Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 17
  2. Negative: 0 out of 17
  1. Nov 6, 2013
    74
    An OK effort for an Arkham game, Batman Arkham Origins feels too similar to Arkham City and there are a few game breaking bugs that prevent it from being worthy to stand with the other two.
  2. Nov 4, 2013
    70
    The critical path through Gotham City is feeling worn, even if tread by different, younger actors.
  3. Nov 4, 2013
    70
    The story is the best in the series but, when it comes to gameplay, Warner Bros. Montreal seem to have taken the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mantra and done the exact opposite.
  4. Nov 4, 2013
    68
    Enjoyable in places and very pretty, but sadly blighted by sloppy design, terrible boss battles, and a lack of new ideas.
  5. Dec 13, 2013
    65
    "You don't want to be the guys who messed up and ran into the ground one of the absolute, top-rated franchises of all time. You don't want that at the top of your CV. 'Yeah, I'm the guy who turned a 96 into a 60, that's my claim to fame,’ said Arkham Origins’ producer Ben Matts a couple of days before the game’s release. Turns out, they did exactly that.
  6. Oct 29, 2013
    60
    There’s a good game here, but that game was built and finished two years ago. Origins adds little to its mechanics and nothing to the mythology. The story of a raw and inelegant Batman in his early years is better told on the big screen and the printed page, rather than in a raw, inelegant game in a generation’s twilight years.
  7. Oct 31, 2013
    50
    Uninventive, but still enjoyable thanks to the quality of the basic mechanics on offer. Unfortunately, the PC version's bugs make it a much harder sell than it should be.
User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1184 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 46 out of 263
  1. Oct 25, 2013
    0
    Rushed. Unpolished. Glitchy. Buggy. Incomplete. Another shining example of a big-name studio buying up a smaller studio's lovinglyRushed. Unpolished. Glitchy. Buggy. Incomplete. Another shining example of a big-name studio buying up a smaller studio's lovingly polished engine and ruining it with poorly executed design. No options for adjusting mouse or controller sensitivities. Numerous bugs. The only good thing about this is that it is built upon Rockysteady's engine, which was a beautiful thing. This Warner Bros Montreal bastardation does not have the same kind of love in it and is clearly rushed and cobbled together only to make money. Full Review »
  2. Oct 25, 2013
    0
    Rocksteady put their souls into the first two Batman games, Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Warner Bros Montreal clearly is only interested inRocksteady put their souls into the first two Batman games, Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Warner Bros Montreal clearly is only interested in doing the absolute minimum necessary to make a slightly new game in order to turn a quick profit. Full Review »
  3. Oct 25, 2013
    2
    Somewhat unpolished. The animations are not as fluid as the first two games, especially during the cut-scenes as the character models reset toSomewhat unpolished. The animations are not as fluid as the first two games, especially during the cut-scenes as the character models reset to a default position before and after they speak. There are also a few glitches where the characters suddenly teleport to get around objects. There are a few grammar mistakes, such as when you change Physx settings it will say "Physx will take effect after the game restarting." Also, the WBID thing is just stupid; don't use it. The new detective investigation sequence replays is an interesting new mechanic. Unfortunately, the game is very rushed and rife with bugs, lowing the rating from a respectable 8 down to a lowly 2. Next time, don't release an unfinished rushed product. Full Review »