(Wii U)

Game Review

Batman: Arkham Origins Review

USA USA Version

Posted by Ron DelVillano

Same hero, less refined

Whenever a video game franchise moves from one developer to another during its lifetime, there tends to be a few raised eyebrows. There are definite examples of licenses that have significantly improved following the move from one studio to another, such as the console games in the Skylanders series jumping from Toys for Bob over to Vicarious Visions, but Batman: Arkham Origins does not fall into this category. Despite having the groundwork laid down by Rocksteady Studios, it’s clear that Warner Bros. Games Montréal didn’t have the creative forces behind it to piece together another shining instalment in the series.

Taking place before the previous Arkham games, the scene opens at Blackgate Penitentiary where a novice Batman is responding to a breakout helmed by the crime lord Black Mask. Quickly revealed to be a plot to get Batman’s attention and lure him out into the open, the Caped Crusader learns of a bounty that Black Mask has offered to eight of Gotham’s deadliest assassins for the death of the fledgling hero. The plot of the previous game, Batman: Arkham City, was a bit convoluted, attempting to shoehorn too many of Batman’s villains into a single campaign, But Arkham Origins makes the previous game feel abridged in comparison. Between Black Mask, his eight assassins, Riddler, Penguin and various other Bat-villains including everyone’s favourite psychopathic clown, this Dickensian jumble attempts to juggle so many characters that it’s a miracle the game still manages to retain some semblance of a plot. It’s all just service designed to entice franchise fans, but it ends up creating an absolute mess of story.

Gameplay has remained largely unchanged, with combat consisting almost entirely of button mashing coupled with timed counter attacks, and exploration of Gotham City and its landmarks is still aided by Batman’s various gadgets. Our hero is already equipped with most of his key tools – such as Batarangs and the Batclaw – from the outset, but more equipment and upgrades become available as you progress through the adventure. Fighting thugs and completing missions will earn you experience points that then convert into skill points that can be spent to bulk up Batman’s arsenal. Between story missions, Riddler puzzles and random thugs looking for a tussle, experience points are plenty, making it remarkably easy to be the best Bat you can be.

In an attempt to put a stronger emphasis on Batman as a detective rather than simply as a guy who beats the snot out of thugs, Arkham Origins features several investigative crime scenes throughout the campaign. During these portions of play, your job is to look around the room and use the Wii U GamePad as a scanner. Making use of the GamePad’s gyroscope to navigate, you identify specific points in the crime scene, such as a bullet hole or a spot of blood, in order to recreate the crime and figure out exactly what happened. We saw hints of this in the earlier Arkham games, but Origins takes the concept and fleshes it out into a much more integral mechanic. The effect of finding clues and rebuilding a crime scene is fascinating at first, but as the game progresses and more crimes appear, the initial charm quickly wears off and it begins to feel like a repetitive device used to enhance otherwise unexciting story elements. Investigating crime scenes is a perfect example of a great idea that misses the mark; something that this game is full of.

When not using the GamePad’s screen and gyroscope to solve crimes, the controls are standard for the series. Batman’s motions and attacks are controlled with the left stick and lettered buttons respectively, with stealth, detective mode, and gadgets assigned to various shoulder buttons. Mastering the controls can be complicated at first, but once you’ve become accustomed to the way Batman moves everything begins to feel natural. Rather than being used to easily change your equipment and access upgrades — as it was in Arkham City — the GamePad’s touchscreen instead displays a mini-map at all times, a very unfortunate downgrade. There is also the option to play entirely off-television on the GamePad’s screen, providing a satisfying almost-portable experience that looks great even when scaled down.

Though the Arkham map will feel familiar to some players, it has been expanded and divided up into subsections to simplify navigation. Fast-travel is readily available via the Batjet, but you’ll still find yourself spending most of your time gliding through vast expanses of the city instead. It’s a convenient idea and a friendly gesture, but as most of your destinations are usually within walking distance of one another — and taking into account the long loading times involved — the ability to fast-travel isn’t nearly as expedient as it should be. Again, it’s a great idea poorly executed.

Challenge Maps make a return, giving players a reason to continue training and testing their skills beyond the campaign. The Challenges provide a variety of gameplay from action to stealth, but it all feels like an afterthought tacked on after the campaign. There is also an “accomplishments” system built into the game that can be set to automatically post to MiiVerse and brag for you, so the perfectionists out there will have their hands full completing challenges and making their friends feel inadequate. Everyone else will probably ignore most of these features, as they don’t really do anything to enhance the experience beyond bulk up a package that is already missing multiplayer elements available on other home consoles.

The same graphical style from the previous games has been retained, showing no signs of improvement and even recycling some basic environments. The settings look gritty and realistic, but there tends to be a bit of lag when loading between sections of the map, and the frame rate drops to a nauseating pace during cinematic sequences. The grandiose soundtrack has successfully made the jump over as well, but the same cannot be said about the voice acting. When a game is fully voice-acted in an attempt to make its characters come to life, it’s important that the characters reflect this. Many of the voices fit into their roles perfectly, but Batman – the main character who easily has the most dialogue throughout the game – sounds entirely disinterested in what is going on around him. Kevin Conroy’s departure from the series left a gaping hole that Roger Craig Smith’s flat delivery of the Dark Knight’s lines fails to fill.


Batman: Arkham Origins is the tricky type of game that isn’t innately bad, but it recycles so much from its predecessors and does absolutely nothing to improve upon them. The gameplay is uninspired, the graphics are a bit shaky, and the plot tries to do too much and ends up being too sloppy to make any real sense. The previous two Arkham games played like excellent stealth adventure titles in which you happened to take on the role of Batman; this one feels much more like a Batman game with stealth elements tacked on. When all is said and done, however, fans of the Dark Knight or superhero adventures could do much worse. If you haven’t played a game in the Arkham series yet, you’d be better off starting with the superior Arkham City; diehard fans are sure to get some surface-level enjoyment out of Batman’s latest outing, but disappointment is sure to set in when examined too closely.

Sponsored links by Taboola

More Stories

Game Trailer

User Comments (112)



MAB said:

I suppose it needed Mario & Link in it to rise to a perfect score ;)



Reverandjames said:

Totally agree with this review. Loved Asylum and Origins, but this game seems like it was released as a stop gap for the next Rocksteady Batman game. It lacks the authentic feel of a Batman game and is just a bit boring really. The side quests were a bit of a chore too, unlike City, where they were almost as good as the main quest. Worth a rent, but not your hard earned cash.



WaveyChristmas said:

lol Trollin' since 1981.
Also, i wish NL would mix things up and go for the .5 rating system and even grade the visuals, gameplay and sound 'game pro' style + have 3 other editors play the same game and give out their score & opinion in short summaries. It's too easy to give a game 9's and 10's...they just don't feel special because they're tossed around like trick r treats on halloween. also, IGN has returned to it's ridiculous out of/100 review system....yeesh.



SpookyMeths said:

All things considered, I still think the Batman: Arkham trilogy got the characters and atmosphere more right than Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy did.



WaveyChristmas said:

Agreed. Those weren't even batman movies. They're just pretentious cop drama's with DC elements thrown in. ;) Not a fan of Chicago Batman. However, Tim Burton's Batman Returns still reigns supreme.

Keaton >>>>>>> Bale



shaneoh said:

If it had kevin conroy and mark hamill, then it would have scored a 10



Einherjar said:

Im a bit torn apart with this game. On one hand, its still as fun as the other two, the combat system still is great, the cityscape is build nicely but on the other hand, its missing a certain something that i cant really pinpoint.
The story is a bit hit and miss. (minor spoilers ahead) I think that the BlackMask story would have workt quite a lot better if the joker would have been left out of it. I know hes supposed to be Batmans arch rival an villian, but the BlackMask bounty hunt had much more potential. Jokers schemes are mostly set up to make a ruckus for batman to solve, with the BlackMask plot, there would have been a constant thread, a group that isnt out there just to cause trouble, there out there for your head. Sadly, that plot was killed pretty quickly. Add some major plot holes and continuity errors with the Arkham game series itself and you have a much less convincing and entertaining plot than asylum and city.



Chris720 said:

This is why you never hand a series over to someone else because you know for a fact they'll just muck it up, and what a muck up they have done with Origins.

Bring back Rocksteady.



DualWielding said:

I hope we get a rocksteady batman game next year, but if we do, I doubt it'll be on the Wii U



AJWolfTill said:

Any chance of them patching the framerate issues? I'd be going in with lowered expectations but it does annoy me if the main reason why I'd pick this up on Wii U rather than PC doesn't actually exist.



WaveyChristmas said:


Funny thing is, Jack Nicholson was playing himself. ;)
Heath Ledger's Joker wasn't too shabby, but i hate how everybody blew it up like his performance was the second coming, everybody knows 'Halo' is the second coming. Ask them dorrito munchin Mountain doo guzzling XboxBronies.



DarkCoolEdge said:

@MadAussieBloke You just keep tro... complaining, don't you? Why don't you visit another site? Problems solved.

@CountWavula Why would you need to grade graphics, gameplay... separately? What's the point? They are already discussed in the text.
What would you think if you read a movie review that scored acting, screenplay, directing...? It would be dumb.



WaveyChristmas said:


Game Magazines were ALWAYS doing it in the 90's, i don't understand how it's dumb if it's tacked on or presented at the end of the review. It makes the review more enjoyable and spices things up.

Vedy' nice. Now if you'll excuse my cat and I have to get back to our little dance number to this ;) >



MAB said:

@Wavesta Back in our day we didn't need no stinkin' score... We would just buy a game and if it was good then good but if it was bad then we played it anyway ;)



ThomasBW84 said:

@CountWavula For our part we've given four 10s in the whole of 2013 to date, three of which were stone-cold classics on Virtual Console. So for our part I'd say we're not "tossing them around like trick or treats" ;)

Also, from a personal perspective, I think .5 scores and breakdowns just further encourage the obsession with numbers. Details are in the reviews, so read the words!



ToniK said:

@CountWavula Exactly. I don't seem to get what makes Nolan's Batman so special. Dark Knight was a bore. Those movies and LotR are the most over-rated trilogys of all time. I prefer Back to the future and Indiana Jones. But I'm an 80's child after all :P



ajcismo said:

This Batman game just never got my attention. Something seemed "off" about it, like a big budget movie sequel where everything is just "good enough" to make a buck. X3 comes to mind as a comparison, but there was nothing "good enough" about that.



DESS-M-8 said:

???? Am I missing something here, this game is excellent. It does nothing new but is just more on the same. More of the same great game we found in asylum and city. Both earning an scoring 8's, 9's & 10's. This one does nothing wrong, if anything, maybe we got it too good in city (although asylum is my personal favorite) and origins had too much to do to exceed that benchmark.
This game is visceral, more so than City,
Visually it is excellent,
The detective mode has been seriously enhanced,
The fighting mechanics are identical and for good reason, Arkham battle mechanics are fluid and perfect,
Storyline isn't as strong as asylum and city but so what, what franchise has storylines that consistently exponentially increase in enthralment?
This game is a solid 8/10.
This looks and plays as solid as a Rocksteady project. If the story is lacking for your tastes, blame the writers and directors with the franchise.
6/10???? Ridiculous



belmont said:

I actually agree with what @DESS-M-8 said. I really don't find something wrong with the game (I have the PS3 version though). It feels like a re-skin of City with new detective elements, very good visuals, good voice acting (I don't care about the actor as log is VA is good) a new big city to explore and a whole new story ideal for fan service. I don't know why they would change it something that works. There are many top videogame series that change little from each installment and yet are great and popular games (2D Mario, Fifa, God of War) I am a long time fan of DC and Marvel comics and enjoyed both Origins and Blackgate. I may get why this game would not appeal to someone what is not a Batman fan of only knows Batman from live action movies. In DC animation his character is much more faithful to the comic. I don't want to spoil the plot but I found it quite interesting.



WebHead said:

I hope hope the next set of Batman films are based on the Arkham series. It has the right feel.

And honestly, did anyone seriously think this was gonna top Arkham City?



Jarod said:

this is pretty harsh the game was more fun to play then city the story wasnt nearly as good but it had its moments its atleast a 7 probably 7.5 in my books



DualWielding said:

@DESS-M-8 @belmont

I haven't played the game, I'm pretty sure it is not as good as Arkham City or Asylum but still I agree it seems a bit biased that this gets a lower score than something like Wii Bowling U



DualWielding said:

@DESS-M-8 @belmont




Dpullam said:

For me, this game was created just for those who wanted to get their Batman fix in a reasonable time frame. It doesn't really improve upon the formula, it just adds to the already existing gameplay that made this franchise unique and fun. It also doesn't restructure itself as greatly as Batman Arkham Asylum to Batman Arkham City did, but it can still be a fun game.



Captain_Balko said:

As somebody who has only played Arkham City, I've really been enjoying this game so far (more of the same is perfectly fine by me, to be honest). Don't let the negative review discourage you from buying this if you're a Batman fan... Sometimes you'll notice that it lacks the polish of the other titles, but it's mostly been a great experience for me. I've been craving more Batman since I finished Arkham City: Armoured Edition, and this does well to satisfy me while waiting for the next one (which will hopefully still be on Wii U). I actually enjoyed the story, and especially seeing some of my favourite assassins from the DC universe in an Arkham game (Deathstroke is one of my favourite characters ever).

I'd say you should buy this if you're a DC Comics fan (especially a Batman fan, obviously), or simply enjoyed the previous Arkham games and are craving more. In my opinion, it's a lot better than the review makes it out to be.



MrGawain said:

It's a stop gap, but a very welcome one. The combat is a little unbalanced, there are a few bugs, but it has an engrossing story and a few different tricks up it's sleeve like making you play the game 'properly' to receive all the extras instead of spamming a couple of moves. I don't necessarily think losing Conroy and Hamill is as bad as everyone makes out because it is a prequel and the characters are a lot younger. To me the Arkham franchise still knocks Assassin's Creed senseless, which also uses more than one studio to make instalments, and it fills a space which is lacking at this time of the year.

If City is worth a 9.5, I'd say this is worthy of 7.5 to 8.



BlatantlyHeroic said:

I think this game had a better plot than both previous games. It made a lot of sense compared to those. I think we're being a little too picky.
I think they should get rid of the "one night" formula. I'd like to see Bruce's normal life as well as Batman's. Besides, it will allow for a larger plot, a more linear one. We can then do an actual origin story with Batman first being Batman, I want it to be movie quality. That's the game I'm waiting for. A mix between Tim Burton's Batman, and Batman Begins (because quite frankly, that's the only Batman I like out of the Nolan series, but it is my favorite Batman movie. The others were just... eh. Batman stopped being a frightening force of nature and became... I have no idea.)



Platypus101 said:

@MadAussieBloke wow... Don't be like that. I know Patcherkid is gone... I miss him too, but don't be that guy. ;) Many games from launch (many of which were not nintendo licenses) received high marks. We should expect a bit more from developers rather than the same old thing, that's all this review is stating. Of course, there is the crowd that does not mind repetition, hence the comment from Captain_Balko.



Conocotarious said:

Uh oh, Nintendo Life gave a game a score that lines up with the general consensus for the title (even with the fact that the version they played was lacking features), but they give nintendo games, which typically have more time and effort put into them, higher scores. They must be "teh bias"!



Platypus101 said:

@ferthepoet Wii sports (which included bowling) outsold all versions of this series added together... How is that over rating Wii Sports bowling. Batman series video games are not that universal. For example, 7 out of 10 people at my workplace know of Wii sports, most ain't never heard of most other games (unless its on the news, talking smack about how "X" video game inspired "X" event). 'Nuff said.



BlatantlyHeroic said:

@Conoctotarious They are bias. If you haven't noticed, Nintendo games usually lack an exciting plot all together. Look at NSMB titles. they have a rehashed plot and mechanics with each new game, and each one takes about 2-3 years to make.



Platypus101 said:

@ToniK I was an 80's child, but to claim the the Indiana Jones trilogy as whole is better than Nolan's Batman, is ridiculous, seeing as everyone knows that Indiana Jones and the temple of doom was the worst in the series until crystal skull... If you are such a big fan of the 80's, tell me, do you think that the 60's TV version or the 80's/90's version of Batman was more palatable?



Conocotarious said:

@BlatantlyHeroic I'm not even going to acknowledge that you think Pokemon (or nintendo games in general) deserve less praise because their plots are insignificant.

The point being that Pokemon X and Y as well as the New Super Mario Bros games typically have more refined gameplay without the need to even lean on a story.

Meanwhile Arkham Origins gameplay is mostly recycled from the previous game and relies heavily on its story to draw you in. That's a challenging task when said story manages to be a combination of cliched and over complicated, meanwhile they expect you to care about the villains while a hefty number of them are real bottom of the barrel stuff and the rest are recycled from the previous to games, and we're supposed to be surprised when they show up (OMG Bane and Joker.... AGAIN!)

If the core gameplay were as good as Arkham City, yeah it might deserve at least a 7, but since its a noticeably worse coupled with the fact that you get less features with the Wii U version, I'd say Nintendo Life is being generous.

I'm just going to add, I stopped caring about the Arkham games when they didn't bother to get Ron Perlman for Clayface, and here we are again with no Ron Perlman reprising the roll of Deathstroke. But that's just a minor, personal fan service gripe.



BlatantlyHeroic said:

@Conocotarious Who voices who doesn't matter at all. The game is playable, it is enjoyable, it doesn't feel like a waste of time, nor is the quality below average. With all of those facts lined up, at the end of the day it can be considered a good game. It's just gamers are too fickle, and will always wine about something they wanted in the game that wasn't there. If you want a game catered towards you, make your own. These games belong to the developers that made them, not you. The world has gotten to this rotten understanding that games should be made for the gamers with what the gamers want in them, and that's what makes these the dark days for gamers. Games are an art, if you just cater towards the people you make them for, they'll always be upset, and they'll get used to the power they have, take away that power and you now have a world that awaits the art that comes from developers with no say in what happens in the game, so they are truly surprised.



MrGawain said:


You could argue that the Joker is actually more important to the success of Batman than Batman himself. It's like having a Mario game without Bowser. The rogues gallery is strong, but the benchmark IS the Joker.




I disagree with everything negative the reviewer has said. I loved arkham origins, and I'm currently enjoying blackgate on my 3ds.



element187 said:

@shaneoh you're right... Everything is better when Luke Skywalker is involved. He definitely is the most convincing sounding Joker.



Wildfire said:

I love the last post of @MadAussieBloke and I couldn't agree more with him.
Another good 3rd party game that won't sell anything on a Nintendo system, it seems.



element187 said:

I'm almost done with the campaign. Although Arkham Origins doesn't hold a candle to Arkham City (9.5/10), but a 6 means it's barely mediocre. I don't know if I would go that far.... 7/10 would have been fair



mch said:

More of the same sounds good for me. I will get it sooner or later.



Conocotarious said:

@BlatantlyHeroic if the games were made to the developers liking, I sincerely doubt that they'd have DLC available on the day of release. Games are made to the publishers liking.

Second, you ignored the part of my post where i mention the thigs that are undeniably bad about the game to focus on the few things I would have preferred they did. i.e. recycling a large amount of Arkham City's content, loosening up the combat, Roger Smiths terrible acting (big surprise there), missing content from the Wii U version with only a minuscule price discrepency.

The game may be good, but it's the same good as Arkham City made worse. It's like if Call of Duty's annual sequels used the same exact maps every year instead of new ones but lowered the frame rate a bit too, just to make sure you're absolutely feeling shortchanged.



element187 said:

@BlatantlyHeroic it doesn't take 2 years to make a 2D sidescroller like NSMB games, especially when the majority of the assets are already created. If Nintendo is claiming that they are telling a fib. We have indie studios making some crazy good platformers in less than a year with a two man team.

Your criticisms are a little unfair to the 2D series. Their core audience (us, gamers who check out gaming sites regularly) are not Ninty's only customer base.......
Nintendo only releases one per new system/console. They are supposed to be basic, classic 2D Mario games. You will never find anything more in these titles.

There is a a very large crowd of consumers who can't play 3D games, who only buy a few titles here and there that the series is aimed at. If they try to change the 2D games too much they would alienate that segment. If you want to see EAD Tokyo's creativity explode, look for the 3D Mario games, but you should never expect anything different from the 2D outings, they are meant to be simple, classic and samey. I'm sure Nintendo could make a mind bending 2D platformer out of the Mario series but they need to keep it accessible to everyone in order to keep it inclusive. With sales of NSMBWii approaching 30 million, they would be insane to alienate the casuals just to please us.



millarrp said:

I mostly agree with the score, but I enjoyed the game, except when it was lagging or buggy. I also found the main story interesting, but it did lack the depth that the prior Arkham games had.



Banker-Style said:

Nearing the end of the game,and I have to disagreewith the review here.
I'd give the game between 7.5-8 the story is decent thought a certain clown did kinda ruin what was a decent story,though the guy who plays him has put up a brilliant preformance,Not keen on Sonic playing bats though.

Gamepad controls are next to nout,and I wanted more appearance from certain characters.



skjia said:

@ToniK I do hope you're referring to the Lord of the Rings movies only. The books are amazing.

It is nice to see so many people not going crazy for Nolan's "Batman" movies. I though I was the only one. haha.

More on topic, this review seems a little bit harsh. I thought the story of eight assassins was at least better than "Let's put all bad guys in a big city and shoot rockets at them." The game did have a lot of glitches though.



Sir_JBizzle said:

Thank you NintendoLife for giving a review on the game! Every review that I found didn't have one iota of the Wii U experience!!!

Honestly, I didn't jump into this game thinking it was going to blow Rocksteady's Arkham out of the water. I think this is a fair review even if personally I'd give it at least give it a 7 or 8. I'm not finished with the game yet, but I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

It's a little tedious at times, and some of the assets are recycled, but I think it's good that it's more of the same. I looked at it from this angle: It's a prequel, so I wouldn't want very many features leapfrogging what was already established. Leave that to Rocksteady. The combat/stealth was unbalanced, then again, it sort of fits the narrative of a young, unrefined Batman. I think he would be more likely to jump head first into a fight than a seasoned Batman who would prefer stealth. This review doesn't mention some of the boss battles, which are pretty creative.

As a huge Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill fan, I was surprised by the voice acting here, I thought it was very serviceable and authentic. So far, I feel the story's pretty solid. There were a few niggles here and there, but I could live with them, particularly since I've played a bit of the PS3 and 360 versions and those seem worse off with bugs and whatnot (Though I hear they are working on a patch for all versions) I don't have much of a problem with loading times (however I don't know if that's attributed to having it on my HDD vs a retail disc)

The biggest thing I'm disappointed is the lack of GamePad integration in comparison to the Armored Edition of "City". I'm sure that was due to the fact it was being developed on 3 systems at once so they wanted some semblance of parity, but then again how hard would it have been to add those GamePad features since the groundwork was already in place from the last game. Plus it would've sweetened the pot for Wii U owners, since we were missing out on multiplayer. Also I wonder (unless I'm missing it) why there is no hotswap button to play solely on the GamePad at will? I hate the fact that if I want to play on my GamePad on boot, I have to navigate the menu on the TV first.

Sorry for this long post, I wasn't trying to give my own review. I just got a little carried away! HAHA



DarkCoolEdge said:

@CountWavula So what? They did it but that doesn't mean it was for the best. In fact that's one of the things that has intoxicated the medium. The freakin' childiss obsession about grades.



Sir_JBizzle said:

@skjia as a huge Batman fan, I loved Nolan's take. I think most people thought they were a breath of fresh air because in comparison to all the Batman movies that followed "Returns", the Dark Knight trilogy was a masterpiece. Nolan got the basic essence of Batman right as a dark and damaged character. Also, I think most of us deep comic book nerds take problem with Nolan is that he deviated a bit from source (pretty much true for all comic-to-movie adaptions), especially when you compare it to the generally excellent DC Animated movies/shows. Or in the case of video games, the Arkham series.



CaPPa said:

I disagree with the majority of this review. To me the story was tighter than the previous games and had much better boss fights. The voice acting was great throughout as well (with voices from the animated series) and while RCS might not be as good a bat as Conroy he is probably is the next best thing.

The only negatives I'd have would be the lack of GamePad use in comparison to Arkham City (but at least it keeps the map which is the most useful feature) and a slightly less polished feel overall (just in little things). For me Arkham Origins sits nicely along Asylum and City (my favorite PS3/360 game); so I'd rate it 8.5 - 9.0.

BTW It's the 'Batwing' not 'Batjet'. For that alone I give your review 1/10.



ToniK said:

@Platypus101 I'm not a fan of the 80's at all. What I meant was that I was young when I watched those trilogies and therefore I have a deeper connection to them. If you ask me, the best Batman movies are Batman and Batman Returns. The 60's one is just silly :)



Sir_JBizzle said:

@CaPPa that's pretty much the same assessment I had. Though you're a little more generous with your score than I was. To add, in relation to NintendoLife's review (that I didn't mention in my comment) it would make sense there's a ton of thugs to fight being that if this a prequel, then Batman is in the beginning process of cleaning up the streets. :-)



banacheck said:


Was Arkham Asylum & Arkham City a button masher also? because judging by this comment thay had to of been.



sinalefa said:

I agree with @ThomasBW84. Most people here are basically complaining because of the number attached at the end, attaching their favorite number instead, rather than the text of the review itself. That debate will always be there as long as reviews have numeric scores, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I have a tendency of getting the Arkham games around two years after each one is released, so it will take a while until I get to play this one. My copy of Armored Edition is still sealed.



electrolite77 said:


"grade the visuals, gameplay and sound 'game pro' style"

Or read the text, look at the screenshots videos etc.

"Game Magazines were ALWAYS doing it in the 90's"

It was stupid then, it'ld be stupid now. Even then as a youngster I couldn't understand why gamers were so hung up on scores. It doesn't happen with movies or music.



electrolite77 said:



Totally agree. I'd do away with them.



Platypus101 said:

@ferthepoet it's not just sales... Wii sports changed how video games are played and viewed by the general public. Sorry previous statement was too general. :P



HawkeyeWii said:

Too low of a score. I would definitely give it at least an 8.5. Great game!
If this is one of your major gripes:
"it recycles so much from its predecessors and does absolutely nothing to improve upon them"
^^^ Call of Duty says hi. And yet Call of Duty has gotten great reviews across the board for the last 6 releases.



Turbo857 said:

Geez, I swear this game unfortunately gets judged WAY too harshly. All because City was a perfect game. Look I'm sorry, but there's very little that could be added or improved with current gen hardware to make the Arkham games formula any better than it is now. Outside of a 2-player co-op campaign (split screen or gamepad co-op), new story/villains and incorporating the Batmobile in some capacity, I don't see what can really be improved.

The way to review a franchise game is simply by how fun and engaging it is to play first and if it at least lives up to the quality of its predecessors (which Origins does). It should first get credit as a quality game before points get deducted for its lack of innovation. I didn't care that Megaman sequels showed small incremental improvements in gameplay. I played them because most of the time they were quality titles (Megaman X6 not so much).

Quite frankly, most of my friends that own this game love it as much as City. It provides that same level of addiction as City and imo easily deserves a rating well above a 6.



hydeks said:

Wow, I bought this game launch day, and I have to say this is another odd time where I disagree with NintendoLife...freaky :-P That's only happened 3 times now.

If your a Batman fan, I think you'll absolutely love this game! :-)



hcfwesker said:

@DESS-M-8 Agree with you, except on the lacking story part. The previous Arkham games I was more blown away by the gallery of villains used, where as the stories, they just seemed 'ok' to me. But Origins had several nice twists and nice ways to introduce certain character's relations with Batman it literally had me gripped throughout. Most Arkham games I'm focused on the collectibles and 100%'ing, Origins I hurried through the main story because it really did have me intrigued throughout. 8/10 for me as well. I'm not obsessed with numbers, but how Origins gets a 6 & some mindless "physics broken tilt" eShop game 'Puddle' (worst WiiU game purchase, for me) gets a 7 is beyond me :P



Nico07 said:

Not the best in the series, but boss battles and fighting are a little refined. This game is good but not great especially considering it looses some Gamepad features available in the previous game.



suburban_sensei said:

For Batman fans, the story alone makes this game worth a purchase. While I agree technically it is quite flawed, and Gotham is rather boring to glide around in, they really knocked it out of the park with some of the stuff going on in the plot (namely with the Joker.)



unrandomsam said:

@banacheck Yeah they both were button mashers. I played Arkham Asylum on the 360 originally and because of the story it didn't really bother me. Playing it again it is pretty dull. People don't seem to like anything where you need to get better in order to progress. (At least any of the AAA's I have played recently it is almost impossible to not succeed).



Cohort said:

You can get Arkham City up for £12 on Amazon UK, think i'll be picking that up.



unrandomsam said:

@Chris720 That is what it seems like (When they swap to another dev then it is never as good) I am not sure it is the whole picture though. Rocksteady more than likely gets a free reign on how long it takes etc. I suspect this was on a strict schedule.

Knights of the Old Republic 2 is a similar sort of situation it was rushed out of the door unfinished. (A mod restored most of the cut content and it would have been miles better). The dev's wanted to finish it but were overridden. I suspect that is more common than most people realise.



unrandomsam said:

(Maybe they wanted another year for this but by then whatever Rocksteady has been doing is ready.)



Chris720 said:

@unrandomsam Its a shame as Rocksteady could easily have made this game far better. I would think another Batman game will be in the making soon, as this appears to be the end of the Arkham franchise since they'll be releasing all 3 in a Collectors Edition on 22nd.

Bad end to an otherwise great series.



SomeBitTripFan said:

This review rubs me wrong. It just seems like an irritated, and strongly objective dismissal of a game rather than an in-depth review, not to mention one that came particularly late. Did NintendoLife not get a review copy? Is the reviewer miffed about the lack of multiplayer? Is this simply a slapped together review for the sakes of getting one out? I'd say Destructiod's review of A Link Between Worlds was better argued than this. At least that reviewer stated and explained all of his problems. This review complains about this game with little to no explanation. When the reviewer starts to complement something, he quickly turns around and states it as irrelevant.



WaveyChristmas said:


Says you. I'm sure there are those that would love to see them back. Seems like certain web sites have just switched to tacking on Pro's & cons before the overall score at the bottom. IGN being one of the few, if anything what's stupid is rating a game out of 100....Cough IGN cough Honestly, who has the bloody nerve to to dish out a 9.9? it's just silly.



LightSuitGuy said:

I thoroughly enjoyed this installment.

Sure there are numerous issues, like the Gamepad functions not even close to being as integrated into the game as Arkham City, or the combat not being as fluent or responsive.

I did encounter some bugs that left me staring at frozen screen numerous times frustrated, but I kept at it. The story I feel is the game's strong point. It really keeps you invested in what's occuring; leaving you in continuous suspense. There are some similarities to Nolan's trilogy. But hey, its arguably the best interpretation of Batman to grace the silver screen.

Overall, the game's got it were it counts; and any fan if the Dark Knight shouldn't pass this one up; especially if you've already played Arkham City and have been craving for more after finishing it.




One-Winged-Pit said:

This guy in my class made good points on how it could have been a lot better. Instead of bad boss fights, Deathstroke hunts you on the ground and Dead Shot tries to shoot you when you are in the air.



Neram said:





banacheck said:

I can pretty much tell you now your not going to get anywhere button mashing through the challenges & combos including all of Batman's combat moves, towards some like God of War which is a button masher.



D3athBr1ng3r187 said:

This review is sole facts why hardly no core 3rd Party titles comes to a Nintendo system because of horrible biased reviews like this and the majority of the Nintendo community agreeing with this. Why does Zelda gets a Perfect 10/10 which deserve it's respects but this title a 6???? For gods sake at least give the game a 7 but a 6...........sounds very IGN biased to me and this is from a Nintendo Reviewer. He and few others are probably still salty about the Multiplayer thing eternal sadness.............- _ -



Dpishere said:

@Dpullam Agreed, that was clearly the intent of this game. Just a tide-me-over, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing if you are big fan of the Arkham series. Still, it does make me wonder what Rocksteady is going to do with their next game.



Dpishere said:

@CountWavula I prefer the Megadrive/Genesis Batman and Robin, me and my bro had good times with that game. Still have it, just no TV with a proper plug in for my Genesis. =D



pawelranger said:

I personally think City and Asylum are overrated and this underrated, yeah it has their issues, like framedrops in some parts of the game and some glitches that only makes the games look weird (like enemies running against the wall) but none of these are game breakers, and doesn't happen often like many people argue, (comparing with games like Skyrim, this is nothing).

This game is the better in the series in plot, cutscenes and boss battles by far, seriously I don't get why people see City and specially Asylum as good plots, and seriously even I like Kevin Conroy voice acting more, this Batman is a lot more vivid and active than City and Asylum, Joker voice perfomance are equally to Mark Hamill, but the dialogues in this one are much better and interesting.

The combat remains the same but is much more balanced and less repetitive than in the previous ones, in city and asylum I only needed to push the counter button repetitive times, in this one you need to be more accurate with the counter and the enemies will not always attack you, making you to seek the enemy to hit them and not lose your combo, also there is a rank (similar to platinum games) each time you finish a predator or combat encounter you will receive a rank on how good you were.

This is the first review I see the mention that this game graphically is identical and recycling some basic environments, that is totally inaccurate, in fact the city in plot is supposed to be the same city as Arkham city in most parts and still feels like a different city, graphically the game is superior than previous entries and the art direction in this game is impressive and very well detailed (finally Batman suit doesn't have underpants)..

Is not a 9 game, but neither is below to 8, WB Montreal does a very good job, and I feel that if they have a chance to make another entry, they will surpass Rocksteady entries in some time, similar as the reviewer says with Skylanders.



sinalefa said:


Yep. Animal Crossing New Leaf, Fire Emblem Awakening, New Super Luigi U and Mario & Luigi Dream Team are still sealed, as are Armored Edition and NFS Most Wanted U. So it is not a matter of first or third party games as I enjoy both and support them.



JustinH said:

@AJWolfTill WB didn't patch the Wii U version of Arkham City to eliminate a consistent game-crashing bug so the odds aren't especially good.



Kid_A said:

Huh. It's funny how mixed the reaction is. I think this is probably my favorite Arkham game yet. The emotional center of it is much stronger, and the Joker story is one of the more psychologically fascinating I've experienced. I'm a big Bat fan, but I thought despite a weak opening act, it ended up being a fantastic experience, with a notably more cohesive narrative that City's mess.



Zeargo said:

I started playing the Batman franchise with Arkham City. It was so totally awesome. After playing this game and comparing it to Arkham City, I felt like it was lacking something.

I only read the conclusion and yet I would've given it a 7, but they're right. The plot wasn't that easy to follow. At the start of the game, they stated the assassins after you. You would expect all of them to go after you, yet only some of the were part of the actual storyline.

One of the most odd things about the game is that for a real big map, there was very few places to enter and half of them were side quest related. Which is another thing, half the game is also based on side quests.

The only things that they did good on was; Bane, they did that extremely well and how he progressed throughout the game. And the Mad Hatter, that was my favorite part of the game.



Nintendo4Sonic said:

totally underrated!!! This game is 9/10 i played for 10 hours so far and i love it. The ratings are a punch in the face



GuyMan said:

This review is supposed to be about Arkham Origins, not the Wii U itself.



Spacedraptor said:

I think this game was score too highly, due to tech issues like the very poor frame rate it drops below 30fps which causes slowdown also the wii u is capable of so much more graphically. It's a shame because the story is interesting & underneath technical issues there is a good game in here just a pity it's a very poor port



FragRed said:

@Spacedraptor Thanks to you, I now know not to buy it. I was thinking about getting it in the Wii U sale as a download, but think I will pass if they didn't even bother patching the frame rate issues. Very poor.



Spacedraptor said:

@FragRed as I said the game is actually quite good I noticed the frame rate more in cut screens more of an annoyance than anything. I was quite disappointed that cold cold heart dlc isn't on the wii u edition nor will it be warner bro have pulled support for the game. My advice if you see it cheap give it a bash it's defiantly worth £10 or play the excellent batman Arkham City instead

Leave A Comment
