People think it’s an obsession. A compulsion. As if there were an irresistible impulse to act. It’s never been like that. I chose this life. I know what I’m doing. And on any given day, I could stop doing it. Today, however, isn’t that day. And tomorrow won’t be either.
Batman: Identity Crisis
by Brad Meltzer, 2004
That quote, more than anything, sums up the character that will form the centrepiece of this article; one who has transcended printed page, cinema and television screen, and now onto gaming consoles and PCs.
Join me in a sinister, growly hello to Phil “Bane” Bowers, a card-carrying Bat-Fan and devotee of the Arkham series. There’s been a lot of recent Batman talk around here, fueled in part by the Batman: Arkham Knight announcement. Bane offered to fill a gap in our coverage by putting together a comprehensive look at how Arkham has evolved over the years, and how it fits with the Batman universe. Even (especially) if your knowledge of the Dark Knight is limited to Christopher Nolan’s recent cinematic trilogy, you’ll find Bane’s thoughts clarifying and intriguing. Arkham has given us plenty to talk about, from discussions of licensed franchises to technology to the expectations we hold for studios to what “canon-faithful” really means. Thanks for your hard work on this article, Bane, and take it away!
— Steerpike
Arkham Identity
By Phil “Bane” Bowers
People think it’s an obsession. A compulsion. As if there were an irresistible impulse to act. It’s never been like that. I chose this life. I know what I’m doing. And on any given day, I could stop doing it. Today, however, isn’t that day. And tomorrow won’t be either.
Batman: Identity Crisis
by Brad Meltzer, 2004
That quote, more than anything, sums up the character that will form the centrepiece of this article; one who has transcended printed page, cinema and television screen, and now onto gaming consoles and PCs.Batman has, over the years, become much more than just a comic book hero – he’s become an icon, a symbol of what can be achieved through sheer willpower and inner strength. He’s also become the protagonist of a series of games that have brought together hardcore fans and gamers alike through storytelling, gameplay and a vibrant, rich universe.
The latest installment in the Arkham franchise looks to be the most formidable of all. Batman: Arkham Knight is now one of the most anticipated titles of 2014. The trailer heralding its impending arrival was one of the most technically detailed and cinematic teases of recent years, and follows up three other games which have, in their own right, been successes that have given the character and his world the kind of depth that can only be achieved with years of painstaking storytelling and continuity.
But is Arkham Knight a step forward? Many a comic book geek will be glad that one of their most notable heroes is the face of a recognisable and successful franchise, while gamers can be pleased that a series that has so far successfully married both hand to hand combat and stealth is going from strength to strength. It’s also got to be said the source material’s moral code – Batman not being a killer and refusing to use guns – takes it away from games that are all too eager to tempt you into pulling the trigger, even when you don’t need to.
The drawback is that with success, comes compromise. Arkham Asylum was an out and out Batman adventure, with little expectation attached to it. It was only when it had been released, and the free flow combat system that would become the hallmark of the Arkham games was witnessed, did people outside of the Dark Knight’s traditional fanbase take notice.
Ask any non-Batman fan prior to the release of the game what Arkham Asylum was, and most would be nonplussed. Rocksteady gave Arkham a life of its own, with architecture and geography that leapt off the screen. The tunnels, sewers and interiors of the buildings all had their own unique atmosphere, straddling a fine line between comic book design and real world grittiness. The Asylum was alive, with trouble lurking around every corner. Compact, tight environments adding to the sense of being isolated on the Godforsaken island were countered by open rooms where fighting, grappling, stealth and gadget use were essential to progress through the narrative. This isn’t a game with a structured path, however, and the open parts of the island become more accessible as you upgrade your character. Part of the satisfaction of completing the storyline also came from making a note of trophies and collectables on your first walkthrough, tantalisingly out of reach, then returning with your completed arsenal at a later date and unlocking the puzzle.
The storyline was pretty simple, but when integrated with Batman lore, made for an immensely satisfying experience. Batman brings the Joker to the Asylum for him to be interred, only to find out that his captive is one step ahead, having already organised a breakout and a plot to drive Batman mad. The Dark Knight then finds himself alone on the four quadrants of Arkham Island, forced to play the Joker’s game lest he detonate a series of bombs hidden around Gotham City. If there’s any criticism, it’s that boss battles come in the form of thugs and inmates infused with Titan, an experimental drug the Joker wants more supplies of, turning them into juggernaut-style behemoths. There is one glorious exception, but it’s more about getting Batman to move quickly and precisely, using his gadgets to his advantage, and learning when to attack, or stay out of sight.
Key to genre fans, though, were the often chilling depictions of the Dark Knight’s traditional enemies. Bear in mind the game was released after Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan’s big screen depiction of Batman, which moved away from the neon lights of Joel Schumacher’s vision to the brutal, harsh, violent reality inhabited by Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne. That world, though, had no room for the more outlandish members of Gotham’s rogues’ gallery. Yes, Heath Ledger by that point had provided what many people would consider the definitive big screen portrayal of the Joker. But for another generation, there was nothing better than hearing Mark Hamill’s voice, and laugh, issuing from behind the leering grin of Asylum’s evil clown.
His Joker was not a terrorist, and while psychotic, he isn’t the chilling, unwashed lunatic of The Dark Knight. He’s a foppish clown with a nasty streak, fond of exploding false teeth and cracking one-liners as he prepares to cave Batman’s head in. It’s that marriage of those two types of Joker that fits perfectly into Asylum: part Cesar Romero, part Ledger. Add to that a more outlandish version of the Scarecrow, a musclebound Bane true to his Hispanic roots, a terrifyingly mutated Killer Croc, a sexy and threatening Harley Quinn and a Poison Ivy that put Uma Thurman to shame, and you have an extensive list of enemies that Bat fans could look at with a big smile.
But therein lay Asylum’s problem – serialization of the Arkham franchise was a foregone conclusion given the plaudits the first game received. But how to do that and retain the core fanbase while giving new fans something they could latch on to? Rocksteady’s only previous experience in producing a game was Urban Chaos: Riot Response – a first person shooter where you left your brain at the door and shot the things that shot back at you. Asylum completely changed the expectations on them and the pressure to deliver, paradoxically, a unique experience all over again. It was an open world game – but it wasn’t Grand Theft Auto, Just Cause, or The Elder Scrolls – it retained a sense of intimacy missing from many of its peers. It incorporated many of Batman’s more colourful villains without turning them into gurning parodies or pun-filled quip machines. In essence, it needed, once again, to make the game a mainstream hit through its gameplay, while retaining enough of the Batman verse to tempt the hardcore fans back for a second helping. After all, how many passing gamers, perhaps lacking deep familiarity with the Batman mythos, played Arkham Asylum and simply thought it was cool? How many, by comparison, played knowing the history, and were thus itching for an appearance from Ra’s al Ghul or Black Mask?
Rocksteady, then, had to balance a fine line with the release of the sequel, Batman: Arkham City. If you’ve never played it, suffice to say that it is quite rightly hailed as a modern classic, recapturing existing fans while widening its scope to welcome those who never heard of Batman or his nemeses. Arkham City sold four million copies, won two BAFTAS, an Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences Award, a British Writers Guild Award, and a Golden Joystick. Its aggregate score on primary platforms exceeds 90%. Developer Rocksteady improved heavily on the formula as well; gone is the claustrophobic setting of the first game, replaced by a much larger, more complex environment that represents a formidable achievement in terms of Rocksteady’s capability to make games of that size.
But size and grandeur can be a double edged sword. Rocksteady could no longer keep the enclosed, concise storyline that had made Asylum such a success – now, by increasing the size of the world, they had to find a story and side quests to fill it – spoilers ahead. Arkham City starts with the premise that “Evil Professor” Hugo Strange has convinced Gotham’s authorities to wall off a huge section of the metropolis to create a gigantic prison. How? By spreading a key part of the existing Batman mythos: fear. After the incident at Arkham Asylum, Strange, an expert psychologist, manipulates Gotham’s public officials into creating a larger cage, by simply playing on the fear that the asylum could no longer contain the likes of Killer Croc, Bane, the Joker, Victor Zzasz and the Scarecrow. That means giving Batman an entire district of Gotham to explore, and watch over. Add to that the eventual discovery that Strange is little more than a pawn in a far more well-known antagonist’s game (which is, surprise surprise, to blow up Gotham City), and it dilutes his threat somewhat. Also on the scene is everyone’s favourite psychotic clown, who realises his dose of the experimental Titan formula at the end of Asylum is slowly killing him. Rather than expend his own resources trying to find a cure, Mr. J lures Batman into paying him a visit, where he promptly infects him too. So that’s the Dark Knight trying to foil a plot to level his home turf, uncover who the real villain is, and find a cure for the virus that’s slowly killing him and his oldest enemy.
That’s the first of Arkham City’s problems – it can’t really decide who it wants its main antagonist to be. If you know your Batman canon, you may know Hugo Strange – the villain predates the Joker in the comics, in fact, and is one of the few who knows the Batman’s secret identity. But Strange is nonetheless a pretty niche character. Players whose familiarity with the Batman was limited to movies would have been left thinking “who?” when Strange was announced as the bad guy in Arkham City. But as mentioned above, Strange eventually ends up being the fall guy for a more well-known Batman villain, who had already had some screen time and was an integral part of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. “Protocol Ten” to raze Arkham City and cleanse it of its ne’er do wells, its rich and corrupt, its seedy underworld, is initially depicted as Strange’s grand plan.
The titular Doctor though, is a man who wants to control people, rather than destroy them. The far more malevolent Ra’s al Ghul is a different proposition. He’s the man behind Strange’s scheme, and while it may be skipping over an incredibly detailed backstory to say that ultimately he proves to be a much larger threat than Strange could ever hope to be, it still feels like Ra’s was tacked on as a twist that ultimately added little to this plot thread. Needless to say, Batman outwits and outmatches both of them, but the whole storyline merely ends up as a precursor to the main event. Despite the impending doom that Strange’s benefactor is threatening, Batman gets drawn into a far more personal struggle with his perennial foe, and at some points that’s the detriment to the plot overall – it’s easy to get caught up in the fact this is Batman trying to save himself from being poisoned, rather than him trying to save Gotham. It’s almost as if Rocksteady were afraid to not put the Joker in the game, and the Strange plot wasn’t enough. But then again, was that the influence of making this game appealing to casual fans and gamers?
Arkham City feels much more of a world than the previous game, with far more interesting and better-integrated side quests than Asylum. The Riddler has his own missions separate from the main narrative, an improvement over the earlier installment’s collectible trophies. Myriad additional diversions from less well known villains like Hush and Deadshot are arguably included to please hard core Bat fans, and add to the longevity of the game, but are sadly too brief, providing little context for why they do what they do, or their motivations for colliding with the protagonist.
Another Arkham City weakness, held over from its predecessor, is a lack of innovative boss battles. True, they are more varied than Asylum’s endless waves of Titan thugs, but compared to the rest of the game, they lack the inventiveness and challenge of the regular combat. Yes, each one is unique, but it’s a case of jumping out of the way, then using ranged attacks, rarely employing the wide and varied hand to hand combat styles that make random clashes with gangs of thugs roaming the streets such fun, and fulfill the experience.
That combat system remains from Asylum, upgraded to include achievements and unlockables for being innovative with your fighting skills. The game rewards you for creativity, encouraging you to use Batarangs, the Batclaw, freeze grenades and smoke bombs to increase your XP and unlock more weapons. The gratifying part of this is that once you become adept at the controls, Batman becomes an extension of you. Therein lies the fun: Picking a group of enemies and knowing how you can incapacitate each one before you even lay a finger on them gives you a real sense of Batman’s capabilities, and also makes the gameplay all the more satisfying. Being set on by a group of Two Face’s thugs actually makes you feel like a challenge you have a chance of overcoming, rather than a daunting task that may depend on a quick time event, luck, and precise reflexes.
And while Arkham City is not a flawless game, it would do it a disservice to criticise too much. It gets its ending completely right, providing a fitting conclusion to the story arc that has developed over the two games, and encapsulates the relationship between Batman and the Joker, and the lengths that both would go to in order to justify their actions. Even to casual gamers, Batman’s last action carries a note of poignancy, and the sad realisation that the greatest hero is defined by the actions of his villain. There is no fist pumping to be had at beating the game, no shout of elation or feeling of satisfaction. It’s very much an ending to be endured, and while this might sound like an anticlimax, when put in context with the unfolding storyline, it carries a resonance that will stick with you long after you have exited the game.
And Arkham City would seem like a logical conclusion to the franchise, but market success and a new generation of consoles demanded a future for the now money-printing franchise. For the third, but chronologically first, episode, Warner Bros commissioned their own studio in Montreal to put together another game – but this one would be different.
Batman: Arkham Origins has been compared unfavourably to its predecessors, and part of that is the feeling that Rocksteady had cornered the market on the gaming version of the Dark Knight. Part of it is also down to glitches, not present in the previous two entries, that have frustrated console players. WB Montreal’s attempt may be the runt of the litter, but is far from the mess some make it out to be.
Rather than reboot the series, WB Montreal went down that other well trodden path – the prequel. Origins depicts Batman just out of vigilante school, still new to his chosen vocation. Hence, he isn’t familiar with his lineup of enemies yet, and doesn’t know their strengths and weaknesses. This leads to a very different look for the protagonist, who dons body armour and far less subtle weaponry scavenged from some of his foes in order to make it through one hellish night.
The criticisms, and praise, for Origins can be drawn into two distinct categories – storyline and gameplay. Initial trailers hinted at a radically different approach from the previous two installments: Rather than averting some terrible fate about to befall Gotham, Batman himself is the target. Roman Sionis, otherwise known as the gangster Black Mask, puts up a $50M bounty to anyone who can kill the Batman. Eight assassins take up the challenge: Electrocutioner, Bane, Copperhead, Deadshot, Deathstroke, Lady Shiva, Killer Croc and Firefly. That’s a mixture of completely new characters and old favourites reimagined as their younger selves. Batman has to fight his way through them in order to get to Sionis, while at the same time earning the trust of the Gotham City Police Department – who at this stage of his career consider him a dangerous criminal.
However (and once again, spoilers ahead if you haven’t yet played the game, but there’s no way to critique it without giving parts away), that initial premise doesn’t translate well to the actual game. If you thought this was going to be a series of exciting missions with eight distinct boss battles, think again. Croc is more of a tutorial at the start of the game (and by that I mean one of the eight boss battles occurs within roughly ten minutes of the start of the storyline, and hints and tips are provided on how to beat him), Electrocutioner is a one punch battle designed to show how inept he is, Deadshot and Lady Shiva are side missions with no connection to the main narrative, save for their desire to cash in on Sionis’ bounty. Deathstroke, Copperhead and Firefly are unique challenges not encountered in the series so far, and are both enjoyable and challenging, but on the flipside of that are two boss battles with Bane, one largely similar to the other, apart from the ending. Those two fights are very difficult compared to the rest of the boss battles, but there is an argument to say that with eight villains to choose from, why use the same one twice? Granted, this Bane is far more impressive than in the previous two games, and borrows heavily from Tom Hardy’s interpretation in The Dark Knight Rises. He does not, however, provide anything new in terms of storyline, and I’d go as far to say that exploring an equally dangerous character like Deathstroke would have given the game far more depth.
The biggest criticism though, is coloured purple and green. As the narrative unfolds, it becomes clear that the Joker has abducted Sionis and is posing as him, putting up the bounty as a way to draw Batman out, to get to know his new “friend” a little better before confronting him. Black Mask is a well-rounded character in his own right, with a vicious streak and a very dark sense of humour – he would have made a fantastic antagonist. Did Origins really need the Joker to be the villain again? As it’s a prequel, it could have easily been set before the Joker even surfaced, and Batman could have tested his mettle against a new foe who had only been seen briefly and not even interacted with in previous Arkham games. It seems like WB Montreal played it safe, sticking with familiar characters and interpretations, and the likes of Deathstroke and Firefly are interacted with all too briefly when they could have had a much larger role which would have expanded the universe without treading on the toes of its chronological descendants.
Familiarity is a watchword for Origins, as the gameplay just feels too safe, and offers no new challenges. The stealth sections are heavily reminiscent of Asylum’s stalk and takedown rooms, only not as challenging; if the player has played the previous two games, they already know exactly how to deal with the issue at hand. The free flow combat isn’t enhanced or changed from the previous entries, and the gadgets, with one exception, are similar if not identical to the ones found in Asylum and City. The Riddler trophies found in previous games are also far easier to pick up, and can be pretty much picked up straight away without any upgrades, except one. Some also present the exact same challenges that trophies in Arkham City did, and again, anyone with prior knowledge of how a particular puzzle worked would have no trouble solving one of Origins’ brainteasers.
Simple technical criticism has also been levelled at WB Montreal, with console gamers in particular complaining of Batman falling through the map, the autosave system not allowing them to return to a previous checkpoint, corrupted save files, and enemies getting stuck in walls or doors and preventing completion of objectives.
The other issue is multiplayer – something that Rocksteady deliberately avoided in its first two installments. They wanted to focus on the single player campaign, both to create an immersive experience and also to foster the “loneliness” of Batman (plus, who wants to be a gun toting thug when you can be Batman?). Origins chose to jettison that, and include a multiplayer mode where you can either be one of the Joker’s thugs or Bane’s. The fact the servers now seem chronically deserted tells its own story – the Arkham setting doesn’t lend itself well to the multiplayer scenario.
Origins isn’t a bad game – played before the others, it would be a worthwhile entry in the series, and provide an intriguing backstory to Batman and some of his foes. For a beginner, there is no better foe to go up against than the Joker, given his polar opposite approach to the Dark Knight’s philosophy. The problems become more apparent when Origins is compared to Asylum and City. Having already played those two, gamers returning to the franchise will find a game lacking in invention and creativity. If you’ve sampled Asylum and City prior to playing Origins, you’ll find retreads of existing gameplay techniques and little to take the experience to a new level. Arkham fans both new and old might also be frustrated at technical issues that could taint their opinion of the franchise as a whole.
That skepticism may well be tempered by the impressive trailer that foreshadows Arkham Knight, which should, logically, be the end of the lengthy tale of this incarnation of Batman. Given the reins are once again held by Rocksteady, hopes are high. The cinematic trailer is very, very reminiscent of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, with a distinct lack of some of the more cartoonish elements present in the previous three episodes. In some ways, that’s not a good thing. Batman is different things to different people – it says a lot that the same character can be accepted as both Adam West’s comical interpretation and Christian Bale’s gritty proto-psychopath. To lose his comic book roots though would be an immense shame for the Arkham franchise. As previously mentioned, these games have married, largely successfully, both the darker side of Batman, but also the more colourful elements of his rogues gallery. Asylum features an Incredible Hulk-sized Bane, a scantily clad, plant possessing Poison Ivy, and the nightmares of the Scarecrow, all the while using the backdrop of a very real looking set of buildings and environments. City introduces the shapeshifting Clayface, and a fairy tale-like encounter with the Mad Hatter, all the while painting villains like Hush and Deadshot as all too real threats. Origins is the least “fantasy populated,” but still has an encounter with the Mad Hatter ripped straight from the pages of Lewis Carroll.
For me, it seemed the like Arkham continuity had achieved a delicate balance not seen since the world depicted in the critically acclaimed Batman: The Animated Series. That was one of its true successes, effectively making the series recognisible and accessible to any Batfan, regardless of which depiction of the Dark Knight they prefer. Certain characters and scenarios seemed “off limits” to Nolan’s more grounded Batman, and while that satisfied a percentage of the crowd, when you have the more expansive scope of a video game to use, why would you limit yourself? Personally, I hope they haven’t abandoned the stories of the more outlandish characters, after all, who doesn’t want to find out what happened to Clayface after he fell into that Lazarus Pit in Arkham City?
Technically, Rocksteady have courted controversy by saying that the game will only be available on PC, Xbox One and PS4. Their rationale is that Arkham Knight’s graphics will require more horsepower than the last console generation can muster – something they were at great pains to stress here.
Arkham Knight also seems so far to have taken the step of removing the Joker from the game completely, and while the game’s true enemy was initially thought to have been the Scarecrow, it now seems the true villain of the piece will be a play on the title of the game. The Arkham Knight is said to be a completely original character, created by Rocksteady and DC writer Geoff Johns, but it wouldn’t be a surprise to see that persona merely being a cover for a more familiar face. Both the Penguin and Two-Face appear in the trailer too, along with the Joker’s muse Harley Quinn, all looking far more “weathered” than in their previous appearances in this continuity. All appear to have left behind the half-real-world, half-animated look that defined them in Arkham Asylum and City. In this way they have borrowed somewhat from Origins, which gave Bane and Deadshot in particular far more grounded appearances that in the other two games.
Batman himself also borrows from WB Montreal’s effort. Gone is the comic-faithful Batsuit from his last two chronological outings, replaced with a far more aggressive, armoured suit that evokes the Origins costume and Christian Bale’s outfit from the latest cinematic depiction of Batman. Batman is said here to be at “the peak of his powers,” which you would hope means that enemies would provide more of a challenge, knowing that this is no novice stalking them on the streets of Gotham. The promised addition of extra gadgets and different ways of traversing the potentially huge map, either stealthily on foot or going in all guns blazing in the Batmobile, promises more variety than the other games, and Rocksteady will be keen to go out on a high. The reason I said above “should be the final installment” means that while Rocksteady want this to be the conclusion of their trilogy, WB is probably not done with Batman games, so some kind of follow-up is likely, either from WB Montreal or another studio. But this is to be expected; there will be more Batman movies, surely, but Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy is over. Thus many fans believe that Arkham Knight will be the true, spiritual ending to the Arkham series, and they are probably right. After six years, Rocksteady likely wants to move on as well.
Batman has grown in popularity over the last nine years. His visibility has increased tenfold since Batman Begins hit cinema screens in 2005, and the Arkham games have proven to be just as influential. The marrying of the celluloid and comic versions of the character, creating its own unique world where a clown with a mallet can pose just as much of a threat as a commando with an assault rifle, has given the character, and his creators on this continuity, many plaudits – quite rightly. Arkham Asylum took Batman and made him a gaming icon; Arkham City reinforced that; Arkham Origins added to the myth; and Arkham Knight looks as if it will be its grand conclusion.
The games have also brought together people who would not normally have crossed genres. Call of Duty fans treat Arkham Asylum with the same reverence as one of their own shooters – despite Batman never picking up a firearm – when the very mention of stealth in those games is considered boring. Similarly, those used to creeping around and taking out enemies with barely a whisper respect and admire Arkham City for its ability to blend the activities they excel at with combat they rarely get to experience.
Batman has defined generations more than once, and while the Arkham games haven’t changed the landscape in the same way a Grand Theft Auto or a Metal Gear Solid has, the truth is, it’s just a video game. But in the words of the Dark Knight himself – sometimes… the truth isn’t good enough. Sometimes people deserve more.
Thanks for this, Bane, nice work. I’ve really only dipped my feet in the Arkham games – played Asylum and enjoyed it, I’m just now spending time with Arkham City, and haven’t given any thought to Origins or beyond. Rocksteady’s loyalty to the comic mythology gives the series immediate resonance, though as you point out, the broadest possible audience is familiar with the Nolan films, not the comics or the animated series.
The Arkham Knight trailer makes me suspicious, as any trailer composed entirely of prerendered sequences makes me suspicious. Call it the Dead Island Effect. This, on top of their more outrageous technical claims, would normally have me questioning whether the game will live up, but Rocksteady’s proven itself quite capable in that regard. I’m curious to see how it’s received in the wake of Origins.
I definitely rolled my eyes at the Joker’s prominence in Origins, once I realized that’s where the story was going…I liked how it was introduced, and if there hadn’t been two previous games featuring him as the major villain I probably would’ve been thrilled with it, but as much as I like the Joker I think there’s a lot of value to giving Batman a different major nemesis in some of these things. Bats doesn’t suffer from the kind of villain stagnation outside the comics that, say, Superman does (really? You can’t think of anyone besides Luthor and Zod to put in a movie?), but considering how good his rogues’ gallery is across the board it’s a disappointment that there’s not a little more credit given to some of the others.
I mean, really, some of Batman’s biggest storylines, even with the Joker in them, don’t have the Joker pulling the strings. Hush, say.
I am all too worried that the face behind the Arkham Knight’s mask will not be as original as they make him out to be – although I can imagine a world where, considering they seeded the Order of St. Dumas, he could be a take on Azrael. Maybe I’m not giving Rocksteady enough credit in doubting this.
Thanks chaps,
Steerpike, I would tend to agree with your caution over the trailer. I have to admit I was, at first glance, completely overwhelmed by it, but I’m a Batfan and was a sucker for it. It does though, raise questions about things like gameplay and the overall look of the finished game. One thing I didn’t mention in my piece is how, and you’ll notice this if you’re playing it, Rocksteady cheats slightly by making it impossible to see over the other side of the Wonder Tower building if you’re on the other side. I would guess it’s because they couldn’t or weren’t able to render the rest of the prison behind it. That would say to me they are aware of their limitations and work around them. Thing is, I can’t help but think that they wouldn’t dare to produce something substandard now after all the hype and expectation. The one thing I’m hoping they don’t do is abandon the comic book roots and make it more mainstream, and turn Batman into nothing more than an armoured Ultimate Fighter.
Dix, I was extremely disappointed about the Joker being the villain in Origins. I love Black Mask, he’s a genuinely terrifying bad guy with a dark sense of humour, and there was huge scope to do something in the game with him, rather than default to Joker-mode. I was also disappointed they didn’t so more with Deathstroke, who, having played such a big role in the marketing of the game, got relegated to a one off boss battle and a DLC challenge map character.
As for the Arkham Knight himself, I’m in agreement with you that he may already be an existing character. Azrael is a possibility, and I think other names would be Jason Todd, or even, and I hope not, The Joker again.
Hi Bane! Thanks for the article – fascinating and beautifully written! There’s so much research and information and years of fanlore in this; it’s quite a lot to take in!
I’m a film-only fan, really, having never managed to break into comics with any kind of reliability. It’s interesting to hear the take of someone who clearly knows both the film and comicverses inside out. I especially find interesting your comment about Rocksteady being “afraid” not to use the Joker – the character has now become such a sacred cow for both movie and comic fans that I wouldn’t be surprised if at least SOME kind of cameo wasn’t considered a necessity, even if it’s just publishers pushing for easy money.
I am considering finally taking your advice and firing these babies up. Would you recommend I start from the beginning and try to play through the whole series? Or do you think the upcoming installment will be enough to give me a flavour?
Nice overview! I really liked the first two Arkham games, but since the response was lukewarm and my time lately has been limited, we’ve given Origins a pass thusfar. May pick it up a bit later, though, and just try to think of it as a standalone thing. I seem to remember that Paul Dini had a hand in Asylum at the least, which may be part of why it seemed similar tonally to the (great) animated series.