• 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by i8Donuts (96 posts) -

The first time I watch the Arkham Knight E3 gameplay footage I was blown away by it. It wasn't until today when I watched it a second time a thought popped into my head. Isn't Batman against using guns and killing people? So why would he let his Batmobile turn into a tank that is equipped with a cannon and two machine guns?

#2 Posted by flasaltine (1675 posts) -

Batman finally realized that guns are sick as fuck.

Online
#3 Posted by Aetheldod (3594 posts) -

He is against guns killing people yes , but the batmobile has always used some for other purposes I presume , but never for killing.

#4 Edited by Zella (762 posts) -

He is mainly against killing people, he has used all manner of nonlethal guns before. In the trailer you can hear Alfred say how the tanks he is fighting are unmanned so he is free to use the rockets and stuff. Batmobile has a nonlethal gun as well, to deal with normal crooks and stuff.

Also before someone mentions it yeah there was also super old school Batman who totally ran around with a gun blasting fools.

#5 Posted by ZolRoyce (710 posts) -

I think that would be a really great twist on Batman that he just gets so depressed and disheartened that he eventually gets to a dark place where he can and does kill and how he and those around him deal with that.
But I have to assume there is some sort of hey man video games explanation of like, rubber bullets or super Batman WayneTech explosions that aren't the killing kind but the concussion knock out kind and man I don't know, video games, just go with us on this one.

#6 Posted by Mikemcn (6989 posts) -

The Batmobile has always been a big fat plothole in a plothole-filled hero story. Like the time in the Dark Knight when batman blows the fuck out of homeless peoples' homes to make an explosions for a tv ad, i mean for him to get through. I'm sure he didn't hurt any innocents with 2-3 thermobraic rockets.

#7 Posted by Nightriff (5096 posts) -

Thought the same thing too, seems like the tank really won't add anything to the gameplay except confusion.

#8 Posted by Steadying (1274 posts) -

They're not guns, they're " guns. "

#9 Posted by neckface (61 posts) -

It's just plain ol' magic

#10 Posted by LiquidPrince (15966 posts) -

They are riot guns not designed to kill but disband riots which have been re-purposed to destroy the unmanned tanks of the Arkham Knight.

#11 Posted by Hero_Swe (1152 posts) -

I don't know man, it's as a weak argument of him being a good guy by not killing bad guys when the bad guys he doesn't kill repeatedly causes lots of death (*cough*joker*cough*)

Online
#12 Posted by Lazyaza (2188 posts) -

@hero_swe said:

I don't know man, it's as a weak argument of him being a good guy by not killing bad guys when the bad guys he doesn't kill repeatedly causes lots of death (*cough*joker*cough*)

You basically summed up Batmans entire dilemma and one of the key things about his character that makes him who he is. Batman not killing = Batman. Soon as Batman kills he's not Batman anymore.

#13 Edited by MarkWahlberg (4606 posts) -

#14 Posted by huser (1085 posts) -

@hero_swe said:

I don't know man, it's as a weak argument of him being a good guy by not killing bad guys when the bad guys he doesn't kill repeatedly causes lots of death (*cough*joker*cough*)

That's not really Batman's fault or problem. Guy puts them away, he might do more to help keep them there, but it's the legal system of DC's America that keep them alive.

#15 Edited by crithon (3307 posts) -

I would get into arguments about this especially with 1989 batman's gun use.

I tend to say it's a reference to Dark Knight Returns but also the scenes are more like sight gags that end with a good laugh then actually anything that's context of the character.

and my personal favorite in Batman first appearance.

I'd imagine it's one of those Gatling gun sequences where you can get away with anything. But I hear that it's used to shoot down robots in Arkham Knight and then rubber bullets on pedestrians.

...... yeah, I heard Paul Dini is not involved in this game

#16 Posted by KoolAid (945 posts) -

People have been putting guns on the bat mobile for a long time and I've always hated it.

Especially in the Tim Butron Batman. He uses those mounted guns to blow people away! So why doesn't he always use them!?

#17 Posted by MormonWarrior (2599 posts) -

Someone in one of the livestreams mentioned that you can just straight up run over guys, which would definitely kill them so...I'd say it's sort of a moot point when they give you free reign in a giant vehicle like that.

#18 Edited by Boom_goes_the_dynamite (726 posts) -

Batman is against guns and killing, but he has used guns in the past, and fired them. Like firing a gun at the big bad in Final Crisis, but then Batman died.

#19 Posted by White (1359 posts) -

You're calling a 60mm cannon a "gun?

#20 Edited by EthanielRain (854 posts) -

Suspending disbelief is required for Batman...add guns that could shoot through buildings and missiles being fired in the middle of city streets never hurting anyone to the list of things not to think about :)

#21 Edited by SlashDance (1818 posts) -

Whatever man, he already spent 3 games beating dudes up real bad and leaving them unconscious, lying in the snow with all limbs broken. The ones that didn't die of hypothermia or internal bleeding probably ended up in a wheelchair.

Batman is an asshole.

#22 Posted by RupertTheBear (189 posts) -

Maybe Rocksteady doesn't understand the concept of the "No Killing" rule.

#23 Posted by believer258 (11949 posts) -

@i8donuts: I remember hearing that they were supposed to be rubber bullets.

But yes, the sidesteps they have to take to make sure that Batman doesn't "kill" anybody can be pretty hilarious sometimes. You know some of those poor motherfuckers in Arkham Asylum and City are not going to have full use of all of their limbs after the medics get done with them.

But if we're going to talk about the damage to the human body in the Arkham games, we could always delve into blunt force trauma or cracking ribs or perhaps internal bleeding, any number of things that Batman could have done that might have caused the death of those criminals, in some cases worse deaths than just shooting them would have caused.

It might be better for everybody if further Batman stories took the position that he tries his best not to kill but sometimes winds up doing it anyway. Then you slip into a whole 'nother can of worms with what is essentially an "oops, didn't mean to" attitude from Batman, so then again it may not be better.

#24 Posted by Corevi (3614 posts) -

It might be better for everybody if further Batman stories took the position that he tries his best not to kill but sometimes winds up doing it anyway. Then you slip into a whole 'nother can of worms with what is essentially an "oops, didn't mean to" attitude from Batman, so then again it may not be better.

It's been done before many times. Hell it happened to The Joker at the end of Arkham City.

#25 Posted by DoctorDonkey (296 posts) -

He doesn't kill, but apparently has no qualms throwing his full weight into a dude and slamming his fuckin' skull against a concrete wall. Considering he is at peak human condition, that would straight murder someone, not knock them out.

#26 Posted by MikeLemmer (559 posts) -

@hero_swe: In Batman's defense, the Joker died in his first appearance until the creators realized he was too good to toss. Given the stuff the Joker survives (such as getting run over by a semi on the highway), I don't think the Batman could kill the Joker even if he tried.

#27 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -

@lazyaza said:

@hero_swe said:

I don't know man, it's as a weak argument of him being a good guy by not killing bad guys when the bad guys he doesn't kill repeatedly causes lots of death (*cough*joker*cough*)

You basically summed up Batmans entire dilemma and one of the key things about his character that makes him who he is. Batman not killing = Batman. Soon as Batman kills he's not Batman anymore.

Yeah. Hell, a big sideplot of The Dark Knight Returns and the main reason for the events for Under The Red Hood was Batman's refusal to kill the Joker. It's central to who he is.

They don't use it as an argument for him being a good guy, they use it as an example that he and his mission are flawed.

#28 Edited by Slaegar (716 posts) -

Well bare hands and feet kill twice as many people as rifles (Including ARs, M16 style guns and AKs, AK47 style guns which there are like a million variants) in The US. So a Batman character would kill far far far more than the people he is trying and failing to stop. He may as well pick up a gun and roll. I mean in New York it's OK for police to molest you on the street without cause so picking a pistol won't turn you into a monster.

Source by the way:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

#29 Edited by Humanity (9379 posts) -

I'm not a fan of this Batmobile at all.

We can all agree one of the sickest Batmobiles out there was the one featured in Batman Returns

#30 Posted by gokaired (541 posts) -

@crithon said:

...... yeah, I heard Paul Dini is not involved in this game

Yep, It doesn't fill me with as much confidence as I'd like, what's worse is Geoff John's is a consultant, and I wouldn't trust him with Batman with a feather.

#31 Posted by crithon (3307 posts) -

@gokaired said:

@crithon said:

...... yeah, I heard Paul Dini is not involved in this game

Yep, It doesn't fill me with as much confidence as I'd like, what's worse is Geoff John's is a consultant, and I wouldn't trust him with Batman with a feather.

well, Dini seems to be positive about his experience with Rocksteady, and the word was they turned him down when he offered to work for them. And there have been just negative reaction from comic book writers working with video games. And Batman Arkham City an example of everyone going "yeah that plot kinda sucked." That could have been rocksteady's fault designing set pieces more then actual story.

To be honest, I never felt Rocksteady got Paul Dini style, they used a lot of references from the TV show and comics, but they really seemed to be trying to emulate more Frank Miller or Jeph Loeb when it came to their idea of a story. And I also heard Jim Lee was consulted on this game and him and Geoff Johns made more of a 90s Image era style of comic books, style over substance. And that's the problem everyone is having with DC now, like even the DC animation has taken a dive in quality.

#32 Posted by gokaired (541 posts) -

@crithon said:

@gokaired said:

@crithon said:

...... yeah, I heard Paul Dini is not involved in this game

Yep, It doesn't fill me with as much confidence as I'd like, what's worse is Geoff John's is a consultant, and I wouldn't trust him with Batman with a feather.

well, Dini seems to be positive about his experience with Rocksteady, and the word was they turned him down when he offered to work for them. And there have been just negative reaction from comic book writers working with video games. And Batman Arkham City an example of everyone going "yeah that plot kinda sucked." That could have been rocksteady's fault designing set pieces more then actual story.

To be honest, I never felt Rocksteady got Paul Dini style, they used a lot of references from the TV show and comics, but they really seemed to be trying to emulate more Frank Miller or Jeph Loeb when it came to their idea of a story. And I also heard Jim Lee was consulted on this game and him and Geoff Johns made more of a 90s Image era style of comic books, style over substance. And that's the problem everyone is having with DC now, like even the DC animation has taken a dive in quality.

It's nice i'm not the only one that has noticed. :)

#33 Posted by RVonE (4642 posts) -

@humanity said:

I'm not a fan of this Batmobile at all.

We can all agree one of the sickest Batmobiles out there was the one featured in Batman Returns

Obviously.

#34 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3782 posts) -

The Batmobile's guns should exclusively shoot out tiny batarangs.

#35 Posted by nasp (324 posts) -

ive always said that batman would be cooler if he didnt follow that no kill rule.ide like him better if he just did what needed to be done to save the day.i dont like that he has a self inflicted weakness.

#36 Posted by pcorb (113 posts) -
@zella said:

In the trailer you can hear Alfred say how the tanks he is fighting are unmanned so he is free to use the rockets and stuff.

I thought that was mighty convenient, but whatever. When he said "all cops are actually robots" and "there's no need to worry about friendly fire or any of that silly shit" I did start to get a bit suspicious though.

#37 Posted by OurSin_360 (921 posts) -

I think the batmobile has always had some guns on it, he just doesn't kill with them.

#38 Edited by The_Ruiner (1065 posts) -

He's against shooting people with bullets. But his vehicles have always had some kind of projectile weapon. Missiles mostly.

#39 Posted by NTM (7411 posts) -

The guns are for other things, such as unmanned vehicles in which he takes out in this game. If we're referring to Batman in general, there are multiple options that he can take alternatively to killing with huge weapons of destruction. It also goes with him trying to be intimidating.

#40 Posted by crithon (3307 posts) -

@gokaired said:

@crithon said:

@gokaired said:

@crithon said:

...... yeah, I heard Paul Dini is not involved in this game

Yep, It doesn't fill me with as much confidence as I'd like, what's worse is Geoff John's is a consultant, and I wouldn't trust him with Batman with a feather.

well, Dini seems to be positive about his experience with Rocksteady, and the word was they turned him down when he offered to work for them. And there have been just negative reaction from comic book writers working with video games. And Batman Arkham City an example of everyone going "yeah that plot kinda sucked." That could have been rocksteady's fault designing set pieces more then actual story.

To be honest, I never felt Rocksteady got Paul Dini style, they used a lot of references from the TV show and comics, but they really seemed to be trying to emulate more Frank Miller or Jeph Loeb when it came to their idea of a story. And I also heard Jim Lee was consulted on this game and him and Geoff Johns made more of a 90s Image era style of comic books, style over substance. And that's the problem everyone is having with DC now, like even the DC animation has taken a dive in quality.

It's nice i'm not the only one that has noticed. :)

Well, if your not aware of this, Paul Dini let it slip as to what's going on With DC animation and Cartoon Network in a recent podcast of Kevin Smith. That's probably the harshest he's been on any studio and he's worked on a lot mediocer stuff. But yeah, I felt that a big comparison is Jeph Loeb's Hush and Dini's Heart of Hush, you can really see the difference between the writers and I felt these games are trying to aim more for Loeb's style then Dini. But that makes sense through a video game perspective of just set piece designs.

#41 Posted by LTSmash (630 posts) -

He doesn't always use guns, but when he does use guns, they are the BIGGEST GUNS.

#42 Posted by billymagnum (834 posts) -

im pretty sure he's always kept a derringer in his garter belt.

#43 Posted by Deathstriker (320 posts) -

They said he was shooting "drone" tanks and hopefully by now most people know what drone means. The tumbler and bat-pod obviously had weapons in the Nolan movies. Hell, he kills Talia in TDKR by shooting her off a bridge.

#44 Edited by gokaired (541 posts) -

@deathstriker said:

They said he was shooting "drone" tanks and hopefully by now most people know what drone means. The tumbler and bat-pod obviously had weapons in the Nolan movies. Hell, he kills Talia in TDKR by shooting her off a bridge.

You know it's funny, Ra's was stretching an acceptable death but then knocking Two Face off a building and the Talia? Batman doesn't kill my foot! XD

#45 Edited by 49th (2765 posts) -

Just because he has guns doesn't mean he will use them on everything. You won't be able to sit in the bat mobile and murder all the enemies.

He needs missiles for when he is fighting against tanks or the world is about to end.

#46 Edited by John1912 (1892 posts) -

Im sure you can only use those guns and cannons on other vehicles. They arent going to let you run over and shoot every thug on the street. It would ruin the combat. At best there would be non lethal alternate fire modes for humans.

#47 Edited by Spoonman671 (4648 posts) -

Batman understands that only he is responsible enough to make use of firearms, and they are not suited for use amongst the common folk. You're probably just not sophisticated enough to properly delineate between moral and immoral firearm ownership, but don't worry, this is a capacity exclusive to The Superiors.

@rvone said:

@humanity said:

I'm not a fan of this Batmobile at all.

We can all agree one of the sickest Batmobiles out there was the one featured in Batman Returns

Obviously.

Fuck no.

#48 Posted by Humanity (9379 posts) -
#49 Posted by RVonE (4642 posts) -

Batman understands that only he is responsible enough to make use of firearms, and they are not suited for use amongst the common folk. You're probably just not sophisticated enough to properly delineate between moral and immoral firearm ownership, but don't worry, this is a capacity exclusive to The Superiors.

@rvone said:

@humanity said:

I'm not a fan of this Batmobile at all.

We can all agree one of the sickest Batmobiles out there was the one featured in Batman Returns

Obviously.

Fuck no.

lol, that's a good joke.

#50 Posted by Hamst3r (4491 posts) -

"Those human-shaped shells are unmanned! Soulless husks! It's okay to shoot them!"