3.5/5 ★ – hcolesmith's review of Batman: Arkham City.

It has never given me pleasure to say this, but I’ve always been somewhat underwhelmed by Arkham City. The game has a number of noticeable growing pains that go along with a game moving into an open world in 2011: the side content is noticeably lacking aside from the Riddler Trophies (of which there are entirely too many), the world feels lifeless, and the world design itself is a bit awkward. But that doesn’t even go into the other baggage that often saddled games around this time: the writing is terrible. The first gripe is somewhat excusable, given the time in which it was released. Rocksteady just likely didn’t have the knowledge of how much to put in this thing, so this is what they landed on. But there’s also noticeable seams of substantial developmental rush all over the place. Between the fact that Catwoman has little to nothing to do in the world or that every side mission just kind of ends unceremoniously, there’s a larger portrayal of a game that likely had more ideas than the team had the time or resources to execute. And so what is in the game in terms of open-world and side-content is often insubstantial or tedious. This complaint can be levied in a much more real way at the writing. And while this can also somewhat be excused given the time in which it was released, it’s absolutely worth noting that Arkham Asylum has better writing and atmosphere, bar none. To put it briefly, Arkham City’s story has a big payoff problem. The game promises and teases much more than it really ever amounts to, and instead it becomes something of a carnival ride of villains for Batman to deal with, so no single one feels threatening. The framing of the narrative also feels shoddy, in that it seems unable to properly introduce concepts give weight to new developments. I’m reminded particularly of Batman having to fight Solomon Grundy, but the dude just appears. There needs to be a couple more lines of dialogue here to introduce the character, a few more shots to set up the fight. But then again, the fight is also underwhelming. It’s made worse with later plot points that come and go so quickly that it’s only after the cutscenes are over that the full weight of what’s happened sinks in. And that’s not even to go into the fact that the entire game ends like you’ve smashed into a brick wall—it almost feels like an entire act is missing here. But that’s stuff that would be shoddy in almost any game released in 2011. How about the gameplay or individual level design? It’s pretty good! The combat is a step up from Asylum—the only piece of this game that I’d feel confident saying is better than its predecessor. There’s more to do, which is nice—though I did feel like some combos don’t always work properly. The level design is solid, but in that switch to open world, I feel that City loses the opportunity to actually, ya know, have levels. And the open world design is pretty awkward given that it’s a crescent shape so you have to glide aaaall the way around the map to get from one end to the other, and Batman is pretty slow. But it’s still pretty good. I just wish there were more, but I particularly like the design of Wonder Tower. This is probably the third or fourth time I’ve played Arkham City, and each time I remember having this distinct feeling of disappointment. For a game that so clearly wishes to one-up Arkham Asylum, it’s sure a shame that its ideas get ahead of what the team was able to produce. I’m planning to replay Origins (which I remember quite liking) and then Knight again, and I’m very scared that I may discover that I like Arkham Knight the best of the series. That said, Arkham Asylum’s atmosphere reigns supreme.