Games

[icycalm]

http://www.batmanarkhamasylum.com/

Why is everyone fawning over Batman: Arkham Asylum as if it were some sort of game of the year contender? I played the demo, and while I thought the stealth sections were decent-ish (it’s way too easy to hide from enemies), the combat was bland as hell – the game literally has you mashing the same button repeatedly and a counter button occasionally (whose timing is telegraphed), which is even less complexity than Assassin’s Creed, let alone a quality action game like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. On top of that ‘detective mode’ completely ruins any sense of challenge you might experience in figuring out puzzles by highlighting everything of interest in the room for you.

Am I missing something here?

http://www.sonictempest.net/2009/08/25/ ... criticism/

I know nothing about this game but this guy plays fighting games and reads this site (you can tell by his phrasing, lol), so there's a good chance he knows what he's talking about.

[icycalm]

http://www.ghetto-overlord.com/Blog/?p=1197

[milkycha]

I'm about five hours in. While the stealth sections are fun, they are few and far between. When an enemy knows you're there, the combat is just atrocious; not only incredibly simplistic but also clumsy. You basically mash one button over and over, until the game tells you (!) to press another to counter. It's shockingly boring.

On the other hand the developers have gone to a lot of trouble to bring the Batman universe to a video game -- lots of voice talent from The Animated Series, character profiles, conversations with the villians (via audio diaries), etc.

I had heard so many cries of "game of the year, easily!", and now I'm finding these baffling. Sure enough, it's probably the best Batman game, but yeah, it's really not that great a game. It's definitely one of those games that artfags will laud, because "it's not about how the game plays, it's about the experience of it all!"

Boss battles suck also.

[Bradford]

RE: ghetto-overlord

Hold on there. How does a game get a 126% ranking? Are they using the Nigel Tufnel system of game ratings or something?

[milkycha]

A wizard did it.

[icycalm]

it's probably the best Batman game

Keep such comments for gamefaqs except if you are prepared to explain according to what criteria a 3D action game can ever be better than, say, a 2D action game. Or perhaps you are saying that this game is better at being a 3D action game than all the 2D Batmans were at being 2D action games? In such a case I need a comprehensive list of ALL Batman games, with at the very least a mini-review to go along with each of them.

If you don't have any of the above, then like I said --> http://www.gamefaqs.com/


P.S. No reply is necessary. Just keep the retardation off my forum.

[Molloy]

http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/07/e ... rkham.html
http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/07/a ... inner.html
http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/08/w ... views.html
http://ramraider.blogspot.com/2009/08/o ... ith-9.html

We all know at this stage there's a lot of review fixing going on and despite the fact that few people read magazines anymore (to the extent that Future Publishing are no longer releasing sales figures) they do still set the tone for how games are reviewed by most of the popular websites.

[C.Moir]

I'm about five hours in. While the stealth sections are fun, they are few and far between. When an enemy knows you're there, the combat is just atrocious; not only incredibly simplistic but also clumsy. You basically mash one button over and over, until the game tells you (!) to press another to counter. It's shockingly boring.
Boss battles suck also.

Perhaps you should give the harder difficulties a try. Aside from the usual things like increased damage/less health and such, there's also no flashing Indicator when people attack as well as better AI during stealth sections (they actually look up!). Your comments about the combat seem to stem from this. I thought the fighting was very fluid, I'd do a combo, then counter someone attacking from behind, then flip over someones head and stun them and continue to chain moves all over the room. Its more about observing your enemies than anything else.

I agree wholeheartedly about the bosses though. They were not nearly varied enough. There was only around 5 or so, out of those 4 were just juiced up regular enemies, 1 was a gigantic plant.

[Banned for not having bothered to edit his post a day after my warning. --icy]

[icycalm]

Please fix all the missing apostrophes and such in your post. One more post like that and you are gone.

Edit: And I mean look at this shit:

There was only around 5 or so, out of those 4 were just juiced up regular enemies, 1 was a gigantic plant.

There WERE only around FIVE or so. Out of those FOUR were just juiced up regular enemies AND ONE was a gigantic plant.

[milkycha]

Perhaps you should give the harder difficulties a try. Aside from the usual things like increased damage/less health and such, there's also no flashing Indicator when people attack as well as better AI during stealth sections (they actually look up!). Your comments about the combat seem to stem from this.

I only played on Hard mode (and have long since finished the game with 100% riddles solved), so I don't know what these "flashing indicators" you mentioned are. I maintain that the entirety of the combat was a QTE -- press one button repeatedly until you need to counter. The AI was dismal in the predator sections; I found it extremely difficult to be spotted at all. You can even grapple across gargoyles while the enemies are alerted to your presence, and they still won't see you.

The riddles were piss easy too; I solved all of them within about four hours. Out of all two hundred and forty, I was only stuck on two or three, and each of those for just a few minutes.

The only real thing this game has going for it is its presentation (the Scarecrow sections were especially well done), but I suppose that's all you need to make the sales. The actual playing is not too crash hot.

[icycalm]

If you would like to write a review I'd probably be interesting in publishing it. You seem to know what you are talking about, you have already finished the game, and your comments in this thread already constitute at least half a review. Think about it.

[icycalm]

Actually, I just asked dracko whether he is interested in writing a review, and if he says yes I'll go with him, because I've read all his posts on SB and he seems to have a very nuanced view of the game. He knows his shit in terms of the Batman lore too (he is big into comic books), so he should be able to cover that angle as well. If he says no and you are interested then you can have a go at it. I'll post in this thread when I get his answer.

[icycalm]

http://insomnia.ac/reviews/xbox360/batmanarkhamasylum/

[Magnum Apex]

Perhaps you should give the harder difficulties a try. Aside from the usual things like increased damage/less health and such, there's also no flashing Indicator when people attack as well as better AI during stealth sections (they actually look up!).

I played and completed the game on Hard mode in my first playthrough (the only difficulty higher than Normal, by the way), and enemies will only look up if they spot the player when he comes down from the gargoyles, and it's still easy to hide again by zipping to a couple of other gargoyles. It would've been easier to believe the AI couldn't see the player if the gargoyle areas were pitch dark, but the reality is Batman stood out easily while on the gargoyles.

For those that never played the demo, or did not play in Hard mode, the indicator C.Moir mentions is an icon that pops on top of an enemy that's about to attack the player. This tells the player to press the counter button to counter the attack. In Hard mode this indicator is gone, but inexplicably a pop-up "[Counter Button] to Counter" icon will still show up from time to time in the middle of fights, occasionally telling the player when to counter. Why? I picked Hard mode so I wouldn't have to deal with all the hand-holding!

Anyway, since they're already making a sequel, I hope the game allows players to at least lessen all the advantages Detective Mode provides in harder difficulty settings, such as the ability to see enemies through walls.

[icycalm]

By the way, the opening paragraph of the review, and several sentences towards the end, including the last line, are mine -- just in case people had not already figured this out. I normally don't take credit for my edits, but these are too good to pass up. The opening especially tops even the one in my No More Heroes review, I think (which up to now had been the best opening line in a videogame review ever, fyi).

[Doctor Fugue]

Could you explain the value of mentioning what morons think of a game in the review? It seems to me that it only introduces the review as a reaction against people who fawn over the game. The opinions provided by Metacritic or Gamefaqs forum members or video game awards shows may indeed provide some kind of insight into what the general populace thinks of a game, but I just can't see its use in an expert analysis and criticism. Is it to give a wider perspective to the reader? Perhaps to provide context, in that the contained opinion is not the popular one?

Maybe I am being too strict, but in a review all I want is the opinion of the writer. The first paragraph and last two paragraphs of this review prove nothing to me about the quality of the game. As we all know, many excellent games are also loved by morons; their opinion simply does not matter.

[icycalm]

all I want is the opinion of the writer.

First off, dude, no one cares what you want. I am sorry to have to be so blunt, you know how much I love you, but it is important to set some things straight. A review is not written for the reader -- let alone for any specific reader! It is written for the writer! Now whether a writer's thoughts have value for any particular reader is a matter completely irrelevant to the writer. Tim Rogers' writings on videogames, for example, have no value for me whatsoever -- as they don't for anyone who is really interested in videogames. This is not a consequence of what he writes or doesn't write, but a consequence of who he is. He is a stupid, incompetent gamer with bad taste -- therefore his writings will be worthless to anyone who is intelligent and competent in games. Et cetera, et cetera.

Could you explain the value of mentioning what morons think of a game in the review?

Dude are you kidding me? You want me to explain to you the value of debunking the highest-rated game of all time?

What's next? To explain the value of debunking the myth that arcades games are cheap quarter-munchers?

Jesus Christ, dude.

[icycalm]

And as for this:

As we all know, many excellent games are also loved by morons; their opinion simply does not matter.

Perhaps it would be instructive for you to pick up a gaming magazine from 1989 along with a contemporary one, and read them thoroughly cover to cover. Then follow it up with a browse through The Arcade Flyer Database and the aisles of your local videogame store. Perhaps then you would come to see how absurd the last part of the above statement is.

[Doctor Fugue]

Dude are you kidding me? You want me to explain to you the value of debunking the highest-rated game of all time?

No, I am not kidding, just apparently stupid. I do not understand why it matters what morons think about a game. Yes, they are the ones buying these games and perpetuating bad game design, but this is not something that should affect a review. Commentary on how dumb people are has its uses, but not in an analysis of a game.

It would not matter if everyone loved this game or if everyone hated this game, my review would still be the same. I would judge the game on its own merits.

It would be like analysing a piece of music by Beethoven, but introducing the essay by saying that everyone loves this music. Who the fuck cares? Moreover, it sets up the writing as being biased, either as a reaction against or with the popular opinion.

As we all know, many excellent games are also loved by morons; their opinion simply does not matter.

Perhaps it would be instructive for you to pick up a gaming magazine from 1989 along with a contemporary one, and read them thoroughly cover to cover. Then follow it up with a browse through The Arcade Flyer Database and the aisles of your local videogame store. Perhaps then you would come to see how absurd the last part of the above statement is.

Again, I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand this. Are you saying that the quality of games has declined because the general populace is filled with morons? I have no argument against that, but it is unrelated. What I was trying to say is millions of morons loving a game does not change the quality of that game.

I've probably pissed you off enough already here (though not my intention) so I will stop posting.

[JoshF]

The discussion of the game's critical reception is there as a supplement to the criticism, not the basis. If it was the other way around then you'd have a better point. Also, if you're gonna call something shit (e.g. Two and a Half Men, Lady Gaga, etc.) it kinda helps to mention all the flies swarming around it, lol.

[amadeus]

http://www.batmanarkhamasylum.com/?page ... &AID=11040

BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION ANNOUNCED!

Available across Europe and Australasia from March 26th, 2010, the new edition will come complete with six extra challenge maps and feature an innovative new technology which offers a play-in-3D option compatible with all standard and high definition TV sets.

The multi award-winning Batman: Arkham Asylum adds a new dimension to crime fighting with support for TriOviz 3D on both PS3 and Xbox 360. TriOviz 3D is a patented 3D process which adds depth to the game, visible to players wearing the included 3D glasses. Compatible with all standard and high definition TV sets, TriOviz 3D creates a far more immersive gaming experience, allowing console players to dive deeper into the gothic world of Arkham Asylum..

Expanding the gameplay over the original boxed edition, the Game of the Year Edition comes complete with all six previously released Downloadable Content Challenge Maps on disc, giving players further opportunity to hone their crime fighting skills. Gamers can face-off against Arkham Asylum's toughest inmates in some of the iconic environs from the game such as the infamous Crime Alley and the insane Scarecrow Nightmare.

[icycalm]

No, I am not kidding, just apparently stupid.

Yep, apparently so! -- 1st reason to ban you

I do not understand why it matters what morons think about a game.

Yet I already explained this to you in my previous post. -- 2nd reason to ban you

And moreover, you even go as far as to repeat it in your next sentence:

Yes, they are the ones buying these games and perpetuating bad game design

So even though I have already explained it to you, and even though you understood me, you STILL go ahead and revomit everything in my forum so as to waste even MORE of my time with you. -- 3rd reason to ban you

but this is not something that should affect a review.

Utterly arbitrary statement backed up by no reasoning whatsoever. -- 4th reason to ban you

Commentary on how dumb people are has its uses, but not in an analysis of a game.

Yet another utterly arbitrary statement backed up by no reasoning whatsoever. -- 5th reason to ban you

It would not matter if everyone loved this game or if everyone hated this game, my review would still be the same.

Perhaps your review would still be the same if 100 other factors were different -- by why should OTHER people's reviews be affected by YOUR limitations? My reviews, for example, are incredibly nuanced -- a tiny change in atmospheric pressure in the room in which I am writing the review can have extremely serious consequences for the text I end up producing. Moral: men are not equal -- some are more sensitive than others. -- This is not a reason to ban you: just a note that you are coarse and simple-minded.

I would judge the game on its own merits.

So you are implying that Insomnia's Arkham Asylum rating is based on how many people loved or hated the game -- in some kind of democratic poll -- instead of on the several paragraphs' worth of in-depth mechanics analysis contained in the review. A really shameless, brazen attack at the site and the reviewers -- one moreover which is backed by no reasoning and evidence whatsoever. -- 6th AND 7th reasons to ban you

Moreover, let's look at your last statement once again:

I would judge the game on its own merits.

This explains why the demand to evaluate something "on its own merits" betrays naivety and stupidity almost worthy of reverence. It is to some such claptrap that stupid people resort to when attempting to defend their crude tastes against the attacks of superior criticism.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/basic_instincts/

The articles on the frontpage are not for show, you know. They are meant to be read -- and read carefully. Whoever cannot be bothered to do this, or is too stupid to understand what is being said in them, has no business wasting our time with his retarded posts. -- 8th reason to ban you

It would be like analysing a piece of music by Beethoven, but introducing the essay by saying that everyone loves this music. Who the fuck cares?

THE REVIEWER, YOU INCORRIGIBLE RETARD! THE REVIEWER! I'VE ALREADY FUCKING EXPLAINED THAT! -- 9th reason to ban you

Also, another reason to ban you is for posturing. "Beethoven" my ass, you moron. -- 10th reason to ban you. As if you had ever read a piece of classical music criticism in your life! Nietzsche spends a good 1/5th of his writings discussing music, and his rage against the bad taste of his contemporaries takes up almost 90% of that. Pauline Kael, in her movie reviews, goes on and on about the movie industry. George Orwell in his book reviews goes on and on about the tastes and reading habits of the book-reading public.

BUT SOME LITTLE FUCK ON THE INTERNET THINKS THAT WE SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS AS IF WE WERE THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET -- WE SHOULD PRETEND THAT OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST AND DO NOT INFLUENCE ANYTHING. -- 11th reason to ban you

Moreover, it sets up the writing as being biased

Finally, there were a number of complaints that my views were "biased". Knuckleheads: that's what it means to have a view -- having a view, any view, is having a bias. If you'd taken two seconds to think about that before posting, it would probably have been pretty obvious.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/dominatio ... _responds/

-- 12th reason to ban you

Moreover, let's look at the entire statement:

Moreover, it sets up the writing as being biased, either as a reaction against or with the popular opinion.

So on the one hand you are saying that we should not give a fuck about what people think about a game, on the other hand you are saying that we should TREMBLE IN OUR SHOES WITH WORRY OVER WHETHER THE MORONS WILL THINK WE ARE "REACTING" TO SOMETHING, AND MODIFY OUR REVIEWS ACCORDINGLY TO AVOID GIVING THEM THAT IMPRESSION.

-- 13th reason to ban you

Again, I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand this. Are you saying that the quality of games has declined because the general populace is filled with morons? I have no argument against that, but it is unrelated.

Tell that to Nietzsche, Orwell and Kael.

-- 14th reason to ban you

What I was trying to say is millions of morons loving a game does not change the quality of that game.

Thx for clearing that up! Because in this thread I was obviously saying that the quality of a game depends on how many people love it -- you even quoted me saying that. And since I said something stupid, it was very helpful of you to step in and correct me. -- 15th reason to ban you

I've probably pissed you off enough already here (though not my intention) so I will stop posting.

Gotta love the playground attitude! "I know I am pissing you off but I want to get the last word in and then leave, without replying to any of your counter-arguments."

-- 16th reason to ban you

Banned.

[icycalm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael

According to Stein, "I [fired her] months later after she kept panning every commercial movie from Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago to The Pawnbroker and A Hard Day's Night."

Sounds to me like Pauline Kael was biased and reacting against commercial movies! Oh those biased, reactionary reviewers! Where have all the objective ones gone!

[icycalm]

Played the demo on 360. The Insomnia review is rubbish, as are the comments I quoted in my opening post, and most of what followed. This is a good game. Easily 3 stars, and maybe even 4. Nothing is fucking "telegraphed" and there's no QTEs involved at all; the naysayers are pseudo-hardcore hipsters who are making everything up. Worst of all, no one seems to have a clue that this is not a brawler. This is a stealth-action game and should be compared to Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell, not fucking Devil May Cry and Bayonetta -- and compared to THOSE games, its hand-to-hand combat is the most sophisticated ever, you fucking imbeciles!

Anyway. The main problems are that the game is ugly and appears to take place entirely in a dungeon. But we'll see about that once I play it. And the sequel seems to have a better setting, so maybe that will be even better. I have both games coming to me on PC, and once I set up my 3x 720p 3D projector rig, I'll play and review both of them. I hear that its 3D use is pretty good, so I don't want to spoil the game by playing it on any other setup.

And then I need to edit out a couple of mentions of the game from future editions of Videogame Culture: Volume I. I shouldn't have namedropped the game, especially in a negative light, without having played it.