The Batman Game We're Never Getting

[RioDragon]

The Batman Game We're Never Getting

I just wanted to make this topic really to talk about an underlying concern I have had about the Batman games, and I wanted to talk about it while the Arkham series is fresh in my mind considering Batman: Arkham Knight is apparently going to get an 'M' rating.

Now, I have no issues with mature storytelling, or why would I be here on this forum and why would I consider The Witcher among my favorite game series of all time? I do take a bit of an issue with an M-rated Batman game though because I've always had this itching concern about the Arkham games; they aren't about Batman the hero, cleaning up the streets of Gotham, they're about Batman the psychopath fighting other psychopaths. Slapping an M-rating onto that raises a red flag that this newest game will be even further from what I've always wanted of a game with the Batman license, to feel like Batman the hero.

Lately there's too much focus on Batman as a dark, vengeance-fueled vigilante and almost no mention or evidence in these games that he does it for the people of his city. Compare the approach of the Arkham games to the games of say, Spider-man. It's not too much of a stretch to compare the two characters on their own, both characters have their inner demons that led them to becoming costumed vigilantes, both characters through powers or through gadgets are agile and able to protect the citizens of their city from any angle, both characters seem to inspire their villains into being (at least to the public eye), and both heroes are occasionally vilified.

However, as far as games are concerned, only Spider-man has had multiple games mechanically built around BEING a hero. Famously, the tie-in game for the film Spider-Man 2 (at least the console versions of the game) were open world, ala Grand Theft Auto III, where you could explore the entire city with your powers, fight villains, AND SAVE PEOPLE, and to this day it's considered one of the best superhero and movie license games ever made. Ultimate Spider-Man played largely the same in the Peter Parker portion and had a secondary section where you could play as legendary villain Venom through the same open world, and that game was also very warmly received. Spider-Man 3's tie-in played largely similar to these but received less of a positive reaction most likely as a knee-jerk reaction because the movie was pretty bad, but the open-world 'I'm a superhero saving people in an open city' mantra continued in the tie-in for the more recent Amazing Spider-Man with a better response, and then in Amazing Spider-Man 2 to a more negative response (mostly because they forced a notoriety simulation system into the basic gameplay... Also the movie wasn't too great, AGAIN).

Batman's gaming track record? Beat-em-ups. A LOT of side-scrolling and 3D, level-based, beat-em-ups. Then there was a modest success with a stealth game in Batman Begins, then the Arkham games came along and mixed the beat-em-up with the stealth game, and then implemented open worlds WITHOUT innocent civilians. Arkham City had the convenient excuse of 'we made a prison out of the slums and evacuated all the locals before we did this', as illogical as that was. In Arkham Origins, you could do crime-in-progress missions which were always about saving POLICE, not unarmed citizens. Arkham knight, we're getting the whole city of Gotham, but, AGAIN, we're supposed to buy that they were somehow able to evacuate the ENTIRE CITY OF GOTHAM before the game's events so that you can throw your supervillain action figures at the Batman without repercussions.

I'm probably assuming too much by thinking Arkham Knight won't deliver on the heroism aspect of the character, but so far all we've had is a story-focused stealth-beat-em-up, even when it went open-world. Could they maybe include innocents and have that be part of the reason for Arkham Knight's possibly upcoming M-rating? Quite possibly, but so far from what I played of the Arkham games it's more likely they just put in something extremely graphic or dialogue that goes too far for shock value. Rocksteady so far have not struck me as people who think about making an intelligent use of mature content. These are the devs who blatantly redesigned Harley Quinn to wear a short skirt and cleavage-exposing corset rather than the classic harlequin costume, which being skin tight, was already sexy while remaining classy. These were the devs that made Edward Nigma make a dead baby joke in game one. These are the devs that gave Poison Ivy nothing to wear but a shirt over her boobs and leaves over her crotch for no reason. These are the devs that

Spoiler

ENDED GAME TWO BY KILLING THE MOST POPULAR VILLAIN IN THE FRANCHISE AND HAD HARLEY QUINN LIE ABOUT BEING PREGNANT WITH HIS BABY or whatever happened to the pregnancy plotline

. What I'm saying is, Rocksteady don't know how to do 'Mature' and be tasteful about it, not so far.

May we eventually get a Batman game that remembers the character as a hero rather than just a dark, brooding, kickass badass? Who knows? Do you think it'll happen anytime soon? Is that even the kind of game other people want or is it just me who's tired of the recent trend? Do you think Arkham Knight being M-rated would be good or bad for the franchise? Any predictions?

 

[Edo34]

Sefton Hill(game's director and this time writer as well)said that they were not going it for that rating specifically.It actually surprised him that the game is M rated.

Anyway,wanting something more than just "a story-focused stealth-beat-em-up" is ok I guess.I myself can't wait for Arkham Knight and consider Asylum & City to be amongst the best(if not the best )superhero games.One thing that annoys me though is that so many games these days are implementing combat from Arkham series that it really is getting out of hand.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

You have to remember that there is a huge difference between Spiderman and Batman, and their whole approach to what they do. Spiderman is more the "classic hero" out to save the day, and rescue the damsel in distress, etc. Batman is out there to bring fear and "justice" to criminals, not save kittens from trees. In this sense he's closer to Frank Castle (The Punisher), except Batman won't kill. Therefore, it makes sense for the Arkham games to focus on him taking on the bad guys, not rescuing civilians.

 

[RioDragon]

You have to remember that there is a huge difference between Spiderman and Batman, and their whole approach to what they do. Spiderman is more the "classic hero" out to save the day, and rescue the damsel in distress, etc. Batman is out there to bring fear and "justice" to criminals, not save kittens from trees. In this sense he's closer to Frank Castle (The Punisher), except Batman won't kill. Therefore, it makes sense for the Arkham games to focus on him taking on the bad guys, not rescuing civilians.

I realize this, but at the same time, in most cases, Civilians are involved in some way. After all, if it weren't for civilians, why would Batman be so dedicated to cleaning up the streets of Gotham? His parents were civilians when they were murdered, after all. Rich civilians, but still civilians. Batman fights crime in Gotham on all levels, including petty thugs, so why does the best Batman game franchise feel so keen on restricting itself to only the big bad arch-nemeses and their henchmen? I agree that the Arkham Games are strong from a gameplay standpoint, but I've always wanted games that could deliver better on the idea of BEING Batman or a superhero in general with some of the more mundane civilian rescues mixed in with thwarting villainous plots. I want to occasionally feel like playing the typical night as the caped crusader rather than Double Dragon with an occasional stealth section.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

I realize this, but at the same time, in most cases, Civilians are involved in some way. After all, if it weren't for civilians, why would Batman be so dedicated to cleaning up the streets of Gotham? His parents were civilians when they were murdered, after all. Rich civilians, but still civilians. Batman fights crime in Gotham on all levels, including petty thugs, so why does the best Batman game franchise feel so keen on restricting itself to only the big bad arch-nemeses and their henchmen? I agree that the Arkham Games are strong from a gameplay standpoint, but I've always wanted games that could deliver better on the idea of BEING Batman or a superhero in general with some of the more mundane civilian rescues mixed in with thwarting villainous plots. I want to occasionally feel like playing the typical night as the caped crusader rather than Double Dragon with an occasional stealth section.

Because, unless said "bad guy" is specifically accosting some poor schmuck, any civilians in the area would have cleared out for their own safety. Even in the comics, when Batman strikes against criminals, there typically aren't any "civilians" around.

 

[braindancer12]

i am happy with the Arkham games........

 

[Decatonkeil]

I don't really think the Arkham games are about "Batman the psychopath"... I mean, you can clearly see how it's been written by Paul Dini, as opposed to... the late Frank Miller that doesn't really get why people liked Year One and DKR? Still, some of the design decissions that have already been showcased in trailers are very iffy: Batmobile with guns fighting tanks, Batman pushing someone's head into an electrical charge... Still, I say to everyone that they should take all this Batman being a rolemodel because he doesn't kill with a grain of salt: he did kill in the comics, vigilanteism and arguable torture are bad enough, superheroes being written in a way that we feel like their world is ours would mean they are ok with the current unfair status quo, making a bunch of teenagers become crimefighters, releasing gangbangers who blew up pregnant women with bombs on the city so that they can help against a USSR attack (DKR, because I think they being american still counts for something against commies)... get me? I personally am not that offended by say Tim Burton making him kill, I'm not in it to be taught morals... I'm in it to question the morality of things that characters do if anything. And also if anything I may be more offended by how the Nolan trilogy, which were more my type of film on the other hand, degraded so much in the final movie because it had to be used as an asset in Hollywood's cultural war, in this case, against movements like Occupy Wall Street. And no, I'm sure there must have been a lot of preliminary scripts that were written before OWS, but the final script with which a some of the film was shot and that rearranged the movie into what it is is obviously post-OWS and a dishonest jab at it... and it even made a fool out of Bane, with even his origin and achievements being other character's instead of his.

Movies, comics, videogames... making people more accepting of things like NSA's invasion of privacy, Guantanamo's holding people without trial, torture, war crimes, supporting dictatorships in third world countries... as a necessary thing in a postmodern mentality is very worrying and is indeed happening.

I also find it very tragic that geeks congratulate themselves (ourselves?) so much about how Batman doesn't kill (but we've seen in Batman and Superman comics how if the plot demands it, they do throw criminals into the hands of a system that has death penalty... don't know how consistent that is in the states where Gotham or Metropolis are supposed to be set) but spit so much bile about how criminals in real life "don't deserve a second chance" or how "bullies are evil and evil people need to die", or stupid mantras like "killing is only ok in wars". Or about how X-men was so progressive because it first was an allegory of people suffering a witch hunt because they were suspected of being communists, then about racism and homophobia... but then will call SJW on everyone.

 

[Suhiira]

... Guantanamo's holding people without trial, torture, war crimes, supporting dictatorships in third world countries... as a necessary thing in a postmodern mentality is very worrying and is indeed happening.

Hardly something "modern", look at most of history since two family groups decided to live together and form a clan.
Rome is often viewed as the height of Western civilization, conquest, industrial scale looting, slavery, dictatorship, the Arena, graft, corruption, the list goes on and on.

Like a good many things there's how things "should be" and how "they are". Not that we should stop striving for improvement, but don't let the fact that they're not happening as fast as you might like discourage you.

 

[Sardukhar]

Not that we should stop striving for improvement, but don't let the fact that they're not happening as fast as you might like discourage you.

This is one of the most concise arguments against cynicism I've read.

On a Batman note, I'd have to agree with the idea of a more super-hero game and less of a DOuble Dragon/Stealth game. The first one was pretty cool for that, but Batman -is- a hero. He saves people and improves his city. It's worth noting that even when he's unsuccessful, he's striving to make the world a better place. When you can't see that happen in some way, the game world feels less real.

 

[Tramp-Graphics]

This is one of the most concise arguments against cynicism I've read.

On a Batman note, I'd have to agree with the idea of a more super-hero game and less of a DOuble Dragon/Stealth game. The first one was pretty cool for that, but Batman -is- a hero. He saves people and improves his city. It's worth noting that even when he's unsuccessful, he's striving to make the world a better place. When you can't see that happen in some way, the game world feels less real.

I disagree. Batman isn't a "shining hero". He's not the "white knight" on his steed. He is, first and foremost a vigilante, plain and simple. He is the Dark Knight. a creature of the night, who operates out of the shadows. He's not out there to be a role model, he's not out there to "save" people. He's out there to catch the bad guy; to bring criminals—particularly violent criminals—to "justice" and strike terror in their hearts.

Also, decatonkeil, why did you say "Late" Frank Miller? Frank Miller is still alive and well, thank you very much.

 

[weregeld]

I realize this may get me looked at funny but I actually kinda wish for a game based on the 60's batman TV show.

 

[Suhiira]

I realize this may get me looked at funny but I actually kinda wish for a game based on the 60's batman TV show.

View attachment 10775

 

[Decatonkeil]

Hardly something "modern", look at most of history since two family groups decided to live together and form a clan.
Rome is often viewed as the height of Western civilization, conquest, industrial scale looting, slavery, dictatorship, the Arena, graft, corruption, the list goes on and on.

Like a good many things there's how things "should be" and how "they are". Not that we should stop striving for improvement, but don't let the fact that they're not happening as fast as you might like discourage you.

Not saying that the practice is modern. I say that swapping the strategy from being all for "the right thing to do" to the "torture is useful" or the "renouncing to degrees of freedom to protect freedom" is kind of post-modern. It's kind of post-modern focusing that much on interpretation of the facts than on facts themselves. What is left for these people to cling to? At one time they want to see it as if the USA were embodied in these modern myths of heroes that only do the right thing, won't kill, will sacrifice themselves... but then at others using the tactics of the enemies is ok. I don't know if I'm expressing myself correctly. Do we defend human rights and have that be a value for our civilisation or we want to be the anti-hero because that's the badass, intelligent, realistic thing to do? It really comes off as a schizophrenic discourse.

You know things are pretty fucked up at this point in these fronts when the only criticism that we've heard from inside the USA government to these recent torture cases goes along the lines of "they weren't useful to get the information". No shit. The argument that when you torture someone you may in a way be telling him that if he doesn't know shit he at least has to tell yuo what he thinks you want him to, for an eterniry. No comment on it being against human rights or civil rights.

 

[RioDragon]

This is one of the most concise arguments against cynicism I've read.

On a Batman note, I'd have to agree with the idea of a more super-hero game and less of a DOuble Dragon/Stealth game. The first one was pretty cool for that, but Batman -is- a hero. He saves people and improves his city. It's worth noting that even when he's unsuccessful, he's striving to make the world a better place. When you can't see that happen in some way, the game world feels less real.

That's pretty much how I feel about the Arkham games at this point. You're beating up the baddies, yeah, but you're getting no real feedback for it. The only impetus for Bruce staying in Arkham City was getting to the issue of Doctor Strange, which was a personal issue about his identity. Otherwise he had no reason to stay and beat up any of the bad guys because they were doing a fine enough job of that themselves and they were technically already in a prison. He could have merely asked Alfred to send him the right gadgets along with his suit and escaped if it weren't for Strange, which makes a good chunk of the Arkham City game seem pointless to me (beyond the lazy setup of a prison city conveniently evacuated of civilians in the middle of Gotham, which I still think is stupid).

Edit: I would also love to see a Adam West Style Batman game, or at least a section of a Batman game that feels like it, via hallucination or whatever other method you could pull from DC's Universe to get him there (probably Bat-Mite). It could be like the Saint's Row IV Leave it to Beaver parody segment.

 

[Decatonkeil]

I disagree. Batman isn't a "shining hero". He's not the "white knight" on his steed. He is, first and foremost a vigilante, plain and simple. He is the Dark Knight. a creature of the night, who operates out of the shadows. He's not out there to be a role model, he's not out there to "save" people. He's out there to catch the bad guy; to bring criminals—particularly violent criminals—to "justice" and strike terror in their hearts.

Also, decatonkeil, why did you say "Late" Frank Miller? Frank Miller is still alive and well, thank you very much.

Sorry, didn't even get a message about you mentioning me. I think I just didn't think of the implications of "Late" when I wrote it (familiar though as I am with the word). I mean in its late works, which being inert things, apply for both meanings of the word XD. I simply think that Frank Miller should have re-read both Year One and Dark Knigth Rises before he did Allstar Batman and Robin and DK2. Everything: tone, message, style... quality! isn't the same. DKR may clash as can be appreciated with some of my tastes and I may not see it as the masterpiece and disection of all that Batman is that people make it to be, but it was still one hell of a fun comic book and was aesthetically pleasing and interesting with great panel composition and everything (although I suspect that Klaus Janson had more to do with this than it's actually implied). DK2 was... JLA on LSD with a very bad story, very badly told with a lot of cheesy moments and rather neurotic in general. ASB&R is... Frank Miller being informed (because he forgot and didn't re-read or because it was an unexpected hit and he didn't understand why) about what DKR was and why it was so good by others who had no clue.

 

[227]

The only impetus for Bruce staying in Arkham City was getting to the issue of Doctor Strange, which was a personal issue about his identity. Otherwise he had no reason to stay and beat up any of the bad guys because they were doing a fine enough job of that themselves and they were technically already in a prison. He could have merely asked Alfred to send him the right gadgets along with his suit and escaped if it weren't for Strange, which makes a good chunk of the Arkham City game seem pointless to me (beyond the lazy setup of a prison city conveniently evacuated of civilians in the middle of Gotham, which I still think is stupid).

No reason? He's poisoned, several doctors and miscellaneous innocents are held hostage or otherwise put in danger (Vicki Vale, etcetera), and Talia is taken by Joker as soon as Strange is dealt with. Did you actually play the game?

 

[RioDragon]

No reason? He's poisoned, several doctors and miscellaneous innocents are held hostage or otherwise put in danger (Vicki Vale, etcetera), and Talia is taken by Joker as soon as Strange is dealt with. Did you actually play the game?

Damn, forgot the poisoning bit. Disregard what I said then, I just REALLY don't like the setup of Arkham City.