these comparisions are always a one sided affair to try and prove a point. Someone could just as easily make a smear article about arkham city using the very same points this articles praised about that game.
Rocksteady despite such making such an extensive world, made it feel so linear by cutting off huge portions of the game until you unlock certain equipment which can only be gotten by progressing such and such amount through the campaign.
Batman's combat is rather bland by encouraging only one type of approach against each specific type of enemy. When I string together a 40 hit combo by mashing the square button and side side circle I hardly feel as though I accomplished something
Batman makes a lousy roleplaying game because you are given no choice but to go through the game as the dark knight beating all the same villians in the same order every time you play the game.
Batman's sidequests are outragously repetitive focusing mainly on either saving some random people you don't care about or solving a random puzzle that rarely requires much thinking.
Etc...
I could probably make an article that very convincingly claims duke nukem is a much better game than bioshock and people who haven't played either game would probably believe it if that article is their sole source of information, but the truth is people might actually enjoy the apparant "faults" in a game and hate the apparant "good aspects" in a game. You really have to try both games before you can decide which one is better in your opinion.
