This game is linear -- thats why it rocks

[Shogunate]

I never really got on with sandbox games, and lately it seems developers have been going to great efforts to make the players feel free to roam around and do what they want. But what they lacked is a sense of urgency, a sense of real story progression.

After arkham asylum I genuinely felt like it had been the longest night of my life aswell as Batmans, and I dont believe that could have been achieved if the game had more of a sandbox element to it. It felt nonstop, urgent and it drained me.

[BatDood]

Nice post. I'm not one of those people who really enjoys those free roam games. It's seems to be the big fad these days. I'm glad B:AA was pretty linear. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with us but I certainly get what you're saying.

[Old_BenKenobi]

I thought this was a good first game, but I'm hoping for the sequel they go the sandbox route.

[Kai Rei]

Originally Posted by Old_BenKenobi

I thought this was a good first game, but I'm hoping for the sequel they go the sandbox route.

I don't, it'll ruin that sense of storyline urgency and feel less like a storyline and more like a typicall Batman night out, beating crooks.

[JackWinz]

I despise sandbox games...

[Old_BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by Kai Rei

I don't, it'll ruin that sense of storyline urgency and feel less like a storyline and more like a typicall Batman night out, beating crooks.

But that's exactly what I want. Story is very low in my gaming priorities... so yeah.

[JackWinz]

Originally Posted by Old_BenKenobi

\ Story is very low in my gaming priorities

FAlL.

[Drazar]

Originally Posted by Old_BenKenobi

But that's exactly what I want. Story is very low in my gaming priorities... so yeah.

Heretic!!!!!

Well each for their own as they say. ^^; Welcome to the forums by the way Shogunate and Batdood!

[The Hylden]

lol, indeed. Games like this eclipse most deep movie experiences, even novels and comics All the detail and dedication put forth into these stories, I can't imagine not wanting to dive whole into such a great experience.

[Old_BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by JackWinz

FAlL.

I don't buy many games. The ones I do buy I want freedom in. I want to live in the world they've created and not be limited by a story. If I want stories there are plenty of other mediums to look into.

[Phrankoff]

i really loved Spiderman: Web of Shadows. there was ssoooo much freedom in that game and how cool was it being able to sore through the city for what seemed like ages. i am not a fan of GTA or any of those games... but i loved the freedom in WOS.

imagine of you could shoot the grappling hook onto a building that was high as a skyscraper? after all.. in AA we only got to use it on a 2-3 story building.. imagine the freedom of going from city roof top to city roof top... that would be awesome

[The Hylden]

Originally Posted by Old_BenKenobi

I don't buy many games. The ones I do buy I want freedom in. I want to live in the world they've created and not be limited by a story. If I want stories there are plenty of other mediums to look into.

"...You make me sad... Come, Patsy!"


*"rides" off to Camelot -- a.k.a. bangs two coconuts together and skips*

[Hall E Woode]

I'm just going to keep saying this in every thread like this, in hopes that someone hears it...

I want both. I want the menu to look like this:

CONTINUE STORY
PATROL GOTHAM CITY
CHALLENGE MAPS
DOWNLOADED CONTENT

[butterskenny]

The idea above works

[door noob]

Why not just make the game FreeRoam like this one, but also linear like this one?

[stoobytoons]

It's funny that anti-sandbox fans feel that sandbox games come without urgency or story or linearity.

As great as Batman: Arkham Asylum was for what it is, since I beat it, it's pretty much sat in the drawer with the rest of the games I beat in the span of 2 days.

Linear Batman games have been force fed to fans since the Commodore 64 and sadly, Playstation's Batman and Robin is really the only example of open-world Batman.

AA may let you go anywhere you want at any given time, but being that once the game is completed (or even when it's not) there's really nothing to do on the island except clear the thugs and move on to the next building or section of island. That being said, this works okay for the story, but I'm with Old Ben in that I'm really hoping the next in the series is open world.

And as I've suggested in prior posts, the threat of gangs overthrowing districts within the city over an amount of time would provide more urgency to the game. In AA, Batman could literally sit inside of an air vent all for 10 hours straight and nothing would happen story wise.

So, a world that breathes and exists independently of Batman and a Batman that reacts depending on the world he exists within (opposed to "player hits marker, thugs come around corner on cue") is really the type of game I'm looking for.
Actions will be carried out by criminals unless Batman stops them.. interrupts them. They don't wait for him to show up before they act.
I'm looking for a game where criminals have motives that extend beyond playing with Batman's head or giving him a rough night. They want money, they want to blow up a building, etc.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from on this subject.

[Kai Rei]

Originally Posted by stoobytoons

It's funny that anti-sandbox fans feel that sandbox games come without urgency or story or linearity.

As great as Batman: Arkham Asylum was for what it is, since I beat it, it's pretty much sat in the drawer with the rest of the games I beat in the span of 2 days.

Linear Batman games have been force fed to fans since the Commodore 64 and sadly, Playstation's Batman and Robin is really the only example of open-world Batman.

AA may let you go anywhere you want at any given time, but being that once the game is completed (or even when it's not) there's really nothing to do on the island except clear the thugs and move on to the next building or section of island. That being said, this works okay for the story, but I'm with Old Ben in that I'm really hoping the next in the series is open world.

And as I've suggested in prior posts, the threat of gangs overthrowing districts within the city over an amount of time would provide more urgency to the game. In AA, Batman could literally sit inside of an air vent all for 10 hours straight and nothing would happen story wise.

So, a world that breathes and exists independently of Batman and a Batman that reacts depending on the world he exists within (opposed to "player hits marker, thugs come around corner on cue") is really the type of game I'm looking for.
Actions will be carried out by criminals unless Batman stops them.. interrupts them. They don't wait for him to show up before they act.
I'm looking for a game where criminals have motives that extend beyond playing with Batman's head or giving him a rough night. They want money, they want to blow up a building, etc.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from on this subject.

You've changed my mind to a tee. It would be awesome to see the Jokerz warring against Two-Face, Penguin, Bane, Black Mask, ect.

[BloodLegacy]

If I did get to just explore the city...I don't think I'd feel like Batman anymore...He doesn't do things for no reason... (Notice there wasn't a 'real' jump button in this game, why? Batman doesn't jump around like a looney for no reason)

I think This game was Linear, but it made me feel like I could go anywhere if I wanted too, but the story was so good, I didn't

As long as rock steady nails a possible sequel, I'm not moaning though

[CaptainMcMulla]

Yeh i agree with the OP. Sandbox games are good but i prefer Linear games like this one.

[Hall E Woode]

Patroling Gotham is way different than exploring Gotham.

[ann0x]

yep, there are "open" games that are really great.

then there are games like AA or bioshock for example, which depend on a certain linearity for the sake of story, atmosphere and the player really diving into the game.
they can give you the feeling of playing a really great movie and even better, but of course a game like this has to "end" somewhen.

so there clearly are those two types of games and both are entertaining, only in different ways.
anyone who complains that there is not much to do once everything is completed: this was to be expected, wasn't it?

[Hall E Woode]

Originally Posted by ann0x

so there clearly are those two types of games and both are entertaining, only in different ways.

And I'm saying, why do we have to have one or the other?

[Nemesis296]

Hall E Woode brings up some interesting points, but you can't help but look at the impending failure of open-world games when it comes to superheroes.

I haven't played Spiderman: Web of Shadows, but if it was anything like the previous Spider-man games, I'll gladly pass it up. Open world games have one FATAL flaw: They try to appeal to too wide of a gamer base, and include too much content. This is one of the reasons why I never was able to keep up with all the content in GTA games, it's just too much. All of the side activities you can do and extra missions are great, but when they force you to do them to complete the game, they just turn into a chore.

Spider-Man 2: Terrific game, but the side missions that spontaneously occur just get so so so so old...you don't ever feel like you "need" to do them, but you do anyways. Open-world destroys the necessity for the story. Think about it: Two-Face is robbing the bank, but there's a gang of thugs about to steal this lady's purse. You have 2 minutes to decide what to do....tick, tock. Open-world games put a freeze on the action so you can do things in whatever order you want to, but with that kind of game, there is too much that is allowed to happen. You've got races, chasing down thugs, beating up guys, etc...all mixed in with what should be a good story. But it doesn't mix well. It just makes the story seem like the afterthought, which is the opposite of how it should be.

PLUS, with a game like Batman, you have too much variability in how things should be executed...this fan will want the Batmobile to drive around (which will undoubtedly make for race challenges), and this fan will want to jump from rooftop to rooftop with the Grapnel Gun...it's a losing idea because there is no way to please everyone, and sandbox games just open up the discussion to the disastrous conclusion of too much content with not enough focus on the game itself. If the sequel is open-world...I probably won't buy it.

[BatDood]

Nemesis pretty much just nailed it for me.

People are saying that once you beat the story there's nothing left. Maybe there's nothing left to the story but I'm still playing every day trying to get better scores in the challenge maps. I doubt this game will be "sitting in a drawer' any time soon because of that. I just got to the 142 spot in the leaderboards for Intensive Treatment last night and that's keeping me going. I want to get higher (if I can) so I'm going to continue to challenge myself and get better.

And how does an open-world concept really extend the playability? Scenario in point: Batman partrols the city, gets a call about a crime. You go beat up the thugs. Batman partrols the city, gets a call about a crime. You go beat up the thugs. Batman partrols the city, gets a call about a crime. You go beat up the thugs. (Get where I'm going with this? lol) The repetition would bore me to death. I've played all the Spider-man games and the novelty of it wore out quickly.

The GTA series were pretty successful in implementing a story in a sandbox environment but even with that said, it started bugging the crap out of me when I'd have to spend all this time driving across the city to get to the next part. Just get to the story. I don't need to spend a ton of time driving around to continue. If I want to play a driving game, there's plenty out there to choose from. Sure, driving the Batmobile would be cool but that's not going to extend the playability for me further.

At any rate, I'm glad we can discuss this in a civil nature. I'm sure there are good points for either side of the discussion.

[Hall E Woode]

Originally Posted by BatDood

And how does an open-world concept really extend the playability? Scenario in point: Batman partrols the city, gets a call about a crime. You go beat up the thugs. Batman partrols the city, gets a call about a crime. You go beat up the thugs. Batman partrols the city, gets a call about a crime. You go beat up the thugs. (Get where I'm going with this? lol) The repetition would bore me to death. I've played all the Spider-man games and the novelty of it wore out quickly.

I think, for years, game developers were saying the same thing about Batman games, that they just don't work.

Then Rocksteady pulled this out, and now we're craving the next one.

I think all that needs to be done is to throw out all of our Spider-man and GTA experiences, and say, okay, if it there was to be an open world OPTION (note: I don't think it should be tied to the story! It should be like Challenge maps - a separate experience.), how would it work for Batman?

Batman's so much more than a beat 'em up kinda guy. There would be variations of challenges to overcome. You'd have street level crimes, gang crimes, corporate level cases, and city level conspiracies. There'd also be a priority system. Batman's not superhuman, and cannot stop every crime.

But that's where you've got the Bat-family. Not that it's multi-player, but you could dispatch Robin or Nightwing to take care of little problems. Or you could just call the police and notify them of something as you're on your way to the bigger thing.

There would also be a Batcave and a Bruce Wayne mode. This would be where you could do a lot of your reconnassaince work on corporate and city level cases. Think about it -- you could merge Assassin's Creed's truly detective style (only refine it) with what we already have in Batman: Arkham Asylum.

It would be huge. I'd be willing to wait 4 years for it.