City was way better than Asylum. So many haters.
Printable View
City was way better than Asylum. So many haters.
City was definitely better.
Asylum had better structure but City was definitely the better game. I just didn't think the open world was necessary in fact it was a downgrade from Asylums metroid style level structure
You know what would be fun? The ability to play through Asylum with all the gadgets from City right from the start.
I think I like Asylum better, simply because the best parts of the games are taking down enemies one-by-one in a room, and Asylum has far less other stuff in between those sequences.
The problem is he fights poorly. Taking out the natural mechanic to lunge towards enemies like you'd down through all of Asylum and City isn't a fun change, it's a strange and arbitrary change that isn't fun. Especially going back and forth between that and Batman as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
I don't remember having that lunge problem with Robin. Maybe I used more projectiles or something. It's like using Catwoman, she's much faster but half as strong as Batman (who also has more finishing techniques). Slightly different approaches.
Not sure what game I like better, kinda of a tie for me.
Just threw this thread in the Lazarus Pit.
I've been playing through this series as of late. Arkhams Asylum and City have been squatting in my Steam library for long e-damn-nough and all'a you keep talking about them.
I beat Asylum a week back, but it was mainly on a whim. My first experience with the game was watching the ex-girlfriend play through it, so it was good to scratch the itch of finishing it myself. Just about all of the presentation holds up fairly impressively. It's the most Batman-ass Batman game I've played since the Rise of Sin Tzu!
The combat still grosses me out, though. It feels like the only way for it to be fluid was for the game to basically play itself. Press 'X' to win. If Blue Sparks, then 'Y'. That and Batman kept getting caught on railings and invisible walls while fighting and gliding. Sloppy.
The game was perfectly paced, though! The map was JUST big enough and nothing was too much of a pain to get to. Batman's gadgets opened the progression locks in a fairly nice rhythm. Nothing was out-of-reach so long that I forgot passing it.
I was worried Arkham City's GIGANTIC MAP would ruin the pacing and make traveling really tedious. It's not as big as you all made it seem, though! Traversing it isn't nearly as much of a pain and every area looks to have something different in it. It's far better designed than an Assassin's Creed map, but that might just be an advantage to using a fake city in your video game.
The combat is just as dumb, though. It even seems easier than Asylum's and not much is even improved! It's just an excuse to mash 'X' until you wander into the next fight and mash 'X' more. The stealth doesn't fare much better. They add that infrared scanning obstacle really early on and IMMEDIATELY make an upgrade available that takes the threat away. Why does Batman have an upgrade/XP system anyway? Do all games really need that now?
And boy, those guys sure do say "bitch" a lot.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1420419473
Both games have been pretty enjoyable. Great dumb fun for when I don't have the attention to play through something as tough as Bayonetta. Why are they held up as such "perfect" games, though? I know gamey-types usually speak of good games in hyperbole, but I still don't get it.
I actually liked Origins the most. It made me feel more like I was Batman than any of the other ones. I liked the city a whole lot more as well.
The combat is what you make of it. As a score attack in the challenge rooms, you're greatly rewarded by not just mashing X (especially Origins). It's a real challenge to clear the later rounds in one chain.