AO Joker was the best Joker.
Agreed. One of my favorite versions of Joker. So much to sink your teeth into and enjoy about him.
I've been reading over the past few pages and noticed I managed to miss all the great AO discussion. Darn.
Still, my sincere thanks to The Joker for quoting and complimenting me in his argument. Oddly means a lot.
I'm kind of personally baffled as to how someone could think Knight has a great plot. Getting away from how the militia invasion casts a shroud of banality over the atmosphere, the entire story basically hinges upon the twist. As with AC, there is a fine concept here of Scarecrow trying to create a nightmare scape of fear over the Eastern Seaboard in alliance with a mysterious newcomer - less juicy than Escape From New York crossed with Batman, but fine nevertheless - but this is largely thrown away in favour of history's most predictable twist.
A good twist changes the narrative, and moreover adds meaning to it. It is unexpected, but could also be predicted, and after the twist is laid down there is an exploration of its consequences.
The Jason Todd twist examined through this framework:
- Unexpected: No, it is incredibly predictable, made worse by having to ham-handedly first confirm that Jason exists, then bring him forth.
- Changes the Narrative: No again. Nothing is done with Jason Todd as a character once he is revealed. Nothing. He comes back without dialogue for three seconds to help Batman, then nothing. In fact, as I was discussing with a friend, the name of Jason Todd is never even brought up past the twist - not Barbara nor Alfred nor Robin nor Nightwing have anything to say about this revelation. It is the ultimate symbol of how Rocksteady saw him as a character: for a dramatic unmasking, and nothing more.
- Adds Meaning: No. It is pretty impossible to in fact - we never know what Jason was even like as a character before he was tortured, hence his vague dialogue that amounts to little more than edgy teenage trash talk without the bite. Someone suggested once here that one of the Robin missions should have had a Scarecrow nightmare sections, and Batman would see Tim as Jason, and we could get both some great sequences and characterisation there. But alas, it was not to be. All that matters is the twist (and lack thereof).
- Exploration of Consequences: None. As mentioned above, Jason is not even namechecked afterward. The story moves to another tank battle followed by Scarecrow finally getting a good scene, which then devolves into a non-gaming cutscene for about twenty minutes.
- Predictable: Yes. It's about the only part the game does right, and it still manages to do wrong. Rocksteady seems to think a character must be shocked in order for the audience to be shocked. As such, Batman in any of their games cannot discover the twist, thus making him look a poor detective. Compare Heart of Ice, wherein the shock of Mr. Freeze's origin is discovered by Batman in his detective work, or even Origins, where Batman is shocked, but at least in scenes like with the Apartment we see him get closer and closer to the truth.
AC arguably has the worst story, the only competition for it is Arkham Knight.
AC's story at least allowed Joker, Penguin, and Mr. Freeze moments to shine. Scarecrow, and to a lesser extent Ivy are the only villains in AK who were given that.
Which tank battle is that? The 39th or 40th?
I agree but wouldn't you agree that considering you marketed a game as the "epic finale" that it's a little too early to take about a new Batman game and not give him some rest? Gears of War 3 came out in 2011. Gears 4 was announced this year for next year and was rumored last year but they didn't stop talking about it for a while. Mass Effect 3 came out in 2012 and the newest Mass Effect game was announced this year for next year.
My point is while I'm ok with new Batman games, it's way too early to even think about doing one especially considering WBGM is a DC centered studio.
No not at all, because it most likely won't be in the Arkham continuity, or if it is, it will be a prequel like AO was. Either way it's not stepping on the toes of the "epic conclusion" (that just sounds so funny now) to the Rocksteady games since it's not picking up after AK.
Time factor doesn't matter to fans as long as they get more good games. It's about quality not quantity. I mean in ten years we'll have had three different Spider-Man movie franchises. Fans don't care as long as they're good.
Not trying to diss WBGM but I don't think gamers would be that much excited for another WBGM game. It's nothing about the quality of Arkham origins. The game is good and I wouldn't mind a sequel but it's more of publicity. WBGM launching a bug ridden game, which personally I did have bug issues with, didn't sit well with gamers. While the PC AK game is even worse and Rocksteady & WB deserve some blame, Rocksteady is aiding in it making sure the bugs are gone. Meanwhile WBGM said themselves that they wouldn't be fixing anymore bugs and glitches in their game.
No matter what way you swing it, Batman game or no Batman game, if these are the guys doing the next DC game, that's going to be associated with them anyway.
But you rarely if ever hear people experience any more glitches with the game now, so the point is moot. They did release patches to sort out the glitches back in the day, and they seem to have done the trick.
It's more the little things. For example looking at Knight, there are so many small things added to gameplay that I love. Going through vents to different levels and up them. Using the environment in combat. Picking up weapons. WBGM didn't really add anything new. It reminds me of Gears of War Judgment. Now if you guys think I hate Origins, which I don't, you ain't never seen my hate for GOW:J. Similar game to Origins in terms of a prequel but completely little to no innovation and even worse they ****ed up the perfect multiplayer that GOW3 gave us.
My whole point is there could have been little things WBGM could have added that would have went a long way. I don't know using Rocksteady's example by add to it.
I can't fault any criticism for them not adding much new to the gameplay. But at the same time I don't see it as a negative against the game itself because it didn't make the game worse in any way by adding something bad or annoying that would have hurt the enjoyment factor of the game.
So deduct points from them for not bringing something significantly new gameplay wise, but never did they make the game any less fun to play because they used what fans loved about the series gameplay. If they had taken away from that then it would have been a real negative. Like AK did by taking away boss fights, and giving us an over abundance of Batmobile and tank battles.
My point was more so for them to make their own series and not just keep using Rocksteady's design for the Batman games. Not saying use Rocksteady's gameplay for other heroes.
They can. Nobody is saying they should copy anything from the Batman games, except maybe AO's brilliance for doing a good story, characters, and atmosphere if any of the games are set at a particular time like Christmas. I'm not saying copy them, just give it the same respect and detail they did.
Agree but I feel like let's give other heroes a shot. I think it's fair to say Superman & Flash are the most popular DC characters people want games of. Personally I find JL impossible. Hell nowadays I find X-Men and Avengers games impossible simply because we live in more of a single player sandbox world. There aren't many game franchises that focus on a group that isn't around one character. Games are more focused on single player experience. I mean just look at who we have games of. Master Chief, Lara Croft, Snake, Mad Max, Batman, Nathan Drake, Kratos, Marcus Fenix, Mario, Link, and more.
Yeah like I said I'm not saying they shouldn't give other heroes a shot. Personally I am dying for a Spider-Man game that's as good quality wise as the Arkham series. The Shattered Dimensions one didn't hold a candle to any of them.
But we can get that more Batman games, too. You don't have to sideline one in favor of the other.
My point with this isn't so much from a gameplay stance by a character stance. It's why the recent Spider-Man games have copied the Batman games. Both are open world characters who are city protectors. I'm more referring them to do city protector games like Superman, Green Arrow, and Flash who are sandbox characters and have sandbox worlds like Batman.
Not really an Arkham influence, more of a character influence.
But with characters like Spider-Man, Superman etc you have to have some open world elements to it. One of the best things about the great Spider-Man games like
Spider-Man 2 was that glorious free roam web swinging around New York. I imagine Superman fans would want to fly all over Metropolis and more.
I wouldn't see that as an Arkham influence. That's something you would do because it's as you say a character influence.
I just feel that as of now, we don't need a Batman game this second you know? We've had 4 great Batman games in the past 6 years. We aren't in a mad need for a new Batman game. Halo took 4 years off from 3 to 4 (though Reach came out during that), Gears is taking 5 years (though if you count Judgment, 3 years), Mass Effect is taking 4 years. The Batman series should take some time off. I wouldn't mind it coming back at all and WBGM taking over. I do believe they have an idea for a sequel which IMO based on Origins looked to involve Ra's since we was referenced a bit, but I wouldn't want it anytime soon.
Again I'm not saying we need or expect a new Batman game any time within the next year or two. I'm just saying if/when they start tackling other DC characters, or Marvel ones for games, they don't have to bring Batman to a grinding halt.
You were all like 'NO we need other DC heroes' when I said WB Montreal should take over for Batman when they announced that just because Rocksteady is done with Batman doesn't mean there won't be more Batman games by WB.
That's all, LEVI.