Everything that happens in Asylum takes place within the walls of that locale – unless you count Batman’s secret Batcave, which he has hidden in a cove around the corner from the institution – whereas City and Knight take him into more comprehensive depictions of a real, functioning Gotham City. It just demonstrates the obvious passion some players have for what Asylum did versus what City and Knight offered. In no way is my poll an exact representation of the millions who have played these games, though. For the people who don’t truly love Batman, and don’t absorb too much enjoyment from his extensive lore, I think Asylum just offers a more coherent and satisfying journey.
That’s not to say City doesn’t have plenty of fans, too – but people definitely covet Asylum for how it distills the Batman experience down into something that’s familiarly video game-y, in an environment where Bruce Wayne is more vulnerable to his enemies. The common argument I read in Asylum’s favour (one that I’ve frequently read about in the years since its release) is that it had a focus in its Metroidvania-like, single location structure that its open world successors did not. There’s definitely a split in opinion over when the Arkham trilogy was at its best – hell, I did my own informal poll on Twitter (the sort of riveting content you get by following me), and around half of those who responded listed 2009’s Asylum as their favourite.
But not everyone believes bigger is better, particularly when it comes to the open world sequels, Arkham City and Knight.
0 kommentar(er)
