can i start the series with batman arkham knight?

[P0MK0NTHA1]

anyone started the series with this? or should I play older entries first? thanks!

[Devsman]

Asylum > City > Origins > Knight is the full order.

You can probably get by with City > Knight if you just want to get to Knight asap (I wouldn't advise skipping City though), but they're all good games and I recommend them all.

[germality]

Yes, if you want to. It's not a direct sequel or anything.

A brainless clown is a person that doesn't understand that you can literally play Knight all on it's own. To disagree just makes you a mindless idiot.

[LHGreen]

Originally posted by germality:

Yes, if you want to. It's not a direct sequel or anything.

It actually is a direct sequel. And part of an established and planned trilogy, for that matter.

Originally posted by Devsman:

Asylum > City > Origins > Knight is the full order.

You can probably get by with City > Knight if you just want to get to Knight asap (I wouldn't advise skipping City though), but they're all good games and I recommend them all.

This is more accurate. And yes, they are, quite simply, pretty good games. No more, no less.

[germality]

Originally posted by LHGreen:

Originally posted by germality:

Yes, if you want to. It's not a direct sequel or anything.

It actually is a direct sequel. And part of an established and planned trilogy, for that matter.

Originally posted by Devsman:

Asylum > City > Origins > Knight is the full order.

You can probably get by with City > Knight if you just want to get to Knight asap (I wouldn't advise skipping City though), but they're all good games and I recommend them all.

This is more accurate. And yes, they are, quite simply, pretty good games. No more, no less.

LOL Go on, explain a brief part of the game that requires playing any of the previous games.

[TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire]

Originally posted by LHGreen:

Originally posted by germality:

Yes, if you want to. It's not a direct sequel or anything.

It actually is a direct sequel. And part of an established and planned trilogy, for that matter.

Originally posted by Devsman:

Asylum > City > Origins > Knight is the full order.

You can probably get by with City > Knight if you just want to get to Knight asap (I wouldn't advise skipping City though), but they're all good games and I recommend them all.

This is more accurate. And yes, they are, quite simply, pretty good games. No more, no less.

What part of the game requires you to play the others?

[LHGreen]

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

What part of the game requires you to play the others?

Well, the story mode. It has continuity and an ongoing narrative. That's kind of what makes it a story mode. Granted, if you're just sticking to the challenge modes, you can play them in any order. And the challenge modes are the best part of these games, with the stories being kind of a weak spot throughout. But still, OP is probably planning to play the whole game.

Originally posted by germality:

LOL Go on, explain a brief part of the game that requires playing any of the previous games.

You could make the same argument about most sequels and installments. Of course they're designed to still be able to stand on their own as much as possible, you make more money that way. If each point is an entry point, people can buy what they like and ignore the rest. Doesn't change the fact that it's a sequel/installment. If it did, they'd be meaningless terms.

[TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire]

Originally posted by LHGreen:

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

What part of the game requires you to play the others?

Well, the story mode. It has continuity and an ongoing narrative. That's kind of what makes it a story mode. Granted, if you're just sticking to the challenge modes, you can play them in any order. And the challenge modes are the best part of these games, with the stories being kind of a weak spot throughout. But still, OP is probably planning to play the whole game.

Originally posted by germality:

LOL Go on, explain a brief part of the game that requires playing any of the previous games.

You could make the same argument about most sequels and installments. Of course they're designed to still be able to stand on their own as much as possible, you make more money that way. If each point is an entry point, people can buy what they like and ignore the rest. Doesn't change the fact that it's a sequel/installment. If it did, they'd be meaningless terms.

LOL! You can’t give us a reason. The only things that will make more sense if you play the others first is the whole Joker thing, and some dialogue. Even then it doesn’t change enough to justify a extra 25-30hours

[Chefry]

All 4 games have a story. And all the games have an overall story. City continues were asylum ends. Origin is a prequel but has also a story thats important for knight. And knight continues were city ends.

I dont recommend playing knight first but play the right order. All 4 games are good and you can play them for hours. Amd when you are finished with the story mode there are always the challenge modes to play. Do achievement hunting to have more fun.

[gps]

I would recommend to play them in release order, especially if you intend to play them all. There is as story progression here, and also a progression in game complexity and game size and scope. Gameplay in Asylum may be a bit less developped and refined than in City and the rest, so going back to Asylum after playing the others might feel strange. But it would be a shame to spoil Asylum that way, because it is a really good experience on its own.

[gps]

Btw. deja vu:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/208650/discussions/0/4844274022645972671/
:D

[germality]

I played through the first game twice, second game twice, Origins four times, Knight twice.

You can play Knight on its own without having ever looked at the previous games. These people are morons.

I recommend playing the previous games cuz they're good. You don't have to play them to enjoy this one or understand it. The story has nothing at all to do with the previous games.

The one major difference between this game and the rest is that for most of the campaign in this one you use the batmobile which is disappointing but it's a really great addition to the series. Dual-play was a far better addition but sadly didn't get used much.

[MASTAN]

Can you? You can.
Should you? If you don't care about spoilers when playing Arkham City later.
Also if you plan on playing other games better start with earlier titles. They have smaller maps and simpler mechanics. Playing them after Knight may feel like downgrade.

[LHGreen]

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

LOL! You can’t give us a reason.

Wtf? I just did. Do you need me to elaborate on it more?

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

The only things that will make more sense if you play the others first is the whole Joker thing, and some dialogue. Even then it doesn’t change enough to justify a extra 25-30hours

I didn't say it was a well-made trilogy, just that it was one. I agree, the story aspects of these games are lazy at best, serving as little more than a way to facilitate the game play.

Originally posted by MASTAN:

Can you? You can.
Should you? If you don't care about spoilers when playing Arkham City later.
Also if you plan on playing other games better start with earlier titles. They have smaller maps and simpler mechanics. Playing them after Knight may feel like downgrade.

This, too. It's not just a narrative sequel, but a full game play sequel.

Originally posted by germality:

You can play Knight on its own without having ever looked at the previous games. These people are morons.

No one is saying you can't. You can also watch Back to the Future 3 without watching the first two. You can see Force Awakens without watching any of the previous Star Wars movies and The Mandalorian without any real prior Star Wars experience. You can start the MCU at any given point and still be able to understand most of what's happening, and the DC films are largely standalone, barring the Nolan trilogy. It's just better to view them sequentially.

That's all anyone was saying. To think otherwise, you'd have to be some kind of moron.

Originally posted by germality:

I played through the first game twice, second game twice, Origins four times, Knight twice.

Also, if you said you never played the others, or played this first, you'd have a valid point, but this is meaningless. How do you know how you'd feel if you hadn't played the others first?

Originally posted by germality:

The story has nothing at all to do with the previous games.

It's not a whole lot, but it's far from nothing.

Originally posted by germality:

Dual-play was a far better addition but sadly didn't get used much.

Indeed.

[TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire]

Originally posted by LHGreen:

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

LOL! You can’t give us a reason.

Wtf? I just did. Do you need me to elaborate on it more?

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

The only things that will make more sense if you play the others first is the whole Joker thing, and some dialogue. Even then it doesn’t change enough to justify a extra 25-30hours

I didn't say it was a well-made trilogy, just that it was one. I agree, the story aspects of these games are lazy at best, serving as little more than a way to facilitate the game play.

Originally posted by MASTAN:

Can you? You can.
Should you? If you don't care about spoilers when playing Arkham City later.
Also if you plan on playing other games better start with earlier titles. They have smaller maps and simpler mechanics. Playing them after Knight may feel like downgrade.

This, too. It's not just a narrative sequel, but a full game play sequel.

Originally posted by germality:

You can play Knight on its own without having ever looked at the previous games. These people are morons.

No one is saying you can't. You can also watch Back to the Future 3 without watching the first two. You can see Force Awakens without watching any of the previous Star Wars movies and The Mandalorian without any real prior Star Wars experience. You can start the MCU at any given point and still be able to understand most of what's happening, and the DC films are largely standalone, barring the Nolan trilogy. It's just better to view them sequentially.

That's all anyone was saying. To think otherwise, you'd have to be some kind of moron.

Originally posted by germality:

I played through the first game twice, second game twice, Origins four times, Knight twice.

Also, if you said you never played the others, or played this first, you'd have a valid point, but this is meaningless. How do you know how you'd feel if you hadn't played the others first?

Originally posted by germality:

The story has nothing at all to do with the previous games.

It's not a whole lot, but it's far from nothing.

Originally posted by germality:

Dual-play was a far better addition but sadly didn't get used much.

Indeed.

What reason did you give me?

[chipperMDW]

Originally posted by TheAlmightySunBro, Silkaire:

What reason did you give me?

Actually, let's move back a bit. Someone made the false claim that Knight is not a direct sequel. Someone else corrected them because being a direct sequel literally just means it's the subsequent entry in the story and Knight is exactly that. You replied, "What part of the game requires you to play the others?" which has nothing to do with being a sequel or not.

So why don't you explain how your reply is not an inane non sequitur of a question and why it should be deserving of anyone's attention.