Arkham Asylum VS. Arkham City

[Batman Beyond]

Which of the two do you prefer? The 2009 runaway surprise videogame masterpiece, or the epic and, arguably equally good continuance released in 2011?

[riddler]

City. Asylum was outstanding and a very scary concept. But City takes it to the next level, bigger rogue gallery and more levels designed for specific villains.

[Paul (ral)]

Not sure if it's the city scenario, but the free roaming aspect of Arkham City is just more fun to me.

[The Dark Knight]

Not sure if it's the city scenario, but the free roaming aspect of Arkham City is just more fun to me.

Yep. The thugs re-spawn this time and you can glide around and fight them for as long as you want. A big tick in my book.

In terms of story, that's up to your own opinion, but I think they did improve upon the first game in terms of mechanics, etc.

[Gotham Knight]

I think the last go round where I went from City back to Asylum, the superiority of City's improved game play really showed, especially since acclimating to the smoother 'feel' of the controls. Switching back to Asylum's, it just got clunky sometimes by comparison, and the fighting isn't as rewarding as City's.

The modern gaming era (for the most part) has become basically a highly interactive movie with you at the helm, especially where third person action adventure games are concerned. It's fun to watch AND play. They are great games, and honestly...great movies. Both excel at the trappings of a highly explosive dramatic experience. City is more character driven, Asylum more event driven with droplets of a typically 'Dini' 'character strong' struggles. The latter is obviously more hinted and implied, the former (City) more overt in depictions. And, to reiterate, both are great at it. It's like comparing a nice cheeseburger with jalapenos on it to the same cheeseburger with bacon instead. Do you loose either way? And is it too much to have both.

In the end...I gotta go with Asylum as the winner. Maybe it's because Asylum was such a welcomed surprise for me (as apposed to the expectations of City, but what it comes down to is which I like to 're-watch. again and again. From the POV of a viewer, I think I like Asylum more.

Think of it this way. The way I see it is Arkham City was the better game. Arkham Asylum was the better movie.

Thematically, though dazzling and perhaps the epitome of the perception of Gotham city itself, Arkham City's seems to avail itself the 'horror story' element that tightens my gut every time the actual game-play of Asylum starts with that now very familiar crescendo and the foreboding walk with the Joker. Sure there are frights in City. Grundy's introduction for one, but the step into the big wider world seems to have availed the franchise of the subtlety that can emanate from a crime thriller's truly ugly underbelly. It goes for the gross outs and maybe has a little too much fun. Aslyum does too, particularly in the Poison Ivy arena. However, Victor's Zsasz's heavy breather routine and constant "I WILL BLEED YOU AND FILL THE GOURGES OF MY RIPPLING WOUNDS! THE MARK THE MARK!" just doesn't raise the hairs on the back of my neck like it did when I was trapped by four walls in the same room with him while on a locked down island. He's still fun as hell listening to, but I'm not afraid anymore. The shadow of scarecrow falls on the tiled walls of the medical facility and flashes as his victims foam at the mouth and claw at the glass...And Batman is helpless to do anything...That's the scare I want. The intimacy and atmosphere just pushes Asylum over the line into first place.

Arkham City's story gets far too convoluted at Hugo Strange's expense and at the behest of, Joker who dominates yet another storyline. I swear he's got 'Wolverine syndrome' at this point. He and his shrill little girlfriend.

....sometimes simple story telling is where you leave it. I know they wanted to up the stakes, but for Christ's sake. I mean, they were so confident in City's plot they put in an entire mode devoted to trying to lay it out in little placard recaps.

anyway!  Both were awesome, but the fractured 'its Strange its Joker its Ras its strange its Ras' again....No Joker!' didn't strike me as a series of interconnected plots converging, more like a improbable, but infinitely playable scenario sprinkled with a mess that was twisted and mangled to make the plot look more complicated than it truly ended up being in the end. Were they trying to win a Golden Globe or something?

[riddler]

I think the last go round where I went from City back to Asylum, the superiority of City's improved game play really showed, especially since acclimating to the smoother 'feel' of the controls. Switching back to Asylum's, it just got clunky sometimes by comparison, and the fighting isn't as rewarding as City's.

The modern gaming era (for the most part) has become basically a highly interactive movie with you at the helm, especially where third person action adventure games are concerned. It's fun to watch AND play. They are great games, and honestly...great movies. Both excel at the trappings of a highly explosive dramatic experience. City is more character driven, Asylum more event driven with droplets of a typically 'Dini' 'character strong' struggles. The latter is obviously more hinted and implied, the former (City) more overt in depictions. And, to reiterate, both are great at it. It's like comparing a nice cheeseburger with jalapenos on it to the same cheeseburger with bacon instead. Do you loose either way? And is it too much to have both.

In the end...I gotta go with Asylum as the winner. Maybe it's because Asylum was such a welcomed surprise for me (as apposed to the expectations of City, but what it comes down to is which I like to 're-watch. again and again. From the POV of a viewer, I think I like Asylum more.

Think of it this way. The way I see it is Arkham City was the better game. Arkham Asylum was the better movie.

Thematically, though dazzling and perhaps the epitome of the perception of Gotham city itself, Arkham City's seems to avail itself the 'horror story' element that tightens my gut every time the actual game-play of Asylum starts with that now very familiar crescendo and the foreboding walk with the Joker. Sure there are frights in City. Grundy's introduction for one, but the step into the big wider world seems to have availed the franchise of the subtlety that can emanate from a crime thriller's truly ugly underbelly. It goes for the gross outs and maybe has a little too much fun. Aslyum does too, particularly in the Poison Ivy arena. However, Victor's Zsasz's heavy breather routine and constant "I WILL BLEED YOU AND FILL THE GOURGES OF MY RIPPLING WOUNDS! THE MARK THE MARK!" just doesn't raise the hairs on the back of my neck like it did when I was trapped by four walls in the same room with him while on a locked down island. He's still fun as hell listening to, but I'm not afraid anymore. The shadow of scarecrow falls on the tiled walls of the medical facility and flashes as his victims foam at the mouth and claw at the glass...And Batman is helpless to do anything...That's the scare I want. The intimacy and atmosphere just pushes Asylum over the line into first place.

Arkham City's story gets far too convoluted at Hugo Strange's expense and at the behest of, Joker who dominates yet another storyline. I swear he's got 'Wolverine syndrome' at this point. He and his shrill little girlfriend.

....sometimes simple story telling is where you leave it. I know they wanted to up the stakes, but for Christ's sake. I mean, they were so confident in City's plot they put in an entire mode devoted to trying to lay it out in little placard recaps.

anyway!  Both were awesome, but the fractured 'its Strange its Joker its Ras its strange its Ras' again....No Joker!' didn't strike me as a series of interconnected plots converging, more like a improbable, but infinitely playable scenario sprinkled with a mess that was twisted and mangled to make the plot look more complicated than it truly ended up being in the end. Were they trying to win a Golden Globe or something?

Agreed. Gameplay there's no comparison there's more to do in Arhkam City including extra missions and more gadget upgrades and improved fighting. But if they were to make a movie off of one, Asylum is by far the better concept; the stakes are higher, Gordon is caught,  guards and doctors are in danger, batman himself is trapped. With City you kind of know that Batman could easily escape. Asylum is the one and only video game I was almost scared while playing. Not to the extent of giving me nightmares but it made my skin crawl.

[Batman Beyond]

Also agreed with both posts.

Asylum is better story-wise, and even performance-wise, especially for Hamill, whose pitch-note perfect in it. The atmosphere and mood is also more akin to the Batman world than not, and the setting of the Asylum gives it a fitting claustrophobic aspect. It also gives a Batman VS. Joker fight that, while outlandish, is still pretty neat in execution.

City is the more epic of the two, and story-wise is still full of goodness, what with Paul Dini writing it. But as mentioned by , its not as tightly constructed plot-wise. But are character-driven, but the situations in City seem to be all over the place. Like, for instance, the Batman-R'as Al Ghul fight really makes more sense, thematically, after he's revealed to be Strange's benefactor. Sure, as it is you might not think of Ra's involvement in the story, but on repeat playings you feel as if you've played the end of the game too soon.

That said, City is a great game anyhow, and as a game, City trumps Asylum as a sequel and as a stand-alone feature. Its insanely replayable, and the free-roam on the city is endlessly enjoyable. And I love the side-missions - and two of them could also serve as the basis for the next game, which I hope there will be one (sequel, that is).

So, Asylum is the better story, with the better direction/mood/atmosphere, but City is a better game, as said. But it still is nice to play them both.

[Azrael]

A comparison one could make are the classic Resident Evils. RE1 was a surprise hit; set in a mansion, claustrophobic, more focused plot-wise. RE2 was set in the city with a much bigger and epic scope (and worth a lot more playtime). RE2 was objectively a major improvement over the original, but there are gamers to this day that prefer the atmosphere in that mansion (especially as seen in 2002's REmake, that was sadly never released for PC).

[Silver Nemesis]

I remember getting a demo of Resi 2 with the RE1: Director's Cut. Me and my brother played it about a million times in the run up to the RE2 release date. I was also collecting the short-lived Wildstorm comic series that year, as well as some of the books by S D Perry. I was so excited to finally play RE2. And it didn't disappoint. I didn't think anything could top it, but then the GameCube REmake came along and set a new benchmark for the series.

I was heartbroken when I played RE4 for the first time. We'd waited so long for it to come out. And we'd been teased with footage of a really great looking survival horror game.

But the final product just wasn't a true Resident Evil experience, any more than Paul W S Anderson's dreadful movies were (read George Romero's Resident Evil script – it was much more faithful to the games). And the worst thing about it was that everyone else loved RE4. Sure, it was a great action game. But it was a lousy horror game. Capcom should never have published it as part of the Resident Evil series. Devil May Cry – which was also a great action game – had originally been developed as part of the RE series, but Capcom had had the good sense to release it as a separate standalone game. I wish they'd done the same for RE4.

Resident Evil Revelation for the 3DS was a step in the right direction, but I don't think they'll ever fully take the series back to its roots as pure survival horror. 

[Azrael]

Not much to add except I agree 100% with your points about the originals, RE4, the abominable Anderson films, and I even liked the S.D. Perry novels (back then I even thought they were "canonical"). I must have played RE:DC and RE2 a billion times each too, and REmake is the prime reason my friend's GC had a second home.

Yeah, the action turn from RE4 onwards was disappointing (never really liked it) - but it probably makes sense from Capcom's POV since it was the critical and commercial success of that game (Mikami really gave his best) that saved the franchise from becoming stagnant - this was the consensus. But then, in the proccess, it mutated it into something different. Nowadays, even widely read and "respectable" sources like Edge say that RE has little to do with survival horror anymore and, in the wake of what RE6 felt like, a reboot is long overdue. There's still hope if they decide there's a market for more "traditional" survival horror gameplay.

("What IS this?" - "Barry, where's Barry?"- did Paul WS Anderson really have to kill Barry Burton?)