That's silly logic, LEVI. Why should we be denied more great Batman games just because Rocksteady is finished, especially when for many of us the best Batman game didn't even come from them.
Or if people want them to do it so badly, then do it the way they do movies, have them do more than one project at once. Have one team on Batman, and another on Superman or whatever.
It's got nothing to do with glitches. I experienced glitches back when the game was released. I've experienced glitches with Knight, too. That's technical issues. It doesn't affect my opinion of the story or handling of the characters.
Joker in Origins was the most perfect handling of the character out of all four games. By far. For a start the character was actually developed. He's the only Joker in the four games who progresses as a character. He goes from wanting Batman dead, to getting a whole new appreciation for Batman after Batman saves his life at the hotel. Then we get that brilliant therapy scene with Harley where we get a ghoulishly insightful look into the mind of the Joker and what he thinks about life, and how he sees Batman. This scene alone is more characterful development and Joker insight than Rocksteady gave him in their three games combined;
[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]
Joker in Asylum, City, and Knight is a stoic character who has no progression whatsoever. It's not just Joker who gets developed in his relationship with Batman in AO, so does Batman himself. It's very reminiscent of The Dark Knight in that Batman begins to slowly realize he's dealing with a brand of psychopathic criminal he's never encountered before, as particularly brilliantly showcased in the hotel scenes.
Second, and I'm cutting and pasting Twoface=badass' brilliant post here, Joker in Origins is the only one who worked well in conjunction with another villain, and not at the expense of another villain. In Origins' case Bane. Bane/Joker were also the only villain combo we actually saw interact. Scarecrow and Knight talk like twice over the radio with each other, and never actually operate in the same space, despite such an image in the trailer.
But the biggest thing Bane and Joker have going for them in AO is that they were both developed, both hyped as huge threats, and importantly neither of them were thrown under the bus to hype up the other. Rocksteady I've noticed has a habit of doing such a thing with their villains in order to establish how big a threat a villain is, the classic examples being Bane in Asylum and Strange in City even more so.
In contrast look at the hotel scenes in Origins - they're a masterclass of developing villains with conflicting goals and establishing power dynamics. Joker is shown to be wild, unpredictable and brilliant, and Bane is shown as tough, pragmatic, resourceful and not scared of the Joker. They are two villains who dislike one another (more so from Bane's direction) but also share an uneasy alliance that is quite satisfactorily never quite broken. Bane develops a good enough knowledge of the Joker that he knows that even after trying to kill each other on the hotel rooftop, that the alliance is easily reforged with the right idea (the heart monitor gambit). His men easily slaughter Joker's, and he's the one that discovers Batman's identity, trashes the batcave, and wounds Alfred, but simultaneously it is Joker that sets everything in motion.
Much, much better than "He was your puppet Ra's!" or whatever the hell the Scarecrow/Knight alliance was meant to be. Seriously, someone at some point had to realise that Knight was a terrifically boring character, but God knows someone else must've had a terrific ***** for the guy, given that he swallows up so much of the narrative compared to Scarecrow. Which is why it's about quality not quantity. That's why AK and Joker don't overshadow Scarecrow despite having more screen time than him, because they were inferior villains handled badly.
You criticize AO for being predictable about Joker being Black Mask, when AK was fifty times worse in being predictable with Jason Todd being the Arkham Knight. And they left that reveal until very late into the game, too. AO at least revealed Joker being Black Mask early in the game, and redeemed Black Mask to recovering and taking back his gang. AO didn't milk it for the bulk of the game. Whereas AK suddenly out of the blue keeps having Batman hallucinate about Jason Todd, a character who had no relevance whatsoever in the previous games. They were as subtle as a sledgehammer to the kneecaps about AK's identity. That goes on several times during the game, until finally very late in the game after you've guessed the truth long, long, long ago they reveal AK is Jason. Your criticisms against AO in support of AK's horrid writing make no sense and just look hypocritical. The Joker in Origins' is by far and away the best Joker and villain of the games for the aforementioned reasons. You can't say the same for the others.
That's silly logic, LEVI. Why should we be denied more great Batman games just because Rocksteady is finished, especially when for many of us the best Batman game didn't even come from them.
Or if people want them to do it so badly, then do it the way they do movies, have them do more than one project at once. Have one team on Batman, and another on Superman or whatever.
It's got nothing to do with glitches. I experienced glitches back when the game was released. I've experienced glitches with Knight, too. That's technical issues. It doesn't affect my opinion of the story or handling of the characters.
Joker in Origins was the most perfect handling of the character out of all four games. By far. For a start the character was actually developed. He's the only Joker in the four games who progresses as a character. He goes from wanting Batman dead, to getting a whole new appreciation for Batman after Batman saves his life at the hotel. Then we get that brilliant therapy scene with Harley where we get a ghoulishly insightful look into the mind of the Joker and what he thinks about life, and how he sees Batman. This scene alone is more characterful development and Joker insight than Rocksteady gave him in their three games combined;
[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]
Joker in Asylum, City, and Knight is a stoic character who has no progression whatsoever. It's not just Joker who gets developed in his relationship with Batman in AO, so does Batman himself. It's very reminiscent of The Dark Knight in that Batman begins to slowly realize he's dealing with a brand of psychopathic criminal he's never encountered before, as particularly brilliantly showcased in the hotel scenes.
Second, and I'm cutting and pasting Twoface=badass' brilliant post here, Joker in Origins is the only one who worked well in conjunction with another villain, and not at the expense of another villain. In Origins' case Bane. Bane/Joker were also the only villain combo we actually saw interact. Scarecrow and Knight talk like twice over the radio with each other, and never actually operate in the same space, despite such an image in the trailer.
But the biggest thing Bane and Joker have going for them in AO is that they were both developed, both hyped as huge threats, and importantly neither of them were thrown under the bus to hype up the other. Rocksteady I've noticed has a habit of doing such a thing with their villains in order to establish how big a threat a villain is, the classic examples being Bane in Asylum and Strange in City even more so.
In contrast look at the hotel scenes in Origins - they're a masterclass of developing villains with conflicting goals and establishing power dynamics. Joker is shown to be wild, unpredictable and brilliant, and Bane is shown as tough, pragmatic, resourceful and not scared of the Joker. They are two villains who dislike one another (more so from Bane's direction) but also share an uneasy alliance that is quite satisfactorily never quite broken. Bane develops a good enough knowledge of the Joker that he knows that even after trying to kill each other on the hotel rooftop, that the alliance is easily reforged with the right idea (the heart monitor gambit). His men easily slaughter Joker's, and he's the one that discovers Batman's identity, trashes the batcave, and wounds Alfred, but simultaneously it is Joker that sets everything in motion.
Much, much better than "He was your puppet Ra's!" or whatever the hell the Scarecrow/Knight alliance was meant to be. Seriously, someone at some point had to realise that Knight was a terrifically boring character, but God knows someone else must've had a terrific ***** for the guy, given that he swallows up so much of the narrative compared to Scarecrow. Which is why it's about quality not quantity. That's why AK and Joker don't overshadow Scarecrow despite having more screen time than him, because they were inferior villains handled badly.
You criticize AO for being predictable about Joker being Black Mask, when AK was fifty times worse in being predictable with Jason Todd being the Arkham Knight. And they left that reveal until very late into the game, too. AO at least revealed Joker being Black Mask early in the game, and redeemed Black Mask to recovering and taking back his gang. AO didn't milk it for the bulk of the game. Whereas AK suddenly out of the blue keeps having Batman hallucinate about Jason Todd, a character who had no relevance whatsoever in the previous games. They were as subtle as a sledgehammer to the kneecaps about AK's identity. That goes on several times during the game, until finally very late in the game after you've guessed the truth long, long, long ago they reveal AK is Jason. Your criticisms against AO in support of AK's horrid writing make no sense and just look hypocritical. The Joker in Origins' is by far and away the best Joker and villain of the games for the aforementioned reasons. You can't say the same for the others.
That's silly logic, LEVI. Why should we be denied more great Batman games just because Rocksteady is finished, especially when for many of us the best Batman game didn't even come from them.
Or if people want them to do it so badly, then do it the way they do movies, have them do more than one project at once. Have one team on Batman, and another on Superman or whatever.
It's got nothing to do with glitches. I experienced glitches back when the game was released. I've experienced glitches with Knight, too. That's technical issues. It doesn't affect my opinion of the story or handling of the characters.
Joker in Origins was the most perfect handling of the character out of all four games. By far. For a start the character was actually developed. He's the only Joker in the four games who progresses as a character. He goes from wanting Batman dead, to getting a whole new appreciation for Batman after Batman saves his life at the hotel. Then we get that brilliant therapy scene with Harley where we get a ghoulishly insightful look into the mind of the Joker and what he thinks about life, and how he sees Batman. This scene alone is more characterful development and Joker insight than Rocksteady gave him in their three games combined;
[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]
Joker in Asylum, City, and Knight is a stoic character who has no progression whatsoever. It's not just Joker who gets developed in his relationship with Batman in AO, so does Batman himself. It's very reminiscent of The Dark Knight in that Batman begins to slowly realize he's dealing with a brand of psychopathic criminal he's never encountered before, as particularly brilliantly showcased in the hotel scenes.
Second, and I'm cutting and pasting Twoface=badass' brilliant post here, Joker in Origins is the only one who worked well in conjunction with another villain, and not at the expense of another villain. In Origins' case Bane. Bane/Joker were also the only villain combo we actually saw interact. Scarecrow and Knight talk like twice over the radio with each other, and never actually operate in the same space, despite such an image in the trailer.
But the biggest thing Bane and Joker have going for them in AO is that they were both developed, both hyped as huge threats, and importantly neither of them were thrown under the bus to hype up the other. Rocksteady I've noticed has a habit of doing such a thing with their villains in order to establish how big a threat a villain is, the classic examples being Bane in Asylum and Strange in City even more so.
In contrast look at the hotel scenes in Origins - they're a masterclass of developing villains with conflicting goals and establishing power dynamics. Joker is shown to be wild, unpredictable and brilliant, and Bane is shown as tough, pragmatic, resourceful and not scared of the Joker. They are two villains who dislike one another (more so from Bane's direction) but also share an uneasy alliance that is quite satisfactorily never quite broken. Bane develops a good enough knowledge of the Joker that he knows that even after trying to kill each other on the hotel rooftop, that the alliance is easily reforged with the right idea (the heart monitor gambit). His men easily slaughter Joker's, and he's the one that discovers Batman's identity, trashes the batcave, and wounds Alfred, but simultaneously it is Joker that sets everything in motion.
Much, much better than "He was your puppet Ra's!" or whatever the hell the Scarecrow/Knight alliance was meant to be. Seriously, someone at some point had to realise that Knight was a terrifically boring character, but God knows someone else must've had a terrific ***** for the guy, given that he swallows up so much of the narrative compared to Scarecrow. Which is why it's about quality not quantity. That's why AK and Joker don't overshadow Scarecrow despite having more screen time than him, because they were inferior villains handled badly.
You criticize AO for being predictable about Joker being Black Mask, when AK was fifty times worse in being predictable with Jason Todd being the Arkham Knight. And they left that reveal until very late into the game, too. AO at least revealed Joker being Black Mask early in the game, and redeemed Black Mask to recovering and taking back his gang. AO didn't milk it for the bulk of the game. Whereas AK suddenly out of the blue keeps having Batman hallucinate about Jason Todd, a character who had no relevance whatsoever in the previous games. They were as subtle as a sledgehammer to the kneecaps about AK's identity. That goes on several times during the game, until finally very late in the game after you've guessed the truth long, long, long ago they reveal AK is Jason. Your criticisms against AO in support of AK's horrid writing make no sense and just look hypocritical. The Joker in Origins' is by far and away the best Joker and villain of the games for the aforementioned reasons. You can't say the same for the others.
