http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/03/26/rocksteady-studios-comments-on-batman-arkham-origins.aspx

They basically said they had nothing to do with origins and that's enough for me to ignore the games existance

So Rocksteady is telling us to do what most of us are already doing?

Seriously though, the story itself was fantastic. Better than City. It was the gameplay that did them in. Just too many problems. During my play through at least.

Is this news? This was clear from early in development as far as I'm concerned.

"We definitely consider it canon," Hill says.

"We definitely consider it canon," Hill says.

"We definitely consider it canon," Hill says.

"We definitely consider it canon," Hill says.

Please read harder, OP

Origins was great, with the best Joker scene in all three games, and I only had a couple of gameplay issues. I'd be pretty peaved if they just ignored the story just to make writing more convenient.

It's amazing how people just pull things out of their ass,there's only one direct mention of Origins in that article and saren just posted it,even the article has a completely different title. The guy was trying to say that they're concerned with making the best quality product,what others do doesn't influence their decisions or change their plans.I cant believe I'm posting this it's crystal clear.

Shittiest Batman game. Beyond terrible environment, easy-as-f**k combat, Deathstroke fight a total letdown, and boring story.

Couldn't bring myself to finish it and I'm a completionist.

I agree, its like being part of a Batman movie. The gameplay was buggy, but I agree after the patches fixed most of these issues, I thought Origins was better than City. Awesome boss fights.

Why would they ignore Origins? I don't think the game conflicts with the Arkham Knight storyline or any of the other Arkham games made by Rocksteady. Plus it was overall a good game, it was kind of buggy but other than that it was pretty good (imo)

i thought it was a good game. i like the storyline and gameplay. Also i loved how the joker batman are connected in origins.

@saren: word.

I'm glad they consider it cannon. Why would they throw WB Montreal under the bus and tell you "disregard" origins? That'd be really classy. Rocksteady is better than that. WB Montreal did a good job, I thought origins was a great game.

I'm disappointed that its considered canon. WB Montreal had way too many continuity errors in Batman Arkham Origins. But, oh well... -_-

Hill was really kind instead, of course from his words is clear that WB Montreal can't be at the same level of Rocksteady, but they did what they could. About the story to explain to WB how works the UE3, I think that there were more than a misunderstanding, it's enough to see how much bugs had Origins for understand that. WB took their code, but they didn't understand it at all.

@dreadpool10: Continuity errors withing the game or within the Arkham universe as a whole?

I didnt even play the game. I saw that Deathstroke was a boss and I was like, "Nope, i cant stomach this."

The fight against Deathstroke was one of the best parts of the game, indeed. Very tough to finish it.

Game was ok, it satisfied my Batman video game needs at the very least. It gave us something to wait on until arkham knight came out

When compared to the other arkham games it was a big let down but I personally think it still a a pretty decent/good game. Happy to see that origins is considered canon.

I agree, Origins has a better story than City, and the scene when pops out Joker for the first time? Just awesome. The people underestimate this game cause the bugs, and it's true, but the story, side missions and boss fights, were very good. I think that WB Montreal have understood how to make a good Batman game, they have learned by Rocksteady, and I think that they will come back for another Batman's game. In my opinion, I thought the first time that I played the title, that the WB could do something more, but they don't wanted take so many risks, so they were held back to do more.

@hoplite91: Within Arkham Origins.

@dreadpool10: like what?

I didn't care for Origins it was the weakest in to me. Asylum and City were the better in a lot if ways.

It's canon.

Origins seemed like it was just solely created to milk in on the Arkham franchise as possible,but As a Batman fan the story was great although I hated what they did with the Deathstroke boss and making him a playable character they just did awful with the concept of it.

Nice bait

So where exactly are they saying to ignore it?

Nowhere

Except they didn't

I thought Origins was nearly as good as City.

@toastergeist: no. Origins is a great game but no as good as city.

Funniest thing I have read all day.

@jayc1324: The gameplay wasn't quite as good and there wasn't as much to do, but the story was a lot better in my opinion...so yeah it evens out to nearly as good.

@toastergeist: the story was good but it had nothing to do with assassins and Slade was kind if disappointing. Also I was hoping for black mask to actually do something and be a cool villian. And I loved how Arkham city used a ton of villians or referenced them, even the obscure ones. Rock steady knows its Batman

@jayc1324: I agree with the Slade bit, and the same thing goes for Deadshot. It may not have referenced as much, but that Joker stuff was just sooooo cool that I think the storyline was better. Also, that after-credits scene made up for the lack of Deathstroke.

In terms of the story, Origins is the better than City and Asylum IMO. You get to see Bruce/Batman develop more including seeing his relationship with Gordon grow. I also loved the Joker and Bane parts of the story the most they really added more depth to the characters. Although the biggest disappointment for me was that Deathstroke wasn't a big part of the game/story who I thought would be the main villain besides Black Mask given that awesome trailer that came out for the game.

In general though I think the 2 biggest problems with Origins are the bugs and the fact that it doesn't look or feel any different from City at all. It would've been nice for them to create a different looking Gotham for example since this was Batman in his younger/rookie years.

It`s not the best Arkham game (Batman Arkham City is) but it is my favorite, well that`s until Batman Arkham Knight finally releases. I don`t think they are ignoring it as being at the very least apart of the lore, the game itself was not made by Rocksteady so its being discounted as being apart of their original trilogy of games but I don`t think that changes its existence within the events threaded within the Arkham games.

It certainly wasn't the greatest Arkham game (the story was flawed, there was nothing really new done with the gameplay, and there were bugs all around, not to mention how the Wii U version got so gimped), but I still liked Origins.

@pokeysteve: I would definitely have to disagree. Origins was a complete atrocity. The story really wasn't anything we hadn't seen before, whereas Arkham City (while not entirely original) mixed it up by adding in some unexpected twists and plot developments that I found to be rather fresh. In my opinion, all origins had going for it was the multiplayer (which, although fun, is nigh impossible to get to work) and improved crime scene segments. It truly is the black sheep, so to speak.

@thedckid:

I thought city was predictable. The multi-player was the worst part of origins. No one played it. The story was simple, but it was done well. City felt forced. I loved being able to play as Catwoman though.