• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Batman Arkham City

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fingolfin269 said:
Wow a 3? Just ignore the sandbox element. It's almost like you're rating it a 3 because the game brings out the add in you thus making it impossible for you to enjoy it because of the fully optional aspects of the game.

I have the same add problem but at least realize that's my problem and not the game's.
Click to expand...

No, because if you ignore the rest, the game is too short, too crappy to warrant the full price. I enjoyed the side stuff in Asylum. The story made sense. Even if I can track side missions, it's still a friggen sandbox game. I think 99.9% of all sandbox games are just boring. Likely the same reason no MMO holds my interest.

Rage187 said:
Alright, I put 8 hours into it today.

I did like the linear track in Asylum. I feel like I end up places I shouldn't be in this one.

Still good though. If asylum was a 9, this is a solid 7.8.
Click to expand...

To me, Asylum was an 8. There are almost no games that qualify for a 10. A 10 would be Deus Ex 1, System Shock 2, Thief 2...

A 5 is a game that really offers nothing: I don't like it, or hate it. You fall below a 5 if I actively find it stupid and/or annoying to play.

There are not enough games rated 5 and below. When looking at metacritic, a game rated a 7 is almost universally not worth my time. And that's wrong. A scale on which a lot of games score a 8+ is a scale that is of no use.
 
Finished the main story last night. Great game but the end kind of snuck up on me. I didn't do a lot of the optional missions so the completion % kind of tricked me into thinking I had a lot more to go than I really did. Now it's time to pick up uncharted, finish that, then back to this to do the optional stuff.
 
RampantAndroid said:
There are not enough games rated 5 and below. When looking at metacritic, a game rated a 7 is almost universally not worth my time. And that's wrong. A scale on which a lot of games score a 8+ is a scale that is of no use.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I'm damn sick of a 7 being used for an average game.
 
Beev said:
Completely agree. I'm damn sick of a 7 being used for an average game.
Click to expand...

90-100: A
80-89: B
70-79: C
60-69: D
Below 60: F

If a game only gets 50% of things right, it's a bad game. Consider Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap. So a game that is right in the middle in terms of quality (i.e., there are just as many games worse as there are better) is probably pretty bad.

A TON of games get made every year. Out of those, only a handful are even good enough to get any amount of press. A huge number of them are horrible shovelware that you will never see on the front page of any gaming website. THOSE are the games that are getting those below-60% ratings.

However, I'm not completely defending the four point rating scale. I think it's misleading because it implies that anything below 8 is mediocre and anything below 7 isn't even worth renting. Furthermore, you have score inflation even within the four point scale, where highly anticipated games are expected to get a 9 or higher, and when you have a situation like Twilight Princess getting 8.8 it starts a shitstorm. Tenths of points are silly too... I mean, what's the difference between a 9.5 game and a 9.6 game?

I'd prefer a simplified rating system myself... 1up gives games letter grades to avoid the deceptive practice of assigning numbers to a review. I think there's at least one gaming site that gives games a simple "Buy/Rent/Skip" rating, and some sites use a 5-star system that, despite having a smaller number of increments, actually provides a wider range of acceptable scores. Three stars is often considered at least decent, even though it's equivalent to a 6/10.
 
I definitely need to pick up Arkham Asylum and check that out and then in a few months pick up a cheap copy of Arkham City.
 
Beat the game (just the main missions and a few side missions). I give it a 8/10 - great sound/acting/characters, but in the end, it was the same as Asylum. The end did sneak up non me too. I only completed 36% of the game, so there's still tons to do.

I traded in the game to Amazon for $30 and will plan on getting MW3 next!
 
fallenangel99 said:
Beat the game (just the main missions and a few side missions). I give it a 8/10 - great sound/acting/characters, but in the end, it was the same as Asylum. The end did sneak up non me too. I only completed 36% of the game, so there's still tons to do.

I traded in the game to Amazon for $30 and will plan on getting MW3 next!
Click to expand...

Wait, so you basically rented the game for $30?
 
AstroManLuca said:
Wait, so you basically rented the game for $30?
Click to expand...

Eh, I did the same thing. I realized there is a 1% chance I play through the whole game again, and the challenge maps weren't really my thing. So I got $30 for it instead of letting it sit on the shelf and depreciate in value.
 
AstroManLuca said:
90-100: A
80-89: B
70-79: C
60-69: D
Below 60: F

If a game only gets 50% of things right, it's a bad game. Consider Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap. So a game that is right in the middle in terms of quality (i.e., there are just as many games worse as there are better) is probably pretty bad.

A TON of games get made every year. Out of those, only a handful are even good enough to get any amount of press. A huge number of them are horrible shovelware that you will never see on the front page of any gaming website. THOSE are the games that are getting those below-60% ratings.

However, I'm not completely defending the four point rating scale. I think it's misleading because it implies that anything below 8 is mediocre and anything below 7 isn't even worth renting. Furthermore, you have score inflation even within the four point scale, where highly anticipated games are expected to get a 9 or higher, and when you have a situation like Twilight Princess getting 8.8 it starts a shitstorm. Tenths of points are silly too... I mean, what's the difference between a 9.5 game and a 9.6 game?

I'd prefer a simplified rating system myself... 1up gives games letter grades to avoid the deceptive practice of assigning numbers to a review. I think there's at least one gaming site that gives games a simple "Buy/Rent/Skip" rating, and some sites use a 5-star system that, despite having a smaller number of increments, actually provides a wider range of acceptable scores. Three stars is often considered at least decent, even though it's equivalent to a 6/10.
Click to expand...

Comparing the academic system to grading a game is bad, IMO. Academic grades are based on understanding and comprehension, and what is "good enough." Grading a game is about what merits the game has. To be, a 5/10 is middle of the road. 6/10 should mean it's kinda fun. 8/10 should mean it's great. 9/10 is an amazing game, with a few flaws. 10/10 is flawless. 3/10 means it is shitty, not worth money or time. 1/10 means you should be paid to even let it collect dust on your shelf.
 
RampantAndroid said:
Comparing the academic system to grading a game is bad, IMO. Academic grades are based on understanding and comprehension, and what is "good enough." Grading a game is about what merits the game has. To be, a 5/10 is middle of the road. 6/10 should mean it's kinda fun. 8/10 should mean it's great. 9/10 is an amazing game, with a few flaws. 10/10 is flawless. 3/10 means it is shitty, not worth money or time. 1/10 means you should be paid to even let it collect dust on your shelf.
Click to expand...

The problem there is that no matter how you break down the numbers, on a 1-10 rating scale there will always be a pretty wide range dedicated solely to bad games that few people if anyone would enjoy.

Setting 5 as middle of the road is fair, and I don't disagree with it. I think I would amend my earlier position to say that, while I don't necessarily think games SHOULD be rated in the same way as school letter grades, that is the reality of how they are graded, and you should read them as such. I don't think IGN, Gamespot, and others will all of a sudden adopt a "5 = average" scale over their current "7.5 = average" scale. So people who read reviews have to just roll with it and adapt to the realities of the current system.

Still, I'd say that, given Sturgeon's Law that I mentioned earlier, an "average" game may not be worth playing. Maybe only if you are a big fan of that particular series or genre.
 
AstroManLuca said:
Wait, so you basically rented the game for $30?
Click to expand...

I guess..This is the first new game I purchased in a very long time (3 yrs? 5 yrs?). I really liked the first one. Anyway, I have blockbustermovie pass (via Dish), so I will just rent out games from now on. (I do have the $30 coupon from Kmart, so I will use it on MW3.)
 
AstroManLuca said:
The problem there is that no matter how you break down the numbers, on a 1-10 rating scale there will always be a pretty wide range dedicated solely to bad games that few people if anyone would enjoy.

Setting 5 as middle of the road is fair, and I don't disagree with it. I think I would amend my earlier position to say that, while I don't necessarily think games SHOULD be rated in the same way as school letter grades, that is the reality of how they are graded, and you should read them as such. I don't think IGN, Gamespot, and others will all of a sudden adopt a "5 = average" scale over their current "7.5 = average" scale. So people who read reviews have to just roll with it and adapt to the realities of the current system.

Still, I'd say that, given Sturgeon's Law that I mentioned earlier, an "average" game may not be worth playing. Maybe only if you are a big fan of that particular series or genre.
Click to expand...


I don't expect IGN to move suddenly, but at the same time, if 7.5 is an average game, we're devoting so much of the range to below average, and so LITTLE room to above average, thus causing a good game to be an 8 something and a great game to be a 9 something. But that leaves no room for "fun but repetitive" or any other easy grading system.

I suspect I'm beating a dead horse right now though.

Anyway, my rating of AC stands. Below average, for me.
 
I really enjoyed Arkham City. In fact, it's one of the only single player games I've played through entirely in years. Boss fights are too easy, but I didn't think the game was short at all. But then, I'm not one of those "sit down and play all day and night" guys these days. 8.5/10 for me.
 
Axon said:
I really enjoyed Arkham City. In fact, it's one of the only single player games I've played through entirely in years. Boss fights are too easy, but I didn't think the game was short at all. But then, I'm not one of those "sit down and play all day and night" guys these days. 8.5/10 for me.
Click to expand...

Had you played Asylum?
 
RampantAndroid said:
Had you played Asylum?
Click to expand...

Yes, but for some reason, I didn't get through the whole thing. Again, I check out of single player games within minutes these days. Too much cut scene babble, etc, and I'm done. City hooked me in for some reason; therefore, at least for me, it was a great experience. I guess I can understand people who really enjoy single player games thinking it's too short or whatever.
 
mcmilljb said:
Buy their magazine too. The extra $5 knocks the price of the game down to $10. So $15 total. Plus they have some other good coupons as well.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the game is $29.99 and the magazine is $5. In the magazine, there is a $20 off coupon for B:AC, so total out the door is $15 + tax.
 
mcmilljb said:
Buy their magazine too. The extra $5 knocks the price of the game down to $10. So $15 total. Plus they have some other good coupons as well.
Click to expand...

they also have Rage for $5 w/ coupon and Bulletstorm for $10 with their coupon. Both were on the 360.
 
Rage187 said:
they also have Rage for $5 w/ coupon and Bulletstorm for $10 with their coupon. Both were on the 360.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's a pretty good deal. I didn't even have much interest in Rage, but for $5, why not. Mass Effect 2 is part of the same deal. Store price is $20, plus there's a $15 off coupon in @GAMER.
 
I love this game but I don't like how long it is 🙁... No more time for studying but then again that defeats the purpose of video games.
 
jacqg said:
I love this game but I don't like how long it is 🙁... No more time for studying but then again that defeats the purpose of video games.
Click to expand...

It's as long asked you make it out to be. It's almost an open world where you can do a lot.

This game is what Arkham Asylum should have been. Asylum got really boring and repetitive halfway into the game as every boss fight was the same and the variety of normal enemies was low and all the same as well. I didn't think Asylum was that good at all. City had immensely more variety in normal enemies and the city gave you a lot to do. Definitely a much better game.
 
zerocool84 said:
It's as long asked you make it out to be. It's almost an open world where you can do a lot.

This game is what Arkham Asylum should have been. Asylum got really boring and repetitive halfway into the game as every boss fight was the same and the variety of normal enemies was low and all the same as well. I didn't think Asylum was that good at all. City had immensely more variety in normal enemies and the city gave you a lot to do. Definitely a much better game.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Asylum was consistent, you didn't get lost wandering the prison...there was a proper story. Everything city doesn't have. Had Asylum been the same as City, I doubt the series would be so popular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top