Yeah but you said,

Which would be Arkham Asylum. And I don't see how this game is going to suffer because of WB when they didn't screw up the first two games... which Rocksteady is the developer for.

Assuming I'm interpreting this properly, CptainCrunch meant the first game chronologically speaking, rather than when the game was actually released. And in this case, I am also assuming the blame is not only on WB Montréal, but also on WB Interactive Entertainment as a publisher for failing to properly monitor for any issues, and for not allowing further support for bug fixes. Thus, there may be problems even with Rocksteady at the helm of the final Arkham game. Is this what you meant CptainCrunch?

Still, Zips has a point. As a publisher, WB Interactive Entertainment didn't screw up the first tw... Let me be clearer... Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, so there's little reason to worry about another game by the same team behind the better games.

Yes, I know what I first said, but K pointed out correctly, that I was looking at the games chronologically. Both Asylum and City were very well done. I didnt get Origin because I felt there was nothing to add and it was made by someone else.

I was referring to this article:


Which was stated in a post:
Which I agree with and still stand behind my statement of:
Which did NOT mean first Arkham game, but first chronologically, being Origin. Though Rocksteady is working on this one, its still published via WB.

The difference is that Rocksteady's initial releases of the Batman games have been largely bug free. They're not perfect but they were released in states that were a far sight better than what Arkham Origins shipped in. Not to mention that any major issues that were present were actually fixed by Rocksteady prior to DLC being shipped out.

WB Games Montreal did release a patch or two but they still had some significant outstanding issues. So it was excusable when Rocksteady did the DLC thing because their product worked when that DLC shipped. Plus they never publicly came out and said "screw patches, only working on DLC" like WB Games Montreal did. Internally, Rocksteady may have had that notion but they're not stupid enough to publicly say it.

In other words (and I agree with Zips on this), the choice of developer has a strong enough impact to overcome any issues WB Interactive Entertainment may have had as a publisher. Rocksteady games published through WB Interactive Entertainment should predictably not have any major issues based on past successful titles, as any publisher flaws would also have negatively affected Arkham Asylum and City, when none of us really noticed it until Origins came out (and maybe the mobile/PSV/3DS games, though I haven't played them myself even with Netherealm/Armature Studios at the helm).

If you're worried the publisher would either deny support for bug fixes, or fail in their duties to monitor the development of the licensed property, then note what Zips said about the initial release state of Arkham Asylum/City, and the state it was in prior to its first DLC being shipped out. This was also under WB Interactive Entertainment's watchful eye. And finally, with WB Montréal's Arkham Origins tiding us over, it gave Rocksteady almost an extra year of development time compared to their usual two year development cycle, so I'd like to think WB Interactive Entertainment provided that time for Rocksteady to polish Arkham Knight.