Batman: Arkham Knight

[Nathan]

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.

Yeah, I'm totally going to avoid all that. I try to mainly stick to the story missions. If I start playing all those repetitive side missions, it'll just end with me not touching the game for several months. Please tell me those are mostly restricted to side missions.

 

[Broseph44]

Yeah, I'm totally going to avoid all that. I try to mainly stick to the story missions. If I start playing all those repetitive side missions, it'll just end with me not touching the game for several months. Please tell me those are mostly restricted to side missions.

Nope tank battles are a big part of the main story. Not just in side missions.

 

[BrollySupersj]

I know that you can't select alternate batmobiles before all tanks are destroyed, which is near the end. But how many side missions can be left alone till you can use other batmobiles?

 

[OutOfBoose]

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

Let's just leave it at that, OK? You prefer one thing, I prefer another.

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.

I always felt that certain set of characters in Arkham games was just to provide a player with unique gameplay challenges and decorations. Gameplay and atmosphere - first, story - second. All those deaths - just to give a story some edge. Not to dive into minds of criminals and heroes, while creating a strong story. They just based it off existing materials from comics and movies, and go from there. Serve it all there for gameplay purposes.

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.

4 last movies were heavy on Bruce-Alfred relationship. Looks like "to death" to me. One of them even featured near death experience for Alfred.

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.

I don't applaud, I just mentioned them as remotely emotional in attempt to recall any emotional scenes in the series. They're not the most important scenes.

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?

I didn't hear a thing about Asylum when I started to play it.

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.

Boring.

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

Alright, not always homages, but also series of fan service. Stuffing as much super-villains into a game, give them a brief moment to shine and leave them after that till the next game comes out. To give them a new brief moment. As for homages - to name a few: Alfred on a death bed (B&R), Babs getting shot (Killing Joke), Ra's trial (Begins and comics), Bane learning Batman's identity (DKR and comics), destruction of Batcave (Batman Forever), Harley's origin (BTAS and comics), Joker's origin (Killing Joke) ... More of that, half of characters, that present in those games are there just for fan service or homage's sake, cameos. Mad Hatter, Hush, Catwoman, bunch of Batman's allies and so many more.

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.

It's a figure of speech. But every time he blames himself for something. It became Batman's routine long time ago.

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?

Because it was the time when those sequences made some impact, opened possibilities, before RS flushed it all down the toilet with the DLC.

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?

It lasted a few months before the DLC. And yes, at that time it was perceived differently.

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.

It doesn't negate. I don't know, for better or worse, maybe it's good thing that they didn't go for Harley having a baby subplot. Creepy idea and doesn't belong to a game universe like Arkham. It can't be turned into something useful.

Well they say first impressions can be wrong.

Indeed, my opinion on Origins improved since then. Definitely has it's strong points.

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.

Given the overall sketchy nature of character development and motivation in Arkham games, it was pretty much everything it ever was. Joker being abusive and manipulative towards Harley and her being obsessive towards Joker. Origins had part of Harley's origin in the game just because they had to explain how Joker took over Blackgate (though I don't remember exactly if it's with her help or Joker did it on his own).

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.

Like almost all characters in Arkham games. In case of Croc, games didn't need to have him elaborate story or personality. It needed him to have an old grudge towards Batman and being scary as Hell.

Hush was a total waste.

Homage and fan service.

Mr. Freeze was great in all three games he was in.

Agreed.

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.

I liked it. It started and ended with the Joker. Good twist with fear gas and Joker's blood.

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.

Bane wasn't promoted as the main villain in AA either. But you set him as an example of a wasted character, sacrificed to make the Joker a more prominent villain. Which is exactly same thing with Origins. It doesn't matter how he ended up, it's not important in grand scheme of things.

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.

Not everything should go according to initial plan. Dull chase? Anything but dull. It's starts a bit like that (destroy antennas), but after that there's plenty of fun with many twists, focused and varied adventure.

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.

At what point did he want to kill the Bat? He tried to push Batman over the edge the whole time. And not only Batman. When he says "we, uh, kill the Batman", did he really mean it? I don't remember a single attempt at that.

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.

How is it any different from any other Joker stories? "I killed all your friends and I can't stop laughing..." That's all Joker ever was, as I remember. But I'm not an expert, so I may be wrong.

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.

Like pretty much everywhere (including Dark Knight), but his origin story. But is it even his origin story? He was a different person before going crazy.

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.

What full monty? Harleen isn't even Harley yet. OK, it was an interesting alliance between him and Bane, but should it be the same with all other super-villains? Why can't you accept something like Ra's manipulating Strange?

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, he's featured in the trailer, but the game is called Arkham City. And as it turned out, Arkham City holds more secrets, than just Strange's experiment.

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?

Oh, c'mon! If he was locked in a nuclear reactor, would it make you feel better? It was just a cameo for gameplay purposes.

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.

That's where I strongly disagree. It shouldn't be a solution for everything.

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.

Because it's taken from existing media. I don't see how it's a strong point of Origins. It wasn't invented by Origins, it was just pasted there with minor alterations. Origins has it's strengths, like, for example, Bane-Joker alliance. It's done in a very convincing way.

 

[godisawesome]

I think we need to acknowledge that the Arkham series has a broad spectrum of fans, some of whom are more Batman and the mythos fans and some of whom are more playing a video game as Batman fans. I think City may have been the closest we'll get to a mid-ground on that; as lackluster as the main story was, it still had some strong performance parts (I think the Clayface reveal is surprisingly effective and well done) and very immersive side stories, and probably the most praised gameplay leap and polish of the series. Knight was a step in further perfection of some of the gameplay mechanics and daring a new level with the Batmobile, very much favoring the playing a video game as Batman crowd, while Origins focused on polishing a story and characters to fulfil the Batman and the mythos crowd.

Even their advertising emphasized that. Origins was all about talking about the Eight Assasins plot, who they were and how the story would be a pivotal moment in Batman's maturity. Even their newest and best received gameplay mechanic, the crime vision, was built into making small stories entertaining. Knight was advertised as "Be the Batman," and their biggest change-up, the Batmobile, was all about making you feel like an unstoppable man-machine tag team.

For instance, I'm very much a mythos and character fan, so Origins clearly hit me a lot harder. OutOfBoose, am I correct in figuring you belong more to the Playing as Batman Crowd?

 

[Broseph44]

It's been so long since I've played Asylum and especially City. Really should replay them soon but wish we got remasters.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Can a whole bunch of us tweet Rocksteady and demand remasters?

 

[Broseph44]

Can a whole bunch of us tweet Rocksteady and demand remasters?

I don't have Twitter but you can tweet for me haha. Tell them we want them remastered and tweet WB Montreal and demand an Origins remaster thank you

 

[Rodrigo90]

I don't have Twitter but you can tweet for me haha. Tell them we want them remastered and tweet WB Montreal and demand an Origins remaster thank you

I tweeted Priyanka Chopra that a whole bunch of us want her for the role of Mera, too

 

[Nardz937]

Me after reading OutOfBoose posts.

 

[Broseph44]

Me after reading OutOfBoose posts.

Me after reading his posts and your reaction to his post

 

[Nardz937]

Me after reading his posts and your reaction to his post

Me reacting to your reaction about my reaction to OutOfBoose posts.

 

[The Joker]

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

Holy psychic ability, Batman!

Yeah, I'm totally going to avoid all that. I try to mainly stick to the story missions. If I start playing all those repetitive side missions, it'll just end with me not touching the game for several months. Please tell me those are mostly restricted to side missions.

Some of them are. Others are unavoidably part of the main story. Another thing is if you want the full game ending then you have to complete everything 100%.

Let's just leave it at that, OK? You prefer one thing, I prefer another.

Fair enough.

I always felt that certain set of characters in Arkham games was just to provide a player with unique gameplay challenges and decorations. Gameplay and atmosphere - first, story - second. All those deaths - just to give a story some edge. Not to dive into minds of criminals and heroes, while creating a strong story. They just based it off existing materials from comics and movies, and go from there. Serve it all there for gameplay purposes.

Minor characters like Zsasz I'd say yes are strictly there as plot devices for challenge and decoration. But not the major characters we've been discussing. And even then if a character is included in a minor capacity, it doesn't mean they should be reduced to some pathetic version of themselves like Bane, Two Face etc in the RS games.

4 last movies were heavy on Bruce-Alfred relationship. Looks like "to death" to me. One of them even featured near death experience for Alfred.

Wrong, they were not HEAVY on it, they just featured it, and none of them covered the kind of ground we've been discussing in Origins, including Alfred's "near death" experience where he was ill from a disease in B&R. Apples and oranges to being fatally attacked by the villain because of Batman.

I don't applaud, I just mentioned them as remotely emotional in attempt to recall any emotional scenes in the series. They're not the most important scenes.

But you claim you don't recall Alfred's one because in your view it has been done to death, yet you recall something that is even more frequent in Batman lore.

This is why your views make no sense to me. You've got some sort of strange double standard.

I didn't hear a thing about Asylum when I started to play it.

But if you had you'd have jumped to the same 2+2=5 conclusion about a Batcave and Bane right?

Boring.

Emotionally thrilling and exciting.

Alright, not always homages, but also series of fan service. Stuffing as much super-villains into a game, give them a brief moment to shine and leave them after that till the next game comes out. To give them a new brief moment. As for homages - to name a few: Alfred on a death bed (B&R), Babs getting shot (Killing Joke), Ra's trial (Begins and comics), Bane learning Batman's identity (DKR and comics), destruction of Batcave (Batman Forever), Harley's origin (BTAS and comics), Joker's origin (Killing Joke) ... More of that, half of characters, that present in those games are there just for fan service or homage's sake, cameos. Mad Hatter, Hush, Catwoman, bunch of Batman's allies and so many more.

Yeah they're homages as part of the the character's story. They incorporate comic book elements as part of their writing, which is only right. That's totally different to what you were saying before. You said all the emotional scenes are just brief homages. They are not. Furthermore as if they were trying to homage Batman and Robin of all things just because Alfred was attacked and nearly killed. Ridiculous. It's not even the same situation as what happened in that awful movie. No offense but talk about clutching at straws.

It's a figure of speech. But every time he blames himself for something. It became Batman's routine long time ago.

More straw clutching. Every hero blames themselves for something. Just like every hero suffers a failure, or a loss, or quits at some point etc. It's a vague umbrella heading. They don't all come off as the same because every situation is different.

Because it was the time when those sequences made some impact, opened possibilities, before RS flushed it all down the toilet with the DLC.

So what? Seriously why does that matter? You're talking about a brief period of time where fans were deluded into thinking Rocksteady was going to deliver something that they never did. Why do you think that is something worthy of praise? It's not. Total opposite. It should be criticized for being a total waste that came to nothing.

It lasted a few months before the DLC. And yes, at that time it was perceived differently.

Again so what? Why does a false perception make for something positive? Raising gamer hopes and then dashing them, that's something you think all good games should do is it?

It doesn't negate. I don't know, for better or worse, maybe it's good thing that they didn't go for Harley having a baby subplot. Creepy idea and doesn't belong to a game universe like Arkham. It can't be turned into something useful.

That's not really what I asked you. Nothing positive came from this, so why you keep going on about a time when fans were deluded into getting excited about a whole load of nothing is beyond me.

Talk about something fans got excited about which RS delivered on, then you'd have something worthy of a defense for them, not this tiny Harley pregnant nonentity easter egg you're clinging to like it's a good thing.

Indeed, my opinion on Origins improved since then. Definitely has it's strong points.

Glad to hear you gained some appreciation for it.

Given the overall sketchy nature of character development and motivation in Arkham games, it was pretty much everything it ever was. Joker being abusive and manipulative towards Harley and her being obsessive towards Joker. Origins had part of Harley's origin in the game just because they had to explain how Joker took over Blackgate (though I don't remember exactly if it's with her help or Joker did it on his own).

Joker was not abusive or manipulative towards her in the games. They had no contact with each other in AA escaped via monitors where Joker would bark out an order like he did with his generic henchmen. In AC she has one scene with him where they act out the charade of Joker being dead to trap Batman. That's it.

In Origins we saw Harley emotionally and mentally connect to Joker, and even empathize with what he was saying. You got nothing like that in RS games. And no, Harley's inclusion in AO had nothing to do with how Joker took over Blackgate.

Like almost all characters in Arkham games. In case of Croc, games didn't need to have him elaborate story or personality. It needed him to have an old grudge towards Batman and being scary as Hell.

Absolutely not. Having a grudge and being scary describes something all veteran Batman villains should have. That is not nearly enough to make for a great character, unless you're wasting them as a plot device.

Croc was basically brainless monster.

Homage and fan service.

Which made for a total waste.

I liked it. It started and ended with the Joker. Good twist with fear gas and Joker's blood.

It shouldn't have started and ended with the Joker. Joker's story was done in AC when he died. The only thing that needed addressing was what happen to his poison the city ploy, which I give AK credit for addressing. Bringing him back in such a hokey way to dominate the story at the expense of the other main villains again was awful. I say that as an obvious Joker fan, but his inclusion in the game, like with the Batmobile, really hurt it.

One of the things fans were rightfully looking forward to was a game where Joker wasn't the main focus.

Bane wasn't promoted as the main villain in AA either. But you set him as an example of a wasted character, sacrificed to make the Joker a more prominent villain. Which is exactly same thing with Origins. It doesn't matter how he ended up, it's not important in grand scheme of things.

No it's not the same thing at all. Bane in AA was a drug pumped puppet whom we didn't even hear about in the game until seconds before you fight him, and he's never seen again after that. Compared to Sionis whom was there from the get-go of the game, and even after it's revealed he's being impersonated by Joker, he still comes off better as he is rescued by Batman, escapes, regains control of his gang etc. Bane in AA starts and ends with the generic titan fight.

Not everything should go according to initial plan. Dull chase? Anything but dull. It's starts a bit like that (destroy antennas), but after that there's plenty of fun with many twists, focused and varied adventure.

Yes in this case it should go according to initial plan considering how they played this out was beyond moronic. There was no twists or turns. It was just one glorified fetch the cure for the Joker story, and it had nothing to do with the premise of Arkham City. The gang wars in AC, the actual setting of AC itself really has no relevance to the overall plot. You could have had the chase the cure plot set anywhere in Gotham, or any city. Only Protocol 10 is really relevant to it, and that doesn't come into relevance until the end, and it's not even the main climax of the game either. It felt like a side mission.

At what point did he want to kill the Bat? He tried to push Batman over the edge the whole time. And not only Batman. When he says "we, uh, kill the Batman", did he really mean it? I don't remember a single attempt at that.

Trying to force Batman to unmask himself and turn himself in was his attempt to "kill the Batman" because that would mean the end of Batman. Really did you need that spelled out for you?

Then compare that to later in the movie where he effectively protects Batman's identity when Reese is about to reveal it on TV, because in his own words a world without Batman to him would be so boring.

Great parallel to how far Joker's view came on Batman since the beginning of the movie.

How is it any different from any other Joker stories? "I killed all your friends and I can't stop laughing..." That's all Joker ever was, as I remember. But I'm not an expert, so I may be wrong.

This can't be a serious question. Think of the best Joker stories that actually do something with his character, and compare them to some silly plot about trying to make a Bane army, or just sending Batman on a fetch the cure quest. You're telling me you can't see a difference?

The likes of The killing Joke is basically "I killed all your friends and I can't stop laughing" to you? Because if it is, well no offense but the point of those stories went right over your head.

Like pretty much everywhere (including Dark Knight), but his origin story. But is it even his origin story? He was a different person before going crazy.

Absolutely not. The best Joker stories always show development. Including The Dark Knight, which is one of the best examples of showing Joker grow as a character, not just as a villain, but in his attitude towards Batman.

Or to give you a comic book example, take the aforementioned Killing Joke, where we see Batman make a genuine attempt to reach out to him to rehabilitate him. We see a new angle to Joker in his belief that he can make anyone be as crazy as he is if they just have one bad day like he had. Treading new ground, and doing it with depth and substance.

What full monty? Harleen isn't even Harley yet. OK, it was an interesting alliance between him and Bane, but should it be the same with all other super-villains? Why can't you accept something like Ra's manipulating Strange?

It's not about Harley being Harley Quinn yet, it shows how they bond and he gets inside her head. It sets the key foundations of their relationship. It actually delves into it a bit, something the previous games didn't. Harley was just an action piece.

I don't accept Ra's having Strange as a puppet because it was a monumental waste of a great character. And it really reduced Strange to nothing more than a pathetic lackey.

Why would that be acceptable?

Yes, he's featured in the trailer, but the game is called Arkham City. And as it turned out, Arkham City holds more secrets, than just Strange's experiment.

I'm not talking about the trailer, I'm talking about the game itself. It starts with Batman being determined to find out what Strange is up to with Protocol 10. The most bizarre thing is Batman abandons finding out what Hugo Strange is up to and goes hunting Joker just because Joker took a pot shot at Catwoman. Why would he do that? I mean he's the Joker. It's what he does. He's already locked up in Arkham City. What's Batman going to do when he finds him, give him a good talking to?

From here the game turns into a fetching quest that has nothing to do with Arkham City's setting. It's just background noise for the chase the cure plot.

Oh, c'mon! If he was locked in a nuclear reactor, would it make you feel better? It was just a cameo for gameplay purposes.

Yes, that would make me feel better. Anything that could credibly stop Bane would have been better. Making a comical charge at Batman, and then trapping himself behind a flimsy elevator gate that any version of Bane would be able to tear down like paper is the height of stupidity. Classic example of how badly RS writes it's characters.

That's where I strongly disagree. It shouldn't be a solution for everything.

Good writing is always the solution. Always.

Because it's taken from existing media. I don't see how it's a strong point of Origins. It wasn't invented by Origins, it was just pasted there with minor alterations. Origins has it's strengths, like, for example, Bane-Joker alliance. It's done in a very convincing way.

The entire comic book lore of movies, games, TV shows etc is taken from existing media. They don't invent it, but they weave it onto a great story. We all sing their praises for it. Rocksteady couldn't even do that, despite having a wealth of great material from decades to work off as a basis.

Me after reading OutOfBoose posts.

 

[spiderman2]

Really dude? Haha

Yes city was my 2nd favorite video game of all time. Origins was my 3erd favorite even though the story sucked and asylum while not in top 10 but like top 20 and knight is even better then city so yes knight may be the best video game ever made!

 

[spiderman2]

Bruce and Alfred's argument late in the game got to me. I'm so used to seeing their relationship as casual and detached in these games, then they get all emotional and aggressive. It was really nice to see.

That and bane breaking into the cave was the only good thing about origins story. Ever thing else about the story sucked and was very perdectable.

 

[Nathan]

Some of them are. Others are unavoidably part of the main story. Another thing is if you want the full game ending then you have to complete everything 100%.

Already youtubed that. There was no way that I was going through all the Riddler challenges for that.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Minor characters like Zsasz I'd say yes are strictly there as plot devices for challenge and decoration. But not the major characters we've been discussing. And even then if a character is included in a minor capacity, it doesn't mean they should be reduced to some pathetic version of themselves like Bane, Two Face etc in the RS games.

Let's leave it like this, then. RS's approach to Batman mythos is dictated by gameplay. Idea behind Origins was to create an introduction to the world of Arkham, gameplay came second. I can imagine how focus on storytelling influenced the crime scene reconstruction - the only improvement on gameplay side.

Wrong, they were not HEAVY on it, they just featured it, and none of them covered the kind of ground we've been discussing in Origins, including Alfred's "near death" experience where he was ill from a disease in B&R. Apples and oranges to being fatally attacked by the villain because of Batman.

Alright. They weren't heavy on it. Just featured it. Just like Origins. Ultimately, it provided little emotional difference for me. But I'm not gonna claim it's the only way to view those things.

But you claim you don't recall Alfred's one because in your view it has been done to death, yet you recall something that is even more frequent in Batman lore.

Again, Bruce parents death just came to my mind when I tried to recall emotional scenes in Arkham games. In AA it was fear-induced flashaback. In AC you just accidentally bump into the alley where it happened. Batman leaves flowers there. I don't know why, it stuck in my mind. It made me recall Arkham Asylum experience and maybe even Batman movies, that I saw as a kid. If I remember correctly, Origins also has a scene with dead folks, but I totally forgot about it too. Because, I don't know, it was done to death by then?

But if you had you'd have jumped to the same 2+2=5 conclusion about a Batcave and Bane right?

If grandma had balls, she'd be grandpa. At that point, after all attacks on Batmansion, Batcave, Batman's broken back, Bane's deduction skills, it seemed fairly predictable in Origins. But whatever. If you don't buy it - fine by me.

Emotionally thrilling and exciting.

To each his own.

Yeah they're homages as part of the the character's story. They incorporate comic book elements as part of their writing, which is only right. That's totally different to what you were saying before. You said all the emotional scenes are just brief homages. They are not. Furthermore as if they were trying to homage Batman and Robin of all things just because Alfred was attacked and nearly killed. Ridiculous. It's not even the same situation as what happened in that awful movie. No offense but talk about clutching at straws.

OK, it wasn't a homage to B&R. But to me it looked routinely and unimaginative. Doesn't change the outcome and perception of that scene for me.

More straw clutching. Every hero blames themselves for something. Just like every hero suffers a failure, or a loss, or quits at some point etc. It's a vague umbrella heading. They don't all come off as the same because every situation is different.

Not every. But since we talk about Batman, in his case, it became a routine.

So what? Seriously why does that matter? You're talking about a brief period of time where fans were deluded into thinking Rocksteady was going to deliver something that they never did. Why do you think that is something worthy of praise? It's not. Total opposite. It should be criticized for being a total waste that came to nothing.

Because I remember it as something worthy of praise. I remembered that scene, I find that scene creepy and emotional. Memorable.

Again so what? Why does a false perception make for something positive?

Just forget it. You won't understand. I can live with that.

Joker was not abusive or manipulative towards her in the games. They had no contact with each other in AA escaped via monitors where Joker would bark out an order like he did with his generic henchmen. In AC she has one scene with him where they act out the charade of Joker being dead to trap Batman. That's it.

The nature of their relationship was relatively clear. Harley is obsessed with Joker and ready to do anything for him. Joker is dismissive and rough to her, maybe just like to any other of his henchmen, true. But we talk about established characters and dynamics between them. Not origins story. Funny thing, I recall Batgirl DLC in AK, where Joker holds Harley as a hostage, but it was made by Origins creators, if I'm correct. But "Joker" takes her as a hostage even in the main game.

In Origins we saw Harley emotionally and mentally connect to Joker, and even empathize with what he was saying. You got nothing like that in RS games.

Straight out of BtAS and Killing Joke. Not something Origins should be praised for. Harley is more than emotionally and mentally connected to Joker in RS trilogy. She's obsessively in love. It's her main drive in everything she does there. In all three games.

Absolutely not. Having a grudge and being scary describes something all veteran Batman villains should have. That is not nearly enough to make for a great character, unless you're wasting them as a plot device.

I never said Croc makes a great character. My point was - Croc, just like nearly all characters in Arkham games exist to provide gameplay and set pieces. It just happens, that some characters are more important to the story, than others.

Croc was basically brainless monster.

That's all that was needed from him.

Which made for a total waste.

Cameo is a cameo. You can put so many villains and make them equally important to the main plot. If you didn't like it, fine. But I took it as what it was and wasn't disappointed.

It shouldn't have started and ended with the Joker. Joker's story was done in AC when he died. The only thing that needed addressing was what happen to his poison the city ploy, which I give AK credit for addressing. Bringing him back in such a hokey way to dominate the story at the expense of the other main villains again was awful. I say that as an obvious Joker fan, but his inclusion in the game, like with the Batmobile, really hurt it.

Matter of preferences. I find the Joker "presence" in AK interesting and an attempt to do something fresh. Don't start on how using Joker for the third time is something fresh. Origins is about the Joker too. But the way it was done in AK was one of the best things the series.

One of the things fans were rightfully looking forward to was a game where Joker wasn't the main focus.

To me it didn't feel like he was the main focus in AK. It existed there more like a legacy.

No it's not the same thing at all. Bane in AA was a drug pumped puppet whom we didn't even hear about in the game until seconds before you fight him, and he's never seen again after that. Compared to Sionis whom was there from the get-go of the game, and even after it's revealed he's being impersonated by Joker, he still comes off better as he is rescued by Batman, escapes, regains control of his gang etc. Bane in AA starts and ends with the generic titan fight.

Maybe there's a bit more content in Origins, but ultimately it's the same thing. Double standards on your side.

Yes in this case it should go according to initial plan considering how they played this out was beyond moronic. There was no twists or turns. It was just one glorified fetch the cure for the Joker story, and it had nothing to do with the premise of Arkham City. The gang wars in AC, the actual setting of AC itself really has no relevance to the overall plot. You could have had the chase the cure plot set anywhere in Gotham, or any city. Only Protocol 10 is really relevant to it, and that doesn't come into relevance until the end, and it's not even the main climax of the game either. It felt like a side mission.

It didn't feel like a glorified fetch quest to me, even it was in nature, since the process was fun. I guess, it was one of those case when it was not what, but how. But to each his own. I'm satisfied with Arkham City as a playground for villains, where most of them follow their own goals. And where Batman's task is to apprehend them all.

Trying to force Batman to unmask himself and turn himself in was his attempt to "kill the Batman" because that would mean the end of Batman. Really did you need that spelled out for you?

Then compare that to later in the movie where he effectively protects Batman's identity when Reese is about to reveal it on TV, because in his own words a world without Batman to him would be so boring.

It didn't look like unmasking Batman was his goal. First he wants that, then he suddenly doesn't. There's no arc for Joker in the movie at all, as much as I can see. He's just a force there (does things), that influences all other characters.

Great parallel to how far Joker's view came on Batman since the beginning of the movie.

What was his view on Batman in the beginning? If it was different, what made him change his views?

This can't be a serious question. Think of the best Joker stories that actually do something with his character, and compare them to some silly plot about trying to make a Bane army, or just sending Batman on a fetch the cure quest. You're telling me you can't see a difference?

Most of the stories about the Joker, that I know. With one exception.

The likes of The killing Joke is basically "I killed all your friends and I can't stop laughing" to you? Because if it is, well no offense but the point of those stories went right over your head.

This exception is The Killing Joke. Maybe Arkham Asylum comic book. But as I said earlier, I don't know ALL stories about the Joker. I'm judging by those I know.

Absolutely not. The best Joker stories always show development. Including The Dark Knight, which is one of the best examples of showing Joker grow as a character, not just as a villain, but in his attitude towards Batman.

Elaborate please. I'm sorry, I don't see any growth of Joker in Dark Knight. He doesn't change his views, all he does is "pushing" people over the edge.

It's not about Harley being Harley Quinn yet, it shows how they bond and he gets inside her head. It sets the key foundations of their relationship. It actually delves into it a bit, something the previous games didn't. Harley was just an action piece.

Because previous games weren't origin stories. Everything was already set.

I don't accept Ra's having Strange as a puppet because it was a monumental waste of a great character. And it really reduced Strange to nothing more than a pathetic lackey.

I'm sorry, I don't see it as something terrible. Lackey of Ra's. Scarecrow was reduced to lackey of Ra's in Batman Begins. Ra's isn't Killer Croc.

I'm not talking about the trailer, I'm talking about the game itself. It starts with Batman being determined to find out what Strange is up to with Protocol 10. The most bizarre thing is Batman abandons finding out what Hugo Strange is up to and goes hunting Joker just because Joker took a pot shot at Catwoman. Why would he do that? I mean he's the Joker. It's what he does. He's already locked up in Arkham City. What's Batman going to do when he finds him, give him a good talking to?

Well, actually, Catwoman says to Batman that there's a rumor Strange is working with Joker and Protocol 10 is one big surprise for Batman. Now wonder Batman navigates to Joker after that. Get poisoned and then pressing matters first...

Yes, that would make me feel better. Anything that could credibly stop Bane would have been better. Making a comical charge at Batman, and then trapping himself behind a flimsy elevator gate that any version of Bane would be able to tear down like paper is the height of stupidity. Classic example of how badly RS writes it's characters.

It's silly how something primitive and nearly non-existent can drive some people mad. Talking about overreacting. Bad writing, my ass. They probably just didn't bother creating unique asset as Bane's incarceration, because they had much better things to do. How do you look at Batman hanging Bane in Origins or restraining that insane beast with two grapples. Very convincing and safe.

The entire comic book lore of movies, games, TV shows etc is taken from existing media. They don't invent it, but they weave it onto a great story. We all sing their praises for it. Rocksteady couldn't even do that, despite having a wealth of great material from decades to work off as a basis.

Even the dullest example of Arkham Knight character proves what you're saying is far from the whole truth. Things get invented constantly. But in case of Origins, I'll repeat, they played it too safe.

 

[OutOfBoose]

So beautiful...

Spoiler

 

[Slade W]

They were good scenes. The Ra's DLC was good too, in terms of gameplay and story, IMO.

 

[The Slang]

The expansion pack was pretty good. I noticed that there's now an option to use the Red Hood skin for Arkham Knight, and you can use the classic Harley skin too. That's a nice touch. Kind of makes me want to play through again.

 

[Nardz937]

The expansion pack was pretty good. I noticed that there's now an option to use the Red Hood skin for Arkham Knight, and you can use the classic Harley skin too. That's a nice touch. Kind of makes me want to play through again.

I love those skins! Played through their story packs for the first time using them.

 

[Drz]

Don't post pictures of the expansion pack when it's barely been out?

 

[OutOfBoose]

The expansion pack was pretty good. I noticed that there's now an option to use the Red Hood skin for Arkham Knight, and you can use the classic Harley skin too. That's a nice touch. Kind of makes me want to play through again.

You can't change them for the main campaign, only for their separate story bits.

Don't post pictures of the expansion pack when it's barely been out?

Pardon. Edited.

 

[The Joker]

Let's leave it like this, then. RS's approach to Batman mythos is dictated by gameplay. Idea behind Origins was to create an introduction to the world of Arkham, gameplay came second. I can imagine how focus on storytelling influenced the crime scene reconstruction - the only improvement on gameplay side.

I put it like this; Origins approach was create a rich world of Batman characterization, as well as delivering a great gaming experience. The best of both worlds, which is why it's the best game of the series.

Alright. They weren't heavy on it. Just featured it. Just like Origins. Ultimately, it provided little emotional difference for me. But I'm not gonna claim it's the only way to view those things.

That's your loss. But then your standards are clearly different when a pregnancy stick easter egg on the floor that went nowhere leaves an emotional impression on you.

Again, Bruce parents death just came to my mind when I tried to recall emotional scenes in Arkham games. In AA it was fear-induced flashaback. In AC you just accidentally bump into the alley where it happened. Batman leaves flowers there. I don't know why, it stuck in my mind. It made me recall Arkham Asylum experience and maybe even Batman movies, that I saw as a kid. If I remember correctly, Origins also has a scene with dead folks, but I totally forgot about it too. Because, I don't know, it was done to death by then?

There's your bizarre double standard again. They revisited the parents death scene in Origins, but you say you don't remember it, yet you remember the two in the previous games, and it was no more done to death in 2013 than it was in 2009 and 11.

FYI Batman did not leave flowers in the alley in AC. Strange did.

If grandma had balls, she'd be grandpa. At that point, after all attacks on Batmansion, Batcave, Batman's broken back, Bane's deduction skills, it seemed fairly predictable in Origins. But whatever. If you don't buy it - fine by me.

But there was no Batmansion or Batman's broken back in Origins, so you were still making a huge leap based on two pieces generic info; a Batcave in the game, and Bane.

No offense but I don't buy it.

OK, it wasn't a homage to B&R. But to me it looked routinely and unimaginative. Doesn't change the outcome and perception of that scene for me.

You can perceive it any way you want, but your reasoning for what it was is totally false. Scenes of Alfred on death's door from a villain's attack are few and far between.

Not every. But since we talk about Batman, in his case, it became a routine.

Yes every hero has done it at some point. Nearly everything that happens in the Arkham games is routine fare in Batman lore. It's what they do with it that makes it stand out.

For example Hugo Strange knew Batman's identity in the comics, but unlike the comics AC didn't do a single interesting thing with that plot thread.

Because I remember it as something worthy of praise. I remembered that scene, I find that scene creepy and emotional. Memorable.

Except it wasn't. You are the first person ever to make such a big deal out of something so inconsequential and a total waste of time.

The nature of their relationship was relatively clear. Harley is obsessed with Joker and ready to do anything for him. Joker is dismissive and rough to her, maybe just like to any other of his henchmen, true. But we talk about established characters and dynamics between them. Not origins story. Funny thing, I recall Batgirl DLC in AK, where Joker holds Harley as a hostage, but it was made by Origins creators, if I'm correct. But "Joker" takes her as a hostage even in the main game.

The nature of their relationship was standard henchgirl and henchman. She was running around doing naughty things with little interaction with him. She could have been one of the molls off the 60's Batman show most of the time.

There's more Harley/Joker interaction in the therapy scene in AO alone than in all three of Rocksteady's games. Tells you everything.

Straight out of BtAS and Killing Joke. Not something Origins should be praised for. Harley is more than emotionally and mentally connected to Joker in RS trilogy. She's obsessively in love. It's her main drive in everything she does there. In all three games.

Well of course it's inspired from BTAS and Killing Joke. Where else do you expect them to get their inspiration from, Green Lantern comics? You keep missing the point on this. They took the threads and DNA of these characters and stories and turned then into an effective tale. Rocksteady couldn't do the same, in spite of them having a wealth of great material like BTAS and stories like TKJ on hand.

I never said Croc makes a great character. My point was - Croc, just like nearly all characters in Arkham games exist to provide gameplay and set pieces. It just happens, that some characters are more important to the story, than others.

Which was wrong. Just because a character doesn't have a huge role doesn't mean their inclusion should be reduced to such wafer thin characterization. Two Face is another example of a one dimensional characterization.

That's all that was needed from him.

No we didn't. Hush had much more potential than just a lame hostage scene with Fox.

Cameo is a cameo. You can put so many villains and make them equally important to the main plot. If you didn't like it, fine. But I took it as what it was and wasn't disappointed.

Then your standards are lower than mine.

Matter of preferences. I find the Joker "presence" in AK interesting and an attempt to do something fresh. Don't start on how using Joker for the third time is something fresh. Origins is about the Joker too. But the way it was done in AK was one of the best things the series.

No it didn't. It was actually the worst handling of the character in AK. He brought nothing to the story other than a constant presence trolling Batman. Joker's "fear" of being forgotten was also pointless because he's dead. A dead character doesn't have fear of anything.

Origins showed us the rise of the Joker, and how he came to have his fascinating relationship with Batman and Harley. More insight than we got in the previous games. That's a fact.

To me it didn't feel like he was the main focus in AK. It existed there more like a legacy.

Between his constant presence in the game, the whole Joker infected plot, and even taking over the finale of the game, he was very much the focus.

Maybe there's a bit more content in Origins, but ultimately it's the same thing. Double standards on your side.

No maybe, there is. And it's not the same thing. One character was not reduced to a puppet who comes and goes and one scene. So the double standard I'm afraid is still very much yours.

It didn't feel like a glorified fetch quest to me, even it was in nature, since the process was fun. I guess, it was one of those case when it was not what, but how. But to each his own. I'm satisfied with Arkham City as a playground for villains, where most of them follow their own goals. And where Batman's task is to apprehend them all.

You spend the whole game running around after a cure. Of course it was a glorified fetch quest. Arkham City, Hugo Strange, the gang wars etc were just background noise. The only villain we saw try and pursue any kind of personal goal was Penguin adding people to his museum. Freeze was a pawn in the cure chase. Ra's was part of the cure chase. Joker was just a sickly character waiting for his cure. And the rest were cameos.

It didn't look like unmasking Batman was his goal. First he wants that, then he suddenly doesn't. There's no arc for Joker in the movie at all, as much as I can see. He's just a force there (does things), that influences all other characters.

Yes there was. He swore people would die until Batman unmasked himself. That's why he was killing. Through this game that he saw how much fun it was to challenge Batman to the point that he doesn't want to kill him because he makes it all so much fun.

I don't know how you didn't get this.

What was his view on Batman in the beginning? If it was different, what made him change his views?

Get rid of the Batman was his first view of him. Nothing more than a nuisance. Then when he was actually challenged by Batman he saw how much fun he was to challenge.

Most of the stories about the Joker, that I know. With one exception.

Have you only read one Joker story then?

This exception is The Killing Joke. Maybe Arkham Asylum comic book. But as I said earlier, I don't know ALL stories about the Joker. I'm judging by those I know.

Then your reading scope of him must be very limited. I suggest you check out tales like The Laughing Fish, The Man Who Laughs etc. He is far from just being I killed all your friends and I'm laughing type character. How one dimensional that would be.

Elaborate please. I'm sorry, I don't see any growth of Joker in Dark Knight. He doesn't change his views, all he does is "pushing" people over the edge.

I've already elaborated above. It's amazing that it flew over your head like that.

Because previous games weren't origin stories. Everything was already set.

That's no excuse. On what planet is an origin story the only type of story that gets inside the characters and develops them?

I'm sorry, I don't see it as something terrible. Lackey of Ra's. Scarecrow was reduced to lackey of Ra's in Batman Begins. Ra's isn't Killer Croc.

Scarecrow wasn't promoted as a big bad in Begins. He's a newbie villain, and he's clearly working for a higher power from the get-go. That is made clear. Strange is reduced to a cameo role where he is reduced to a puppet and killed off.

I don't get your point about Ra's not being Killer Croc.

Well, actually, Catwoman says to Batman that there's a rumor Strange is working with Joker and Protocol 10 is one big surprise for Batman. Now wonder Batman navigates to Joker after that. Get poisoned and then pressing matters first...

No, after Joker takes a shot at Catwoman, Batman triangulates the position of the shot, contacts Alfred and says Joker was behind it, and is going after him. It had nothing to do with the "rumor" Catwoman mentioned.

It's silly how something primitive and nearly non-existent can drive some people mad. Talking about overreacting. Bad writing, my ass. They probably just didn't bother creating unique asset as Bane's incarceration, because they had much better things to do. How do you look at Batman hanging Bane in Origins or restraining that insane beast with two grapples. Very convincing and safe.

It might be silly to you that one of Batman's A-list villains was reduced to such a pathetic joke. Maybe that's why you favor RS writing because that kind of shoddy characterization appeals to you. I don't know. But your standards are clearly much lower.

Bane being subdued by two cables, after taking two separate monstrous beatings by Batman was perfectly acceptable. He was worn down and beaten out. He didn't take one comical charge and get himself stuck behind a gate. That's writing worthy of a Joel Schumacher Batman movie.

Even the dullest example of Arkham Knight character proves what you're saying is far from the whole truth. Things get invented constantly. But in case of Origins, I'll repeat, they played it too safe.

How does it prove that? All AK proves is that Rocksteady are still incapable of telling a good story. If you call telling a great story playing it safe, and reducing characters to paper thin characterizations, comical buffoons, and lackeys inventive, then I hope the Batman gaming industry stays the playing it safe route for a long time to come.

 

[The Slang]

You can't change them for the main campaign, only for their separate story bits.

Aww