Arkham Batman series sucked?

Yes, I played them fairly thoroughly, except Origins, which I gave just two playthroughs years apart and nothing else.

I recorded this six years ago. I tried in the beginning of the minigame to use variety, but as the score got higher and higher, I did not want to risk it anymore. It really is a dumb combat system.

That's skill, definitely above my own, but it doesn't impress me in the way you hoped, because I know what it feels like to control him. You press the attack button and the game TAKES YOU to the enemy, no matter how far away they are. If you try to run/move on your own, the combo breaks and your attacks become weaker again. So it's not really about foot movement at all. Get it now? If I use the mouse to orient myself in a fight, I probably don't even need to use WASD at all, since navigation only controls which enemy Batman will home in on. Like uninvitedcop said, it's designed to look cool rather than be mechanically satisfying. Streets of Rage 2 kicks Arkham's ass with fewer buttons and one less dimension.

I would rather be mediocre at a game that's fun than exceptional at a game that does not make me feel like I am really controlling the fighter.

What bothers me most is all these people saying, "I'm sick of Batman. Give it a rest. We've had enough games." Even though all the modern games had poor gameplay, poor art direction and forgettable music and stories. My heart craves a good Batman game.

@warm_gun: Batman does different attacks depending on where you're standing or where the enemies are. That was kinda my point because you mentioned how Batman doesn't bash enemies into sinks or walls. Well, that all depends on the environment you fight in. If you're in a large, round room like Joker's Playground then there's not much you can use. It's basically a ball pit area or a snake pit. If you fight on a rooftop or anywhere with railings or dividing walls in between then Batman will bash thugs into walls if he counters near them or smash their heads into what's near him. This was addressed after Arkham Asylum and only improved as the games progressed. Arkham Knight is the best version of the combat which is why I was trying to show you that vid.

In Arkham Knight, you can freely grab non-lethal weapons in the room and use the environment to take down thugs. Throw furniture around, break off light fixtures, throw thugs into searchlights and do even more counter attacks by using the shape of the environment. It's gotten actually really intricate since Asylum and City and the harder difficulties make the fights more intense. But, again, it all depends on how you play. If you play in the easier difficulties or even normal, your play is going get dull until you get to fight Tyger guards and Raas ninjas and that happens much later in Arkham City.

I also noticed that most people who play this on PC with mouse and keyboard have very similar complaints. Arkham Batman is designed to be played with a controller. It's like playing Halo with a mouse and keyboard, then it's like shooting turkeys because the AI doesn't try as hard to kill you. The thugs are dumb and that was for the sole purpose to make you feel unstoppable because that's how Batman is supposed to be. Fighting style-wise, I get that Batman's moves are pretty goofy - especially compared to Catwoman, Robin, Nightwing and Batgirl but the concept around free-flow is solid if you explore it enough and it only gets better across the later games. I think Arkham Knight and Origins are where it shines best.

Totally with you on Hans Zimmer. Not so much the games.

"Plays better with a controller" is pretty baseless. Why would it? Explain. What similar complaints do other mouse and keyboard users have? Tell me one thing I said that is determined by input device. Unlike controller users, I don't have to take my hand from the camera for anything, and I can whip it around faster. All the tools are right up there on the number row for me.

The bland freeflow system is the whole reason that stealth and action could not be better mixed in these games, why everyone is far more lethal in stealth. Why there is usually one area for stealth and a different one for action. Freeflow is too easy and makes the action look really floaty.

Just about everyone who has played these games on pc with mouse and keyboard said similar things about it not being fun and bland. I'm not saying that it will convince you completely but the root of the problem was that you were looking at it from a very limited perspective. That's why I mentioned that the same argument could be made by someone who spams one combo in Tekken and then claims that it's bland and boring because that's all it takes to win fights.

You're basically that spammer, in this case, complaining that continuing combos take you to the opponent. Even though this is true, it's not the ONLY way to play it and the game doesn't only reward you by combos, it also rewards you for variations and throwing in gadgets and objects from the environment. It also depends on how you choose to fight and there's no set way to do it. If all I did was care about landing combos then I'd have gotten pretty bored of it too and titan thugs just get in the way of that.

Then the same can also be said for stealth. The guns are always lethal but the game let's you choose how to handle every situation so that depends on your creativity.

This OP reads like the scrawlings of a madman who escaped Arkham and wants to shit talk it so that it gets shut down.

Nice try, villain.

Very good games, good fun.

Probably 1 of the dozen-ish 3rd party franchises that helped define the 2007~2016 gaming era.

Because everything is so automated that you are not even moving the character yourself (with the attack button TAKING YOU to the enemy and WASD only determining the target), getting high scores is the only reason to keep playing. Which of course makes all fights in the campaign where your scores are not recorded WORTHLESS. Using variety only makes you much more vulnerable to attack and combo disruption. I just tried using all those weapons in battle and remembered how annoying it makes the game. That's for masters. Pros. Again, I would rather be mediocre at a game that's fun than exceptional at a game where the movement is so automated. It's supposed to look cool, but actually looks really stupid because of how Batman seems to "Gravity Rush" himself towards enemies, floating and twirling over the floor with no catapult.

The stealth is context-sensitive crap that can't be mixed with the overpowering action.

That you keep saying it's the mouse and keyboard seems like a cop-out. Quote these people you keep talking about and I will tell you why their struggles do not relate to my criticisms.

Someone hates fun.

I won't stand for all this Arkham slander. I love playing as Batman and feeling powerful as you drop onto a group of goons and wreck them. The combat system in the game is super influential for a reason and clean as ****. Still the top superhero franchise on the market, which is why everyone is punishing Rocksteady's followup, Kill the Justice League. To go from a beloved series to people whispering about the studio's closure with one game is an absolute fucking tragedy.

A tragedy is a ten year development cycle for what was produced... Not many studios can survive that kind of loss... We're talking about not recouping expenses over a game that took a decade to make. How far in the red did that place them I wonder?

I really enjoyed the arkham games too (as I said earlier in this thread) but no one is surprised at the negative impact rocksteady is faced with due to failing as bad as they have.

@nepu7supastar7: You can take only one Spacebar ("jump" button) action away from an opponent before having to engage someone again or losing the combo. That's not foot movement. Navigation (WASD/left analog stick) still by far only determines target.

I think you've barely played games with a mouse and keyboard, because you don't seem to understand how it works.

How terrible is it that a game about a character who jumps across and climbs rooftops automates jumps and climbing, has its user only hold down the button? Thanks Assassin's Creed, thanks Arkham Asylum, for ruining gaming.

I understand that spamming attack won't work with enemies who have stun rods and shields. You still have to vault over enemies and disarm weapons they carry. That's going to require more movement from you.

You're not getting it. Stunning the enemy with the shield and then pressing "jump" to climb on top and pounce them is not foot movement. Jumping over someone with a stun rod and then kicking them in the back is not foot movement. You can't move around freely. Everything is Dance Dance Revolution.

There's also right mouse button and spacebar to jump from an enemy's head to another enemy or to jump from the floor onto an enemy that's down, which I demonstrated a few times here, years ago. But that's not proper foot movement.

No, YOU'RE not getting it. If someone followed your argument and thought that the game is completely automated with one attack button, they'd get killed the moment they encounter anyone with a stun rod or shield. Hell, some enemies even block or dodge out of the way. Unless you're in a VERY tight space, you're going to have to move around yourself to avoid getting hit by unavoidable attacks. That's basic movement 101.

-You're going to have to disarm some guys carrying guns or else you'll get shot.

-You're going to have break shields or else some guys carrying shields will keep blocking you.

-You're going to have to either disarm or break the arm of knife-wielding guys or they'll keep cutting you.

-You're going to have to takedown guys or girls with swords or else they'll keep slicing you and evade your attacks.

-You're also going to have to stun and mount Titan thugs because no basic attack works on them.

All of this requires you to move and think and you're going to get your butt kicked if you think the game will do it for you.

You're being obtuse/disingenuous because you don't want to acknowledge what's automated. You're straw-manning me by acting like my point is that the player does not have to do anything or that I implied that it's all just button spamming. The game drawing you from one side of the map to the other after you press attack is a kind of automation, as opposed to moving over there in most other action games. Countering an attack coming from any direction by merely tapping the button is automation (navigation being the part that's automated/removed). You can't run around freely. You're locked into a magnetic rhythm game.

It's obvious that you have very little experience playing with a mouse and keyboard if you think double-tapping the keys on the number row for items would be any slower or limiting than whatever you do with a controller.

So basically, you're trying to make your own definition of movement and you're double-downing on that to prove your point. That's just sad! I saw Catwoman vault over enemies, throw gadgets, evade knife attacks while continue the combo. She even slid under someone's legs, so how wasn't that movement?

This is of course, in a closed space so it's pretty limited to what you can use but not every fight goes like this and there are more enemies that exist in the later parts of Arkham City.

You still had to use a direction to choose where she attacks, who she attacks while evading incoming attacks. That's already more than spamming one button and requires quick-thinking. lol So congratulations for proving yourself wrong and making Freeflow look great in the process!

"The game drawing you from one side of the map to the other after you press attack is a kind of automation, as opposed to moving over there in most other action games."

Improving my post in a separate one instead of editing the original because I don't know how quickly you're going to reply.

The game drawing you to an enemy several yards away is a kind of automation, because you're spared having to run over there and the other enemies having time to come closer and attack.

Like I said, straw-manning.

@nepu7supastar7: - The video literally proves it to be a blatant lie. Moving around doesn't break the combo, getting hit does.

The combo broke as soon as I started moving freely. A magnetic rhythm game.

There's context to that too. If you take too long to launch your next attack then the combo stops. I personally don't have problems with it myself but I also don't stupidly run an off direction from the enemy to prove a point. Nice try though!

Fighting itself is actually very rhythmic in itself and that's a big part of the reason why it's called FreeFlow. You compose the song yourself and it's all about how you choose to handle the randomized beats the thugs give you. If you don't like the song you composed, you can change it up yourself. You handle the timing, the beats, and just about everything you want.

@nepu7supastar7: The point that my short video totally did prove and you're intentionally being obtuse about because you don't have a defense is that there is no true navigational freedom, that the player is locked into always zigzagging with the magnetic attacks and can't run around freely. "Nice try?" How long DO you think the player should be able to move around before their combo breaks, 300 milliseconds? You're dishonest. There is NO POINT to separating from the chain in which there is no running or walking. It's one action after another with no freedom in between and enemies only acting as keys in the rhythm, unable to attack while you're locked into certain animations.

In Streets of Rage 4 I have reasonable time to move to the next enemy before the combo breaks. But in the Arkham series you are locked in the freeflow with attacks pulling you to the enemies and omnidirectional counters all the time.

Arkham's system blows. How could any child watch Batman and think that the fighting in a three-dimensional video game should be a twitchy rhythm game for points, where the hero is "Gravity-Rushed" over the floor and can't ever strafe or back away (Z-targeting) from a threat because it's some shitty arcade, where he would look at fifteen thugs and think of them as notes in a song rather than true threats that would make him feel powerful for overcoming.

@warm_gun: You're almost deliberately misunderstanding the purpose of Free Flow. Sorry if YOU feel magnetized to stringing attacks into one big combo but that's not the only way to play the game. Just about all of your grievances are completely personalized to your style of play. So a combo breaks after you move a couple of seconds, it's not the end of the fight. Your fight can be MULTIPLE strings of combos, it all depends on you: the player.

The problem is you're used to archaic battle systems that require you to ham and spam attacks because you're not properly equipped to deal with everything the enemies throw at you. Case in point: Streets of Rage. As good as they are: they're not superheroes, they're ex-cop brawlers, inexperienced and aren't capable of handling multiple opponents at a time.

Maybe you prefer struggling and I don't deny that it adds more fun to games but a good Batman doesn't struggle to fight small-time thugs, he dominates everything. You don't play a superhero game to struggle against common thugs, you play them to fulfill a power fantasy and that's what Batman Arkham gives you. If you want to play brutal beat 'em ups, stick to games like Streets of Rage, they're on a completely different sub-genre. Free Flow is designed to make you feel like a professional fighter even if you suck at fighting games. It's all meant to add to the experience of being a real Batman.

@nepu7supastar7: The brawls in the animated series only have Batman up against a couple of guys at a time, moving around, mostly countering/hitting one a time. Maybe that's for budgetary reasons, but it looks more exciting than him against fifteen with the whole magnetic Gravity Rush bullshit. They score hits on him too. I don't know where you got the idea that he can dominate everything. If he dominates in a video game, it should be because of the player's skill, not because the game lets them cruise on easy mode. (Even with the counter icons removed on New Game Plus, it's easy.) If in a good Batman game there is a group of baddies too big and well armed for most players to handle, then they should have the option to combine stealth with the action, they should be able to beat up a few and then withdraw again, maybe throw down a smoke grenade or throw a boomerang into a steam pipe or cut through some flour so that they can find a position from which to stalk again, or just run behind the geometry and make another turn/climb before they can catch up and see which way he went. But the Arkham games can't do that because the developers misunderstood what Batman is or didn't care because they were making it for a wide, casual audience.

Even in fights like this, it's mostly one at a time, sometimes two, with a ton of foot movement (that the Arkham games would make a single tap of WASD/analog stick with attack button). Unless the combatants are trapped together on a small platform, you can't take the foot movement (continuous use of the analog stick) out of a fight.

Batgirl is cute, or used to be. Always hated the Oracle version of her in a wheelchair. What a waste! Arkham Knight finally made her playable in a short prequel DLC, but she was too tall, covered in stupid (and encumbering) armor plates and had fewer abilities.

The only one I've really played was the first one and I loved the dark tone. It was also fun gameplay wise.

Ironically, Free Flow was meant to emulate real fighting against a group and that lead to the decision to let Batman gravitate to nearest opponents if continuously attacking. Many devs actually envied Rocksteady for creating an intricate system as Free Flow but none were able to replicate it because they just didn't understand it. I think it's important to understand what it is, what it was meant to do and what it's not and what it's not meant be.

It's not meant to be a sole beat 'em up like Streets of Rage.

It's not meant to be skill based and challenge you at every turn.

It's not meant to be played only one way. Variation is encouraged and rewarded,

It is meant to be accessible for everyone - including kids. Anyone can play and feel good about themselves and there's just enough depth for pros to showcase their crazy skills.

It's meant to make you always feel powerful, something that Batman at his prime always was.

Batman, like many Western superheroes is basically a perfect human and a master fighter. The idea was to create a fighting system that emulated that in a way so that everyone could enjoy the game and get that feeling. Batman canonically has fought strong meta-humans and even the likes of Dark Seid, a villain who even beat Superman. It's no mystery that he is a master fighter and tactician. He always has a solution for handling just about anything he comes across. He created the solution to defeat EVERY single superhero in the Justice League. So yeah, he kinda does need to be ridiculously good and capable at fighting common thugs. The only times he does struggle is against the super villains and as such, boss fights are completely different from regular fights in the games. Studying Batman played a significant role in creating the Free Flow system and as a Batman fan, it fits his almost virtually unstoppable nature.

I hope that one day you come back to it and give it a better shot but unfortunately, it's just not the kind of game you were initially hoping for.

Free flow can't emulate real fighting against a group because it skips the foot movement. There are ways to do that even with the player having to hold navigation for every step, such as making the enemies bump into other enemies when you hit them, putting in a rearward punch/kick that keeps Batman/Robin/Batgirl facing the first threat, putting in a sideways kick/spin that can handle two at once and providing weapons such as poles, tires and barrels in the environments.

I thought we were talking about Batman, not Justice League. Totally different tone, Batman in daylight, stakes raised because he's with gods. Even then, most of what he does in the TV show is act as the brains and intel. That he couldn't keep up with them was a theme, and if I remember correctly he once nearly left them because of it or made them think he was leaving.

Even if I conceded that this sticky, ridiculous auto-system best represents Batman, which it doesn't, but even if I did, how does that make good gameplay? No challenge whatsoever and high scores the only reason to continue. At least I finally got an Arkham fan to admit that it's made to be accessible to everyone, translation: easy, made for casuals. Variation is not rewarded because doing the minimum will take care of them all with ease and the story has no scoring system.

I have given the games a fair shot, probably have even more hours combined than you. They're not very good. 3/5 at most, not counting Origins, which was even worse in my opinion.

@warm_gun: Eh, it's been picked apart by Martial Artists and enthusiasts all over online and YouTube already. It's been applauded for its realism in terms of movement, behavior and flow of battles and how real fighting is very similar to dancing with footwork, technique and reacting to the movements of your opponents. (and Free Flow was motion captured by real extreme martial artists and stunt actors) but the experts who reacted to the footage don't really mention if it's fun or not because they're not exactly gamers. That's a completely different subject and it's all on the person playing. These are real moves done by real people on a set against real people.

If you pay close attention, there's a limit to 3 opponents you can counterattack at a time which is actually in line with most famous fight sequences in movies. When you do counterattack 3 thugs at a time, the rest kinda just wait around for you to finish which is of course unrealistic but this is a game, anyway.

@warm_gun: At any rate, if you took the argument of Batman not being unstoppable to any other Batman fan, you'd be laughed at and branded as uninformed.

Batman throughout his existence has battled more than just humans, but also mythical beasts, aliens, super-powered villains, all 4 of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at once and made them look like children and Batman almost defeated Shredder in one try on the same day.

His history paints a very clear picture that Batman doesn't struggle fighting, especially against a group of random thugs. That's the conclusion anyone who's followed everything Batman-related religiously like me would make. Even if Free Flow doesn't gel with everyone and you've made your case why you didn't like it, it fits his character like a glove. If you don't think it fits him then you don't know enough about Batman. Sounds like you mostly just know him from the animated series.

I guess a big reason why I enjoy it so much is because it gives the games a very unique identity. It's something no one has done before and it expanded across the series. But that's good for Arkham Batman and I think it's time for a new system take its place.

I think what's interesting is that Batman has pretty much gone off the rails since his animated series in the 90's. Writers from that show drew inspiration from the Tim Burton movies and that created a very grounded and realistic Batman. His tech was limited, his fighting style mostly involved boxing, wrestling and basic Judo and he relied on his senses to track criminals. All of that was awesome sauce but one thing I didn't like was that he shared Tim Burton's Batman's hate for the cowl. He saw being Batman as a curse and tried ditching the role in one of the movies all because he finally found someone to make him happy.

I remember a very touching scene where Bruce was weeping over his parents' grave begging them to let him be released from the promise he made to save Gotham. He cried: "I didn't count on being happy.."

He was a very realistic Batman indeed and I noticed that overtime, DC writers ditched the idea of making Batman relatable and replaced it with completely bonkers lore afterwards. Fighting Superman, dodging Dark Seid's undodgable lasers, fighting Spiderman, Spawn and even TMNT. Batman has gotten crazier and reached ridiculous levels of GigaChad BS. That's the Batman the Arkham games represents. An unmovable force hurdling towards crime like a comet on steroids.

That said, I definitely wouldn't mind a small return of realistic Batman in a future game but knowing DC, I doubt that'll ever happen.

Hmmm. No, not sure agree with that.

Batman: TAS aired during a time of Batman: Forever and Batman and Robin.

Batman and Robin itself was the killing blow.

The aim with Nolan with Batman Begins was a compete reboot of the series where it would attract Oscar caliber talent, with a focus on story-telling and a far more sense of reality to it, avoiding the fantastical aspects.

Get to Zack Snyder more fantastical again, but it's also what we would term "a fucking nightmare".

Now we've swerved back to Nolan'esk territory with "The Batman".

So yea, can't say agree with this take.

Even Batman Returns (which for the record is my fav movie alongside TMOP), is a highly stylized dreamland that has almost nothing to do with Batman.

Game-wise, yea, from Arkham to where we are now, see the bloat start to creep in and the franchise just continuing because it's expected, follow the trends...

Suicide Squad seems to have effectively ended it.

Batman, won't end. Always rebooted.

I never thought it was a bad series. It’s not for me because I don’t like it. But if you think about it in an objective sense, it’s a good game with a lot of elements.

How DARE YOU!!!🤬

Azarath, Metrion, Zinthos!

@nepu7supastar7: If you show a martial artist who knows nothing about video games an Arkham fight they won't understand what is mechanically going on. They won't know that in terms of footwork they may as well be watching a movie, since the player presses one button for ten steps (or their character just floats idiotically over the floor), and that the attack animations take so long that the action feels sticky rather than fast and responsive. The opinions of non-gamers are worth shit.

I was going to screenshot every time Batman got hit in the animated series and some of the movies, but decided it would have been too much work, so I'll just say instead that you're being very selective. If you wanna be the Batman who breezes through every fight, then EARN IT in a game that actually poses a challenge.

Oh, and the movies, from Burton to Matt Reeves, have all been frustrating. Favorite of mine is Batman Returns, but even that universe could never have leaned into the more fantastic villains. Each time, WB was embarrassed to be making a comic book movie or didn't think the more comic elements would be accepted. The only exceptions were Freeze and Ivy in Batman & Robin I guess*, but Schumacher's style under WB's direction was too gaudy, too childish, too self-deprecating.

*Haven't actually watched Batman & Robin since I was a small kid. Hated it even then. Did watch Batman Forever about two years ago, and found it so bad that I did not want to continue with Schumacher's nonsense.

Some fool tried to convince me that it's totally possible that Matt Reeves will deliver on his wish for Mr. Freeze in the next movie. If Freeze appears at all, it will be some guy in a hazmat suit who freezes cells very slowly with a "realistic" virus, not a gun.

@warm_gun: Well if you don't like the Arkham games, maybe it's time for Rocksteady to make a Batman Beyond game.

Played the first 2 games, thought they were ok, but the combat was pretty average.

Never manage to play more than a couple of hours before quitting.

@davillain: Why would I want a Batman Beyond game if they have fouled up every single Batman game? Batman Beyond is worse than Batman and a game would have no alternate heroes to play as. No woman to play as.

Tried Arkham City with a controller again. Still feels bad, all those items accessible from a radial menu with the one D-pad button. I mean, the whole game feels kinda bad anyway. I finished all of Robin in 2022, all of Batman in 2017 and all of Catwoman in 2015. Working on the Nightwing medals now, the last character, which will probably be over a span of years. I've shat on the silly looking combat and its heavy automation most thoroughly, but the stealth really deserves a ton of criticism too for being so context-sensitive. Wonder if controller users accidentally press against walls/railings when they mean to hang like I do. They have to, right? Even just jumping down from the few designated high spots feels bad because the automated system only gives you a couple of spots on which to land.

eh, okay. I liked it.

@warm_gun: Sorry I took so long to respond but yeah, that's the reason why I wouldn't bother showing you reaction vids. They're looking at controlled gameplay so all they know is that it looks realistic but whether it's fun or not is entirely up to you. Either way, the series is over and a complete reboot is in the works as we speak.

Not everyone would enjoy it and you made your point why you don't like it. But the wider audience loved it so it's probably going to come back in *some* shape or form.

An interesting thing that you indirectly pointed out is that BECAUSE the Free Flow system is motion captured: pre movement is pretty much forced on you. And that's why the characters do various attacks with a simple push of a button. I get why that would be a turn you off but it is what it is.

I loved that you can create your own play style and I personally try to play "realistically" - which would be no fun to you cuz it involves not focusing on stringing a large combo. That's why the kind of auto-movement didn't really affect me as bad as you.