot.

it's not a difficulty thing, it's a "my hands started cramping during the fucking 20 minute stealth tank sections" thing

no such sections in the game you little manlet
I'm sorry you're such a pathetic little faggot that holding down a button for 3 or 5 minutes straight makes your little goblin hands hurt.
jesus christ

you mean besides the Red Hood and Deathstroke mega-tank sequences?

Batmobile transformed it into a mediocre bootleg of Battletanks.

>meme
>so bad they had to remove it from the store to rerelease it later.

>wat the hell was wrong with the batmobile?
It was the white bread of gameplay and they forced it on you at every opportunity

>PC cucks

>sold several times the copies on consoles thus making your point moot

>source: your butthole

If it didn't have that stupid filler batmobile mini game after every 3 missions, it would have been way better.

>literally cant play game with out flying through ground or dying AWFUL SLI support that is broken but is a feature
>wow dont be so entitled

When it turns into a good one

Is Arkham Origins worth playing?

When it stops being a bad game.

Can someone explain?

game is like $5 now, you might as well play it.

Batman started using fear gas

It's the one I enjoyed the most, to be honest.

Riddle me this, detective.
What isn't a puzzling question to be figured out, but actually a series of shitty race-courses for your fucking batmobile?

So that's actually Bruce Wayne at the end? I didn't finish the game when it came out.

Are they gonna make any more games of this series?

doubtful

I never played any of these. Should I? Which one is the best?

Pros:
>Has a good origin story
>has best upgrade system
>good bosses
>Best Bane

Cons:
>unpolished
>bland as fuck city

I'd say its worth playing, just don't go in with high expectations

All of them are pretty great movies with easy and flowing combat with great bosses except Knight

50 hours in google shows that Xbone sales are at approx. 1.55 million sales and PC version is at approx. 0.15 million sales with PS4 at a whopping 3.99 million sales

oh nevermind i misread what you wrote
but I don't get it, how does selling well on consoles make the shit unplayable PC port (affecting sales) irrelevant? it's just lost money for everyone involved. WB who had to pay for the port and the customers who had to pay for the game.

Its not a meme, its a fact.

A meme is the DCEU is deep and complex.

Arkham Knight was the point where we had seen too much of Arkham gameplay. Though more varied for sure, it was still the same as back in Arkham Asylum. Riddler challenges and combat challenges and such were back again as well. The game would've needed something fresh and quite a bit of it to not be looked down. And it's not like it didn't try!

I mean look at the Batmobile. It was new and fresh for sure, but it felt like a stupid minigame that did not belong. It was fun for a few times and then it felt like a grind. The other thing that was "new" in Knight was how it was a proper-sized open world this time around. So I guess that's fresh. But it was just filled with same kind of copy-pasted content like City, except this time around it was actually too much. In City I would do all of it and think it was just enough, in Knight we went over the Ubisoft horizon and it turned into a negative. Plus the plot REALLY underestimated the player.

It's not a bad game, not at all. I played it for 48 hours and at least 20 of it was really fun. But I don't really feel like I want to go back to it ever. Did I ever go back to Asylum? Fuck yes. City? Yeah. Though that too, was a stretch.

It had the best gameplay and story out of any of the Arkham games.

If it had some good boss fights and didn't force the Batmobile down your throat in the final 2 hours or so of the game, it'd be a legitimate 9.5 game. But they really dropped the ball with those. Honestly, the Batmobile wasn't even that bad. It's actually probably one of my favorite vehicles to control in any single-player game. It really feels like the Batmobile, like a really badass, mobile tank that can also go like 80 MPH, they just had the nerve to throw all those shitty all-out war sequences at you and those shitty stealth sequences near the end.

neither of those claims are even remotely true

There was an option to change that

>Best gameplay
True.
>Best story
No. Just no.

It was a good game it just wasn't a good Arkham game

>TFW Riddler is the best boss in the game.

>not drill knight in the sewers

Asylum has not aged well. Story is fine but game play it's boring and so limiting.

>gameplay is basically completely unaltered up to Knight
>so boring and limiting

Asylum > City > Origins > Knight

Compared to City and Knight Asylum yes seriously

Knight > City > Asylym > Origins

Ok I dont hate the Bat-tank as much as most people but it had no good bosses.
Not to mention the Shitty cloudburst vehicle was reused for deathstroke, I would have rather had another rip off of ra's al ghul's fight.

the drill boss was the only good one in the game

Content Bloat: The Game

Knight's problem is that it just kept bolting on shit on the established formula with little innovation or improvements.

What was the point in hiding that Red Riding Hood is Ham Knight?

sell units with "it's totally a 100% original character we're writing for this game"

All the arkham games are bad games because they have bad combat.

So the people who knew jack shit about batman outside of arkham games would go
"Oh my god what a clever twist!!!"
Thing is the ruined that by making it completely obvious by showing jason's story right before the reveal of the arkham knight

It was just ridiculously boring.

even if you don't know anything about batman (like me), you'd have to be a complete retard to not figure it out
the sudden bombardment of info on jason, the 3 flashbacks in a row... it was "wait a minute, that card!" tier

>it's me, Jason!

Nice story Rocksteady.

Who should have been the Arkham knight?

Alfred

Joker

It had the best Predator music. youtube.com/watch?v=cRXtjPRIj7U&t=287s

Batjokes, ala Future's End

Batman is an overrated "superhero"

batman with the joker dynamic is the only interesting super hero

it's not bad but it's certainly the weakest Rocksteady made Arkham Game.

Probably was dead until your brought it up again.

my complaint with the game was that there wasn't as much gameplay as the first game.

the basis of Arkham asylum was you would have a room with all kinds of tunnels and passages and grates air ducts etc.. and a bunch of guys wandering around and you were tasked with using stealth to surgically dissect the room and you felt like a bad ass for doing it perfectly. and this was essentially the whole game. it was stealth arena after stealth arena. this became a core mechanic for gameplay for the series. if you take it away your left with linear exploration and cutscenes.
in arkham knight they took alot of it away to favor a more story oriented game. there are still some areas like this but they are sparse. the gameplay is now about roaming the open world and attacking small packs of random bad guys are that are placed all throughout it that pose no challenge kinda like an mmo. I think that's just one of the big inherit pitfalls of open world, you are limited in what you can do gameplaywise and it becomes easy and boring.
I played the evil within 2 and it's the same exact problem. open world kills games.

Just a normal militia guy that wasn't even called "Arkham Knight". But Scarecrow gas made Batman think it was Jason Todd back from the dead as an anti-Batman.

>>gameplay is basically completely unaltered up to Knight
Is this the new "You only need to mash triangle to win in Batman" copypaste post?

The indoor levels were weak, but the militia outposts provide lots of stealth gameplay.

Why the fuck did they go with the awful shit ending of basically killing off Batman with the public knowing who he is and shit. I wanted more Batman games damn it.

WB is already working on more batman games

Rocksteady didn't want to continue working on Batman games and wanted to make sure WB couldn't make any more cashgrabs like Origins

It didn't work because WB is stubborn

>Ending shows azazel parading around as batman after "Le batman dead" scene
>"WOW THEY ENDED IT?!"

>Knight decides to forgive Batman for no good reason
>Scarecrow is defeated with the ease of dispatching a thug in the street
>Deathstroke mission is just a repeat of the mission where you fight Knight in the tank
>Joker still ham-fisted into just about every corner of the game
>Demon/nightmare Bat-creature at the end of the game not explained at all

It's actually the best.

The story is terrible, but I play games for the gameplay. Knight is the most complete way to feel like Batman. It also has the best representation of Gotham. The only thing it's missing is Origin's cozy Christmas theme.

People who complain about the Batmobile don't realize how terrible the game would be WITHOUT the Batmobile. It is overused, but it's one of the best parts about being Batman and traversing the city.

I want Bruce Wayne as Batman. I won't accept anyone else except Terry but Bruce Wayne has to be in it too as his ear piece man. I don't give a shit about Azazel.

All non Bruce Wayne Batmans are fags.

Not just that: thanks to visual references, datalog stories and mook dialogues we know for a fact that in the Arkhamverse at least Superman, the Flash, Black Canary, Green Arrow and potentially Green Lantern, Zatanna and John Constantine exist (and i'm pretty sure i'm missing more). You're telling me that NONE OF THEM at least tried to intervene when Scarecrow was about to unmask Batman on live TV.
If they said it would have not happened because he threatened to blow shit up or bluffed it would be a thing, but the game NEVER covers this hole.
It just makes the ending feeling rushed and forcefully contrived.

the twist would be completely unmeaningful if you didn't know anything about Batman, though

which is why the shoehorned in the jason flashbacks.

I mostly agree with you. Mechanically and graphically, it's the best by far. And the city is the coolest, even though they sort of wasted the most iconic Gotham locations in City.

The Bat-Tank stuff is good, but it looks ugly when driving it around as a car. I do wish it had some bossfights though.

When they patch out 70% of the Batmobile sequences and make the Arkham Knight not predictable. Scarecrow was a far better villain.

There was toggle option in the menu, it was literally the second thing I looked for you fucking moron.

It is bad

I agree. The bossfights aren't great in Knight, but the little side quests like Professor Pyg more than make up for the story mode. Stuff like that is a treat for fans of the books.

I think the problem with Knight is, like you said, the lack of landmarks and locations.

>Thwart bank robberies
>Follow Nightwing around the city tracking money down
>Stop firehouse fires

There's a lot of little stuff that game does to make it the the best Batman experience, for me.