• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gotham Knights | Review Thread

zGnOikn.gif
 
Any word on length?? Always hate it when the info I want the most is the hardest to find in reviews.

Looks very polarizing. On top of that, reviewers can’t even agree on whether or not the open-world is good or not? Holy crap. When did reviews become so unhelpful?

You would think there would at least be some consistency on certain parts of the game that are either well-made or not. It’s not like open-world games of this nature are uncommon.
 
Last edited:

saintjules

Member
Any word on length?? Always hate it when the info I want the most is the hardest to find in reviews.

I guess that's because everyone clocks in at different times.

I remember so long ago someone beat FFXV supposedly in under 8 hours. While completionists take the dozens of hours to finish.
 
As expected, crashing and burning like a WW1 Zeppelin. Been calling this for 2 years. I'd bet there will be meetings conducted as early as next week about how soon can we commission a new Arkham type batman game. If I were working at WB Montreal on their 2nd project I'd be sending out resumes fast. They are done after this.

Hope this game can serve as an example in the AAA space about corporate greed and chasing trends.
 

NickFire

Member
Cursory look at the review snippets suggests that enjoyment hinges primarily on whether you really want to play as those particular characters. Seems if you are hungry to play as them it is serviceable, but otherwise not worth picking up.
 

Strider311

Member
After Suicide Squad bombs these guys are going to be up for sale.

That said, I'd still play this if it was on a deep, deep sale. It looks pretty bad, but it's still an action game.
I think this is already the end for WB Montreal, unfortunately. I am still going to play this as I am an absolute Batman fanatic, but this is a major disappointment. I’d be surprised if Rocksteady even gets the chance to put out Suicide Squad at this rate, as WB Discovery is putting a lot of stuff to the chopping block.
 
I guess that's because everyone clocks in at different times.

I remember so long ago someone beat FFXV supposedly in under 8 hours. While completionists take the dozens of hours to finish.
Yeah. That’s an 80-100+ hour game if you try to do most things. The story is relatively short.

I meant in general when I look at reviews there’s usually not much written about length and I wish it was made more clear by reviewers. Like, “this is what I did, this is how long it took”, whether they went just for story completion or tackles side stuff, etc.
 
Anyone who reviewed this game well is discredited as a reviewer.

Anyone I see here talking about playing this game is discredited from having an opinion on anything.



If I were a subscriber and they added this shite I'd unsubscribe immediately.
I’d like some consistency on whether it’s good or not. Depending on the review it’s like, did everyone receive the same game? A 9/10, a 7/10, ok ok not bad, not bad. A 4/10, a 5/10? Like c’mon, is it really that bad or are people just mad it’s not a Batman game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa

GHG

Member
I’d like some consistency on whether it’s good or not. Depending on the review it’s like, did everyone receive the same game? A 9/10, a 7/10, ok ok not bad, not bad. A 4/10, a 5/10? Like c’mon, is it really that bad or are people just mad it’s not a Batman game?

Nah from watching a few reviews it just straight up looks shit, you can see it, you don't need someone to tell you. Anyone giving this anything on the positive spectrum requires an integrity check.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Anyone who reviewed this game well is discredited as a reviewer.

Anyone I see here talking about playing this game is discredited from having an opinion on anything.



If I were a subscriber and they added this shite I'd unsubscribe immediately.
Nah from watching a few reviews it just straight up looks shit, you can see it, you don't need someone to tell you. Anyone giving this anything on the positive spectrum requires an integrity check.
Eh. Gameplay could still be great. A lot of the footage ive seen is early game when you dont have access to all your moves. Combat in Arkham games was always fun.

Technical issues should result in lower scores, but Ive liked plenty of 7/10 games like DriveClub, Days Gone, Mass Effect Andromeda etc because of their combat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa

Punished Miku

Gold Member
I’d like some consistency on whether it’s good or not. Depending on the review it’s like, did everyone receive the same game? A 9/10, a 7/10, ok ok not bad, not bad. A 4/10, a 5/10? Like c’mon, is it really that bad or are people just mad it’s not a Batman game?
It is from the director of Blacklist which is a fantastic game. This seems pretty busted but on a deep sale I'm sure there's fun buried in there
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa

GHG

Member
Eh. Gameplay could still be great. A lot of the footage ive seen is early game when you dont have access to all your moves. Combat in Arkham games was always fun.

Technical issues should result in lower scores, but Ive liked plenty of 7/10 games like DriveClub, Days Gone, Mass Effect Andromeda etc because of their combat.

This looks worse than a 7/10 and any of those games you mentioned. Standards are slipping, rapidly.
 

sainraja

Member
If the combat is similar to the previous games and I don't want to regret saying this, how bad could it be?
(I did pre-order the game 🤣)
 

Hot5pur

Member
7-8 game, not bad.
Definitely warrants a playthrough once it hits key sites at $20-30.
Performance issues suck. Wonder if the recommendations would be higher. It will get patched eventually....maybe
 
I’m thinking about getting it since it seems to be a fairly short/straight forward game (12-15 hours). That’s all I want these days. No one has time to sink 50-100 hours in over bloated “masterpieces” these days and this game is the perfect length
 
Last edited:
If you ever wondered what a paid shill actually looked like......wonder no more.

SzZ2j8L.png


LLTt03n.png


5602VjU.png



This is almost trolling levels of groveling to a publisher.
The Medium isnt a bad game.....but it certainly isnt a GOTY contender title with a score of 95.
Babylons Fall is straight up bad, this cat gives it an 80?

Its understandable....he owns the website, so better to make publishers happy and get games early and get that paycheck.
But absolutely should be banned from metacritic weighings.
At least they’re consistent. Terrible taste but I wish I could enjoy bad things too. Life would be so much simpler.
 
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but WB doesn't pay the sort of attention to Batman games that they do the films.
I could tell from the 1st trailer that this wasn't gonna be the greatest thing in the franchise.
It looked like one of those cash grab mobile games with high end but otherwise unremarkable visuals.
If they did these games the way God of War gets done, or the way Naughty Dog did the Last of Us, wouldn't that work better for Batman as a franchise?
Haven't played this but the way its looking, focus wasn't placed enough on the right places.
 
Last edited:

SJRB

Gold Member

Neolombax

Member
I hate that mediocre games are so attractive to me. Don't really care about the 30fps, but the combat being mediocre was such a disappointment to hear.
 

TheGecko

Banned
It looks fun to me. I really liked Arkham city and asylum. I honestly think some of you lot have worked yourselves up into some sort of hysteria. It’s really weird to see.
 

MMaRsu

Banned
Any word on length?? Always hate it when the info I want the most is the hardest to find in reviews.

Looks very polarizing. On top of that, reviewers can’t even agree on whether or not the open-world is good or not? Holy crap. When did reviews become so unhelpful?

You would think there would at least be some consistency on certain parts of the game that are either well-made or not. It’s not like open-world games of this nature are uncommon.

Story can be beat in 6 hours

Have you played it?

Why do I need to play it? Ive seen plenty of gameplay. Arkham games are of a quality above this game. You dont need to play it to come to that conclusion.

The game loop is different too, nothing like Arkham.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
If the combat is similar to the previous games and I don't want to regret saying this, how bad could it be?
(I did pre-order the game 🤣)
The combat is not that similar.

You evade instead of counter, there is more emphasys on filling bars, abilities and cooldowns.

And you have 4 characters with different playstyles and skill trees.

Take that as you want.

Personally i never liked arkham combat except in the first game (mostly for the novelty of it) so the change in the combat are not a flaw to me, too bad everything else seems pretty meh.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
Story can be beat in 6 hours



Why do I need to play it? Ive seen plenty of gameplay. Arkham games are of a quality above this game. You dont need to play it to come to that conclusion.

The game loop is different too, nothing like Arkham.
6 hours doesn't sound right.

The shill up guy said that you have to grind for the campaign because some mission are on a higher level etc., If it is 6 hours with grind, does the game has like 4 missions total?:lollipop_grinning_sweat:

Something smell fishy, and it's not batgirl pussy...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom