Batman: Arkham Knight: Same Bat-Game, Same Bat-Developer!

[RoJoHen]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

^Not really sure what you mean. Especially since we haven't seen any gameplay, it's hard to say.

One character I haven't seen mentioned yet is Catwoman. I wonder if she'll make an appearance given her prominence in Arkham City.

 

[Timby]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Here, have some screenshots.

Is it just me or do the character designs seem more Origins based than Asylum/City based?

I don't see that at all. The new Batsuit definitely takes some inspiration from Origins (it makes the Asylum suit look silly), and the new Batmobile is like a love child made by the Tumbler and a Lamborghini (makes sense to have a new one, since the original one is sitting at the bottom of the ocean as of Asylum), Two-Face and Penguin look the same as they did in City, and Riddler looks a bit more deranged after Batman punched that smug bastard in the face a year ago.

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

So far this little nugget is what intrigues me the most:

The characters are incredibly detailed. One has the polygon count of Arkham Aslyum, the whole environment.

I can't wait to see this game in action.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Here, have some screenshots.

Is it just me or do the character designs seem more Origins based than Asylum/City based?

I don't see that at all. The new Batsuit definitely takes some inspiration from Origins (it makes the Asylum suit look silly), and the new Batmobile is like a love child made by the Tumbler and a Lamborghini (makes sense to have a new one, since the original one is sitting at the bottom of the ocean as of Asylum), Two-Face and Penguin look the same as they did in City, and Riddler looks a bit more deranged after Batman punched that smug bastard in the face a year ago.

Actually I was going by Gordon looking more like an older version the Origins design than the Asylum/City character design.

 

[Corran Horn]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

"Gotham has been evacuated" is unfortunate.

If you can have 50 people on the screen, why not have 20 of them be civvies taking cover? Or even 5?

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

I agree. When the setting was being moved to Gotham, I was hoping for some kind of civilian interaction. I'm not upset about it, but it would have been a neat change.

 

[Reverend]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

I always thought Gordon looked weird in Asylum & City, so I like that they're changing it back to something more like the comics. I remember when I first saw him in Asylum and wondered if someone spiked his coffee with some of Bane's venom. They had him so muscled up it just looked silly.

 

[Corran Horn]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

The lack of civilians in City made sense - in Origins the conceit (blared through loudspeakers every few minutes) is there's a curfew due to the goings-on in that game. To have it all happen again (on nextgen consoles, no less) is disappointing.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Yeah, I agree on the civilians. I found with Origins that sometimes I almost felt bad swooping in like a nasty bully on a bunch of punks who just seemed to be hanging out until I came over.

 

[Timby]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

I actually disagree about civilians and I don't understand what people think they would add to the gameplay. Having a GTA style city of civilians doesn't add anything to the Batman experience. They're either going to run away when you engage thugs, or they're going to cower in the scene while you're beating on people. And if they're not cowering, they're potentially getting in the way of our sweet, sicknasty combos. What is this adding to the experience?

I guess it really depends how people are defining it. If it's a matter of "political prisoners were cool, they added a human touch to what you were doing and gave you an opportunity to add in some additional side activities," then, sure, I see the benefit to an extent. But the impression I'm getting from people is that they're more interested in a city that's more akin to a GTA or a Sleeping Dogs. That just seems to be antithetical to the Arkham series' purpose, which is about stealth, beating on groups of thugs, seeing what sort of nonsense you can wring from the physics engine, and seeing how high you can get your combo meter. And there really isn't a good solution for when the player tries to troll civilians by blocking traffic, walking into people, etc. I guarantee you that Warner Bros. would shit a brick at Batman being portrayed doing things he wouldn't do -- no YouTube videos of Asshole Batman.

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

He could stealthily rescue civilians from groups of thugs!

I also kind of just want to see large groups of civilians fleeing in a panic. I don't know why. I'm not saying the street should be full of random people walking around. But you could have people gathered, for instance, outside of a theater or other busy late-night venues.

It might raise the stakes if Batman actually had people to save.

 

[Timby]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

It might raise the stakes if Batman actually had people to save.

I kind of get where you're going with that, but it's giving me flashbacks of that fucking kid who lost his balloon in Spider-Man 2 and how he showed up every three blocks.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Origin did have the radio calls for assistance occasionally that offered a little of that.

 

[Rincewiend]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Hm, is it me or does Harley look younger than in Arkham City?
More baby-faced...

 

[clint g]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

I actually disagree about civilians and I don't understand what people think they would add to the gameplay. Having a GTA style city of civilians doesn't add anything to the Batman experience. They're either going to run away when you engage thugs, or they're going to cower in the scene while you're beating on people. And if they're not cowering, they're potentially getting in the way of our sweet, sicknasty combos. What is this adding to the experience?

I guess it really depends how people are defining it. If it's a matter of "political prisoners were cool, they added a human touch to what you were doing and gave you an opportunity to add in some additional side activities," then, sure, I see the benefit to an extent. But the impression I'm getting from people is that they're more interested in a city that's more akin to a GTA or a Sleeping Dogs. That just seems to be antithetical to the Arkham series' purpose, which is about stealth, beating on groups of thugs, seeing what sort of nonsense you can wring from the physics engine, and seeing how high you can get your combo meter. And there really isn't a good solution for when the player tries to troll civilians by blocking traffic, walking into people, etc. I guarantee you that Warner Bros. would shit a brick at Batman being portrayed doing things he wouldn't do -- no YouTube videos of Asshole Batman.

I think it's more about building a more realistic world. Having people walking around doing day to day things makes everything feel more alive.

 

[Timby]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

I actually disagree about civilians and I don't understand what people think they would add to the gameplay. Having a GTA style city of civilians doesn't add anything to the Batman experience. They're either going to run away when you engage thugs, or they're going to cower in the scene while you're beating on people. And if they're not cowering, they're potentially getting in the way of our sweet, sicknasty combos. What is this adding to the experience?

I guess it really depends how people are defining it. If it's a matter of "political prisoners were cool, they added a human touch to what you were doing and gave you an opportunity to add in some additional side activities," then, sure, I see the benefit to an extent. But the impression I'm getting from people is that they're more interested in a city that's more akin to a GTA or a Sleeping Dogs. That just seems to be antithetical to the Arkham series' purpose, which is about stealth, beating on groups of thugs, seeing what sort of nonsense you can wring from the physics engine, and seeing how high you can get your combo meter. And there really isn't a good solution for when the player tries to troll civilians by blocking traffic, walking into people, etc. I guarantee you that Warner Bros. would shit a brick at Batman being portrayed doing things he wouldn't do -- no YouTube videos of Asshole Batman.

I think it's more about building a more realistic world. Having people walking around doing day to day things makes everything feel more alive.

But a "realistic world" still has to be reconciled with the conceits of gameplay. Having a fully populated, functioning world in Grand Theft Auto is fine, because the game doesn't give a shit if you drive on the sidewalk and mow down everything in sight and beat the tar out of random passers-by. For Batman, though, that really doesn't fly.

 

[Samurai8472]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

It might raise the stakes if Batman actually had people to save.

I kind of get where you're going with that, but it's giving me flashbacks of that fucking kid who lost his balloon in Spider-Man 2 and how he showed up every three blocks.

I want Batman to deliver pizza's across town now


Even though this is the end of the "Arkham" story we really need a "Gotham" game

 

[Corran Horn]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

I actually disagree about civilians and I don't understand what people think they would add to the gameplay. Having a GTA style city of civilians doesn't add anything to the Batman experience. They're either going to run away when you engage thugs, or they're going to cower in the scene while you're beating on people. And if they're not cowering, they're potentially getting in the way of our sweet, sicknasty combos. What is this adding to the experience?

I guess it really depends how people are defining it. If it's a matter of "political prisoners were cool, they added a human touch to what you were doing and gave you an opportunity to add in some additional side activities," then, sure, I see the benefit to an extent. But the impression I'm getting from people is that they're more interested in a city that's more akin to a GTA or a Sleeping Dogs. That just seems to be antithetical to the Arkham series' purpose, which is about stealth, beating on groups of thugs, seeing what sort of nonsense you can wring from the physics engine, and seeing how high you can get your combo meter. And there really isn't a good solution for when the player tries to troll civilians by blocking traffic, walking into people, etc. I guarantee you that Warner Bros. would shit a brick at Batman being portrayed doing things he wouldn't do -- no YouTube videos of Asshole Batman.

I think it's more about building a more realistic world. Having people walking around doing day to day things makes everything feel more alive.

But a "realistic world" still has to be reconciled with the conceits of gameplay. Having a fully populated, functioning world in Grand Theft Auto is fine, because the game doesn't give a shit if you drive on the sidewalk and mow down everything in sight and beat the tar out of random passers-by. For Batman, though, that really doesn't fly.

That could be why. I still think it's graphical/computational/design laziness.

As you say, it's not a requirement, it's just a 'nice to have'. And again as you say, they wouldn't really do anything besides run away, hide, or get in the way.

I did enjoy the police 'calls for help' in Origins, though, and something similar could've been (and still might, I suppose) here.

 

[Reverend]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Mind you, this is a Batman game so it's likely to take place at night so exactly how many people do we think are likely to be out and about in apparently lawless neighbourhoods at 2am?

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: Batman: Arkham Knight

Just a few. Or maybe some random cars on the road. Who knows?