Thread: The 57th Parallel: Batman: Arkham City

Upon my old times of comic book reading…well there wasn’t any but it makes for a good start of this review, I noticed a difference between DC then and DC now because my really nerdy friends tell me that DC is changing their universe which is fine with me until I find that all of the women in their universe become the sluts I have grown to hate more than anything else in life. The beauty of Arkham City is that it is the beauty of the DC world because they follow what Batman has always been about: Poverty stricken teens and adults getting their limbs broken by an extremely rich business man.

Even though I have enjoyed Arkham Asylum, I had a sinking feeling about Arkham City. It felt a bit too sequelly if that would even make a description of what I mean. Hugo Strange convinces the people of Gotham to wall off an area of the city and let the criminals roam free. No one even seemed to have batted an eye until Bruce Wayne questions a bit and gets kicked in without trial. How does Hugo Strange pull it off? I mean, unless he was crowned the prophet of every religion known to mankind, how would he be able to do something like that with absolutely no questioning or political backlash?

So basically Batman: Arkham City is just Arkham Asylum but with sandbox added in. I don’t mind sandbox but I feel as though it was done in a fashion to keep from admitting that they couldn’t think of a sequel that would work the same as last time. Seriously, if you think about it, hardly any of the main villains of Batman get any screen time. The Riddler gets people to put down their question marks, Two Face is having a drinking contest and the Joker is sick! Get rid of a few of those characters and focus more on how the Joker would wreak havoc and the Riddler would trick the dumbest of souls into his traps of doom. Well there is a bit of the traps of doom part but not enough to satisfy me.

I think that the controls are still a bit clunky from the last game. “Ohh look the silent avenger of the night is spazzing about on someone’s air conditioner!” Now don’t get me wrong, the fighting and stealth is still here which makes for some fun gameplay like usual but they still didn’t fix the problems I had with the first game. The only problem area that I think have improved were the boss fights. They are less easy and more of a way to figure out how to defeat him instead of them just telling you subliminally.

Arkham City isn’t leaving this review without a recommendation but remember that when you go straight sandbox, you lose control of the game and its content. If you are like me, you would want to do the main story and then all of the side story shiny things because you need the main tools to get the other shiny things unreachable beforehand. The problem with that is, and I didn’t know this until I looked this up, a lot of missions get locked if you don’t do them sometime within the story that keeps it available. Aren’t I a derp?

Batman has always been about: Poverty stricken teens and adults getting their limbs broken by an extremely rich business man.

BWahahahahahahah, this is so true.

I've yet to play this game but the first one was great, Arkham Asylum. They completely changed the way of any other batman before and brought it from the crappy cartoon, child based world into an adult arena IMO.

I'm like you, I prefer to do the main quests and then go back and do side quests (mostly). It sucks that they get locked if they are not complete in a certain time frame.

Originally Posted by gamer

BWahahahahahahah, this is so true.

I've yet to play this game but the first one was great, Arkham Asylum. They completely changed the way of any other batman before and brought it from the crappy cartoon, child based world into an adult arena IMO.

I'm like you, I prefer to do the main quests and then go back and do side quests (mostly). It sucks that they get locked if they are not complete in a certain time frame.

Well Yea that is true in a sense. Less hero stops bad guy and more vigilante stops mental patients.

Assassin's Creed Revelations did a better job in making that work than Arkham City. I mean what idea have you heard of where you lose gameplay for the sake of story progression.

I have played Arkham City and I did really like it. I think it is because I just have a soft spot for Batman in general. I have always loved everything about him so for me it is hard to be really critical of the game.

And yes you are right about the villians not having their share of screen time. I guess I did not really realize that until you pointed it out.

I love playing this game. I feel that it makes me long for my childhood in some way. Odd it may sound but it brings me back to a place that makes me happy. Very happy.

Originally Posted by angie828

I have played Arkham City and I did really like it. I think it is because I just have a soft spot for Batman in general. I have always loved everything about him so for me it is hard to be really critical of the game.

And yes you are right about the villians not having their share of screen time. I guess I did not really realize that until you pointed it out.

I love playing this game. I feel that it makes me long for my childhood in some way. Odd it may sound but it brings me back to a place that makes me happy. Very happy.

Well I have always loved Batman because he's the only DC character I like (I am more of a marvel person) but I did find a lot of things about the game itself I didn't enjoy simply because it just wasn't the way I felt it should've been done.

Well the ONLY interaction you have with the Riddler himself is taking him down if you find all of his things you need to get. The Joker is sick so you don't get to mess with him and Bane is actually trying to help Batman in some way shape or form O_O.