XBOX One Owners Thread
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 67K
I never finished Arkham Origins but from what I saw it wasn't bad. I do think it should have been included in the remaster collection but I don't think it's a big surprise that it wasn't. Most people didn't seem to pay any attention to that game and even WB was calling Arkham Knight the end of a trilogy. They barely even acknowledge that Arkham Origin exists.
Interesting... I thought AO was right on the level as AC. AK was the best to me and AA was not bad but but I thought it was pretty short compared to the other games. I just dont see how you can do a remaster for the XB1 and not include all three games. Arkham Knight only was for XB1 right?
Well Origins is a weird case in that it really has no right to exist. It really was just a game made to make money for WB off the Arkham name because Arkham Knight was taking so long to develop (there was a 2 year gap between Asylum/City and then Origins, while there was a 4 year gap between City and Knight.) WB wanted another game but Rocksteady was too busy so they had WB Montreal put together a game based off the engine Rocksteady had. And to be fair, it wasn't that BAD of a game overall. I played it for a little while when it came out but at the same time, WB, to promote the game put out Asylum and City in a Humble Bundle and I got to play Asylum again on PC, and playing it again on PC reminded me how much I loved the game and I decided to just send Origins back to Gamefly and play Asylum again. It wasn't until the Arkham Knight fiasco and WB gave everyone who got it on PC every other Arkham game, so I had a free copy for PC that I decided to go back and play it again. And while it was definitely my least favorite of the Arkham games, I still had quite a bit of fun with it.
Problem is that the game REEKED of "quick cash in." It was called "Origins" which would imply that it took place before Arkham Asylum, yet everyone was using modern technology that was later than Asylum (4 years later). In addition, it took place before Asylum but it introduced separate advanced gameplay elements, which didn't make sense to introduce in a game that took place before the others because there was no logical reason as to why they would be taken out. There was really NOTHING from a story perspective to link it to the other Arkham games other than it had "Arkham" in the title and it introduced the Joker. It didn't feature the same voice actors as the other Arkham games. It's supposed to take place in the entire city of Gotham, but the map was smaller than that of Arkham City, which was supposed to be a SECTION of Gotham. It pretty much just featured C-List Batman villains that you'd have to look up more often than not. It had a COMPLETELY unnecessary and unwanted multiplayer mode that was loved about as much as the multiplayer in Bioshock 2. In addition, it was by far the most buggy Arkham game, and WB didn't even fix all the bugs because (and they said this publicly) they wanted to focus on money making DLC as opposed to fixing the damn game. As much as I complained about how unoptomized and shoddy the PC version of Arkham Knight was, I don't think I could count the bugs I experienced on half a hand. Conversely, on Arkham Origins (which I played AFTER Arkham Knight meaning it should have been more stable) I encountered numerous bugs, one that prevented me from beating a boss numerous times because they would be teleported out of the area for some reason, and another time when I almost lost my data because the game crashed at a save point. And finally, it was the least enjoyed Batman game by a significant margin (we're not counting the Arkham Knight PC score because that's based on port quality as opposed to game quality.)
It seems to me that basically WB and Rocksteady don't want people to associate Origins with Asylum, City and Knight, as it A: Is not really in the same canon, and B: Wasn't made to the same high standards as the other games. If it were up to me I'd just include Origins if for no other reason than to make the Remastered package more appealing (3 games sells better than 2) but given Origin's undeniable reputation as the "black sheep" of the Arkham games and separate standard they set with it, I sort of understand why they haven't included it in the Remastered package.
Problem is that the game REEKED of "quick cash in." It was called "Origins" which would imply that it took place before Arkham Asylum, yet everyone was using modern technology that was later than Asylum (4 years later). In addition, it took place before Asylum but it introduced separate advanced gameplay elements, which didn't make sense to introduce in a game that took place before the others because there was no logical reason as to why they would be taken out. There was really NOTHING from a story perspective to link it to the other Arkham games other than it had "Arkham" in the title and it introduced the Joker. It didn't feature the same voice actors as the other Arkham games. It's supposed to take place in the entire city of Gotham, but the map was smaller than that of Arkham City, which was supposed to be a SECTION of Gotham. It pretty much just featured C-List Batman villains that you'd have to look up more often than not. It had a COMPLETELY unnecessary and unwanted multiplayer mode that was loved about as much as the multiplayer in Bioshock 2. In addition, it was by far the most buggy Arkham game, and WB didn't even fix all the bugs because (and they said this publicly) they wanted to focus on money making DLC as opposed to fixing the damn game. As much as I complained about how unoptomized and shoddy the PC version of Arkham Knight was, I don't think I could count the bugs I experienced on half a hand. Conversely, on Arkham Origins (which I played AFTER Arkham Knight meaning it should have been more stable) I encountered numerous bugs, one that prevented me from beating a boss numerous times because they would be teleported out of the area for some reason, and another time when I almost lost my data because the game crashed at a save point. And finally, it was the least enjoyed Batman game by a significant margin (we're not counting the Arkham Knight PC score because that's based on port quality as opposed to game quality.)
It seems to me that basically WB and Rocksteady don't want people to associate Origins with Asylum, City and Knight, as it A: Is not really in the same canon, and B: Wasn't made to the same high standards as the other games. If it were up to me I'd just include Origins if for no other reason than to make the Remastered package more appealing (3 games sells better than 2) but given Origin's undeniable reputation as the "black sheep" of the Arkham games and separate standard they set with it, I sort of understand why they haven't included it in the Remastered package.
Ah how little did I know. I didn't start playing these games until origins. I did think it was funny he had more modern tech than city or asylum though. Never could figure that out till now...I did like the game though except that weird joker sequence where he turns Harley Quinn.
Black Ops 1 has been added to backwards compatibility. They also fixed the issue that was preventing games that shipped on multiple discs from working in backwards compatibility.
http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/13/11673762/xbox-one-multi-disc-backward-compatible-360-games
Well I'll be trying that now... I haven't had any experiences with BC games from disc. Better upload my save data to the cloud.
Speaking of Black Ops 1, you can get it for $10 with Deals with Gold. I know the game is old but damn it's still fun, and the player base is still decent. Hell you can get in a match quicker than you could in the MCC. And the Single Player campaign I put down as one of the best in the series. Unfortunately I can't link it at work since the site is blocked, but I'm sure the people here can figure it out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...mpaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix#3e66bbd466a1
Big DLC for fallout 4 today...
Big DLC for fallout 4 today...
I need to go back to Fallout. I haven't played any of my season pass content yet.
Good news everyone! If you're not a big fan of Windows 10 on your One, you can also install Windows 95 and use that, sorta..
More info here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-18-someones-got-windows-95-running-on-xbox-one
More info here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-18-someones-got-windows-95-running-on-xbox-one
Looks like there's a glitch on the Xbox One store. Free CoD: Ghosts. Picked up a copy myself. According to the store website it's supposed to be $19.80.
Edit: Looks like the price was fixed. Posted this on Reddit and no one else saw the deal. Go me. ;p
Edit: Looks like the price was fixed. Posted this on Reddit and no one else saw the deal. Go me. ;p
Last edited:
Rocket League on Xbox One has Cross-platform play with PC users.
http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/24/11759296/rocket-league-cross-platform-play-xbox-one
http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/24/11759296/rocket-league-cross-platform-play-xbox-one
Cool. I usually play Solo Ranked on PC. This is the normal 3 on 3 game but people aren't allowed to party up with friends. There are usually about 100,000 people online but this particular playlist typically only has between 1200-2000 people active at any given time. Adding the Xbox One players in will hopefully increase that quite a bit.
6 new games available for BC. It should be noted that X-Com will be free as part of GwG.
http://www.gamezone.com/news/six-more-xbox-360-games-go-backwards-compatible-on-xbox-one-3437526
http://www.gamezone.com/news/six-more-xbox-360-games-go-backwards-compatible-on-xbox-one-3437526
This supposedly went live yesterday. Either it isn't working properly or they simply replaced the PS4 users with Xbox One users in PC matchmaking when they said PC users would be able to match with both.
The reason I say this is because there were actually less people online than average last night. It said there were about 80,000 people online and between 800-950 people in my playlist. Most nights there are about 100,000 people online and 1200-2000 in my playlist. Matchmaking was also a little slower than normal. As someone who plays this game several nights per week around the same time of day there was a definite drop off in the number of players online when there should have been an increase from the Xbox One players.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 2)
Latest posts
-
T
-
T
-
