By Ben Mapp
Of course, Arkham Origins was a game not without its faults. And as you'll know from all of the reviews which have been out since October, there are a good few! Firstly, the game broke the pattern in the series by being the first installment not to take a huge leap (or – in fact – any leap) in gameplay.
Of course, Arkham Origins was a game not without its faults. And as you'll know from all of the reviews which have been out since October, there are a good few! Firstly, the game broke the pattern in the series by being the first installment not to take a huge leap (or – in fact – any leap) in gameplay.
Arkham City took such a leap by placing Batman in a larger, more explorable area (thereby changing up the game’s dynamic) as opposed to the confined prison grounds and hallways of Arkham Asylum. But Arkham Origins only extended the Arkham City world and not by much. A true gameplay leap would have placed Batman in a full Gotham City, with towering skyscrapers and a Los Santos-style scale. But instead this game, as I mentioned earlier, has limited Batman to just two islands. As with the previous entries, the rest of Gotham can be seen and teased at from every angle. This made Arkham Origins feel more like an expansion pack instead of a fully-fledged sequel/prequel.
Also, despite the fact that the story is well conceived and loyal to the Batman mythos, the stakes here were much lower than in both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. The only thing at risk in this story was Batman’s life, but as fans of the series we already know that Batman inevitably survives to go on to stabilise the asylum and then later save Arkham City. This made any risk feel somewhat transparent. With the passing of the Arkham torch from Rocksteady to Warner Bros. Game Montreal, it appeared that the latter studio wasn’t as good at getting to grips with the traditional Arkham gameplay style. The controls for both combat and exploration were much less responsive which any experienced Arkham fan will notice, meaning that the game’s difficulty is enhanced as Batman reacts more slowly and can be hit more easily. If this was a design choice in an effort to make Batman more vulnerable as a naive crime-fighter then it was a poor one, as it makes the game both frustrating and unenjoyable. The game was sluggish throughout. The combat system suffered as a consequence of this, which – in an Arkham game – of all the things ought to be a priority to protect. The studio failed at this.
Also, despite the fact that the story is well conceived and loyal to the Batman mythos, the stakes here were much lower than in both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. The only thing at risk in this story was Batman’s life, but as fans of the series we already know that Batman inevitably survives to go on to stabilise the asylum and then later save Arkham City. This made any risk feel somewhat transparent. With the passing of the Arkham torch from Rocksteady to Warner Bros. Game Montreal, it appeared that the latter studio wasn’t as good at getting to grips with the traditional Arkham gameplay style. The controls for both combat and exploration were much less responsive which any experienced Arkham fan will notice, meaning that the game’s difficulty is enhanced as Batman reacts more slowly and can be hit more easily. If this was a design choice in an effort to make Batman more vulnerable as a naive crime-fighter then it was a poor one, as it makes the game both frustrating and unenjoyable. The game was sluggish throughout. The combat system suffered as a consequence of this, which – in an Arkham game – of all the things ought to be a priority to protect. The studio failed at this.
Many of the gadgets from before made a welcome return, but not as they were. For instance the ‘Batclaw’ gadget is more trying than ever before as – despite the fact that there are more rooftops this time round – Batman will no longer automatically ‘hook’ on to the nearest. In fact, whereas in Arkham City, Batman had access to most areas through this device, and so could travel the map fluidly and quickly – in Arkham Origins there were many areas that look accessible but which simply aren’t. In fact, players will have encountered these areas everywhere they go throughout the two islands. When you tried to reach somewhere you shouldn’t go, the game stops you by forcing you to go the other way (through using a sudden and inexplicable gust of wind, which puts Batman off for some reason). These ‘gusts’ feel like the modern equivalent of the invisible wall, a staple of retro titles. In a modern game this is just infuriating. Again, no story reason for this is given either which makes it all the more wearisome. Arkham games have always rewarded exploration, but this game seems to punish you for even trying. Arkham City had this technique only in the watery expanse separating the urban prison from the rest of Gotham, but it was much more obvious throughout my playthrough of Arkham Origins.
So – all in all?
Arkham Origins was actually an okay game, and compared to any Batman game which came before Arkham Asylum it is definitely a piece of art. But it falls short when compared to the others in the series. This is the result of the franchise changing hands no doubt. It comes as no surprise that Rocksteady chose to abandon the series after Arkham City as, with the current gen technology, any major leaps in the series would only be cosmetic at best. Thankfully they have made a return to the franchise since, with the emergence of Arkham Knight. That said, there are other ways in which Warner Bros. Games could have spiced things up in Arkham Origins, such as the customisable in-game batsuit I suggested, or even the opportunity to unlock more areas of Gotham as you progressed through the campaign.
What we are left with however, although a good attempt to continue to series, is a gaming experience which leaves much to be desired. Everything looks good, but there’s definite substance missing here which – for me as a fan of this esteemed series – is maddening.
Was it worth playing?
Sure.
Should we have waited until it was about twenty quid cheaper?
Definitely.
So – all in all?
Arkham Origins was actually an okay game, and compared to any Batman game which came before Arkham Asylum it is definitely a piece of art. But it falls short when compared to the others in the series. This is the result of the franchise changing hands no doubt. It comes as no surprise that Rocksteady chose to abandon the series after Arkham City as, with the current gen technology, any major leaps in the series would only be cosmetic at best. Thankfully they have made a return to the franchise since, with the emergence of Arkham Knight. That said, there are other ways in which Warner Bros. Games could have spiced things up in Arkham Origins, such as the customisable in-game batsuit I suggested, or even the opportunity to unlock more areas of Gotham as you progressed through the campaign.
What we are left with however, although a good attempt to continue to series, is a gaming experience which leaves much to be desired. Everything looks good, but there’s definite substance missing here which – for me as a fan of this esteemed series – is maddening.
Was it worth playing?
Sure.
Should we have waited until it was about twenty quid cheaper?
Definitely.
RSS Feed
