MB Video Game Classics: Batman Arkham City
 

One I have not played yet but one I know gets pretty good reviews for how open it is compared to the first. Really looking forward to playing this one.

My vote is obvious. One of the greatest games ever made.

No need to rehash the discussion that already went down in the main thread. It was kind of a ****fest.

Agreed. I'm excited to play this game after I beat Asylum because again, I've always heard nothing but good things about it. I'll refrain from voting but I imagine I'd give it a 5/5 if I had played it.

I obviously wouldn't consider this even close to being one of the greatest game ever made. And that's putting it mildly. Oh well.

hey Kiiii, did you ever have these as a kid?
http://www.videogameconnection.com/E...tion%20(1).JPG

From it's Wikipedia:

"The game received critical acclaim, particularly for its narrative, character and world designs, soundtrack, and Batman's combat and navigation abilities. It was tied for the highest-rated video game of 2011 according to review aggregator Metacritic, and was the recipient of several awards including: Game of the Year, Best Action Game, Best Action Adventure Game, Best Adventure Game, and Best Original Score from various media outlets, and it is considered one of the greatest video games of all time."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_City

All this means to me is that a lot of people certainly seem to like it. That doesn't make me like it any more. Plus the critical consensus matters very little to me when it comes to games, since most "professional" video game reviewers are terrible and don't take their jobs seriously at all.

Does every big tentpole movie that comes out receive a round of butt kissing from film critics? No, because they have standards. In the world of video game criticism, a big budget means almost guaranteed rave reviews. Of course not entirely, but there are very few video game critics whose opinion carries any weight to me at all. They might as well be a herd of chimps.

Harsh. I gave it a 2.

There's nothing quite like gliding over Gotham City or perching high atop a gargoyle with Detective Vision surveying a squad of thugs. 5/5

Btw, before Yorke accuses me of being a "hater": I don't disrespect anyone for liking any game or whatever. In my view, tastes are entirely subjective and there's no way in which my subjective experience of a game should be expected to be mirrored by someone who isn't me, and vice verse.

I just don't like these games at all. I'm not having fun with them. I even strongly dislike the atmosphere of the Arkham games, and indeed most AAA games. They feel soulless to me and I just don't have a good time. It's really no impulse to be an elitist snob or anything. I'm just literally not connecting with these games and I'm not having a good time with them at all.

Some games just connect with me where others fail. I'm happy as a clam playing Armored Core 5, while Assassins Creed is about as fun as a root canal for me. It's just the way it is. Psychology, biology; whatever.

Nothing wrong with that. Hell, I don't see any of your posts in here as acting like you're some for of elitist or w/e. I could list off many games that I don't like. It seems like you prefer older games as opposed to more up to date games. Maybe that's just my assumption. Again, nothing wrong with that. I'm just the complete opposite.

Plus, not ALL AAA games are like that, but I will admit that a lot of them are pretty crappy. Lots of exceptions tho.

I also do somewhat agree on what you say about critical consensus but if a lot of people like a game and I don't, I do try the game again or I will to play it later. Hell, I didn't play Witcher 3 until several years after its release.

If I ever get a PS4 or XBox One I might give Witcher 3 a shot, but I've tried numerous times to get into Witcher 2 and been left cold each time.

It's got a bit of a slow start but once you get past that, it opens up a lot. I gotta get back into it because it's been a while. Graphically it's spectacular. It's a beautiful game to play with some really engaging combat.

It's not even just that it starts slow -- I'm used to that with RPGs -- it's that the story feels like the writing of a hack who desperately wants to make Game of Thrones but all he can do is shallow, grim 'n' gritty nonsense. And while I haven't really explored the combat as I've never gotten more than a couple of hours into the game, it feels at least mildly tedious. And that's not even talking about the ****ty characters: **** Geralt and his macho, wish fulfillment, emotionless voice, corny-haired, stupid-eyed, generic ****hole of a toilet accident characterization.

I do agree in some aspects to be fair. I haven't really connected to the story in Witcher 3 because it just seems far too dense for a game like this. It's trying to be a movie when it doesn't need to be and thats sort of deterred me from getting back into it. Witcher 2 did actually suffer from that same problem. I also don't mind Geralt that much but he is far too serious than he needs to be. Doesn't fit his character design. Idk. I have a love hate thing with Witcher games and Witcher 3 being the actual first one I played, I do have a biased look. But again, I haven't played it in a while for various reasons.

Geralt's characterization and his design absolutely go together. He's a male power fantasy. Males wish they could have cool hair, weird glowy eyes, a gravelly voice, a badass scar, a sorceress girlfriend, not be scared of dragons, and be equally as good with magic as they are the sword. He's ****ing terrible.

Sigh. I wish Old Yac was still here to be offended at me slagging off Witcher.

True. I more-so just didn't really feel a connection as his character progressed and then it just became sort of stale. Again, not knocking the games really. Just sort of expressing why I haven't gotten back into it. Even saying I was going to sort of made me not want to.

The Witcher 1 release date: 2007

Game of the Thrones season 1: 2011

>_>

I'm talking about Witcher 2, and it could be a ripoff of any number of grim 'n' gritty fantasy schlockers. Doesn't even matter which one.

I want the full-on, uncensored Sword of Truth series made into games. That would hit loud.

I've liked a few AAA games on the 360, but can't think of one that I loved.
Velvet Assassin is the only one that I still have for my 360, if that one even qualifies. The rest are various arcade games and more obscure stuff like the Armored Core games, Tenchu Z. Oh and I forgot Dragon's Dogma. That one is good.

I only tried to give Witcher 2 a shot one evening, but my experience of it was much the same. One moment made me laugh out loud with how hard the dialogue tried to be "dark" and "mature". Sadly can't remember what it was.

Games with big budgets are bad games guys

I don't know if that's what he's implying but if it is, that's just god damn silly.

Certain developers actually improve their game when they get a pretty significant funding behind it or get approved a pretty significant budget. I will say that it can have a negative effect on a games development as well. Plus, more budget means more stuff you can put into a game. Again, it can have a negative effect but I'm more so inclined to check out a game that states they had a big budget behind it. I may not always like it, but its there. That's not always the case of course. As I do love a lot of early access games in general so...

Maybe this is more specifically aimed toward Early Access games, but I'm more than happy to support a developer that is just up front and says that they simply need more funding to get their game going. Dead Cells is a really good example and I know I've hit this nail several times. But they started in Early Access, got people's attention and eventually allowed them to fully complete the game and reach 1.0 status and get out of Early Access. They did in several months btw. I don't think it's even been in development for more than 2 years? I could be wrong. Yeah, wiki confirms that they spent only about a year in Early Access. Pretty amazing tbh.

AAA game = high budget game

Fair enough though I still don't know if that's what he's implying. At least I didn't catch it if he was. He did say he played AAA games so idk.

Big budgets mean investors who really, really, really want to feel guaranteed that they will get their money back, which means compromises imposed on the developers in order to pander to a wider audience so that the money can be made back. Focus group testing, etc. Leads to bland games. AAA games are McDonalds hamburgers.

Sometimes they end up good, but it's almost gonna have to be in spite of the business models they have to conform to.

It's exactly the same reason why the most expensive moves (usually franchise movies with big stars and expensive CGI) are so bland most of the time. The director would mostly not be allowed to make something particularly interesting, because that's entirely too risky when there's a couple hundred million dollars on the line.

Woohoo! Another debate!

My guess is there's not gonna be a debate. I doubt anyone likely to post in this thread would agree, except Elph, cuz he's punk as ****. Down with corporations! Wooo!

Anyway, whether anyone agrees with me that AAA games tend to be boring or not, you gotta agree that they generally can't really afford to take risks or be all that complex or obscure in their style, etc. That's how it works and it would be naïve to believe otherwise. There's a reason why, for example, so many shooter protagonists are just some bland, template white guy that looks like some variant of Nathan Drake, etc. I guarantee you that the creatives making the game would do something more interesting if they weren't handcuffed by the guys in suits who get final say in everything since they put 200 million dollars on the table.

^usually I play AAA games if it's in a series that I trust. I don't judge games solely on whether they're AAA or not. You're diminishing your gamin experience when you do that.

It's also not about being punk etc. A lot of AAA games are great.

Don't think that I'm just ranting blindly. A great deal of my dislike of that category of games comes from having actually played loads of them. Around the time I got my 360, you could find big titles like that in Gamestop for super low prices. I would buy so many over the years, sometimes for as little as the equivalent of a dollar, or less. I also played quite a few back on the PS2 and original Xbox. Generally, I complete very few games, but I've played a disgustingly high amount of different titles over the years. I'm a curious cat.

Exactly. Just like I enjoy them because I've also experienced a lot and enjoyed my experience. Doesn't mean AAA games are either good or bad. We're basically saying the same thing with opposite opinions.

I do also like some to an extent. I liked Gears of war 1, 2 and 3 to some degree. Judgment is probably the best imo. A few Halo games that I think are allright. Fuse was fun for a while, but it got way too repetitive. I'm sure there are some other that I liked, at least for to some extent. Just can't think of one that I would rate a 9 or 10. Not even an 8, I guess. A few decent 7/10's here and there is the best I can do.

You’re right that there’s not gonna be a debate because your point is too stupid to warrant the effort to make a rebuttal

Does that mean you believe that the teams that make hugely expensive games have full creative freedom? Because they don't.

I don't know a lot about the gaming industry on that side of things but I imagine devs aren't completely stripped of their creative control.

Not completely, no. It's a risk/reward balance that all projects take into account. Even small indie projects. But more money on the line means more risk aversion.

Just like the music with big marketing budgets isn't exactly the most creative music around. Katy Perry, Rihanna, etc. No one is gonna put millions into an avant-garde project.

Btw, crowd funding is interesting because it cuts out the publisher. It has the potential to funnel millions directly from fans and into the development of a project that would have been too creatively risky if it was tied to the old publisher model.

^that's fair honestly. That's something I can agree with as well. That's why it's impressive to me when a developer puts a game through early access and see it succeed.

I do think the idea of crowd funding is awesome especially if it's a dev you trust. I think that's how Yookah Laylee got made isn't it? Didn't they Kickstart it?

It was certainly crowd funded in some way. A publisher like Ubisoft, for example, would be difficult to persuade to do a big 3D platformer like that these days. It seems it either has to be a huge bro-shooter type thing or a small, 2d Rayman title.

The middle ground has been cut out of the publisher model to some extent.

Why bother with something that might sell a couple million copies, when you can do a big, open world online shooter with DLC, pay to win and devious reward schedule oriented design that have gamers addicted like pavlovian dogs? The big publishers wanna print money. Not make good games. It happens that they do, but it's like a happy accident.

I think crowd funding promises a brighter future.

@kiiii - have you tried the game out yet and did you like it? I just got finished with Arkham Asylum and will be moving to City next. Wasn't that big a fan of Asylum tbh so maybe I'll like City since it seems to be more varied and open.

Consistently wrongheaded.

I need to get back into it but I loved what I played. I currently have a few games on my backlog right now but eventually I'll get back to it. I put time into random games and then move onto others. Keeps me from getting bored.