Batman: Arkham Origins

[stemot]

destructoid gave this a 3.5/10 le owned rofl

Jim Sterling reviews are nothing but click bate most of the time, seems to have gone to town on this game because the review copy was late and it inconvenienced his whole weekend. Amazing how he says the entire story is a delivery system for paid DLC yet gives CoD games a universal 9 every year yet they announce 3 DLC packs upon release.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Or perhaps he just considers the game below average?

 

[Edeslash]

Spoiler

CAN WE NOT HAVE ONE F*cKING GAME THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE "OH LOL IT WAS THE JOKER THE WHOLE TIME AND NOT THE MUCH COOLER VILLAIN THAT WAS BUILT UP AS THE BIG BAD LET'S KEEP REUSING THIS EDGY AND SHITTY CLOWN C*NT INSTEAD"

oh god
the first time ever I'm happy I read a spoiler

 

[stemot]

Or perhaps he just considers the game below average?

Maybe he does but a 3.5? Really? There is nothing about this game that deserves that score and anybody who knows Jim knows he does this with regularity. He was already massively negative about this game before he even got his hands on it. Look at the comments on the RPS "wot I think" on the game to get a gauge on how the game actually is. It's more Arkham City with a better story.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I could never get into the games to be honest, so I'm a bit biased here. I beat the shit out of those guys in the intro and get bored when I have to spray silly string on stuff.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Maybe he does but a 3.5? Really? There is nothing about this game that deserves that score and anybody who knows Jim knows he does this with regularity. He was already massively negative about this game before he even got his hands on it. Look at the comments on the RPS "wot I think" on the game to get a gauge on how the game actually is. It's more Arkham City with a better story.

Score is not an objective measure of quality. The only difference between reviewers who give 3s or 4s to things they don't really like and the ones who give 7s is that one of them is trying really hard to pretend that it is.

Okay that sounds pretty critical but I don't see either as truly more valid than the other, I just see one as a bit more honest. I think in an extreme sense, it's the difference between viewing games as (potentially) art and viewing them as products. In other words, the difference between grading them based on how much they advance the medium versus grading them for competency.

If you don't think this applies to this specific case, here's the man himself saying so (not very eloquently :v).

 

[Bad^Hat]

Not that it matters any more since Jim just left Destructoid.

 

[tomemozok]

The game is done on 100% for me(i finished it a week ago).
The only thing really bothering me still, is the Burnley tower glitch, which was passable by using another glitch (pipe building momentum thing),which,after founding out about it, made me laugh so hard i couldn't breathe.
I heard that the glitch was fixed tough, but too lazy to turn batman on again to check it out.

 

[AtomicSpark]

It has been fixed.