The thing is, It does not look decent. The "stupid" traversal mechanics, the really janky looking combat (slide 3 miles between 2 foes with a button press - the arkham games had this problem in a toned down way themselves - ), the not nearly current gen looking graphics. First impressions are important for a game, and this is a bad one (the first trailer is so "old", it doesn't even count anymore). That there is no Batman, which puts this in the Arkham-Verse (Spoiler?!), wouldn't even be a problem. But the new "cartoony" look, the baaaaad gameplay (come on, those fights look like they are a quarter or third too slow) and the overall cheap feel of it all kill this thing in its tracks.This represents what I don't understand in a lot of comments about this game around here. From what you say I understand just the pitch alone is something you're against?
It seems like no matter what the game would be like, people decided to hate on this game from the beginning just because it's not about Batman, and I'm super confused about this.
I disagree with a lot of comments here because I thought the video looked decent (still need to see more in depth combats to see what it offers or not), but still, not liking the game for whatever reason is one thing, but it really seems like people just totally hate the concept of having a game not about Batman. I don't understand why it's that much of a problem, we already had plenty of Batman Arkham games, and while I loved them, I'm excited to see something else with other characters. It just seems very strange that people are so against the idea of a game about other DC heroes.
Unless your comment is only about having an arkham style game with coop, then it's another story.
(I'm saying all this because you say that you don't understand why this concept was even pitched, so I assume you don't like the basic idea of the game, and not just disappointed with this new video).
Game menu looks like a Marvel game that I am playing on mobile phone
I thought this game was outside the Arkham-verse? Or am I misremembering what they were saying when it was first unveiled?The thing is, It does not look decent. The "stupid" traversal mechanics, the really janky looking combat (slide 3 miles between 2 foes with a button press - the arkham games had this problem in a toned down way themselves - ), the not nearly current gen looking graphics. First impressions are important for a game, and this is a bad one (the first trailer is so "old", it doesn't even count anymore). That there is no Batman, which puts this in the Arkham-Verse (Spoiler?!), wouldn't even be a problem. But the new "cartoony" look, the baaaaad gameplay (come on, those fights look like they are a quarter or third too slow) and the overall cheap feel of it all kill this thing in its tracks.
You’re not misremembering, it's not related to arkham games.I thought this game was outside the Arkham-verse? Or am I misremembering what they were saying when it was first unveiled?
To be true, I don't know, it just made sense with "Knight's" ending and all. Still, the style clash between the last big Bat-Game and this one is not feeling that good.I thought this game was outside the Arkham-verse? Or am I misremembering what they were saying when it was first unveiled?
I thought the same way when they first talked about a game without Batman. It seemed logical that it would just follow Arkham Knight's ending. But I guess they didn't bother with that.To be true, I don't know, it just made sense with "Knight's" ending and all. Still, the style clash between the last big Bat-Game and this one is not feeling that good.
It seems a bit stupid, but I think that's just the WB way.I thought the same way when they first talked about a game without Batman. It seemed logical that it would just follow Arkham Knight's ending. But I guess they didn't bother with that.
And I'm agreeing with both, adding more on the topic. I think that's what it was.Am i misunderstanding your comment? I agreed with the person I quoted and shoveled Nightwings out of character kill on to the pile of shit that seems to be this "game"
I noticed this too. I'm thinking they skimp'd on the mo-cap during Covid and relied on their (less talented) animators...and yeah the dialog is a little weak.Wow WB Montreal made a shitty game what a shock. Redhood and Nightwing in the cut scene looks like they have a posturing issue with their shoulders, looks weird.
Another thing, writers in the industry right now suck ass. The dialog is fucking terrible.
Yeah, because this is absolutely non-floaty slide-less no-distance-making combat of the modern age...From what I gather in this thread, the game looks worse than the reveal despite looking exactly the same, that the graphics themselves are "barely" better than an average PS4 game (when viewing the graphics in 1080P of course, instead of just checking out the 4K footage on the official YouTube), and that folks prefer the floaty, slide across the battlefield combo-combat of the Arkham games than the beat-em-up of the current offering.
Must be Tuesday.
Yeah, because this is absolutely non-floaty slide-less no-distance-making combat of the modern age...
Nightwheel and Slider-Man?Their whole uniforms are filled with micro wheels, so they can slide everywhere and reach their enemies in no time.
Yeah, because this is absolutely non-floaty slide-less no-distance-making combat of the modern age...
So, your whole point about the combat system was for the bin, right?The "combo-combat" here looks as boring as it ever was; here at least you don't have to play as Batman-Lite. The overall tenor of my post remains: that some folks are being ridiculous with their grousing.
I was gone ignore this and i’m glad i did because now i came up with my own opinion that this game looks bad. Combat is too slow, looks like the avengers which i didn’t like
Somehow I always assumed this was a F2P GAAS game. The menus certainly look like that. So is this a fully priced game?Q:Is an internet connection required to play Gotham Knights?
A: An internet connection is not required to play Gotham Knights solo, although you’ll need to be online for two-player, online co-op with a friend.
Q:Will Gotham Knights have microtransactions?
A: No. Gotham Knights will not have in-game purchases or microtransactions.
Not gaas as some assumed in here.
Somehow I always assumed this was a F2P GAAS game. The menus certainly look like that. So is this a fully priced game?
Why does Gotham Knights looks substantially worse than Batman Arkham Knight? Did WB Montreal have a lot of diversity hires in the last few years? Or were they a subpar team to begin with?
It doesn't look worse when I play the video at 4k on lg cx.
You need your eyes testing doesn't look any worse than arkham knight and still has 6 months left in development.I have the same TV, it still looks like shit.
Q:Is an internet connection required to play Gotham Knights?
A: An internet connection is not required to play Gotham Knights solo, although you’ll need to be online for two-player, online co-op with a friend.
Q:Will Gotham Knights have microtransactions?
A: No. Gotham Knights will not have in-game purchases or microtransactions.
Not gaas as some assumed in here.
It does look worse than knight, but surely as a current gen exclusive it should look a lot better? The frame rate is all over the place, the combat looks decidedly worse. For a game that's 6 months out, this does not look remotely closed to finished unfortunately.You need your eyes testing doesn't look any worse than arkham knight and still has 6 months left in development.
It does look worse than knight, but surely as a current gen exclusive it should look a lot better? The frame rate is all over the place, the combat looks decidedly worse. For a game that's 6 months out, this does not look remotely closed to finished unfortunately.
I wanted this to be good but it looks like it's in a pretty bad state and I can see another delay coming.
BatgirlWhich character plays more like Batman from the Arkham games?
You need your eyes testing doesn't look any worse than arkham knight and still has 6 months left in development.
6 months left in development? Or 6 months left before release? If so, then the game is done, basically they are doing debugging and maybe minor improvements that don't change the codebase too much.
If that wad true crunch time wouldn't exist.
What bugs ? you making sound like there's no hope for improvement lot can be done 6 months chill. Not if it be first arkham game to have frame rate issues a launch either and they still reviewed high.That also includes performance testing, Q&A and so on. You think sorting out bugs is easy and fast? Crunch time is a thing because the code base is huge, there are tons of bugs due to the edge cases in game logic plus whatever performance optimisations need to happen (beyond just changing the value in a properties file). You might not have any work experience, I tend to see that people vastly overestimate the amount of work that goes into software products, especially in entertainment.