|Batman >> View Post|
Subj: Batman: Arkham Games Ranked from Lowest to Highest
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 at 09:04:41 pm EST (Viewed 33 times)
Let's be honest. The Arkham series of games proved that Batman could be made into an awesome game. Before Rocksteady decided to tackle this franchise, every Batman game pretty much sucked. But then Rocksteady changed everything and gave us three solid Batman games before calling it quits. And here, I rank the games from lowest to highest, including the game Rocksteady did not make; Batman: Arkham Origins.
4. BATMAN: ARKHAM ORIGINS: There's a lot to like about Arkham Origins. A Bruce Wayne relatively new to role of being the Batman, some of the cool new stuff I could do and it was all around good fun. Unfortunately, the game was not without it's shortcomings. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill did not reprise their respective roles (a decision I still, to this day, fail to understand). The control scheme for Batman's moves was intentionally tweaked so it was harder to counter incoming moves (*Coldly Glares at WB Montreal*). Even the DLC was uninspired and just a repeat of what happened in Arkham City (at least when it came to the Mr. Freeze "boss fight"). And then this game proved that the Arkham series couldn't do a game without the Joker. I get that the Joker is Batman's archenemy, but this COULD and SHOULD have been made without him, especially since WB Monstreal promised he wouldn't even be the main villain. Of course, we all know they lied and the Joker did turn out to be one of the two main villains of the game after all. And this I found was a major failing point of the game because I was really looking forward to playing an Arkham game without the Joker in it. Alas, that was not to be...
It's no surprise that this game was left out of the Return to Arkham set when Arkham Asylum and Arkham City were given the next gen console treatment. Still, I wish it had been included in Return to Arkham as that would have been the perfect opportunity to not only update the graphics but tweak the controls (*Coldly Glares at WB Montreal*).
Batman: Arkham Origins is a good game, but it's the weakest in the series by far. And I didn't even touch upon the numerous continuity problems this game has that the rest of the series established...
3. BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM: Ah, the game that started it all. When I saw previews of this game in a magazine, I immediately wished to play it. And then I wished it had been a Superman game instead. The game couldn't come out fast enough and I don't know how many times I played the demo for it. When I finally got this game, I was amazed at what I could do. Finally, a successful Batman game! And I loved every minute I played too. I even played it multiple times, found all the secrets and conquered the combat/predator maps. I knew this game would get a sequel and I was right.
The one thing that stops this game from being rated higher on my list is the fact that it's a little on the short side when compared to the games that came after it in the series. There's not a whole lot to do outside of the main story. Plus, outside of challenge maps, it lacks any real DLC that helps advance the story.
2. BATMAN: ARKHAM KNIGHT: I had to save up enough money to buy a PS4 before I could play this game (even then, I borrowed my uncle's PS4 just so I could play it). I was angry that Rocksteady didn't bother doing a PS3 version.
All in all, Arkham Knight is a solid game, There's a ton to like and a lot to do. There is probably a bit more to do in this game than there is in previous installments. Batman's new suits look cool, the new abilities were awesome and driving the Batmobile was great. I LOVED the ability to play as one of Batman's skins through story mode before I unlocked New Game+, a feature that was sorely lacking in Arkham City. The updated graphics also helped the game shine like no other. It's definitely the best looking out of the Arkham series.
Unfortunately, for everything I liked about the game, I could probably find something I didn't like about it. Once again, the Joker was heavily involved in this game (much to my chagrin) even though the character was dead (once more, proving the Arkham series couldn't do a SINGLE GAME WITHOUT THE JOKER). Most of the "Boss fights" were replaced by the Batmobile boss fights (making the Batmobile way overused). And what few Boss fights there were on foot paled in comparison to what came before in the series. I also found it annoying that I finished the game without unlocking all of Batman's abilities first, forcing me to do New Game+ in order to get them all unlocked. And speaking of New Game+, it had to be on the hardest difficulty setting (Knightmare) instead of simply on "Hard" like it should have been. In turn, this made New Game+ pretty much impossible to complete and not even worth doing. The ending of the game also left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth because Rocksteady could have picked something much better than this as a great send off to an otherwise great series of games. I didn't even get to do a final boss fight, which should have happened between Batman and the Scarecrow. The combat maps took a downturn as well, not being as fun as previous installments. Plus, the fun variety was missing and I wondered where it went. Finally, the DLC was nothing but crap (30 minutes of new gameplay, give or take, NO THANK YOU). None if it was worth buying outside the one where you help Mr. Freeze with his wife and meet up with some of the other Batman villains.
1. BATMAN: ARKHAM CITY: This game raised the bar after Arkham Asylum. It added an open world environment for Batman to explore, side missions and a bunch of new Combat/Predator maps and challenges. It also gave players the ability to play Catwoman, even during certain points in the main story (something I was sorry to see Rocksteady failing to capitalize on in Arkham Knight). And then there was the DLC, Harley Quinn's revenge. It was a good few hours of great game play. Unfortunately, Rocksteady couldn't quite copy the success of this DLC in Arkham Knight or it's length. The combat/predator maps became a lot more fun to do as more variety was added in. Now I could do a series of them with certain buffs or limitations for an added challenge. Something that Arkham Knight should have improved upon, but didn't and instead made it worse somehow.
I have few problems with this game and that's why it's ranked at #1 because out of the entire series, it's simply the best one.
It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|