• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

LTTP: Finished Arkham City, Origins or Knight next?

A

Arkanius

Member
Topic title.
Just finally ended up finishing Arkham City and loved despite some disagreements with how the combat was made. Other than that, top.

Now, I think I keep watching Origins as the weakest entry but... is that Pre-Arkham Knight? Or is Arkham Knight a solid entry?

Playing on PC by the way.

(I have played and finished Asylum of course)
 
Arkham Knight is a fantastic entry, and the PC port is as good as it will ever be and an improvement over the console versions.

I don't think you can go wrong either way though. Knight is the better game imo but origins is fine
 
City's best of the bunch in my opinion, but I'd rank 'em City > Asylum > Origins > Knight.

So Origins or the Telltale Batman game in a few weeks.
 
Two questions:

1) Are you sick of The Joker?
2) Are you tired of that overworld map from City?

If the answer to those questions is no, than play Origins. It's the better game. If the answer is yes, play Knight - it's the fresher game.
 
Skip Origins. It felt so much like City it almost soured me on the series. It's not terrible, so if sometime after Knight you feel like it you could still give it a try.
 
Have you ever played world of tanks? If yes and you liked it, play Knight.

Otherwise you should play Origins. That has the best boss battles in the whole series.
 
Sheroking said:
Two questions:

1) Are you sick of The Joker?
2) Are you tired of that overworld map from City?

If the answer to those questions is no, than play Origins. It's the better game. If the answer is yes, play Knight - it's the fresher game.
Click to expand...

1) City Joker? Yes. More inside story of Joker? I'm up for it
2) Nothing against the overworld map, I enjoyed traversing through it but I've since learned to ignore most icons on the overworld maps and go for objectives only.
 
Sheroking said:
Two questions:

1) Are you sick of The Joker or do you want more Joker?
2) Are you tired of that overworld map from City?

If the answer to those questions is no, than play Origins. It's the better game. If the answer is yes, play Knight - it's the fresher game.
Click to expand...

Eh have you played AK?
 
I liked Origins more than what I played of Arkham Knight mostly because I thought the main missions, boss battles, and story was better in Origins. But it is similar to City so if you want something a little different then go with Knight, bat-mobile changes up the game a bit. Overall though I think Origins is the better game.
 
Just Knight. Playing Origins will absolutely burn you out and Knight wont seem as good. Just play knight and dont do what i did by playing origins.


Origins does have some super cool playable cutscenes though.,
 
Sheroking said:
Yes...?

The Joker isn't nearly as central to the game and the overworld map isn't straight copy pasta. You'll definitely find Knight to be the more original game if you've just beaten City.
Click to expand...

Uhm what?
 
Sn4ke_911 said:
Uhm what?
Click to expand...

Have YOU played Origins?

That's 24/7 Joker on loop. There's way more emphasis on other characters in Knight than just Joker. You get like three Bane scenes and some boss fights with other characters in Origins and that's it. Even fucking Asylum isn't as Joker-heavy as Origins.
 
Tbh City is the peak of the series. It's only downhill from there, to a point where I can't even recommend Orgins or Knight, unless you are a hardcore fan of the actual gameplay alone.
 
I thought Origins was a fun game, but man, they tripled he size of the map from City with half the stuff to do. Thank god for fast travel.

AK was ok, probably my favorite story from the Rocksteady games, but Origins has the best of all 4. I like the combat in AO better as well.
 
I'd recommend playing in order of release, so Origins next. But if you want to play the chronological sequel or you're afraid of getting burned out on the Arkham series, then Knight.

Overall, my rankings of the Arkham games are:

- City (9.2/10),
- Asylum (9/10),
- Origin (7.5/10, good entry but it adds very little new stuff),
- Knight (7/10, disappointing all-around except for visuals)
 
I'd go Knight, then finish up with origins

In terms of game quality it goes city>Origins>Asylum>knight. However in many ways Origins feels removed from what the rocksteady games are doing. Think Halo Reacb. I'd play it last, as a palate cleanser after Knight.
 
Doctor Ironic said:
Knight. Origins deserves the hate it gets.



Oh my goodness especially don't do this.
Click to expand...

Sure thing, I thought it was pretty great

Dont do it if you find yourself going cray over batman lore though, it seems comic fans do not like the movie.

I as a fan of TAS and the games really enjoyed it.
 
I really love Orgins for its story, but I think it may be hard to play it after experiencing the graphic fidelity of Knight. I'd suggest playing Origins first.
 
alr1ght said:
You should play Asylum if you haven't. If you have, stop.
Click to expand...

This is really the right answer. Origins has the best story of the four, though, so that may be worth slogging through the recycled assets, broken combat, and terrible boss fights to see.

MMaRsu said:
Sure thing, I thought it was pretty great

Dont do it if you find yourself going cray over batman lore though, it seems comic fans do not like the movie.

I as a fan of TAS and the games really enjoyed it.
Click to expand...

Or if you're not into horrible ham-handed hack treatments of female characters that do nothing to enhance the story and seem to just be there to satisfy Bruce Timm's longstanding Barbara/Bruce fetish.
 
Sheroking said:
Have YOU played Origins?

That's 24/7 Joker on loop. There's way more emphasis on other characters in Knight than just Joker. You get like three Bane scenes and some boss fights with other characters in Origins and that's it. Even fucking Asylum isn't as Joker-heavy as Origins.
Click to expand...

In Knight you literally see the Joker everywhere. No Batman game is as Joker heavy as that one.

And the funny is, he basically saves the game completely.
 
Sparse said:
Origins is the best of the two, but as mentioned, it may feel a little samey to City, mechanically.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely prefer Origins and would rank Knight as the worst in the series, but I could see this being a problem when immediately going from City to Origins. You cover a lot of the same territory, and while the gameplay is improved it doesn't see any real dramatic changes. (Which in a lot of cases in Knight only made the gameplay worse, but at least it's a different, fresher worse, I guess?)

Going in release order is still probably the way to go, but it might be best to take a long break first.
 
You're going to hear a lot of strong opinions in this thread. The bottom line however is that both Origins and Knight are fine games and you'll likely have a good time with either one.

If you're playing on PC you should obviously keep Knight's notorious technical issues in mind.
 
Origins is good, but it's mostly the same thing. More like a half step change than a full.

Arkham Knight is substantially evolved from City, with some new stuff going on with combat and the Batmobile.

If you want more of the same, do Origins first, but if you want to break things up a bit, do Knight first then go back to Origins later.
 
Are you a completionist? The path to the full ending of Knight is.... long and repetitive

I am compulsive about stuff like that, and I had a really bad time with Knight

I think I would have liked it better if I had stopped before getting into all the extra stuff
 
Origins is quite enjoyable as its a solidly put together 'villain' tale despite some gripes with the combat and open-world. Expect a lot of familiarity with City when it comes to gliding around Gotham though(its basically the same Gotham with a winter overlay and some slight alterations). Still a very competent entry in the Arkham franchise. Combat is altered a bit so that timing is less lenient which can throw you off on occasion, but you eventually get a somewhat broken gadget that trivializes most fights.

I really dug Knight, but its hard to gauge whether its Batmobile focus will put you off as many did. Completionists will balk at its overuse when compared to prior Arkham games, but its a stunning looking game that weaves a decent Batman yarn that follows the events of Arkham City. Combat can feel a bit QTE-esque now with the sheer necessity to counter specific tools for specific enemies, which can get a bit tedious. I did miss the more simplified take in older games which felt a bit freeform outside of a scant few makeups.

I suppose overall I may have actually enjoyed Origins slightly more from a narrative perspective, as both games suffer a bit in combat and exploration.
 
Sheroking said:
Two questions:

1) Are you sick of The Joker?
2) Are you tired of that overworld map from City?

If the answer to those questions is no, than play Origins. It's the better game. If the answer is yes, play Knight - it's the fresher game.
Click to expand...

lmao what a weird post, these two things should definitely not factor into your decision making.
 
MattKeil said:
This is really the right answer. Origins has the best story of the four, though, so that may be worth slogging through the recycled assets, broken combat, and terrible boss fights to see.



Or if you're not into horrible ham-handed hack treatments of female characters that do nothing to enhance the story and seem to just be there to satisfy Bruce Timm's longstanding Barbara/Bruce fetish.
Click to expand...

Eek.. not even gonna go into that.
 
Origins has the best story in an Arkham game, in my opinion. I never cared more about the plight of the characters involved as much as I did in Origins. Considering its setting as an early-career Batman tale, it really is a treat if you love these decades-old icons.

Origins' biggest flaw, though - by far - is that it plays exactly like City. And that's a big negative when you're talking about moment-to-moment gameplay. Also, Origins' layout is half-comprised of City...which only adds to its same-ness. (Further, Origins' "riddles" are just collectible fetch-quests; very uninspired in that regard.)

Visually, I think it would be hard to play Origins after playing Knight. So, if the idea of exploring already-familiar locales in Gotham isn't a turn-off...and you're going to end up playing both games down the road sometime anyway....I think playing Origins next makes the most sense.
 
I haven't played Knight but I'll vouch for Origins being a solid game, so long as you aren't burned out on the overworld map and general gameplay of City. Cause Origins is really similar in that regard.

But, I think Origins has easily the best story of the Arkham games and some really great character moments. Easily the best character and art design for all the characters too. Even if the Rocksteady games have great technical visuals I feel like their art is pretty poor but Origins has some great designs for the characters. For me, that was enough to really enjoy Origins. Being an early Batman story, I really wish they used that as a chance to switch up some of the gameplay mechanics but as it stands it plays really closely to City.

Plus Troy Baker and Roger Craig Smith do a great job as Joker and Batman respectively. Arguably better than Conroy and Hamill in Arkham City anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A Modder Made Gotham City Playable in Batman: Arkham Asylum
Trailer Indie 
8
443
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Top 10 games you finished (or played) in 2025.
2
62
1K
Humdinger replied
LTTP: Pokemon Channel
LTTP 
6
96
uncreativename replied
Gunship Origins - Announcement Trailer
Trailer 
1
167
IAmRei replied
  • Poll
Would you welcome original Xbox One features on next generation hardware?
10
254
Thanati replied
Top Bottom