Batman: Arkham Knight is an absolutely terrible Batman game

Batman: Arkham Knight completely misunderstood what it needed to be and is a far worse game because of it.

I want to just say, before we get started, this is going to be a spoiler-ific opinion piece. This is also going to touch on probably nearly everything Arkham Knight gets wrong. It is not a review, but considering the state of the PC version, I have no idea when I will be giving it a proper review. I have extensively researched all that I can on the game's story that I was not able to directly experience. That all said, let's get started on figuring out why this game is so terrible at being an Arkham game.

Yes, you heard me right. In being a Batman game, and being a proper sequel to Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City, Batman: Arkham Knight is a complete failure. It misconstrues what makes an Arkham game great and in turn mutilates itself into a generic third-person sandbox game; it's not even a very good one at that!

Let's start off with the reason so many fans were eager for this one, the story. Who is the Arkham Knight? Is Joker really dead? Is Batman going to die? These are the questions everyone kept asking themselves as Arkham Knight approached. Yet, when we finally get our answers, we more or less found out Rocksteady has lied to us in every way it could.


Let's start with the elephant in the room, The Arkham Knight.

The Arkham Knight is not a "new character" like they claimed. He's Red Hood, aka Jason Todd, aka the second Robin. We all knew it was too convenient that Red Hood even looked similar in his DLC promotional material. Not only is this obvious from the minute you hear the Arkham Knight talk, but the new twist on how Jason became this way is even weaker still.

He didn't actually die, apparently Joker just twisted his brain into hating Batman by torturing him enough. Nevermind that this failed to work with Tim Drake in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. Tim was able to resist it, after months of torture, and strike the Joker down. Either Rocksteady is saying is that Jason is even weaker than that (which means he can't possibly measure up to Batman like the Arkham Knight is supposed to), or they just made a huge plot hole as to why Jason would go this insane.

At least in Under the Red Hood, his arc and decisions made sense.

They also continue to fail in explaining how Jason created this new persona, or even how Batman never found his horribly injured apprentice in the remains of Old Arkham - we even see Batman running around in there in the first game, Arkham Asylum. How exactly could Batman have missed Jason with his magic cowl vision?

He claims Joker sent him a film showing Jason's death, but why would Batman not try to at least find the body first?

This is Batman, he doesn't take a cursory glance. He's supposedly the world's "greatest detective."

That's not even counting the fact that apparently the Arkham Knight gets his private army thanks to funding from the various criminals in Gotham. Except, we see early reports of his troops being trained way back as a Black Ops force led by Jason. So which is it? Is Jason the Arkham version of Solid Snake, or is he just a whiny brat given an army to throw at Batman.

Another main problem with the Arkham Knight is how he is lapdog to Scarecrow. It isn't ever made particularly clear why they chose to work together, and often they contradict each other. The Arkham Knight wants Batman dead as soon as possible, while Scarecrow wants Batman to slowly suffer. There are at least three points in the game where the Arkham Knight has Batman dead to rights, but Scarecrow prevents him from killing Batman.

Then when they finally fight, Batman wins easily because "reasons."

This is blatant character shielding at its worst.

It destroys almost any belief that Jason would keep taking Scarecrow's orders. They are the Arkham Knight's army, not Scarecrow's. If Jason wanted, he could kill Scarecrow, and take out all of Gotham in one night. It wouldn't even be that hard.

We're told Gotham is at war, but really, we never see Gotham at war. There are some riots, and a few looters, but the story never allows for a full-scale war like advertised. In fact, Gotham is pretty empty.

Some would argue the emptiness makes sense and adds to the ambience, but it really doesn't. We're told Arkham Knight is the ultimate "Be the Batman" experience, but instead, it's far from it. This is Batman pushed to the extreme, at his most inhuman. If we really wanted to be Batman, then city shouldn't be evacuated. In fact, there should be a Watch_Dogs style auto-generated civilian-saving system. We should prowl Gotham constantly, not treat it as little more than Arkham City made bigger.

Yet, destroying personal property, lying to and manipulating all those closest to us -- these are apparently what it means to be Batman. It's not about upholding the law, it's about crushing crime under our billionaire boots because we can afford to be above the law. With recent real world events where even just cops using military grade gear has resulted in horrible tragedies, you'd think Rocksteady would have the sense to address this sensibly. But no, being a violent vigilante who is genuinely dangerous and not necessarily even a hero is what being Batman is.

I'm Batman... so that means I can't be in any way accountable for my actions!

Batman may be a power fantasy, but Arkham Knight twists that power fantasy in all the wrong ways for its dark climax. This isn't the caring, constructive Batman of Arkham Asylum. Nor is this the scared, unsettled Batman of Arkham City.

No, this is a psychotic dog that needs put down.

The game implies that Joker's blood transfusion from Arkham City's plotline may be affecting Batman, but it is far worse than that. No disease can excuse him turning into an immoral bastard who betrays and belittles nearly everyone he cares about. Even Joker was too clever to be this awful to most people, which he actually points out several times, because he was the next thing Rocksteady skirted with a lie.

Yeah, Joker's "dead", but he is still a major character in Arkham Knight. Somehow they even got Mark Hammil to lie about doing voice-over work for the game. It seems it is impossible for any Arkham game to focus on any main villains other than Joker. Even in death, he cannot stop being a voice talking in your ear. Even though many were even excited that Arkham Knight would focus on Scarecrow and its titular "new" character, Rocksteady brings the Joker back.

What's even worse is that it leaves several key things unclear. It's uncertain what actually happens in real life, and what is in Batman's imagination near the end of the game. You see, at one point you play as Joker, and even right now, I am not entirely sure if you actually did the things he does, or if it's all in Batman's mind.

The problem is that this is a linear game, so like in Assassin's Creed III with the Homestead missions, the actual order of events is unclear. So, did Batman really go crazy and temporarily become the Joker? Because then at least the focus on him becoming inhuman might hold a shred of credibility. If it's all in his mind, though, then what was the point?

Yet, we see those people alive later on in GCPD lock up, so those deaths would only be in Batman's mind... taking all the punch out of them. And why is Killer Croc only present here as a cameo?

It takes what could be a very dark and serious turn for Batman and instead leaves you questioning what is really happening. It's not a great twist, it's not even a good one because it undercuts its own impact. Any chance at poignancy is lost, and instead it just rings hollow by the game's conclusion. And that makes the most terrible twist of all somehow even harder to swallow.

Yes, they went there.

Oracle "dies" for a vast part of the game, shoved into a character fridge. Late in the game, we learn she's actually not dead, but still used as a hostage.  After that, they then have her affirm all of Batman's actions and his failure to find her, even though his failure to locate her is the exact same thing that happened to Jason.

"We're fighting with you, not for you." Sorry Barbara, but not really. Most of the time he barks or grumbles at everyone to stay out of the way or do something for him. You aren't allies, you're subbordinants in his personal war on crime. She gets to help with one fight for the GCPD building via hacking, then never really comes up in the plot ever again.

You could argue that since she's the almost constant companion to Batman over the course of the Arkham series, having a larger role than Robin or even Alfred have had in past games, that it makes sense she'd be the one Batman would be most concerned about. Except, by taking her away for so long, she barely remains important to the plot as anything other than an objective. That's a horrible way to treat one of your most important characters, if nothing else.

Nightwing, Commissioner Gordon, Robin, Alfred, the Arkham Knight/Red Hood, and Batman all make it through the experience relatively unscathed. At worst, the Commissioner and Robin both get briefly held hostage right at the end, mainly just to try and make up for the fact that Barbara is finally free. At one point, Batman gets shot, but literally shrugs it off moments later. No matter the situation, the male characters make it through fine.

This is a series with a long established undercurrent of unintentional sexism, and that remains the case here. You know what helps clinch that fact? The only character who really dies is ALSO a woman, Poison Ivy.

What's worse in Ivy's case? Oh, she's treated less like a person and more like a tool for Batman to use. He immediately locks her up when she's threatening no one during the opening hour of the game, then when he needs her, he just pulls her out of jail and commands her to do his bidding. She dies doing this, saving Gotham city in the process. Scarecrow even points out that Batman is simply using her as a shield for Gotham. It'd be a heroic death if not for how she had basically no agency.

The only woman who gets treated right in Arkham Knight is Catwoman. At first, she is captured by the Riddler, but it makes sense for the Riddler to be gunning for both her and Batman. Not only that, but she and Batman actually have a mutual interest in defeating the Riddler. Catwoman even saves Batman in the end, depending on what order you solve the Riddles.

Catwoman being a temporary damsel is not nearly as big an insult to her character as Rocksteady making Barbara nothing more than someone you need to save, or making Ivy nothing more than a means to an end, not even really a person.

I'd talk about Harley Quinn's portrayal but seeing as she's hardly in the game, there's not much to say. They still don't give her a proper boss fight, she's still playing second fiddle to someone else, and still amounts to way less than she has in the comics.

Sadly, the story does not get better from there.

In fact, even in its final conclusion, Arkham Knight just can't get its act together. I'll just let you watch first. Go ahead, take your time with this clip.

What you just saw there folks, if my stupidity meter is correct, was a "buy our DLC to see what happens!" ending. Not a real ending. Nothing really feels resolved. We get left with a bunch of questions that didn't need to even be raised if they'd used any other type of ending. Instead, no, Batman doesn't die heroicly. He dies selfishly, covering his own arse.

They try to explain it away with Gordon's narration, but really, a war of escalation will happen regardless of if there is Batman or not. Which obviously Gordon should realize, but for some reason doesn't. Even the writing team behind Arrow would tell you that is ridiculous. We also see that apparently Robin and Oracle and getting married... because we just forgot to write that subplot in?

Then, at the end, we get what is either Bruce or Azrael using Fear Toxin as a new version of Batman, leaving the door wide open for DLC or another developer to make further sequels. That's how you write a finale, right? You leave tons of stupid questions that get introduced last minute.

This ending is simply terrible and is the final nail in the coffin for a game that clearly needed a better writing team or at least a proper editor to fix the plot holes and errors. Arkham City may have been a bit awkward at the end, but it at least was still enjoyable and fit the universe.

Batman still had enough mercy in his heart to save Joker, even after he killed Tahlia Al Ghul, and caused Bruce so much additional pain on top of that. You don't even get that meager amount of "it's still Batman" here. Instead, you're supposed to feel pity for a man who has given you basically every reason to dislike him intensely.

Batman lies and manipulates Robin and Gordon. He doesn't even own up for his failure to find Jason, only finally saying "I'm sorry." He hardly even acknowledges Nightwing as an equal. He only seems to care about Selina because of romantic interest in the most selfish regard. He runs someone over as an interrogation technique. He pummels the psychologically broken villains he faces instead of ever trying to help them become functioning human beings. There is no reason to feel bad at him possibly dying by the end of this. Batman is a horrible person in this game, and you almost feel bad that Jason fails at taking him down.

As if that weren't bad enough, let's get to the gameplay side of things.

I want you to look at this picture very closely.

Does that look like something a man who abhors death and guns would drive? No, no it does not. Even the Tumbler version of the Batmobile in Batman: Begins was more passive than this thing. It's two bipedal legs away from being a Metal Gear. In no way did we need a playable tank in a Batman game.  Even though I actually had very little issue with it in terms of controls, it still felt out of place.

Here's one example as to why -- you have to fight unmanned drone tanks. Because, some of the most expensive hardware today can be bought enmasse, and just casually thrown by one operator (seriously, they're all piloted by one guy) at a vigilante in a far superior tank. It never occurs to the Arkham Knight to just destroy the tank while Batman isn't in it. No, instead, the Batmobile is left intact. Always.

Also, when not being a tank, the Batmobile is still a manslaughter case waiting to happen. It "knocks out" people by zapping them with electricity but still sends them flying or runs over them. It can ram cars so hard they explode, yet somehow the passengers survive. It can fire rockets that send said cars flying and exploding. Still, the passengers survive. You can fire "non-lethal" rounds into crowds of enemies. Please tell me when this starts sounding more like Batman and less like a vehicle befitting Killzone or Terminator.

It is so tonally inconsistent that you almost cringe as you pop off shots at enemies like it means nothing.

It's an understatement to say that the Batmobile is forced into the game. Rocksteady tried so hard to press the damn thing in our faces with their PR, that they even had the cast and crew talk about it. It didn't matter if their characters or work in the game never came in contact with the Batmobile, it had to be talked about, because "BATMOBILE!"

And by golly did we get that Batmobile, as you spend more time in the opening hours of the game riding around in it than you do any of the normal things you experience in an Arkham game. It's easily over two hours before you hit the second Invisible Predator stealth section. Brawls are few and far between. But you fight a ton of tanks!

Oh, and are you a fan of Invisible Predator mode, I hope you really didn't like feeling like every stealth section was like a flexible puzzle. Stealth is no longer about picking off enemies and proper gadget usage. Instead, it's about exploiting the Fear Takedown system, getting enemies to group up, and navigating terrible level design.

Long gone are the intricate stealth sections of Asylum and City. It's time for huge environments with no real flow or direction to them.

The open world is so large and lacking in proper layouts that it loses the Metroidvania feel of past entries. Even Arkham Origins felt more like a proper play space than this version of Gotham City. It has a grand size to be sure, and it's beautiful from above, but that doesn't make the levels any better. Even interior environments seem to be so desperate to be larger that they lose their sense of scale.

When you infiltrate Oracle's tower while it is being assaulted by Arkham Knight's goons, there is an exterior, and two whole levels of interior environments. Except, there's still only like nine enemies, and they are all grouped closely together. So you do a Fear Takedown on three of them, zip away, take down one to charge up your Takedown meter again, take down another three, and you only have two enemies left. They haven't even finished their first patrol of the perimeter, and you are nearly done.

It's not satisfying either, as it means you don't have to put nearly as much effort into taking out enemies. Now, don't get me wrong -- the Fear Takedown system is a decent idea in concept. It's basically a non-lethal version of the Mark & Execute system from Splinter Cell: Conviction. You take down one goon, then have the ability to take out three in close proximity to each other, in a chained sequence.

You will use this ability a lot more than you'd think you would, because the new stealth levels are so sloppy that the auto-targetting for grappling away is constantly swapping objects. You'll struggle to go to the right vantage point or ledge on a regular basis, so you will just try to end each sequence as quickly as possible.

Oh, and the only real balance to the Fear Takedown is the new Medic enemy class. Except you can make the medic be your first takedown or have him be one of the guys you use the Fear Takedown on, thus nullifying his existence. Same for just taking out Medics first in brawling sections. They are so poorly implemented that there's not much point to their existence.

Speaking of poor implementation, I'll let this Kotaku article give you an idea of how badly handled the PC port was.

Yes, seriously, Warner Bros. apparently knew just how bad the PC port was and found it "acceptable."

I can't begin to tell you how that feels, as a loyal consumer who's played basically every Arkham game on PC.

And if you need more proof, just ask Total Biscuit how "great" the PC port is.

So, let's review:

  • The story is a complete trainwreck.
  • Stealth encounters are broken.
  • The Batmobile is completely out of place.
  • The open world is vapid and empty.

What else is wrong? Well, they managed to break the challenge mode and make it now be "VR Challenges" set in the sandbox instead of in individual maps like in the past games.

The DLC campaigns thus far released (Harley Quinn and Red Hood) are both only about eleven to thirty minutes long depending on the difficulty setting. All current DLC characters are already in the game as was discovered with a handy little mod to let you play as them in the sandbox.

So, you basically are paying for some slightly new levels to play through briefly with the current DLC offerings.

Even the side quests are underwhelming. Professor Pyg? Manbat? Deathstroke as a tank boss fight? This is the grand finale A-game AAA material Rocksteady had planned? We've been promised a "season of villain" bringing in more villains, but they aren't in the game. Instead, all the new villains will be DLC, which just makes it even more insulting.

Batman: Arkham Knight is a complete and utter mess of a sequel. For even the greatest positives in its favor, there are far larger negatives. To tweak Rocksteady's own trailer's closing words:

This is how it happened. This is how the Arkham series died.
Published Jul. 1st 2015
  • Lex_8267
    Sorry but this review is really unfair. The points your making aren't very valid. ARKHAM KNIGHT IS A NEW CHARACTER. Jason Todd is NOT a new character. Red Hood is NOT a new character. They said that Arkham Knight was a new character - not Jason or Red Hood. Batman in this game was portrayed more like Batman in the comics then he ever was in any of the other Arkham games. I don't know if you read any of the comic books, but he was always like this. He's the reason that Dick moved to an entirely different city - because it was a "lonely childhood" with Bruce. The fear toxin gave him severe psychological trauma - we saw what it did to the others. How a single dose made them crazy and try to kill everyone. How many times had Batman been dosed? Yet he tried his hardest to overcome it so that he WOULDN'T hurt anyone. The entire game centered aorund him trying to save a city that was obviously WAY past saving. There were PLENTY of stealth scenes, I have no idea what you're talking about. I was very happy with the fear take down as well, it was a lot like the fight scenes from the comic books.

    None of the Arkham games centered around any type of storyline from the games, so Jason Todd not dying is a nice surprise but something that could be expected. Tim actually DID go crazy, and the Joker had Jason for longer then he had Tim.

    Brawls few and far in between? There's plenty of brawls. I think that you just followed the storyline and major side missions, and not go around punching the shit out of rioters and thugs. For the bank roberies YOU do all of the fighting, same with the Penguin, same with basically everyone who is a thug and the miltia checkpoints AND the militia towers. We only NEED to use the batmobile for scenes with tanks and the bombs.

    Also, in the comics, the batmobile is just like that. If you want to do Nolan-verse, the tumbler had guns as well.

    You keep going off of movies and television shows, when in reality the Arkham series has NOTHING to do with either of those, it takes dynamics from the comic books and has its own storyline. Plus, there ARE villains in Arkham Knight that they haven't shown in any of the other Arkham games. THAT'S what they meant.

    AND it's not saying that the Joker venom in his blood stream had anything to do with the Joker being in this game. IT IS THE FEAR TOXIN. Which is basically the whole game's plot.

    There are some things that are wrong with it, yes, but no game is without fault. And they got Jason's characterization perfectly, along with Dick's. Which reminds me - you say he doesn't care about anyone, but in the game he asked Dick to stay with him and Dick refused. Batman doesn't say anything like this in the comics, because he's too stubborn and uncaring for it.

    Overall, Arkham Knight basically took the characterizations of the comic book characters, who are getting progressively darker. And all of the militia checkpoints are too small for my tastes, I need room for silent takedowns, not jumping in the middle of a fight with 3 grunts and two shields and 4 electrified batons and 3 assassins ugh. That's one of the only things that I hated about that game. But other then that, it was amazing. Beautiful, beautiful graphics, fun gameplay, I loved driving the batmobile around for fun and finding side-missions that way.

    If it isnt challenging enough for you, play it on hard then. I personally found Arkham City/Asylum's gameplay to be a lot easier but... to each their own I guess. In all seriousness though, Arkham Knight is NOT based on the movies or television series. Jason Todd is an EXTREMELY fucked up individual, especially in the Battle for the Cowl comic where he tries killing everyone, and shoots a 10 year old in the chest. Inside he's still desperate to be a part of the family again though, he WANTS Bruce's help, but he's too screwed up with issues to show it (which is in the game).
  • Mikey B_5271
    Terrible terrible terrible. I hate the fact that I'm forced to sit in the Batmobile for hours on end trying to complete the most difficult levels, when the real joy of the previous games was flying around (love that) and solving puzzles or clever ways to take out a group of enemies. I love the IDEA of the batmobile, but in reality the battles are boring and too difficult (I really want to progress in the game, just to get more of the real Batman). Then, when you're in a Batmobile fight, you're stuck there until you finish it or give up. I play games a lot, including the last batman games, and I understand that it's a fine line between 'too easy' and 'really I've been trying to complete this boring level for 2 days now', but for me they got this SO wrong. Great graphics. Awful gameplay. For me, the end of Batman!!!
  • Lou_1665
    Lets get started while yes jason todd isnt a new character the identity or persona of the Arkham knight is indeed a new creation but rocksteady lied to keep the mystery why ruin it right away, though I repsect your opinion i figured I would give an open minded approach about why i disagree. The Arkham knight actually builds on its predecessor games by adding multiple playable characters, villains, puzzles, challenges, combat features, and a years worth of dlc. The arkham knights connection was seeing a vengeful scarecrow planning for years to create a deadlier dose of fear toxin and with jasons escape from joker he made aware of scarecrows rising threat. Hiring a well funded merc named deathstroke to have an army to back him up. Scarecrow played as an emporer to arkham knights darth vader powerful but mislead he seeks to destroy batman for not avenging him. It's understandable when a mentor has a new apprentice tim drake after youve been put out he feels forgotten.The series pulls music references and moments paralleling the animated series for example the theme that plays when batman destroys a console and man bats fly around the city as nod to the episode on leather wings. Batmans always had a very dark ans almost psychotic way of purging evil. In dark knight returns comic he allows the youth to brutally beat thugs, in batman hush he almost killed joker after an over reaction, in batman vs wrath he employs alfred to sneak in wraths base knowing full well alfred has no protection. I could go on for hours but batman in comics has had a very abbrasive attitude towards crime and the game really displays his rising aggession to stop a city wide from destroying everything he holds dear. In the finale villains dont fear batman as they once did so to fix this he stages his death and finds a new way of instilling fear which the protocol knightfall is a famous storyline of batman where he let jean paul valley take over to heal his back and jean was a more savage and fearsome batman. All in all i have no defense of the pc version rocksteady should know better but in the end I respect what you have to say about this game but really its a marvel a true fit for its complex relationships. Reusing joker is part of batman, you can't have night without day or good without evil. Mark hamil is getting old and before you know he'll pass away and long time fans of the joker voice actor will having nothing but the animated series and the Arkham franchise to remember him. This is an addition to an ever growing batman and i commend rocksteady for their devotion to detail giving fans of any medium a proper ode to the cape crusade and fuck you
    Ps arkham origins wasnt made by rocksteady it was made by less caring warner bros just as a clear up
  • Spackling
    I thought I was alone in this. I was disgusted with Origins but this game made me think better of it. The DLC is pathetic, the Bat-tank was the last thing I wanted to fool with but was made to, the lack of boss fights or engaging the major villians was disappointing and...really...they broadcast the identity of the AK so early in the game that I just wanted it to end.
    I am sorry I bought the DLC and will count Origins and Arkham and Arkham City as the trilogy. The AK is just tedious and insulting.
  • Tyler Durden_7844
    I completely agree with you. I think Arkham Knight is by far the weakest entry in the Arkham games. I thought it was a pointless game. I hated the Arkham Knight character. I think Arkham City set the stage perfectly for an epic conclusion to Rocksteady's series. They had the balls to kill the Joker, they broke all the rules of comic based stories by really killing off a significant character. I expected a no holds bar for the story of Arkham Knight and instead we get a mishandled and terribly unfocused narrative that completely misses on Batman as a character. It made me hate the Batmobile. And I don't know about you but when I think of "Being the Batman" I immediately think of destroying thousands of pointless drones in a Bat-Tank. I really really did not like this game. Thanks for your article! You make some valid and objective points.
  • steve_5622
    I agree completely. The story sucked. The batmobile sucked. Oh and there are practically NO boss fights. I can't believe no one else was kissed off by this. What's the point in having all of these villains in the game if they don't get a boss fight. You fight arkham knight and deathstroke but in a tank? That was beyond disappointing. The best thing about AK is that it looks really really good. Other than that, this game sucks. I even like origins better than this
  • Goblin_6176
    So your typical butthurt SJW doesn't like a game about a strong male character... and we're supposed to be shocked by this? go back to Tumblr and preach about your feminist agenda there. nobody cares. if Zoey Quinn had programmed this game "Yeah right, she had trouble figuring out how to make Oppression Quest" you'd have been ALL OVER it sucking its Transgender Clit. (which Insistently is still a DICK) you gave yourself away the very MOMENT you went on about the imagined, Non existent "Sexism" every other point you made was moot the very MOMENT you went down that little rabbit hole. most of us GAMERS loved the game. did it have problems? sure. but not as many problems as YOU have. P.S. i made this account just to post on this fruity little "Review" so you can reply to me with some sort of Witty little comment talking about how ARRGGG MAD I AM! but in reality? just sick of looking for reviews, hints, guides on games only to find little Crybaby Social Justice Warriors like you trying to change the things WE LOVE into something YOU LOVE so much that you wont even play past the five minute mark. you are Agents of QQ. everything offends you and frankly im in a group of people who couldn't care less what offends you. you shouldn't be playing a BATMAN Game in the first place. you should be busy getting that Gender Theory Major instead of crying about Sexism in video games. Im White, Im Male and i couldn't give a flying Crap if i hurt your feelings. so cry about it on Tumblr.
  • JJ_9494
    Sorry but I disagree with mostly everything.

    I agree with the misuse of Deathstroke, with the Batmobile being out of character, and with the final sniper intervention In the ending. That was not handled well.

    Otherwise, mobility, combat and even stealth play very well. Stealth in particular brings fear take-down but balances it with drones and new tactics from AI. This is well executed.

    The mission system also works well, combining thee freedom to happen upon quests or picking them from available Intel. The world is also well built and the city layout makes sense. Etc.

    The story may be lacking a little by not handling all its characters well but the high playability and variety in the game makes up for it.

    Sorry. The review is unfair imo.
  • Mrh_5229
    The reviewer sucks and hates any thing that's not christan bales bat man this game is better than the movie franchise. Fuck off , learn how to be objective.
  • Cian_3867
    I absolutely hate how the games keep re hashing the tired old Joker villain, it shows a real lack of confidence in the game they're making that they need to keep appeasing fanboys of the already very over-exposed villain. When the interesting and threatening Black Mask villain was revealed as the joker in Origins I quit playing there and then, a pathetic and truly ridiculous twist that pneutered the plot. I think an argument could be made that the Joker is the star of most Batman media rather than the titular character who should be the focus.
  • Logan Brittain
    Fuck you it is a great game the story's great it is not sexist your just mad because they like consoles better
  • Elijah Beahm
    Featured Columnist
    Thanks for taking the time out of your day to make an account just to tell me this.

    Unfortunately, I have to also inform you that Arkham Knight was apparently even BUGGIER on consoles than it was on PC. It's just that Rocksteady was ordered to make the console versions stable first, and never really got the chance to stabilize the PC version.

    And the sexism thing has been a thing people have been pointing out since back in Arkham City so... I'm afraid that there's actually already been discussion on how the Arkhamverse treats its characters. Even Zero Punctuation noticed it was particularly obvious in his review. *shrug*
  • Naseem Davis
    From what I say I only agree with the fact that Arkham Knight isn't really a "new" character and that we have no back story on how he got this army. But from the most part your article portrays you not even understanding the story, like the part about the Joker, Batman was affected by the Fear Toxin so he hallucinates and sees Joker, at the end with Batman locking up Joker is Batman getting over his fear of letting Joker get loose, because Batman is afraid he will ALSO turn into the joker and be out of control like the patients he holds in his lab that he does testing on in Panessa Studios. So in the end batman is fighting his fear and affect of Jokers blood. Overally, THE GAME WAS FANTASTIC AND YOU'RE JUST MAD THAT YOU CAN NOT FIND ALL OF RIDDLERS TROPHIES.
  • Elijah Beahm
    Featured Columnist
    ...okay, first you were trying to get somewhere, but then that last sentence... huh? You lost me bud.

    And for context: I collected all the Riddler trophies in Asylum/City and tried (in spite of the glitches) to get them all in Origins. I actually am one of the few people who doesn't find them annoying. Because, if that was actually a problem, I would have mentioned it. So... not sure where this is coming from.
  • Jackson Ingram
    THANK YOU for calling out the sexist bullshit. We shouldn't have to deal with that anymore.
    I totally agree. Super disappointing end to such an exciting franchise.
  • emmanuel prud'homme
    And I don't have except their are people who don't like this game. Everyone has his preference
  • emmanuel prud'homme
    Well, they're a many point you wrong Elijah but I mentioned a few. First I don't find Batman begrudging his thanks. Aso the Poison Ivy's immunitary system is key for counter the Scarcrow's gas. And you find the female characters is only the need of safe? So you forget the firefighters, Jack Ryder, eventually Nightwing, Ace chemical's employees, even Gordon and Robin. And saving the two them in the end is sacrificed his identity secret. And the batmobile. Of cours is a dangerous weapon, nobody can't deny that, but face to the milice's soldier is use always the no-lethal munition, god is even mentioned. and the taser is violent but if use your detective vision you see her heart beating and don't mentioning chance. Batman and Lucius construct the number of volt of taser. And for all the deconstruction of Batman's methods he is inspire the good for a many persons. And NO. I don't find Barbara subordinate for the Dark Knight and nothing can you say change my opinion. And you think she is not present? Well Its same for Gordon but in my eyes its not a problem. They're a few many points again but I'm tired. Maybe next time.
  • MonsierMatt
    This is very well thought out and exactly what I was thinking by the end of the game. The Arkham Knight as Jason was just bad story telling. And you are correct in saying that many of the decisions in the game are decisions that the actual Batman would never make. (not to mention if something this huge happened the Justice League would have stepped in, in a Flash (haha see what I did there)) But seriously, how they wrote this story and said "Yea... That's who Batman is" just completely fucking astounds me.
  • Elijah Beahm
    Featured Columnist
    I actually hadn't even thought of that -- yeah, there really is no reason for the Justice League not to step in, even if Batman isn't part of the League in this incarnation. Kind of makes it seem even worse, TBH. Super-Man could have stopped the entire conflict in a few seconds. XD
  • emmanuel prud'homme
    Its true maybe Batman is a jerk, but in deep if truly care of his allies, he even thank Nightwing in the end and Oracle is a hacker Genius capable finding a failure in tanks a FEWS minutes. And Batman is quickly finding Poison Ivy for back to the GCPD after the coudburst and I find his sacrifice really heroic. There are many points Idon't okay with you. And you are optional conversation with Robin or you reveal is Oracle is "death". You don't love this game? Good!!! But you don't change the fact is a really big succes in equality with Asylum and City. Good night (or good day)
  • Elijah Beahm
    Featured Columnist
    He is begrudging at any thank you he gives. Oracle is also not present for 70% of the game really. That is merely to keep Poison Ivy in play.

    You really only contested about one point. Actually a number of outlets and users have voiced similar opinions to mine. I'm afraid you're going to have to except that fact.
  • the man_2582
    WHAT?!?!? This has to be the best batman game to date Its the best looking game this gen so far, the gameplay is amazing, the voice acting is amazing, the character models are amazing, the story is amazing
  • Elijah Beahm
    Featured Columnist
    I am going to take a wild guess and say you just jumped right to the bottom of the comments, not taking into account any of my points.

    Please feel free to read the article before jumping to conclusions about what does/doesn't make Arkham Knight in any way a good game.

    And, also, I am not saying it is the worst game of all time. I specifically am saying it is a terrible BATMAN game. The voice acting is quite solid, and the graphics are great, but those do not make a game good, let alone "the best". The experience is just as much a misfire about its primary goal as similar open world games like Watch_Dogs. They only difference is that this is a new turn for the Arkham series in a far less well thought out direction.
  • NinjaBenji
    It surprised me, they hype before its release and after launch are twisted.
  • Chai Chien Liang
    Probably the most complete critique I have seen of Arkham Knight so far

    BATMAN DOES NOT KILL ANYONE!...........right?
  • Elijah Beahm
    Featured Columnist
    *hits the breaks, casually zapping goons aside* YOU KNOW IT CITIZEN! *drives off through a public park and begins randomly shooting tanks*
  • load more comments  

Cached - article_comments_article_24922
More Batman: Arkham Asylum Content

GameSkinny Newsletter

Get Batman: Arkham Asylum news the moment it happens!

You have been successfully subscribed to this newsletter.