How do you feel?
>Implying it's not a setup for pic related
>Believe me, you're the only one who cares.
Makes me hype as fuck. Im a huge batfag though. Im guessing there is just going to be more violence. Probably more blood and Batman killing people this time.
We will have to see if its for the best or worst. Out of movies and games they all stop at pg-13 or T rating. Hopefully they just make it dark like some comics and not really edgy.
>Im a huge batfag though
>Probably more blood and Batman killing people this time.
You are not a batfag. Bats doesn't kill. You are a bandwagoning retard. The devs are also retarded for making this game M... fucking unbelievable.
If you visited the link you spaz,
you'd know they wrote the story without a rating in mind. It just happened to get an M rating. If they're smart, they'll shoot for a T rating. It will hurt sales.
Did you know Batman Begins was originally in production to be a live action Batmon Beyond movie?
Eventually the execs came in and said, 'lol, why not just Batman?'--and thus we got Gruffy Voice Bale: The Movie.
Obviously a smart choice, since that trilogy made bank, but it still saddens me that Beyond has slipped even further into oblivion at this point. That series is rich as fuck for a movie adaptation. And a vidya one, too, of course.
Maybe it's the antagonists with which Bats is doing battle that's reason for the M rating. I doubt they're going to needlessly sabotage Bruce's character for the sake of 'maturity,' but maybe he'll be forced to witness something extremely brutal killings that tempt him to cross the line, before he obviously doesn't.
Wow you are one of those huh? I was simply going off of how the trailers look. He seems to be killing people by knocking them into generators and shit rather than just knocking them unconscious.
I love to see people like you come at me telling me I'm not an actual fan because batman doesn't kill. He has killed quite a few times before actually.
>b-but bats doesnt kill!
>every true fan knows this!
this is a common misconception held by many people who think they are fans but don't really know their shit. Just saying. Stay salty kid.
>I read a Cracked article!
If you think your pic has any relevance to Batman's no killing code then you're sorely mistaken. Batman's violent pacifism is a part of his modern reboot, the events of the Golden Age aren't applicable today.
Batman does have very strict no-killing rules especially in the comics. There are of course exceptions to this, but those exceptions are typically hyped up to be dramatic moments for him.
> He has killed quite a few times before actually.
Yeah, like, fifty years ago. Mainstream Bat's no-kill clause has been firmly established for decades now. You think they're going to revert to golden-age, freelly killing, gun-toting Batman for the final, darkest entry in the series?
And really, I hardly see why smashing someone's head into a fuse box would be fatal in the Arkhamverse, where thugs are routinely smashed into electrified fences, hung by their feet off buildings and left to dangle, assaulted and leaped upon by a 250 pound man from hundreds of feet in the air, and generally beat the fuck up with no apparent ill effects. Unless you're one of those people who argue that "a lot of those thugs Batman beats up probably died of their injuries later!"
Doesn't mean shit, it's just the ESRB being a bunch of pussy's.
Ace Attorney Dual Destinies got an M rating just because th ESRB are scared of red screens
It doesn't surprise me, to be honest.
Isn't the EU rating for Asylum and City 16+ and 18+, respectively?
But anon, almost all of the most "appeal to a wider audience" games are M rated.
>Gears/God of War
>Call of Duty
>Grand Theft Auto
and more. In fact, the only T-rated normalfagbait series I can think off the top of my head is Smash Bros.
City did it too. All the trailers hyped up Hugo Strange as the main villain, but we got Joker for 90% of the game. And then we find out Strange was just Ra's al Ghul's puppet.
>implying it is hard no matter which 'difficulty'
Come on man, arkham games are fucking easy no matter what. That being said, the 'challenge' is not what makes the games so great.
Did you actually follow City? Because that isn't true at all, Joker was just as hyped as Hugo. The only hijacking was done by Ra's. Rewatch some trailers.
> If I punch him and leave him crippled and unconscious in freezing snow, and he just so /happens/ to die, it obviously wasn't my fault, but the snows!
> If I cut off his arms and legs and he just so happens to die from bloodloss, obviously I didn't kill him!
What is it about this shitty character that attracts normal fags so much? Someone explain.
Not concerned at all. At least after reading this part:
Hill said Rocksteady is aware that some younger players might miss out on the game because of the rating, but that making the game more "mass market" would have been harmful to the story they want to tell.
Based Rocksteady. I think they're the only dev out there who are truly making games they love without restriction. Shit will sell like hotcakes regardless and WB owes them for defiling their series with Origins.
Mask of the Phantasm best batman movie.
Also remember guys that Mark Hamill has retired from voicing the joker, so any other Jokers in games will be cheap knockoffs ie Troy Baker
Not too worried about it. The developers weren't shooting for a darker batman and that's just what the ESRB gave them.
Reminds me of Dark Souls. First one was M. Second one was T. There is a more blood in the first one but people never give 2 shit for the downgrade in violence from M to T. Criticisms usually are just made about mechanics.
This will likely be the same. It will probably just have more blood or possibly graphic violence in cut scenes. Some will probably notice and some probably won't. I doubt it will be a huge difference. Most of the time the ESRB doesn't even rate games properly. There are many T rated games that have worse language and more blood/gore than Halo for instance.
With Halo, Halo almost received an E rating because alien blood isn't a big deal and the blood from the soliders was minimal at best. So then bungie showed they can coat an entire level with marine blood.
and then Halo received an M rating.
Well, for one, they could have learned a lesson from MK vs. DC going so terribly because of the T-rating, but most likely, it's because fighting games don't sell that well to begin with, unlike Arkham's genre and unlike a cash cow franchise like Arkham. Rocksteady probably also insisted, and they have the leverage to do so, as opposed to Netherrealm who was desperate enough at the time to bend over and take it.
Injustice felt closer to M than MK vs. DC at least.
Oh is that the reason? Makes sense. Did bungie get offended or something at the E rating?
Here is another one that doesn't make much sense to me. Is crude humor really that much of a difference? What crude humor was even in brawl absent in others?
Just because Joker was
kindathe final boss, I don't think he "hijacked" anything. His and Strange's plotlines were largely separate, and Hugo's was much more central to the actual game. By the end you're really just tying up a loose end with Joker. I mean, they could have reversed the order you deal with them and the story would still have made sense.
It sounds edgy in the way that appeals to 14 year olds. Nothing about stupidly dressed, toyable men pretending to be "deep" can be truly mature - unless it's The Dark Knight Returns or something written by Moore.
Yeah I love Dunkey but that shit is misleading. You can't actually damage enemies with a counter unless you're 3 hits into a combo and constantly hitting counter breaks your combo. He isn't actually doing any damage in that image. It's like holding your shield up 100% of the time in a Zelda game and going "Look! I'm not getting damaged! This game's easy!"
>decapitation on a teen game
i wanted to say bamco paid a shitton of dosh to force that rating
>The last Arkham games pushed the limits of the T rating in their darkest moments. Hill wouldn't share any specific examples of how Arkham Knight "beat" those games, though he did generally explain why things are going to be more dire than ever for the caped crusader.
"As the end of the trilogy, we have every villain in Gotham working together to destroy Batman," Hill said. "It's unavoidable that some bad stuff is going to happen. But that doesn't mean we changed our approach. We're not including gratuitous blood or swearing. We want to deliver a true end with no compromises, and it takes us to some dark places."
Unlikely, but it would be awesome
I really need to finish Arkham City. I had beaten
Huge Strangeand then was on the last mission to defeat Jokerbut PS3 got stolen before I could finish it. Also can't make any progress on PC version of City since it keeps crashing at the same place early in the game.
What are the chances that Arkham Asylum and City will be ported to
Also is Origins worth playing?
I'm really excited for the game, I just hope the world is more alive than City.
I loved City a lot, it's one of the best games of last gen as a whole and deserves every bit of love it gets. Asylum is still my favorite though specifically because it's more linear and structured. It has some of the best level design of the last decade, not to mention that immaculate pacing. They truly knocked it out of the park in that regard. City was vastly more open, but it was also poorly paced as a result. I'm fine with Knight being open and even bigger than City but hopefully it makes up for the delineated structure with more things to actually do and see than just collect things.
Batman's no kill policy is his single most defining character trait in the vast majority of media published that includes him. There might be one-off 'what if' stories but by and large the no kill thing is central to Batman and pretty much all the major stories involve it in some way.
If Asylum and City are 9/10 games then Origins is a 5/10. It's almost the exact same map as City except it's extremely buggy with game breaking glitches the devs never bothered fixing. It's also got some really poor boss fights, not to mention the story is just SURPRISE JOKER once again. It would have been fine as an expansion pack to City, but really it's not that good.
I loved Origins. Story wise it was probably the best of the series and had cool moments. The gameplay was slightly broken at points, but plays a lot like City otherwise.
And I wouldn't be shocked if there were remastered versions for PS4/XBone in a collection down the line. They could put in all the PhysX effects from Asylum and City in there. And maybe get around to fixing AO. Because while it had its issues, it did a lot right IMO. And I liked the boss fights so I dunno.
You're all wrong: Arkham Knight is Batman, he's an alternative personality, a far more more brutal Batman, one that has been buried away in Bruce Wayne's subconscious and has been released by Scarecrow's fear toxin.
It'll pay out a la Figtht Club's personality twist.
My 3 decrees it.
Most likely outcome.
Bats dies fighting Arkham Knight, post credits sequence with Waller sayin "the world needs a Batman"
Who cares if it's dark?
My stool is dark.
Is it going to be better than Arkham City/Asylum? That's the only thing I care about.
I don't understand where this "Batman doesn't kill" mentality comes from, I just watched three Batman movies, The Dark Knight Returns, Under the Red Hood and Assault on Arkham Asylum, and in all of them Batman is either killing or giving a shit about other people dying, so what's the deal with this?
It vastly depends on the era or writer. Sometimes batman kills, sometimes batman thinks he should die before taking at the expense of a thug living, sometimes he doesn't kill but if a bad guy does something that directly or indirectly causes their own death that shits on them
>rocksteady not cutting the game violence
>WB allowing them to go all out and not going for the sells
Like the other post said, it depends HEAVILY on who's writing him. "Pacifist" Batman is a relatively recent thing (only a few decades ago). There are usually two justifications for his "don't kill" code. I like one more than the other.
One justification is that, if he kills just one guy, his mental state might begin to deteriorate where he'll begin killing arbitrarily for less severe offenses. I think that's kind of bullshit and flimsy moralfaggotry.
The justification that I like a lot better is that the majority of the people he fights are either mentally ill (hence the Arkham Asylum) or people living in financial desperation. He doesn't like the thought of killing a thug who committed armed robbery just to make ends meet, or an old guy who's only acting violent simply because he can't understand what's happening anymore. This justification is based more on empathy than some shallow sense of self-control. I like it a lot better, especially in the 90s cartoon where it shows some of the Asylum patients trying to move on with their lives.
That was a Burton movie and that bomb looked to have as much power as the in game explosive gel.
And it was cartoon violence. He probably had black soot all over his face afterwards.
My mistake, then. Aside from a few older strips I read for shits and giggles, the majority of my Batman experience began with the Frank Miller "reboots." I'm more familiar with his general justifications for pacifism than with his history.
I wonder if this guy is the reason its going to be M.
WB Montreal guys teased it at a con. They'll probably do Suicide Squad first.
And I don't want a live action movie. The animated series was top notch and they'd just fuck it up.
Yeah, the first few years he was pretty much a Shadow rip off, and very blatantly so with Bob Kane lifting major plot elements.
Check this out:
A brief history of early Batman.
>mfw I just watched The Dark Knight Returns
Why is it so good and why did it take so long for them to make it? I mean there's nothing more cooler than old man Bruce beating the shit out of criminals and
I think its better than 50/50 for both.
WB will want Arkham games to continue, and Affleck is already playing an older Batman. Plus the script has been floating around since before Nolans first movie.
There are 2 unannounced projects in the WB movie slate for 2020 as well, along with a Batman solo project that may or may not involve Affleck.
>yfw Clint Eastwood is elderly Bruce Wayne
>A Decent Killer Croc fight for once
>Intense Scarecrow Hallucinations
>Man-Bat boss fight
>Firefly burning shit in a enclosed area like an apartment
I'd buy it
The first justification is fucking infuriating when applied to the Joker. It's even worse when Batman will literally go out of his way to make sure other people don't kill him. I think it has to do with some sort of "redemption" complex that just comes across as really sanctimonious and irritating.
I like the second one better, where it's shown that the Joker does have a certain way of thinking that's just "different," even if it's still violent and terrible. I didn't enjoy The Killing Joke that much (and ironically, Alan Moore is irritated that so many people love it since he half-assed a lot of it), but the ending to it is pretty great. The final conversation between the Joker and Batman shows that there's genuine empathy there for a man whose mind simply isn't normal, not necessarily evil.
I've seen all of those and don't recall him killing in any of them.
If you're talking about the scene in TDKR where
he kills the Joker, the comic actually explains with internal monologue boxes absent in the film that Batman just paralyzed him. His dying is actually the Joker somehow using the last of his energy to break his OWN neck. No it doesn't make any sense. But that's what Joker means when he calls Batman a coward and says it doesn't matter because no-one will know he DIDN'T go all the way.
DKR is a fantastic comic (everyone knows that) and I thought the film was equally as good. Although it loses the art style, Batman and Joker's VA were perfect IMO.
To build on this, I once read a post on /co/ that said the Batman villains have changed into these distorted reflections of his own character.
Mr. Freeze experienced significant loss, but allowed it to consume it to the point of selfishness.
Ra'as Al Ghuul wants to make the world a better place, but takes the idea of "acceptable losses" to an extreme.
The Joker represents Batman's desire to lash out against a world that doesn't accept his views and doesn't understand the way he thinks.
These reflections weren't intended by the writers, but they've become poetic ways to compare them on a more abstract level. It adds more gravity to a bunch of guys in costumes beating the shit out of each other.
>but the ending to it is pretty great. The final conversation between the Joker and Batman shows that there's genuine empathy there for a man whose mind simply isn't normal, not necessarily evil.
Prepare mind for blowing
I loved the movie. And admittedly, I think the original comic series is fanwanked to death and people need to start jerking themselves off about it, but I appreciate the impact it has had.
But I have to say the lack of internal monologue sort of hindered it as an adaptation.
Hell, I think I'm gonna watch it again now.
You might be right about TDKR but in Assault in Arkham Asylum,
Batman is directly responsible for the death of Black Spider, not to mention letting King Shark die, doing absolutely nothing to save Arkham's personal while disguise as Black Spider, letting Deadshot kill a bunch of people and let him free not to mention it's implied he let Amanda Waller be killed by Deadshot in the ending. I'm pretty sure there are more deaths in this movie I can't remember.
Except Brian Bolland and the scripts for the original OGN prove Morrison full of shit.
I love Morrison, dig his work and am in the process of reading Supergods, but he's dead fucking wrong there.
I think that's Morrison just providing his own interpretation, but it explains why Bats reaches out and grabs him at the end.
I always assumed that Batman just grabbed the Joker, plopped him across his back, and carried him away like a kid while the Joker's laughter trailed off into the distance. It's a more poetic way to look at it, for me. It shows that they finally understand each other and for a brief moment, the Joker just doesn't fight back.
The reason I love Mask of Phantasm is that it seems like it's the only Batman movie to focus, almost entirely, on why Bruce became Batman. In every other film, exploring the origin story is secondary to something else.
My favorite scene is one where he's literally begging in front of his parents' grave, crying his eyes out, to just let him move on with his life and be happy.
I wish they would make a Deadshot spin off or something, but knowing WB they'll never allow them to make a game where you play as a villain so I guess the best we can get is Green Arrow.
Year One is pretty good but it's more a story of Gordon than Batman.
>Also any other good animated movie aside TDKR and Under the Red Hood?
Mask of the Phantasm and Assault on Arkham. Also if you just want DC at some point, I really enjoyed The Flashpoint Paradox
I think Year One got a bit of a mixed reaction, but I liked it. The VA for Batman was not great though.
Watch Mask of the Phantasm if you haven't, Batman/Superman, Justice League: The New Frontier, Gotham Knight (a collection of shorts), and Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths.
Flash wouldn't work because super speed is not a cool power to have in a video game, unless it's a racing video game. Superman would be cool I guess but then again given the fact that Superman is immortal it wouldn't make sense for the game to have a fail state where Superman doesn't die when he can't die.
Reminds me of that video of someone beating the first level of Call of Duty Black Ops without firing a shot. He spent the whole video complaining how easy everything was and how the game plays itself despite spending most of the video hiding and sneaking around enemy positions or biding his time while his allies slowly killed everything. He then proceeded to go on a rant about how consoles and casuals are ruining gaming.
Not to say that Call of Duty is super hard, but it hardly plays itself if you have to actively maneuver to avoid dying and advance the mission, even if you don't fire a shot.
They can make up some bullshit like he took a dose of kryptonite poison or some shit and now only takes 80% of damage instead of being completely immortal. Or he's in another planet where he can get hurt.
Finally we can have some proper violence, Batman is not for kids to begin with
I distinctly remember a new batman run where a bunch of freaks batman permanently mutilated when to get revenge for going too far in the non lethal combat like shooting spikes into peoples spines and shit.
>Not liking spidey batman.
Batman Beyond was self-aware, it and Terry knew it wasn't old Batman, and that's what made it good, because it didn't just try to be "Batman, BUT IN THE FUTURE."
The final scene in the movie were Terry laughs at the Joker is still one of my favorite in all of the batman movies. Hell it's one of my favorite batman movies period. Not the game though, that was a piece of shit.
arkham night was active during arkham city
Funny thing is how WB wanted "Batman in high school" to appeal to younger kids.
They retooled the idea into what we know today, and the show ended up doing better with an older audience. Remarkable given what we could've ended up with.
If you really piss him off maybe.
>Batman is not for kids to begin with
Batman was a comic created for kids initially, So yes Batman WAS for kids to begin with. Are you retarded?
Fuck Batman, where's the next real Punisher game?
Disney was the one who told Marvel to stop licensing their shit and cut any relations with Activision and Capcom, the only good sources of good games and started to develop Marvel games in house, with some examples being Disney Infinity Marvel and that mobile Marvel fighting game. Do you really want more of that? You can hate Acitivision all you want but they were able to pull some good Marvel games like Ultimate Alliance and some good Spider-Man and Hulk games, not to mention there being 0 chances of a Marvel vs Capcom 4 ever happening.
Are you forgetting Fellowship of the Ring got a PG-13 and had shit loads of decapitations?
For some reason showing decapitations isn't a big deal, although I'm surprised this hasn't changed with the whole sandnigger constantly decapitating people irl thing.
Hasn't it been years since the rating system for movies has been updated? I know back in the 70s and 80s they made updates due to the emergence of hyper violent and sexual movies, but I can't remember the last time they've made such a massive update in recent years.
The only difference I've seen over the past 10 years was towards curse words. You see a lot more 'fuck' and 'shit' now in PG-13's.
Yeah, but the creature from Dark Souls 2 he was referring to was also a monster which is why I compared it to the Orcs.
>but only ONE fully stated word still.
I'm still pretty sure that only started in the 2000's though, I don't remember any films from the 90's or before that allowed the word fuck at PG-13 but I could be wrong.
BTAS was written with all audiences in mind
they wanted the dark tone from the comics but with language and content matter adjusted for child appropriateness (adjusted as little as possible at that)
in some cases they made the adapted stories even better than they were in the comics (for example, in the comic Sid the Squid was a delusional fuckhead who imagined the whole thing. In BTAS, he almost offed the bat!)
Maybe, but that's not a major change compared to having to rethink how nudity and violence are perceived because of the mass influx of graphic violence. Hell, I think under some older rating systems The Thing would have been an adults only thing where not even supervision would have been allowed for anyone under 18.
WE WILL FINALLY GET TO SEE TWO FACES DICK
It was funny how the death of innocents was such a taboo in kids shows back then. I swear at some points the justifications were so flimsy that it was almost like the show was just throwing them out there to get it past censors but any adult watching was MEANT to understand that they had really died.
The one that springs to mind is an ep. when the Joker or someone had tampered with the train lines causing two trains to collide with each other HEAD FIRST at full speed. Huge crash, metal flying everywhere. Then there's a 2 second clip afterwards where people are discussing it and some guy just goes "Miraculously, no-one died!"
You forget they had them censor Joker's death in Return of the Joker film, so instead of getting shot to death by a mindbroken Tim Drake, he gets shoved into an electrical system that is shown off screen and the silhouette from the light is all you see. Just like how Dick Grayson's parents death is shown by their shadows falling and the trapeze just swinging with the ends just swinging.
I'm willing to bet the game is rated M because of certain dialogue and situations. For example, the may not use strong language, but it will use strong words such as "rape" often. I'm also guessing there will be more brutal takedowns, more dire situations, and sadistic, not necessarily gory, violence
I wish they would work more with this outfit. Either do Dickbats & DamRobin's version with the classical bell top and tights, motorcycle fetish, or RHatO tacticool motorcycle fetish