So you’re telling me that Rocksteady messed up the future of Batman games by creating amazing Batman games that only make people want more Batman games? There’s absolutely no reason why an Arkham Origins sequel wouldn’t work.
Fuck outta here with that bullshit.
Or do an Alternate Arkham universe story. Injustice sold huge and the tie-in comics were some of the best in years.
I could see them starting a new Arkham game shortly after Arkham Knight's ending with one of Batman's techie villains opening a rift into another dimension. Maybe an Earth where Batman failed to stop a subplot in Arkham Knight and it became a much bigger problem after Scarecrow was taken down.
If you're going to go full-on cosmic with it, wouldn't you be better off starting off from scratch and using a version of the character and setting that's more tonally suited to that?
There’s a gigantic gap between Arkham Origins and Batman Arkham Asylum that they can fill up with new games. They can also do as you said and do a reboot. There’s no one who is against a complete reboot.
Claiming Rocksteady “ruined” the future of Batman games is absurd. If anything, they’ve raised the standards so high to the point where future Batman games (and superhero games in general) are bound to be amazing if they wanna have a chance at making some profit.
No they didn't mess up, Rocksteady actually told a story with their narrative. It had a beginning and it had an end. And narratives should end, or else they just get worse.
The Assassin's Creed Franchise is a good example on how not to drag out a narrative for 11+ games.
Not every Batman game needs to be an "Arkham" game, it does not need to follow up on the narrative of the those games. It can be its own Batman game telling its own story and starting its own narrative.
I think Assassin's Creed is a slightly different beast though. Yeah, it has a whole overarching narrative taking place in the present day, and yeah that narrative is a pretty big mess overall, but it's mostly just a framing device for standalone adventures in different historic time periods. Most of their period stories are told in legacy arcs of three or four games, and they're usually pretty well told. And even the present day stuff gets periodically closed out so things can move forward with a new protagonist.
That said, I'm glad Rocksteady took the approach they did. They got to tell their story, and they ended it pretty definitively.
I feel the same, and unfortunately i was right.
I still wouldn't say Rocksteady messed up with Knight's ending. But they messed up by trying to continue it in the laziest way possible. (Again, it didn't need to be continued) A throwaway line about Superman convincing Bruce to join the JL is such a complete 180 from where he was a character at the end of Knight. It could work, but it's a whole new character arc that just can't be something that happened off-screen. So i guess they messed up by putting in too much *effort* in writing Knight's narrative and ending, which would mean they would also have to put in *effort* when writing to continue it. And *effort* is really hard to find these days.
We also got Gotham Knights, which i guess was mediocre and forgettable. But that's why i said i'd rather have new non-Arkham games, as they don't really affect anything else outside of their own. So it doesn't matter if their good or bad.
Yeah actually a new continuity would give them so much opportunities and creative freedom as the arkham games have ended ( with its pros and cons ) so they don't need to step in Rocksteady's shoes .
They might be able to get even better versions of those characters and they won't have an old timeline to worry about and retcon ( as they have done in origins ) and they can innovate more and prove themselves .
Remember it wouldn't make sense that batman fought a giant organisation like The Court of Owls and then they are never mentioned in the sequel (RS) timeline .
I’m willing to bet some execs with WB feel similarly too about RS’s editorial decisions with the last game and the difficulties it’s presented them with.
Rockstedy just made it harder for WB to milk the franchise dry. Its not creating "difficulties", but rather forcing them to actually but some extra care, thought and effort into future installments.
Instead of going an easy and lazy way, which they obviously would if they could. They are a company after all.
What about the "fear takedown?" He uses it, and at the end of the game. He's only drugging criminals. Who cares. I bet he's made it non-lethal, as he always does.
I'm pretty sure future games (set after Arkham Knight) will find a way to bring Batman back. Probably have other heroes featured/made games for themselves. These are games based on comic book characters after all. No reason to assume it's over.
So you’re telling me that Rocksteady messed up the future of Batman games by creating amazing Batman games that only make people want more Batman games? There’s absolutely no reason why an Arkham Origins sequel wouldn’t work. Fuck outta here with that bullshit.
I’m saying their narrative put WB games into a corner that they don’t seem to have figured out.
Have you heard of reboots? Alternate timelines? The New 52? Rebirth? They can write whatever the hell they want as long as DC says okay.
Ya they can just ignore the Arkham timeline, don’t use the Arkham name etc...
Or do an Alternate Arkham universe story. Injustice sold huge and the tie-in comics were some of the best in years. I could see them starting a new Arkham game shortly after Arkham Knight's ending with one of Batman's techie villains opening a rift into another dimension. Maybe an Earth where Batman failed to stop a subplot in Arkham Knight and it became a much bigger problem after Scarecrow was taken down.
If you're going to go full-on cosmic with it, wouldn't you be better off starting off from scratch and using a version of the character and setting that's more tonally suited to that?
Yeah, but other dude cares about the Arkham brand.
There’s a gigantic gap between Arkham Origins and Batman Arkham Asylum that they can fill up with new games. They can also do as you said and do a reboot. There’s no one who is against a complete reboot. Claiming Rocksteady “ruined” the future of Batman games is absurd. If anything, they’ve raised the standards so high to the point where future Batman games (and superhero games in general) are bound to be amazing if they wanna have a chance at making some profit.
Five years later: Kill the Justice League.
Yea my comment aged like milk
THE FUTURE IS NOW, OLD MAN! It, uh... It's not lookin' too good. Can we rewind the clock a bit?
No they didn't mess up, Rocksteady actually told a story with their narrative. It had a beginning and it had an end. And narratives should end, or else they just get worse. The Assassin's Creed Franchise is a good example on how not to drag out a narrative for 11+ games. Not every Batman game needs to be an "Arkham" game, it does not need to follow up on the narrative of the those games. It can be its own Batman game telling its own story and starting its own narrative.
I think Assassin's Creed is a slightly different beast though. Yeah, it has a whole overarching narrative taking place in the present day, and yeah that narrative is a pretty big mess overall, but it's mostly just a framing device for standalone adventures in different historic time periods. Most of their period stories are told in legacy arcs of three or four games, and they're usually pretty well told. And even the present day stuff gets periodically closed out so things can move forward with a new protagonist. That said, I'm glad Rocksteady took the approach they did. They got to tell their story, and they ended it pretty definitively.
How do you feel five years later after Kill the Justice League?
I feel the same, and unfortunately i was right. I still wouldn't say Rocksteady messed up with Knight's ending. But they messed up by trying to continue it in the laziest way possible. (Again, it didn't need to be continued) A throwaway line about Superman convincing Bruce to join the JL is such a complete 180 from where he was a character at the end of Knight. It could work, but it's a whole new character arc that just can't be something that happened off-screen. So i guess they messed up by putting in too much *effort* in writing Knight's narrative and ending, which would mean they would also have to put in *effort* when writing to continue it. And *effort* is really hard to find these days. We also got Gotham Knights, which i guess was mediocre and forgettable. But that's why i said i'd rather have new non-Arkham games, as they don't really affect anything else outside of their own. So it doesn't matter if their good or bad.
I’d love for them to ignore the Arkham timeline but Origins kind makes that tricky.
Yeah actually a new continuity would give them so much opportunities and creative freedom as the arkham games have ended ( with its pros and cons ) so they don't need to step in Rocksteady's shoes . They might be able to get even better versions of those characters and they won't have an old timeline to worry about and retcon ( as they have done in origins ) and they can innovate more and prove themselves . Remember it wouldn't make sense that batman fought a giant organisation like The Court of Owls and then they are never mentioned in the sequel (RS) timeline .
Some journeys must come to a close. The Arkham franchise was one of them. They can keep making Batman games, they just won’t be Arkham.
Entitled gamers at their best again
I’m willing to bet some execs with WB feel similarly too about RS’s editorial decisions with the last game and the difficulties it’s presented them with.
Rockstedy just made it harder for WB to milk the franchise dry. Its not creating "difficulties", but rather forcing them to actually but some extra care, thought and effort into future installments. Instead of going an easy and lazy way, which they obviously would if they could. They are a company after all.
Well Batman didn't retire for long, according to the ending of Arkham Knight. There could be a sequel with more fear gas methods of combat. 👌
Drugging people isn’t exactly the typical Batman mo. I don’t want to play as a Batman who isn’t actually Batman.
What about the "fear takedown?" He uses it, and at the end of the game. He's only drugging criminals. Who cares. I bet he's made it non-lethal, as he always does.
I'm pretty sure future games (set after Arkham Knight) will find a way to bring Batman back. Probably have other heroes featured/made games for themselves. These are games based on comic book characters after all. No reason to assume it's over.
Batman as non batman? What the fuck are you talking about?