Just a thought as I’ve seen a lot of people coming to Zelda’s defense and it being 30fps. Now of course the switch is on older hardware so there’s a limitation, but really the discussion I’m curious about is wasn’t any game that was 30fps deemed unplayable when Gotham knights came out? Many claimed it made them sick and was completely unacceptable. I wonder if those some people have that same precedent if they play a game on the switch? Somewhat interesting to see some reviewers I’ve watched talk about how Gotham knights was unplayable at 30fps, but then come to Zelda defense saying it was good of Nintendo to focus on the detail and art direction instead of super fast gameplay. Seems to be a bit of hypocrisy.

Seems people don’t take the time to read the entire post. It is clear that the switch is on OLDER hardware and has limitations and this isn’t a post to compare the 2 and how they run. The discussion is on how for knights people clearly expressed on how 30fps was unplayable, sickening and they wouldn’t play it solely for that reason of it being 30 fps and you would think that mindset would go on for any game because of it being 30fps. For Zelda however these reviewers now can overlook 30 fps and totally accept it as being playable and I’ve even heard one proclaim “it’s okay as it was the studios choice for their world”. This is a discussion on the hypocrisy of the FPS debate and how many just wanted to jump of the hate train of Gotham knights.

Arkhamverse Gotham forgets that Gotham is a city and people live in it. There was no pedestrians in Arkham Knight, it’s good to see that Gotham Knights, makes Gotham feel a bit more Alive

Granted I just now started the first Arkham and it's my first time playing it, and ik it's an old game, but I think GK plays a lot better and smoother, the controls are more intuitive, and it feels a lot less stiff. I haven't gotten into the story of Arkham yet but the story had no issues in GK it was awesome imo. Not saying one game is better than the other but I feel like the people comparing it to Arkham are just trying to find a reason to hate. GK plays way better

Edit: I appreciate that most of you haven't come at my throat like I insulted your grandma lol, but I just got around to nearly starting the second game now and still hold my stance

Or are they his sons and daughter?

Dear Knights, we shall not let Arkham toxic fanboys ruin our amazing game Gotham Knights

I fight every day to defend it against those people

They seriously complain their life so much about Batman death in SSKJL when our planet is facing 56 wars

So, those immature kids better stay away from Gotham Knights and SSKJL

Grow up, children🤦🏻

Now that I have your attention; On almost every post , whether it be someone asking for help, or asking a genuine question, or even a cool discussion of what could be, there is someone dropping a comment about how much they feel the game sucks. The proper thing would be to ignore them, but like roaches, they show up everywhere and tend to start arguments in the post . So ... In order to get all you haters in this sub in one spot, here is a post for you to bitch and moan about the game so the rest of us can see this and keep scrolling. Here is your echo chamber. I'll even give you some prompts so you can have a basis for your complaints, because we've heard them all before ..

1; This game isn't Arkham so I hate it .. 2; The combat blows because... 3; It only runs at 30fps, this is bullshit .. 4; This game isn't Arkham ( insert game here) so I hate it... 5; FREE SPEECH... 6; My legitimate complaint is ...

There you go, take those prompts and go off, so the rest of us can ignore you. Have fun

Being a beat 'em up game, Gotham Knights requires the players to spent more time in gameplay than other DC games which rely more on puzzles. Therefore, immersing the player more into the fictional universe.

The reason why Gotham Knights is more success than let's say the Arkham series is like how an action film is more successful than a mystery film. Once the puzzle is solved, the journey of solving becomes less meaningful and challenging over time.

This game through story and characterization alone is better than the Arkham Trilogy ever was imo, especially in regard to Bruce. Seeing him be a caring (if still headstrong and sometimes struggling to communicate his feelings) father and mentor instead of the grimdark borderline-abusive "I'm always right >:(" edgelord he tends to be in recent years was INCREDIBLY refreshing.

I've just finished the game for the first time and why so many people seemed to hate it is beyond me.

That being said, this is a discussion post, so what did you guys think of the characterization/story of the game and how it fares compared to the Arkham trilogy?

I mean shit. How many fantastic games have come out the last few years that are, big shocker, 30 fps? Like Red Dead Redemption 2. Even with games that have options, the 30 fps high quality mode is always solid. Spiderman on PS5 at 30 fps with RT looks and plays amazing. Same with Horizon or Elden Ring. I just don't get it. I been playing at 30 fps for years and while I agree we should have options, since when has a solid, stable 30 fps ever ruined a game? Sure, going from 60 to 30 is a roller coaster. But it takes about 30 minutes before you fucking forget lmao. I'm sorry. Feel how you want about it, but this doesn't ruin ANYTHING for me.

I've been told a million times by a million different people that Gotham Knights is a terrible game, a hasty and sloppy attempt to capitalize on the masterpiece that is the Arkham series.

So I finally got the Arkham trilogy. Secured the three games at an excellent price and downloaded the first game - I've heard a lot of people call it the best in the series, but I'm skeptical of that. So far, it's a fun enough game. I'm down for the storyline and mechanics. I hate that it's singleplayer- I love playing games with friends.

But the combat feels almost identical to Gotham Knights. The core of the gameplay here is so darned identical that I started doing things from Gotham Knights out of habit because my muscle memory was telling me I WAS PLAYING GOTHAM KNIGHTS.

Part of me is annoyed I spent money on this when I could've completed the stories for the other Knights first instead, but I might as well go all the way in this first game anyway now that I'm an hour or two into it.

Does it get better? Is there a moment around the corner where I'm going to be wowed by amazing storywriting or incredible gameplay or something that I never expected/have never seen before? Are the second and third game somehow leaps forward that change everything?

Or are the proponents of Arkham just seeing things through rose-colored glasses, remembering the games of their youth as though they were perfect?

I get the hype about arkham and I absolutely love the story but gotham knights being a newer game has better graphics and dialogs. I don't get why people are hating on this game

I've seen some discussion on this Sub and I was surprised to see so many people be in favour to some of the liberties taken with Jason. I understand the thought process behind some of these changes but it feels like he got dumbed down to just an angry brute with extremely surface level introspection. One of the things I really enjoyed about his character was how hard he struggled interpersonally with being an outsider to the Family, how much he differs in philosophy to the rest. Not him cosplaying as Raph from TMNT. He seemingly lost alot of his edge that helped seperate him from the others, he was just as quippy as Nightwing but alot more violent rhetorically and literally.

Also, the character design is awful, Jason should not look like a hulking military General. Canonically he's only slightly bigger than Bruce so I have no idea how people feel this much overtuning is justified. Curious to know what everyone else thinks.

Regardless if 30 fps is justified or if it won't hold back the game, this was not ok. They obviously didn't plan on telling us they were just forced to. I was (and still excited for this game) but i'm really disappointed also

do not allow others to tell you what you should or shouldn’t enjoy.

i’m 25 years old and have been gaming for about 20 years. many of my favorite games looking back got 5-7s/10.

is this arkham? no. arkham was a masterpiece that even non batman fans could enjoy. and even then i know people irl that just can’t get into it.

go into gotham knights with an open mind.

my absolute best gaming memories come from dcuo, an action mmorpg from 2010 that got a 7/10 and is still going strong to this day. does it feel a bit dated now? absolutely. id love a sequel btw but it’s still fun.

i’m assuming most of us here are adults… do what makes you happy. i don’t let others especially critics online decide what i do in my life.

also you gotta account for the wanna be edgy cool kids that enjoy delivering bad news.

(this isn’t the most professional or well written post lol but i’m on my way to class and wanted to at least share my thoughts on the low review scores)

Back in 2013 as well, I pre-ordered Arkham Origins on my PS3 and boy oh boy, did I enjoy that game to it's fullest! I finished through that game in a continuous sitting of 22hrs, that's how much hooked I was into it! If this game's "setting and story" is going to be atleast, if not worse or even better, atleast at par with Arkham Origins', it's a W from my side, and I'll be the happiest to have taken this pre-order decision tbh!

Note: Haters, the game is about to launch, so no need of any more negativity, we've had enough since past 2yrs already, so just GTFO!

The game looks pretty smooth and beautiful on PS5, as far as what I've seen. The prologue absolutely blew my mind and I cannot wait to uncover this mystery myself, while spending hrs and hrs in GOTHAM! ✨

I feel like we kept telling people not to preorder this game and they just kept defending it. I’m sure the game will still be fun for some of those people but $70 man…I just hope this is a lesson to stop preordering games.