Warner Brothers have messed up, AGAIN!

[Bloodyvalley]

Batgirl? Playable for the first time in the Arkham franchise? I'm there. Where do I sign? Under the line that says £32.99($40) for the Batman Arkham Knight season pass or £5.79($6.99) as standalone DLC? Done. As the internet is so prone to saying, take my money. However, like Batgirl herself, this story doesn't have a happy ending. 

Batgirl's Matter Of Family DLC is the first drop of story content in the promised six months of extra bits for Arkham Knight and I can't hide that I was ridiculously keen. All the signs were promising. The fact that it was outsourced with Rocksteady's engine to Arkham Origins developer Warner Brothers Montreal surely meant that we were talking a sizeable chunk of playtime. Add in the reassuring heft of the main game and I was sure that this wouldn't just be a half an hour side quest, that Batgirl's prequel would be the one we both need and deserve. 

Well I was correct about one thing at least. It's not a half hour side quest. It's a forty minute one. I hate being right. This journey to Seagate Amusement Park is painfully, eye-wateringly short. Teaming up with Robin, Batgirl is on a mission to save her father - that's Commissioner Gordon to you - from the Joker but, despite some interesting environments to explore, it's just all over far too soon. 

An enormous flaming ferris wheel spins psychotically in the sky, goons lurk inside an enormous metal shark, Harley and the Joker taunt from crackling speakers, an aquarium of fake sea monsters awaits but the content between them is a miniature Batman by numbers. Hacking by spinning analogue sticks, grappling between vantage points and beating up goons. None of these is bad on its own - and Batgirl's combat is enjoyably crunchy and fun -  but condense it into five miniature sequences in an environment that promised so much and we've got problems, Batman. 

While kicking a wise cracking goon in the face with someone a quarter of the size of the Dark Knight is of course happy making, Babs doesn't really have anything new. The previously touted 'unique hacking mechanic' is just Batman's remote hacking device and she uses his line launcher, batarangs and smoke pellets with ease. Add in Robin as a lurking sidekick with some not-awkward-at-all romance 'bants' and suddenly the first adventures of Oracle-to-be are distinctly average when there could be so much more. 

There's nothing bad here. I monologued, took pictures, cackled at environmental takedowns but it's what's not here that hurts. This could have been an amusement park brimming with grim delights. There's balloons left to pop and some teeth left to hit with a batarang or two but the potential left untapped feels horribly wasteful. 

But the question is should you play? It's not broken or bad. It would be easier if it was. While I'd really rather see a proper character development for Babs, the story is entertaining in a Saturday morning kids TV kind of way. Plus, you get to see Harley in her traditional red and black suit. But it's fifty minutes at a push. £5.79 for under an hour is a penny per minute ratio that you just don't want to calculate. This isn't that tightly scripted indie game to be played in one sitting that you buy on Steam. It's Batman and, frankly, there needs to be more. 

This also raises important questions about future Arkham Knight content. The game is currently one of the most enjoyable, richest open worlds to date, can the future DLC - from Rocksteady from now on - be truly worth that £33 season pass? You can buy the game itself for that on Amazon.  I'm as excited as the next girl about cruising Gotham in that Michael Keaton Batmobile come August but miniature story drops and skins like this one won't make it worth that initial investment. This shouldn't be the way the Batman dies. Not now.

TL;DR = This DLC is a 40 minute long quest as Batgirl. The internet thinks it's too short (that's what she said). That's right, $7 for a 45 minute quest as Batgirl.

 

Unfortunately for us on PC, we cannot complain about that. THANK YOU WB!

 

http://www.gamesradar.com/arkham-knights-batgirl-dlc-painfully-short/

 

Honestly, I'd expect more from a AAA game.

[Comessy]

That's right, $7 for a 45 minute quest as Batgirl.

 

That's paying more per hour to play than some people make

[Bloodyvalley]

That's paying more per hour to play than some people make

Hit the nail on the head

[thekeemo]

Can we stop with buzzfeed titles?

[AlexGoesHigh]

dropping to much F bombs today OP

[Ryoku]

That's paying more per hour to play than some people make

 

 

Hit the nail on the head

 

And the sad thing is the lemming will pay it so all these companies with continue this bullshit >_<

[Albatross]

Batgirl. <33

 

I would prefer DLC being longer but with what the game is, I think 40 minutes is good enough. If the content is good, then that is what makes it worth it. Just like the 20$ for The Last of Us DLC was worth it.

[SurvivorNVL]

That's paying more per hour to play than some people make

You've won this entire day.

[Shakaza]

And I've been getting ads for this DLC on YouTube. At the frequency I'm seeing them, I'll be spending more time watching them than the length of the DLC itself...

[Comessy]

You've won this entire day.

I'm putting this on my resume

[jarr456]

DLC, for whatever reason, is usually more expensive per hour than the base game, and they seem to go on sale less

[Vanderburg]

It's $15 for a 90 minute movie at the theater. People pay $20 for 8 chairs in the Sims 4. Why is anyone crying about this? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

Also, there are a lot of really dumb headlines, lately.

[Xorbot]

Honestly, I'd expect more from a AAA game.

 

That's mostly everyone's first mistake about this game: calling it a AAA.

[gill2k]

I don't get the relevance of the Witcher 3 screenshots in the OP's posts...

[XTankSlayerX]

Can you please stop with the god dam salt?

[RH00D]

That's paying more per hour to play than some people make

 

If someone is making less than $7 an hour they need to stop playing games and start working towards better employment.

[RH00D]

I love how the attitude on LTT is "If someone buys something that I can't afford then they're a lemming/stupid/sheep."

 

 

Side note: If you paid $60 for a 5 hour campaign game that's $12 per hour which is still more expensive than $7 for 45 minutes for the Batgirl quest.

[Comessy]

If someone is making less than $7 an hour they need to stop playing games and start working towards better employment.

$7 for 45 minutes. That's $9.35 an hour. 

 

9.35 USD = $12.13 CAD. That's actually quite high

[Kyuubixchidori]

Hell, I Wish I got that that 9.35 a hour of enjoyment out of games. I spent 30$ on a steam sales to get a play time of less then 5 minutes. curse you sales. 

[Trik'Stari]

It's been posted before, and I'll post it again.

Stop preordering games. Stop buying games the first year they come out (unless the legitimate [meaning they weren't paid to hype the game] reviews show them as being worthy) and stop buying DLC that isn't worth even a fraction of it's original cost. Wait for steam sales (although that's a bit hard considering the game isn't available on PC. Which makes me ask why this thread is even news, because this only applies to consoles at the moment).

 

Just STOP feeding the AAA monster.

[RH00D]

It's been posted before, and I'll post it again.

Stop preordering games. Stop buying games the first year they come out (unless the legitimate [meaning they weren't paid to hype the game] reviews show them as being worthy) and stop buying DLC that isn't worth even a fraction of it's original cost. Wait for steam sales (although that's a bit hard considering the game isn't available on PC. Which makes me ask why this thread is even news, because this only applies to consoles at the moment).

 

Just STOP feeding the AAA monster.

 

Original games are 1/6 the size they used to be? That graphic isn't even close to true.

 

Maybe you can find one extreme example where it is, but for 99% no.

 

Edit: most games where something is retailer exclusive, yeah that is stupid but its usually some irrelevant/useless skin anyway.

 

Look at Battlefield 4. Find me ANY game pre-2004 that had as much content as BF4 including all 5 expansions does in the original base game.

[Trik'Stari]

Original games are 1/6 the size they used to be? That graphic isn't even close to true.

 

Maybe you can find one extreme example where it is, but for 99% no.

 

Edit: most games where something is retailer exclusive, yeah that is stupid but its usually some irrelevant/useless skin anyway.

 

Look at Battlefield 4. Find me ANY game pre-2004 that had as much content as BF4 including all 5 expansions does in the original base game.

.......You must not have played many games. I will leave it to others who don't need to sleep to educate you, But just to get started (as far as length of time goes):

 

Any Legend of Zelda game before the Wii

Super Mario 64

Any Final Fantasy game pre-dating, or coming out, after BF4 (I state this even though I hate Final Fantasy because it's over-rated. Yeah I said it.)

Elder Scrolls

Any Pokemon Game other than Pokemon Snap (possibly snap as well)

Fallout 1

Fallout 2

Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel

Starcraft

X-com

Civilizations 2

Half Life

Command and Conquer

Diablo 1 and 2

EVE

WoW (admittedly, it came out in 2004)

Knights of the Old Republic

Knights of the Old Republic 2 (which came out on 2004, although it was crap for story reasons)

 

Need I go on?

 

Not to mention quality. Battlefield 4 is shit, the expansions are shit. Hardline is shit, and Battlefield 3 was shit. The last good battlefield game was Battlefield Bad Company 2, because it wasn't designed to try and "steal" Call Of Duty fans, people that no true battlefield fan would actually want to play with, but instead, it was made to be FUN. That little thing that most modern AAA titles have completely and totally forgetton. They all run on hype. Not actually being fun. There are honestly, very few titles I have played since 

 

First person shooters are the ABSOLUTE WORST example of modern gaming.

 

Edit: Lost odyssey removed because it came out after 2004. Although it DID predate Battlefield 4

[Misanthrope]

Yeah, I'll just mod ears into a Skyrim character armor and pretend nords are Gothic city villains, thanks.

[RH00D]

.......You must not have played many games. I will leave it to others who don't need to sleep to educate you, But just to get started (as far as length of time goes):

 

Any Legend of Zelda game before the Wii

Super Mario 64

Any Final Fantasy game pre-dating, or coming out, after BF4 (I state this even though I hate Final Fantasy because it's over-rated. Yeah I said it.)

Elder Scrolls

Any Pokemon Game other than Pokemon Snap (possibly snap as well)

Fallout 1

Fallout 2

Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel

Starcraft

X-com

Civilizations 2

Half Life

Command and Conquer

Diablo 1 and 2

Lost Odyssey

 

Need I go on?

 

Not to mention quality. Battlefield 4 is shit. Hardline is shit, and Battlefield 3 was shit. The last good battlefield game was Battlefield Bad Company 2, because it wasn't designed to try and "steal" Call Of Duty fans, people that no true battlefield fan would actually want to play with, but instead, it was made to be FUN. That little thing that most modern AAA titles have completely and totally forgetton. They all run on hype,

 

Nowhere did I mention length of game time. So you can throw all those examples out the window. I mentioned amount of content. Also, comparing different genres is an invalid comparison as well. Perhaps I should have specified to keep it in the same genre. Of course an RPG is going to have more gameplay time and content than FPS, no shit.

 

Also its hilarious that you say BFBC2 is better than BF3, BF4, BFH. Are you fucking serious? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. BFBC2 was literally the most shameful and worst PC port out of the entire series. You couldn't even go prone, it was limited to 24 players, and it was impossible to be sprinting and strafing left or right at the same time (AKA move left or right using A or S keys while sprinting) and on top of all that the maps were uncharacteristically small for a Battlefield game. I also bought BFBC2 on release day for PC and I also own BF3 and BF4.

 

I own and have played Diablo 1 and 2, haven't even played D3 yet past the trial. I own and played Starcraft 1, Broodwar expansion, and also own and played SC2 WoL. And I don't see a problem between the old Diablo/Starcraft games and the new ones. D3 was kind of fucked up on launch but that was because of the auction house not the amount of content in the game.

[PumaXCS]

You had solid points up until your BF rant. I will give you that BFBC2 was a good game but to say it was more core to the BF series is a blatant lie. It was made to be a fun, destructible game and branch off the seriousness that its had from BF 1942/2142/2. BF3 was back to the MilSim-ish approach while still not being ARMA level and personally I have enjoyed it way more than I have BF4. BF4 singleplayer tried to play into the COD role but online is still a far cry from being like it, BF3 had a much better singleplayer and overall I liked the maps/balancing in 3 better aswell.