Batman: Arkham Knight Review

Welcome back, guys! Time for my first video game review (on this blog, anyway.) As I'm sure you've gathered from the title, I'll be talking about Batman: Arkham Knight, Rocksteady's final installment in the Arkham series. So, with that said, does the final installment live up to the gloriousness that is Arkham City? Is this a solid sendoff for Rocksteady? Let's find out.

SPOILER WARNING!
I'll be revealing the Arkham Knight's identity during this review, mainly because I don't feel it's a well-kept secret. But, for those who don't want it spoiled, this might not be the review for you.




In the opening of Arkham Knight, we see the body of Joker lying in an incinerator, with a prompt telling you to hold down a button to burn the body. Afterwards, we jump several months after the events of Arkham City, and we find out that GCPD has been able to not only regain control of the city, but the crime rate has dropped significantly with Joker gone, as if he were a beacon of chaos for the lowlifes of Gotham City. But, we wouldn't have much of a game without a new enemy to fight, so enter (my personal favorite of the original rogues) Scarecrow. With just five ounces of his latest toxin, he's thrown all of Gotham into a panic and forced a citywide evacuation, leaving only the criminals, GCPD and Batman & Company. The setup for the story is very well done. Forcing you to play from the perspective of a cop in a diner during the outbreak, putting you on the ground floor of the whole thing.

As soon as you take control of Batman, everything feels right. The sluggish controls of Arkham Origins are gone, back to the tight feel of Arkham City. From the moment Batman opens his mouth and you hear Kevin Conroy back in the role, there's a sense of comfort and familiarity; the man was born to play Batman. While I'm at it, I should mention the overall voice acting, which is important in a game this story-heavy. I don't have a single complaint with any of the cast for this game. They've done a great job casting every single character in their world, and even managed to get Mark Hamill back to reprise his role as Joker. (Don't worry, Joker is still dead, but the way they weave him into the story here is excellent.)

Shortly into the story you're introduced to the most annoying aspect of the game: The Batmobile.
Yeah, I said it. The Batmobile was an interesting idea, and it can help you move through the city a bit faster, but there are way to many sequences in the game where it feels forced, like they couldn't really come up with creative story purposes for it, so they shoved in these sequences to say "See! The Batmobile is awesome! Aren't you glad we gave you this?!" No, Rocksteady. No, I'm not. I'd much rather glide around the city like I did in Arkham City, and with the new grapnel upgrades, it's nearly as fast as driving anyway (and more enjoyable.) Don't get me wrong, the Batmobile controls well enough, with the ability to transition from normal car to tank with the press of a button, and tank-mode is the way you'll be using it for almost every story mission with it. God forbid you actually get to DRIVE the car. I mean, I like blowing things up as much as the next guy, but after the first five times, it gets old. It also make getting all the Riddler trophies a pain, since so many of them require the car.

Other than the Batmobile, the gameplay is exactly what it should be, with just enough new features added to keep it feeling fresh. The only takeaway is in the predator sections, where it feels like you get less reward for being unseen. There were several instances where I would study the patrol patterns of the guards and pick off the one that NEVER crossed paths with any of the others with a Silent Takedown ... then, for no reason at all, one of the others would deviate from their patrol patterns and find their buddy unconcious, putting them all on alert. By the end of the game I was just rushing through these sequences, taking them all down as fast as possible and it actually worked better. Maybe Rocksteady wanted the players to feel more powerful this time around and decided to encourage a more aggressive style during the predator segments. That's fine, and it works well enough, but I preferred the old approach a little better.

Unlike its predecessors, Arkham Knight focuses less on giving you new gadgets, and more on letting you upgrade the ones you're familiar with. By the end of the game, you can upgrade the grapnel to the point where you're launching yourself into the air with the speed of a bullet (which, again, almost eliminates the need for the Batmobile.) They also upgrade your suit, allowing for multiple takedowns at once, which is incredibly handy, but can only be used if your enemies are unaware of your location. The only new standout gadget is the Disruptor, which is basically an EMP rifle. Once fully upgraded, it can disable guns and gun lockers, stun sticks, med packs and so on. In my playthrough, this was the gadget that got used the most before a fight.

Now, let's move on to a couple of story elements that rubbed me the wrong way:

1.) For one, as some friends have also pointed out, Batman and the other characters refer to each other by their real names with bad guys standing a few feet away. In the comics this NEVER happens, because they aren't complete morons. What's the point in wearing masks if you're going to go around blabbing who you are within earshot of random thugs. This is inexcusable, and reeks of bad storytelling, much like my next point....

2.) The Arkham Knight's identity, to anyone who's cracked open a Bat-Comic in the last 10 years or so, (or knows anything about the current DC universe) will be the worst, most lazy attempt at a "mystery" in, possibly, the entire history of video games. From his first appearance it's blatant that this is Jason Todd. Then, later on in the story when they try to give you "subtle" hints with all the Jason flashbacks, it's kind of infuriating. Rule number one of being a halfway decent writer is never talking down to your audience, and that's exactly what they did. Rocksteady underestimated the intelligence of their fanbase and that rubs me the wrong way, especially after how well Arkham City's story was crafted. City never talked down to you in the narrative, and was very faithful to the various characters' attitudes and mannerisms.

3.) Near the end of the game Jason and Bruce have a "moment" where Bruce apologizes for not being there for Jason and trying to turn him around, then Jason runs off like an angsty teenager only to reappear at the end of the game to break Bruce's bonds so he can beat Scarecrow ... and that's it.... There's no real payoff for Jason's character, and even the Red Hood story missions don't expand on it. This is just sloppy.

4.) The mood set at the beginning of the game is fantastic, but by the end Scarecrow is kind of a joke. His big plan to break Batman is laughable compared to all the things he's faced during his career and the payoff for what you've been working toward the whole game falls flat. I won't go into too much detail, to avoid spoilers, but it really is disappointing.

5.) The true ending for this game requires 100% completion, Riddler trophies and all. Now, normally that wouldn't be such a bad thing, but when the "true" ending is literally just a small tacked-on scene a couple of minutes long that requires hours upon hours of annoying Batmobile-Centric riddles only to answer NO questions and make no*&%#$@ sense.... Well, I was a little angry.

There are a few more story gripes, but I'll stop there.

That said, is Arkham Knight a bad game? No. There's a lot of fun to be had exploring Gotham and doing most of the side-quests, with enough content here to warrant the 60 bucks you'll need to shell out for the game. The Joker subplot was also excellent (and should've been the main focus of the story), and that alone makes the story worth playing.  But, is it as good or as innovative as Arkham City was? Not even close. From story to mechanics, Arkham City hit the ball out of the park and nothing, to me at least, felt tacked-on. The only place Arkham Knight really beat it was in scale and with the inclusion of Nightwing in the story (but that last part is really just for me) with everything else only meeting or falling short of Arkham City. Overall, I give Batman: Arkham Knight a 7.5 out of 10. It's still a game worth playing, but with the sloppy writing and overused Batmobile mechanics, it falls short of the masterpiece Rocksteady gave us just a few short years ago. This isn't the sendoff we needed, but it's the one Rocksteady thought we deserved.