Batman: Arkham Origins - Part 3

[Two-Face]

Yep I agree with TFB here. Strange was a second fiddle to Joker.

 

[Naked Shia]

even Harley Quinn had more screentime than Hugo. which is a pity, because City is an amazing game. But its story and characterization are really weak.

 

[The Joker]

Strange was second fiddle to several villains. Joker, Penguin, Freeze, and Ra's felt like bigger presences in the game than he did.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah that sucks and there's a lot of them. Hate hate hate mp achievements were they don't belong

Aw, ****.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

Harley Quinn Revenge teased Cadmus Labs posters,

I wouldn't look too much into those. There's been A LOT of references to the DCU in general (Metropolis, Keystone, Injustice Gang, Toyman, etc). Doesn't mean I'll be expecting Superman and Flash in the next game or anything.

even Harley Quinn had more screentime than Hugo. which is a pity, because City is an amazing game. But its story and characterization are really weak.

It looks like Harley will be out in this game. I hope she stays away from the third Arkham game as well. The DLC ensured I had gotten sick of her.

 

[jonathancrane]

Bringing the Joker back to life would considerably undercut the ending and narrative of Arkham City. Yes, Joker is Batman's polar opposite, but like Moriarty, has has to descend the proverbial Reichenbach Falls at some point. It would be nice to have one game where he is not the central villain. I have warmed up to his presence in Arkham Origins, but hope that he does not dominate the narrative of Arkham 3. Maybe have him as a second or third string character in the game's narrative; let Hush, Scarecrow and other baddies have the spotlight. The decision to have him as the main baddie in every video game makes Batman's Rogue's Gallery look weak, when there are character as vibrant and interesting as he is. Sure, no one else will make up the other side of the coin that he shares with Batman, but the other villains have endgames and stories as good, if not better than his.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

What is annoying is that my mind had created a better idea of Protocol 10 than the actual game. As I was playing through, listening to the Hugo Strange tapes of sessions with villains, hearing about the indoctrinated TYGER guards, seeing Poison Ivy, Mad Hatter, Strange's hypnosis, what he did to Quincy Sharpe, his wish to get the Titan containers, I thought, Mein Gott! I have it!

I realised what Protocol 10 would be, and it was the best justification of Arkham City ever, and was a brilliant plan. It was not intended to be a prison at all, but a rehabilitation centre. All the various ways of mind-controlling people are established in the game, the most technological villains are there, and Strange is repeatedly stressed as capable of changing someone's psychological state. I though that Protocol 10 was the time at which a compound or psychological trigger would be released that would place all of Arkham's criminals under his control, using his own tech combined with Poisons Ivy's and Mad Hatter's among others.

Strange would become the hero of Gotham by successfully pacifying the entirety of its unrepentant criminal population, and in doing so would have an army at his disposal with a frightening amount of power. And he could keep on doing so in other cities - stopping crime in such a horribly invasive and evil way, all the while accumulating power.

But no, it was actually blowing things up.

 

[Nathan]

Damn you man... Damn you... Why did you have to share your awesome idea?

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Damn you man... Damn you... Why did you have to share your awesome idea?

I'm sorry! I'm so sorry! I must restrain my creativity for the greater good!

 

[Shikamaru]

That's a really good idea.

One question though. How would the countdown to Protocol 10 play in? Does Strange push a button and everyone is at his control? Just curious.

 

[Drakepool]

Eh, I thought Protocol 10 was fine the way it was. Not knocking that idea though, I just prefer the actual version.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Same. That's a great idea up there, but I don't mind it just being explosions. It is a videogame afterall.

 

[Nathan]

I hope they do a better job with Origins and Arkham 3. The first two games started with a nice setup, but in the end you get reminded you are just playing a game. First we had Joker transform into a giant in Asylum, and in City Strange's master plan is to blow **** up.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

That's a really good idea.

One question though. How would the countdown to Protocol 10 play in? Does Strange push a button and everyone is at his control? Just curious.

I thought that the reason for all the Strange vaults around the place was not just for access, but the dispersal of gas. I also had a suspicion that the weapons and clothing that Strange had given to each inmate would have contained more than just holes for limbs. And the countdown would have been for the same purposes - using the weapons trade as a justification for Protocol 10.

Same. That's a great idea up there, but I don't mind it just being explosions. It is a videogame afterall.

I think that's a pretty appalling attitude to take towards games. Yes, they are for entertainment and meant to be fun, but a medium of art is no excuse for sloppy story telling. One does not build a up a great mystery over a villain's plan only to reveal that is is nuking everything.

I hope they do a better job with Origins and Arkham 3. The first two games started with a nice setup, but in the end you get reminded you are just playing a game. First we had Joker transform into a giant in Asylum, and in City Strange's master plan is to blow **** up.

Yeah, the finales of both games - Joker's boss fight and Strange's Protocol, reminded me I was playing a game in a jarring way compared to how immersive the rest of the game was.

 

[Shikamaru]

I like your idea overall, but the gas thing would have been really cheesy IMO. It would have been just as cheesy as the big Joker Titan monster at the end of AA.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Oh don't get me wrong, it's just where I thought it was heading. If I were to write it I would have set up better causes and ways for it to be done. I'm just referring my thoughts as to where I thought the plot was going when I was playing.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

I think that's a pretty appalling attitude to take towards games. Yes, they are for entertainment and meant to be fun, but a medium of art is no excuse for sloppy story telling. One does not build a up a great mystery over a villain's plan only to reveal that is is nuking everything.

I hear what you're saying but "nuking everything" provided a suitably grand, apocalyptic backdrop for the game's finale not to mention totally turning the landscape we've spent the night getting used to completely on its head.
"Gotham is burning and you have a mad man to stop", THAT is how you end a Batman game.

Your idea, like I said, is good. But it's too routed in story. Like, how does it translate to actual gameplay? Do these controlled villains all of a sudden come out of nowhere and attack Batman at the end? How does an utterly random occurrence like that improve upon Asylum's weird Giant Joker finale?

Oh, also: Art?! This is a console video game based on a children's comic book character. There's a section where you kung fu fight ninjas in a secret subterranean ghost town surrounded by robots.
I love the absolute crap out of the Arkham games... but let's not pretend they're Ibsen plays, eh?

 

[Rocanrol]

That's because of the setting of the arkhamverse, but videogames ARE works of art.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

That's because of the setting of the arkhamverse, but videogames ARE works of art.

SOME videogames are. No doubt. What I'm saying is the Arkham games aren't.

I enjoy them. I enjoy them a lot. But on the same level as I enjoy saaaaaay... the new Star Trek movies.
They're fun, well made, examples of what they are but they've never made me think or consider something differently.
How could they? Beyond "this is the bad guy, and this is how we stop him" stories like that aren't really ABOUT anything. Not really.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

I hear what you're saying but "nuking everything" provided a suitably grand, apocalyptic backdrop for the game's finale not to mention totally turning the landscape we've spent the night getting used to completely on its head.
"Gotham is burning and you have a mad man to stop", THAT is how you end a Batman game.

Your idea, like I said, is good. But it's too routed in story. Like, how does it translate to actual gameplay? Do these controlled villains all of a sudden come out of nowhere and attack Batman at the end? How does an utterly random occurrence like that improve upon Asylum's weird Giant Joker finale?

Oh, also: Art?! This is a console video game based on a children's comic book character. There's a section where you kung fu fight ninjas in a secret subterranean ghost town surrounded by robots.
I love the absolute crap out of the Arkham games... but let's not pretend they're Ibsen plays, eh?

Quite easily actually - retain the helicopters hunting you down. The area is smoggy and it hard to see, but your detective vision has been compromised. The entire Arkham population is being directed at YOU in a much more co-ordinated fashion.

Hell, it actually gives Hugo Strange a boss battle - he can use a mind-controlled supervillain to do his bidding. Hell, a double up would be great.

I think you're forgetting how sadly lacking in visual Protocol Ten actually was. There were helicopters in the air (retained), and the occasional missile and one from the tower. But overall...not much. The sky is the same, there is very little in the way of smoke, and there were not enough buildings on the map created without riddler trophies everywhere to justify destroying them. Penguin blowing up the bridge changed the scenery more than Protocol 10.



You also seem startling unaware of what art can constitute. Have you read the Iliad? These are things over two thousand years old, with the most gung-ho, ridiculous, over-the-top insance happenings, with Gods interfering, infighting, incest, people slaying hundreds of soldiers by themselves. It makes Batman look like something out of reality. And yet it is art, because it is exciting, it is fantastically written, and it knows what it wants to be and does it well. Indiana Jones is art - it is a beautiful and terrifically fun film.

The only real difference between Arkham City and these two in terms of artistic value is that Indiana Jones and The Iliad knew how to do a climax right.

 

[TheVileOne]

Just not sure how that would've worked in the game.

Also remember City didn't end with protocol 10. The end was Joker's death and the Clayface fight.

 

[jonathancrane]

I liked Protocol 10; it added extra shading to the contrast between Batman and Strange and their methods on solving the problem of evil in Gotham City. I am not fully sold on the mind control idea. Having Batman's entire rogues' gallery reduced to automatons doesn't make them seem so special anymore.

 

[TheVileOne]

I thought Protocol worked in the whole grand scheme of things by just wiping out crime by blowing them all to hell. Even innocent people. It puts Strange and Ra's Al Ghul similar vain to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

 

[jonathancrane]

I thought Protocol worked in the whole grand scheme of things by just wiping out crime by blowing them all to hell. Even innocent people. It puts Strange and Ra's Al Ghul similar vain to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Well said.

 

[The Caped Knight]

I thought Protocol worked in the whole grand scheme of things by just wiping out crime by blowing them all to hell. Even innocent people. It puts Strange and Ra's Al Ghul similar vain to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Word, Arkham city was a great game. I liked the story a lot even Ra's involvement and it makes sense and is true his character that he would eradicate the criminal element by causing massive genocide.