The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm sure we had one of these before, but as we've got nowhere else on the forums for general game chat, here it is....
Page:
dav2612 wrote:
Over 3 hours for one boss? You're not selling this to me very well. I'd have given up long before I reached 3 hours worth of trying.
I started Fallout 3 last night. It's been a while and I'm needing something to get really stuck into. I still can't bring myself to detonate the bomb in Megaton though.
Yup, 3 whole hours. I did stop for a cup of tea half way through, but the thing is I find the Arkham games so addictive that I didn't want to quit.
I've been through Fallout 3 so many times, every time I say to myself "this time I'll detonate"... Never have. I also can't bring myself to keep the ghouls out of Tenpenny towers.
chasfh wrote:
Arkham Origins is really good, particularly as you get to see the Arkham district before the Asylum takes over (so pre-destructive forces). It's a very different game, and well worth the effort.
The only problem I had with it is that some of the bosses are so utterly ridiculously hard to beat, it really comes down to blind luck (Deathstroke, for example, took me over three hours to beat the first time, and don't get me started on Bane...).
That aside, there's some awesome little cameo appearances, and the "detective work" is genuinely great fun.
Over 3 hours for one boss? You're not selling this to me very well. I'd have given up long before I reached 3 hours worth of trying.
I started Fallout 3 last night. It's been a while and I'm needing something to get really stuck into. I still can't bring myself to detonate the bomb in Megaton though.
dav2612 wrote:
I really should play Arkham Origins one day. One of the many games I've just never got round to. It really should have been included in the remasters.
Arkham Origins is really good, particularly as you get to see the Arkham district before the Asylum takes over (so pre-destructive forces). It's a very different game, and well worth the effort.
The only problem I had with it is that some of the bosses are so utterly ridiculously hard to beat, it really comes down to blind luck (Deathstroke, for example, took me over three hours to beat the first time, and don't get me started on Bane...).
That aside, there's some awesome little cameo appearances, and the "detective work" is genuinely great fun.
I really should play Arkham Origins one day. One of the many games I've just never got round to. It really should have been included in the remasters.
pb wrote:
The only issue I had with Knight was the Batmobile sections, which crawled a bit. But I think having more RAM (24GB) helped.
So not so sour for you either...
My biggest gaming gripe ever?
Crysis... NEVER fixed. Thanks EA.
That game only ever had a single patch, after which EA announced they weren't updating it any more. Mainly because they couldn't fix it. Partly, I suspect, because they'd already got everyone's money.
And while we're on the subject of EA, how about the last Sim City? Diabolical on release, took months to fix. Still not great.
Sims 3; still partially broken, and Sims 4 is out. Ea's solution? "Don't use all of the expansions at the same time". Err....
How much "bad press" did all of that get? Collectively, a fraction of the hammering Arkham Knight got. Obviously pays to be one of the "big playas".
chasfh wrote:
Only it was far less "sour" at the start than many would have you believe...
As I pointed out in many other posts, it's easy to forget that other games have been FAR worse upon release than Arkham Knight, and have had far LESS coverage and battering from the press.
A close cousin, Arkham Origins, for example. Performance issues across the board, as opposed to "for some users". Nicely deflected by a game breaking bug that prevented you from completing more than about 20% of the game, which they fixed relatively quickly and got praised for, rather than being battered for the performance problems (these remained for the best part of 12 months for many).
Still, I'm not complaining. Due to the inordinate amount of bad press generated, I gained a free game and some extra content for my other Arkham games.
The only issue I had with Knight was the Batmobile sections, which crawled a bit. But I think having more RAM (24GB) helped.
pb wrote:
The PC version is like a fine wine that started off sour but has matured into something beautiful.
Only it was far less "sour" at the start than many would have you believe...
As I pointed out in many other posts, it's easy to forget that other games have been FAR worse upon release than Arkham Knight, and have had far LESS coverage and battering from the press.
A close cousin, Arkham Origins, for example. Performance issues across the board, as opposed to "for some users". Nicely deflected by a game breaking bug that prevented you from completing more than about 20% of the game, which they fixed relatively quickly and got praised for, rather than being battered for the performance problems (these remained for the best part of 12 months for many).
Still, I'm not complaining. Due to the inordinate amount of bad press generated, I gained a free game and some extra content for my other Arkham games.
chasfh wrote:
The PC version has had a few tweaks recently, so the combat is quite a bit faster and more fluid, the Batmobile seems to handle a little better (which makes the Riddler races a LOT less irritating) and all the texture pop-in issues have been resolved for those of us playing at high settings.
Little things that make a big difference. Think I might be buying some of the DLC as a result.
The PC version is like a fine wine that started off sour but has matured into something beautiful.
dav2612 wrote:
I might pick up Skyrim at some point. It won me over eventually last time round (really not a fan of the fantasy setting) but not convinced it could again, especially since I couldn't take to The Witcher 3.
I was left a bit disappointed in Arkham Knight but I would like to play it again one day with lowered expectations.
The PC version has had a few tweaks recently, so the combat is quite a bit faster and more fluid, the Batmobile seems to handle a little better (which makes the Riddler races a LOT less irritating) and all the texture pop-in issues have been resolved for those of us playing at high settings.
Little things that make a big difference. Think I might be buying some of the DLC as a result.
chasfh wrote:
Nothing worse than a rusty titan...
Been replaying Batman Arkham Knight, as I didn't see much difference in the remastered Skyrim. Rather glad I didn't pay for the upgrade, I'd have been rather annoyed if I had. It runs a bit smoother, looks a tad prettier in sunlit areas, but other than that...
Anyway, I'd forgotten how much fun it is to drive the Batmobile and trash bad guys. Found a few new bits too, some rather diabolical Riddler trophies and one or two new areas.
Despite the bad press, I still love this game (and in fact all the Arkham games!).
I might pick up Skyrim at some point. It won me over eventually last time round (really not a fan of the fantasy setting) but not convinced it could again, especially since I couldn't take to The Witcher 3.
I was left a bit disappointed in Arkham Knight but I would like to play it again one day with lowered expectations.
Page: