Typical double-standards that journalists tend to flip-flop about. Change something, or keep it mostly the same, and they will complain either way. Not that sometimes it isn't true in both situations, but still. I'm not sure much can be done with the Arkham formula regardless. In particular with its repetitive combat that works really well because its satisfying, and stays true to the character of Batman; but because of the arcade-esque nature of it, the boss battles tend to fall short. Partially because it really only works against multiple enemies rather than just one. Replaying Silent Hill 3 atm with doing the puzzles on hard for the first time, and good god, that first puzzle. Initially got the order of the last three books correct, but the game never tells you when you actually have it done correctly. Big hindrance because it's all for a 4-digit code, and the order of the books is just one part of discovering the code out of two. Had to eventually look it up eventually since the books are about Shakespeare plays, and the riddle that tells you of the order gives you some elements to figure it out; I was only closely familiar with the story of Macbeth. I'm mixed about how the puzzle is. On the one hand, I think it's good to make things somewhat complicated and make the player actually think; but on the other hand, the way they did it with the Shakespeare plays, and never letting the player know when they're done with the first part seems... ridiculous. Maybe that's just me. However, I did recently replay SH2, and I do miss puzzles being actual puzzles as opposed to mini-games, or putting the items you need so close to where you have to use them.