Batman Arkham Origins gameplay at tgs 2013

http://ca.ign.com/videos/2013/09/19/batman-arkham-origins-gameplay-tgs-2013

Game looks pretty sweet so far, looks identical to arkham city which is good.

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

Pikminmaniac

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

Pikminmaniac

Lots of recycled animations. Expansion pack.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

percech

Hugo Strange was an awsome villain. Sadly, he got pushed aside to focus yet again on the frankly, overdone joker.

Joker has got to be the most overrated villain around. Bane (not the stupid one from the game) is a far better villain.

[QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

uninspiredcup

Hugo Strange was an awsome villain. Sadly, he got pushed aside to focus yet again on the frankly, overdone joker.

Joker has got to be the most overrated villain around. Bane (not the stupid one from the game) is a far better villain.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

percech

The actual gameplay in the video is the same demo that they played on their press conference at E3 and on Gamespot's live stage demo during E3.

Anyone else hate the new batsuit? I hope there is an option to use the classic batsuit.GiantAssPanda

[QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

uninspiredcup

Hugo Strange was an awsome villain. Sadly, he got pushed aside to focus yet again on the frankly, overdone joker.

Joker has got to be the most overrated villain around. Bane (not the stupid one from the game) is a far better villain.

You hipsters need to get a life :P

[QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

[QUOTE="percech"] Except AA was much better and you have poor taste. :)Joedgabe

Hugo Strange was an awsome villain. Sadly, he got pushed aside to focus yet again on the frankly, overdone joker.

Joker has got to be the most overrated villain around. Bane (not the stupid one from the game) is a far better villain.

You hipsters need to get a life :P the Joker is an awesome villan plus his death was a great ending for the game.

All the batman games this gen have been awesome. 

Rocksteady isn't developing this one, but I'm still quietly confident this will be an excellent game. 

[QUOTE="Joedgabe"]

[QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

 

Hugo Strange was an awsome villain. Sadly, he got pushed aside to focus yet again on the frankly, overdone joker.

Joker has got to be the most overrated villain around. Bane (not the stupid one from the game) is a far better villain.

clone01

You hipsters need to get a life :P the Joker is an awesome villan plus his death was a great ending for the game.

My baaad sorry :P it's just soo old i thought it was well known by now @_@

Joker is way overused. Sick of him. Just pandering to mainstream with the most well known as oppossed to good characters.

Hell, he isnt even a character.

Probaly there will be a bunch of people saying it's Arkham 1.5, especially because it's not developed by Rocksteady (hopefully they're doing that Justice League game) but I'm confident the game will deliver. And probaly won't be the big step foward tht Arkham City was compared to Asylum, but it will be a worth sequel. 

[QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

uninspiredcup

Hugo Strange was an awsome villain. Sadly, he got pushed aside to focus yet again on the frankly, overdone joker.

Joker has got to be the most overrated villain around. Bane (not the stupid one from the game) is a far better villain.

[QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

It looks a lot like Batman Arkham City which isn't a bad thing. Afterall it is my game of the generation.

GiantAssPanda

X-X-X-X-Y X-X-X X-X-X-Y-X-X-X-Y As badass as it is to be Batman, I have to admit the combat leaves a lot to be desired in terms of functional depth. It's got the strategic depth for sure, but it's just so simple to play.foxhound_fox

lol

I can instantly tell that you lack experience with the game, I can't accept such criticism because it obviously comes from a position of ignorance. 

In Arkham City and Asylum, it is simply not possible to be as restrictive as that in your combat throughout the course of the game. There are enemies who require specific strategies in order to defeat them. There are many different moves which get unlocked, and the variety is there. 

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Joedgabe"]

You hipsters need to get a life :P the Joker is an awesome villan plus his death was a great ending for the game.

Joedgabe

My baaad sorry :P it's just soo old i thought it was well known by now @_@

[QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"][QUOTE="percech"] Except AA was much better and you have poor taste. :)princeofshapeir

I play games for gameplay, design, and content. Story is very low on the list. Batman Arkham City had better combat, better stealth, more exploration, FAR superior riddler collectibles, and an improved challenge mode... It completely and utterly outclassed the first game IMHO. It's not even close. Going back to the first which I used have sucha high opinion of is painful after playin the sequel. 

P.S. I never understood the argument for pacing in video games. It works in movies and Tv better than anything else because timing is up to the directors and writers. Games are played at the player's pace. If the game is managing your pace, I find that to be a huge no no.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"] AA had a better paced story. AC had better everything else.Pikminmaniac

I play games for gameplay, design, and content. Story is very low on the list. Batman Arkham City had better combat, better stealth, more exploration, FAR superior riddler collectibles, and an improved challenge mode... It completely and utterly outclassed the first game IMHO. It's not even close. Going back to the first which I used have sucha high opinion of is painful after playin the sequel. 

P.S. I never understood the argument for pacing in video games. It works in movies and Tv better than anything else because timing is up to the directors and writers. Games are played at the player's pace. If the game is managing your pace, I find that to be a huge no no.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"] AA had a better paced story. AC had better everything else.Pikminmaniac

I play games for gameplay, design, and content. Story is very low on the list. Batman Arkham City had better combat, better stealth, more exploration, FAR superior riddler collectibles, and an improved challenge mode... It completely and utterly outclassed the first game IMHO. It's not even close. Going back to the first which I used have sucha high opinion of is painful after playin the sequel. 

P.S. I never understood the argument for pacing in video games. It works in movies and Tv better than anything else because timing is up to the directors and writers. Games are played at the player's pace. If the game is managing your pace, I find that to be a huge no no.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="GiantAssPanda"] AA had a better paced story. AC had better everything else.Pikminmaniac

I play games for gameplay, design, and content. Story is very low on the list. Batman Arkham City had better combat, better stealth, more exploration, FAR superior riddler collectibles, and an improved challenge mode... It completely and utterly outclassed the first game IMHO. It's not even close. Going back to the first which I used have sucha high opinion of is painful after playin the sequel. 

P.S. I never understood the argument for pacing in video games. It works in movies and Tv better than anything else because timing is up to the directors and writers. Games are played at the player's pace. If the game is managing your pace, I find that to be a huge no no.

Arkham City > Arkham Asylum, by a considerable margin. 

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] Pacing is really, really important. AA obviously had more refined mechanics but it felt like an effort to pack every major Batman villain in a single game. jg4xchamp

I play games for gameplay, design, and content. Story is very low on the list. Batman Arkham City had better combat, better stealth, more exploration, FAR superior riddler collectibles, and an improved challenge mode... It completely and utterly outclassed the first game IMHO. It's not even close. Going back to the first which I used have sucha high opinion of is painful after playin the sequel. 

P.S. I never understood the argument for pacing in video games. It works in movies and Tv better than anything else because timing is up to the directors and writers. Games are played at the player's pace. If the game is managing your pace, I find that to be a huge no no.

The riddler puzzles in city were done FAR better than the ones in Asylum there's no contest here. Most of the trophies in Arkham Asylum were just finding them. City forced you to really use your head and apply your gadgets in a variety of creative ways that the main story never explore. There were far more secrets in City and they were handled with way more care and detail than Asylum ever did.

I'm very surprised you said that. The rest I can understand as opinion just fine, but that aspect is probably the one that got the biggest improvement of them all between the Batman Arkham games.

Personally the story mode doesn't matter that much to me. I like to get the content leading up to the credits out of the way asquick as possible so that I can just have fun exploring the world, collecting all the secrets, and mastering all the challenge rooms. Arkham City did all that stuff way better. The stuff that matters to me. It's also all the stuff I have complete control over pacing-wise. I choose EXACTLY what I want to do and when.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

I play games for gameplay, design, and content. Story is very low on the list. Batman Arkham City had better combat, better stealth, more exploration, FAR superior riddler collectibles, and an improved challenge mode... It completely and utterly outclassed the first game IMHO. It's not even close. Going back to the first which I used have sucha high opinion of is painful after playin the sequel. 

P.S. I never understood the argument for pacing in video games. It works in movies and Tv better than anything else because timing is up to the directors and writers. Games are played at the player's pace. If the game is managing your pace, I find that to be a huge no no.

Pikminmaniac

The riddler puzzles in city were done FAR better than the ones in Asylum there's no contest here. Most of the trophies in Arkham Asylum were just finding them. City forced you to really use your head and apply your gadgets in a variety of creative ways that the main story never explore. There were far more secrets in City and they were handled with way more care and detail than Asylum ever did.

I'm very surprised you said that. The rest I can understand as opinion just fine, but that aspect is probably the one that got the biggest improvement of them all between the Batman Arkham games.

Personally the story mode doesn't matter that much to me. I like to get the content leading up to the credits out of the way asquick as possible so that I can just have fun exploring the world, collecting all the secrets, and mastering all the challenge rooms. Arkham City did all that stuff way better. The stuff that matters to me. It's also all the stuff I have complete control over pacing-wise. I choose EXACTLY what I want to do and when.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]lol

I can instantly tell that you lack experience with the game, I can't accept such criticism because it obviously comes from a position of ignorance. 

In Arkham City and Asylum, it is simply not possible to be as restrictive as that in your combat throughout the course of the game. There are enemies who require specific strategies in order to defeat them. There are many different moves which get unlocked, and the variety is there. 

psymon100

Literally Arkham City 2.0.

Can't wait.

Literally Arkham City 2.0.

Can't wait.

Basinboy

I've got plenty of experience with the games. It just seems like that's how they "feel" to play. It's nothing like Devil May Cry or Ninja Gaiden. It's just so superficially simple.foxhound_fox

Yeah. Don't know what to say really. I'm not some zealot who is going to defend the game or anything. I haven't played those games you mention so I can't compare, and for all I know they could be very complicated. Of course I've heard of NG from back in the day and I know difficulty is central. 

Hail atheismo and good day sir.