RockyRan

I'm playing too . Add me as TwoYutes.

Performance seems like it took a hit (definitely did for me. Jerkier and less than 30 FPS whereas before I got a solid 30 FPS). Folks on GOG are postulating that it's coming from the Depth of Field blur that seems to be more exaggerated in the Enhanced Edition for some strange reason. This is weird and all. I was planning to plunge into the game again as soon as the EE was released but I think I'll wait for a while for the dust to settle. Everyone seems to be confused at everything right now.

I'm becoming increasingly interested in getting a Move, mostly to use them on games like inFamous 2. I want to keep playing that game but I think I'd enjoy it even more (if that were possible ) if I could aim much more intuitively. Same goes for Killzone 3 (which has a free multiplayer "trial" I believe). As you can guess, I've never liked aiming with a joystick. Also, I'd love to get LBP2 and futz around with the editor using a Move. I think it'd be about 900 times (scientific estimate) faster/more intuitive using one. Using the controller in LBP1 in the editor was an exercise in sanity retention that I wouldn't want to duplicate. It really was the reason I held off on getting LBP2.

I'm really not surprised. Short port dev time, dev inexperience in making PC games, all that jazz. To tell you the truth I would've been more surprised if it were anything BUT a straight port. Still buying this. I was planning on getting it anyway, I'd rather play the version that plays it at 1080p with a smoother framerate

I agree with Thursday about PAX. Rather than lament the attorney expenses, I would've skipped PAX. I mean, PAX is awesome I'm sure, but if you're pinching pennies there are better ways of getting exposure.

So apparently I've played it a bit obsessively because I've just finished it (expected as much, actually. Play sessions bled over to several hours with this game quite frequently). I give it a thumbs up overall but I do have to say I liked Asylum better when all is said and done. Especially in the story side of things.

The thought came to me that it's quite possible that From is using GFWL mostly because of the game's pretty unique netcode. As in, the options are either change the netcode drastically (unlikely for a port being done in what, 5 months?) or go the path of least resistance with GFWL and just keep most of the code from the 360 version.

I'm ambivalent because I generally hate everything about MMOs, from their overall lack of polish in the more intricate details of game design (combat never feels "meaty" in any of them) to the ridiculous repetition to their fetish in tedium (let's have you fly for literally half an hour while you stare at the screen as you move from point A to point B!). I dismissed MMOs years ago simply because I thought what I hated about them are inherent characteristics that can never really be removed, but then GW2 came along and every single thing they say sounds good to me. But again, it's an MMO through and through so MAYBE it won't be divorced enough from MMOs for my tastes, or maybe it will. It's got the concept down pat for me, it'll only depend on solely its execution at this point, and I don't think I'll truly know without me playing it for myself.

Can we stop throwing the word "entitled" around now? People are expressing dissatisfaction that GFWL is there and they don't want it, mostly because of all the negative prior experiences that there have been (like game saves going missing. I swear if it happens to me on Dark Souls I'm going to vomit fire), hence the petition. I don't get how that constitutes as "entitlement". Me? I don't really care. I've dealt with GFWL before and I can't say I've had issues, except for maybe GTA IV when I tried to install mods, but that's mostly because GTA IV's PC port is a piece of shit. I've played Dirt 2, Arkham City, Bulletstorm, etc., and have dealt with GFWL and it hasn't really been an issue for me. Mostly it's just an overlay I never use. By the same token, though, my indifference toward it isn't exactly positive. There's a bit of an issue when the best thing I can say about it is that it stays out of the way and that I never use it I'm not going apeshit over Namco Bandai using GFWL, because as we all know it's an easy-to-use API for developers as they port to PC from the 360. I can't imagine the budget for this port being all that high, plus From hasn't done a PC game in quite some time so I can't exactly fault them for taking the path of least resistance. At the same time, though, users have every right to express their dissatisfaction if something about the port strikes them the wrong way, and Namco Bandai has every right to ignore that petition.

It's a crapshoot, though As you can tell by my bitterness, I clearly didn't get in

I'm still totally undecided on the game. This is the kind of game I really to try before I buy, but unfortunately there's zero way of doing that until the game releases. Can't help but feel this is a mistake on the devs' part. GW2 is such a huge departure from standard MMOs that they're attracting a lot of attention from non-MMO players as well as players who've never played anything but WoW. With such an experimental take on everything in the game, it's weird that they're closing off the game behind a $60 upfront fee before you can see any of it, considering how MMOs are known for having an open beta at some point or, at the VERY least, a trial (many are outright F2P, but I'm actually glad GW2 isn't so I'm not counting that ). I dunno. They're trying hard to convert people far and wide into playing GW2 but they're giving them zero way of seeing for themselves if such an experimental take on the MMO genre is even going to be worthwhile for them. If they end up not having a trial at some point before launch my wallet's staying shut despite the fact that I think the game looks really neat.

I barely touched the challenges in AA, but I definitely plan on playing through the AC ones this time. Anyways, the game's growing on me. The camera/walking speed outdoors still annoys me, but the combat's getting less frustrating as I'm unlocking more and more abilities. Story's kind of all over the place and definitely less focused than AA's, but it's not outright terrible and it's mostly harmless in that the story gives competent enough excuses to go and beat up particular villains in their own particular way. I just beat (spoilers maybe?)

Definitely plan on buying it the first time on PC. Held off on getting the game on consoles just for this announcements, awesome to know my waiting wasn't a waste of time

I actively avoid 7+ goon gangs because fuck it, I don't feel like randomly fighting for 10 minutes. If it's part of an event or sidequest sure, I'm not going to whine, but just a random encounter? That's like having 10+ minute boss battles of attrition as random encounters in JRPGs. They become grating and annoying quickly. I do try to mix it up as best I can and I generally get large combos going, letting me do critical strikes that make the fights faster and more tolerable. But there are times when a goon runs at me from behind and throws a punch giving me no time to counter, or I try to counter two guys at once and for some reason one of the two goons still throws and lands a punch in the middle of Batman's double counter animation, or some other nitpicky technicality and I lose considerable amounts of health and my combo counter and it results in either a fight made needlessly longer or an outright loss. God forbid if you want to use a gadget on a goon but don't remember off the top of your head which one of the multiple awkward button combos it is. City has more gadgets/abilities to use in the fight which on paper sounds great, but the sheer number of them forces the controls to be convoluted and confusing. The combat itself is fast and challenging but the controls are made sluggish and awkward by the sheer number of abilities and things to do. Some additions I like, like informant goons that encourage you to AVOID a goon. Little twists like that make it fun, but more moves than a controller has buttons becomes a bit of an issue. Maybe I wouldn't be so peeved at the combat if I wouldn't have had Asylum to compare it to. Asylum's combat was pretty much perfect both in complexity and enemy layout. City feels less refined and just keeps piling on more and more combos, moves, gadgets, and enemy types, making the combat needlessly complicated. Playing on Hard in Asylum forced me to buckle down and appreciate the intricacies of the combat. Playing on Hard in City only highlights how rough and overstuffed the game is, especially outdoors.

Wall o' text incoming! So I just started playing this on the PC (yes, I'm behind the times) and as someone who thought Arkham Asylum was sublime, I have to say my initial impressions of the sequel are mixed (I've played about, oh 7-ish hours). I enjoy the fact that Rocksteady manages to communicate pretty well just how passionate they are about the IP that they're working with. Just flying around and taking in the atmosphere of the city lets me know damn well how much they've pored over to truly make you feel like you're the goddamn Batman. Same for Catwoman, actually. Her inclusion as a playable character might feel like a bit of fanservice-shoehorning (the fact that WB was able to lift her from the game completely for Online Pass purposes attests to the "disposability" of her content) but DAMN were her mechanics implemented well. All the pieces for a fantastic game are all there, and they're mostly in the right places, but unfortunately the game feels unhinged thanks to the fact that I don't think the game scaled too well to the size Rocksteady wanted. First is Batman himself. His mechanics are identical to those of Asylum, but it doesn't work in City. Especially outdoors. Bats' default "walking mode", with the really zoomed in, almost claustrophobic camera and slow walking speed works well under small, narrow corridors built to a realistic scale. This, of course, was well designed in Asylum, where you spend the vast majority of the time indoors. This default walking mode, though, doesn't work at all when you're outdoors, and since in City you're outdoors for considerably longer periods of time, it simply makes no sense. What in the outdoors commands such a closed perspective of my view? What in the large, open streets and flat rooftops commands such a slow walking speed? Nothing. There's a reason why the Spider-Man games, Assassin's Creed, inFamous, Just Cause 2 etc., all have the camera view that's equivalent to Batman's "running mode", because that's what's appropriate for large and open areas. It makes no sense to have the camera this close up when 90% of the time, I'll be using my Batclaw to pull myself up to places that I can't see. 90% of the time, if I want to see where I'm clawing to, I have to awkwardly move up the camera and search around. The way it should've been handled is pull back the camera in the same way that it's done when Bats is running, but keep it permanent and ditch the A-to-run mechanic when outdoors, instead bringing in analog walk-and-run push controls. That would've gone a long way into scaling his movement/controls to handle all the crazy shit going on outdoors and letting you see more easily where you're clawing to. Dealing with the current camera makes me feel like I'm trying to look at the world through a cardboard tube. My second biggest complaint also has to do with the outdoor sections, and also has to do with the distinct lack of scalability in Bats' game design: the combat. I played Asylum on Hard on my first run-through because I thought Normal was too easy and generally devolved most fights into button-mashing affairs, whereas on Hard the combat system was graceful, rhythmic, and nothing short of amazing. In City, though, it's obvious Rocksteady intended the game to played on Normal because the game throws WAY to many goons at you. As in, easily twice as many as should be needed, actually. I remember the only times I had to take down upwards of 8+ goons at once were in the "stealth" sections, where there were plenty of nooks, crannies, vents and gargoyles with which to conceal myself and do my "stealth ballet" of sorts. This is still present in the indoor sections of City and just as fun as they were in Asylum. Outdoors, however, this stealth mechanic is significantly dampened and replaced with the same amount of goons, except on open streets and rooftops. Since fights in Hard mode are far more about concentration, skill, and timing, simply spamming enemies is borderline maddening because these fights can take several minutes to finish. It's even more infuriating when the fight makes its way around the corner and even MORE goons join in, causing 10+ person melees. Fights never escalated this quickly and with such frequency in Asylum, simply by virtue of having smaller areas to work with and laying enemies more carefully. I got a couple of other niggling issues but I don't want to feel like I'm nitpicking. I feel like the game is really well put together and I have lotsa fun, but there's a couple of flaws that make you go wut, especially the outdoors. Great presentation, very well built, lots of love given into making the experience of gliding along the city badass, but mechanics-wise, the close-quarters design of the game feels really awkward.