Batman: Arkham Origins Catch-All

Pages

He broke them?

SallyNasty wrote:

I didn't find it harder. The combat is a bit more exacting, but not more difficult. I thought it was excellent.

Yeah, I noticed this, and Female Doggoed to Sally about it. The timing windows for counters is slightly smaller than Arkham City, so I found it a lot tougher at first, but it got much easier. Like 200K+ on a 60K challenge easy.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I didn't find it harder. The combat is a bit more exacting, but not more difficult. I thought it was excellent.

Yeah, I noticed this, and Female Doggoed to Sally about it. The timing windows for counters is slightly smaller than Arkham City, so I found it a lot tougher at first, but it got much easier. Like 200K+ on a 60K challenge easy.

There's also the issue that enemies close with an attack just like you do... which is to say ridiculously. Dude starts a swing next to me but I run away and he still hits me without moving his legs and sliiiiiiiiiiides towards me because... I dunno.

I'm enjoying Origins, but I'm finding it suffers quite badly from dowhatthedevswantitis. You can grapple to this rooftop, but not that rooftop; this door looks the same as all the others, but it won't open; no, you can't fall out of this giant hole in the wall.

Also, what's the deal with having the on-screen next-objective pointer leading you on a path instead of pointing to where you're going? Every time my destination is across the bridge, the pointer goes to the bridge, then across it, then shifts direction to where I'm actually going. It's disconcerting.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Also, what's the deal with having the on-screen next-objective pointer leading you on a path instead of pointing to where you're going? Every time my destination is across the bridge, the pointer goes to the bridge, then across it, then shifts direction to where I'm actually going. It's disconcerting.

There's two potential reasons for this. The first is that they want to try and provide a pathway for the player to follow. The second is that the details at the actual destination have not been fully rendered and thus the game isn't really capable of pointing out the precise location.

I'd bet more on the latter.

ccesarano wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Also, what's the deal with having the on-screen next-objective pointer leading you on a path instead of pointing to where you're going? Every time my destination is across the bridge, the pointer goes to the bridge, then across it, then shifts direction to where I'm actually going. It's disconcerting.

There's two potential reasons for this. The first is that they want to try and provide a pathway for the player to follow. The second is that the details at the actual destination have not been fully rendered and thus the game isn't really capable of pointing out the precise location.

I'd bet more on the latter.

I dunno; if I go to the map, I can see my final destination.

My guess is that people were aiming for the pointer, missing the bridge, falling in the water, and getting upset. Or they wanted to avoid that happening. (So, you know, your first point.)

The map is just a static image, though. It's not linked in any way to the city itself being rendered in the distance. Typically the further from the player an object is the less detailed it is rendered (this is how a lot of Unreal Engine textures and models work in order to get a longer draw distance).

It's all just a guess, of course, and both could actually be correct. Or neither at all. I'm just throwing out possibilities.

A game engine doesn't need rendered assets to be able to point toward a set of coordinates. It's really simple math.

More likely, your guess that the destination arrow was intended to give the player a path is correct. The flip side of the problem of the arrow pointing you across the bridge when you know the destination is north of that is another common gaming problem: you know your destination is at the top of this tower, but you don't know how to get up there, and the compass isn't helping.

I assume chumpy is right that they didn't want people struggling to cross the water. Unless you get pretty good glide boosting and diving, the only way across the water is the bridge, anyway.

Finally went back and played this one this fall. Still have Arkham Knight in the pile.

The main game is tons of fun. The extras, like the riddler stuff, is insane. Way too many and too much and just empty ways to fill the game and tying bonus powers to them is annoying. No way I will try for 100%, even though I did that twice on the original Arkham Asylum game on both PS3 and PC.

It's like City but much worse with bloat. And no fun Catwoman stuff.

And Joker was ok but not Mark Hamill was just a bit off.

Pages