Gotham Knights has turned out to be a surprisingly divisive title, with sentiment seemingly shifting ever since we learned that, despite ditching a PS4 version, the game would only run at 30fps on PS5. This would, in turn, become a more prominent topic within the PlayStation community once we learned that A Plague Tale: Requiem, too, would cap out at 30fps. But framerate isn't everything, and Gotham Knights is more than just its technical performance.
Well, the reviews are in, and opinions on this one are all over the shop, surprisingly so for a AAA game. The PS5 version of Gotham Knights is currently sitting on a critic score of 69 on the review aggregate site Metacritic. With outlying scores ranging from a high of 95 and a low of 40, something is going on here that bears dissecting deeper.
Push Square's own Liam Croft enjoyed the game, awarding it a 7/10 in his review, which you can read or watch for our full thoughts on the matter. He writes that Gotham Knights features "an excellent story with top-notch cutscene direction and a fun combat system, with too many needless and confusing mechanics bolted on top. If you can look past them, there's a genuinely great game here”.
Game Informer's Matt Miller felt similarly, scoring the game a 7.25, and noting that "Gotham Knights didn’t wow me with its overly familiar objectives, combat, and activities, but it didn’t leave me sour. It’s fun to control some new heroes as they brood over Gotham from its building overhangs and uncover hidden plots against its people."
On the lower end, giving it a 5/10, IGN's Travis Northup wrote that "Gotham Knights is a consistently disappointing return to Batman’s troubled city and a distinct step backwards from the past decade-plus of Batman games," and that "from the inconsistent frame rates, to the weak story, to one-note combat that rarely feels good, there was virtually always something going wrong to make sure I wasn’t experiencing the triumphant return with my friends at my side I had envisioned”.
VGC's Jordan Middler applauded the game, giving it a 4/5, writing: “Gotham Knights provides a blueprint for a world of great Batman-verse games outside of Arkham. While it may not hit the highs of Rocksteady’s series in some aspects, the ways it excels in narrative and character development match, or in some cases supplant the Arkham series, proving themselves, appropriately, as more than worthy of wearing the cowl."
Finally, GamesRadar+'s Josh West also scored it 5/10, noting that "there’s a compelling game in Gotham Knights, but it's hidden away behind a messy UX, needless crafting and customization systems, and combat mechanics that have been stretched paper thin to accommodate four heroes”.
What we take away from these differing opinions is that there is something undeniable at the core of Gotham Knights that is perhaps obfuscated by technical hiccups. At the end of the day, only you can know whether or not that will be a dealbreaker in terms of your own enjoyment. But for what it's worth, we think there is enough good stuff here to justify rolling the dice.
Will you be picking up Gotham Knights? Can you think of another game that has run the gamut so wildly in terms of review scores? Let us know in the comments section below.
[source gameinformer.com, via ign.com, videogameschronicle.com, gamesradar.com]
Comments 50
Very divisive. Looks like it was GOTY here at PushSquare though, absolutely white hot glowing write up. I'll reserve judgement till I play, thankfully have a free copy so no sweat.
goddam , i’ll just ignore all of you and ……watch it on twitch !
The game seems to be AA at best. One for the sales.
I will get it in few years time. No rush
The comment that jumps out most to me is “the inconsistent frame rates” I didn’t mind it being 30fps but I would have expected it to be a rock solid 30 so if it can’t manage that I’ll definitely be waiting for a big sale before I even think about picking this up
I'll definitely pick this up it is just not a day one for me with Evil West, Callisto and GOW round the corner.
All the reviews average around 7/10 so I would say Push Square were on the money with your review @LiamCroft
I’ll get it after some patches and a few deep price cuts. Looks interesting.
I was very exited to play it until they confirmed that it runs at 30fps - went and cancelled my pre-order due to that. Given how it apparently has inconsistent framerates, I think I dodged a bullet.
I'll pick it up if it ever gets a performance option down the line.
Put 4 hours into it so far and i'm really enjoying it. Has some issues and its no Arkham but its really fun and its nice being able to play as the Bat Family in a big open world. 7/10 seems fair from what little i've played.
I don't really have an issue with 30FPS games. But inconsistent 30FPS games can do one. I'm hoping this gets significant post release support to sort that out.
The previews really sealed it for me, the news that it was 30fps just reinforced my decision to at least hold off until it reaches the bargin bin. The frame rate didn't factor in for me with Plague Tale, and I can clearly see why it is an inconsistent 40fps on my set up. The amount of things happening on screen at once is very impressive especially for a AA game.
Gotham Knights doesn't justify that at all from what I've seen, and even the glowing reviews don't reveal ANYTHING that would justify the technical performance.
It's just some people really like the game despite the faults, and others really dislike it because of the amount of faults, but I believe that it's fair to say that this title was under-engineered. It needed a bit more work.
And to think Arkham Origins got such a bad rep. That was a masterpiece in comparison.
@tameshiyaku hey , it IS a masterpiece !
A plague tale needs the newest graphics cards like the 4070 to hit 60fps on 4k so it's not surprising it is 30fps on PS5. This game on the other hand, I don't get.
I don't really get bothered by the 30fps thing as much as other people...but the combat always looked clunky and dull compared to the other Batman games. Not having a counter system is dumb, imo!
The game looks good but it always felt like a quick cash grab to me. Which is super disappointing coming from such a great dev
@LiamCroft I tend to go by Digital Foundry's analysis and any review that also seems to reflect the actual state of the game. IGN's review and separate analysis too was extremely damning and basically summed up what I was expecting and/or feared.
It even seems like the Story is short, predictable and sign posted and not that fun playing Solo. Needing to 'grind' to level up enough to take on the 'next' mission and numerous other things that I was concerned about before release based on game-play trailers, confirmed my fears.
I do wonder if being given games to play affects the opinion. If they had to spend their money on this before review, would they still find the almost constant stutter from poor frame pacing and unstable '30fps' acceptable and/or worthy of scoring the game as high as they did?
@BAMozzy I can't speak for other reviewers, but getting the games to play for review without paying never affects my verdict. I'm here to review the game, not its price tag.
This time, there's no PS4 in sight to blame.
Forget about a vibe check, game needs a drip check. Fails on most accounts
@LiamCroft — The cost-benefit analysis is certainly a top factor for us as your audience. Look back to the heated debates about the cost of the Last of Us Part 1 remake.
I certainly understand that not having to pay for the game negates any personal reason you would have to consider that in your perspective. However, you can't deny it's an important factor to the audience you're serving in a professional sense.
Taking that audience into consideration is certainly of value when creating a well-rounded review, and I hope you'll reflect on it as a fair bit of feedback (not that you have to agree).
As for me, I cannot justify paying $69.99 (+10.25% sales tax where I live) to "roll the dice" (as Khayl recommends in this article). I've been looking forward to Gotham Knights since it was announced, but that excitement has been tempered significantly by this divisive rollout.
@nomither6 agree, I had a great time with it and actually enjoyed the plot more than Arkham Knight.
Digital Foundry's analysis of Gotham Knights was pretty damning, they compared it to Arkham Knight and the older game beats it in almost evey department. I'm not even talking performance or story here, I'm talking visually. Arkham Knight has a denser Gotham with a lot more going on, it's got a lot more effects going on like the rain, the water is better and the smoke effects are better.
It seems to me that Rocksteady managed to squeeze every last inch of performance out of the last gen hardware and made a game that 7 years on is still superior to Gotham Knights.
Warner Bros Montreal on the other hand just went "That'll do" and called it a day. I won't be buying this. Only worth playing if it turns up on PS Plus.
Is this after the Arkham games or is it its own game cause I'm really confused here
not surprising pushsquare reviews are always like this
western game +1
japanese game -1
This reviewer thought metal gear survive was 8/10!
Hopefully this helps when deciding to "roll the dice" for £60...
@LiamCroft That's kind of the same thing in my mind. Whether you are not factoring in the cost because its 'free' to you or just not considered at all, its still the same principal.
However, what your reviews will do is 'convince' (or not) that a game is worth spending £60+ on. I expect that Price is taken into consideration 'otherwise' a lot of Budget titles wouldn't score as 'highly' due to the size, scale, Graphics etc not able to compete with AAA games and massive teams working on them. Price has to factor in because you accept a '4-8hr' SP campaign for a budget game, but feel somewhat short changed if that's all you get from a AAA game and can leave the gamer feeling ripped off because they expect more if they are being asked to spend more!!
Now you see what I mean by reviewers who don't factor in the Price - either because it cost them nothing or because that's their method - but what you say will have an impact on the reader/consumer decision to spend money. You want a review to reflect whether the game is WORTH the entry price or maybe its better to wait for fixes, wait for price drops etc so Price has to be factored in to be 'fair' to budget games and help consumers spend their 'limited' free cash wisely!
Now I know why I always feel PushSquare reviews are overly generous and not very reliable at all. I thought it was mostly a difference of opinion but knowing they don't factor the 'consumer' and the cost to them, I can see why now...
Played it before the work for an hour or so. Plot seems intriguing, in-game cinematics are cool and well-directed, the story missions are interesting. The city looks beautiful despite all the talks and even 30 FPS feels ok - you'll get used to them after ten minutes or so.
My current concerns are open-world activities and character progression. Getting the same resources as a reward and crafting the same gear seems boring, can't tell whether there will be set-bonuses in the future. Also I still don't understand why characters can not parry the attacks. And the movement system with a grappling hook feels like I am spiderman during the very first city run.
Beside those things the game itself is good enough. As for me 7/10 is a reasonable score.
@BAMozzy No well-respected reviewer ever factors the price of a game into their review. It's not something that's considered outside of extreme cases like The Last of Us: Part I. If you think other outlets are factoring cost in, I can assure they're not.
Liam wasn’t too far off. 7/10...69 MC. It does seem like reviewers are finally starting to explore the scale more- see IGN & gamespot.
If you like the Batman universe you will probably enjoy this. Personally I’m indifferent, but after watching about 90mins of gameplay I can tell it’s not for me. Nowhere near the Arkham games (including origins).
i can guarantee the people who pre-order will say its good and worth the money (wont want to admit otherwise)
i just hope people read other reviews out there. its clear it will drop in price before long.
My son and I each have a copy coming today from Amazon. Can’t wait to co-op it with him! I think the game looks great from all the gameplay videos I’ve seen on YouTube, but we’ll see how I feel a good few hours into it after the rubber meets the road.
Seems like a perfect candidate for the wait for it to come to plus/game pass list.
Not really aiming at Gotham Knights, but ‘needless crafting and customisation’ is for me an issue with SO many games. They often don’t add anything and either mindless or completely unnecessary or often both. Playing games for over 30 years there’s nothing remotely interesting about picking up materials from the corner of rooms or in fields, to thoughtlessly press a button to craft a necessary item.
Either crafting needs to be revolutionised or just got rid of, too much busywork.
I remember when arkham knight first released and it was universally panned by everybody because it was horrible to play. I bought the pc version and it was a nightmare untill it was fixed eventually. I actually got given the other games in the series free of charge because it was that bad..roll on to present day and its now praised as one of the series high points so maybe theres a chance that at some point in the future gotham knights might find itself in a similar position..
Really enjoying my playthrough, yeah I know its 30fps but still enjoying it.
The biggest wtf for me is story going from 'great and amazing' to
'boring or lame'.
Matt Forde @ T3 did an excellent review of this too.
Very honest as a huge Arkham fan.
60 FPS or bust. They busted and blamed the Series S.
On the PC this game's not even hitting 60fps at 4K with an RTX3090 … seems like there's some fundamental performance issues.
That aside, even as a huge fan of the original Batman Arkham series this hasn't gelled with me since first announcement.
Maybe it's because it looked like four player co-op, or that it looks like generic city and not Gotham, or dead Batman, or whatever … just never fancied it.
The poor performance means I won't even pick it up for my Steam Deck.
PS5 - Framerate Isn’t Everything
@tameshiyaku
Same developer. :/
I am about 2 1/2 hours in so far. I hope the combat opens up a bit. Crime fighting and traversing the city is fun; even if the Batcycle feels like Travis Touchdown's trike in NMH, lol. I really love all the nods to THE ANIMATED SERIES. It feels like the CW series of DC video games. If ARKHAM CITY is THE DARK KNIGHT. Then this is ARROW.
@WhiteTrashGuy haha I love the CW comparison 😂
The lesson here is that opinion is subjective. I don't really take heed of reviews esp when they are this divisive. I prefer to be the shepherd in these situations and actually use my gut instinct to decide to "buy, wait for sale or never touch". Everyone develops taste over time and you learn what you find enjoyable. I knew that I would like Gotham Knights regardless of reviews and I was correct. All I needed to do was a basic google search on the info of the game to find out things like:
Is it single player?
MTX in game?
Story driven?
Decent characters?
Decent world building?
If i can see it ticks those I am in without needing any opinions.
One of the dev said they had to compromise because of having to be on xss too.
So why then performance is below par for the top consoles ps5, xsx..
Seems an excuse, although it be a valid reason to have less tech in their game maybe.
@Jtheripper That was a Rockksteady employee, they did not make Gotham Knights. He was just commenting on it
@WhiteTrashGuy Different developer!!
@Moto5 i see yeah, thanks, well maybe because they also are not aiming for 60fps in their next game.
Reskinned, renamed Avengers POS from what I've seen...$10 dollar bin buy only....
@Moto5
I meant same developer as ARKHAM ORIGINS.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...