With Arkham City finally landing this week, I thought I'd get a thread underway.  The first game was one hell of a surprise, and if the overwhelmingly positive reviews for the sequel are any indication, it looks like we'll be in for another treat.

If it really ends up being all that, I suspect we'll be talking like these guys at the end of this trailer commercial.

Don't trust them reviewers. Any mention if they fixed the f----ups of the first game?

Reviews for the second game have basically sold me on it, but I won't be buying it until whenever it hits $30 or less.  I haven't had time to play through my copy of the first one yet, so I'm in no rush.

Got my copy preordered, even though the original game did not blow me away that much.

This game officially kicks off the non-stop every-week stream of must-have games (for me at least) well into december, so yeah, goodbye money and social life.

At first, my goal was to speed through Xenoblade so I could move to Arkham Asylum so I could finally move to Arkham City. Turns out Xenoblade is so freaking LONG that there's no way I'll be able to complete it in time. And with Uncharted 3 and Skyward Sword coming out next month, I just might be doomed!

(Not to mention Elder Scrolls V... but as I'm not a big fan of the series, I might hold off there...)

So I only just played enough of Arkham City to get my feet wet.  Simply put, it's easily living up to expectations, but it's daunting how much they present to the player this early in the game.  It's almost like Rocksteady expects you to have a very firm grasp of Arkham Asylum's play mechanics before jumping in.  In the first hour or two, you're already thrust into situations that require extensive grappling and gliding, the efficient use of Detective Mode, and taking part in both multiple hostile combat situations and predatory encounters -- all on a bigger scale than anything Asylum had. 

While it's definitely feasible for beginners to pick things up, I imagine the transition will be far more comfortable to those who are already vets of the series.

Loving the new avatar, Angie

So I'm a few more hours in.  With the absurd amount of side missions and numerous other distractions to stray you off the main campaign's path, the game's proving to be quite the time sink.  I'm loving it.

Anyone else had trouble with those AR Training segments?  It took me a ridiculous amount of tries to perfect the flight trajectories, but they eventually clicked.  Now I can do 'em in my sleep.

Not a lot of games can make me go, "Oh snap!" in awe nowadays, but the combat in Arkham City looks absolutely crazy.  It's a lyrical symphony of beat down destruction, and Bats is the conductor.

My first predatory encounter was an amusing revelation.  I was just sitting there for several minutes, surveying the area, wondering how I was going to get by two gun-armed thugs standing side by side without causing an alarm.  I'd forgotten that you can do double silent takedowns now.  Mwaha.

And speaking of Catwoman, she's an interesting breakup in gameplay routine, but I wished her missions lasted longer.  It's a real testament to Rocksteady how they were able to so readily capture the essence of a character who skulks so lithely.

Finished the game a couple of days ago, and it was an absolutely amazing experience overall.
I know Uncharted 3 is hitting today, but it's gonna have to work hard to rob AC of its GotY crown at the moment.

I am generally much more pleased with this game than I was with Asylum. Asylum was kinda held back by bland stage design and a monotonous look, but City fixes that with a sprawling city to toy around in and some genuinely interesting indoor environments as well.
Sidemissions are surprisingly meaty, and even the Riddler is a much more menacing presence than before.

The story is fantastic too and the ending had the proper emotional impact, more than I'd ever expect from a Batman game, even though I thought the final boss fight was kinda outta nowhere.

I'm amazed at how well they managed to create an atmospheric, gloomy movie-like experience whilst still maintaining actual proper "gamey" elements, that is, actually letting you PLAY THE GAME instead of holding you by the hand and leading you down corridors, which is what most movie-like games seem to do.

The Catwoman stuff was decent, but you honestly don't miss much without it, although her final boss battle is one of the (few) most challenging moments in the game.

If November wasn't so ridiculously crowded with games, I'd gladly dive in again to do more of the side stuff (I'm only at a total of 48% or something), but alas.
Still, excellent, excellent game.

There is no difficulty in combat as it all devolves down to press Y. You won't ever be punished for improperly countering.

Why only one button for attacking? Why not have strong attack and fast attacks? While everything looks really cool seeing Batman tear it up, you should quickly realize that countering is very easy and that you can just put down the analog stick and let it be a one-handed game as you don't need to move at all.

Average game with high production values.

You know, I've only played a little bit of this, but it's better than most of the Batman games that have been made even if it is average. It's not like anyone did anything that great with the Batman license (game-wise) before these games - what other Batman game can you really put this up against? The only one I can think of is Batman Returns on the SNES which was done Final Fight style. It's good but you can't really call something like that special.

If you want to complain about an average - aka shitty - Batman game I'd recommend picking up a copy of Batman and Robin for the SNES which has the super awesome concept of loading times in a cartage based console game! (Side note: I'm willing to give Street Fighter Alpha 2 a break here with it's loads since it uses a oft-used decompression chip for it's vast amount of animation frames.) Go play that and I might give a damn what you have to say about this game. Which would you rather spend $60 bucks on the day of release? That question is rhetorical by the way.

God, why do I get the feeling you could complain about anything?

The punishment for improperly countering is that you'll get hit.
Get hit enough and you'll die. This is how most games work.

The challenge in the combat system in Arkham City lies in racking up combos as far as you can, which is a matter of rhythm (button bashing won't get you anywhere), keeping an eye on enemy positioning and using it to plan ahead. It's extremely gratifying to pull off an uninterrupted combo on a bunch of thugs.
Seriously, it becomes a lot better if you interpret it as a rhythm game more than anything else.

Is it as hard as Ninja Gaiden? No.
Does it have to be? No.

Average comment with high arrogance.

I haven't gotten punished for repeatedly tapping Y as the input time to counter attacks is large enough that you don't even need good timing on hard. So yea...

Is it anywhere as good as Ninja Gaiden 2? No.

edit: This is my friend's copy.

The developers attempt to create challenge by forcing you to attack enemies in different ways - armored? Beatdown. Shield? Jump attack. Stun baton? Flip and attack from behind. Ultimately though, it really wasn't that challenging and I was frankly surprised when the game was over. I can still play Arkham Asylum over and over and enjoy it every time, but I'm not eager to pick up Arkham City again anytime soon. It sure is beautiful, though.

Well, at least it's better than the melee in Uncharted 3, eh?

Beats me.