Two years ago Batman: Arkham Asylum was released on those consoles that turn kids into murdering rapists and not many games have bettered it. If I was writing this blog two years ago I would have definitely written about Arkham Asylum and it would have probably read like this:
“I’ve cum in my pants!”
Arkham Asylum is one of those rare moments of gaming perfection, like Donkey Kong Country or Ico. Set over the course of one night in Arkham Asylum, as Batman you must beat the shit out of the Joker and pretty much anything else that moves. It captured the tone of the comics perfectly and the gameplay was pretty much flawless. It had moments that surprised and shocked you and that just doesn’t happen enough in games.
So it’s been two years I’ve been waiting to play its sequel Arkham City, was it worth the wait? The short answer is yes. The set up is typically textbook comic book, Arkham Asylum has been relocated to a vast section of Gotham City (think District 13, that brilliant French parkour film), shit is going down, and it’s up to Batman to stop it.
As it’s Batman the storyline and scripting is vital to the game’s success, and to an extent it works very well. There are countless twists and turns that drive the story forward and while some are predictable they will at least make you want to play on. The dialogue is what really makes the game come to life, as you glide over Arkham City you can hear its inmates’ conversations, often discussing the events of the game. The Joker (expertly voiced by Mark Hamill) has some excellent dialogue which will have you genuinely laughing out loud (or LOLing as the kids say), while characters such as Catwoman are somewhat cringe worthy in their crusade on breaking the world record of puns per minute.
While the mechanics of the game have been refined and work even better than its predecessor, there is something about Arkham City which isn’t quite right. Unlike Arkham Asylum there is a strong emphasis on freedom, if you don’t want to continue the story you can glide about the city and complete some side missions. Oh, it’s a bit Grand Theft Autoy, or Assassin’s Creedy then? Well sort of. The side missions aren’t much of a challenge and only take as long as they do because the objectives are quite well hidden, and when you realise you’ve just been aimlessly searching for a corpse for ten minutes it’s not really that much fun.
The freedom aspect of the game is something of a lie however, you are in a prison after all. As open worlds go, Arkham City isn’t much of a city. Of course it’s supposed to look run down and shit, but there’s nothing really interesting to look at. There are a few fairly large interior locations (and it feels like you’ll spend most of your time in these) but the city looks much bigger than it actually is. What makes things worse is there’s a big chunk of the map you can’t access.
Contrast this with the last two Assassin’s Creed games and you may feel somewhat short changed. What would you prefer to jump around in, a beautifully recreated renaissance Rome or a dank squalid slum? Unlike Assassin’s Creed, Arkham City wasn’t limited by history, it was free to create any kind of interesting city, instead it made a boring one, and you run out of things to do in it very quickly.
Arkham City is like a Crème Egg, amazing but disappointingly short lived. The few hours you play the game for may be cosmic (I‘m bringing it back), but they will only be a few. Games like Call of Duty and Battlefield can get away with this because of their multiplayer content but what does Arkham City have to offer? There are some moments in which you can play as Catwoman. Well there are four and they’ll take you less than an hour to complete. There are the aforementioned side missions but these also take relatively little time to complete. There are challenge maps but their longevity is dependant on your level of OCD. So too are the 400 Riddler trophies to collect, either little green question marks scattered across the map or various challenges, however there seems to be little or no reward in doing so.
This brings me to my next qualm with Arkham City. I’ve grown up playing games in which you unlock content by playing the damn thing, though in the case of Arkham City and many other games you can only unlock content by purchasing it. Some content can only be obtained by purchasing the game at a specific shop, or even by purchasing a different product altogether (by buying the Green Lantern blu-ray you can play as a special Lantern Batman or something). For most content you have to purchase it online, and in the case of Arkham City, this content is superficial, largely consisting of different costumes for Batman.
This should be available to the poor soul who spent £40 on the game, especially when there is very little content in the first place. Collecting the 400 Riddler trophies would be a very long and very boring exercise and the player should be rewarded for their efforts, and not in the form of concept art. Why do I have to pay to dress up in a different costume when other games give me the privilege for free? It’s not going to radically change your gaming experience by wearing a different cape but it’s incredibly cynical to charge you for it.
This cynicism taints Arkham City. It has a great main story, but as a complete package it’s pretty awful. It has a mode called new game plus and this sums up everything wrong with Arkham City. In any other game, new game plus would be known as “playing the game again”, but Arkham City has put fucking bells on it, as if in an attempt to convince us that it’s not as threadbare as it actually is. It’s not that the game is short, it’s the lazy attempt to cover up the fact that makes Arkham City disappointing. The developers are laughing, and we’re left wanting justice, sound familiar?
No comments:
Post a Comment