Batman: Arkham Origins Dev Met "Resistance" at "Every Level"

[StewShearerOld]

Batman: Arkham Origins Dev Met "Resistance" at "Every Level"

Ben Mattes, senior producer for Batman: Arkham Origins, says the development team worried that it had "bitten off more than [it could] chew."

Batman: Arkham Origins has launched and, <a href=http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/batman-arkham-origins>for the most part, has been receiving positive reviews. This will likely come as a relief to the game's development team at Warner Bros. Montreal, which apparently had a bit of a rocky time making the game. According to Ben Mattes, senior producer for Arkham Origins, "resistance and reluctance [existed] at every level," often leaving the studio itself wondering if it was up to the job.

Not unexpectedly, the biggest response came from fans of the previous Arkham games. "There were fans who said: 'They're not Rocksteady, they can't make an Arkham, game,'" said Mattes. Unfortunately, these doubts didn't stop with the series' fanbase, there was "hesitation" from within the company as well. "There were concerns within the organization that we weren't going to be able to deliver the special sauce of a Rocksteady game."

These worries sometimes led to doubts among the developers themselves that perhaps they were in over their heads. "There were concerns within our team, like - 'Maybe we've bitten off more than we can chew? Are we sure we're able to dance with these guys? Do we deserve to be in this same hallowed ground?'" Despite these worries The Warner Bros. Monrteal team found enough confidence to press forward into Arkham Origins' development. "We wouldn't have continued through the years if we didn't feel we had a shot," said Mattes. "I'm really proud of what we've done."

Source: <a href=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-25-batman-arkham-origins-dev-faced-resistance-and-reluctance-at-every-level>Eurogamer


Permalink

 

[James Crook]

I think the game is great. Not as grandiose as Arkham City (that'd be hard, game was damn near perfect), nor does it bring as many new things to the table, but it's a fun game. It's a bit tougher and needs some polishing here and there, but it's fun. That's what matters, right?
Also, really digging the story so far.

 

[Hoplon]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

 

[DjinnFor]

Yeah, I had no confidence in their capabilities either, for the same reasons: they aren't Rocksteady, development teams who switch in rarely deliver the product that fans have come to expect from the old team; when they do deliver something similar in style and tone, its often of worse quality. But I kept my mouth shut about it because you never know. I'll wait for more reviews and watch some videos before I commit.

 

[thethird0611]

I think a lot of people (or at least me, but im guessing im not the only one), that when a loved series is passed off to a new developer, and the farther in the series it gets, that it might just tank. I know I always worry about both of those, especially whenever you start going on #3-4 of the series.

But im glad it came out well, havent played it, cant wait to.

 

[Gali]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

The multiplayer was made by a different dev team (Splash Damage)...

I'm enjoying this game as much as the previous entries. In fact, in some places even more. Not sure about the MP though, haven't tried it yet. I think it was stupid of some fans to assume that an Arkham game made by a different team will not be good. As a reminder: Rocksteady was quite a no-name developer too before they got the chance to make a Batman game.

But I still want to see a real sequel made by the original dev team.

 

[gigastar]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

MP was done by a different company.

 

[Elijin]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

The multiplayer was made by a different dev team (Splash Damage)...

I'm enjoying this game as much as the previous entries. In fact, in some places even more. Not sure about the MP though, haven't tried it yet. I think it was stupid of some fans to assume that an Arkham game made by a different team will not be good. As a reminder: Rocksteady was quite a no-name developer too before they got the chance to make a Batman game.

But I still want to see a real sequel made by the original dev team.

The MP on most games is almost always made by another team. And the Escapist community almost always complains about 'that time wasted making MP which could have been spent on SP'

Its a special dance.

 

[Hoplon]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

MP was done by a different company.

Who where allocated zero resources right? they weren't paid or anything?

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

MP was done by a different company.

Who where allocated zero resources right? they weren't paid or anything?

You did mention "time," not "money". Two dev teams can run concurrently, clearly. And I presume Warner Bros. has the kind of budgets that they can give both teams whatever it is they need. The point is that these developers - WB Montreal - didn't waste their time on the multiplayer. And it isn't their money to dole out. So... who's being singled out here? The studio? Cos it's the publishers you should be looking to.

 

[Hoplon]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

MP was done by a different company.

Who where allocated zero resources right? they weren't paid or anything?

You did mention "time," not "money". Two dev teams can run concurrently, clearly. And I presume Warner Bros. has the kind of budgets that they can give both teams whatever it is they need. The point is that these developers - WB Montreal - didn't waste their time on the multiplayer. And it isn't their money to dole out. So... who's being singled out here? The studio? Cos it's the publishers you should be looking to.

yes the publishers, who else can spend their money? The dev studio is a wholly owned one so can only do as it is told.

Not really sure where this facetiousness is coming from, resources where wasted on the multiplayer, I didn't comment on who by, but yes, time, money, effort.

 

[Athinira]

Yeah, I had no confidence in their capabilities either, for the same reasons: they aren't Rocksteady, development teams who switch in rarely deliver the product that fans have come to expect from the old team;

I feel like i might be quoting Yathzee a bit too often, but why would you do anything for fans?

When a game switches Dev teams, typically it's for the better when the developers don't try to 'live up' to anything, and instead do something new and interesting with the series. Reading the reviews, it's pretty clear which route the Arkham Origin devs went.

Doesn't seem too bad though, I'll probably grab it at a steam sale.

 

[shrekfan246]

I think it's astounding that an average score of 80/100 translates to "average to mostly positive" in the gaming community/industry.

You know that in music and films, the reviews are considered "moderate to positive" for like, anything over 60/100?

Anyway, I'll admit I was skeptical of the title myself because of it not being Rocksteady and because of the inclusion of a multi-player mode which I doubt I'll ever play, but it sounds like the combat is still just as good as the previous two games, the detective mode is vastly better than either of the previous two, and the city is more fun and interesting to explore than Arkham City, so I'll probably pick it up tomorrow or something and then determine for myself.

Hopefully the PC version optimization isn't quite as pants as City was, I've heard various reports of its performance so far.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Not ashamed to admit that I was part of that giant blob of distrust at the sight of a new developer but I'm very happy for them that they powered through it.

From what I've seen so far the game looks great, but I'm still waiting for a WTF is... from TB to tell me about the PC version. As long as the PC version checks out then I'm in.

 

[JediMB]

My Twitter feed, which includes a few people whose work you can find here on The Escapist, has been largely negative about the game. There's been a lot of tweeting about how bad the dialogue is, how terrible the puzzle designs are, and how harmful some of the bugs are to the experience.

I'm not really interested in the game, though, since I haven't even played Arkham City yet. And of course the switch in development teams could only leave me skeptical.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Also they could have totally not done a MP section at all and spent the time polishing the game.

MP was done by a different company.

Who where allocated zero resources right? they weren't paid or anything?

You did mention "time," not "money". Two dev teams can run concurrently, clearly. And I presume Warner Bros. has the kind of budgets that they can give both teams whatever it is they need. The point is that these developers - WB Montreal - didn't waste their time on the multiplayer. And it isn't their money to dole out. So... who's being singled out here? The studio? Cos it's the publishers you should be looking to.

yes the publishers, who else can spend their money? The dev studio is a wholly owned one so can only do as it is told.

Not really sure where this facetiousness is coming from, resources where wasted on the multiplayer, I didn't comment on who by, but yes, time, money, effort.

Well the article is about the developers and their end of production... how did you think a comment referring to a "they" would be interpreted?

 

[Seracen]

I wouldn't call the game "hallowed ground." However, it is still important to make sure whomever takes the reigns respects the source material. There are few enough cases where the second team does as good a job as the original, but I don't expect such a disconnect with this title.

KOTOR 2 was an interesting beast, along these lines, and one of the originators of this debate. I'd say the restored version, along with other fan updates, raise that game to the same level as the original, but Obsidian certainly dropped a few balls, even though it was still better than most games of that generation.

 

[tdylan]

I personally am not a fan of prequels. At least, prequels the way they seem to be done. I know that no one would have been able to cash in on Black Mask's bounty, but having this game be a prequel, and having played Asylum and City, any tension from the "lethal assassins all coming after batman" is non-existent for me, and really helps me from getting invested in the story.

That's story. From a gameplay perspective, it perturbs me when prequel games have more features/abilities than later games. For example, I think we see the digger launcher in Gears of War Judgment (prequel). However, in Gears of War 3 (where it was first introduced), we see the characters react to it as though they're seeing it for the first time. I haven't played Origins, but from the previews Batman seems to have some nice tools and abilities that make me ask "why didn't he have those in Asylum/City?" Granted, you could argue that he had evolved beyond needing them/didn't have them on him at the time, but it still makes me groan. Stars Wars Force Unleashed is supposed to be canon in the Star Wars universe. It's a prequel to the star wars movies. To parapharse Yatzee, why was Vader so impressed with Luke after seeing all the stuff Star Killer could do?

I prefer stories moving forward, and NOT including the Joker. I don't know how involved he is in the story, and I understand people love him, but ever since it was announced that he would be in this I thought "good god! Quite beating that dead horse. Batman does have other villains. In this game he has several. Did you really need to add the joker as well?"

 

[Buizel91]

I for one, am LOVING this game, the story so far is damn awesome!

Now i'll admit, there a few nitpicks, the sound to me is a little...quiet. In AA and AC i can easily here the thugs while i'm flying about, in this game it sounds a little muffled, and i find my self having to stop to listen to them. There a few bugs here and there, but the previous games had minor problems as well and they got polished to near perfection within a few weeks.

Also loving the new detective mode...the way you are able to put the pieces together is pretty damn awesome, my mouth nearly dropped at the first major crime scene where

Spoiler

Black mask gets "killed" and the police are blaming Penguin, however it wasn't actually black mask, it was a decoy and we find out Joker pretty much battered black mask and took him hostage to the bank

Seriously i was like...Wow O.O i was expecting it to be the other way round!

Anyone who loves the Arkham series, i highly recommend this game, I'd so far it's say its on par with AA, as AC was pretty much perfect.

 

[Buizel91]

I prefer stories moving forward, and NOT including the Joker. I don't know how involved he is in the story, and I understand people love him, but ever since it was announced that he would be in this I thought "good god! Quite beating that dead horse. Batman does have other villains. In this game he has several. Did you really need to add the joker as well?"

I admit, they didn't 'need' to make him a big part in AO, a few missions here and there would of done, but this is his Origin story, if you have one, you need the other, as Joker was a big part of AA and AC.

Not having Joker in this game would be like having Kirk without Spok in Star Trek or Optimus Prime without Megatron In Transformers. If you have one, you need the other.