I loved Arkham Asylum, but I only "liked" Arkham City. The deciding factor for me is what I suspect other people really love about City: the open world layout of the titular city. I actually think having an overworld to freely explore de-emphasizes a lot of the tight pacing and level design that I really appreciated in Asylum. Is it fun to be swooping around the city and suddenly find yourself drawn into a subplot involving Jarvis Teech? Sure, I suppose I won't contest that. But most of my experience of the titular city is that it's the no-man's land of video game miscellany. Some thugs to fight, some Riddler trophies to collect, mostly things for the player to distract themselves from the main plotline.
If you're into that, cool, you're probably someone who gets a ton out of what Rocksteady was going for here. If not, well, you don't have to do all that. You can just ignore all the unscripted sequences and bop on over to the next storybeat... at the opposite end of the map. For whatever reason, the game really likes placing a lot of its key locations on opposite ends of the overworld's "V" shape. And at a certain point, swinging back and forth ignoring shouts of distress, I sorta shattered the illusion the first game so meticulously set up and stopped feeling like the Caped Crusader.
Look, my point is, there are a ton of memorable moments to Arkham City, but almost none of them actually take place in the overworld.
But those subareas are quite good! The Cyrus Pinkney Natural History Institute is full of fun rooms and set-pieces. The Mr. Freeze boss fight is incredibly well-designed, even if it isn't particularly subtle ("AH SO BATMAN HAS THE ABILITY TO CRASH THROUGH WINDOWS! NOW I KNOW NOT TO WALK TOO CLOSE TO WINDOWS! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME THE SAME WAY TWICE BATMAN!"). Ra's al Ghul feels like a complete sidetrack, but it's a nice change of pace. The final area also lends itself to some good combat rooms, and the final encounter... well, I kinda think Arkham was 0 for 2 with final bosses, but I like how it ends.
Catwoman's fun, too! Her segments are over and done with pretty quickly, but they make for nice diversions. Sorta wish you could do more with her, but w/e. That fakeout bad ending is quite the shock if you actually go for it.
So, like, I got my issues with Arkham City, but I still think it's a fine enough time. I'm given to understand later Arkhams continue to move further away from what I liked about the first game (I have Arkham Knight, just need to get around to it). That's a bummer for me, but if it's what people like, who am I to say no?
...that GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION "10 OUT OF 10" boxart is still utterly ridiculous, though. Are we in agreement on that?
If you're into that, cool, you're probably someone who gets a ton out of what Rocksteady was going for here. If not, well, you don't have to do all that. You can just ignore all the unscripted sequences and bop on over to the next storybeat... at the opposite end of the map. For whatever reason, the game really likes placing a lot of its key locations on opposite ends of the overworld's "V" shape. And at a certain point, swinging back and forth ignoring shouts of distress, I sorta shattered the illusion the first game so meticulously set up and stopped feeling like the Caped Crusader.
Look, my point is, there are a ton of memorable moments to Arkham City, but almost none of them actually take place in the overworld.
But those subareas are quite good! The Cyrus Pinkney Natural History Institute is full of fun rooms and set-pieces. The Mr. Freeze boss fight is incredibly well-designed, even if it isn't particularly subtle ("AH SO BATMAN HAS THE ABILITY TO CRASH THROUGH WINDOWS! NOW I KNOW NOT TO WALK TOO CLOSE TO WINDOWS! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME THE SAME WAY TWICE BATMAN!"). Ra's al Ghul feels like a complete sidetrack, but it's a nice change of pace. The final area also lends itself to some good combat rooms, and the final encounter... well, I kinda think Arkham was 0 for 2 with final bosses, but I like how it ends.
Catwoman's fun, too! Her segments are over and done with pretty quickly, but they make for nice diversions. Sorta wish you could do more with her, but w/e. That fakeout bad ending is quite the shock if you actually go for it.
So, like, I got my issues with Arkham City, but I still think it's a fine enough time. I'm given to understand later Arkhams continue to move further away from what I liked about the first game (I have Arkham Knight, just need to get around to it). That's a bummer for me, but if it's what people like, who am I to say no?
...that GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION "10 OUT OF 10" boxart is still utterly ridiculous, though. Are we in agreement on that?