Originally Posted by
godisawesome
It's a subjective opinion of whether or not it's setting the bar high or low; I don't really read enough comics to immediately tell, and it's just as much an opinion of a reader as to whether being worse than Snyder's Batman or the Grayson book is a sign you've got an okay to poor book or a good book, since those two can be described as good or great depending on the reader. Similarly, while Teen Titans' quality has never been high in the New 52, there is a plethora of vocal Red Hood and Arsenal fans and that book does seem to have a higher quality of output to them. I mean, I'd love to throw any of Scott Lobdell's work under the bus, but he's apparently handled that book and those characters better than anything else.
I do think that the discussion online over this series speak in its favor, since even the criticism hasn't really reached the levels of several contemporary competitors or its predecessor, Batman Eternal, in the twilight of it's run. Batman fans are still largely spoiled when it comes to quality of writing. There's been a consensus that Seeley's two scripts read better, while Tynion and Orlando's entries don't "sing" as well, but we've also found mostly nitpicking/execution argument to debate. Thus far, we all seem interested in the actual plot, especially since it didn't immediately go the way some of us feared it would, and we all, critics and fans, seem to acknowledge the limitations and advantages of a weekly. It would be too hasty to call this a classic, and it would be too hasty to call this a dud; and most commentators know that.