Batman: Arkham Origins seems to be one of those strange ones. Of course it won't review as well as previous entries into the series. It's been developed by a different studio. It has the word 'Origins' in the title. Already it bears the 'spin-off' stench. It has the whiff of 'b-team' about it. But is that fair or even accurate in any way?
As people engaged in gaming culture on a day to day basis we tend to focus on these 'behind the scenes' snippets of information and we often allow them to colour our opinion of a game before it's even released. In hindsight Assassin's Creed II: Brotherhood might be the best Assassin's Creed game ever made but it didn't review as well as Assassin's Creed II and most likely won't be remembered as fondly either. Sometimes certain games don't get a fair shake.
Is Batman: Arkham Origins one of those games?
I've been hearing a lot of mixed reviews. Some claim it's the best Arkham game yet: a game that refines and perfects the foundation set in previous iterations. Others have been a bit more harsh: nothing new, a mish-mash story that doesn't deliver.
It's a weird balance. When a new studio takes over duties on a big successful series it's a big risk to take any chances but at the same time if no attempts to progress the game are made, gamers and the media will still be critical. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
But after spending a weekend with the game, what are your thoughts? Does it match up to previous games in the series? Let us know in the comments below.