Welcome to the New Shacknews

You're currently viewing the beginning of a full site renovation for Shacknews.com. You might find something working oddly. If you do, let us know! More exciting new features to follow.

Batman: Arkham Origins game-breaking bugs unlikely to be fixed

Though Warner Bros. acknowledges that Batman: Arkham Origins suffers game-breaking bugs which stop players from progressing through the game, it may never fix them. Instead, the development team is focused on the upcoming DLC story campaign. Between this and scrapping the Wii U edition of that DLC, it seems WB's commitment to the game is flagging.

7

Though Warner Bros. acknowledges that Batman: Arkham Origins suffers game-breaking bugs which stop some players from progressing through the game, it may never fix them. Instead, the development team is focused on the upcoming DLC story campaign. Between this and scrapping the Wii U edition of that DLC, it seems WB's commitment to the game is flagging.

"The team is currently working hard on the upcoming story DLC and there currently are no plans for releasing another patch to address the issues that have been reported on the forums," WB's Arkham series community manager explained on Origins' forums (via NeoGAF).

"If we do move forward with creating a new patch, it will try to address the progression blocking bugs for players, not the minor glitches that do not prevent one from continuing to play. The issues that are not progression blockers will unfortunately no longer be addressed."

It's broadly understood that today's sprawling big-budget open-world games are unlikely to ever be wholly bug-free, given the constraints of budgeting and how complex they are on every level of creation, but it's not unreasonable to expect players be able to finish them.

From The Chatty

  • reply
    February 10, 2014 6:00 AM

    Alice O'Connor posted a new article, Batman: Arkham Origins game-breaking bugs unlikely to be fixed.

    Though Warner Bros. acknowledges that Batman: Arkham Origins suffers game-breaking bugs which stop players from progressing through the game, it may never fix them. Instead, the development team is focused on the upcoming DLC story campaign. Between this and scrapping the Wii U edition of that DLC, it seems WB's commitment to the game is flagging.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 6:29 AM

      What's the Shack-consensus on open world vs non-open world games in general? Does open world always = more fun vs linear story progression? Pros, cons?

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 6:44 AM

        I don't think there is a consensus. For me, it depends largely on how much free time I have. For the Batman games, I've been pretty busy with work, so I usually beat them quickly, rather than spending a bunch of time exploring.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 7:12 AM

        I'm more of a fan of non-open world. In it seems like most open world games are filled with repetitive quests and other filler. I like Far Cry 3, but I only collected like 10% of the stuff in the game.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 8:09 AM

        It really just depends on the game. Open world can have tons of freedom, exploration, and many unique ways to play the game, or just be a huge map with a bunch of repetitive fetch-quests. A linear game can better offer a controlled, compelling narrative, or can be a big grind-fest where you just keep just fighting waves of enemies to get from point A to B ad-infinitum.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 8:20 AM

        I like both, but I tend to appreciate linear games more that have good game play and interesting stories.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 8:37 AM

        I think both can be good. Different strengths and weaknesses. Open worlds can be fun to explore, but if the world isn't populated with interesting events and characters, it just gets boring and repetitive.

        With a closed world, there's obviously less choice, but I feel that the story is often more cohesive and often better.

        I just finished brothers: a tale of two sons, and that game is obviously on rails. But the story and world is amazing.

        I honestly like closed world's better in a lot of ways. I feel like the story often flows better and I get a more interesting experience. I feel there was a rush to make everything open and about choices for a while, and some games just didn't do the style justice.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 9:17 AM

        Sounds like you guys have the same option like I do. Linear provides better focus story. Good points about the grind and wish-rinse-repeat ness of open world. Good point about the collecting bit. Don't think I collected every Riddler trophy - in fact pretty sure I didn't. <sniff> I'm not a completest

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 11:15 AM

        good games is good games, bad games is bad

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 11:57 AM

        There's no way to answer that because you can do both well and you can do both poorly.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 12:17 PM

        Why is that a 'vs'? Some games work better in one format, others work better in the other.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 12:23 PM

        I definitely don't get any kind of thrill out of a thing being open world in and of itself anymore. I used to, but it's too common these days.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 12:26 PM

        No consensus I'd wager. I prefer non-open world/linear games, though.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 3:14 PM

        Depends entirely on execution. With a captivating narrative, I'd rather not play an open world game. If the whole purpose is for me to make my own way and progress however I like, then open world is best. I loved Far cry 3 but there were lengthy periods I was doing stuff purely for the sake of checking things off of a list or to earn a new gun or whatever. That's not amazing game play but I was having fun exploring and doing things at my own pace. Telltale's Walking Dead game was entirely on rails but it was pure story-driven gaming so that's fine by me.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 6:34 AM

      That is just such a weird thing to state out loud. I mean the game works great for me, not a single crash or anything, but even if the game was fine for most and the issues were somewhat limited, why throw a "no, we're not going to fix it" out there? Feels silly complaining about someone being honest, but that sounds like potential career suicide.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 7:07 AM

        I agree. I haven't bought it yet. And now I am not sure I want to.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 6:54 AM

      It's so awesome that they're focused on new content rather than the current content that would convince people the new content is worth their time.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 9:14 AM

        Which is a shame because the current content is really good. It's not as good as City, but it's a pretty good Batman story. I would like to know what game breaking bugs are, I have only experienced a few minor glitches on the PS3.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 7:00 AM

      The game-breaking must not be affecting many people. Anyone have any more information on it? That is just crazy that they wouldn't fix it.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 8:16 AM

      Late purchase unlikely.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 8:20 AM

      This is grounds for a lawsuit, IMO.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 8:41 AM

        Agree.

      • reply
        February 10, 2014 9:23 AM

        Or at the very least, the console platform holders and PC digital distribution partners should be talking to WBIE about their apparent complacency with these bugs. Especially since DICE did the complete opposite and halted DLC development to fix game-breaking bugs in Battlefield 4 (which admittedly probably sold more for EA than Arkham Origins did for WBIE).

        • reply
          February 10, 2014 2:53 PM

          And if it's not grounds for a lawsuit, it is definitely grounds for a refund. If the product doesn't work, Steam or any other service that sells the game should most definitely be obligated to issue refunds.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 9:21 AM

      Has anyone here been affected by a game breaking bug in B:AO? This is the first I've heard of it, although perhaps I've missed something.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 9:22 AM

      Another company that doesn't budget for patches, only DLC. Classy.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 11:13 AM

      Aren't they almost forced to focus on the DLC because of the season pass? Almost how Aliens: Colonial Marines had to put DLC out there even though the game was shite?

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 1:57 PM

      This is kind of irrelevant as all of the game progressing patches have been fixed,as far as I know.

      The only glitch that I've ever had is the Black Mask Drug Stash mission that would prevent me from going into the church to finish the mission.That glitch has been fixed for months now,as have others from what I recall in the patch notes,thus,I don't know what other glitches that actually need to be fixed.

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 5:11 PM

      Always nice to see developers take care of their customers and prioritize jabbing us for more money instead of fixing problems.
      Did EA Buy these guys or am I missing something?

    • reply
      February 10, 2014 5:58 PM

      Makes this review look fishy. http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/25/5026574/batman-arkham-origins-review-knightfall It's a 7/10 and they already acknowledged it was broke.

      WB Montreal says it's hard at work on updates to take care of many of these issues, but until that patch is out and until we're able to test it, this solid game has taken some serious knocks — and it's difficult to recommend until we're confident players can complete the game.

      Consistency? Nah. Remember BF4 was dropped to a 4. This got a 7 because, good intentions?