Destructoid's review: 3.5/10

[Shiro]

http://www.destructoid.com/review-batman-arkham-origins-264357.phtml

Harshest review I've read for this game.

Sounds like Jim is just trying to prove a point with that low score. No way this game deserves less than a 6, even if you're fed up with the franchise and feel like this is just "more of the same".

So far I'm really enjoying it. I'd say it's better than Arkham City, and only loses to Arkham Asylum due to the novelty factor and slightly diminished dark tone.

I also think they didn't do a really good job of portraying a "young" Batman. He's just as good, if not better than the veteran we've seen in the other two games, with the same gadgets, a kickass Batwing, etc. All that is different is that villains and cops don't seem to know him too well.

Plus, they played it a little safe with the villain.

Still, if I were to give it a score at its current state, I'd say easily an 8 out of 10, possibly an 8.5 out of 10 once the glitches are patched out.

[Charade]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Yabab:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mr. Francis York Morgan:

I'd say there's a pretty good chance we'll start seeing games that are utterly unnecessary to the franchise, much like Arkham Origins. It's a good game with a fun story, but it completely wrecks the lore established in Asylum and City.

What? No! Origins made the story better because it was Rocksteady that made a mess of it in their games, with Gorilla-Bane, an annoying Joker, a stupid Freeze, etc..
Origins is the first game in the series with a really good story. The previous games lived through gameplay alone, lore was wrecked.

[Mu'Ammar of Carthus]

Well, maybe they've written this review right after they saw what happens when you found all the Riddlers datapack.
Cause that's the most disappointing thing I've ever seen in a game. Ever.

[CastleBannisher]

currently I'd give it a 5/10 I've enjoyed the game thus far, but they seriously need a patch this game was not ready to be shipped out. I'm sure once most of the minor and all of the major bugs are fixed it will definently be a 7-9.

[Cormoran]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mr Purrfect:

It's called clickbait.

Precisely this, such a score is only there to get people on that page. AO ins't perfect by any means but damn.

[justAEA]

That is the score this games deserves, but not the one people who paid full price for it want to see.

[Zoopy]

Oprindeligt skrevet af justAEA:

That is the score this games deserves, but not the one people who paid full price for it want to see.

QFMFE.

[AMDman18]

Oprindeligt skrevet af justAEA:

That is the score this games deserves, but not the one people who paid full price for it want to see.

For me that's not the problem at all. I don't care what anybody rates a game as long as I enjoy it. I DO have a bit of a problem with people just trying to garner attention. This reviewer reviewed Batman: AC and gave it a score of 8.5. What is so DRASTICALLY different about AO to deserve a 5 point deduction? They're the same game, more or less, with a different set of environments and a different story. Yea this game is more buggy than the last ones. Take off a point or so. That equals 7.5 or 7 if you're feeling extra harsh. Nothing about this game screams "horrible" like that reviewer is trying to paint it.

[Mappu]

Well Destructoid sucks. they just worship ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games and gives all good games bad reviews. Giving angry birds 8... like Star Wars Angry Birds would be better then Batman AO or Beyond Two Souls or others like that.. And also they gave amnesia machine for a pigs 7.. That game sucked so much

[TattleTalesRPG.TTV]

6.5 outta 10 at the moment. 8/10 post patch if all is fixed

[AMDman18]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mappu:

Well Destructoid sucks. they just worship ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games and gives all good games bad reviews. Giving angry birds 8... like Star Wars Angry Birds would be better then Batman AO or Beyond Two Souls or others like that.. And also they gave amnesia machine for a pigs 7.. That game sucked so much

I've never liked Destructoid. Their MO seems to just be to go opposite the status quo. Even if that general consensus is justified. They're the hipsters of games journalism.

[donmilliken]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mappu:

Well Destructoid sucks. they just worship ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games and gives all good games bad reviews.

Is the kind of ridiculous false statement someone makes when they're throwing a tantrum over a game they like getting a bad review.

Here's the thing, maybe, just maybe, Jim Sterling occasionally gives high profile games low scores to garner attention. It works though, doesn't it. You don't like it, don't reward it with your attention.

Review scores are a joke anyway. Forget the score and there's not much to argue with in that that review, like it or not. I'm enjoying the game and he bags on it quite a bit more than I would (Possibly because he just didn't enjoy it. It's just your opinion after all.) but he makes a lot of valid point.

A reviewer is obligated to give a game the score he thinks it deserves, not the game you think it deserves and of course, when a reviewer gives a game you like a good review all is forgiven because ultimately the whining isn't about the quality of the review, it's about whether or not it agrees with your opinion.

[donmilliken]

Oprindeligt skrevet af AMDman18:

I've never liked Destructoid. Their MO seems to just be to go opposite the status quo.

Sure, except when they don't, which is most of the time.

[donmilliken]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mr. Francis York Morgan:

Origins is the first game in the series with a really good story.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one, man!

Oh wait . . . are you serious?

Ooooh . . . that's . . . ooooooh . . ..

Wow.

[AMDman18]

Oprindeligt skrevet af donmilliken:

Oprindeligt skrevet af AMDman18:

I've never liked Destructoid. Their MO seems to just be to go opposite the status quo.

Sure, except when they don't, which is most of the time.

"Batman: Arkham City tries to do too much and can come off a little heavy-handed, but that doesn't stop it from doing a vast amount of things right. It's a beautifully bleak game that constantly pays tribute to one of the greatest icons in comic book history and provides an experience that one can get lost in for hours. Its biggest problems lie in a combat system that manages to be too simple and too complex in the wrong areas, and this can often exasperate, but the overall product is one of the most absorbing and engrossing ones on the market.

It doesn't quite reach the highs of its predecessor, but Arkham City rarely sinks low and does its best to answer major criticisms from the first title. When it's all said and done, you'll be begging for more, but not because there wasn't enough. It is just too damn fun to be The Bat."

This is the last section of Mr. Sterling's review of AC. It seems to me that Warners delivered exactly what he wanted. So why the comically low score? He's just trying to get attention, which is what Destructoid generally does. And yes it is worth pointing out because it's a BS practice that might falsely inform some people out there who don't know any better.

[donmilliken]

Oprindeligt skrevet af AMDman18:

This is the last section of Mr. Sterling's review of AC. It seems to me that Warners delivered exactly what he wanted. So why the comically low score?

Because he doesn't feel they did? It ain't rocket science, son.

He gave a mediocre game a low score. Boo hoo. Did you enjoy the game? Then why do you care? Does a bad review lessen your enjoyment of the game? Do you like complaining about things? Do opinions that differ from yours make you sad? I don't get it.