• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Warner: New Batman Arkham game due in 2013 - rumored not developed by Rocksteady.

Liamario

Banned
gifs_131.gif

I just burst!
 

FloatOn

Member
Why would they make it worse?

Here's the thing... Arkham City was great in that in had more of everything (characters, villains, enemies, open world variety) but in adding more everything they lost the focus of Joker-centric storyline of the last game. Then by adding an open world of sorts they lost the big indoor environments of Asylum and the metroidvania feel of getting upgrades to get access to other parts of those locations.

Arkham City while very enjoyable lacked the focus of Arkham Asylum and because of this I like Asylum more.

I'm very interested to see where to the next one would go, especially considering what Mark Hamill said about Arkham City being his last performance as the Joker.
 

Dabanton

Member
Why not? Another studio can use the successful formula to make a good game while Rocksteady is given the time to work on something new and exciting.

I'm more than openminded to see what happens if this is true. But RockSteady left some big shoes to fill.

Lets hope this is a Fallout 3/Fallout:NV situation where the spin off was better than the main game for me.

But it will all depend on the dev for this.
 

wrowa

Member
I bought both Arkham games and stopped playing both of them after round about 5 hours. So... I don't know, another developer isn't exactly bad news for me, even though Warner likely just wants to cash-in on the PS360 userbase one last time.

I guess Rocksteady is working on a next gen project already (which likely will end up being Batman related too, so I'm not getting my hopes up that they are working on another IP).
 

Busty

Banned
Eh. Frankly I'd rather have Rocksteady developing something new (though apparently still set in the 'DC Universe') rather than churn out a new Arkham game no matter how good the game potentially is.

And while we're at it I hope that WB Games lets studios like Rocksteady take a chance on a new IP instead of working on whatever Warner property the studio dusts off this week.

Does anyone know if Rocksteady is still a single team or they have expanded (like Naughty Dog) to two development teams?
 

Soodanim

Gold Member
It's amazing how much one sentence changes everything. Arkham Galaxy went from being an undoubtedly good threequel to a complete uncertainty in the blink of an eye.

I like the Harry Potter idea, Acheteedo.
 

Solo

Member
City was a goddamn mess. Asylum was perfection. More of everything =/= better, Rocksteady. AA was a 9.5 type of game. AC? A 6.5 or 7.0.
 

Derrick01

Banned
It's not as if Rocksteady has made a great Batman game since Arkham Asylum. I'm curious to see who is making this.

AC was better in just about every way. More involved Riddler challenges, better cast of characters, more fleshed out combat, catwoman (playing as her in combat was more fun than Batman IMO), better boss battles, more challenge rooms and more difficult ones too. The list could go on.
 
City was a goddamn mess. Asylum was perfection. More of everything =/= better, Rocksteady. AA was a 9.5 type of game. AC? A 6.5 or 7.0.

City's only downfall were the useless sidequests. Everything else was improved over AA, especially the story and ESPECIALLY the ending.
 

Doomrider

Member
I'm happy for a new Arkham game for current gen and the fact that Rocksteady has moved on to the next, but I'm not confident another studio can do a game as good as both Arkham games and I'm definitely not pleased about this silver age/justice league nonsense.

I dunno. I'll have to see more of both games, but I trust Rocksteady to do something good, even if the subject matter doesn't interest me.
 

Nibel

Member
Rocksteady didn't just give us AA, but they also improved everything about it and made AC

I'm not sure about this - I expect a good Batman game, but not a huge improvement over AC; they'll probably play it safe.

I'm actually more interested into Rocksteady's current project whatever that might be
 

Solo

Member
I actually like this news, provided that RS's upcoming Silver Age Bats game is closer to AA. That way Eidos can keep pumping out A_ games which I can avoid, while Rocksteady hopefully finds their groove again on the new game.
 

Sentenza

Member
City was a goddamn mess. Asylum was perfection. More of everything =/= better
But in AC it was more AND better.
Better combat system, better boss fights, better puzzles, more overall diversity, etc.

The only clear step back was a less focused and more confused overarching plot, but if you people are into games for the plot and value it above everything else, then I would be tempted to suggest to go renting a fucking movie, instead.
 
Rocksteady not developing? Not sure how I'd feel about that. AA and AC were some of the most well realized games this gen. Also, the franchise has put Rocksteady into the spotlight and I can't imagine they'd want to give out the reigns.

However, I'd really like to see them on a IP. Why can't it be TMNT? Whyyyy? It would be the coolest game ever.

City was a goddamn mess. Asylum was perfection. More of everything =/= better, Rocksteady. AA was a 9.5 type of game. AC? A 6.5 or 7.0.

Damn, that's quite the opinion. Can't say I agree. AC wasn't as impressive because it was a sequel and I better knew what to expect. The only thing that I was disappointed with was the length of the main game.
 
But in AC it was more AND better.
Better combat system, better boss fights, better puzzles, more overall diversity, etc.

The only clear step back was a less focused and more confused overarching plot, but if you people are into games for the plot and value it above everything else, then I would be tempted to suggest to go renting a fucking movie, instead.

He loves Quantum of Solace, it's pretty obvious he doesn't value plot, so that shouldn't affect his feelings towards Arkham City.

And even so, it's all about the villains and whether or not they are characterized well. The overall plot is just really pointless in superhero games and movies. And City did a much better job with its villains than Asylum did (other than Huge Strange).
 
AC was better in just about every way. More involved Riddler challenges, better cast of characters, more fleshed out combat, catwoman (playing as her in combat was more fun than Batman IMO), better boss battles, more challenge rooms and more difficult ones too. The list could go on.

Totally agree. I also really liked the gliding and grapnel boosting. Going back to Asylum feels restrained.

I'd miss Rocksteady, but I'm also curious in finding out what they are working on if this rumor is true.
 
Please don't be a disaster.

AC was better in just about every way. More involved Riddler challenges, better cast of characters, more fleshed out combat, catwoman (playing as her in combat was more fun than Batman IMO), better boss battles, more challenge rooms and more difficult ones too. The list could go on.
For once I actually agree with Derrick01.
 

BeauRoger

Unconfirmed Member
Arkham city was great apart from the story which was extremely underwhelming, finale wasnt that great either. Still, im hopeful for this new release, with or without rocksteady.
 

Solo

Member
But in AC it was more AND better.
Better combat system, better boss fights, better puzzles, more overall diversity, etc.

The only clear step back was a less focused and more confused overarching plot, but if you people are into games for the plot and value it above everything else, then I would be tempted to suggest to go renting a fucking movie, instead.

I would only say that AC has improved combat and graphics over AA. That's it. AA's narrative unfolded in a much more natural way which lent itself to the villains (compared to AC's philosophy of seemingly picking baddies first and fitting a half-assed skeleton plot around it). The way the island got progressively unlocked (aka the pacing) was perfect, and almost nothing in the game is superfluous or needless bloat.

AC is a typical sequel. More of everything. More (mostly terrible) gadgets, more boss fights, bigger environment, etc. It's bloated as fuck, lacks focus and I've already forgotten the paper thin story.

I just finished an AA replay, and its just as brilliant as I remembered. I should do an AC replay next to be fair and see if its as bad as I remember.
 

iNvid02

Member
sweet, rocksteady need to move on and turn around another franchise like they did with buttman.

not sure what to expect from this but rocksteady turned me into an arkham fan, im down
 
I would only say that AC has improved combat and graphics over AA. That's it. AA's narrative unfolded in a much more natural way which lent itself to the villains (compared to AC's philosophy of seemingly picking baddies first and fitting a half-assed skeleton plot around it). The way the island got progressively unlocked (aka the pacing) was perfect, and almost nothing in the game is superfluous or needless bloat.

AC is a typical sequel. More of everything. More (mostly terrible) gadgets, more boss fights, bigger environment, etc. It's bloated as fuck, lacks focus and I've already forgotten the paper thin story.

Indeed.

I wrapped Asylum in under a week, and couldn't even finish City. Something about it completely failed to grab me the way Asylum did.
 
Top Bottom