Why does this game feel so different?

[Effigy]

Hey guys! First off, I'm a HUGE fan of the Arkham series. I have 100% on both Arkham Assylum and Arkham City on the Xbox, and I bought both the original games on Steam, as well. When Arkham Origins was announced, I was really excited. I read as much about the game as possible, and one article from Game Informer really caught my attention. This article said that the developer, RockSteady, would be given as much time as it needed to ensure that the game came out great. However, the developement of the game was handed over to WB Games Montreal, sending up a huge warning flag. The game came out, and almost immediately bad reviews started popping up.

I spent the next week avoiding any spoilers on the home page because I was trying to finish both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City again on Steam before playing the new addition to the series. Two weeks after the release, I started into Origins and it didn't take long before I realized how different the game feels. Batman felt... clunky to me. Combat still seemed to flow at the same pace, but at the same time the controls were less responsive as the previous games. I can't put my finger on exactly what's changed, though.

My controller broke before I could finish the game, and I haven't had the extra cash to buy a new one (#PoorCollegeStudentProblems). I haven't found all the gadgets yet or unlocked all of the perks, but I want to know what's so different about the combat system? What was changed that it feels so drasticly different from the other games?

Most importantly, WHAT CAN WE TELL WB NOT TO DO TO ARKHAM KNIGHT? Save the Arkham series!

[Buck]

The combat does have a somewhat different "feel" to it. Batman's moves are pretty much exactly the same, but with very slight differences in his movements. Pretty much all of the gadgets are exactly the same, except for the remote claw, which takes the place of the line launcher (Batman hasn't made it yet. check out the workbench in the Batcave), and the Weapon Disruptor (takes the place of the REC) which you get later on.

Enemies are more aggressive as well, and do have a tendency to "skate" into you from long distance during attacks (positional errors that the engine is trying to compenstate for), but otherwise, it's more or less the same.

I wouldn't say that the controls are any less responsive, but, have a slightly different feel. You will get used to it.

[Soldiershak]

Have a look at this, it's spot on. The link takes you to page 3 so go back if you like.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=21722

Rocksteady could try to find a way to make Batman look more frightening during Predator rooms. Maybe they could make him look like a nightmarish creature when performing special takedowns - like the enemy imagining stuff out of fear.

But I like what I see so far in the Arkham Knight trailer, they set the mood again.

[Flynnhiccup]

The reason why Arkham origins was made was because WB said that the fans of the game can't wait for almost 3 years to have a new batman game. so they hire their own developer which is WB MONTREAL. while the previous Developer of Arkham City and Asylum was making it...

The difference mostly in Arkham is the Combat mechanics. especially when you want to Aerial attack thugs batman always punch them with 2 hands w/o knocking them out...
other thing is you really can't grapple pretty much while navigating the city unlike Arkham city....

[Stormspark]

Keep in mind, that this game takes place VERY early in Batman's career. He hasn't even been Batman for a full two years yet, and at the time the game started, the most dangerous criminal he's dealt with has been Calender Man. Up to this point, he's been dealing with regular crooks and sometimes mob bosses, and that's it. All "normal" people, no supervillians yet. He also has yet to refine his methods, and takes a more "direct" approach. Thus, more armor, and more just beating people down rather than sticking to the shadows.

They say this game takes place 5 years before Arkham Asylum, but that can't be right. Just look at Gordon. In Asylum he has grey hair, in this he looks a good 15 years younger and his hair is still brown. Bruce Wayne himself also looks significantly younger...certainly more than 5 years.

[chipperMDW]

Originally posted by Soldiershak:

Have a look at this, it's spot on. The link takes you to page 3 so go back if you like.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=21722

That description says that AO "took away" the ability to cancel your own attacks in order to counter. I see lots of people making that claim elsewhere, too. I always find that puzzling because, as far as I know, neither AA nor AC ever let you cancel your own attacks in order to counter. Where are people getting that from?

There's certainly something different with the combat timing, among other things, but the "difference" that article points out is, as far as I can tell, something that's working exactly the same way as it's always been.

[Effigy]

I think what people mean when they say that AO "took away" the ability to cancel your own attacks in order to cancel is that the first two games were much more forgiving in that reguard. Even though Batman may have been halfway through a punch, pressing the counter button during that attack would allow you to turn around quickly for a counter dispite being... otherwise occupied.

Somewhat related question: Is Bruce's Third Eye training canon? I know it shows up during several different story lines, including the newer animated series and Batman vs. Dracula (though in that one he gets the Third Eye powers by being bitten. Yeah, Bman's was a friggin' vampire at one point.)

[chipperMDW]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff:

I think what people mean when they say that AO "took away" the ability to cancel your own attacks in order to cancel is that the first two games were much more forgiving in that reguard. Even though Batman may have been halfway through a punch, pressing the counter button during that attack would allow you to turn around quickly for a counter dispite being... otherwise occupied.

Yes, I understand that that's what they mean. And, again, I'm saying you just couldn't do anything like that in AA or AC. Once you committed to a strike, there was no way to "change your mind" and turn it into a counter.

So I still don't know where people are getting that idea from.

[Buck]

Originally posted by chipperMDW:

Once you committed to a strike, there was no way to "change your mind" and turn it into a counter.

I think it was purposeful. This is a far less experienced Batman after all.
Personally I don't really find it to be an issue. I've learned how to compensate for the differences, to the effect that I can almost seamlessly move between AC and AO and I don't feel "wonky" playing either one.

Originally posted by Saerydoth:

They say this game takes place 5 years before Arkham Asylum, but that can't be right. Just look at Gordon. In Asylum he has grey hair, in this he looks a good 15 years younger and his hair is still brown. Bruce Wayne himself also looks significantly younger...certainly more than 5 years.

This simple comes down to artistic decisions, but stress can age a person considerably in the short period of time.
Or, maybe he was dying his hair? :)

[chipperMDW]

Originally posted by Buck:

Originally posted by chipperMDW:

Once you committed to a strike, there was no way to "change your mind" and turn it into a counter.

I think it was purposeful. This is a far less experienced Batman after all.
Personally I don't really find it to be an issue. I've learned how to compensate for the differences, to the effect that I can almost seamlessly move between AC and AO and I don't feel "wonky" playing either one.

You don't have to rationalize the inability to cancel attacks because, as I keep saying, you've never been able to cancel attacks in the Arkham games anyway, even with a more experienced Batman.

It's certainly true that you're not supposed to be able to cancel attacks in AO. I just can't figure out why anybody thinks this is news. You weren't supposed to be able to cancel attacks in AA or AC, either.

[Spiral_Head]

I agree with chipperMDW, you've never been able to cancel your attacks (at least as far as ive noticed). I think the change is that you are just given less time to counter. in AO, you're given around one second to counter, whereas in AA and AC, it feels like you're given closer to one and a half, maybe even two seconds. Also, I find that in AO there is less of a visible animation before the enemy attacks, while in AA and AC it's overdone to an extent where it is almost comical (a thug draws back, lifts a leg a little bit, then punches). In AO, you only see the indicator, not much movement before the punch is thrown.

[Buck]

Originally posted by chipperMDW:

You don't have to rationalize the inability to cancel attacks

I know that, I CHOOSE to.

because, as I keep saying, you've never been able to cancel attacks in the Arkham games anyway, even with a more experienced Batman.

I know this too, but that's not entirely true, even if it's mostly just that it FEELS like you can.

It's certainly true that you're not supposed to be able to cancel attacks in AO. I just can't figure out why anybody thinks this is news. You weren't supposed to be able to cancel attacks in AA or AC, either.

Because it feels different, and certain attacks, like ground pound, take longer which makes it more obvious that you really can't

[chipperMDW]

Originally posted by Buck:

Because it feels different, and certain attacks, like ground pound, take longer which makes it more obvious that you really can't

I guess you could be correct that some of AO's differences have made the details of combat become more obvious to some people. Maybe some people playing AA and AC just always (incorrectly) assumed you could cancel attacks, and the combat in those games was tuned such that those people never found their assumption challenged. Then AO came and changed up the timings, so those people learned more about how the games actually work.

(Though I hadn't noticed ground takedown taking any longer than in previous games...)

[TuneChazz]

because WB montreal sucks, im thankful that rocksteady is making the next one again
so there will be no more sh*tty boring boss fights like in this one

[Effigy]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
I just did a google search on WB Montreal to see what else they've developed. They only have four games listed, one of them is just the Arkham City port for the Wii U. Why would you hand off the developement of such a big ticket game to a new branch with no track record?

That pretty much solves it: Batman: Arkham Origins was one giant brain fart on WB's part.

[Buck]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff:

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
I just did a google search on WB Montreal to see what else they've developed. They only have four games listed, one of them is just the Arkham City port for the Wii U. Why would you hand off the developement of such a big ticket game to a new branch with no track record?

This isn't a secret. They're corporate owned and familiar with the IP and tools. It was kind of a no-brainer to use them which also freed up Rocksteady to start working on the next gen title, which we now know is Arkham Knight.