Batman Thread.

[Dark Samus Aran]

Batman games to start off

I really like the Batman games, anyone else?

[HYRUL3]

If you ask that on this forum, it's like asking if anyone else likes breathing.

You can tell that Asylum/City both have some borrowed elements from the Metroid series, like collecting upgrades, exploring, having to backtrack once you get the right upgrade, etc.

The games are fantastic. The rumored 3rd one, that supposedly is a prequel and tells the story of Batman meeting the Joker for the first time, and includes other DC super heroes, sounds amazing.

[okey]

If you ask that on this forum, it's like asking if anyone else likes breathing.

*asphyxiates*

I don't like the example these games set.

[HYRUL3]

Example? What do you mean? Do you mean you don't like the attention they get?

[okey]

Example?

Apparently it's ok for a game to be really shallow as long as it makes you feel like a badass.

If people want an easy power fantasy game that's fine, but at least be honest about it. I hate how these games are hailed for having a deep and innovative combat system.

There's a whole laundry list of things I hated about Arkham Asylum but that's the big one.

[HYRUL3]

Shallow? The game's anything but shallow. The combat system is easy to get a hang of but difficult to master. Try to get perfect scores on any of the combat challenge maps and you'll see that. The exploration and stealth also separate it from other games.

The rest of the game isn't shallow. I don't understand.

[Zeroº]

Apparently it's ok for a game to be really shallow as long as it makes you feel like a badass.

If people want an easy power fantasy game that's fine, but at least be honest about it. I hate how these games are hailed for having a deep and innovative combat system.

Maybe I've misinterpreted what you wrote, but I don't exactly feel like restraining the rant. It's important to note that I've yet to play either of the Arkham games, so I'm missing a tiny bit of crucial information going into said rant, but I do know that nearly every Batman game before them has been a straightforward Beat'EmUp. So here goes:

You've just described nearly every video game ever. In fact, that has basically been the main draw to video games since their inception. Give the player something to control, a way to control it, throw some form of challenge at the player, and the player will feel awesome when thry finally beat said challenge. That is every, single video game ever made. Stories were something added in at a later point when they realized they could do so. Up until then, games either had zero story, or had their story hidden away in the manual.
Give a kid Asteroids, they play it without question. Give a kid Pacman, they play it without question. Give a kid Mario Bros. or Metroid, and they play it without question. The only thing that's truly changed between now and then is that developers have been injecting their stories into the game as opposed to the manual. Look at the Prime games, for example: They cram their entire story into completely optional logs that you can scan all over the terrain. Play them without scanning anything and you might as well be playing one of the 2D Metroid games. Look at Star Fox: You fly forward and shoot everything; listening to your fellow pilots is unnecessary. Heck, look at the first two Resident Evil games, and maybe even RE4. Playing the games without all the people talking, taking all the story out of them, would still result in a fun game. The only games that are truly reliant on story and talking would be RPGs, and even the first generation of RPGs were light on the story. People still ate them up. Pong was neither innovative nor deep, yet people (to this day) still feel like bad-asses when they win a game or two.

The stories in games nowadays might be "awesome" or "deep," but they are still just a deceptive way of getting the player to go from point A to point B. Sure, you might enjoy the story, but if you're playing the game purely for the story, then you're enjoying the wrong media; I would suggest switching to books or movies.

Now, the reason that games are continually getting praised for such things as combat systems stems from where we originated. I refer you back to a previous paragraph in which games from the '80s and '90s were talked about. We've come a long way since those games, and we only keep going. We've reached a threshold in terms of how much storytelling we can cram into each game, so the only logical conclusion is to focus on how to make the games more gamey and fun for the players. And if a person can only see the violence in games, then they need to start looking elsewhere, because that's what ~97% of all games are about. And nobody is fooling themselves that the video games they are playing having any other reason to exist than to blow shit up and kill things.

In short: Every game is intrinsically shallow with the singular goal of making the player feel like a bad-ass; the depth is only there to present a challenge and/or make it pretty and easier to play. Since the violence is the main reason of the games, the violence systems are going to be celebrated if they are done well. That's how things have been, are, and will continue to be.

If you don't like the examples that these games set, then.... do you even like video games anymore?

[okey]

But the difference with those games is that they make the player feel cool through engaging gameplay. Arkham Asylum doesn't even let you whiff punches or fall into a pit. The combat never stopped feeling like a drawn out quick time event. There was never any tension.

People rightfully criticize other games that value style over substance, so why does Batman get a free pass? The success of these games pretty much says "A game's presentation is more valuable than it's mechanics."

[Chris]

"A game's presentation is more valuable than it's mechanics."

Except that being on UE3 everything looks like plastic. The games are well made and designed, the combat is a tad basic and gets repetitive sure but on the whole the game is a blast to play through and for that reason it's well regarded. Also combat isn't exactly the only thing you do in the game...

[HYRUL3]

I still don't see how the combat system is shallow. You can take on entire groups, its all about timing, its definitely not anything like a QTE, you can direct which thug you attack next, you can combine punching and kicking with quick firing gadgets to, say, pull an enemy to you with the grapple, knock them over, then while his buddies are running over, quick fire the triple batarang to haze them, and while they're not moving knock out the first guy and remove him from play.

So... it's only as shallow as you play it. If you play it as a straight up beat em up, move from Thug A to Thug Z without using any strategy, without using gadgets or escaping to pick them off one by one with stealth, then yeah, I guess it can be pretty shallow, having to time your combat and dodging while moving from thug to thug.

[okey]

All that stuff would haven been really cool if the enemies were actually dangerous. Since they aren't, it just felt like I was toying with them.

[rondus18]

But the difference with those games is that they make the player feel cool through engaging gameplay. Arkham Asylum doesn't even let you whiff punches or fall into a pit. The combat never stopped feeling like a drawn out quick time event. There was never any tension.

People rightfully criticize other games that value style over substance, so why does Batman get a free pass? The success of these games pretty much says "A game's presentation is more valuable than it's mechanics."

Batman is a comic book game. Style is important. No one is taking the lesson from these games that they can get away with only focusing on style and get away with it, because they know they're not Batman.

Everything you've said seems to ignore the sections of the gameplay where Batman is hiding in a room and has to stealth take down armed thugs who can kill him in two or three seconds if they spot him.

[Chris]

All that stuff would haven been really cool if the enemies were actually dangerous. Since they aren't, it just felt like I was toying with them.

You die within a few seconds if you get spotted by armed thugs and can't grapple away...

[HYRUL3]

All that stuff would haven been really cool if the enemies were actually dangerous. Since they aren't, it just felt like I was toying with them.

Lol. What?

Bruce Wayne trained for years to become Batman. He was trained to take on large groups of people at once. He's a master of hand to hand combat, stealth, etc.

If they didn't make it feel like you were toying with individual thugs, you wouldn't feel like Batman. I think maybe the point of a Batman sim is over your head.

[Naner]

The only thing I can complain about Arkham Asylum is (spoilers, in case you haven't played it yet) that all the bosses are pretty much the same. The first time you face Bane, it's challenging and interesting. Then you find out all the others - even Joker - fight exactly the same way.

Other than that, I really liked the game and it is, as far as I know, the best comic book superhero game so far. Haven't played Arkham City beyond the demo yet, but I gave it to my cousin as a birthday gift recently and will probably borrow it from him during the summer. I hear the bosses are slightly less crappy.