Arkham Origins is the only one that gave us a proper Batcave. The Arkham Asylum Batcave made sense for that game and setting, but doesn't measure up to the real Batcave featured in Arkham Origins.
He’s like 10 times better in Asylum. After playing Asylum I hated every other interpretation of Killer Croc I’ve seen because he makes them look like garbage. He’s an awesome vicious hulking horror sewer monster. In Origins he’s a big body guard.
As mentioned, the boss battles were better, as is the representation of Bane, understandably so - they couldn't have braindead Rocksteady Bane as a major villain. Adding to these, he also had a stronger character arc in Origins than Asylum/City, though his arc in Knight is probably the best in the series. The Batman/Joker dynamic was explored the best in Origins, though not considerably. The crime scene reconstructions are also at their best in Origins, the whole Lacey Towers case is one of the best parts of the entire Arkham series. The voice acting is equally good between the Origins and Rocksteady trilogy VAs.
The crime scene thing in origins is not good. Knight greatly improves upon it. And it’s weird that all of his tech is more advanced as a new vigilante than it is in City.
Better side quests (Crime scenes/Shiva/Deadshot/Anarky)
Better design for Batman
Better combat (bar Knight, through it misses the complexities brought by Brutes and Martial Artists)
Better story (has a clear structure with solid villains, actually includes Alfred in a useful role for once bar exposition)
Better versatility (doesn't focus on the usual 5/6 mainline Batman villains bar Penguin and Joker, allowing for loads of relatively obscure guys to have their shine)
The Shock Gloves brought a unique and fun flavor of gameplay element in the combat that makes Origins stand apart from the Rocksteady trilogy, and in a good way. It's rewarding, satisfying and incredibly fun to first slowly get going with the standard combat moves for getting your meter up and then just going berserk on your enemies with sort of like the ultimate equalizer. For me, it was awesome and easily the sole reason to play Origins multiple times.
The core Batman gameplay without the Batmobile also felt a lot leaner and focused. However, Knight takes most things to whole new levels that makes Origins really hard to return to, from the smooth and responsive gliding to the intuitive and empowering combat and the sandboxy approach to it's Stealth. But it's only the Shock Gloves that makes me feel like I've missed.
Origins definitely has the worst costume design. Asylum’s is super classic. City is a slightly worse version of Asylum. Post City is really cool. Knight is a much cooler armored look.
Also it has the worst combat. The buttons kind of mess up you. Asylum has this too but it does it a more immersive way that makes it feel more like real combat. Origin’s is just awkward.
To bash Origins some more I hate the colors and user interface.
Origins definitely has the worst costume design. Asylum’s is super classic. City is a slightly worse version of Asylum. Post City is really cool. Knight is a much cooler armored look.
Also it has the worst combat. The buttons kind of mess up you. Asylum has this too but it does it a more immersive way that makes it feel more like real combat. Origin’s is just awkward.
To bash Origins some more I hate the colors and user interface.
The combat was the best, probably even better than knight. It had the best boss fights by far. Although the “feel” of the atmosphere of the was alright. The story was great but not the best.
I can't say too much about gameplay mechanics. Probably because it was all the same ever since Arkham Asylum came out but storytelling wise it was probably the best story of the pack. Best version of Joker. Best version of Bane etc etc. The graphics and worldbuilding were not at par with other games.
The Shock Gloves brought a unique and fun flavor of gameplay element in the combat that makes Origins stand apart from the Rocksteady trilogy, and in a good way. It's rewarding, satisfying and incredibly fun to first slowly get going with the standard combat moves for getting your meter up and then just going berserk on your enemies with sort of like the ultimate equalizer. For me, it was awesome and easily the sole reason to play Origins multiple times.
My only issue with the Shock Gloves is that it trivialised combat once you had a good idea of cheesing the charge with a couple of combos. The game has to intentionally build the encounters around it (to the point where you have Blackgate encounters that are frankly obnoxious in how much shit they threw at you). There's not a lot of thought put into actually using them as well given you punch through everything including shields/armored goons.
Really cool gadget, just a bit imbalanced ngl. Same with the Remote Claw giving you essentially free kills, but that's a bit more manageable.
Origins definitely has the worst costume design. Asylum’s is super classic. City is a slightly worse version of Asylum. Post City is really cool. Knight is a much cooler armored look.
Also it has the worst combat. The buttons kind of mess up you. Asylum has this too but it does it a more immersive way that makes it feel more like real combat. Origin’s is just awkward.
Origins I find has the strongest, at least from a lore standpoint anyway. It makes sense for a rookie Year One Bruce to have a super armoured and bulky suit before he streamlined it in later games to a more conventional look.
And I disagree even more with the "worst combat" deal. Origins has pretty responsive Freeflow that never got particularly tricky apart from crowded areas filled with Martial Artists and whatnot. Asylum by comparison feels really rough at high-end gameplay, you wiff a good bit when trying to do more complex movements and Batman just feels stiff at times which is frustrating. Don't get me started on trying to play Joker when goons can punch you mid-swing because the animations are so long.
I agree with others here that it had the best boss battles and best crime scene reconstruction and investigation cases. Also agree with Prof that it had the best design for Batman and the best looking bat-suit.
Side quest easily. While Arkham City had amazing side missions they ultimately always led to nothing and no real side boss battles like for deadshot all you needed to do was a vent takedown and you beat him.
@professorrespect: It can feel a bit imbalanced alright, but when you consider that Origins' combat is already a bit more difficult than the Rocksteady games' cause of the tighter and stricter timings on Counters, the Shock gloves do smooth things out eventually.
Batman and Joker's relationship feels the most fleshed out. Also as most people said Bane was pretty good (except till the end and even then he was good enough for me to accept it)
Boss battles for sure, while the Deathstroke fight is clunky since it's a 2013 game that and the Bane battle in Arkham Asylum are always more pulse pounding than a lot of other boss battles from the other games save for maybe Grundy and Clayface. Origins also gets bonus points for not hyping up Deathstroke just for him to get one shot after his tank gets trashed.
Boss battles, the Batcave, the detective stuff, Deathstroke (although more could have been done with that boss battle, to make it more of a challenge for Batman, at least), Bane, and Lady Shiva.
Okay, so I don't recall Knight well enough to make a comparison, as - while it's the best of the games - it's not as easy to replay due to the greater amount of content. From what I recall, Origins does have a better story, but I can't judge that for certain, so my reasoning will focus purely on Asylum and City.
As far as Asylum goes, I think the game overall has a fairly linear plot and a relatively simple theme. The main idea seems to be that Bruce is the consummate survivor, and that he'll never give up even when faced with intense physical and psychological stressors. Having a simple theme isn't necessarily an outright bad thing, provided it's illustrated well, but it does somewhat limit the extent to which a story can excel. Especially when there's structural flaws:
As mentioned before, the plot is fairly linear. It's not set up to be complicated - Bruce has a primary goal of stopping Joker, and faces many enemies along the way to achieve this goal. These enemies are designed to push Bruce to his limits, and, structurally, given that their narrative function is to illustrate Bruce's willpower, we would expect them to be increasingly difficult to defeat. Such is largely borne out in practice: before Bruce faces Joker he defeats an almighty gauntlet of Bane, Scarecrow, Killer Croc, and Poison Ivy. However, this aspect of the storytelling falls flat on its face by having the game's final conflict be terribly underwhelming. Rather than playing to the unique threats of Joker as a character, they reduced his and Bruce's confrontation to another Titan boss battle - which Bruce has already faced several of. The result is that the player isn't left as convinced of the strength of Bruce's willpower as they ought to be. This choice doesn't just demean Joker, it actively demeans Bruce, and destabalises the core of the story.
Tying into the above, the ways the story tries to create psychological stress for Bruce - while still largely limiting the conflict to a physical trial he has faced many times over - don't work. Firstly, Joker shoots him with the Titan formula, and we're supposed to be impressed that he can resist it... just because? There's no proper buildup towards showing that this is any more of a psychologically formidable trial than, say, Scarecrow's fear toxin, so it lacks narrative weight. And secondly, Joker reveals he has captured Commissioner Gordon, and could potentially harm him. This could have had narrative weight, if it weren't for the fact that Bruce had already rescued Commissioner Gordon earlier in the game, and sent him a way on a boat. Not only was the Commissioner's reintroduction into the plot not foreshadowed, but it also just makes him come across as a MacGuffin character, who's importance solely revolves around being rescued. Add on the fact that Bruce is never emphasised to be especially psychologically stressed by this, and the whole sequence just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
By contrast, Origins isn't lacking these structural flaws in the expression of its theme, nor is the theme itself so simple. The core idea of the game seems to be that Bruce has convinced himself he is this larger than life figure, despite the fact he's a young man still traumatised by his parents' death who doesn't have the hardness necessary to defeat his foes by himself. The structure of the game reflects this, with Bruce facing increasingly challenging obstacles designed to push him to a breaking point. He has an incredibly tough fight against Deathstroke, is nearly killed by Copperhead, gets psychologically undone by the Joker, and finally loses the rooftop fight against Bane. All because he insisted on doing everything by himself - out of mistaken hubris resulting from not wanting to be the weak boy who lost his parents in Crime Alley. It's only on the bridge with Firefly that he finally accepts some kind of help. And both this choice and Bruce's prior decisions have clearly defined narrative consequences:
The fight against Bane on the rooftop is one that Bruce loses, and that Bane successfully escapes from. This successful escape allows Bane to later attack the Batcave and nearly kill Alfred - teaching Bruce that alone he's vulnerable.
The confrontation against Firefly shows Bruce that relying on others can strengthen him. Together he and Gordon succeed where individually they'd fail - both are needed to disable all four bombs.
As such, with all of the groundwork sufficiently set out for Bruce to grow as a character, we would expect the finale to be reflective of this growth. And, indeed, it is. The game creates a dilemma for Bruce where in order to win he has to lean on others or compromise his own ethical principles. After having taken Bane out with the shock gloves, if he lets him die, he can immediately capture the Joker and be done with everything. But, if he resuscitates Bane, he gives the Joker a chance to escape. Because Bruce is human and vulnerable, as the story has continually established, he has to save Bane, yet in doing so creates a scenario where the only way he can capture the Joker is through co-operating with others. Bruce does this, and demonstrates his personal growth by doing so.
In other words, Origins is, I feel, more structurally and thematically complex than Asylum, and lacks the latter's notable flaws. City is a lot more comparable to Origins in these regards. It has a more complicated main theme - the importance of Bruce maintaining his ethical principles in the face of adversity - and, like Origins, it also uses narrative consequence in neat ways to illustrate its theme:
Bruce rejecting Ra's offer to become his successor and make use of the Lazarus pit comes back to bite him when Harley Quinn takes the cure. In trying to get it back, he is placed into a scenario where Talia is forced to trade herself for him, and give Joker himself access to the Lazarus pit.
Bruce making the choice to prevent Hugo Strange from killing all of Arkham City's inmates with Protocol Ten, rather than trying to chase Talia and the Joker, causes him to later have to watch her die.
Despite having seen the consequences of his prior actions, despite having suffered a great personal cost from making them, Bruce still maintains his ethical standards by saying that he would have cured Joker. This is a brilliant piece of writing, and a perfect finale to the game. As such, I do acknowledge that a choice between the two is perhaps more down to personal preference than with Asylum, but, in the end, I think there is one key difference that makes Origins have the superior story.
That key difference is its use of falling action and intermingling of plotlines. Of course there is more than one way to tell a story, and ordinary narrative conventions can be broken if there's good reason for it, but the generally accepted method of storytelling is the classic narrative triangle. As I'm sure you're aware, this triangle says that there ought to be rising action, a climax, falling action and then a resolution.
With the finale in Origins, this triangle is used to perfection. After the rooftop fight, the tension builds as Bruce tries to track down Bane, and explodes into a climax as Bruce finds out that Bane knows who he is and Firefly then takes hostages on the bridge. Subsequently, after the climax is over - with Firefly being defeated - the action is given time to fall as Bruce and Alfred reflect alongside the player. Only once this has concluded does it start to build again with Bruce gradually making his way through Blackgate prison to confront Joker and Bane once and for all.
By contrast, I think City handles the juggling of multiple plotlines and this narrative triangle comparatively poorly. After Bruce makes the ethical decision to stop Hugo Strange's destructive Protocol Ten, the action gradually builds until the two confront each other, and the mastermind behind everything reveals himself. But, because, of the other loose plot thread, Ra's and Bruce's encounter wraps up in an... anti-climactic fashion. Ra's has barely a couple of minutes on screen before he's killed off and the action goes from 100 to 0 pretty much instantly. There is then little time for the player to reflect on what just transpired, and for the action to build again, because the journey to the Monarch Theatre is so short. And then you're witnessing another climax with Bruce and Joker's final fight. It just feels like there was two climaxes in quick succession, without the proper up and down, and that one of the climaxes went out with a bit of a whimper.
Anyway, though, that's just my take, but feel free to disagree. I'm aware I went a little overboard with the wall of text, but I just kinda wanted to iron out the thoughts I have on the subject in my head by expressing them in detail to someone else.
As mentioned before, the plot is fairly linear. It's not set up to be complicated - Bruce has a primary goal of stopping Joker, and faces many enemies along the way to achieve this goal. These enemies are designed to push Bruce to his limits, and, structurally, given that their narrative function is to illustrate Bruce's willpower, we would expect them to be increasingly difficult to defeat. Such is largely borne out in practice: before Bruce faces Joker he defeats an almighty gauntlet of Bane, Scarecrow, Killer Croc, and Poison Ivy. However, this aspect of the storytelling falls flat on its face by having the game's final conflict be terribly underwhelming. Rather than playing to the unique threats of Joker as a character, they reduced his and Bruce's confrontation to another Titan boss battle - which Bruce has already faced several of. The result is that the player isn't left as convinced of the strength of Bruce's willpower as they ought to be. This choice doesn't just demean Joker, it actively demeans Bruce, and destabalises the core of the story
Whole point of the final encounter is Bruce battling against the odds to win again etc
It's not really a "structural flaw" at that point. Joker's "unique threat" is his planning and intellect, both showcased by the entire game being one big plot that he's planned for months and manipulated almost everyone to achieve. The Titan fight is Joker at his wits end as everything else hasn't worked as per the cutscene right before said fight, it's supposed to showcase how far the player has come that nothing Joker has in his arsenal can effect you.
It's like saying Bane in Origins going from his calculating self to a bumbling idiot who can't speak more than 4 word sentences is a "structural flaw" when it's supposed to show Bane's obsession reaching its pinnacle by having him permanently give himself brain damage just for another chance to break Batman.
Firstly, Joker shoots him with the Titan formula, and we're supposed to be impressed that he can resist it... just because
Batman has willpower, willpower can resist the full change etc. It's a force of psychological will over Joker's greatest weapon and what tips him over the edge to basically going full crazy by giving himself the formula instead as a method to force Batman to change to fight him or waste the single-use antidote on his own transformation, which is easy to get from just following the dialogue.
And secondly, Joker reveals he has captured Commissioner Gordon, and could potentially harm him. This could have had narrative weight, if it weren't for the fact that Bruce had already rescued Commissioner Gordon earlier in the game, and sent him a way on a boat
....acting like the game hasn't had misdirections already? Lol. People you saved being in trouble again is a classic Arkham trope that has happened in pretty much all of the games, it's supposed to keep you on your toes and never make you feel like you 100% know what's going on at all times.
Add on the fact that Bruce is never emphasised to be especially psychologically stressed by this
You want him sharting himself or something? The voice acting has Batman clearly distressed at what's going on.
The fight against Bane on the rooftop is one that Bruce loses
He didn't "lose" the fight, they fought until Bane ran away.
After having taken Bane out with the shock gloves, if he lets him die, he can immediately capture the Joker and be done with everything. But, if he resuscitates Bane, he gives the Joker a chance to escape. Because Bruce is human and vulnerable, as the story has continually established, he has to save Bane, yet in doing so creates a scenario where the only way he can capture the Joker is through co-operating with others. Bruce does this, and demonstrates his personal growth by doing so
It's not that he's vulnerable he just has a set of morals that he stands by etc
By contrast, I think City handles the juggling of multiple plotlines and this narrative triangle comparatively poorly. After Bruce makes the ethical decision to stop Hugo Strange's destructive Protocol Ten, the action gradually builds until the two confront each other, and the mastermind behind everything reveals himself. But, because, of the other loose plot thread, Ra's and Bruce's encounter wraps up in an... anti-climactic fashion
They couldn't have a epic 30 minute fight given Joker was around.
has barely a couple of minutes on screen before he's killed off and the action goes from 100 to 0 pretty much instantly. There is then little time for the player to reflect on what just transpired, and for the action to build again, because the journey to the Monarch Theatre is so short. And then you're witnessing another climax with Bruce and Joker's final fight. It just feels like there was two climaxes in quick succession, without the proper up and down, and that one of the climaxes went out with a bit of a whimper
You do realise there's supposed to be irony to that fake first climax, right? Hugo Strange spends the whole game saying that his scheme is going to be remembered for all time and eradicate crime completely, even starts ego-tripping near the end with that small speech he does to the TYGER guards in the sewers, says he's already beat Batman....yet he's so pathetic that in actuality all his scheme did was massacre a thousand or so people and he's completely forgotten by the next game in the series to the point that he ONLY ever shows up as a drug-induced ghost. His scheme caused MORE crime if you think about it because every living criminal post-City was freed on false imprisonment after a long court case with the state including everyone Batman apprehended on the night.
Hugo's treated like a pushover because he in actuality is. Dude cried over a fake Batman suit he had in his closet because he was so insecure about if he was deserving of anything he'd been given before the game even starts, he was never going to be anything worthwhile.
Anyway, though, that's just my take, but feel free to disagree
Whole point of the final encounter is Bruce battling against the odds to win again etc
I already agreed that this was the point. What I'm disagreeing with was that the final confrontation of Asylum meaningfully showcased Bruce battling against the odds to win in a way that other parts of the game didn't... which I don't think it did.
It's not really a "structural flaw" at that point. Joker's "unique threat" is his planning and intellect, both showcased by the entire game being one big plot that he's planned for months and manipulated almost everyone to achieve. The Titan fight is Joker at his wits end as everything else hasn't worked as per the cutscene right before said fight, it's supposed to showcase how far the player has come that nothing Joker has in his arsenal can effect you.
Joker's planning and intellect included the final party, though. He only gave in and shot himself after Bruce resisted the Titan formula - which was apparently the last part of his perfectly calculated master plan. But why did the writers create a scenario where the extent of Joker's last confrontation with Bruce was having him face two Titans, capturing Commissioner Gordon, and shooting him with the Titan formula? After the absolute gauntlet that Bruce has ran through it just feels... underwhelming. Especially given that after that it just descends into a typical beat 'em up.
It's like saying Bane in Origins going from his calculating self to a bumbling idiot who can't speak more than 4 word sentences is a "structural flaw" when it's supposed to show Bane's obsession reaching its pinnacle by having him permanently give himself brain damage just for another chance to break Batman.
No, it's not the same, because the two have fundamentally different thematic purposes. Joker is supposed to the culmination of Bruce's mammoth gauntlet of foes - he should be feel the most challenging to perfectly hammer home the game's primary theme, and this challenge should actually be befitting of his character. You can show his self-destruction only after treating his character as a sufficient threat, albeit this self-destruction need not be shown by him shooting himself with the Titan formula.
By contrast, Bane did already have his final climactic confrontation with Bruce, and the game's primary theme isn't about Bruce's willpower and survivalist strength anyway. There's no reason for Bane to be as intelligent and menacing as he was before, because Bruce has already overcome that obstacle. Furthermore, his narrative function by this point is just to consequence Bruce for the decision to spare him by halting him in his progress to get to the Joker.
I could write more about why this type of self-destruction is also more befitting of Bane than Joker, but I'll just leave it here, and maybe add it next post if you reply.
Batman has willpower, willpower can resist the full change etc. It's a force of psychological will over Joker's greatest weapon and what tips him over the edge to basically going full crazy by giving himself the formula instead as a method to force Batman to change to fight him or waste the single-use antidote on his own transformation, which is easy to get from just following the dialogue.
I got all of that. I literally wrote it in my post. What I didn't get, and still don't, is how this is remotely useful as a narrative device. We're given no proper reason to feel as though this is some unique willpower showing on Batman's part, and to treat it as as any kind of special expression of the game's fundamental theme. There was no prior buildup towards showing the Titan change as especially difficult to resist, at least not moreso than other psychological stressors Bruce has had. For example, Crane's fear toxin shows our protagonist his most fundamental depths; his deepest insecurities and fears. You're telling me that I'm supposed to be especially impressed and triumphant that Bruce squirms a bit after being shot and doesn't turn into a hulking monster?
....acting like the game hasn't had misdirections already? Lol. People you saved being in trouble again is a classic Arkham trope that has happened in pretty much all of the games, it's supposed to keep you on your toes and never make you feel like you 100% know what's going on at all times.
Firstly, Commissioner Gordon isn't like many of the other characters you save that get into trouble again. We didn't leave him somewhere on Arkham Island and return there to find him captured. We literally sent him away off in a boat, and then he shows up at the end without any kind of prior foreshadowing or even explanation in the scene itself.
Secondly, and this is what you're missing in your reply, the big reason why this is a problem is the lack of other psychological stressors in the scene for Bruce. If the finale were otherwise well-executed, with Gordon's capture remaining as is, I'd think "okay, it's a touch lazy writing, but I don't really care". However, as it is, he is one of two variables in the scene that could serve to have a meaningful psychological impact on our protagonist. But, instead, Gordon isn't really developed as a character enough for me to really care, nor is the psychological damage done to him or Bruce particularly substantial. He, as I said, is literally a MacGuffin character who's sole reason for being part of the plot is to be captured. That's it.
You want him sharting himself or something? The voice acting has Batman clearly distressed at what's going on.
Batman is distressed, but he's not especially psychologically unbalanced. And what this scene really needs is just something to actually grant some degree of narrative weight to his and Joker's final confrontation. Bruce's "distressed" voice acting over a character who has not had any defining moments on screen doesn't quite cut it for me.
Obviously I don't expect them to match this precisely, but think Killing Joke for a way in which Batman rescuing a captured Jim Gordon could create an appropriate amount of psychological distress and drama.
He didn't "lose" the fight, they fought until Bane ran away.
This doesn't substantively engage with any of my thematic analysis and just seems like a nitpick. If you want to be really technical, no, he didn't "lose" the fight - considering he wasn't knocked out - but Alfred was convinced he was going to get himself killed, and in the scene itself Bruce seems on the verge of losing.
It's not that he's vulnerable he just has a set of morals that he stands by etc
It is that he's vulnerable. The game goes out of its way to stress that Bruce is human and traumatised, and that this humanity prevents him from being the ruthless, ethereal being he believes himself to be. Or, as Alfred says, "You're not some hardened vigilante. You're a young man with a trust fund and too much anger."
Now, that's not to say there's anything wrong with being ethical and human. The game clearly endorses being this way, and supports leaning on others to help manage it. However, it is still clearly the case that Bruce's ethics emerge from a place of humanity, and that - in some respects - Bruce's humanity makes him vulnerable.
They couldn't have a epic 30 minute fight given Joker was around.
Joker would still be waiting for the grand finale at the Monarch Theatre regardless of whether Ra's and Bruce's conflict had lasted for slightly longer. I think the reasons for why their conflict plays out the way it does are more logistical than anything - they needed Hugo to blow up the tower so Bruce could get quickly back to the bottom to then go and face Joker, and they didn't know how to have Ra's and Bruce fight for any length of time without Hugo just dying in the middle of it.
I'm not sure what the solution to this gameplay/logistical conundrum was, but I don't think it's my job to solve it. What I can point out is that revealing Ra's was the mastermind behind Hugo Strange, and then having him die two seconds later was probably not the way to go.
You do realise there's supposed to be irony to that fake first climax, right? Hugo Strange spends the whole game saying that his scheme is going to be remembered for all time and eradicate crime completely, even starts ego-tripping near the end with that small speech he does to the TYGER guards in the sewers, says he's already beat Batman....yet he's so pathetic that in actuality all his scheme did was massacre a thousand or so people and he's completely forgotten by the next game in the series to the point that he ONLY ever shows up as a drug-induced ghost. His scheme caused MORE crime if you think about it because every living criminal post-City was freed on false imprisonment after a long court case with the state including everyone Batman apprehended on the night.
Hugo's treated like a pushover because he in actuality is. Dude cried over a fake Batman suit he had in his closet because he was so insecure about if he was deserving of anything he'd been given before the game even starts, he was never going to be anything worthwhile.
You're addressing phantoms. I thought everything regarding Hugo Strange was well-done, and I have no problem with the anti-climax that Bruce walks into the main room of his personal headquarters, kicks his shit in, and easily deactivates Protocol Ten. As you said, the irony of Hugo Strange's character is that he's fundamentally insecure, and, when his resources are stripped away, not particularly much of a threat.
But the whole game had been hyping up that there was someone behind Hugo Strange, and - within that scene itself - he gets stabbed while he's in the middle of his pathetic tirade about commanding forces beyond Bruce's comprehension. The anti-climax happens, he's treated as disposable, and then the true villain reveals himself. Only to die two minutes later. That's not good writing. You can't pretend to me like that's good writing.
Especially given the follow up just has the player keep going on with their day like nothing happened, and very quickly confront the Joker. The falling action and rising action just isn't there. Ra's feels like an after thought in that scene, even though it's given all of the narrative impetus of a climactic moment. If Hugo had just been it, without all the hinting that he was a pawn in someone else's game, I would have been fine with Bruce defeating him and moving on. As it is, though, you wait for the confrontation with bated breath to know who's behind him, and are left disappointed.
Whole point of the final encounter is Bruce battling against the odds to win again etc
I already agreed that this was the point
yea
What I'm disagreeing with was that the final confrontation of Asylum meaningfully showcased Bruce battling against the odds to win in a way that other parts of the game didn't
Does it have to do so to be good tho
I mean Bane/Croc/Ivy both had the same feature of being overwhelmingly physical forces that Batman has to fight, that sucked too? The fight sucks ass but I'm not about to say that the idea itself did, I think it's perfectly fine for what they had
It's not really a "structural flaw" at that point. Joker's "unique threat" is his planning and intellect, both showcased by the entire game being one big plot that he's planned for months and manipulated almost everyone to achieve. The Titan fight is Joker at his wits end as everything else hasn't worked as per the cutscene right before said fight, it's supposed to showcase how far the player has come that nothing Joker has in his arsenal can effect you.
Joker's planning and intellect included the final party, though
Yea
Not sure how this is a bit ngl
e only gave in and shot himself after Bruce resisted the Titan formula - which was apparently the last part of his perfectly calculated master plan
Well hang on here you're forgetting that Joker was aiming for Gordon originally and not Batman, in fact given Bruce's suit the TITAN gun wouldn't even have cut through in the first place. It only worked because of the specific angle Bruce jumped at was where it'd been cut, I don't think Joker is that clever lol.
But why did the writers create a scenario where the extent of Joker's last confrontation with Bruce was having him face two Titans, capturing Commissioner Gordon, and shooting him with the Titan formula After the absolute gauntlet that Bruce has ran through it just feels... underwhelming
What were you expecting? You got a progression of the Titan fights, a increase in stakes, and a unique stipulation based around Joker being mutated.
It's like saying Bane in Origins going from his calculating self to a bumbling idiot who can't speak more than 4 word sentences is a "structural flaw" when it's supposed to show Bane's obsession reaching its pinnacle by having him permanently give himself brain damage just for another chance to break Batman.
No, it's not the same, because the two have fundamentally different thematic purposes Joker is supposed to the culmination of Bruce's mammoth gauntlet of foes - he should be feel the most challenging to perfectly hammer home the game's primary theme, and this challenge should actually be befitting of his character. You can show his self-destruction only after treating his character as a sufficient threat, albeit this self-destruction need not be shown by him shooting himself with the Titan formula
Joker's the most challenging because of his planning, not because of any actual traits that somehow make him the hardest boss by himself lol. The entire game is all Joker's doing, that's enough.
By contrast, Bane did already have his final climactic confrontation with Bruce, and the game's primary theme isn't about Bruce's willpower and survivalist strength anyway. There's no on for Bane to be as intelligent and menacing as he was before, because Bruce has already overcome that obstacle
Well your point is that Joker's big transformation is underwhelming because it doesn't meet a certain standard of narrative stakes when the both were there mostly to show that extreme side of their personas that causes them to self-destruct trying to defeat Batman/the player etc
Batman has willpower, willpower can resist the full change etc. It's a force of psychological will over Joker's greatest weapon and what tips him over the edge to basically going full crazy by giving himself the formula instead as a method to force Batman to change to fight him or waste the single-use antidote on his own transformation, which is easy to get from just following the dialogue.
What I didn't get, and still don't, is how this is remotely useful as a narrative device
It shows Batman will never give up to any temptation, even one that's chemical.
We're given no proper reason to feel as though this is some unique willpower showing on Batman's part
I mean....it is, Bruce is the only person ever shown resisting TITAN in a tangible fashion. It's a extreme transformation as we've seen from those injected before. The feat is clearly there that his psyche is that well formed that he can resist something as dangerous as TITAN without falling to pieces.
For example, Crane's fear toxin shows our protagonist his most fundamental depths; his deepest insecurities and fears. You're telling me that I'm supposed to be especially impressed and triumphant that Bruce squirms a bit after being shot and doesn't turn into a hulking monster
Crane's toxin was psychological though, it exploits fears of the user effected. TITAN is a purely physical transformation that is completely different yet individually impressive for its own reasons. Yes, it is impressive that he resisted a crazy monster formula with sheer willpower; the effects of it were clear.
....acting like the game hasn't had misdirections already? Lol. People you saved being in trouble again is a classic Arkham trope that has happened in pretty much all of the games, it's supposed to keep you on your toes and never make you feel like you 100% know what's going on at all times.
Firstly, Commissioner Gordon isn't like many of the other characters you save that get into trouble again. We didn't leave him somewhere on Arkham Island and return there to find him captured We literally sent him away off in a boat, and then he shows up at the end without any kind of prior foreshadowing or even explanation in the scene itself
Gordon IS one of those purely because he got captured again. It's not like it's bizarre either given Joker had a literal island-full of inmates that could've easily intercepted a small boat with barely anyone on it.
Secondly, and this is what you're missing in your reply, the big reason why this is a problem is the lack of other psychological stressors in the scene for Bruce. If the finale were otherwise well-executed, with Gordon's capture remaining as is, I'd think "okay, it's a touch lazy writing, but I don't really care". However, as it is, he is one of two variables in the scene that could serve to have a meaningful psychological impact on our protagonist. But, instead, Gordon isn't really developed as a character enough for me to really care, nor is the psychological damage done to him
I mean Gordon couldn't be developed because he's not in the game for most of it, but obviously the player knows that he's a valuable ally of Batman that would be a tangible effect if he lived/died. The fact that we see Bruce's reaction to a dead Jim in his very first dose of fear gas tells us that it's most assuredly a priority of his and us given a good bit of the game up to Bane is all about tracking him down.
You want him sharting himself or something? The voice acting has Batman clearly distressed at what's going on.
Batman is distressed, but he's not especially psychologically unbalanced
Does he need to be? We know it's a problem.
Obviously I don't expect them to match this precisely, but think Killing Joke for a way in which Batman rescuing a captured Jim Gordon could create an appropriate amount of psychological distress and drama
I don't think they would've been able to fit Killing Joke-levels of emotion into what was really intended to be a small element of a much larger fight.
He didn't "lose" the fight, they fought until Bane ran away.
This doesn't substantively engage with any of my thematic analysis and just seems like a nitpick. If you want to be really technical, no, he didn't "lose" the fight - considering he wasn't knocked out - but Alfred was convinced he was going to get himself killed, and in the scene itself Bruce seems on the verge of losing
It's not really a "nitpick" when a major element of said analysis is that Batman loses to Bane. He didn't, he was just overtly reckless in how he fought him.
They couldn't have a epic 30 minute fight given Joker was around.
Joker would still be waiting for the grand finale at the Monarch Theatre regardless of whether Ra's and Bruce's conflict had lasted for slightly longer. I think the reasons for why their conflict plays out the way it does are more logistical than anything - they needed Hugo to blow up the tower so Bruce could get quickly back to the bottom to then go and face Joker, and they didn't know how to have Ra's and Bruce fight for any length of time without Hugo just dying in the middle of it
I think the way they did it was perfectly valid. Hugo having a last-gasp attempt at doing something was legitimately impressive and Ra's being a goofy ahh and stabbing himself mid-flight was great.
I'm not sure what the solution to this gameplay/logistical conundrum was, but I don't think it's my job to solve it. What I can point out is that revealing Ra's was the mastermind behind Hugo Strange, and then having him die two seconds later was probably not the way to go
I think Ra's being revealed doesn't ruin any of the story at all. We already knew that Hugo was working under someone, Ra's goals were more or less already all accomplished by the time he shows up and then dies (minus recruiting Batman ofc). There isn't any loose end or need for a overindulgent big second fight either given that already exists.
You do realise there's supposed to be irony to that fake first climax, right? Hugo Strange spends the whole game saying that his scheme is going to be remembered for all time and eradicate crime completely, even starts ego-tripping near the end with that small speech he does to the TYGER guards in the sewers, says he's already beat Batman....yet he's so pathetic that in actuality all his scheme did was massacre a thousand or so people and he's completely forgotten by the next game in the series to the point that he ONLY ever shows up as a drug-induced ghost. His scheme caused MORE crime if you think about it because every living criminal post-City was freed on false imprisonment after a long court case with the state including everyone Batman apprehended on the night.
Hugo's treated like a pushover because he in actuality is. Dude cried over a fake Batman suit he had in his closet because he was so insecure about if he was deserving of anything he'd been given before the game even starts, he was never going to be anything worthwhile.
You're addressing phantoms
no
I thought everything regarding Hugo Strange was well-done, and I have no problem with the anti-climax that Bruce walks into the main room of his personal headquarters, kicks his shit in, and easily deactivates Protocol Ten. As you said, the irony of Hugo Strange's character is that he's fundamentally insecure, and, when his resources are stripped away, not particularly much of a threat
yea
But the whole game had been hyping up that there was someone behind Hugo Strange, and - within that scene itself - he gets stabbed while he's in the middle of his pathetic tirade about commanding forces beyond Bruce's comprehension. The anti-climax happens, he's treated as disposable, and then the true villain reveals himself. Only to die two minutes later. That's not good writing. You can't pretend to me like that's good writing
I think it's perfectly fine writing. Ra's impact is felt from the fact that he planned so much of City's events and by proxy basically caused every awful thing to Bruce as a result. He doesn't need to have a big epic Duel of the Fates for people to see that, same with Joker naturally. Ra's dying is like the sun rising, it's just what happens
Especially given the follow up just has the player keep going on with there day like nothing happened, and very quickly confront the Joker. The falling action and rising action just isn't there. Ra's feels like an after thought in that scene, even though it's given all of the narrative impetus of a climactic moment
Not really. Ra's dies and Bruce has to right away get to Joker in a timed event, so there's no time to sit around and have a generic "oh yeah Ra's is really bad ya'll" moment. We KNOW the impact of everything he's done and also know that him dying again means nothing. You get immediately taken off that to Joker in a legitimate hoodwink that has you like Bruce, confused and somewhat nervous about how everything is actually going to end.
If Hugo had just been it, without all the hinting that he was a pawn in someone else's game, I would have been fine with Bruce defeating him and moving on. As it is, though, you wait for the confrontation with bated breath to know who's behind him, and are left disappointed
that's a you problem and not with the game me personally, Ra's involvement made perfect sense rather than some other random character you'd have to throw in there at the VERY end with no time to develop.
Log in to comment