For me it was the atmosphere was the same (due to the open world design) and the story wasn't as good.Worse than Asylum, but better than City. City had a lot going for it, but it was just missing something I couldn't put my finger on.
Seriously? I thought the atmosphere was pretty different between the two. City was much less creepy than Asylum. Story was awesome, just felt a little too spread out.For me it was the atmosphere was the same (due to the open world design) and the story wasn't as good.Worse than Asylum, but better than City. City had a lot going for it, but it was just missing something I couldn't put my finger on.
Still a great game though. Not sure how interested I am in a third right now though.
I'm glad to hear that the gameplay is untouched. Rocksteady achieved near perfection with the game mechanics in the previous Arkham titles. I was worried there might be some so-called "improvements." I just hope they don't end up making the story too 'Nolan-esque' and getting more dark, gritty and 'real world.' Strongly disliked the last Batman movie trilogy; give me the comic book fantasy style any day. Hopefully we get a decent round up of DLC costumes for Origins too. I'm hoping for a 1989 Keaton Batman skin.Everything from E3 says the game play is the same. With that being said I would think the only thing that could get jacked up is the story and the voice acting isnt the same.
I absolutely love the Arkham series but also felt somethign was off in AC.Worse than Asylum, but better than City. City had a lot going for it, but it was just missing something I couldn't put my finger on.
It's interesting that you say that. I remember thinking about how goofy it was that Batman could quick roll backward 30 or 40 feet to hit a guy across the room and continue his combo. This was before AC had even come out. I actually loved the combat of AC because it had so much more variety; the number of things you could do during a skirmish was significantly increased. It was definitely easier, though, thanks to all those finishing moves.I absolutely love the Arkham series but also felt somethign was off in AC.Worse than Asylum, but better than City. City had a lot going for it, but it was just missing something I couldn't put my finger on.
It took me a while to pinpoint exactly what the problem was, but it eventually dawned on me: the combat system was far too forgiving. In AA you had to constantly be aware of your position realitive to your enemies. You had to keep far enough away so they couldn't hit you out of your combo but at the same time they needed to be close enough that you could strike them to keep your combo going.
AC allows you to travel much greater distances mid-combo. I just held a general direction (without even having to look) after i was done beating one guy up and Batman would auto-target the next enemy even if he was clear accross the area. The ability to slow down time also made combat too easy. It felt like Rocksteady was watering down their amazing combat system in AC and combat became a bit boring. That's really the only critism I had with the game.
This is one of the major problems in prequel games. I was really hoping that with the new prequel-agenda they would make a true 'Silver Age' Batman game and give him the iconic Neal Adams style-blue costume and more fanciful, if less effective, gadgets. With Paul Dini gone, they should've hired Steve Englehart, possibly one of the best Batman writers in comicdom, and really give the Arkham series a different spin, storywise.Also, I hate that he has new and better equipment. I know they commented on that saying his equipment could "change over the years" but that's just dumb to me.