I completely agree. When I heard Rocksteady wasn't making it, I lost interest. If they were going to make a new Batman game, with a new crew of developers, they should have gone a totally different route. They shouldn't try to mingle in with the previous two games. But being a huge Batman fan, I'll have to play this eventually. I'm just not shelling out full price for it. I can wait.
From what I've seen, most aren't saying that its worse, exactly. Just that its basically the same. I've heard the story itself is actually better than AC, the fighting a bit more refined, and the boss-fights much improved. But, also that its uninspired, predictable, and lacks innovation.
That's really to be expected ... whether its Rocksteady or not. AA was groundbreaking. AC was a huge step forward. AO sounds like marked-time rather than a step in any particular direction. If AO had been made second, rather than AC, it sounds like it'd have gotten roughly the same rave reviews AC did ... a step forward from AA, more villains, better fights, bigger world, better gadgets, etc. Since it was third, it basis of comparison is different. It has a comparable and well-loved predecessor.
To be honest, I'm not sure its possible to take a massive step forward after AC. The only real correction that needed to be made were to some boss-fights and the story -- which it sounds like they did.
Given the developer switch, sounds like a solid ground rule double. Not a homerun ... but certainly not the disaster it could've been. I'll be interested to see what Rocksteady does with the sequel ... but, the Batman game genre is getting fairly close to perfected, so I doubt we'll be seeing any major steps forward in Batman games anytime soon.
For what its worth, this is from reviews, not experience. I bought it this evening, but haven't played a lick yet.
EDIT ... Hah!
SnakeDoc
