When Gotham City's slums have been transformed into a secluded super-prison, it's up to Batman to uncover its conspiracy in the sequel to 2009's Batman: Arkham Asylum.
I have two things to say regarding Batman Arkham City -
1. Out of all the domain names they registered to throw off the people interested in knowing what the game would be called, I still firmly believe that "Ashes of Gotham" was the best out of the ones proposed.
2. There are certain games that are so great from start to finish in their story-telling that one game is enough to convey an absolutely stellar experience. And tacking on a sequel only ruins the franchise.
BioShock was the prime example. The first one was brilliant in just about every perspective. It was a breath of fresh air in a sea of generic military shooters. The story was great, the characters were memorable, and the end-game twist was one of the best that I've seen from a video game. But the biggest thing going for the first BioShock was Rapture. Going into the game, you had no idea what Rapture was or how it came to be, and throughout the game, you discovered Rapture and that's what made BioShock GREAT. Then the second one came out and it had none of that. The story was fairly bland, the places you visited were nowhere near as cool as the locations in the first BioShock[Arcadia, Sander Cohen's theater]. But worst of all, Rapture as a whole had lost that new car smell that it had in the first game. It was sort of, "Been there, done that". And that was really depressing. It was definitely a competent shooter from a gameplay perspective, but it's soul wasn't there. It also didn't help the sequel when it ended up being made by someone other than Irrational Games. As far as I'm concerned, BioShock is another franchise that was ruined by greedy executive suits.
I feel more or less the same way with Arkham Asylum. It was such a tight and polished game from start to finish. Honestly, the only thing wrong with it were the ignorant gargoyles as a gameplay contrivance. Everything else was incredibly well thought out and well executed. And now they talk about a sequel for that, and I'm sitting here wondering, why? There is no need. The story wrapped up great, all the villains were dealt with, I had TONS of fun with those INCREDIBLE riddles, so why are you guys trying to cash in on the Arkham Asylum good will?
Don't get me wrong though, based on the excellent groundwork laid down by the first game, I have no doubt that Arkham City will be just as competent as Arkham Asylum, but I'm incredibly skeptical as to whether it'll be as memorable an experience as Arkham Asylum was...
I have two things to say regarding Batman Arkham City -
1. Out of all the domain names they registered to throw off the people interested in knowing what the game would be called, I still firmly believe that "Ashes of Gotham" was the best out of the ones proposed.
2. There are certain games that are so great from start to finish in their story-telling that one game is enough to convey an absolutely stellar experience. And tacking on a sequel only ruins the franchise.
BioShock was the prime example. The first one was brilliant in just about every perspective. It was a breath of fresh air in a sea of generic military shooters. The story was great, the characters were memorable, and the end-game twist was one of the best that I've seen from a video game. But the biggest thing going for the first BioShock was Rapture. Going into the game, you had no idea what Rapture was or how it came to be, and throughout the game, you discovered Rapture and that's what made BioShock GREAT. Then the second one came out and it had none of that. The story was fairly bland, the places you visited were nowhere near as cool as the locations in the first BioShock[Arcadia, Sander Cohen's theater]. But worst of all, Rapture as a whole had lost that new car smell that it had in the first game. It was sort of, "Been there, done that". And that was really depressing. It was definitely a competent shooter from a gameplay perspective, but it's soul wasn't there. It also didn't help the sequel when it ended up being made by someone other than Irrational Games. As far as I'm concerned, BioShock is another franchise that was ruined by greedy executive suits.
I feel more or less the same way with Arkham Asylum. It was such a tight and polished game from start to finish. Honestly, the only thing wrong with it were the ignorant gargoyles as a gameplay contrivance. Everything else was incredibly well thought out and well executed. And now they talk about a sequel for that, and I'm sitting here wondering, why? There is no need. The story wrapped up great, all the villains were dealt with, I had TONS of fun with those INCREDIBLE riddles, so why are you guys trying to cash in on the Arkham Asylum good will?
Don't get me wrong though, based on the excellent groundwork laid down by the first game, I have no doubt that Arkham City will be just as competent as Arkham Asylum, but I'm incredibly skeptical as to whether it'll be as memorable an experience as Arkham Asylum was...
" Honestly, the only thing wrong with it were the ignorant gargoyles as a gameplay contrivance. Everything else was incredibly well thought out and well executed. "
Arkham Asylum was a great game but far from perfect. Once you figured out the AI, it just became stupid easy. Personally I'm way more interested in the sequel than the original.
First game was very well received, made lots of money, Arkham Asylum one of first Batman games to have good reputation Why wouldn't they make a sequel?
Arkham Asylum was awesome because it was a Batman game done extremely well, not because it was some kind of new experience in the manner of BioShock. If Arkham City is also a Batman game done extremely well, it stands to reason that it too will be awesome.
It's called Arkham city, because it ignites the thought that the asylum has over flown and the city has become the asylum, as oppose to "ashes of Gotham" which gives the impression the city is under attack more than any thing.
And going into the city means they'll have to mix up the game play, due to most of the the first's being based on the place you were in. I for one am excited to see how they mix up that game play. And the story did wrap up nice, but with a box of the titan getting out, and unspoken plans to turn the city into a giant prison, does the game really wrap up?
You guys have me all wrong here! I'm not, by any means, angry at the fact that this game exists. I'm not even remotely upset about it. It's just a thought that occurred to me, that's all. In retrospect, saying that "tacking on a sequel ruins a franchise" was probably harsher words that I actually meant and maybe that's why you all think that I'm upset about this.
@The_Laughing_Man said:
" Go read some of the comics. Arkham city does make sense. And why do devs make games at all? MONEY "
Oh, really? I'm not a comic book guy at all, so I didn't know. I might just do that. Thank you. :)
@LiquidSaiyan3 said:
" @h83r said:
" Honestly, the only thing wrong with it were the ignorant gargoyles as a gameplay contrivance. Everything else was incredibly well thought out and well executed. "
These guys say what's up
"
Aah, whatever. At least they weren't in every other room in the asylum.
@JokerSmilez said:
" So... sequels to great games have never been any good? Also, this the video game industry. What did you really expect? "
Never said that sequels are never good. I really believe that Arkham City will be a great game. My point isn't even about how Arkham City will play. I'm just talking about it from a story perspective, the experience of the game from start to finish, if that means anything.
@FlyingRat said:
" I was gonna say money, but two people already did. It's simple, dude, it's a business, just like any other business. "
Yeah, I suppose. That's the obvious answer for any game, really. I just like to think that that's not the case, most of the time. Gives me a false sense of hope that video games aren't just business, you know?
@SethPhotopoulos said:
" Why does this thread need to exist? "
I have one excellent reason why this exists-- I needed the quest for writing a blog.
Yeah, I suppose. That's the obvious answer for any game, really. I just like to think that that's not the case, most of the time. Gives me a false sense of hope that video games aren't just business, you know?
They aren't just business. There are developers and people who make games, who love what they do and put a lot of care in to their products and want them to be good. It's just that several ranks above those people is usually a suit wanting some more money. It's unfortunate, but that's the way of the world.
1. Because it sold well. 2.Because there is a very large user base what wants it.
If the game is good then its good, and it makes sense in the context of the past game? then all the better, Comparing it to bioshock 2 means nothing because they made bioshock 2 for one sole reason...Money, they knew they could make money, there wasn't a huge user base wanting the game. the game was worse then the original, and the storyline didn't work with the context of the original bioshock had one reason to be money.
Arkham city will make money, lots of people want it, from the looks so far it will be a great game to match or even surpass the original.
I agree with the sentiment that not every great original game needs to be made into a franchise, but I think in this case that Arkham Asylum deserves a sequel.
Dude it isn't like Bioshock 2 first off you have the same team that worked on the first one working on this game. Also they now have a larger budget to work with and it seems like with a possible Fall/Winter 2011 release date the game is not being rushed out the door as quickly as possible.
Yeah there's a difference between Bioshock 2 and Arkham City.
1. Arkham City has the same team but Bioshock 2 lacked the touch of ken levine. 2. Arkham Asylum ended with a cliffhanger and clues for a sequel but Bioshock was more a game that could've ended there. 3. It's not an original property. Bioshock was an original property by Irrational Games. 4. it's not perfect game but now they have a chance to make it better. Bioshock was a near perfect game (well you could say whatever about the shooting but i thought it was fine). 5. It's Batman, why complain?
Well I could say money since lets face it, it's the number one goal for all developers and publishers to make a game that's critically acclaimed and sells like hot cakes. But the other part of me wants to believe that Rocksteady wants to serve the fans of the first game by creating another great title to the best of their ability since good reputation and a fan base is an important thing to have.
@Cold_Wolven: I think both of your points are probably valid.
The money thing, as cynical as it sounds, is really the bottom line. Arkham Asylum was a smash hit, and it was critically acclaimed. And unlike trends in cinema, video game sequels for major hits tend to sell better than their predecessors, given the right amount/approach to marketing.
But, on the flip-side, the less anti-establishment point of view is a legitimate point, too. It's clear Rocksteady knows what it takes to produce a quality Batman title, and it's equally clear that they want to produce such quality Batman titles. So, hey. Why not.
I think Ashes of Gotham was the better title but Arkham City gives people a more direct idea of what they're getting out of the game. I suppose this whole thing boils down to "Why does anything good need a sequel?". There have been plenty of movies and games that didn't "need" sequels but where the sequels were of a high quality none the less. Think of all the excellent games we wouldn't have if it weren't for sequels. Personally I think that Rocksteady have a good chance of developing a really good sequel to Arkham Asylum.
Only introducing a very slim amount of the villains in the first game was a great idea. Now the second game seems to expand on that so you have to fight all of the ones from the first game and then you have new villians (TwoFace, Mr. Freeze, and The Riddler are all confirmed, and the Riddler is confirmed for more then just puzzles.) Considering the sequel seems to be sitting itself up to be a sandbox title.
Now I agree it is a lot about the money when it comes down to making a sequel. But would you say they strictly made Halo 2 and 3 for the money? No. How about Gears of War 2 and now 3? Or Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood? Not all games receive a sequel simply because the game company thinks they can turn a quick buck. They get a sequel because number one, the game was designed to have a sequel or the company wasn't done telling the story.
Sure they could cram 2 or 3 games worth of story into a single adventure but the more you put in, the more you take away some times.
No story ruins anything. If you don't like the sequel to something, don't watch/read/play/whatever it. In the case of Arkham City, the game actually looks to be good. Though by your argument, if a game is truly exceptional, then a sequel SHOULDN'T be made of it. There are several examples of something shitty being tacked onto a good story, but they fail of their own accord and the original is in no way effected. Highlander is still a cool story despite Highlander 2, as any star-related story whether that be Wars, Trek, Gate, or Battle-Galactica. If a sequel to something is actually good, then there's no reason it shouldn't be made and if it sucks, then the first one is still as good as it always was.
I hope they have more chances for you to use the battle system to its full potential, it was only when I was going through the trophies on the combat challenge's did I realise just how free-flowing and quickly you could take down enemies if you got good at it, so addictive. I don't think everyone got to see the nuances of it.
Arkham Asylum was a great game, it took me by surprise and that's enough for me to trust them to do it all over for a second time. The quick announcement threw me off initially but I'm glad it’s getting the time to get done. I’m definitely looking out for it.
I am way okay with this having a sequel because there A. Tons of characters and story to go off of and B. I liked it a lot. Now I can say the same for Bioshock for B but I couldn't say A. The problem was BS was they wrapped it up pretty nicely and it was great and I couldn't stand BS2 though I did not give it a real chance. The new BS though looks different enough for me to want to play.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
"
Log in to comment