Spiderman ps4 vs arkham series - which is better at the moment, in your opinion?

[dscross]

I've seen a lot of comparisons between these two (although, apparently, Spiderman had some prototypes for the modern combat system in his earlier games before Arkham Asylum, even though most people think the Arkham series came up with the combat system).

I really enjoyed them both the Arkham series and Spiderman ps4 and found them to feel very similar in lots of ways. But...

- Spiderman is a bit more agile and has a larger move set than Batman which makes his combat feel a bit different - both incredibly fun).
- Batman combat feels more satisfying in some ways because he felt more powerful and it felt a bit more fluid (because you don't have to bring up the gadget wheel during battle like with Spiderman).
- Webslinging is more fun than gliding
- The side missions aren't very good in Spiderman compared to Batman. They can get a bit repetitive.
- I enjoyed the story more in Batman
- The city feels more alive in Spiderman because they haven't cleared all the civilians out like in Batman
- Spiderman doesn't have the batmobile like in Arkham Knight, which I know a lot of people disliked (I liked it on normal, but then I tried it on hard and decided it ruined hard mode)

Overall, I think if I was forced at gunpoint to choose, I'd still go with Arkham series as it stands right now, but only just (that could change with the next Spiderman game).

What do you all think?

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

It's pretty pointless to compare a series of 4 games to a single game, don't you think?

The Arkham series was consistently solid, but in hindsight I think it very clearly peaked at the first game. It's a matter of opinion, obviously, I see why someone would prefer the later games but I think from Arkham City onward it went into a direction that didn't exactly play to the strengths of the core gameplay. As a matter of fact I think the sequels just took what was good about Arkham Asylum and had to spread it very thin. It's a bit of a shame, because artistically and mechanically the sequels still had a lot going for them, I just wish they had streamlined it instead of dissolving it in a wide and shallow pool of mostly busywork.

Buena Vista's Disney's Atlas Comic's Marvel's Stan Lee's Steve Ditko's Spider-Man had some of the same problems, funnily enough. I think I might have never played a game where there was such a great difference in quality between story content and side content. The story content was great, really exciting set pieces, fun storytelling, good stuff. But almost everything outside of that was just... doing chores. Go there, do thing, get reward. Hardly any cutscenes, hardly any memorable action Setpieces, hardly any memorable leveldesign, kind of a massive letdown that you suffered through to be able to unlock upgrades and costumes.

In conclusion, Arkham Asylum is probably better than either Spider-Man or either of its own sequels but I guess I did enjoy Spider-Man more than either of the later Arkham games. And, I mean, at the end of the day they are all good games.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'll just take one game from the Arkham trilogy, the one that's seen as the weakest one, Arkham Knight, and against Spider-Man I'd say the former wins hands down.

Spider-Man really "only" has its excellent combat and some of its emotional beats in its favour. The way the Arkham games handle its story and characters beats through gameplay is absolutely genuis, and Spider-Man unfortunately never comes close to the creativity of the Scarecrow sequences, the Man Bat encounter etc.

Spider-Man has more likeable characters and character interactions, which is not too surprising obviously. The scene with Spider-Man and Miles in the alleyway is especially great. But the way the way the game goes from gameplay to cutscene, and cutscene to game is very inorganic, pretty much always being preceeded by a loadscreen. The Arkham games have a much better flow in this regard.

Also, none of the Arkham games had Mary-Jane.

 

[Hawki]

I'll just take one game from the Arkham trilogy,

Trilogy?

What, is Origins chopped liver or something?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'll just take one game from the Arkham trilogy,

Trilogy?

What, is Origins chopped liver or something?

It's not made by Rocksteady and not part of the timeline sorta speak, so I don't really count it. Not that I ever played it, but what I had seen of it didn't look too appealing. It's like Ready at Dawn with God of War.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

It's not made by Rocksteady and not part of the timeline sorta speak, so I don't really count it. Not that I ever played it, but what I had seen of it didn't look too appealing. It's like Ready at Dawn with God of War.

As someone who has played it ... you're not missing much.

It's basically a blander Arkham City, but with an additional even more bland map full of bland content bolted to it. Some of the boss battles aren't bland. They're actually pretty neat, tho none reach the same highs as City's Mr Freeze. Also, more gamebreaking bugs. That are also bland.

Bland.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'll just take one game from the Arkham trilogy,

Trilogy?

What, is Origins chopped liver or something?

It's not made by Rocksteady and not part of the timeline sorta speak, so I don't really count it. Not that I ever played it, but what I had seen of it didn't look too appealing. It's like Ready at Dawn with God of War.

As someone who's actually played Arkham Origins I feel like the game is unfairly maligned (first and foremost by the people who published it). Sure, in comparison it's the weakest and blandest of the series because it doesn't take the formula anywhere new or interesting and sort of waddles in Arkham City territory while completely wasting the prequel premise of a younger, more inexperienced Batman (a concept that only really plays out in cutscenes). Having said that! It's a solid game on its own, has some cool setpieces, one boss that's actually scary for a change and I thought the story was decently laid out twists et al.

 

[Trunkage]

It's not made by Rocksteady and not part of the timeline sorta speak, so I don't really count it. Not that I ever played it, but what I had seen of it didn't look too appealing. It's like Ready at Dawn with God of War.

As someone who has played it ... you're not missing much.

It's basically a blander Arkham City, but with an additional even more bland map full of bland content bolted to it. Some of the boss battles aren't bland. They're actually pretty neat, tho none reach the same highs as City's Mr Freeze. Also, more gamebreaking bugs. That are also bland.

Bland.

I had trouble telling where I was going because the landmarks of the other games are non-existent. Arkham Knight was not great either.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Both are good but I feel Spider-Man has a few more missteps, such as the Mary Jane stealth sections, pipe connecting minigames and enough copy pasted goons stuffed into some areas that the fights get tedious.

It's hardly a fair comparison, since Arkham had multiple games to refine and polish its weaker aspects. Maybe Spider-Man's sequel will be able to cut off the dull bits and exceed the one we have now. One mechanic I always thought would be perfect for a Spider-Man game would be an optional taunt command. The problem a lot of Spider games have where Peter ends up repeating the same lines over and over at random triggers from the game, but putting it in the player's hands can mitigate that factor and make it strategic, aggravating some enemies into charging in blindly while others keep their cool until you do a certain action that sets them on edge. Batman would certainly never use that tactic, unless we're talking Terry McGinnis.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Spider-Man really "only" has its excellent combat and some of its emotional beats in its favour. The way the Arkham games handle its story and characters beats through gameplay is absolutely genuis, and Spider-Man unfortunately never comes close to the creativity of the Scarecrow sequences, the Man Bat encounter etc.

Pretty much this, Spiderman maybe only occasionally elevates above "just fun". Insomniac nailed the core gameplay, but everything else is severely lacking from a game design perspective. The mission structure is just so bland and unoriginal. Whereas when the Arkham series is running on all cylinders, all the elements of the game coalesce into something special.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I would say the Arkham games are overall better, but that's because the Arkham side content is actually good and well written, whereas all the side content in Spiderman is basically lazy trash. I honestly wouldn't bother with the side content in Spiderman if web swinging wasn't so goddamn fun. If you have a good gameplay system even the most boring content can be made entertaining.

I find it a little weird that people compare the Arkham and Spiderman combat so often when I don't think they're that similar. Batman plays in a much more offensive way, and his defense is also his best offensive tool. Batman wants to be in the middle of all the enemies, and just doing counter attack after counter attack because his counter is an offensive tool that does damage. Spiderman on the other hand wants to be on the periphery of the fight. His counter move is a dodge, and it's a dodge that doesn't work if he's surrounded by enemies because he can get body-blocked. Spiderman wants to dance around the outside of the fight throwing things, disarming enemies, grabbing people and throwing them in the air. Batman also has more trouble with guns, whereas gunfire is incredibly easy for spiderman to dodge, and spiderman takes more melee damage. Add to that the air-combat that Spiderman has which Batman doesn't, and I find that the two combat systems don't play very similarly at all.

The games are definitely structured similarly, and the "predator" sections play basically the same, but the combat feels very different between the two series.

 

[stroopwafel]

I would say the Arkham games are overall better, but that's because the Arkham side content is actually good and well written, whereas all the side content in Spiderman is basically lazy trash. I honestly wouldn't bother with the side content in Spiderman if web swinging wasn't so goddamn fun. If you have a good gameplay system even the most boring content can be made entertaining.

The side missions in Arkham Knight were also pretty bad for the most part. The trailers gave the impression that there was going to be this concerted effort to bring Batman down Knightfall style but there was none of the sort. Espesically the Penguin and Two-Face missions were crap. The only one that was kinda alright was Man-Bat and Pyg, but also only b/c they had a cool conclusion. And the remainder was just outpost clearing and more drone combat(if you'd want anymore). I also think the Season of Infamy DLC wasn't really that great and further proof Rocksteady couldn't write interesting side-stories without Dini.

The main story in Arkham Knight however was really awesome and had they toned back significantly on the drone combat the game would have been amazing and the best Arkham game(thanks in no small part to how incredible it still looks). Espescially that part in Knight in the theater was incredible and without a doubt the best Arkham content created. Arkham City did have very good side content but mostly b/c Dini is very well versed into Batman lore and every quest was a kind of mini vignette/hommage. Thanks to Dini's writing City had a more consistent quality than Knight.

Compared directly to spiderman I have to say I enjoyed spiderman quite a bit more, despite Batman being my favorite character. Arkham combat is too much of a rhythm game and espescially in Knight where Batman just literally projectiled across the screen like a human wrecking ball it became a bit too much, like the game literally felt to make you feel awesome by hitting the right button at the right prompt. Spiderman had more skill involved and didn't felt slave to the rhythm but rather allowed you to develop your own playstyle with numerous amounts of approaches and attributes. Batman had this as well I guess but here every skill felt like forcing a delay on an opponent to manage the amount of enemies you had to fight at the same time rather than really a skill or viable option in itself. Side content in spiderman might be mediocre but atleast for me it was mitigated by many of the often old school references which made the game often feel like a tribute to my childhood.

But anyways, they are all good games in their own right even the oft avoided Arkham Origins. This game lacked not only memorable side content but also having it spread to thin over too large a map. However the main story was still really good so I think it's a game that definitely shouldn't be missed if you enjoyed the other games. I also really liked how Gotham in the snow made the game really reminiscent of Batman Returns. Spiderman 2 is pretty much a given at this point but I really hope we get another Arkham game too whether by Rocksteady or WB. Doesn't feel that way but 2015 is already a long time ago.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I find it a little weird that people compare the Arkham and Spiderman combat so often when I don't think they're that similar. Batman plays in a much more offensive way, and his defense is also his best offensive tool. Batman wants to be in the middle of all the enemies, and just doing counter attack after counter attack because his counter is an offensive tool that does damage. Spiderman on the other hand wants to be on the periphery of the fight. His counter move is a dodge, and it's a dodge that doesn't work if he's surrounded by enemies because he can get body-blocked. Spiderman wants to dance around the outside of the fight throwing things, disarming enemies, grabbing people and throwing them in the air. Batman also has more trouble with guns, whereas gunfire is incredibly easy for spiderman to dodge, and spiderman takes more melee damage. Add to that the air-combat that Spiderman has which Batman doesn't, and I find that the two combat systems don't play very similarly at all.

I don't think I'd describe it that way. I'd say it's a faster more hectic Arkham combat with better chain abilities. And the dodge can't be blocked ever. At best you can get nicked by a shot during a dodge, but you can't get blocked out of a dodge. If you press circle at the correct time that dodge is going to happen no matter how many dudes are surrounding you.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I find it a little weird that people compare the Arkham and Spiderman combat so often when I don't think they're that similar. Batman plays in a much more offensive way, and his defense is also his best offensive tool. Batman wants to be in the middle of all the enemies, and just doing counter attack after counter attack because his counter is an offensive tool that does damage. Spiderman on the other hand wants to be on the periphery of the fight. His counter move is a dodge, and it's a dodge that doesn't work if he's surrounded by enemies because he can get body-blocked. Spiderman wants to dance around the outside of the fight throwing things, disarming enemies, grabbing people and throwing them in the air. Batman also has more trouble with guns, whereas gunfire is incredibly easy for spiderman to dodge, and spiderman takes more melee damage. Add to that the air-combat that Spiderman has which Batman doesn't, and I find that the two combat systems don't play very similarly at all.

I don't think I'd describe it that way. I'd say it's a faster more hectic Arkham combat with better chain abilities. And the dodge can't be blocked ever. At best you can get nicked by a shot during a dodge, but you can't get blocked out of a dodge. If you press circle at the correct time that dodge is going to happen no matter how many dudes are surrounding you.

Yeah, you'll dodge out of the way of the gun-shot (or rather it'll just go through your i-frames), but you get body blocked and stuck in place. If you're surrounded by multiple enemies and you dodge an attack you can still get stuck in place and get hit by follow-ups from other enemies, which doesn't happen to Batman when he's surrounded.

 

[bluegate]

Batman is a boring piece of DC crap though.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Never played Spider-Man, but I'd be surprised if it was better than any of the Arkham games, including Origins. Arkham series is really a shining example of how to make a comic based video game. And each one has something unique that makes it very difficult for me to pick a favorite.

 

[dscross]

Never played Spider-Man, but I'd be surprised if it was better than any of the Arkham games, including Origins. Arkham series is really a shining example of how to make a comic based video game. And each one has something unique that makes it very difficult for me to pick a favorite.

I guarantee you will, at the very least, enjoy Spiderman if you love Arkham, because the gameplay felt very similar to me, in terms of its combat, stealth, and structure but more spider-man-y in terms of tone.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I guarantee you will, at the very least, enjoy Spiderman if you love Arkham, because the gameplay felt very similar to me, in terms of its combat, stealth, and structure but more spider-man-y in terms of tone.

I'm sure it's a terrific game, and Spider-Man is my favorite super hero, but alas, I don't have a PS4.

 

[dscross]

The games are definitely structured similarly, and the "predator" sections play basically the same, but the combat feels very different between the two series.

Do you think the combat system plays that differently? It felt extremely similar to me. There was definitely some muscle memory going on. Spider-man can do more stuff than Batman, he's more agile and the punches feel less impactful but the feeling doesn't seem too much different really.

 

[CritialGaming]

Also, none of the Arkham games had Mary-Jane.

This is all that needed to be said.

Many Jane > Any Batgirls period.

Black Cat > Mary Jane. So now we're in trouble.

OT: Spider-Man I think did the world better than any of the BAtman games. Arkahm asylum was great, but the series quickly went downhill IMO with City, Origins and especially Knight.

I also think Spider-Man was better suited to the combat system, his natural characterizations and powers fit the jumping around and mobility better than Batman's Kung-Fu. Though Spider-Man shouldn't have Stealth at all. So I think the Stealth would have been a better for Batman to focus on.

Ultimately I think Spider-Man ended up being the all around better game. But Batman does have little highlights that are better than Spider-man.