Yeah they suck.Think I'm done with IGN
Ya but 9.2? That kind of score should be reserved for classics.I seriously doubt that the game is a 7 out of 10 after playing Arkham City. That would mean it would rate under the first one which was an extremely short game.
I have faith they will knock it out of the park again.
No. Asylum had much better puzzles to figure out the rooms. City's puzzles were repetitive and most of them were solved by just brute forcing them with takedowns and running away. I liked both games but I preferred Asylum.City was a way better game in every way. This board lol
Arkham City is, at best, half an hour to maybe an hour longer than Arkham Asylum. Maybe you're adding Arkham City's DLC to the game time.Asylum can literally be beaten in one sitting.
I liked both Asylum and City, and even started playing Origins on Steam again recently.So we agree that City has more pointless filler than Asylum.
Well you are not going to love this new game then, I can guarantee it. It will be the same thing with some new stuff added to it. It's basically the Nintendo philosophy of making games.I mean don't get me wrong, I love the combat and storylines and flying around Gotham... But the rinse and repeat is getting tiresome.
A new Batman Era would be epic here. Like bringing it back to the days of Adam West. Similar to what Rockstar did with Red Dead Redemption. Or just shitcan Batman and make a Superman game in this same fashion with entirely new play features.
I know. With the talent they have they should be doing something fresh.Well you are not going to love this new game then, I can guarantee it. It will be the same thing with some new stuff added to it. It's basically the Nintendo philosophy of making games.