Besides the Batmobile, why did this game feel inferior to Arkham City in every way?

>Arkham origins
>the best

The main story missions were decent but the side content was a joke, far worse than Knight. The Riddler stuff was unforgivably lazy.

I love how going into a major building no longer meant a loading screen.

This, and the bosses aside from Bane and Deathstroke aren't that good.

All of the games do some things better over the others.

It's better than City, but Asylum will always be the best Batman game. Flying around City got boring. Adding the batmobile as another way to get around the large map was a good idea. Can't really defend the tank sections though.

>It's better than City, but Asylum will always be the best Batman game.

Care to explain why do you prefer Asylum?.

I can't see why anyone likes these fucking games

Played the first, got bored after detective mode was needed too much and around the ivy level, never picked up again

The combat is just dancing around mashing a button

Arkham just struck all the right notes for me in a time when superhero games were generally shit. Detective work, beating the shit out of thugs, and the riddler secrets were the best in that game. Then the open world meme happened and suddenly City felt like every other game that came out at the time. Only bad thing I remember about Asylum was the final boss.

>I can't see why anyone likes these fucking games

>Batman
>the combat shows how good martial artist Batman is, not having problems dealing with a crowd, and i always wanted a game where defense and the efficient crowd control is a priority instead of doing long combos over the same enemy
>they fixed your issue with the detective mode in the sequels (some levels block it)

It's hard to seperate the Batmobile from the rest of the game. It's literally half of what you do.
Environments are also very similar to each other. The only interesting area in Knight was batman's hideout where he keeps the infected.

It was in Batman's head, it wasn't actually the Joker

No wonder people hate AK, they have no idea what was going on

Asylum had shit boss battles and was more closed off than City (until near the end, when you can go almost anywhere to get the Riddler Trophies)

It's City's prototype. It's great, but weaker than City in every aspect.

Whatever man. I liked the tight level design. Asylum felt more like a metroidvania when City felt like a typical open risks action game.

From the open world, and the Arkham games design in general, i only dislike the fact that thugs have very bad hearing, as they don't react to the noise of the grappling gun and the cape.

Aside from that, i like the open world. It's really no different of how the Asylum was designed, the only difference is that Arkham City has thugs all the time.

nah, improved the mechanics alot. Intially I didn't like the setting as much, but I warmed up to being tacticool batman after a while.

Play it on hard, improves the game alot. The Arkham games practically play themselves otherwise.

Arkham Knight was solid.
Fight me.

for me asylum had a better atmosphere, the level design felt more cohesive, arkham city may have had a bigger world, but that world felt more like a chore of going from point a to b

I liked both though.

City was also le metroidvania, but you could also go for side missions in between sections. Or you could just ignore them and have a very simmilar experience to Asylum, though with a way way larger hub.

>open world
>metroidvania

No

I would never fight best girl opinions.

the small sections inside buildings were pretty much the same as in Asylum, the hub was just more open

a metroidvania would be exploring an interconnected world and retreading through areas you had been in the past to open new pathways for further exploration

city had a much different approach with each level being its own set piece, its a completely different design philosophy