Batman: Arkham Knight

[The Joker]

I love you

Agreed with Joker 100%

Thank you, gents

 

[OutOfBoose]

It's not a different thing. Emotional pain for a loved one is emotional pain for a loved one. Only one is based on characters we barely know other than they are Bruce's parents, and the other is a character we all know and love.

Bruce's parents are dead. Alfred isn't. It's not the same. Parents are parents. It's everything to a kid. It's easy to understand and project it. Alfred's near death experience didn't affect me much, it was predictable.

That's why Alfred's has more emotional power to it. We care about the old man and his relationship with Bruce.

If it's done in such an over-used manner - it makes me yawn.

Not even remotely. Jason's reveal was obvious long before it even happened. From the moment they started making a big deal out of a dead character who had no relevance what so ever to the previous games. They might as well have spelled out in glowing letters across the screen Jason was AK.

Just the same with Bane attacking Batcave and hurting Alfred.

Alfred being attacked and the Batcave being trashed, nobody saw that coming. Yes, we knew Alfred would survive, but that wasn't the point of the scene's drama, it was the emotional power of the scene of seeing him nearly die, and Bruce blaming himself, was as good as it gets.

I felt like I saw it a hundred times already.

There was nothing exciting or emotional about Harley's pregnancy. I've yet to see anyone say they felt any emotion to finding that easter egg pregnancy stick. I'm sorry but that is making something out of nothing. It shouldn't even be considered an emotional scene.

You seem to miss something or don't read what I'm writing here. I'll try it again. There was a hint on her pregnancy before the DLC. Positive test in the main game, dead Joker and Harley's sinister lullaby during credits. At that point people speculated if she's truly pregnant. If Rocksteady goes as far as giving Harley a child in the next game. Emotional or not - it's up to everyone. It was for me. I didn't feel sorry for dead Joker, but I felt sorry for Harley's grief, regardless of how wretched their relationship was.

Those Ivy and Freeze scenes had some good emotion to them, but when it comes to Bruce and his loved ones, nothing tops that.

I find Batman's villains just as interesting as Batman himself. So I don't think Batman's relationships prevail. That's why I'm excited for Suicide Squad. Almost no Batman. All about villains.

Given that the bulk of them are made by Rocksteady, it's easy to see why you'd feel that way. Had they all been like Origins, they would be on a whole other level in that regard.

All Arkham games made in Origins fashion - that would be relatively unexciting and predictable experience.

Because there is no blandness. There is real emotion, real character development and character relationships. Most of it is writing worthy of a Batman movie the way it develops many of it's characters and executes emotion. The Joker/Harley therapy scene alone in Origins gets more inside the Joker's head than all three of Rocksteady's games did.

No, no and no. Joker/Harley scene was there because the game is called Origins. That was it's task - to introduce Joker as a character. But since we all know Joker better than "Jason Todd is Arkham Knight", it was like the third reboot of Spider-man movies. Predictable and yawn-inducing. Asylum, City and Knight treated Joker as a well-known villain. There was no reason to go inside Joker's head in those games. Asylum and Knight were more about Batman's head. Worthy writing for a Batman movie? Only if we need yet another reintroduction of Batman and his main adversaries in a very flat manner. Real emotion? As good as other Arkham games at best.

Whereas you are praising the likes of a phony pregnancy stick on the floor. It's bizarre and confusing.

The possible outcomes were exciting.

 

[Paradox1]

Asylum - Degree
City - Mastersm
Origins - PhD
Knight - Diploma

As all college students know degrees aren't given out for attending. You actually have to achieve something and origins didn't achieve enough. Every game for rocksteady was at least nominated for game of the year, best visuals and so fourth. If you want to argue your subjective taste sure Ph.D. Is fine. However my point was never about how I subjectively felt. Just at the time of release if it fbrought anything new or refreshing as a video game. That game didn't and it showed in what achieved during award season. Origins got a lot awards for its voice talent and one for its writing. However in the meat and potatoes of video games which is in gameplay and visual just not enough.

 

[godisawesome]

If I may, I do think there is one radical difference in Origins's storytelling approach to Asylum, City, and Knight that is key to finding it appealing: in Origins, change is a positive, not just for the plot, but also for the strength on the character portrayals.

In the Rocksteady 3, the conflict is something that is a challenge to the status quo, and Batman, while complex, is defined by a static portrayal. Joker seizing control of the Asylum, Strange's Arkham City disrupting the legal process and Gotham's landscape, and Scarecrow evacuating the entire city and basically occupying it, all those are breaks from what is supposed to be the harmony of Gotham's nightlife, which, while still busy, is clearly in line with the classic norm of the comics. Gotham is supposed to be threatened by only a few supervillains or criminals every night, and Batman captures them and sends them to Arkham. The RS games all have their conflict upset that system, and the last two add an air of melancholy to how that status quo can't quite be returned.

In contrast, the overall conflict of Origins is not just to survive the night and return the city to order; Batman and Joker are both trying to create a new status quo in the city, even deliberately comparing Batman's slower, more methodical and even stubborn attempts to Joker's wild, chaotic and incendiary attempts. At the start of the game, Gotham is the city mired in corruption and criminality, with a police commissioner working with the city's biggest criminals, and by the end, in spite of the destruction and deaths, the new era of Gotham under Batman and Gordon has begun, and it's more hopeful.

The characters show this as well, since the RS characters are by and large governed by remaining steadfast in their characterizations. Batman is always the slightly stubborn loner who refuses to accept help, Two-Face is fairly bland because he's just Two-Face, Joker's desire to overtake Batman and bring him down a level is constant even when in a hallucination, Bane is always just a big lug, and Ra's, even after being denied once, is still dead set on getting Batman to join him. We also skip over the hinted at moments of transformation; Catwoman's implied knowledge of Bruce's secret is just kind of tossed out there, and Jason's return to heroism is shockingly brief.

Origins is dead set on showing the characters transform into their RS versions, and to some people, that's much more engaging than their subplots in the other games. Batman has to learn to accept the advice and help of his allies, Alfred comes to accept that Batman is needed in spite of his initial disagreements, Gordon has to accept Batman's assistance, Joker goes form wanting Batman dead to wanting to see him transform, and Bane goes from cunning mastermind and dominant warrior to brute.

That's why some people seriously love Origins's story over Rocksteady's.

 

[Nathan]

Started to play Arkham Knight. I can already tell that it's going to take me a long time to play through it, because I quickly lose interest, every time I start to play. The game's beginning just hasn't managed to grab me like the 3 previous games did. I only reached the Ace Chemicals part right now, and I already feel like I'm blowing too much **** up.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Well, that's exactly what I loved about RS's Batman games story-wise. The game didn't waste it's time to reintroduce characters we already know so well. No need to go into the head of Batman, Joker or whatever. It's just "yet another day in the office" story.

 

[Broseph44]

Me reading OutOfBoose posts

 

[The Joker]

Bruce's parents are dead. Alfred isn't.

Semantics. Just because Alfred lived doesn't lessen the emotional impact that he almost did die, and because Batman's mission put him in the firing line.

That's powerful stuff. Bruce remembering his dead parents has been done ad nauesum, and Rocksteady brought nothing new to the table with it. It was just a nice homage. Nothing more.

It's not the same. Parents are parents. It's everything to a kid. It's easy to understand and project it. Alfred's near death experience didn't affect me much, it was predictable.

Of course it's the same. Alfred is a parent figure to Bruce. More importantly he's a character we all know and love, so that instantly catapults him above Bruce's parents for emotional punch. He's been a father figure to him ever since he raised him as a little boy. He stood by him in everything, including his quest to be Batman, and his near demise had more punch to it than another generic flashback to seeing Bruce's folks get killed.

If it's done in such an over-used manner - it makes me yawn.

That's funny, because you should have been applauding it since it was the first time the games invested anything in the Bruce/Alfred relationship.

So your logic is confusing on this, too.

Just the same with Bane attacking Batcave and hurting Alfred.

Really so when in the game did you predict that was coming, and tell me how you deduced it based on what the game showed, and how it is even remotely as predictable as Jason/AK's identity.

Spare no expense on the detail.

I felt like I saw it a hundred times already.

What like the death of Bruce's parents, but you're ranking that as one of the best emotional scenes.

Where did you see it a hundred times? What stories? In BTAS? The movies? Where?

You seem to miss something or don't read what I'm writing here. I'll try it again. There was a hint on her pregnancy before the DLC. Positive test in the main game, dead Joker and Harley's sinister lullaby during credits. At that point people speculated if she's truly pregnant. If Rocksteady goes as far as giving Harley a child in the next game. Emotional or not - it's up to everyone. It was for me. I didn't feel sorry for dead Joker, but I felt sorry for Harley's grief, regardless of how wretched their relationship was.

I know exactly what you're saying, and the response is still the same. You're placing huge emphasis on something that was a minor nonentity with no importance or proper attention placed on it. In fact since you keep mentioning the DLC you'd know there was like 50 non positive pregnancy sticks in it which tells you she wasn't even pregnant. AK is set 9 months after AC, so where was the baby if she even had one? Why would she be so desperate to get the infected if she had her own Joker baby with his blood and DNA in it?

It's because there is no baby. Never was. It was some silly little easter egg that went nowhere. Worthless and most of all completely emotionless. It showed nothing about Harley's grief other than some desperate idea she had that she was pregnant. Since we never even saw any of this, it fell flat.

I find Batman's villains just as interesting as Batman himself. So I don't think Batman's relationships prevail. That's why I'm excited for Suicide Squad. Almost no Batman. All about villains.

Really so you think Rocksteady made the likes of Bane, Strange, Two Face etc as interesting as Batman?

All Arkham games made in Origins fashion - that would be relatively unexciting and predictable experience.

I'm talking about story and characterization. If they had all had that level of quality that Origins had, these games would really be something extraordinary. As it is they don't make you care about many of the characters, including main antagonists like AK, Strange etc.

No, no and no. Joker/Harley scene was there because the game is called Origins. That was it's task - to introduce Joker as a character. But since we all know Joker better than "Jason Todd is Arkham Knight", it was like the third reboot of Spider-man movies. Predictable and yawn-inducing. Asylum, City and Knight treated Joker as a well-known villain. There was no reason to go inside Joker's head in those games. Asylum and Knight were more about Batman's head. Worthy writing for a Batman movie? Only if we need yet another reintroduction of Batman and his main adversaries in a very flat manner. Real emotion? As good as other Arkham games at best.

The possible outcomes were exciting.

I'm sorry but that is totally untrue. Asylum, City, and Knight treated all their villains as well known, but that doesn't mean that you make them devoid of any depth, substance, or character development. For example Bane was treated as a known criminal in Arkham Origins. Batman knew who he was, his rep as a criminal and a mercenary, but they still delved into Bane's mind, how he viewed Batman, the complexity of how he operates, his willingness to die to prove to his ultimate greatness over Batman. More importantly, unlike with the previous games, he wasn't thrown under the bus in order to make the Joker look better. Both villains were treated as equal threats, who clearly hate each other, but reluctantly work together. The whole Gotham Hotel levels for example is a master class of showing two great villains, as two unique threats, and two larger than life characters. Joker is wild, psychotic, unpredictable. Bane is calculating, methodical, and physically brutal.

All the games, no matter if the villain is known or not, should treat the characters like this. This is what we should have seen with Hugo Strange and Ra's working together, and Scarecrow and AK. But we don't. Because the Rocksteady games don't know how to support that kind of strength coming from more than one character. More importantly they don't even develop their main character Batman. Origins did, and several of it's villains and supporting characters.

The possible outcomes were exciting.

Like what? What was so exciting about Harley having a baby?

As all college students know degrees aren't given out for attending. You actually have to achieve something and origins didn't achieve enough. Every game for rocksteady was at least nominated for game of the year, best visuals and so fourth. If you want to argue your subjective taste sure Ph.D. Is fine. However my point was never about how I subjectively felt. Just at the time of release if it fbrought anything new or refreshing as a video game. That game didn't and it showed in what achieved during award season. Origins got a lot awards for its voice talent and one for its writing. However in the meat and potatoes of video games which is in gameplay and visual just not enough.

I place achievements on how good of a game was delivered. In that regard Origins achieved plenty. I don't give points for bringing something new to the table if it sucks. The Batmobile is a classic example. Many fans would happily have left that out of AK because it's addition to the game was utter tedium. You could argue bringing it in was an 'achievement' but it's all about execution. And Origins executed itself far, far, FAR better. It took the best from AC's gameplay, threw in it's own touches like the crime scene reconstruction, gave the characters great characterizations and story, and didn't give the characters designs that look ridiculous in muscle size and body mass, or overly sexualized. Can you imagine what Rocksteady's Shiva would have looked like? Boobs city. You can legitimately complain Origins didn't tread much new ground, but what it did do was deliver an exceptionally brilliant game.

I don't give a toss about the game awards. As if great games have never been overlooked there before.

If I may, I do think there is one radical difference in Origins's storytelling approach to Asylum, City, and Knight that is key to finding it appealing: in Origins, change is a positive, not just for the plot, but also for the strength on the character portrayals.

In the Rocksteady 3, the conflict is something that is a challenge to the status quo, and Batman, while complex, is defined by a static portrayal. Joker seizing control of the Asylum, Strange's Arkham City disrupting the legal process and Gotham's landscape, and Scarecrow evacuating the entire city and basically occupying it, all those are breaks from what is supposed to be the harmony of Gotham's nightlife, which, while still busy, is clearly in line with the classic norm of the comics. Gotham is supposed to be threatened by only a few supervillains or criminals every night, and Batman captures them and sends them to Arkham. The RS games all have their conflict upset that system, and the last two add an air of melancholy to how that status quo can't quite be returned.

In contrast, the overall conflict of Origins is not just to survive the night and return the city to order; Batman and Joker are both trying to create a new status quo in the city, even deliberately comparing Batman's slower, more methodical and even stubborn attempts to Joker's wild, chaotic and incendiary attempts. At the start of the game, Gotham is the city mired in corruption and criminality, with a police commissioner working with the city's biggest criminals, and by the end, in spite of the destruction and deaths, the new era of Gotham under Batman and Gordon has begun, and it's more hopeful.

The characters show this as well, since the RS characters are by and large governed by remaining steadfast in their characterizations. Batman is always the slightly stubborn loner who refuses to accept help, Two-Face is fairly bland because he's just Two-Face, Joker's desire to overtake Batman and bring him down a level is constant even when in a hallucination, Bane is always just a big lug, and Ra's, even after being denied once, is still dead set on getting Batman to join him. We also skip over the hinted at moments of transformation; Catwoman's implied knowledge of Bruce's secret is just kind of tossed out there, and Jason's return to heroism is shockingly brief.

Origins is dead set on showing the characters transform into their RS versions, and to some people, that's much more engaging than their subplots in the other games. Batman has to learn to accept the advice and help of his allies, Alfred comes to accept that Batman is needed in spite of his initial disagreements, Gordon has to accept Batman's assistance, Joker goes form wanting Batman dead to wanting to see him transform, and Bane goes from cunning mastermind and dominant warrior to brute.

That's why some people seriously love Origins's story over Rocksteady's.

Brilliantly said. Give this man a cigar

 

[Broseph44]

Godisawesome and TheJoker you guys are hitting the nail on the head repeatedly Bravo just so well said. Love it.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

The scene fell flat because you knew he wasn't going to die, since he was in the other games that took place afterwards. There was no drama or suspense in it for me. Didn't care.

Yep, something like this.

To me, what matters is the execution, not just the idea itself. Yeah, we know Alfred and Batman end up OK, but the quality of the writing and voice acting makes you forget, for even a few seconds, that they are.

I mean, Joker pretending to be Black Mask is an awful idea in paper, particularly after the Joker hijack in Arkham City. It's a move I don't even defend to this day. But they do so much with the Joker's character in the game and it's foreshadowed beautifully, especially on a second playthrough, that it ends up not mattering.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Semantics. Just because Alfred lived doesn't lessen the emotional impact that he almost did die, and because Batman's mission put him in the firing line.

Maybe it doesn't lessen, but it felt like a routine. No wonder I forgot about it completely.

That's powerful stuff. Bruce remembering his dead parents has been done ad nauesum, and Rocksteady brought nothing new to the table with it. It was just a nice homage. Nothing more.

All Arkham games - strings of homages, nothing more. Not a bad thing in my book. I liked what I got overall. All these games never meant to be serious dramas. At least, given the tone Asylum set for other games in the series. But maybe it a thing to try to achieve in future Batman games.

Of course it's the same. Alfred is a parent figure to Bruce. More importantly he's a character we all know and love, so that instantly catapults him above Bruce's parents for emotional punch. He's been a father figure to him ever since he raised him as a little boy. He stood by him in everything, including his quest to be Batman, and his near demise had more punch to it then a flashback to seeing Bruce's folks get killed.

Maybe it was delivered in such a way, that I didn't care.

That's funny, because you should have been applauding it since it was the first time the games invested anything in the Bruce/Alfred relationship.

We can go as far as saying Arkham games is the first worthy game series about super-heroes. Everything they invested in should be applauded. Bruce-Alfred relationship was done to death in movies alone. Putting it into a game doesn't bring anything new or exciting. And they didn't even try, it seems.

Really so when in the game did you predict that was coming, and tell me how you deduced it based on what the game showed, and how it is even remotely as predictable as Jason/AK's identity.

I suspected it when Bane was included into the game and it was revealed that the game will feature Batcave. But it's not really what was predictable. I think, you can do a lot of interesting things with attack on Batcave. But the way it was delivered, screamed some second-rate boring and predictable storytelling. Batman rushes into the cave, screaming "Alfred!", finds him in a pile of rubble, hugs him and listens to last words. Reanimating him was a nice detail, but nothing interesting either.

What like the death of Bruce's parents, but you're ranking that as one of the best emotional scenes.

Speaks volumes about the quality of emotional scenes in Arkham games overall. As pointed above, all of them are just brief homages. Even the most emotional moments.

Where did you see it a hundred times? What stories? In BTAS? The movies? Where?

Bruce blaming himself for all the sins in the world? Almost literally in every Batman story. Just swap Alfred to Rachel, Dent, Barbara or any damn character.

You're placing huge emphasis on something that was a minor nonentity with no importance or attention placed on it.

First of all, not huge. Secondly, it was done in a subtle way for people to discover.

In fact since you keep mentioning the DLC you'd know there was like 50 non positive pregnancy sticks in it which tells you she wasn't even pregnant.

We DIDN'T know about that before the DLC. That's why there were speculations on where the story can go later.

AK is set 9 months after AC, so where was the baby if she even had one?

Did we know how much time passes after AC when it came out? Nope. At that time people speculated how the next game is going to be called Arkham World or something like that.

Why would she be so desperate to get the infected if she had her own Joker baby with his blood and DNA in it?

Interesting question.

It's because there is no baby. Never was. It was some silly little easter egg that went nowhere. Worthless and most of all completely emotionless. It showed nothing about Harley's grief other than some desperate idea she had that she was pregnant. Since we never even saw any of this, it fell flat.

That was my initial impression of Arkham Origins experience. "Why did I play this game?"

Really so you think Rocksteady made the likes of Bane, Strange, Two Face etc as interesting as Batman?

Some better than other. Not as detailed as Batman and Joker, obviously. Since it's Batman games. But I like Joker/Harley relationship. I liked Scarecrow. I like Freeze. Killer Croc was really awesome in Asylum. Hush seemed like a great premise in City. And had one of better scenes in Knight.

I'm talking about story and characterization. If they had all had that level of quality that Origins had, these games would really be something extraordinary. As it is they don't make you care about many of the characters, including main antagonists like AK, Strange etc.

I didn't care for Arkham Knight. But Scarecrow was interesting. I think, RS gave him enough time to shine. Joker had insane amount of time in RS games, interesting plot turns. Yes, Strange wasn't the main force behind it all in AC, neither Black Mask in Origins. So what? Typical stuff in Batman stories.

I'm sorry but that is totally untrue. Asylum, City, and Knight treated all their villains as well known, but that doesn't mean that you make them devoid of any depth, substance, or character development.

What if characters are already developed. What if their story arcs already happened? Joker does what he usually does. He doesn't have any story arc in Dark Knight. He's just a plot device there. So what?

For example Bane was treated as a known criminal in Arkham Origins. Batman knew who he was, his rep as a criminal and a mercenary, but they still delved into Bane's mind, how he viewed Batman, the complexity of how he operates, his willingness to die to prove to his ultimate greatness over Batman. More importantly, unlike with the previous games, he wasn't thrown under the bus in order to make the Joker look better. Both villains were treated as equal threats, who clearly hate each other, but reluctantly work together. The whole Gotham Hotel levels for example is a master class of showing two great villains, as two unique threats, and two larger than life character. Joker is wild, psychotic, unpredictable. Bane is calculating, methodical, and physically brutal.

Black Mask was thrown under a bus to make Joker look better in Origins. Same thing. OK, Origins showed Joker and Bane as equals. Should it always be like that? You wanted a classic Bane - you got it in Origins.

All the games, no matter if the villain is known or not, should treat the characters like this. This is what we should have seen with Hugo Strange and Ra's working together, and Scarecrow and AK.

Why on Earth? Different characters, different premises, different stories.

But we don't. Because the Rocksteady games don't know how to support that kind of strength coming from more than one character. More importantly they don't even develop their main character Batman. Origins did, and several of it's villains and supporting characters.

Origins just provided a number of character origins for Arkham universe. After that - all these villains just invent new ways to wreck Gotham and Batman's life.

 

[Broseph44]

OutOfBoose man haha. I love your reactions to Bane breaking into the batcave and saying how's it's predictable and boring storytelling and not interesting. But you think AK being Jason wasn't predictable or boring storytelling and you think it's interesting? Come on man you sound sort of delusional with some of the comments you're making honestly.

 

[Broseph44]

So Boose you mean to tell me that the minute we heard news of Bane being in origins and confirmation of the batcave that you automatically figured out "oh bane is gonna break into it." But the minute we heard the new villain would be AK you didn't know it would be Jason? That wasn't predictable at all?

 

[OutOfBoose]

OutOfBoose man haha. I love your reactions to Bane breaking into the batcave and saying how's it's predictable and boring storytelling and not interesting. But you think AK being Jason wasn't predictable or boring storytelling and you think it's interesting? Come on man you sound sort of delusional with some of the comments you're making honestly.

Where did you get that?

 

[Broseph44]

Where did you get that?

Because that's a point joker has been trying to make and your go to seems to be talking about Bane and Origins being predictable. You seem to avoid that AK was predictable seems you think that but won't admit it. Instead you take the focus off of it and talk about origins.

 

[Broseph44]

 

[OutOfBoose]

Because that's a point joker has been trying to make and your go to seems to be talking about Bane and Origins being predictable. You seem to avoid that AK was predictable seems you think that but won't admit it. Instead you take the focus off of it and talk about origins.

We were discussing why I felt the scene with Alfred was forgettable. Joker advocated why it was a really good emotional scene, why it was better than any other emotional scenes in other Arkham games. If we talk about Jason Todd reveal - it was indeed predictable and probably interesting only to those, who never heard of Jason Todd and his fall. I personally liked Scarecrow and Joker subplot a lot more. Joker virus, internal struggle and defeating Joker by finding his greatest fear - being forgotten. That was beautiful. Among other things we discussed what Arkham game has better story and writing. My point in few words - they played it too safe in Origins. So I greatly prefer Dini's stuff to what they conceived for Origins and Knight.

 

[Broseph44]

Best Story writing snd characterization goes to Origins.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Best Story writing snd characterization goes to Origins.

+Least imaginative.

 

[The Joker]

Maybe it doesn't lessen, but it felt like a routine. No wonder I forgot about it completely.

There was nothing routine about it. Seeing flashbacks to the death of Bruce's parents, stuff like that is routine.

All Arkham games - strings of homages, nothing more. Not a bad thing in my book. I liked what I got overall. All these games never meant to be serious dramas. At least, given the tone Asylum set for other games in the series. But maybe it a thing to try to achieve in future Batman games.

I think they were striving for drama. They hired veteran Batman writers like Dini to write the stories. They killed off major characters. Showed the deaths of others in very dramatic detail, like Jason's. It was their execution of most of it that failed.

They don't do that if they're not trying to be dramatic in their stories.

Maybe it was delivered in such a way, that I didn't care.

Can't imagine why, but ok.

We can go as far as saying Arkham games is the first worthy game series about super-heroes. Everything they invested in should be applauded. Bruce-Alfred relationship was done to death in movies alone. Putting it into a game doesn't bring anything new or exciting. And they didn't even try, it seems.

No, the Bruce-Alfred relationship was not done to death in the movies. I'd argue the Nolan trilogy, and B&R of all movies vested some time and development into it.

But how you can criticize for something being done to death, but applaud other things like flashbacks to the Wayne's deaths which has been done even more is beyond me.

You have some sort of bizarre double standard on this stuff it seems.

I suspected it when Bane was included into the game and it was revealed that the game will feature Batcave. But it's not really what was predictable. I think, you can do a lot of interesting things with attack on Batcave. But the way it was delivered, screamed some second-rate boring and predictable storytelling. Batman rushes into the cave, screaming "Alfred!", finds him in a pile of rubble, hugs him and listens to last words. Reanimating him was a nice detail, but nothing interesting either.

So you heard Bane and the Batcave was in the game, and you thought that would happen. Sorry I don't buy that. Did you think the same for Asylum when you heard Bane and a Batcave would be in it, too?

There was nothing predictable or second rate about it. Batman coming back too late after the damage was done and finding the enemy has not only trashed his home, but left his faithful butler for dead is the very essence of great drama.

Alfred gasping out final words of telling Bruce not to add him to the emotional weight he carries before he "dies" was brilliantly done, and hugely emotional. Simple and effective.

Speaks volumes about the quality of emotional scenes in Arkham games overall. As pointed above, all of them are just brief homages. Even the most emotional moments.

No they're not. You're not making any sense saying that. Homages to what?

Bruce blaming himself for all the sins in the world? Almost literally in every Batman story. Just swap Alfred to Rachel, Dent, Barbara or any damn character.

He didn't blame himself for all the sins of the world. He felt he couldn't defend Gotham properly when he couldn't even defend his own home.

No offense but did you even pay attention to the content of the scene?

First of all, not huge. Secondly, it was done in a subtle way for people to discover.We DIDN'T know about that before the DLC. That's why there were speculations on where the story can go later.

Why are you talking about this as though we're still stuck back in that time frame and we are ignorant of the fact it was nothing at all, just some pointless easter egg?

You think that just because for one brief period of time we thought maybe Harley could be preggers that alters the fact she never was and nothing came of this pointless nonentity?

Did we know how much time passes after AC when it came out? Nope. At that time people speculated how the next game is going to be called Arkham World or something like that.

Fans speculate about lots of crazy theories like that. How does that negate the fact Rocksteady delivered nothing on that score? You act speculation which led to sweet bugger all was a great thing. If anything it makes it worse that something like that was a whole load of nothing.

That was my initial impression of Arkham Origins experience. "Why did I play this game?"

Well they say first impressions can be wrong.

Some better than other. Not as detailed as Batman and Joker, obviously. Since it's Batman games. But I like Joker/Harley relationship. I liked Scarecrow. I like Freeze. Killer Croc was really awesome in Asylum. Hush seemed like a great premise in City. And had one of better scenes in Knight.

What Joker/Harley relationship? Nothing was done with it in AA or AC. AK was just Harley trying to get Joker infected people simply because they had his blood in them. What exactly was so good about their relationship? Again Origins was the only one that actually took a look at their relationship in any detailed way.

Croc was a fun presence in Asylum, but his character was paper thin. Nothing more than a brainless feral monster who repeatedly charged at you no matter how many times you knocked him down. I won't pretend Origins broke new boundaries with him but they at least treated him as some kind of competent character with intelligence, who was aiding Black Mask.

Hush was a total waste. Mr. Freeze was great in all three games he was in.

I didn't care for Arkham Knight. But Scarecrow was interesting. I think, RS gave him enough time to shine. Joker had insane amount of time in RS games, interesting plot turns. Yes, Strange wasn't the main force behind it all in AC, neither Black Mask in Origins. So what? Typical stuff in Batman stories.

Joker had more exposure in AK than he did in any of the previous games, he even took over the finale of AK out shining and out screen timing Scarecrow.

Black Mask in Origins was not promoted for the entire game as the main threat. It was revealed early in the game that he had been abducted by Joker, and Joker was impersonating him. Even then Sionis came off better than Strange as he escaped, got his gang back, while Strange just ended up on the end of a sword after being revealed to be nothing more than a puppet. And this was at the end of the game. Our "pay off" for following this wafer thin story.

But then Strange was treated like a glorified cameo, and protocol 10 a side mission, with Joker's dull chase the cure plot taking precedence.

What if characters are already developed. What if their story arcs already happened? Joker does what he usually does. He doesn't have any story arc in Dark Knight. He's just a plot device there. So what?

Joker's character was well explored in TDK. We saw his views and attitudes towards money, power, insanity and morality, how he climbs his way from a bank robber to the ruler of the underworld. We get a full exploration of his relationship with Batman and how he goes from wanting him to dead to not being able to imagine life without him. We even get some great Killing Joke touches with the multiple back stories about how he got his cut smile.

What did we get from Joker in AA and AC? A kooky plot to make a Titan army, and a sick wheezing Joker waiting for his cure to be delivered while Clayface impersonates him.

It's Mark Hamill's energetic and brilliant vocals that make Joker such a great presence, and he has moments of brilliance, but as a character Joker and his character relationships go nowhere.

Whereas in AO we get the full monty. Batman, Harley, even his uneasy alliance with Bane and how they are polar opposites but still work together despite hating each other.

Black Mask was thrown under a bus to make Joker look better in Origins. Same thing. OK, Origins showed Joker and Bane as equals. Should it always be like that? You wanted a classic Bane - you got it in Origins.

Like I said above it's apples and oranges with Black Mask. He was not made out as a big nemesis throughout the game. They didn't dangle him on a string until the end and the dump on his it was Joker all along. We found that out early in the game. Unlike with Strange.

Yes it should always be like that with Bane. Do you really respect a game that makes Bane get defeated by being shut behind an elevator door?

Why on Earth? Different characters, different premises, different stories.

Every game that does villain team ups should do it that way. Doesn't matter who they are, or the premise of the game, if two major bads are teaming up then give each due respect. Don't reduce one villain in favor of another. Make them equals. Give them both their moments in the sun, even if they are vastly different to each other like Bane and Joker were. Good writing can support that kind of strength coming from one character, like Origins so brilliantly showed.

Origins just provided a number of character origins for Arkham universe. After that - all these villains just invent new ways to wreck Gotham and Batman's life.

Why do you keep trying to reduce the writing by implying establishing and developing characters and their important relationships is such a minor or unimpressive thing? It's easier to take characters off in stories once the ground work has been established. Origins was taking it back to scratch. And did it so so well.

 

[Snow Queen]

There are only two categories I can think of that I wouldn't give to Origins: gameplay (City is a bit more refined while not having the dreadful Batmobile stuff of Knight that drags it down) and atmosphere (Asylum, of course).

 

[batfreakforever]

This, I mean wow. I love the Arkham games. And I like Knight but in the series for me it's weak and game of the year? Joker what are these guys smoking please tell me? We've had 3 votes for game of the year here hahaha

It's more like are you guys batman or gaming fans or both? I can't tell.
You guys complain too much about the little things then make them into big or at least try to.
Are you guys playing the same game as us because the way you guys act is petty and whiny. Riddle trophy are easy. You guys want to smash through the game too quickly then complain it's too short and easy. So look up You Tube for walk troughs because it's too hard. Come on. And because some things are difficult makes it teidius. BS.
You can complain about a few things but to go on and on and on about every little thing is just....well you know the answer but this is the age we live in.

 

[The Joker]

Started to play Arkham Knight. I can already tell that it's going to take me a long time to play through it, because I quickly lose interest, every time I start to play. The game's beginning just hasn't managed to grab me like the 3 previous games did. I only reached the Ace Chemicals part right now, and I already feel like I'm blowing too much **** up.

Oh man you haven't seen anything yet. Wait til you get to your 1274573939767th tank battle, or militia tower take down. You'll be ready to pull your hair out.

Godisawesome and TheJoker you guys are hitting the nail on the head repeatedly Bravo just so well said. Love it.

Thank you

To me, what matters is the execution, not just the idea itself. Yeah, we know Alfred and Batman end up OK, but the quality of the writing and voice acting makes you forget, for even a few seconds, that they are.

Exactly.

Best Story writing snd characterization goes to Origins.

Easily. It's not even close.

 

[Broseph44]

+Least imaginative.

Bahhhhhahaha rightttttt

It's more like are you guys batman or gaming fans or both? I can't tell.
You guys complain too much about the little things then make them into big or at least try to.
Are you guys playing the same game as us because the way you guys act is petty and whiny. Riddle trophy are easy. You guys want to smash through the game too quickly then complain it's too short and easy. So look up You Tube for walk troughs because it's too hard. Come on. And because some things are difficult makes it teidius. BS.
You can complain about a few things but to go on and on and on about every little thing is just....well you know the answer but this is the age we live in.

 

[Broseph44]

The minute I saw this and knew there would be a batcave in the game. I immediately was able to predict the uninteresting boring story that would ensue with Bane breaking into it