No, it's just because there's been many good writers that have written good arcs or one-shots for Batman. Superman is fine when he's written well (All Star Superman, Red Sun).
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
The Goddamn Batman: Arkham Origins
- Thread starter Wirdschowerdn
- Start date
Absalom
Guest
I dunno man. I don't know how you can write an immortal alien with limitless powers well.
Absalom
Guest
But still, I'll keep an eye on what you've brought up. Just in case it actually turns out decent (1to100shot)
The Bible?
Most of the better ones I've read play on the expectations heaved upon him from such a title. Shit that focuses less on Superman saving a couple from a mugging and more Superman choosing to save a couple from a mugging and knowing he's chosen them over the kid who stepped into open traffic hundreds of miles away, the man who just suffered a heart attack a couple of blocks down, the guy who slipped on the rocks at the beach and has now permanently paralysed himself from the neck-down and that grocery clerk who's now been fatally shot by some scared kid who needed money, not to mention the cruise-liner which has just capsized at sea thousands of miles away, the thousands of people who're getting killed in ethnic cleansings half-way around the world, the one kid who just lost his balloon. Basically, what if you could hear the suffering of everybody in the world, all of the time, and knew that even with all the strength and power you had, you can't save them all. The problem is that basically all anyone writes these days is some variation of "Superman fights super strong alien/robot/kryptonite monster and wins".
All-Star Superman does basically the opposite of this, though, and is still excellent. It's basically Superman fulfilling his final 12 great acts, barely any of which involve actually fighting anything and most nearly get him killed, all the while stopping to help ordinary people whenever he can. It's an extremely well-done celebration of the Superman mythos and Superman as a character.
Vaarna_Aarne
Notorious Internet Vandal
All-Star Superman did have a bit on that subject as well, but there the point was more like that Superman DOES have time for *almost* everyone (which is why there's a real heartwrenching moment when he loses the three most precious minutes of his life and comes face to face with the fact even he can't save everyone). Generally I'd say what makes the character of Superman so good is not what he does, but how he deals with people. A good way to explain the difference between Batman and Superman on a conceptual level would be that unlike Batman, Superman doesn't hospitalize muggers, he asks the muggers why are they doing this first.
Another example of the great understanding of the character shown in All-Star was how Frank Quitely really nailed how Clark Kent would look like, how he'd act like, and most importantly the fact that even then Superman is watching out for everyone around him (and how this is mostly kept as a non-chalant detail; such as the time when we see Clark "accidentally" bump into a person, which delays that person long enough for a falling debris to miss them).
Another example of the great understanding of the character shown in All-Star was how Frank Quitely really nailed how Clark Kent would look like, how he'd act like, and most importantly the fact that even then Superman is watching out for everyone around him (and how this is mostly kept as a non-chalant detail; such as the time when we see Clark "accidentally" bump into a person, which delays that person long enough for a falling debris to miss them).
I'd love it if they kept Catwoman out of this. Not because she's a bad character, but the she was fucking obnoxious in Arkham City. The only character they managed to fuck up completely in that game, I reckon.
I don't care about her character*. I wanna see more of that elegant ass.
*Does not necessarily apply to my personal real life views.
*Does not necessarily apply to my personal real life views.
Genma:TheDestroyer
Arcane
Turns out Lady Shiva is one of the final assassins afterall. Be interesting to see how they justify her not tearing off Batman's head.
...oh, and Killer Croc too. But who cares?
...oh, and Killer Croc too. But who cares?
Machocruz
Arcane
This game is going to be shit, surprised?
DeepOcean
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2012
- Messages
- 7,395
So, he only discover that the Batman games are shallow and repetitive games, now?
- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 35,824
A non-prequel sequel, yes.
The sequel with Conroy, but without Dini. And, hopefully, without UE3.
Dexter
Arcane
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 15,655
The first two Batman games were pretty great, especially the first one since it did a whole lot of firsts including probably best superhero game, best personification of Batman in a game, had some great voice-acting and a fresh and well-made melee combat system and a rather great atmosphere and pacing that never made it get dull.
Also great work with the modeling/animation/level design. And all of that from a rather unknown studio and without any expectations for greatness (and it was definitely a breath of fresh air after relative disappointments like Mass Effect, GTA IV, Bioshock or Fallout 3 at that time).
Only a few of the boss fights were largely disappointing. Henchmen variety, the difficulty and AI could've been improved (for instance I remember how enemies apparently didn't notice their colleagues being taken out a few steps away: http://i.imgur.com/fdWhVym.jpg ) and I didn't really get why the main plot was wrapped around the whole "Titan" thing, it seemed kind of stupid and a missed opportunity to tell somewhat more of a psychological thriller tale around Joker similar to the one with Scarecrow but using a different angle.
The second game was largely more of the same and somewhat less focused than the first but still good and fun. They improved on some stuff, but made other stuff worse.
I'm gonna wait and see with this one and probably get it when it's somewhat cheaper.
I agree though that it would be great if they could add some more detective-ing and sneaking around the city (like in Batman: TAS) as fresh gameplay elements and maybe solving some more "banal" problems between shit going down to change the pacing up a bit (playing as Bruce Wayne for a few sections at Wayne Enterprises or some events might not be too bad either). It made sense to mostly be fighting in Arkham Asylum, since it was full of insane lunatics trying to kill everyone. It made somewhat sense in Arkham City under the context of the story they had written although it was pushing it, but if even Gotham City in its entirety is overrun by random mooks who you've constantly got to fight and not much else they're kind of jumping the shark a bit like that last Batman movie.
Also great work with the modeling/animation/level design. And all of that from a rather unknown studio and without any expectations for greatness (and it was definitely a breath of fresh air after relative disappointments like Mass Effect, GTA IV, Bioshock or Fallout 3 at that time).
Only a few of the boss fights were largely disappointing. Henchmen variety, the difficulty and AI could've been improved (for instance I remember how enemies apparently didn't notice their colleagues being taken out a few steps away: http://i.imgur.com/fdWhVym.jpg ) and I didn't really get why the main plot was wrapped around the whole "Titan" thing, it seemed kind of stupid and a missed opportunity to tell somewhat more of a psychological thriller tale around Joker similar to the one with Scarecrow but using a different angle.
The second game was largely more of the same and somewhat less focused than the first but still good and fun. They improved on some stuff, but made other stuff worse.
I'm gonna wait and see with this one and probably get it when it's somewhat cheaper.
I agree though that it would be great if they could add some more detective-ing and sneaking around the city (like in Batman: TAS) as fresh gameplay elements and maybe solving some more "banal" problems between shit going down to change the pacing up a bit (playing as Bruce Wayne for a few sections at Wayne Enterprises or some events might not be too bad either). It made sense to mostly be fighting in Arkham Asylum, since it was full of insane lunatics trying to kill everyone. It made somewhat sense in Arkham City under the context of the story they had written although it was pushing it, but if even Gotham City in its entirety is overrun by random mooks who you've constantly got to fight and not much else they're kind of jumping the shark a bit like that last Batman movie.
Last edited:
dnf
Pedophile
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,885
Sadly, this excuse is the main plot of the first game.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.