I think that kittyworker delivered a near perfect, deft analysis of the state of such games in the very first response.
Most of these games are sub-par for the vary same reasons that most licensed games in general aren't very good: the motivation behind making such games are much more so to snag a piece of a lucrative property's very large pie more so than to make a quality product (in addition to comic book tie-ins, look at all of the terrible movie based games, Simpsons games, etc), and in the case of movie tie-ins in particular they are often rushed so that they're released within a very tight window of time to hit the Zeitgeist/hype full-on (e.g. the Atari 2600's infamous E.T. is a perfect example of that). This isn't always the case for licensed games (just as it isn't always the case for licensed comic books, etc), but it does more often than not seem to be the norm. I would even go so far as to extend this to adaptations in general.
It seems to me that the key to making a good adaptation, like Batman's Arkham series in the case of video games or Dredd in the case of movies, is the motive of those making it: the good adaptations (be it a video game, a movie, or otherwise) are made by true fans of the material being adapted who want to take the proper time and put the proper effort into making a product that truly honours that material and would be something that they themselves enjoy, as opposed to rushing to make a quick buck off of brand recognition.