Sections

Batman: Arkham Origins traces around the lines, but that’s okay – opinion

Wednesday, 30th October 2013 08:11 GMT By Dave Cook

Batman: Arkham Origins came out last week, but the more VG247′s Dave Cook sleeps on it, the more he’s made peace with accusations that it simply copies Rocksteady’s predecessors. Here’s why.

Batman: Arkham Origins

Watch me play the first ten minutes of the game on PS3 here. There’s spoilers in there, naturally.

We’ve got a big Batman: Arkham Origins review round-up here. It scored lower than its predecessor Arkham City.

Warner Montreal said it was worried it had bitten off too much with this game, which is relevant to this article.

You can watch the Batman: Arkham Origins launch trailer here.

There’s a pretty funny scene in Kevin Smith’s comedy flick Jay & Silent Bob strike Back where Jason Lee’s comic artist Banky Edwards gets grilled by Chris Rock’s aggressive movie producer Chaka Luther King. The set-up sees Rock destroying Lee for simply being a comic inker – or as he calls it – a ‘tracer.’ He makes out as if going around the lines and simply outline other people’s work is something to be mocked, This entire conversation is entirely applicable to Batman: Arkham Origins.

When reviews of the game dropped last Friday, there was a general feeling that Warner Montreal had played things a little too safe. Several critics noted that there wasn’t enough deviation from Arkham City’s open world format and that there was an overbearing sense of familiarity about how Batman himself handled. I agree, but where I feel my opinion and those of the harsher critics split is in how this is seen as entirely negative.

I never envied Warner’s new outfit when Rocksteady handed it the keys to the Arkham-verse trilogy. After all, here was a series of games that had belied the idea that all licensed adaptations were inferior products. In Arkham Asylum, the UK team had proven that with care and talent, juggernaut IP like Batman could exist in the games industry with style and grace. The ‘Metroidvania’ template gave rise to a claustrophobic setting and progression mechanic that enraptured many reviewers and gamers alike. It was a resounding success.

Batman: Arkham City built on that foundation the only way many pundits thought it could – by going open world. Several VG247 readers have stated that they felt the expansive nature of the sequel was perhaps its weakest hand, and I absolutely understand where they’re coming from. At times it felt as if the locked-down city – as immersing and brimming with character as it was – removed the sense of constrictive dread present in the original. Regardless, it was still a cracking adaptation of DC’s source material, no matter how you cut it.

But then there’s Batman: Arkham Origins. This is a big project for any new team to cut its teeth on, so I absolutely understand why some areas have been crafted in a conservative manner. The premise sees the Dark Knight venturing out of the Bat Cave on Christmas Eve to apprehend notorious gangster Black Mask, much to the dismay of his long-suffering aide Alfred. The hoodlum has placed a $50 million bounty on Batman’s head, which has drawn eight ruthless assassins to Gotham.

That’s the base plot which sees a younger, more aggressive Batman hit the streets in search of faces to punch and cops to evade. He’s more of a loose canon, but no less skilled than when we left him at the end of Arkham City. This grittier tone really suits DC’s canon, and if anything takes the series full circle to the menacing vibe of the first game. It’s a stylistic choice that absolutely benefits the project in the majority, but it does result in the open world environment of Gotham feeling a tad underwhelming.

Gotham’s aesthetic aside, traversal by zip-line and gliding is still great fun and there’s no ends of goons to engage in a quick brawl for XP. You’re never too far from some kind of distraction from the core questline, which itself encourages perseverance, even through some muddied plot points. The combat mechanic still has that balletic beat to it that sees you paneling crooks with deft strikes and gadget takedowns. There’s even a few new enemy types in there to add some new layers of challenge.

The foundations are all present and correct, but a lot of content that should have been additive actually detracts from the overall experience. You’ve got a wealth of Enimga collectibles in there – think the Riddler challenges before he donned his green persona – and they simply feel included by obligation, rather than used as a method of spicing up the campaign. You can also scour the rain-swept streets for Penguin’s weapon caches, and bombs set by Anarky. They’re distractions verging on the same degree of banality as the flags in Assassin’s Creed.

There’s also a lot of rough edges and questionable design choices throughout the campaign that reveal Warner Montreal’s baby-step approach to tackling the project. Again, I don’t blame them for this, and I’ll explain why in a moment, but I have to point out that several key boss battles really do fall flat here. One QTE-heavy scrap with oft-touted villain Deathstroke is a major let-down, while grapples with Copperhead and Deadshot boil down to slightly harder versions of melee fights and ‘Predator’ challenge rooms respectively. There are scarcely any new mechanics or tricks present in these encounters, and that can prove quite deflating at times.

So why is all of this justifiable in my book? Well, just look at the legacy Warner Montreal had to follow. If you’re a fan of the first two games then there’s every chance that you might be perfectly happy with another entirely acceptable entry to the series that doesn’t deviate too far from the mould. That’s personally all I actually wanted from Origins, so to see a new team capture the essence of Rocksteady’s work and add a new, darker origin tale on top can’t keep me feeling negative for long.

I’m happy to play this game knowing that I’ll brush shoulders with the same functional mechanics and attractions I enjoyed before. So imagine my surprise when I found that Warner Montreal had actually tried to add more depth to Batman’s crime scene investigation moments? This time, there’s a greater emphasis on solving the puzzle of crime-scenes and re-creating events to identify the culprit.

Sure, Batman’s monologues practically steer you to the solution every step of the way, but it’s still nice to see his detective skills given a little more weight. New gadgets like Deathstroke’s Remote Claw, the goon-disorientating Concussion Detonator and the Electrocutioner’s electrified gauntlets are hardly earth-shattering, but they work. In fact, everything works, and that’s surely got to be worth some kind of relief given everything that was riding on this title?

If I were someone working at Warner Montreal right now I’d be damn proud of Batman: Arkham Origins. It may not improve on Rocksteady’s previous work, but it can quite happily co-exist alongside two of the greatest licensed adaptations the games industry has known. With that in mind I think that simply calling the studio’s talent ‘tracers’ – in different words – is to do them a grave disservice.

After all, the game could have been much, much worse and as a first start it still surpasses many games out there from established teams. I’ll be looking on with keen interest to see what the studio announces next.

Disclosure: to assist in writing this article, Warner Bros. sent Dave a copy of Batman: Arkham Origins on PS3.

Breaking news

47 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. KAP

    I agree, games copy from other games all the time. I don’t see anything wrong with Origins taking what’s good from its previous games. Specially when they were do good.

    It’s simply just gamers getting caught up with all the BS with reviews last week. If they really sit and play this they’ll understand it’s an incredible game.

    Batman Arkham Asylam > Batman Arkham Origins > Batman Arkham City.

    #1 6 months ago
  2. Erthazus

    What BS?

    Game is a crappy copy of the originals with tons of bugs and uninspired battles.

    #2 6 months ago
  3. Dave Cook

    @2 Opinion blog.

    #3 6 months ago
  4. BD

    If they had called the game an “expansion pack” and priced it $20 off the full price, nobody would have complained.

    The game is essentially an “Arkham City Expansion Pack” that’s called “Origins”.

    It’s a good way to let a new team use the same tools and assets. Some new assets were used, some stuff was played with, but a lot was re-used, re-purposed and re-textured.

    It’s a nice expansion pack. It’s not a “new” game though.

    You’ll find a lot of criticism for Assassin’s Creed games, especially 3 and 4 now, as well as Brotherhood and Revelations.

    They’re sold as new games, yet in reality they’re really old games with enough hours of content to be considered “new games”. So people reviewing them don’t know how to approach them, and then give them lower marks because there’s a lot of copy-pasting going on.

    Nature of the beast. Once you understand it, it’s easier to make decisions.

    #4 6 months ago
  5. Blackened Halo

    I agree :) Arkham Origins is really great game :)

    #5 6 months ago
  6. thiz

    @5: Black Ops 2, MW2 or MW3 are all exactly the same games, yet nobody ever complains paying 70 bucks for the same game every single year with absolutely no changes to multiplayer and a 2 hour short campaign.

    So Arkham Origins does the same but has new enemies to face, most of them you never see in any other batman game, is about 10 hours long if you only do the mainstuff and has a brand new multiplayer, which is flawed but has this cool gimmick of heroes or villians you can play.

    So 70 bucks for a new cod every year is totally fine, but 60 for a batman game with all of that isn’t? I will never understand the logic of that.

    Also, Fifa 14 and MW3 got 90 from Gamespot and the reviewer even stated that it was the exact same copy of the game that came out before, but they said the same about Arkham Origins and it gets 60… yeah right.

    This is just proof of how much stupidity we have in this industry.

    #6 6 months ago
  7. Erthazus

    @5, I complain. That’s for sure.
    So Origins is the same thing as CoD copy cat.

    #7 6 months ago
  8. Darkfield

    Assassin’s Creed does that every time and that doesn’t keep it from scoring high. At least it’s a functional Batman game and at the very worst it plays like previous games and the story isn’t any better of Arkham City. So what? I’m a happy nerd as long as I get my dose of Capped Crusader every now and then.

    Thanks Dave.

    #8 6 months ago
  9. KAP

    @Erthazus

    I understand It’s your opinion that the game is “crappy”. I get it, but like Dave said, this game could of been really bad, REALLY easy. It wasn’t, its an incredible achievement for a studio like WB Games.

    I just don’t understand that COD, Halo, FIFA etc are all rehashes yet it’s widely accepted, yet at first glance Origins seems like a rehash but its actually amazingly good.

    The truth is, if this had Rocksteady on the front of the box no fucker would say the crap they have been. Its really quite sad.

    #9 6 months ago
  10. Erthazus

    @10, I agree with you. But the problem was with the price I think.

    BD, have some interesting opinion about the “expansion pack” and price in my opinion.

    #10 6 months ago
  11. Dave Cook

    I’m glad some of you understand the positive side of this blog :)

    #11 6 months ago
  12. Erthazus

    @12, Opinion was good. I’m not against it. I’m just against the pricing with this game.
    I think it is a good Add-on or expansion pack but as the full game… Not sure.

    when you make a game you put the soul in to it or just make copy-paste games. This is the same problem with Bioshock 1 and 2 “for me”. Bioshock 1 was the original idea and Bioshock 2 was not. While Bioshock Infinite from the original creators was something new and exciting for the industry.

    Games are not cheap Dave and we are not all made out of money.

    #12 6 months ago
  13. YoungZer0

    I have to agree with most of your complains. Although the boss fights in Arkham weren’t known for being memorable or smart, this ones boss fights are way too uninspired and predictable.

    Still I love the game. Arkham City and Asylum were both fantastic and more of the same was acceptable in my book. Though they reused a lot of the assets much of the city is pretty much unrecognizable. At least it isn’t for me. It’s not like I get lost in the city, but I do often catch myself saying “Oh, it’s THIS place!”

    The environments miss some of the personality we had in City. They are less detailed and I think they made a mistake by taking out some of the colors. I replayed the game with SweetFX yesterday with vibrante set very high and I love it. Never underestimate how much depth more colors can add. Everything feels much more alive.

    I think the story – although a little bit more grounded – is far superior to the ones we had in the previous Arkham games. The twist was actually surprising to me. Can’t believe I felt for that. I also like Troy as the Joker much more than Hamill. He’s less over the top and sounds much more frightening, perfect for this different entry.

    Overall it treats its source material with much more respect. See Bane for example, whom Rocksteady reduced to a fucking mouthbreathing idiot.

    I also can’t stress out enough how much better the character-design is. Black Mask looks bad-ass. Batman’s costume is so good, I never switched to any of the (VERY FUCKING FEW) other costumes.

    Rocksteady definitely should take note here, as most of their characters – although much more colorful – are embarrassing. I mean their Batman wears his underpants on the outside. I thought we were past that?

    The new costume looks very much like an actual armor.

    One big complaint though: If there’s one thing I love about the Arkham games it’s that the environment change over time. You really get the sense that the world around you is alive. Origins completely misses that one. Anarky still sits around and talks to me, while Batman still promises him that the police will be here soon.

    That one prison is still burning although the riot is under control. No one tries to fix the bridge, etc. No new enemies in older places. No real chance to predator the shit out of them.

    The Endgame is just very much inferior to the past entries. I want to see the results of my actions. Wonder what the DLC will look like.

    I wish the Enigma collectables were more fun though. Previous entries had the Riddle go nuts over your actions. That’s what made collecting them so great. You pissed him off.

    Also searching for Anarky signs (how am I supposed to know where they are exactly?) is not as fun as figuring out a riddle.

    That all said, I love that character like Anarky and Enigma make you exactly question if they are so much worse than Batman himself. I really love that.

    Just all around much better writers on this game.

    Anyway, great article Dave. Keep up the good work.

    Edit: The guys and gals saying this game should’ve been an expansion have obviously never played it. Way too much content for an expansion.

    #13 6 months ago
  14. KAP

    @Erthazus

    I dunno if a studio placed two and a half years in a project such as huge as Origins only for a gamer on a comment post to say its shouldn’t be anymore then I say it should be.

    An Add On? Really?

    Gotham is twice as big as the map in City was, there is a large amount of interiors, Blackgate is fully mapped, New playable character to name just a few…

    I don’t see why in this day and age as COD gets a pass yet, Origins is getting blasted? Its insane. But you are right, games isn’t cheap and we are all not made out of money…

    #14 6 months ago
  15. TheBlackHole

    @13

    So by your reckoning, every sequel should actually be an expansion pack, unless it fundamentally changes the gameplay formula (from the one people liked in the first place).

    That’s some shitty logic right there.

    #15 6 months ago
  16. YoungZer0

    @16: This is the same guy who will buy BF4.

    #16 6 months ago
  17. Lloytron

    Personally I’m really enjoying it and am finding it very solid. I’m surprised actually how much new stuff there is

    #17 6 months ago
  18. TheBlackHole

    @17 lmao.

    Oh, sweet irony.

    #18 6 months ago
  19. Erthazus

    @17, Well first of all there are a lot of things that are new and BF4 has nothing to do with Batman.
    there are a lot of gameplay features that makes a huge difference with gigantic technology leap over it’s predecessor with realistic wind physics that changes the rules in FPS gaming with levolution mechanics that can change the whole level that will change the rules of the game just in one match.

    So no, it’s not the same thing.

    and let’s just say that gameplay was always amazing in Batman… It’s not. It was always a simple beat em up game that has it’s limitations (Arkham City and Asylum were fantastic games, no doubt but gameplay was not the best in the universe to make copy-paste.) and that’s why copy-paste for Batman formula does not work really compared even to CoD games that are repetitive as hell but gameplay variety has much better possibilities because of the genre.

    #19 6 months ago
  20. KAP

    @16 +50

    @17 +50

    @Erthazus

    Mate, TheBlackHole stunned you with his batcape and YoungZer0 gave you an explosive gel punch to the jaw. It’s over.

    #20 6 months ago
  21. Erthazus

    @21, Nope. Because I was too fast for explosive gel so he missed. He should stop drawing a picture of a bat to destroy me :P
    and you can’t stun me :P cause I’m mad and I have red buffer under my head that says that I’m immune to stun :P

    @16,

    Sequels first of all is a Marketing tool and nothing more to sell more copies.

    #21 6 months ago
  22. Dave Cook

    @13 Games aren’t cheap, you’re right. I’m probably worse off financially than most people who read this site, and that’s the truth. I know games aren’t cheap, but to say this is DLC is just insanity gone mad.

    #22 6 months ago
  23. Erthazus

    @23, It’s not DLC. That’s for sure. It’s too big for DLC.

    DLC is 15-60 minutes of gameplay and Batman:AO has some serious budget.

    #23 6 months ago
  24. TheBlackHole

    @20

    Sorry, how could I forget about the “realistic wind physics”. GAME CHANGER!

    Also, “It was always a simple beat em up game that has it’s limitations”

    Metascores:

    Arkham Asylum = 91-91-92
    Arkham City = 91-94-96

    Battlefield 3 = 89-84-85
    Battlefield 4 = 84-86-86

    You were saying?

    #24 6 months ago
  25. YoungZer0

    @22: “Sequels first of all is a Marketing tool and nothing more to sell more copies.”

    wat.

    #25 6 months ago
  26. Legendaryboss

    Grab popcorn gif.

    #26 6 months ago
  27. TheBlackHole

    “Sequels first of all is a Marketing tool and nothing more to sell more copies.”

    Well, yes.

    The intention of every product is to ‘sell copies’. That’s why they exist. Games aren’t developed so that nobody will buy them. In that you are dead right.

    And yes, games are used to advertise the platform on which they appear, but then without the platform the game wouldn’t exist, so… yeah, I’m not sure where you’re going with this?

    You seem to be suggesting that sequels are a bad thing, but I beg to differ. TV series often deserve a second season and improve over time. Breaking Bad, being one example. Films also often get better over sequels.

    Games do it all the time – Red Dead, Mass Effect, Uncharted, Gears of War, Portal, Half Life, The Witcher – love them or hate them, they all had sequels that improved on their predecessors in meaningful ways, got better metascores and sold more copies.

    Without sequels you would miss out on some incredible experiences. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge them – us developers put our hearts and souls into making games great, new IP or not.

    #27 6 months ago
  28. Legendaryboss

    @14
    TheWulf has possessed you YoungZero ;)

    #28 6 months ago
  29. YoungZer0

    @29: Wow, what did I ever do to you?

    #29 6 months ago
  30. SplatteredHouse

    I’m watching another commentator play this at the moment (sorry, Dave, but you’re showing the game on PS3, and I think as close a comparison to my own setup as can be found is preferable – plus, Dave’s video is prefaced with a spoiler warning) and the game…Doesn’t seem that interesting.
    It’s got graphic FX out the you-know-what, but I struggle to see how they enhance the gameplay (I know! Let’s render a multi-tier, complex vertical rat-run of a city – and then, OBSCURE any hint of detail our artists included, by cris-crossing the player’s view with “snow”!) but the combat in motion looks ridiculous. It did as well under Arkham Asylum, but there I felt the confines kept the absurd leaps somewhat credible. It worked fluidly there, but it doesn’t as well, here.

    #30 6 months ago
  31. SplatteredHouse

    The enemies are putting up little to no resistance, yet they are as many in number, per encounter, that above niggle aside, the outcome strikes me as dull. WB have managed to render the experience of fighting as the Batman, lackluster.

    Having read the article above. I think, as much as I appreciate an alternate view being expressed, shortcomings appear swiftly excused: ex. “so I absolutely understand why some areas have been crafted in a conservative manner.” Why should that understanding be in place…

    Do you also then understand my expression of surprise that their conservative and tentative effort is priced at the same rung as a fully accomplished, and assured title – because, I surely am surprised, in the face of that defense! Although you are defending the game, I don’t get the feeling you’re doing so, against the basis of the price set to it.

    #31 6 months ago
  32. Gheritt White

    @32: Games are not priced by perceived quality. Games are priced by how expensive they are to make/bring to market.

    As the customer, you have the option to either (a) buy it or (b) not buy it. You don’t, however, get to dictate the terms of the sale.

    Now, would this (or any other) game sell “better” (i.e. return a profit) if it was cheaper? Well, that should be up for debate.

    But the idea that a double-A game should cost less than a triple-A game is ridiculous because (a) those definitions don’t exist in real terms, (b) games are hideously expensive to make and (c) perception of quality is almost entirely subjective.

    #32 6 months ago
  33. Max Payne

    Still better than Gears of War : Judgment

    #33 6 months ago
  34. Dave Cook

    @34 That’s pretty random.

    #34 6 months ago
  35. SplatteredHouse

    I don’t find that the idea of the magnitude of the task falling upon “not-Rocksteady” should explain away, or excuse the times when their marker misses the bold established lines. I would also hope to see a new team brought in (which I think is no bad thing), introduce original ideas that integrate soundly with the existing framework. Unfortunately, however, we find reports of these additions and deviations being among the weaker aspects in practice.

    Are they not Rocksteady? Well, of course they aren’t, but they were funded and may have presented to their publisher, under the premise of ability to meet the scope of the task. Is it fine, anyway? I don’t know. Since I haven’t played it. From what I’ve seen of it I’m not convinced

    @33 But, games are often purchased under perceived quality, no? Obviously though, you’re right about the two choices. Except for the existence of option C: Wait for a sale. “(b) games are hideously expensive to make”…and, the resulting game of that expense can be not worth buying, so we can look to the view of other people that did play, to see how things turned out, if we are not sure.

    #35 6 months ago
  36. DSB

    Great review Dave.

    I don’t understand the Arkham City naysaying though. The open world and the “levels” were most often two entirely different things.

    Maybe the indoor bits weren’t as tightly scripted, but gaining a less constricted playground in the open world while maintaining the suspense with the “indoors” gameplay was the best of both worlds for me.

    I’m always concerned about narrative and comparing games to everything else, but I’m okay with a game being “gamey” as long as it does it well. Arkham City was “more” rather than uniquely “better” and that’s exactly what it should be in my opinion.

    #36 6 months ago
  37. SplatteredHouse

    I have not played AC yet, so I make no comment of it. My belief though, is that it is likely to be good.

    #37 6 months ago
  38. Erthazus

    @TheblackHole, and reviews also has nothing to do with it. Battlefield has worse reviews because of Singleplayer campaign in which no one cares and these so called “wind-physics” change the rules in the entire GENRE and only now “weak consoles” started to use that feature for the first time because it was hard to do on the last console generation.

    The second game that will use that will be Watchdogs + don’t forget about levolution.
    there is one level for example that can change the weather in-game and result will be different each time with your play.

    and metacritic is the last thing to measure GAMEPLAY. Batman is a good game on it’s own genre. But beat-em-up is not really that big in gameplay variety compared to FPS games.

    #38 6 months ago
  39. TheBlackHole

    @35

    Not really.

    I think he’s referring to a sequel made by a developer not associated with that of the original/core series (Rocksteady and Epic, respectfully).

    #39 6 months ago
  40. TheBlackHole

    “Battlefield has worse reviews because of Singleplayer campaign”

    Says… you. Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. You can’t tar everybody critic with the same brush. Fact is they are 90+ games according to pretty much everybody, and battlefield is not.

    “metacritic is the last thing to measure GAMEPLAY”. Perhaps, but for gauging the overall quality of a product, you could do worse.

    “beat-em-up is not really that big in gameplay variety compared to FPS games”

    Really? Do you know what a beat-em-up is? Have you ever played street fighter?

    #40 6 months ago
  41. Max Payne

    @40 plus , Judgement was obvious cash in.

    #41 6 months ago
  42. DSB

    @41 Based on the reviews I’ve read, I would definitely agree with that. At least those fit with my experience of BF3.

    I’m kinda surprised by the experience some people have of those games. It really doesn’t match mine.

    Maybe I’m coddled by having played too many adrenaline fueled shooters, but it just seems like a game that doesn’t promote cooperation very well, and innately creates a lot of what I would call the multiplayer equivalent of “dead air”. Doing nothing. Running from one spot to the other. Attending to tiny skirmishes. Doing stuff that isn’t the cool stuff.

    If I’m playing something that calls itself a “sim” like ArmA, I accept that, but surely Battlefield IS an action game, right?

    #42 6 months ago
  43. SplatteredHouse

    The multiplayer does look fun though, for this.
    You have two teams of three, versus each another, but they are also set againsat another two players who play Batman and Robin (both play much like the campaign versions, while gang members’ perspective of the action draws closer comparison to Gears).
    The idea, in any case, is that you have to wear down the enemy tickets (or reinforcements, to use the game’s terminology), and half-way through a round, either leader Bane or the Joker can be called in (they’re basically forces of nature compared to the foot soldiers) by either team of three to run roughshod over, and waylay the intentions of the opposing teams!

    #43 6 months ago
  44. DSB

    I would rob a bank and pay Warner Brothers a million billion dollars (it would be a huge bank, like the Vatican bank or some shit) if only they bought the TMNT license from Activision and made a proper Batman clone featuring the Turtles.

    That would be so much better than an also-ran Arkham game, seriously. I’m sure Origins is perfectly passable, but I don’t feel like playing it all. Been there, done that, gonna wait for the original.

    Even in it’s completely broken, completely shitty, completely borked state, you can still see what a good game Out of the Shadows could’ve become in the hands of someone who knew how to make vidyagames.

    #44 6 months ago
  45. SplatteredHouse

    “you can still see what a good game Out of the Shadows could’ve become in the hands of someone who knew how to make vidyagames.” Yeah. Definitely.

    Treated better, the Turtles is a license that could lead to a top game. What happened with Out of the Shadows? :(
    There is an arcadey (retail) one currently in development based on the current animated series. I forget the name of the team Acti have assigned to that TMNT, though. It may offer a good scrap, or not. The July/E3 trailer doesn’t tell a lot on that score.

    #45 6 months ago
  46. viralshag

    I definitely have some minor complaints about the game buts it’s still a good game, just not inspirational.

    I’d rather a new dev play it safe with the formula Arkham is know for in their first run but I would expect a lot more from them if they make another one..

    #46 6 months ago
  47. Digital Bamboo

    I couldn’t agree more with the notion that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ If I may simplify & paraphrase a bit.

    Why mess with a winning formula or change something just for the sake of changing it when it’s perfectly good the way it is?

    Change for the sake of “evolving” a series has ruined series before. Take the TV shows Fringe and the new Battlestar Galactica, for example. Both started out as some of the best shows on television in their respective genres, IMO. Their first seasons were stellar. But, over time I feel the writers strayed way too far from the original concepts, characters, and worlds. It was like the writers got bored and were like, “how fucking more weird can we make things this season?”

    There is a difference between character/series development and destruction. Personally, I’d prefer more of the same greatness to something strange just for the sake of being different.

    #47 6 months ago