So you want to dive into the Batman Arkham series? Smart move - these are some of the best superhero games ever made. But here's where things get messy: figuring out the correct order of Arkham games. I learned this the hard way when I first played Arkham Knight before Asylum and spoiled major plot points like an idiot. Don't be like me. Getting the sequence right isn't just about story flow - it affects gameplay evolution too. Those combat mechanics evolve significantly from game to game.
In this guide, I'll break down every possible way to approach the Arkham games order, including the heated release order vs chronological debates. We'll cover each game's essential details, why sequence matters more than you think, and answer every question I had (and you probably have) when first navigating this legendary series.
Why the Arkham Games Order Actually Matters
You might think "it's just games, I'll play whatever looks coolest." I used to think that too - until I played City before Asylum. Big mistake. See, Rocksteady crafted an evolving narrative across their trilogy (Asylum, City, Knight). Characters develop, relationships change, and tech upgrades make going backwards feel clunky. That's the first big reason the order of Arkham games matters.
Secondly, gameplay evolves dramatically. Asylum's combat feels almost primitive compared to Knight's fluid multi-enemy takedowns. Going backwards after experiencing later mechanics? Frustrating as hell. I remember trying Asylum after City and constantly hitting buttons for moves that didn't exist yet.
Personal take: Origins gets hate but I actually enjoyed its boss fights more than some main entries. That Deathstroke battle? Pure adrenaline. But I'll admit the open world felt empty compared to later games.
Official Release Order: The Way Most Players Experienced It
This is the sequence developers intended:
| Game | Release Year | Developer | Platforms | Avg. Playtime | Metascore |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batman: Arkham Asylum | 2009 | Rocksteady | PC, PS3, Xbox 360 | 12-15 hours | 92 |
| Batman: Arkham City | 2011 | Rocksteady | PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One | 20-25 hours | 94 |
| Batman: Arkham Origins | 2013 | WB Games Montréal | PC, PS3, Xbox 360 | 16-20 hours | 76 |
| Batman: Arkham Knight | 2015 | Rocksteady | PC, PS4, Xbox One | 25-35 hours | 87 |
The beauty of this order of Arkham games? You experience the natural evolution of gameplay. Each title builds on the last:
- Asylum introduces FreeFlow combat
- City expands into open-world
- Knight adds the Batmobile and squad takedowns
A huge debate among fans? Whether to play Arkham Origins at all. Honestly? It's divisive. The Christmas atmosphere is incredible (best in series IMO), but it reuses City's map with minor changes. The boss fights are top-tier though.
What I disliked: Knight's over-reliance on the Batmobile tank battles dragged down the pacing for me. And Origins? Still has annoying bugs despite patches.
Chronological Story Order: For Lore Purists
If you care more about narrative continuity than gameplay progression:
| Story Sequence | Game | Timeline Placement | Key Events |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | Arkham Origins | Year 2 of Batman | First encounters with Joker, Black Mask conspiracy |
| Second | Arkham Asylum | Approx. Year 5 | Joker's takeover of Arkham Island |
| Third | Arkham City | 1 year after Asylum | Protocol 10, Hugo Strange's plan |
| Fourth | Arkham Knight | 9 months after City | Scarecrow's fear toxin, Arkham Knight reveal |
Playing chronologically means starting with Origins. This creates weird gameplay whiplash - you go from Origins' polished combat (building on City's system) to Asylum's simpler mechanics. Story-wise though? Seeing Bruce and Joker's relationship develop chronologically adds layers City's flashbacks can't match.
Personal warning: My friend tried chronological order first and quit during Asylum because it "felt dated" after Origins. Don't underestimate how much quality-of-life improvements matter.
Deep Dive: Each Game in the Arkham Series
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Where it all began. Still holds up surprisingly well. You're trapped on Arkham Island with all Batman's worst enemies unleashed. The genius? They turned a limitation (small map) into strength with Metroidvania-style progression.
Core upgrades: Batclaw, explosive gel, line launcher
Key villains: Joker, Scarecrow, Killer Croc
My take: Best atmosphere in the series. That Scarecrow nightmare sequence? Pure horror brilliance. But combat feels stiff compared to later entries.
Batman: Arkham City
Took everything great about Asylum and exploded it into a sprawling prison city. Added vital moves like the beatdown and multi-ground takedown that became series staples.
Core upgrades: Freeze cluster, remote electrical charge
Key villains: Hugo Strange, Mr. Freeze, Two-Face
My take: Near-perfect balance between story and open-world. The Mr. Freeze boss battle remains the series' smartest fight design. Still my personal favorite.
Batman: Arkham Origins
The black sheep. Set earlier with younger, angrier Batman. Excellent boss fights but clearly reused City's map with Christmas decorations slapped on.
Core upgrades: Remote claw, shock gloves
Key villains: Deathstroke, Black Mask, Copperhead
My take: Underrated. The Joker origin scenes are phenomenal, but the open world feels hollow. Also suffered from game-breaking bugs at launch (mostly patched now).
Batman: Arkham Knight
The controversial finale. Massive Gotham map, Batmobile integration, and stunning visuals. But oh boy, that tank combat...
Core upgrades: Batmobile, fear multi-takedowns
Key villains: Scarecrow, Arkham Knight, Poison Ivy
My take: Best Batman simulator ever made... when you're gliding. The Batmobile sections feel forced and repetitive. Knight's identity reveal was painfully obvious to anyone paying attention to trailers.
Essential DLC alert: Don't skip City's "Harley Quinn's Revenge" or Knight's "Season of Infamy" - they contain crucial story beats that complete character arcs.
Release Order vs Chronological: Which Order of Arkham Games Wins?
After replaying both ways, here's my breakdown:
| Approach | Pros | Cons | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release Order |
|
|
Most players (especially gameplay-focused) |
| Chronological Order |
|
|
Completists (story-first players) |
My verdict? Release order wins for 95% of players. Chronological sounds great in theory but creates awful gameplay dissonance. Nothing kills immersion like relearning basic controls.
Perfect Order of Arkham Games for Different Players
Not all Bat-fans want the same experience:
For Story Purists
Do chronological but with concessions:
1. Arkham Origins (install community bug-fix mods)
2. Arkham Asylum (push through early-game clunkiness)
3. Arkham City + Harley's Revenge DLC
4. Arkham Knight + Season of Infamy DLC
For Gameplay-Focused Players
The streamlined path:
- Arkham Asylum (appreciate the roots)
- Arkham City (the series peak)
- Arkham Knight (next-gen spectacle)
Skip Origins unless you crave more
For Time-Poor Players
The essentials-only route:
» Arkham City (best overall package)
» Arkham Knight (modern conclusion)
Play Asylum if you have extra time. Ignore Origins.
Controversial opinion: If you only play one Arkham game? Make it City. It's the Goldilocks zone - great story without Knight's bloat, refined combat without Asylum's limitations. Origins doesn't even come close.
Where Spin-Offs Fit in Your Arkham Games Order
Beyond the main four:
- Arkham VR (2016): Set between City and Knight. Cool tech demo but non-essential.
- Arkham Origins Blackgate (2013): 2.5D side-story after Origins. Skip unless you adore Metroidvanias.
- Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League (2024): Distant sequel to Knight. Not required for Batman's story.
Honestly? None significantly impact the core order of Arkham games. I tried Blackgate and quit after two hours - the combat translation to 2.5D just doesn't work.
Arkham Order FAQ: Answering Your Burning Questions
Is Arkham Origins necessary before playing Knight?
Not really. Knight directly follows City's events. Origins establishes Joker's obsession with Batman, but Knight's flashbacks cover essentials. Play it for Deathstroke's awesome fight, not continuity.
What's the best way to experience the Arkham games order in 2024?
Buy the Arkham Collection (Asylum/City/Knight) for modern platforms. Then grab Origins separately if desired. PC players: Wait for sales - entire series often under $20.
Does Return to Arkham remaster change the order?
No - it's just Asylum and City with visual upgrades. Play them in the same sequence. Warning: Some prefer original versions' art direction.
Can I play Arkham Knight first?
Technically yes, but please don't. You'll ruin major reveals from previous games. Knight's opening assumes you know key relationships. It's like starting a book trilogy at the finale.
How long to complete entire Arkham series?
Rough estimate:
- Main stories: 75 hours
- 100% completion: 150+ hours
Origins adds 20 hours, Knight's Riddler trophies alone take 15+ hours. I still haven't 100% Knight because of those damn trophies.
Final Verdict: Your Ideal Arkham Games Order
After spending 200+ hours across these games, here's my ultimate recommended order:
| Step | Game | Why This Position | Time Commitment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arkham Asylum | Foundational gameplay/story | 15 hours |
| 2 | Arkham City | Perfects Asylum's formula | 25 hours |
| 3 | Arkham Knight | Modern conclusion to trilogy | 35 hours |
| (Optional) | Arkham Origins | Prequel story if craving more | 20 hours |
This sequence nails the critical path while respecting gameplay evolution. Add DLCs after their respective main games.
Pro tip: If you skip Origins initially but later become obsessed with lore? Play it between Asylum and City on a replay. Context makes its call-forwards more rewarding.
Ultimately, the perfect order of Arkham games depends on your priorities. But follow this guide and you'll avoid the mistakes I made. Now if you'll excuse me, writing this made me want to replay City for the seventh time. That freeze grenade upgrade awaits...