VIDEO Batman: Arkham City (Arkham Asylum 2)

I think that's hitting the nail on the head; by making it an open world and less linear, the game is a lot shorter because so much is made optional.

 

I think the length of the game is pretty much perfect. The story, despite its somewhat disappointing quality, keeps a good pace and there is just enough side stuff to keep you occupied for a solid amount of time without causing you to get sick of the game. I'm very pleased with it, and as has been said before it's my GOTY so far. Though that's probably about to change in 46 hours.

 

Yep, this game was just a way for me to kill time until Skyrim is released. Because that will be GOTY, no question.

 

Uh-huh.

 

When, where, how was the story disappointing? I must've missed a section somewhere down the line.

 

Just finished the main story. My thoughts:

It felt a little short to me: I would have preferred a few extra missions in the main storyline.

Some of the characters they got right. Mr. Freeze and Talia were good, but I thought that the points on Catwoman and Talia being over-sexed are sustained. Harley SHOULD be somewhat sexualized, because that's sort of the POINT. Catwoman should be sexy, but overall utilitarian and it was just silly to have her shirt open like that. But Talia was really unnecessary in how she looked. It was tame by a certain standard, but I've always felt Talia should be portrayed with a fair amount of respect, so to speak.

The thing I hated most was Two-Face. I felt they got this character completely and absolutely wrong. He comes off as just a dumb psychopath with a split persona. I've never been a fan of the split persona portrayal -- I'm more of a fan of the borderline personality disorder version we sort of see in "The Dark Knight" and definately in "The Long Halloween".

Other characters lacked depth as well. Cobblepot was a bit TOO sadistic, and the Riddler was too dark as well: don't get me wrong, I'm all for villains acting evil, but it takes something away when ALL the villains are heartless killers. Yeah, Mr. Freeze was a welcome exception, but I thought that it might have been a good move if the game offered some sort humanity to the others as well. Like say, the Riddler letting people go if he doesn't think it'll get a rise out of Batman.

It was a fun go of it, but I actually thought the first game was superior in the writing. In the first game they got many of the characters bang-on. Bane maybe was done better in this one, but I felt most of the villians in AA had a superior portrayal compared to AC.

 

Couple points, not that I'm saying you're wrong at all.

First: Have you ever seen Talia in the comics?
[image=http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Talia-al-Ghul-Dark-Knight-Rises.jpg]
[image=http://comicsmedia.ign.com/comics/image/article/627/627227/talia-al-ghul-20050619064725979_640w.jpg]
[image=http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/c/cb/Talia_al_Ghul_0009.jpg]
[image=http://www.advancedanime.com/pictures/normal_al_ghulbatmanyangfan.jpeg]

And so on. All of this "they're too sexy!" crap is just that: crap. They're portrayed in game almost identically to how they appear in the comics, with a few liberties here and there. It's not like Talia wore long dresses and flowing overcoats in the comics. As you can see from the above, it's quite the opposite.

2) I can't get behind anyone saying they disliked Two-Face in the game. He was portrayed very well, and his voice actor got real close to TAS which seems to be the measuring stick for the game (and most things Batman). On the contrary, I thought his portrayal in The Dark Knight was atrocious and Nolan did a piss-poor job of it. He was portrayed well in this game; he is a psychopath, ruled by the coin, by duality so to speak. That's how he came across.

3) Riddler was too dark? Penguin was too psychotic? I'm not sure what you're preference is in terms of Batman villains, but the only one who really "has a heart" is Freeze. Why? Because he isn't inherently evil...he just wants to save his wife. The crime and "villany", if you will, is just a means to an end for him. Whereas with Riddler he needs to show Batman he is better than him and will stop at nothing to do so. That being said, he wouldn't let hostages go just because it wouldn't "get a rise out of Batman". Nigma knows Batman, he knows Wayne...he knows they're the same person. He also knows if Batman is faced with a hostage situation, he cannot turn away and let that person die. Now, that being said, he did not come across "too dark" to me. At all.
Penguin was portrayed really well, also. Sure they took some liberties with him, but they worked well for the character. He didn't seem like he was out of place.

Overall, I don't see why people (and it's not just here) have such complaints about this game. Really, they must not b

 

Because of course external appearance = true to the source.

I've enjoyed Batman in various media since I was three. I'd say I'm pretty familiar with the universe and characters, thanks. I just happen to be frustrated with this particular interpretation.

 

3? Wow, you must've been one sharp three year old. Batman has been a staple in my life since as long as I can remember, right along with Star Wars, but I'm not gonna claim to be a Batman-pro based on my earliest introductions to Batman. It wasn't until I could fully understand and grasp the ideology behind Batman that I really began to delve deep into it.

That being said, I must've missed the point to your post since I wasn't addressing you at all. But please, go ahead and vent your frustrations with the interpretation. Oh and if it has to do with "teh b3wbie5" the you might want to save it because that's been done to death. We all get that some people dislike the game because it portrays the female characters in it just as they're portrayed in the comics.

 

Well put, here and in your previous post. In my mind, there was nothing wrong with either the character portrayals, Bats leading ladies or the story as a whole. To me my main beefs with AC is that the main story simply feels too short (I gather all the Riddler crap and side missions simply disguise the fact upon starting a fresh new game) and that the whole Batman/Joker relationship reached a rather awkward climax. There have been truly crappy Batman games and really lousy interpretions across all media. But in my mind, these games and TAS are some of the finest interpretations outside of comics if only because they get the whole notion of Batman just right.

 

Earlier I typed up a couple paragraphs in a reply that I lost and never posted, and was planning on retyping it later. Thankfully now I don't have to, because I couldn't have said that better myself.

 

And so on. All of this "they're too sexy!" crap is just that: crap. They're portrayed in game almost identically to how they appear in the comics, with a few liberties here and there. It's not like Talia wore long dresses and flowing overcoats in the comics. As you can see from the above, it's quite the opposite.

I find it sort of funny because -- and hey, perhaps it's a matter of taste -- the middle two shots you used I actually find MORE tasteful. Catwoman in the third is a case in point there. Sure, there's an element of sexiness, but the middle two aren't really showing it off. It's the last one which is really bad.


2) I can't get behind anyone saying they disliked Two-Face in the game. He was portrayed very well, and his voice actor got real close to TAS which seems to be the measuring stick for the game (and most things Batman). On the contrary, I thought his portrayal in The Dark Knight was atrocious and Nolan did a piss-poor job of it. He was portrayed well in this game; he is a psychopath, ruled by the coin, by duality so to speak. That's how he came across.


Ok, I can't agree with ANY of that. There is simply no depth to the character we're given in this game. There is no sign of inner torment, no indication that he was ever anything but a psychopath and deserves no understanding. He's simply the "double personality" which is not at all compelling. The only thing the game gets right about Two-Face that Batman Returns doesn't, for instance, is that at least he's appropriately filled with rage and devoid of much happiness. At least they get that right, and he's no Joker clone. But there's no depth whatsoever.

In my opinion TDK was a superior portrayal of the character in every way, right up with the understanding of the character in "The Long Halloween". Or in the Greg Rucka comic book material, or "Eye of the Beholder" or the first part of "The Dark Knight Returns". In my understanding of the character, Two-Face does not literally suffer from multiple personalities, or if he does it's very deep-seated and it's tough to even notice. He's much closer to someone who suffers from Borderline personality disorder -- black and white thinking, self-loathing, suicidal tendencies, etc. The works I just mentioned give a real sense of pathos to Two-Face that is not only not present in the Two-Face seen in Arkham City, but pretty much not present with any character in the game.

For instance, Two-Face sawing people in two? That doesn't fit the character at all. The theatricality of putting Catwoman on trial? Two-Face, in my book, is not a sadist that enjoys the sight of blood. He doesn't shy from it, but does not seek it, because he just does not care. He doesn't put on theatrical displays for the same reason. That's Joker (and many others). The Joker is all about twisting the knife: Two-Face is all about a quick, remorseless bullet to the head because anything more is beside the point for him. Two-Face enjoying or bothering to saw someone in half is just not the character I know.

Two-Face, at most, wants you to fear him and then die -- and that's only if he's got a beef with you. You actually experiencing physical pain doesn't interest him. He likes you quaking in your boots, maybe, because he loves retribution, but that's pretty much the extent of it. He's caught up in his own passions and issues. The Joker? He LOVES your pain. He wants to see you twist in the wind and lives on the drama it creates. Two-Face doesn't care about drama, doesn't care about gore, or screaming. He's to the point. Torture for Two-Face, unless he can get information from it, is a waste of time. He just kills you, gets it over with, and dumps your body out the back. Or the front, if it's closer, because (unlike Penguin) he doesn't really care where it gets dumped, either.



3) Riddler was too dark? Penguin was too psychotic? I'm not sure what you're preference is in terms of Batman villains, but the only one who really "has a heart" is Freeze. Why? Because he isn't inherently evil...he just wants to save his wife. The crime

 

Interesting post Gonk, and I agree to an extent on what some villains should be like. But you have to consider something as well: this Arkham City universe is an alternate universe and, thus, an alternate vision of Batman and his friends and foes. So you have to understand that the versions may be familiar, but slightly different as well. Maybe Two Face should be a borderline case instead of a split personality psycho, but the problem is that I?ve seen versions of the character that vary between one, the other, or just plain psycho (worst offender, Tommy Lee Jones version in Batman Forever, which seemed to be just a manic Joker wannabe with a scarred face and the traditional penchant for duality). And in any case, one can understand different psychoses. But if you?re a sane person, how can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who clearly isn?t so as to know how they should behave or speak? Paul Dini spins a good yarn, but that doesn?t mean he truly understands crazy so that he can convincingly write crazyperson talk. Batman writers, past and present, may be limited by this same impediment and simply have not made up their minds on what type of psychosis affects each and every resident of Arkham Asylum (the Joker is one such case; for example, I consider the Arkham universe version as one of the saniest ones: an evil maniac with a penchant for violence that tries to make people think he?s crazier than he really is). I agree that maybe Riddler isn?t the sort of guy that should be threatening to or actually killing people, but this Arkham version does if only to prove his intellectual superiority to the Dark Knight, a motive shared by most versions of the character. Again, something different, something familiar.

In a way, it all depends on the creators vision and ideas. I accept them in this version of Batman?s universe because they don?t stray too far from what I know about it; I hardly consider the similitudes superficial. And to me this version of Batman is more complete than, just as an example, that of Nolan?s movies: world?s greatest detective, consummate hero, terror or the cowardly and superstitious lot and ass-kicker supreme.

 

I can respect people thinking that the depictions are good enough. And it's not like the game is atrociously bad or that the writing is something out of Batman and Robin. Certain writers have their own take, and it's good that they do. I just don't like a lot of the unanimous praise for the game when, in my view, it clearly falls short on character definitions beyond what was seen in TAS.

I guess it makes sense: Dini is part of the TAS crowd, so we get the perks and shortcomings of TAS. Freeze is everything he should be, for instance. I mean, they essentially MADE Mr. Freeze. Harley doesn't get a lot of screen time, but what time she does get it essentially what the character is, with the appropriate dark intonations behind her cheerful mask of denial. Dini either created this stuff himself or knew the people well who did create it, so he knows exactly where the line on all of that is.

But Dini isn't Greg Rucka, for instance. Rucka understands Two-Face, or the 'Miller' depiction of him. Dini clearly doesn't write that Two-Face, his is more the "Big Bad Harv" variety, if that. And his Riddler is not the one who has experienced actually TRYING not to give Batman a clue and being unable to stop his obsessive compulsive tendency.

Perhaps it's just me: certain characters for me should be a certain way, others I think of more freeform for interpretation. Bane, Strange, Scarecrow, Croc... I'd love for writers to take on new interpretations of those characters because I don't think they've had their core interpretations yet. Even Riddler and Cobblepot I have preferences to, but I'm open to certain new ideas if they're interesting.

Other villains though, I think are more defined: Catwoman, Joker, Two-Face, Ra'as Al Ghul, Harley Quin, Mr. Freeze: I think we have the definite interpretations of those characters now. I LOVE things that add on to the current interpretation. But it also means I get severely annoyed by things that I feel run counter to it, because I can almost feel the sharks jumping (I use that reference in its original meaning: Happy Days's Fonzi jumping sharks on water skis running counter to Fonzi's water-phobic character, not the general meaning that the writing has passed the point where it has inherently run out of ideas).

 

[image=http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/c/cb/Talia_al_Ghul_0009.jpg]
This one?

You will notice Catwoman's exposed cleavage in the background, almost identical to the game's model, and Talia's low-riding pants that barely cover her rear. So, all in all, I guess I rest my case on the whole "over-sexed" nature of the female leads.

Maybe we know two different Two-Faces? Two-Face has been, and always will be, a psycho. He was driven insane by the fact that his face was so horribly scarred. In his earliest concepts, he was shown as a gimmick that had him obsessed with the number 2. As time went on he developed more and more diversity, always retaining one simple fact: he's insane. He's never been rational and or reasonable; the only reason or rational he will listen to is his coin. I will agree he wants fear, above all. He thrives off of it. But that doesn't change the fact that he's been portrayed as schizophrenic and bipolar and, as seen in the game, having dual personalities.

I thin

 

I can't quite recall how Two-Face was handled in TAS (and I wish to God the folks at the WB would just launch a Definitive DVD/BluRay collection. Is it too much to ask?!) so I can't comment how Dini & Co. handled him there. IIRC their Riddler was rather harmless. As for his compulsive obsessions, how do you know he didn't set himself up for failure? In the first game he got caught because Bats eventually triangulated his location via the broadcasts he was receiving. Maybe subconciously Nygma made that all too easy a task to his enemy. Likewise he might have subconciously left a bread crumb trail of clues for Bats to follow with all the leased properties in Arkham City, knowing that eventually Bats would track him down to his lair....hey, it's possible, but it makes sense coming out of a guy that historically does everything in his power to get himself caught.

Of all the vilains, I find Bane?s interpretation here as thoroughly disappointing. The only significant difference between him and the wretched Batman & Robin version is that at least he can form complete sentences when talking. But he hardly seems like the coldly calculating and intelligent dark-mirror-version-of-Batman Chuck Dixon originally created. He and many other characters could?ve been handled ?better? by our purist standards but I still remain convinced that a good job was done. I don?t know if you?ve heard each and everyone of the Strange interview tapes but I think they truly are a hidden gem within the game. As far as Selina goes, I still wish she had a meatier role, especially in regards to the sexual/romantic tension between her and Bats. If there is a third game (and it seems obvious there will be one) I do hope she gets a bit more ?screen time? and truly becomes Ba

 

Maybe we know two different Two-Faces? Two-Face has been, and always will be, a psycho. He was driven insane by the fact that his face was so horribly scarred. In his earliest concepts, he was shown as a gimmick that had him obsessed with the number 2. As time went on he developed more and more diversity, always retaining one simple fact: he's insane. He's never been rational and or reasonable; the only reason or rational he will listen to is his coin. I will agree he wants fear, above all. He thrives off of it. But that doesn't change the fact that he's been portrayed as schizophrenic and bipolar and, as seen in the game, having dual personalities.

I'm not sure where that necessarily, until the end, runs counter to what I posted. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean about a Two-Face that is simple and to the point. Yes, in a certain way, the Two-Face of the works I posted is completely logical, one of the most logical that Batman has: if you permit that his entire worldview is ILlogical. Within his system, there's a ruthless, tireless logic at work. But it's pretty clear to everyone that in reality, there's nothing logical about it at all. He's definitely crazy. But if you accept the insane opening premise that morality is so arbitrary and meaningless that you might as well decide it on the flip of a coin, he'd probably be the most logical, most 'moral' person on the planet.


I think you're giving a bit too much to the character of Two-Face. Sure he's not "just a killer", but at his core, he's little more than a psychopath who is ruled by chance and fate decided by his coin.

Actually I would say Two-Face is much more than a psychopath. Actually many of the best depictions show him not to be a psychopath at all, though he is clearly insane and a remorseless killer (note: an insane and remorseless killer is not necessarily a psychopath -- think Charles Whitman rather than Charles Manson). Instead, what you see is a borderline individual whose "black and white" thinking has been turned almost inside-out. It is not that Two-Face has no empathy per se, but that he no longer sees anything as worthy of empathy, including himself -- and so you get a similar result. It's black and white thinking with no white left. It's all the same thing now.

Contrast the Joker. The Joker had no empathy to begin with. You are simply something for him to enjoy, and if has any commentary on the matter, it's to convince you that you never had any either.

The Joker wants the world to burn because he loves to watch things burn. Even in Nolan's anarchist version, that's the truth to the character; twisted to the core. Two-Face wants the world to burn because he's convinced that's what it deserves. Key differences. Id versus super-ego.

I mentioned what motivates people in the various gangs. With Penguin I'd say it's fear and power: he uses the regular methods of a dictator, to bribe and intimidate. With the Joker, I'd say he relies a fair bit on his own people being sociopaths themselves, and that to follow him can often be 'fun' for them. With Two-Face it's more complex. Sure there's profit to be had, but I think the grunts follow him because he's something resembling a leader in their eyes. He's the William Wallace or Patton of the criminal world. They see him act quickly, fearlessly, guns blazing without regard to his own safety and mistake it for bravery or badassedness when it's actually a sign of his outright insanity. His suicidal ruthlessness is mistaken by sane men as tough leadership when nothing of the sort is on his mind.


As for The Dark Knight and Nolan, his interpretation, all [rushed] 15 minutes of it was horrific. I can't see how any fan of Two-Face or even Batman could sit back and enjoy what he did. It wasn't any failing of Eckhart's but more to the fact that it was so rushed and squeezed out in a matter of 15-20 minutes that it just felt bad. So tacked on, so thin. But that's another discussion for another time.

I thought it was great. Not perfect: as you say, there was a rushed element to thing

 

I can agree with that. As weird as it sounds, it makes sense.

Again, that makes sense. I can see where Joker is doing it just to do it, so to speak...'Face is out to do justice in his own twister vision.

Ohhhh, no, no. Don't get me wrong. I thought Dent was great. The headstrong, overconfident DA and "savior" of Gotham was played to a T. But, had I been in the director's chair I would have worked things a bit differently. The last time we see Dent in TDK is when Batman apologizes after the explosion. "I'm sorry, Harvey." The camera follows his hand and he places the [now] scarred coin down, Dent is on the hospital bed out of focus. After the audience gets a good look at that scarred coin, Dent's now scarred face comes into focus [albeit covered with that cloth] and that's it. Batman is off to get the Joker for what he's done to Harvey, Gotham and of course Rachel. Batman 3, or Dark Knight Rises would feature a full Two-Face leading role.

True. But at the same time, Riddler isn't going to get word "What, Batman isn't coming? Ah shucks. Okay...well. Let 'em go. Nice to see you. I'll be back later for you." He isn't going to leave a loose-end untied. Once he has a hostage, he'll kill 'em if Batman doesn't show. It's a game to him, but he's no game show host nor is he stupid. But, that's the thing, he knows Batman. He knows that if a hostage is taken and dangled in Batman's face, like a carrot in front of a horse, Batman will come running. It's Batman's "weakness", if you will.

Oh, please. Preachin' to the choir. I know this in spades. I cant' stand those Bat-fans or just casual fans that say "Can't have Batman without Joker." Ugh, I want to strangle them. Sure, I know, Joker is the dark to Batman's light. He's the yin to his yang. Whatever, I get it. But he isn't a mandatory ingredient for a successful Batman tale. Yes, many of Batman's best stories include the Joker, however...many of them don't. I understand the love everyone has for Joker but I'm over it! He's in my top 10 favorite Batman villains and in that list, he doesn't break top 5. And that's by no failing of the character. It's more from the reaction and support he gets where people just want Joker. And if they don't get Joker, suddenly the movie/show/story/game/toothpaste/sticker book isn't as good as it could be. Yuck. That's one reason why, to me, Begins is a better film that TDK.

Sigh

Overall, I don't hate Joker. I just wish people wou

 

Yeah, that definitely would've been my choice as well. But as Gonk has pointed out, the Face always gets the shaft in the movies and other media. Just like the dumb suits behind Forever, maybe Nolan and the current suits behind this new Batfilm franchise still consider Two-Face an unknown, lesser villain; incapable of being the heavy on a two hour film. Thus -- just like Scarecrow in Begins -- he got the treatment he did in TDK if only to show Two Face in the film. But somehow the (relatively) newer and even lesser Bane (whose only shining moment was breaking the back of an unimaginably tired and worn out Batman) is more important considering his presence in TDKR. Go figure.

And yet, by taking the Clown out of the equation at the end of this game, it seems Rocksteady is giving you exactly what you want: a final chapter that won't be defined or marked by his presence but instead will be dominated by another threat or villain. Maybe Ra's. Maybe even the Face. If that's the case I sincerely hope any of the two get a better portrayal when the time comes.

 

Or, it'll be dominated by the precocious mutant child of Joker and Harley.

Is it just me, or does Riddler look like a hipster in this game?

 

Dear Rocksteady: Thanks for the awesome game. But please, next time, ditch the stupid Campaign Challenges. It's not that they're ludicrously difficult, but that they are an annoyingly repetitive and time consuming requirement for an achievement or 100% completion. Next time around, simply throw in more combat or predator challenges. There were quite a few rooms/areas in the game (the exterior/parking entrance of the old GCPD, Bane's lair, the area just below Joker's office where you first fight Mr. Hammer, the room where Freeze's wife was stashed) that could've been good challenge maps and somehow were left out of the rotation.

 

To me, he looks like a mix between [image=http://www.filmoria.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Jackie-Earle-Haley.jpg] and [image=http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/E_HughLaurie_325.jpg]

@ Invidious, I agree. When I heard "campaign challenges" I thought..."AWESOME!" When I played them, I thought..."Really?"

Smashing together 3 challenge/predator maps and adding in modifiers =/= campaign. When I think campaign, I think of a story, a narrative, something engaging. If you played the Black Mask campaign (included with Robin) it centered (albeit very briefly) around Black Mask. Sure there was a grand total of one, single, short cutscene with no dialogue...but it gave us the impression we were actually pursuing Black Mask.

In the future, I hope that "campaign" anything will included a narrative.

 

Yeah, I pretty much thought the same. When I saw the little campaign unlocked prompts I thought "wow, awesome, more missions?". Then I was puzzled when I couldn't find them in the main menu. When I found them within Riddler's Revenge and saw what they were I said "Seriously? That's a campaign?" Wow. Talked about missed opportunities. I mean, how unbelievably cool would it have been if these "Campaigns" had instead been little sets of narrative-driven missions to serve as prelude to the main story.

 

Even if they were, essentially, just challenge maps but included a specific villain, a narrative, something different than the plain and simple predator/combat challenges. I'm sorry, but putting maps together to make something long doesn't qualify it as a campaign. To me, a campaign has and always will be story-driven.

Like you, when I saw the prompts I thought "Oh awesome, more missions." Imagine my disappointment when I started the first one and saw it was just a series of challenges with modifiers. Barf.

Maybe they can rectify this with DLC. Here's hoping, anyway.

 

The annoying thing is that they make the modified challenges compulsory for the 'cheevos and game completion. But then they add the custom challenges as an optional third tier of Riddler's Revenge (which was rather nice of Rocksteady, since they helped for easy achievement mining). Regardless, these modified challenges should've remained exactly that, OPTIONAL. Naming a set of three of them a "campaign" is a joke, one so bad even the Clown Prince probably wouldn't crack on his worst day.

I guess it's a sign of the times. In many recent games (looking at you, COD and Battlefield) it seems that any objective-based single player component is called a "campaign", regardless of whether or not it has a narrative worth a damn. Sorry Rocksteady, AC's story is THE campaign; everything else is just filler.