[Megathread] Batman: Arkham Knight

[Deleted]

Ooooeeeeehhh b000000y.

[87Octane]

From what I can tell there aren't any other playable free roam characters, which IMO is a bummer. Two get some "story missions".

They did such a good job with Catwoman making her play (and scale obstacles) in a different fashion in free roam, but I'm not even asking for something that difficult. I'd be perfectly cool with copying Batman's mobility gadgets for Robin/Nightwing/Batgirl etc. I mean most of the developement work was done coming up with gadgets and movement/combat animations for Challenge modes - adding them to free roam seems like a small effort for a big payoff (at least for me)

[Blueobelisk]

Gotta be honest. The video doesn't really impress me that much. When batman was facing down a helicopter that was pretty awesome. But I'm not really into the whole bat mobile thing. Coolest thing about batman to me is being stealthy but physically overpowering if push comes to shove. The way the game uses the bat mobile is....eh...big and cumbersome.

[87Octane]

Gotta be honest. The video doesn't really impress me that much. When batman was facing down a helicopter that was pretty awesome. But I'm not really into the whole bat mobile thing. Coolest thing about batman to me is being stealthy but physically overpowering if push comes to shove. The way the game uses the bat mobile is....eh...big and cumbersome.

Yeah I mean considering how many of the thugs in City were armed with guns, stealth was paramount. I don't see how driving thru the city streets meshes with that gameplay well. Unless thugs with guns are a lot more rare, and melee weapons were a bit more dangerous to compensate.

[Edge-]

It seems this will be the first arkham game that will carry the "M" rating

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/...ght-is-rated-m

I'm sure it wont matter too much with the rest of you but since the last arkham game was sorta a let down... could this change of direction make the last game of the arkham franchise even better than arkham asylum and city? any other thoughts about this?

Eh, ratings don't mean shit to me. They're in no way, shape, or form indicative of the quality of any game I've played, so I don't see how this would improve Arkham Knights chances of being good. If anything, the fact that Rocksteady is doing this again instead of WB instills far more confidence.

Then again, I've not played Origins yet (literally played for about 45 minutes this weekend before it crashed and I've not loaded it up again yet because...I'm lazy and in the middle of other games), so I can't speak from personal experience.

[Dhrizzle]

Eh, ratings don't mean shit to me. They're in no way, shape, or form indicative of the quality of any game I've played, so I don't see how this would improve Arkham Knights chances of being good. If anything, the fact that Rocksteady is doing this again instead of WB instills far more confidence.

Then again, I've not played Origins yet (literally played for about 45 minutes this weekend before it crashed and I've not loaded it up again yet because...I'm lazy and in the middle of other games), so I can't speak from personal experience.

Origins isn't bad, it's just clearly a by-the-numbers imitation of Rocksteady's work. I do like the more primitive-looking bat-suit, the detective work is enjoyable but I felt it was underused, and overall it's worth playing with a decent story but it's more of a step sidewards than the step forward I'm hoping Arkham Knight will be.

[Tyrgannus]

Origins isn't bad, it's just clearly a by-the-numbers imitation of Rocksteady's work. I do like the more primitive-looking bat-suit, the detective work is enjoyable but I felt it was underused, and overall it's worth playing with a decent story but it's more of a step sidewards than the step forward I'm hoping Arkham Knight will be.

Origins gets a bad rep because City was phenomenal. If Origins was the first Arkham game, people would go absolutely apeshit over how good it is.

I personally am not surprised that Arkham finally hit the M rating honestly. I look at it like the Harry Potter movies. The earlier ones are PG whereas the later ones are PG-13. The progression is subtle and all of them are pretty borderline. High end PG at first and low end PG-13 later on. Same goes for Arkham. Play through Asylum again, try to remember what life was like before being desensitized with games like GTA and Mortal Kombat, and then realize that Asylum is a pretty hefty T rating game. I assume Knight, like Fable, will be a very low M rating, but nevertheless deserving due to one or two technical factors.

[Blueobelisk]

New (?) Trailer "Gotham Is Mine"



'Sho would be nice if a mod added this thread to VG Directory sticky thread.

[Lucetia]

'Sho would be nice if a mod added this thread to VG Directory sticky thread.

All done.............

[Edge-]

All done.............

Look at you, bein all useful and shit.

[Deleted]

Delayed once more. Ah well.



New gameplay.

[JP1o]

Jim Gordon at the start totally sounds like Jonathan Banks, at first I thought it was him.

[Deleted]

Warner Bros. has announced a Season Pass for Batman: Arkham Knight will cost £32.99 / $39.99 if purchased on its own, or available in a Premium Edition of the game priced £87.98 / $99 on PS4 and Xbox One.

The Season Pass will provide DLC for six months following the game's release. Though solid details on content haven't been nailed down, we should apparently expect "new story missions, additional super-villains invading Gotham City, legendary Batmobile skins, advanced challenge maps, alternative character skins, and new drivable race tracks."

Don't dare to buy this on release, vote with your wallets.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/04/2...tion-announced

[kail]

Suprised its priced at $39.99. Rather rare for a AAA title.

[Tech614]

Suprised its priced at $39.99. Rather rare for a AAA title.

The game is $59.99.

The season pass for all of the DLC is $39.99.

[Cattleya]

Well, he's still right, 40 bucks for a season pass is rather rare. In a bad way.

[Tech614]

Well, he's still right, 40 bucks for a season pass is rather rare. In a bad way.

As with everything, it depends on the content of the season pass.

People are way too quick to judge when Rocksteady has done nothing to lose faith yet to this point. Will I be dropping $40 on it at launch? Nope, but I won't rule out buying it, will have to wait to see the content.

GTAIV DLC was well worth $40.

[Lucetia]

Don't dare to buy this on release, vote with your wallets.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/04/2...tion-announced

Eh, I'll do what I always do. Buy the main game for about $25 on release and then wait till the Season Pass hits % off stages and then grab it.

[Dhrizzle]

Eh, I'll do what I always do. Buy the main game for about $25 on release and then wait till the Season Pass hits % off stages and then grab it.

What, you mean it's possible to hunt for deals or exercise self-control instead of immediately throwing all your money at the devs and/or raging about evil greedy corporations?

I'll probably do the same, except I'll be paying the full price on Steam because I'm a sucker for convenience and slightly paranoid about some of the discount sites.

Edit: Having just checked Steam it's only £35, I might even preorder for the Harley Quinn content.

[VincentWolf]

The more I see of this game, the more I dislike it.
Robins in a bigger role? No thanks. All super hot (in previous games) female characters butchered down to the looks of usual everyday women? No thanks. Weird villain? No thanks. No Joker it seems (yes you don't have to tell me he's dead, I've finished AC few times, I know, I just don't believe it)? No thanks.