Batman Arkham Knight and the Scourge of Scale
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- 🔴 Get bonus content by supporting Game Maker’s Toolkit - gamemakerstool... 🔴
Rocksteady's Arkham games have gotten bigger and bigger, from the corridors of Arkham Asylum to the streets of Gotham City. But has the Dark Knight actually benefited from the increase in scale? Is bigger always better?
Sources
Gamasutra: "Rocksteady's Sefton Hill Unmasks Batman: Arkham Asylum"
www.gamasutra.c...
Games shown in this episode (in order of appearance):
Batman: Arkham Knight (Rocksteady Studios, 2015)
Batman: Arkham Asylum (Rocksteady Studios, 2009)
Batman Returns (Konami, 1993)
Alien: Isolation (The Creative Assembly, 2014)
Superman Returns (EA Tiburon, 2006)
Iron Man 3 - The Official Game (Gameloft, 2013)
Batman: Arkham City (Rocksteady Studios, 2011)
Far Cry 4 (Ubisoft Montreal, 2014)
Grand Theft Auto IV (Rockstar North, 2008)
Mafia II (2K Czech, 2010)
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (Naughty Dog, 2009)
Infamous Second Son (Sucker Punch Productions, 2014)
Fallout 4 (Bethesda Game Studios, 2015)
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda Game Studios, 2011)
Just Cause 3 (Avalanche Studios, 2015)
Assassin's Creed II (Ubisoft Montreal, 2009)
Fuel (Asobo Studio, 2009)
Spider-Man 2 (Treyarch, 2004)
Resident Evil (Capcom, 1996)
Gone Home (Fulbright, 2013)
Bloodborne (From Software, 2015)
Watch Dogs (Ubisoft Montreal, 2014)
Batman: The Video Game (Sunsoft, 1989)
Music used in this episode:
Stage 1 (Batman: The Video Game, NES)
Stage 2 (Batman: The Video Game, NES)
Gotham Cathedral (Batman: The Video Game, Game Boy)
Stage 4, Part 1 (Batman: The Video Game, NES)
Game Over (Batman: The Video Game, NES)
Clip credits:
"Elgato 1080p Test - Spider-Man 2 (PS2)" - Patrick J. McKenna
• Elgato 1080p Test - Sp...
"Watch Dogs: Driving & Car Physics" - oGVexx
• Video
"Batman Arkham Knight | Exclusive Sefton Hill interview" - PlayStation New Zealand
• Batman Arkham Knight |...
"Batman: Arkham Knight Review Discussion 5: Ranking The Arkham Series" - IGN
• Batman: Arkham Knight ...
Contribute translated subtitles - amara.org/v/C3...
"Batman is at his best when he's locked in with his opponents."
I would say he's at his best when they're locked in with HIM... :-)
Going open world worked with Arkham City because Rocksteady built the world with Batman in mind. The problem with Arkham Knight is they built the world with the Batmobile in mind. Where Arkham City felt like a Batman game in a city instead of a closed space, Arkham Knight felt like a Batmobile game with Batman tagging along in some parts. Going open world doesn't always screw up what worked in the previous games as long as the core idea that's elaborated into the gameplay mechanics remain the same i.e. Witcher 3.
I'm glad someone mentioned this!
Emanon ex-fucking-actly
Nah. Arkham City was a disappointment too. Maybe people forget because the Batmobile is so overpowering, but the Batman parts of being in the city in Arkham Knight are boring too. It's only ever good once you get inside a building. And Arkham City is just more of that because there was no Batmobile to take some of it away.
Unpopular opinion time: Batman Arkham Asylum is the only good game in the franchise. City, Knight, and especially Origins suck.
Mind you, RPGs can use open world design to improve storytelling. In RPGs, sidequests aren't just another tower-liberation checkmark you cross off the list, but they are actually small stories that flesh out the world you're in. Action games sidequests rarely work like that.
Agreed, City and Asylum are tied for me as the best entries but for different reasons. City has not too many sidequests and the narrative still pushes you along fairly well with the reminders from Hugo Strange, though you can go at your own pace I felt like it wasn't quite as claustrophobic as Knight. Though Asylum is such a tight and for it's time unique experience it really was quite special for its tight narrative and focus on structure and telling it's story, though it suffered from poor boss battles mostly. The added features that all the sequels added are welcome, and if they ever do revisit the Batman franchise, something more like Asylum would be a welcome change.
I actually think it's unfortunate how often people forget about Origins, it has by far the best story and some well balanced boss battles. It had the least polish though and the inclusion of the shock gloves make it feel a little easy at times. Its still a good entry.
They're all good games mind you, but I never wanted to replay AK, and I played Aslyum many times through and City at least twice.
I wouldn't even call myself a Batman fan, but I loved Arkham Asylum, and enjoyed Arkham City and Arkham Origins, albeit to a lesser degree for the reasons you've stated. But the more I played Arkham Knight, the more I felt like it nailed everything I want in an open world game. Annoying Batmobile Riddler races aside, the world felt dense and incredibly interesting to me, with a brilliant plot device (the Joker as a constant, nagging devil on Batman's shoulder) and sidequests that felt varied and enjoyable, unlike in the Assassins Creed games. I totally agree with you about what made Arkham Asylum great. I just think Arkham Knight succeeds at something different.
I love all of your videos that I've seen, by the way, and really appreciate what you are doing for our hobby (in fact, I might not have bothered to make a video about Ico if I had seen yours before today). Please keep it up.
Arkham Knight only needed such a 'huge' open world only for the Batmobile, that's what I feel like. But nonetheless, I really enjoyed the open world because it has a great design and gives you the sensation of flying over Gothams streets as Batman, which I think is incredibly fun.
But what I enjoyed most in Arkham Knight is the extremly polished gameplay. They laid out the foundation in Asylum, improved the mechanics in City and very much perfected and polished them in Knight. Fighting feels so awesome and gives you some nice challenges throughout the game. The fact that you can finally punch goons while they are on the floor or having the ability to pick them up again is such a usefull enhancement that allows for some smooth fights. Same goes for the predator mechanics!
Overall for me Asylum has the best atmosphere: Running through the increasingly disturbing and twisting hallways of the Asylum, while occasionally hearing some lunatics scream or giggling is simply spine chilling.
City has the best story and boss fights: Even though it's pacing isn't as good as in Asylum, the way everything unfolds until the final twist and conclusion is fantastic! And I don't need to say anything about the Mr. Freeze fight...
And as stated above: Knight has best gameplay!
Great trilogy!
Completely agree, that direct combat approach of just dropping onto a roof top and taking names makes perfect sense when you take into account what's actually happening, the militia have walked straight into Batman's home and act like they run the place, which is obviously going to spark great anger in him, I like to think this was a concious decision by Rocksteady to blend the combat to the scenario, but even if they didn't it's still a happy accident, it makes the whole experience much more immersive & believable to me.
Exactly what I felt like saying. This is why I read the comments before I write any in videos like this
THis guys are making a Superman trilogy next, i am craving to see what they can do with my favourite DC superhero
David Rutledge what are you talking about arkham knight was horrible grindy poor and baren.
The dumb batmobile being in every freaken mission even the riddles seriously. The story was the weakest and rushed
But you get to glide around tho. Like you own the city.
That's a big draw of being Batman.
Was Batman meant to be presented on a slideshow though, because Arkham Night sure thought so.
I liked that Telltale Games highlighted the idea the Bat costume isn't something Bruce wears all dark hours of the day to stomp around. It's simply a mask he applies when he has a specific vigilante task in mind; even being willing to do more subtle spywork in the day, wearing his normal outfit. Obviously the Arkham games were never going to highlight this side of things, but I guess I don't think of Batman as a guy wandering around doing what he likes.
Katana It's obvious to anyone with even the slightest interest in Batman that Bruce Wayne is a complete facade. The reason Batman spends so much time in the Arkham games exclusively as Batman (aside from the obvious) is because for all intents and purposes that's who he actually is. He doesn't want to be walking around as Bruce Wayne anymore than the player does. You say Telltale's Batman does this well, but what makes Bruce Wayne in that game any different from Rhys from TftB, or Lee from the Walking Dead? Even if there was potential to playing as Bruce Wayne I can tell you right now that Telltale's Batman doesn't channel that potential.
BlackMask I agree with you except I think telltale absolutely does channel the potential. It’s a different take though and I don’t think some people get that.
And then what....? Do that endlessly? You might as well be playing Saint's Row IV
Liberating towers and the rest of the side missions were satisfying to me because as you do them thorough the game you do feel like you are taking your city back from the many threats that are threatening it .
True, but it is also true that they become repetitive. For me it felt like I was just completing a checklist. I do feel like that with almost every open world game.
I feel like batman should be kept on the backfoot.
In the nolan films he's kept guessing and trying to handle an unceasing mess of problems and it gives this feeling like his job is never done, like gotham is swamped with crime.
@@thefran901 I think it depends how you go about it. If you do them while playing the game, seeing everything as not side quests, main quests and collectables and all main quests that you should spread out it becomes fun. 2 games Ive completed, Spider-man and Just Cause 3 were complete opposites in the way I complete them, although similar games with the random events, challenges, and collectables In a large open world with a fun and unique way of flying around. When I completed spider man, I did the side things through and it wasn't a drag, it prolonged a game I loved, unlike just cause which I was only just holding on until completion by the flying. Treating it all like a less dense main story can sometimes pad it out, but usually makes the experience better
@@ToxicBastard in the nolan films batman is a bit of a dumbass though.
I never saw what people loved about those films, they're not that great. Like damn, watching the dark knight felt longer than watching an extended edition of a lord of the rings movie
@@thefran901 Underrated opinion: GTA V is boring
Found myself agreeing with the whole video, but the ending was what really stuck with me. So many games now try to do absolutely and end up being a hodgepodge of lukewarm, mediocre mechanics, sprinkled over the game in the hopes that that pointless XP system will bring in RPG fans or whatever.
Open world seems to be the 'thing' right now and I worry that it's giving developers an excuse in a way to neglect actual flowing level design just because their game has an open world.
People tend to equate 'linear' with bad, but it's more so that a restriction of options is bad, if your game doesn't revolve around the way you traverse the level, then bringing in an open world does nothing to make the game better.
Turbo Button i disagree. Fallout or the Witcher aren't necessarily about traversal, still, i think they are much better for their world. In the same way, Mirror's edge going open world with cataclyst didn't do it any good.
@@kentknightofcaelin4537 I mostly agree with Turbo Button. Of course there will be games in which open world fits. Like you mentioned. But and you mention this as well there are games when it does not fit. And if you look at games it seems like many are done with the template just different character, setting, and some of the mechanics that fits these. This is when it gets a bit shallow.
But there is a middle ground games without open worlds but open levels when you do not feel like going through funnel.
Also it is easy to point out a bad game design which feels like a funnel and kills a lot of the fun. To me two examples are The Order 1886 and Remember Me the first I played and almost forgot about, the second I think is a good game, nice mechanics, I like the story. But for crying out loud the fact that I have to make a jump from a ledge to a building with metal bars on left and right side and I can only use the one on the left as it is yellow that was terrible. And there was more thing like this. This game was done by smaller studio, but it would gain a lot if the level design was semi open or at least offered two paths or something.
Hot take response to a four year old comment: That's pretty much exactly what Breath Of The Wild is. There was no "flowing level design" as you put it, because everything was splattered all over a too-large map that was fairly boring/lifeless/shallow.
Modern open world games have little gameplay parts and more of the exploration parts. I mean it used to be reasonable till GTA 4 but have you seen GTA V? Large areas that are not populated and look eerily deserted. And no I'm not talking about the mountains, I'm talking about those big buildings in the city - shopping centres, malls, etc that should realistically be populated. Sleeping dogs looks much more alive than GTA V. You can say the same about modern ubisoft games. Just shallow explorable areas. Witcher 3 did surprise me with its big open world however. I have not seen an open world RPG like it before.
videogamedunkey explained it well in his "picking on rockstar games" video.
I think the other problem is the experience system in _Knight_ gives you _nothing_ for just fighting standard goons, so they're just a pointless obstacle you're best off ignoring.
Agreed, while I absolutely love Arkham Knight overall it really should have rewarded us with *some* amount of XP for taking out random trash mobs. I still do it because it's a lot of fun.
@@theninjaassassin4468 every fight gives XP which gives you points to spend.
@@kristof821 the mobs in free roam don't give you XP, unfortunately. They do in Asylum and City but not in Knight.
i just like punching a lot of those mobs for fun. but yeah they should give us something or impact the in game world when we do it.
It's fun tho next question
I loved the open world becuase the side missions felt like the things Batman would tackle in a typical comic book issue, like stopping a bank robbery to investigating a villain like Man-Bat, it combined the best of Batman's combat skills (both physical and stealth) in encounters and you get to glide or drive around the city in style. Its something I wanted way back when Asylum and city showed the skylines of Gotham and it finally came true.
I was happy when the Batman games decided to go open world but they went a totally different direction than I wished. I was hoping for civilians to avoid, following trails of clues from the Batcave to whatever enemy I needed to deal with, and for the overworld to be even more zelda-ish with enemy hide-outs working like dungeons. The Penguin level in City and Joker hotel&Blackgate in Origins worked well enough but we really needed more.
I'd like to see a more "detective" styled Batman game series. Give us the mechanics of the Arkham games, but build the games from the ground up as mystery/puzzle experiences first and foremost. I'd like to see at least one game like that.
Civilian in a Batman game will feel out of place and frankly unnecessary in the contexts of these games
2:16
“But was anybody really asking for-“
Yes. All of it.
Yeah I was about to comment I loved all those things he mentioned.
Yes everyone was asking for it even though the developers didn't do a great job! We were all asking for the Batmobile and playing as Batman in Gotham City full of people but instead they gave us an empty city full of thugs! So we were asking for it but they only delivered half of it!
everyone wanted batmobile, not battank
relev Ever since Batman Begins I wanted bat tank so can't say I agree tbh.
Gotta be honest, I dont really think we had soo many batanks fighg, but because the game lacks of ANY bosses and the secondary missions werent that great, it felt that way
THIS more than anything is one of the biggest reasons why Arkham Asylum is my favorite in the Arkham series. It just had a great narrative that flowed naturally throughout the game.
Thank you for using the music from the NES Batman game as the background of this video. I was smiling inside the entire time.
Can we have another episode about sandbox/openworld design? I liked this topic a lot.
Enkii Muto With the huge number of open world games coming out these days, I'm sure it's a topic we'll revisit!
Please look into Mad Max, I think that game benefits from its open world structure and it's gorgeous, and a lot of fun
Antiform it's funny because that game has the opposite problem of Arkham knight. To much on foot combat which isn't that good and not enough car combat.
Antiform I respectfully disagree. I have played Mad Max all the way through and it took me 40 hours, 40+ HOURS, to get through upgrading four hub camps of the same supplies, rid the world of big boss camps whose bosses are the exact same but with different colors and envrionmental damage. The car combat is fun but that's really it. Mad Max gets really repetitive really fast and it felt more like a 10 hour game that feels way too padded. That's just my opinion. :)
Is there anything more to say about open world sandbox games that hasn’t already been said?
Absolutely genius move to use the 8 bit music as a soundtrack for this video!
Batman isn't stuck with his opponents, his opponents are stuck with him.
The thing I loved about Arkham Asylum was that it was more a metroidvania game than anything else. as much as metroidvasnia games are a thing now, very few are actually in 3D. So even when City was announced I was surprised it wasn't going to be set in New Arkham or Blackgate.
Also what the hell happened to the story? They never mention Harley being pregnant once in Knight.
***** The DLC in Arkham City ended that story. There was a Easter egg in the Harley Quin DLC that had a ton of negative pregnancy tests laying on the floor.
It also said it could be wrong on the positive one
Oh mah gawd, you're actually here. :)
Larry Bundy Jr Near the end of City there is in fact a reference to her having a child
Either she had a miscarriage induced by good ol' Bat whooping or she got a false positive and in true Harley Quinn fashion, obsessed over the possibility.
It really wasn't that complicated imo.
"I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me!" - also Batman
This is why Asylum is my favourite in the series. It had a much more enjoyable world to traverse, and I like the larger emphasis on a Metroidvania style environment. Well, that, and the Riddler challenges were more creative and fun to seek out, especially the actual riddles.
I think Arkham City was the perfect balance of scale vs quality, and my initial impression was "It's Asylum but bigger and with more stuff." Arkham City was still visually dense with all these interesting details that broke up the city, I could typically recognize one part of the city from the other due to layout or nearby landmarks, and navigating the city was generally fun.
The combat in Arkham City was my favorite of the series, it was Asylum but bigger and more stuff. The Arkham games are some of the few games I've bothered playing the challenge modes in, because the gameplay made me want more of it. City didn't just expand Asylum's arsenal, it fleshed it out, and I contend it was the best version of Freeflow we've gotten.
Arkham Knight's size feels obligatory, like they ramped up the scale of the city because it was the expectation, rather than an evolution of the gameplay. The combat was more of the same, its arsenal had been beefed up, but it felt like too many answers with too few problems, and trying to mix every gadget and move in a single combo felt like some of the more advanced fighting move inputs rather than the rhythmic dance of Asylum and City.
Arkham City might have been a bit looser and a bit less dense than Asylum, but I feel like we got a more complete expression of Batman from it. I can see where Rocksteady was going with Knight, but it got bogged down but too much, not to mention the game's other problems. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't up to the same standard as the previous games, and I do think the size the developers went for was the problem.
Arkham city is certainly bloated as well though. Everyone seems to forget that that game has 400 riddler trophies in it (440 if you include the extra Catwoman ones). For reference Arkham asylum feels like it has too many as well and it has 260. Arkham knight, being by far the largest game only has 240. So at least the game has more variety in the types of things you do in it. There are more smaller side quest rather than half of the game just being trophy hunting.
Arkham city is probably still my favorite! It nails the look and feel of batman to me especially with that beautiful vibrant art deco Gotham across arkham city. It was glorious! It also felt like an episode of the animated series or something being able to visit popular locations in Gotham like the iceberg lounge for example! Good stuff!
@@MichaelMcCallister097 and? It doesn't affect how you play a game almost at all, these are just collectables.
Arkham City's my favorite of the Arkham games, but it's largely due to the mechanical advancements in the game and the ridiculously meaty challenge map mode. City's campaign isn't nearly as tightly paced and structured as Arkham Asylum's, but I don't think it's an inherent part of it going open world, and really I don't even think the structure is THAT much worse than Asylum. The city was filled with plenty of isolated buildings you visited throughout the game that would turn the game into a more Arkham Asylum-like structured experience, a smaller self-contained area that you had to traverse room by room and face specifically designed challenges within them. Really this is the same way Asylum was structured, with the outside of the island serving as the hub which you traversed to access the several interior sections of the asylum. City just had a much larger hub.
Personally I think City's problems lie more in the scatterbrained story, with so many villains popping up over the course of the game that even the campaign itself loses track of the original plot to stop Protocol 10. This leads to much weaker pacing when you end up going on large detours to deal with whatever villain Batman currently has to deal with, unlike Asylum where there was always a very clear through-line to the goal of stopping The Joker and regaining control of the island. The Catwoman sections also break up the pacing, seemingly randomly spread throughout the campaign and not entirely lining up chronologically with what Batman's doing.
Despite the weaker structure though I still think the campaign is overall more enjoyable than Asylum's. While the pacing isn't as good and the individual areas you visit within the City aren't quite as intricately designed as Asylum, the deeper combat and stealth mechanics more than make up for it. Both combat and stealth have more gadgets to use, more enemy varieties that have their own quirks, more takedowns that give you more choice in how you deal with enemies, and just generally feel much tighter than Asylum's systems. I also enjoyed all of the side-quest content because almost none of it felt like filler content, they were instead smaller scale stories that could focus on the lesser Batman villains that would never get focus time in the main plot. Sure you have missions like destroying the Titan Containers, or answering all of Zass' calls, but you only do each task a few times. They never get to the level of an Assassin's Creed or even Arhkam Knight where you're repeating the same repetitive objective dozens of times, outside of the Riddler challenges which were in Asylum as well. The closest it gets is stopping the random acts of violence across the city, which you would overhear just while traversing the world, would be a very brief detour, and was the only small scale superhero thing you ever really do across the entire trilogy. While this all might make Arkham City not as immaculately paced or intricately designed of a game as Arkham Asylum, I think it all adds up to make it both a better Batman game and overall just a better game period.
That all being said I think your points totally apply to Knight, which broadened the scope of City without actually adding anything to it. Repetitive side missions, new features just for the sake of having them (the Batmobile combat that feels like it takes up half of the game), and combat/stealth sections that weren't nearly as well designed as either previous game. I enjoyed the new things they added to both combat and stealth, but the structure of the game really holds them back. Better than Origins which just felt like a bad expansion pack for City that totally missed the reasoning behind design decisions in previous Arkham games, but worse than either of Rocksteady's previous outings.
I was honestly about to write pretty much the same kind of response, but then I read yours and thought "my words exactly". I can't really add much more what you didn't already say, so I won't. :)
But that said, I think both Asylum and City are masterpieces and they both work as damn good examples how to execute certain designs. I think City was pretty much a perfect evolution from Asylum and better as an overall experience.
Yeah, it would be nice to see a version of Asylum with City's mechanics. I prefer City, but I'm wondering how much of that is from the mechanics and how much is from the more open environment (which lets glide around and feel more like Batman).
TechnoSyndrome arkham knight is rubbish dude and it looks like a ps 3 game and the characters look very wooden
Couldn't have said it better myself. I feel 100% the exact same way that you do. Cheers!!!
To be completely honest, I disagree with this. Yeah, you were right about most of it. The only thing I really can’t understand is the pacing. City had more villains and more things to handle because it was filled to the brim with criminals who all wanted to either escape, take control of the place, or just kill everybody for their own fun and twisted game. If it focused on one thing the entire time, then it wouldn’t do the game any actual justice.. it’s understandable why Asylum was straightforward. The entire time you had one main thing in mind, and no other villains to actually distract you.
Would you mind doing a video about the Metroidvania style in general? That's definitely something I'd be interested in learning more about and hearing your perspective on.
Maybe! I covered it quite a bit in the video on Axiom Verge
Mark Brown Of course it's one of the only videos of yours that I haven't seen yet xP
Thanks a lot for the reply, I'll be sure to check it out!
3 Years Later...
BOSS KEYS METROIDVANIA HYPE
Your descriptions are so good. Not only giving the music but also the games shown. That is such an overlooked aspect in TH-cam videos I've noticed. Thanks. The video is awesome of course but that's expected from you.
As much as I agree that I prefer a smaller world to a massive one as long as it's filled with character, I feel Arkham City, with its better boss battles, upgraded movement system, its constant littering of Riddler Trophies, Easter Eggs and other side missions and nick nacks, made it perfect size wise per game. I always felt like I was less than a block away from something interesting, and with the way Batman feels in that game, I was simply driven to do more. I have 4 100% playthroughs of Arkham City under my belt, and I honestly feel the gameplay itself of that game is the reward of playing more. Gaining mastery. 3 starring all the Riddler's Revenge maps. Becoming the Bat.
I like that you're slowly picking up the pace on these videos. They're so good dude.
Quality over quantity. Got it!
Great video. Among other things, I liked how the NES Batman BGM subtly played in the background
I've long thought the same thing and people (both devs and players) need to stop thinking of linearity as a sin. Having 20 hours of filler is not a better game than 5 hours of tightly paced and engaging gameplay and there's no point building a huge world/city if it's never anything more than window dressing. Games like Assassin's Creed or LA Noire clearly spend huge amounts on creating detailed cities that don't actually contribute to the game because you spend the entire thing looking at the radar or the next checkpoint. Compare that with something like Ocarina of Time where the map is quite small but where it's actually manageable enough for a player to get to know it after a few hours of playing it and where you're encouraged to examine and explore along the way instead of just dropping a way point and holding the analogue stick in that direction until you get there.
I usually don't comment bellow YT videos, in fact this might be my first time ever. However I couldn't help myself. What you do Mr. Brown is an amazimg job and I'm really glad that you make these videos. It's fun to watch and you also learn something new. It makes you think about the same thing from different angles. It's only matter of time, when your canal will become huge and I'm happy I'm a part of it. Keep up the great work.
Another great video!!! I hope one day you could treat us all to a nice long extended video so I could bust out the popcorn and dig in. I know how much work it must take to make a 6 or 7 minute video, you really get your points across clearly. Thankx agian.
M Pesce Thanks! You're not the first to ask for longer videos, so I'll definitely keep it in mind.
M Pesce It's kind of ironic that you would ask that in the comment section of a video about how bigger isn't always better.
I really do enjoy your current run-time on your videos now and it seems to really fit your style perfectly. I mean Noah Caldwell-Gervais has really longtime videos and that is his thing. Gervais and you are my favorite TH-cam content creators. I am currently in school for programing and I am also a writer and graphic designer. I just wanted to give my thanks again for the hard work and effort you put into your videos. Whenever I get a little writers block or get stuck in the beginning stages of developing a game concept, your videos really help me remember why I work so hard developing games. For the sheer love of the medium. Thank you again and keep up the great work.
Imagine a Batman game where you only had a limited amount of time each night to compete quests and you had to prioritize some over others. Completing or not completing them would have an effect on the story.
"Was anyone really asking for Batmobile tank fights"
Is that, like, a trick question or something?
A lot of people were, "give us the Batmobile", yes.
I can't say i saw many people going "and give it a tank mode so we can fight an army of tanks".
Can I just say how much I appreciated hearing the music from the original NES Batman again? I havent heard that music in nearly 30 damn years. I was like 4 back then and the NES Batman was waaaay too hard for me (I dont even think I understood what to do), but it was so cool and the music was awesome and the GRAPHICS! Man the graphics were UNREAL! Much appreciated friend.
You, sir, are a man of culture.
No mention of Origins is kind of weird. Then again Origins is basically an Arkham City expansion pack that got bloated into a full game. I really dug Asylum's small, intimate environment. I feel like each area had a very distinct tone and feel to it that was sorely missing from later installments. Say what you will about their open worlds, I honestly can't tell areas like Park Row and The Bowery apart from each other because there's this homogeneous feel to everything. That said though, I still probably like City the most mainly because of its improvements in game play from Asylum. Also, really little stuff like being able to punch through certain weakened walls instead of using explosive gel was super awesome and I can't believe they took that out of Origins. That and the 70's Batsuit in City is the best thing ever.
Also, I may be going a bit off topic here but am I the only one that's kind of sick of the Joker in the Arkham games? I get that he's iconic and he's basically THE Batman villain that everyone knows and he's super cool and interesting but I really think his story potential was capped at City. There was probably one cool sequence with him in Origins, but really I think he was in the game for bating purposes.
Jesus, the more I write about it, the more I realize that I really didn't like Origins. There's definitely nothing wrong with the game, it's more Batman hitting dudes but there's nothing really new or substantial to warrant a full game. Honestly, I'd have preferred if they just put out something like, Crime Scene Forensics DLC for City. Heck, I'd have liked a full game out of Batman going around and solving crimes with his high tech forensics gear. Then again, maybe that's just me.
***** If I had to guess, they noticed almost everyone saying they liked City better, so they just kept making City because money.
***** rotip: No one likes Origins :D
***** Hey! I liked it!
***** Origins wasn't great, but I think it gets hated on more than it should. Honestly, I liked the story more than Arkham City, because it felt more focused.
Origins found a decent balance of side missions and main quest missions, which is something that Arkham City and from the sounds of it Arkham Knight (haven't played Knight yet thanks to the abysmal PC launch) failed to do well.
Now, should it have been full price? Probably not, they could have definitely left out the multiplayer and brought the price down to $30-$40.
However, it still stood on its own enough to where I think calling it a "Arkham City expansion pack" is downplaying it a bit too much.
+Alex Weil Origins wasn't developed by Rocksteady
This video is 6 minutes long, but it feels like a high quality 20 minute video. Like Batman Arkham Asylum.
When I imagine Batman, I see him standing on a high rooftop watching the streets, not crawling through vents. That's why I liked City more. The problem with Origins and Knight was that they never delivered on the complete Batman experience. We never got to see the real Gotham and its people, how the crime and corruption affected them. That's an incredibly important part of Batman, but they've always found some stupid excuse to evacuate the streets so it seemed like the only inhabitants were thugs and cops. It ruined the Batman's motivation for fighting and made the city feel like a stretched Asylum. It's even more stupid in Knight because his Bat-tank causes more property damage than all the villains combined.
Nice touch with the old school NES Batman music in the background. :D
Not only do I agree with every single thing you said, but I've been arguing this point (and being in the extreme minority on it) since Arkham City first came out. Thank you for voicing my thought in a much more eloquent and professional way!! Now when people disagree with me, instead of sighing and giving up I'll send them this video! Arkham Asylum is without a doubt the best!
FarfetchdReviews I'm in the same school of thought, however, there is one thing to consider about the other side of the debate.
Compared to (real) guns, I feel like games are inexpensive. However, for those who really do only have $60 or less in a month (or even more then one month.), games are not cheap either. It's a situation that sucks already, but it sucks even more when that one gamble of a purchase you make on a brand new game you'd expect to have loads more content then games that came out before it.
Unfortunately, yes, this expectation waters-down games that would otherwise appeal to those who can get enough games that the quality of content is more important then how much of it. Play enough average content filled games and it can get rather stale. But if your under ten years old most things about games are new, and so the only thing they can gauge is length, and from their perspective, it actually makes sense, and I wouldn't disagree with it at all.
Still, I feel like the free to play mobile market fills in this need more then enough. You know, until they do start saying that they want longer content that is better, and cheaper, and then we'll all have to yell at them:"YOU CAN"T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!" in a kind manner, because they just didn't know, and we will have to educate them, such as mark brown is doing here.
+FarfetchdReviews You do realize that as someone who prefer's city to asylum this video doesn't prove me wrong. Like he said that gameplay wasn't benifited from going open world yet open world allowed for more varied interesting stealth arena's in Arkham City and Knight and that Arkham City was a better batman simulator
Rock Steel No I agree, this video definitely doesn't prove anyone right or wrong. I'm just saying it's nice to know that, next time I'm talking to someone about this and trying to illustrate my point, instead of fumbling on my words and failing to get across what I mean, I'll have this video that explains it better than I ever could. I usually end up saying 'Arkham Asylum is better because it's claustrophobic and there's no open world!!!!!', which doesn't really do a good job of explaining it. THIS video, however, does - so it's nice to know I'm not crazy, and there actually IS a professional way of explaining it all.
+FarfetchdReviews
yep i liked! Arkham Asylum more...
Dr. Dhoom that's ME!!!
This may be the first video of this series I don't agree with at all. Maybe it's just because open world games suit me (I really enjoyed every assassin's creed up until unity, every infamous game, Shadow of Mordor, Arkham City Origins and Knight, etc.) but I find that the formula CAN still be fun.
For me the magic of open world is all in how you pace yourself. Rather than being taken on a journey you create your journey. Typically I stick to the story until there's a lull in the urgency then go off and do tons of sidequest stuff and explore the world because it creates a lot of depth to a world that would otherwise be relatively simple.
If you're just looking to blast through the most urgent stuff you can usually just hit all the story missions, beat the game, then go back for the less important side missions and do them in terms of perceived urgency.
I also think with Arkham Knight in particular, every story mission (side or main) is still crafted with the same level of precision as Arkham Asylum's were. The only different is that there's distance in between and some dummy enemies to fill the space but it's not so much distance that it detracts from the game and that distance is typically loaded with cool stuff to do.
I can see how people would deem open world games to be unnecessary but I DO leave them feeling like I've earned my money's worth and like I've accomplished something and they're just fun to me.
Scale definitely isn't always a good thing, but I also don't think it's inherently a bad thing. Plenty of games do it just fine.
9dragonsguy I love open-world games, and I admit that I've been feeling a bit harsh towards games that focus on length more then quality because I have a huge enough backlog that I lost track of which games I'd beaten and which ones I hadn't so I finally went ahead and made a backloggery account.
Thus, I have felt not so great about giving really long games a try because I might not ever beating it, or worst yet, not enjoying it because it didn't grab me enough with a focus. Thus I've been focused on playing more focused games because I usually enjoy them more, and they aren't too long, such as what mark brown has said.
Basically, I want shorter games with richer content so I can move onto the next game sooner, which also fits in with my quirk that I prefer to play many different types of games rather then fixate on one for too long till it gets drained of anything interesting for me.
There are times when I play assassin's creed 2 and onwards and wish they had just made the game better from the first and not added a bunch of open world shenanigans that I'm not always bothered to complete, except that the completionist side nags me on occasion, it can get kinda annoying sometimes. All I came to AC for was the plot, and the high tensity action of running away from guards after a successive assassination, especially when the assassination was tricky in the first place.
AC1 would actually have the guards able to keep up with you on rooftops, and getting away was actually a challenge, and it isn't in any other game, I don't understand what they borked, but they did. Thankfully everything else they did improve in 2 made up for this, but I do miss the days when I would actually be concerned about how I was going to get away from the guards, creating a high intensity situation often, which is lacking in any other installment I've played.
I played all three games end on end throughout 2019 and Knight is by far my favourite . If the developers had kept the environments small and intimate like in Asylum then people would have just complained 'but I wanna fly through Gotham'. Sometimes you cant make people happy
I think that City did the best in the series for the setting. Yeah, the story it's very fragmented, and many times I forgot why Batman was even there and what the story was about, but it mixed the Asylum formula with a small open-world, creating in my humble opinion one of the best Zelda clones: you have your main story, you get more and more items to reach your goals but you also have side quests that sometimes leads to upgrades. Even the multiple enemies formula gave me the thrill of going trought a dungeon (using your new shiny toy) to find the boss and defeat him (sometimes with that exacy toy). And it really balance between the claustrophobic Asylum and the dispersive Gotham, with multiple buildings and parts that require the stealthier approach of Arkham Asylum, but also giving the thrill to be the vigilante of the city, from stopping smaller crimes to hunting down Zsasz or Deathshot
Been discovering the channel and watching a lot of GMTK videos lately, and it's the first time I disagree.
I like Arkham Knight's map a lot more than the previous games and that includes its size.
And the side missions are not only more numerous, but much better quality, too.
The music in the background is great... Cudos on using the Batman soundtrack from our childhood.
I can't say that you don't have a point, but the issue with the open game worlds seems very familiar to storymaking/storytelling debate to me. I've just finished Arkham Knight and I got all the pleasure in the world from playing it. I'm a big fan of series and the finale fulfilled my expectations.
When people blame AK, they say that batmobile ruins the game, since is used so heavily, because developers make us to use it. But I've skilled grappling hook early in the game and I had no problems flying over the great city.
What I'm saying is it is the same with the story - I've managed to choose balance between side missions and main quest exactly in the way that gave me an ability to vary gameplay and enjoy the game. Presence of open world made me able to write my own story (in tiny bits, but you know, I'm telltale fan, so it's a complex matter).
Tired of fighting? Go shoot some tanks. Don't like Riddlers' puzzles? Just skip them. Ready to come back to the storyline? Go and hunt Scarecrow. Can't go on main mission, since you haven't finished all side quests? Welp, you've got a problem.
It's just games with more choices make player more responsible in designing his route through the game. AK could be better, if player choices had more... fatality, I guess. But it's not an open world issue, imo.
So true.
That Intro music man,playing as purple batman,walljumps and that invincible flying boss that i've never beaten.Good ol' times.
Loving the NES Sunsoft Batman game music.
Also, I'm afraid I still like Arkham City better than Arkham Asylum. City's world was still pretty small. The story was better and the pacing was still mostly pretty solid even when diverting to side-quests. The boss fights were much better. And most of the predator sequences were still done in rooms designed for them.
Starting with NES Batman music, so classy.
I had no idea I wanted a Batmobile tank bat until I got it. 😃😂
Point well made re: the urgency or lack thereof to stop the villains, which did all feel like side quests in AK, but this video still massively overlooks the appeal for most of gliding or driving around the city, arguably as important to the appeal of Batman's methods as sneaking around claustrophobic spaces.
i think that arkham knight would be a lot better as an open world super hero game if it actually had a time limit. that would make it seem more like you're streched 2 thin and make choices of missions more meaningful
Like in "Dead Rising". They could also make it more interesting if the time limits were not necesarily true of every villain and thus knowing their background and psychological profile could help inform your priorities. Take the Riddler's sidequest that was complained about in this video. Ignoring his threats to kill his hostage could be kept because the Riddler has the psychological hunger for others approval. If Batman doesn't come to attempt his puzzles, then he will simply wait because his personality dictates it. Mix that in a world where most of the deadlines are fixed, with perhaps more friendly villains willing to give Batman some leeway in their time limits (say 5 extra minutes because they're more polite) and you've got a good time management game. It doesn't matter if the entire games mechanics limited to a punch-em-up, you will be forcing the player to use their brain throughout the game which is in character with Batman, the protagonist.
Edward Nigma exactly. tho that would be risky since there's so much sidequests and stuff that 100% would be very hard/impossible . also different time limits and stuff would be pretty cool. like the fire one, if you don't respond quickly it will change from batman chasing the villain to batman desperately trying to save people in the building. or once you get the "side kick" (forgot his name, game came out a while ago) you could assign him to some sidequests while you tackle the main villains.
I fully agree. Although if a sidekick is in the game to aid time management then they either have to be there from the start, or the moment they enter the story has to be heavily advertised from the start. You don't want players getting angry when they realise that the quest they decided to complete last gives them a partner to help manage all those quests they frantically tried to complete before hand.
They could also be used as an adaptive difficulty option if given at the start. The player can complete the game if they put a lot of effort in time management, but they're getting overwhelmed or don't want to bother too much with it, they can send their side-kick to complete a quest at the expense of story content.
It also depends on the theme and message of the game as well. If the theme is about how great batman is, then the former strategy works fine. But if it is about how great teamwork is, then perhaps you should be forced to assign all members of the batman team to quests before you can play them all out simultaneously (in the game world, not in the real world). Or better yet, have it as a co-op game where everyone can change roles the next time they play the game in order to experience all the story content first hand.
Edward Nigma i feel like sidekick would come after a fixed amount of time passed (let's say they were helping out in another city first 1-2 days of the game) and after that you can assign them to sidequests while you tackle the main one, or come with you to the main one... having them be other players actually sounds awesome, not only can they help with the side missions, but if they're fast they might also be able to rejoin you mid-mission. i feel like we're already making then next batman game cause these ideas sound AWESOME
Rejoining you mid-mission would make for an impressive game. You don't even have to have the ending of the mission change much for most of them, just acknowledge it. The fact that your friend has joined you would make the mission feel different in of itself. You could even have trap missions that make your friends into damsels in distress if they "complete" it, prompting a rescue mission to appear or forcing you to drop what you are doing to join their mission and help them.
4 videos in, and this is already one of my favorite channels, thank you for your hard work, you are helping people more than you think
I'm not sure I agree, because my favorite Arkham game is Origins. In my opinion it had the best story and best game play. And personal my biggest problem with Arkham Knight was the story and how it kind of ignores what the past games. Sure it acknowledges their existence, but where the past games built on each other, this one goes off on its own. Now here is what I would have done. It's six months after Arkham City has shut down but Gotham is still in turmoil because of it. Daily riots, a massive crime wave, and civil unrest. Even Batman is questioning his loyalty to the system. On top of that the villain Anarchy from Origins has returned with a new ally in the Arkham Knight and is gaining support from Gotham's angry population. In the end it turns out Arkham Knight is actually Nightwing and the two of them want Batman to be the leader of their revolution, forcing the player to make a real choice.
GAYYY
‘A mini grand theft auto’. Yes what a great and accurate statement. You really summed up Arkham City right there.
It feels like you just read about these games without ever playing them...
@Diego i don't think he stole harley quinn's money, but pretty close anyway.
It was much interesting if events in Arkham Knight takes place not just at one night, but maybe in couple of days. For me it makes more realistic approach for all that sidequests.
Using the NES Batman music in this video is awesome. Great touch.
I've argued before that side quests should be locked until after the main quest is complete. Not only would it solve the problem of the player ignoring the supposedly-dangerous and unhinged Big Bad, but in a branching and choice-based game, it would give the player the opportunity to live in the world they've created, and see the effects of the choices they made.
This reminds me of moster hunter world where the map is big enough to be considered "open" but small enough to let you learn and remember all its secrets
I wish the video game industry--as a whole--was smart enough not to just narrow it's focus to design fads.
Open world games have become too much of a go to option so that there are many games that probably would be a lot better served if they weren't open world. Before this, it was turning every game into an FPS.
That said, and even though I do hold Asylum as my favorite in the series, I'd regret not playing Arkham Knight. But, if there was another Arkham game, I'd be overjoyed for a return to the tighter design style of Arkham Asylum, with improvements to mechanics and such.
Rest in peace Batman, Zelda and Metal Gear :'(
I just replayed Resident Evil 4 for the first time in 10 years and wow... you want to know how well designed and well-paced linear games can be? Look no further, son!
@@Lucrei. zelda actually works in open world
My favorite open world game to date is Absolver. I find its world to be the perfect balance of bosses, multiplayer opportunities, and practicing skills, while avoiding the typical minimap, forcing you to explore, enjoy , and get to know your environment.
This video should be sent to and forced into the minds of every studio that's working on shit open world games.
I completely agree, I just finished Arkham Knight and one of the issues I noticed were the predator segments that take place outside. My first thought was "this doesn't work outside -it's better when you're locked in" but I applaud Rocksteady for trying new things.
I like this guy but I respectfully disagree. The way to purely feel what it is to be Batman is gliding grappling and driving in an open Gotham city. Its the open endedness that allows you to feel like you're in the boots of the person you are taking control of. If your in too tight of a distracted area it feels more like someone's telling you what to do and how to do it where as in a bigger setting since you're deciding which route to take with which method of transportation you choose you feel more in the suit of Batman because the choice is constantly in your hands. While I will say in a more restricted level based/smaller game world it's more likely you can tell a better story, but that also means you're in less control, where as the opposite is usually true for bigger open world structures, you feel in control, and take things at your pace, and usually the story can suffer from that but that's just what the majority feel. I personally thought the Arkham knight story was hugely underrated because it went psychologically into something the real Batman would probably be dealing with if he were real. These haunting images of joker harassing him and not letting up on invading his conscience. How brilliant! And the last battle where we go in his mind to fight him was just unbelievably masterful. We fight him on an existential/ spiritual plane and defeat the man who haunts us in a very satisfying way. No matter how many times he shot Batman he just kept coming, and coming, and coming. Which in turned scared the joker, and to scare the joker is something scary in and of itself. Arkahm knight is incredibly underrated from story to gameplay, yes the tank missions sucked, yes we should've been able to free roam as other playable characters, yes it was a little weird the joker was the main protagonist in all the Batman games but that may have been intentional kind of to show that for any problem Batman had joker was always the cause, because he wanted Batmans attention. But at the end of the day, arkham knight is the definitive Batman game where you ARE THE Batman and you can't argue that, no other game has the batmobile, a big gothic New York inspired city to climb around and explore, a HUGE roster of characters villains, Easter eggs and backstory to uncover. And if you hate or even dislike this game your probably a Hippocrate.
I'm loving this channel so far. "Ellaborate menu system for selecting repetitive missions" are my exact words every time I try to describe why I don't like most of the open world games... luckily there are exceptions like Zelda:BoTW. Open worlds should be about gradual discovery not overwhelming players with stuff to do...
Did you just blame Arkham Knight for making the main quest too weak because of side quest AND mention Skyrim as a good example of using open worlds for story in the same video?
Nice videos, I'm not sure how ur not more popular than gameranx because your videos a way better
Hmm I have to disagree. I really loved Arkham City. Arkham Knight was alright but...City was really good. Either way I still find all your videos interesting and I love watching them!
Huge props for the NES soundtrack being played in the background!
City is my favourite.
I was actually playing Knight recently, and found it wasn't holding my attention.
One thing I liked about Morrowind was that the story was incredibly competently written. The whole main narrative in Morrowind was that your character may or may not actually be a reincarnation of long lost hero deity and that allowed the writers to write the story in such a way that the player will always progress the main storyline at her own pace since all you really do is fulfilling a prophecy.
Since every single story moment in Morrowind was your character fulfilling a prophecy, you had all the time in the world to do it because there was no urgency, no one waited for you, in fact most characters in the game (even the major ones) doubted your legitimacy. Your authorities even told you to go build your reputation before continuing with this daunting task of convincing a whole, backwards thinking, xenophobic island that you truly are their lost hero reincarnated.
The great thing about this is that the "open world" part of the game didn't clash with the "story" part of the game because they were cleverly written to complement each other every step of the way and I am yet to see another game with such clever writing to this very day.
I'm a fan of linear games, but I feel a lot of the time recently, those games aren't being made too much
Oh man! The background music! Nostalgia is a killer!
I played Just Cause 2 and found myself having a lot of trouble getting into it. Everything's so damn far away in that game! And the fast travel is obnoxiously limited, so I found myself literally taking boring ten-minute helicopter trips just to get to the next thing I needed or wanted to do. That's not a good look, especially since I couldn't even put on my own music ingame or anything.
I think the best open-world games are those that give speedy options to move between points of interest, make the traversal itself engaging, or ideally both. Lots of good open-world RPGs have fast travel, so in e.g. Skyrim I have the option to quickly go to a place where I need to be if I don't want to faff around exploring. Assassin's Creed does the other option pretty well; parkouring around cities is fun. There's still the issue of having a wealth of average content or a dearth of good content, but at least in those games I can choose to engage with it or not at my leisure.
Kasran Fox the fast travel is quite powerful once you unlocked most cities (don't tell me you gave up before unlocking it), and just going to the next objective is not the only point, you can take a boring helicopter yeah but you can also drive insanely cutting corners for no reason, if you find water you can be sure you have some boats to use, or you can just take a plane at the airport and try to land it just to fail. also during ground travel you could find some cities to complete and some secret crates or chaos structures. Is a game around wandering around
Kasran Fox I had a decent amount of fun with Just Cause 2... When it wasn't constantly crashing on me. I've since moved on to other games. *sighs* Thanks, Windows 10.
A good, well-designed open-world game doesn't make you pointlessly travel across the entire map in the first place. Rockstar games slowly progress over the entire map, showing you locations consecutively so you can really get into their atmosphere and geography. New Vegas does this without the forced boundaries by putting tough enemies around the shortest paths. Many other open-world games, though, have you travel to random spots with each quest, so you rarely get to memorize locations outside the main cities and the overall experience feels very samey throughout, which is only amplified by the fast travel option, boiling the entire map down to a few disconnected points of interest surrounded by dead space.
100% agree. The gliding was cool but not for hours on end. It’s feels like playing a loading screen cos you’re almost passive as you fly one end of the map to the other for the next objective
Curious to know what you think of Breath of the Wild.
He's talking about how scale can hurt a game
I'm sure we can all agree that Zelda will likely benefit
(Nintendo will always take their biggest IP's with care)
I think BOTW will do fine :] (fingers crossed)
oh wait... maybe I missed your meaning... I would also love to hear his thoughts
lol whoops
+C. Earley yes. They're giving the player more freedom but at the cost of moving away from the typical semi-linear zelda formula. I will definitely have to play it to see if it works. It certainly looks beautiful and extremely promising.
Rpodnee I would argue that theyre moving back to Zelda's roots, where its more about exploring without being shoved down a path
so what do y'all think now
The game isn't about story or characters. The gameplay is amazing because anything you think of, you can probably do. The world makes sense, and you are given tools to make your own solution to any given problem. Zelda puzzles are great because they give you a sense of accomplishment, and BotW gives you this at every step of the way, whether it be completing a puzzle in a shrine, taking down a camp of bokoblins in some ridiculous fashion, (like attracting lightning to their position, pushing them into lava with magnesis, etc.) or even just climbing up a mountain that you couldn't 10 hours ago.The reason BotW stands out is because it gives you true freedom in Link's adventure, all of which is building up to Ganon.
It also has a great world that basically allows you to write your own Zelda adventure by setting your own goals.
Personally, I think Arkham Knight is the best of the open-world Batman games, in large part because I felt City and Origins didn't end up gaining anything from being open-world, and ended up feeling like basic content-delivery mechanisms.
Arkham Knight does a myriad of small things that I think prevent it from simply being a slog of side-quests: not showing you where the next side-quest is, unless you've already found it. This helps contextualize the play space as not simply an obstacle course between you and the objective marker in the center of your screen, but it encourages the player to take detours and keep an eye out for, for example, the howl of the Man-Bat, the opera music of Professor Pyg, the smoke of Firefly's flames, etc. In City and Origins, the side-quests felt like filler that would inorganically take you out of the action, rather than you yourself spying something that you would want to check out.
Moreover, I don't get why you'd fight goons in the open-world at all. Like, they're there, presumably to provide some sort of minimal resistance if you're trying to do something, but, how much time are you really spending at ground level? They seem more to add character to the world through their conversations than anything. It'd be pretty boring if Gotham was just empty. The only times I fought goons in the open-world was when I just wanted to fight for whatever reason, or one of the dudes had some Riddler secrets.
I still think Arkham Asylum is the best Arkham game, but I feel like City and Origins kept the core gameplay of Asylum while completely destroying the pacing, whereas Knight also had shitty plot pacing, but sped up the gameplay to at least make it such that you're pretty much always doing something useful, even if it's the same filler content as before.
Idk in my opinion Arkham knight is the best 😂but good video
Me too, but maybe because it is my first Arkham game, i expect nothing and it went great. the only issue is the boss battle for me.
@@muhammadsultansalahuddinal4655 Play Arkham City it is far much better! Arkham Asylum was a great game also since it was too good for 2009!
Yeah Arkham city is the best Arkham game i played (didn't play asylum). Knight becomes quite repetitive quickly. And the tank battles are boring
Arkham Knight
Mad max
Black Flag
Top 3 open world games I really enjoyed on Ps4
@@dtheo47 Arkham City was great with Hugo Strange! Great Story and that's what Batman Arkham Knight lacked a great plot! Protocol 10 will commence in 2 hours!
That's an interesting way to put it: Unless you have gameplay that needs a sandbox (open world), all you've done is build an extremely elaborate and time-consuming menu system.
Story seems to ruin nearly all games because the stories that are getting written are so "omg epic". A relatively paced story like Morrowind works in an open world without problems. Things are urgent to tackle... in your character's lifetime, but really no sooner. I don't know why this basic point has been lost. But they're still selling games by the boatload so I guess they have no reason to change.
No it doesnt wtf
Morrowind has a terrible story. What are you on about?
I love the the whole Arkham trilogy and the only problem with Arkham Knight imo is the lack of boss fights. I personally think that they are all great for different reasons which makes it a fantastic trilogy.
I haven't yet played Arkham Knight, but that still holds true with my experience on Asylum and City. The best bits in City are the more enclosed spaces. I did like the side missions in City like having to figure out Mr Freeze's location based on the temperature around the world or trying to stop the sniper with timed bits for catching up to payphones. It's a shame to hear that the open world didn't add much meaningful to Asylum's feature set.
Far Cry 2 is a better open world game than 3 or 4. It just had more gameplay dynamics and playstyles, while in 3 and 4 you couldn't change the time of day and attack a base at night for just one example.
*****
I am, and also one of the most tense open world games where you never feel safe. The respawning checkpoints, which to be fair were a bit ridiculous if you just walked away a few metres and they came back, but it added to that tension of an always hostile world. Which goes with the theme of the game where it's a cruel world and no one is to be trusted. Far Cry 3 and 4 are more simplified, predictable, and safe. In Far Cry 2, you might have to improvise if your gun jams or breaks down so you have to be mindful of what other weapons are in your arsenal, like switching from a rifle to a handgun quickly. You can't corner whole enemy waves with a spreading fire wall because the fire propagation isn't that big. You can't injure an enemy as bait with a sniper rifle and have his buddies come over to kill them all. You can't play at different times of day which affects enemy visiblity, like doing night stealth missions near rivers, Rambo-style. You don't have buddies that can help you in sticky situations but they can be killed and lost forever, therefore losing certain side missions. You don't have choices in the types of missions between the buddies' side objectives or the main path. Not to mention the story is interesting where you're not the hero to save this land but really the destroyer and no one really wins in the end.
Those are some of the reasons why Far Cry 2 is one of the most memorable open world games to me because it does things different to other games. There are few open world games like that, such as STALKER too where it's unscripted and dynamic.
They should've made the Gotham play area smaller but TALLER. Rather than just cruise straight there, it's more fun to climb up or descend down to a location, or navigate through a labyrinth. It would've given more of a sense of being in the thick of Gotham. We never fully got the experience of climbing and gliding through the skyscrapers of Gotham, of sneaking through the overworld of a towering city, secretly surveying it's bustling activities from precarious edges, spying on people through windows, and infiltrating different buildings. Gotham just felt like a bloated Arkham City, which was already almost too big. The buildings were bigger, but not big enough, and they were again mostly just platforms. And though there were skyscrapers, there weren't enough. The skyline that you see from Arkham City was where I wanted to go. Densely packed, ominous Gothic skyscrapers overlooking busy New York-like streets. It should've had a few smaller, distinct districts, rather than these three or so massive, nearly identical districts that were in Arkham Knight. It should've been like Batman Begins, where you have the cramped downtown, the slummy Narrows, and a big shipping/dock area. I got so bored of exploring Gotham in Arkham Knight. Everything just looks the same after a while, and there's just nothing interesting. The environments of Arkham Asylum and City were interesting. Surely they could've made Gotham interesting
Glad to see Metroid Prime =]
What did Metroid Prime do to make it my favorite game ever? Why was Metroid Prime so damn good? That would be an interesting analysis. Albeit one that's been done again and again.
Yeah, it's superb. Killer level design, environmental storytelling, opt-in lore, terrific atmosphere. Love it!
The opt-in lore isn't just excellent because it doesn't force itself onto the player, but because it's intrinsically linked with gameplay. You need to use a gameplay mechanic to access it, and there information therein can shape how you combat enemies and traverse the world.
The tight spaces of Asylum were implemented in City's story missions.
For example, Penguin's museum was full of small area tactical fights.
Couldn't agree more, I find most open world games to be incredibly boring and repetitive these days. This industry needs to once again focus on great level design, which has been largely getting worse for a while now.
Yeah I felt they focused on the batmmobile rather than batman still a goo game hey the witcher 3 has good side quest problem is thy recently had a update and fucked the game up they are gonna have a update but till the next dlc probably
I actually like to manage my time in arkham knight. Feels like I am Batman, and I need to save everyone and be everywhere at the same time. I agree, that the riddler part isn't really good, but I tried to focus on different quests depending how important they are, prioritize.
When oracle needed savior, I have run to the location as fast as Batman would do. I remember moments, when some things needed a little time for investigation, and I had some time to do various unimportant stuff.
"Open world games need mechanics that take advantage of the open world, like attacking bases from anyway you wish or car chases."
*Proceeds to criticize Arkham Knight for featuring bases you can attack, and ignores the presence of car chases despite showing footage of one*
Well said. AK handled open world extremely well.
In general I agree that AK did have gameplay that benefits from the open world, but in my opinion the car chases kind of fall short here.
In AK you are almost always the one chasing, instead of being chased. When you are the one being chased you are looking for spaces and turns you can make to escape. When you are the one doing the chasing you are basically following the 'track' laid out by your prey.
The part where you fight the cloudburst is the exception here. You can notice quite well how in this part the open world really affects the gameplay.
The Ninja Assassin Nope.
Well we clearly disagree on this topic but I have to say. Love your profile picture. Superior Spider-Man was incredible.
Yeah, it was a pretty interesting take on Otto's morality. And the change in character aesthetic was very refreshing.
Im a huge fan of the open world design of arkham knight. Just because of how in depth all the detail is.
Arkham City is still the best one in the series but I still enjoyed this one to the end with flaws and all but I have to agree that the focus on the batmobile was the biggest mistake for the final game in the series.
It's so strange to see a video talking about the dangers of open worlds, free roaming, and lots of choices from this far back when so many of the recent videos have almost the complete opposite view.
WHAT THE HELL? Arkham City rocked. Gone Home sucked. This guy has picked all the worst possible examples for his argument, most of which do the opposite of what he says they do.
I ran across this video again having completely forgotten about it. Now, after having finally gotten to play and finding every single Riddler trophy in Arkham Knight, plus having done most of the activities in Shadow of Mordor, which has more right to be called an Arkham game than Arkham Origins Blackgate, I got to think through this again. And I must say, I was about to type a comment almost identical to the one I had originally written and forgot about.
Arkham Knight kicks ass. It is the ultimate, most immersive experience of really being the Batman which video games have ever seen, and driving the Batmobile is totally part of what it means to really be Batman. And just in case that wasn't kickass enough, IT TURNS INTO A TANK!!
The space in the open world Arkham games (City, Knight AND Origins!) is filled with interesting activities to do, with just about every building there for a reason, especially after all the DLCs are added.
Yeah, I know Arkham Knight had sucky issues at launch, but like Arkham Origins, it's pretty much fixed now. So shut the hell up, Game Maker's Toolkit. Arkham Knight rules. This style of game rules, Shadow of Mordor shows that it can be successfully transferred to a completely different setting and still be awesome, and I hope lots more franchises -- like Marvel for instance -- make games in this style cause it's awesome. Just not with poorly designed spinoffs like Blackgate because wow, Blackgate did kinda suck.
The two major complaints I have about Arkham Knight would be 1. No nemesis system. The nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor seems like it would be perfect for building the kinds of stories as happen in the comics right into the game mechanics for a superhero game. After playing Shadow of Mordor, the nemesis system feels like it is missing when I play an Arkham game. 2. The Riddler, while his race tracks are super fun to race on, didn't get a story that felt very compelling in this one. He needed to pose a bigger threat, like a bomb threat or something that would actually kill someone. Maybe bombs inside GCPD or something? I don't know -- something more than just kidnapping Catwoman. That aspect was a weak link in the story. But I do like the way all the missions will wait on you to finish them without punishing you for not taking the game's preferred order. GTA IV forces you to make mutually exclusive mission choices and this kinda sucks because you feel cheated out of being able to see all the content.
Also, Gone Home sucked. I love the Myst series, I love the Journeyman Project, I love Titanic: Adventure Out of Time, I love the Stanley Parable, I have nothing against this style of game. It's just that Gone Home, in particular, is a craptarded example of it's genre with lots of secrets to find and exactly zero interesting or unpredictable ones. OMG THEY'RE LESBIANS! What a shocking plot twist. No way we could have seen that coming. I kept expecting it would turn out the lesbian lover was a ghost or that there were vampires or that somebody secretly worked for the CIA or some kind of plot twist that would make this game have some modicum of interest, but beyond discovering that the dad writes JFK assassination conspiracy books and that there are a few secret rooms in the walls containing nothing of interest, there were no secret truths to uncover which were even remotely interesting. Just the author badly using/abusing environmental storytelling for blatant cringey sociopolitical preaching. If I wanted preaching I'd go to church. Gone Home wasted a couple hours of my life that I will never get back, which I only did because I got it in a Humble Bundle and only so that I could review it with integrity, having done every activity that it has to offer, finding every secret combination and listening to every developer log. I drew the line at suffering through the entirety of the god-awful unlistenable feminist punk soundtrack. Screw that game.
Yes Arkham City is the best Batman Game Ever!
Arkham asylum is my favourite, but arkham knight was absolutely incredible. The batmobile is a part of batman, and so the way the city was designed to fit both the car and the batman was great. It was also vibrant and striking, with an insane amount of detail and artistic style. Gameplay in this game was super fast and fluid, and seemed to be designed around speed, from the gliding to the grapple to the flippy combat moves.
Forced batmobile sections ruined this game.
Bad bosses too. People crap over Origins but it had the best boss battles in the series.
Yesterday i discovered this channel. I've watched vids for an hour straight, went to sleep, woke up,rolled a cigarette and started watching videos again.
totally agree, asylum was the best one
You hit the nail on the head Mark. Open world genre has almost become tired all together to me, and that's why when i played the uncharted trilogy for the first time last year, you couldn't get me to stop grinning. Keep on rocking.
With all due respect this is probably your weakest video to date. Arkham knight did have some issues, integrating batmobile in boss fights it had no place in is one. But going into a bigger open world was definitely the right choice. The whole city was filled was story tidbits and Easter eggs, it had the scale necessary to drive fast and glide seamlessly to feel like a protector of a whole city, the story bits while predictable was presented very well, it had more options and gadgets and most importantly more space to tackle enemy bases in your own method, compare that to arkham asylum where predator sequences will play almost the same way throughout the whole game. I agree the sidequests waiting for you makes no sense, just like how a 40 hour game supposedly take place in one night but I take it as a gaming trope just like story based games where the main character is a hero even after mindlessly killing 100-200 people.
I agree with almost your points; the video literally do no justice to the game and how actually the open world is still one of the most compelling and well designed of most bloated and empty open world games today, still capable to emphasize its characters and story without really being dispersive or forcing to follow a corridor with a pretty standard gameplay loop, like Uncharted.
I'm just watching this now and it's so obvious that a perfect balance between size and detail is required. There should be a measurable metric that tells us exactly how much detail there is in a game per square meter of gameplay space. That's how developers should see their play space, size of map goes up, so does the detail. They are locked together, not split.
Oh you saucy devil, using Streets of Desolation at the start. You know how to win over Bat-fans instantly.
I totally forgot that at one point there were legit boss fights in this series. I got so used to having to defeat waves of enemies and then one-hitting the bosses that I forgot you once got to actually fight toe-to-toe with hard enemies.
I played Asylum and City. I disagree that the series got worse from getting an open world setting. I think one of the best things to happen to gaming is getting another truly open world superhero game. We havn't had a proper one since Spiderman 2.
If Origins really is worse than City, and Knight is as terrible as everyone says, then the series are getting worse because of something else than the open world setting, in my opinion. Batman is not more interesting in close quarters. You're missing half his kit without the space to glide around. Asylum may have been a better game than some of the others, but I disagree that it was better than City, and for that reason alone, I think your reasoning here is wrong.
This guys are gonna do a Superman game, lets see how they do it
I agree with him, but that's probably because I think open-world games are garbage, bar Gravity Rush as to me it's the only one that's fixed the movement issue seamlessly.
Asylum was a great video game and it pains me we never got more games of its ilk.
I haven't played Arkham Knight but Arkham City was just open enough for me. I mostly ignored the side missions, so the open world mostly provided immersion as I went from story mission to story mission. If you forego the optional stuff, the sense of urgency is still there and the story remains cohesive. Gliding around Gotham just made me feel more like Batman. It was a nice touch, if only for aesthetic reasons.