- Messages
- 3,904
Mark Brown said:Rocksteady's Arkham games have gotten bigger and bigger, from the corridors of Arkham Asylum to the streets of Gotham City. But has the Dark Knight actually benefited from the increase in scale? Is bigger always better?
A simple enough topic that's been on my mind for about a decade now. Open-world games, and the seeming insistence on making everything in the Triple-A sphere have an open world in recent times - even if it doesn't necessarily make sense on paper. Some select few games pull it off to great effect; I don't feel like the overall popularity of something like Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom or Elden Ring can be denied. Yet despite open world fatigue being a fairly common sentiment with regards to Ubisoft's output, many of those games and others like them perform very well year in and year out. There seems to be a prevailing sentiment that if a game isn't a certain size, that it's not worth the Day 1 asking price.
Per the subject within the video, I personally find myself universally liking small(er) linear/sandbox-y games as opposed to sprawling and open spaces. Whether the latter is full of interesting things to see and do or not. And I definitely felt that keenly in the Batman trilogy. I've played through Arkham Aslyum four times so far, but Arkham City I did just once and really wasn't feeling after the first couple of hours. And I've felt zero motivation to start Arkham Knight in the 8 or so years that it's been out knowing that it's even more.
How about the rest of you? Are you, for example, excited about the prospect of an open-world Final Fantasy VII Remake? Or perhaps you'd like to see a smaller, more setpiece-oriented Assassin's Creed?