Arkham Knight - pros and cons

[Trooper924]

On the downside though, the story was pretty weak. I know story has never really been the series' strong suit, but it felt extra weak this time around. Plus the villains were completely underwhelming. The Scarecrow was a complete bore, I started tuning him out after awhile, and The Arkham Knight was an annoying, unthreatening prat and the reveal of his real identity was an utter letdown.

Arkham fans were pretty pissed that they let go of Paul Dini, who wrote Asylum and City. And the best incarnations of DC's characters ever. Knight was instead written by three people: Sefton Hill, the director of the last two games and as far as I know, someone with no prior writing experience. Next is Martin Lancaster, who wrote for Crysis 1 and 2 as well as Killzone: Shadow Fall. Lastly is Ian Ball, who I can't even find online. In other words, people who were a complete step down from Dini.

EDIT: Also, can I ask why your profile pic is Denal? Just curious.

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

And I just like Denal's helmet design.

 

[Cheesy Goodness]

In my opinion, I think the series peaked with City. I can understand why some people liked Asylum better, but City was the superior game to me, even if the story was less focused. Arkham Knight is my least favorite of the bunch, excluding Origins, but it still holds a lot of quality in presentation and gameplay.

I would say the weakest aspect of Knight is the plot. Rocksteady is good at making a less than stellar story seem better than what it is, but the Arkham Knight himself is just a bad villain. His identity was the worst kept secret since Khan from Star Trek Into Darkness. He is simply a repacked character and nothing about him is interesting whatsoever.

Despite my complaints, I liked the game and think it is still worth playing. Whether it is worth buying a new console for is likely debatable.