Sure Arkham City was smaller overall map size wise, but it was very dense with lots of places, nooks and crannies to explore. What made it worse was that barely any density to the game. On top of that, it was mostly water on 3 islands. Maybe the map was that big, but I doubt it. Claiming at E3 that it was like 5 times bigger than Arkham City. One point that I think was missed was that I think the developers really overstated the size of the world. I dont recall Joe ever saying anything similar to that, like if he said, “Dont buy Tomb Raider, just buy GTA V, you get more for your money.” Celebrate all good games, not just one. 5/10 just seems too harsh and biased with a flawed reasoning as to the rating. I would pay a macimum $20 on that, an thats even if I wanted it. I wouldnt drop that money on Call of Duty or The Order since there is very little content an no replay value (for me). GTA V has nothing to do with this youre rating is based off of another game that has little to no similarities with this one.
I think if a game provides at least 30 hours of content out of the box with replay value (which to me this game has) then I have no problem dropping $60 on it.
#TOY BATMAN BATMAN ARKHAM CITY REVIEW YOUTUBE PC#
If you have enough for a gaming PC then how can you say this is a poor value for $60. That logic makes no sence… so if a game doesnt reach GTA V standards, it isnt worth the money? Do you not support game development or are you too cynical to accept that games cost money to play and youre just cheap? Its an unfair comparison either way.