No, it wasn't. Origins wasn't even close to being as good as Arkham City. Not by a couple of thousand goddamn miles.
Printable View
I just didn't buy Arkham Origins because it was another joekr story and joker these last 5 years has been beaten to death. Movies, comics, video games,....Enough already.
There's no such thing as too many Joker stories. Only Joker stories that aren't very good.
Sure it was.
It wasn't brand new, and it was a clunky clone of Arkham City's gameplay, with a decent origin story about Batman meeting Joker. Not the better game, but not terrible, not even fucking bad. The game was better than most action games you can get these days. Full of the same old sandbox bullshit to do, and top-end graphics if you're not playing on a fucking potato powered console.
Most arguments against it hinging on "Oh noes, it's not Rocksteady!" and "OMG! Theres a shitty online mode! and DLC costs money!"
No, it wasn't. A lot of it has to do with progression. Arkham City upped the ante constantly with HUGE payoffs, whereas Arkham Origins just sort of fizzled out and disappointed one encounter after another.
I gotta disagree there, Joker is like the Wolverine of DC. He's always doing something, somewhere, at the heart of the conspiracy, and is completely immune to everything until the very end after he's done some earth shattering crimes / murders. DC enough already, you have a rogues gallery that can circle the earth twice. Stop whoring out a classic villian.
I wish they'd make an Arkham spinoff game based on the 60's show. Just replace that rumbling sound used for knockouts with brass glissandos and superimposed WHAMs.
Aren't the Lego Batman games like that?