Holy [BLEEP]: Gotham City Imposters Trailer

By John Walker on July 21st, 2011 at 4:09 pm.

NUMBER ONE!

Hurrah! A new trailer for the exceptionally bonkers-sounding Gotham City Imposters – a game in which everyone is either pretending to be Batman or the Joker. That is a Good Concept. This one’s a CG trailer, and therefore not much use to anyone, but it sure is fun to watch. Hey, that’s a use! And it contains lots and lots of bleeped swearing. But what’s this? It turns out that we’re such bloated idiots that we missed a game footage trailer last month. So that’s below too.

Here’s the new CG, for yucks:

And here’s some game footage we should have brought you in June:

Just ew.

Come on Monolith, you can nail this one. Forget FEAR. I swear this is going to be the most disturbing shooter they’ve made so far. Oh, and they might want to actually make a website for it soon.

, , .

74 Comments »

  1. Bayemon says:

    Do want.

  2. MrCraigL says:

    Isn’t it strange that we can be shown people being killed, yet we can’t let our ears hear “fuck”.

    • Kdansky says:

      Nope, aligns perfectly with modern doublethink.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I want a Hitchcock mode in the parental controls where all kills are implied but never seen.

    • Raziel_aXd says:

      It’s the American way of life.

    • WPUN says:

      In America we kill people before they have a chance to talk.

    • Berzee says:

      My theory on this: it’s not the difference between killing and swearing. It’s the difference between fake killing and real swearing. (The killing is just a picture of a man dying…which has very little in common with the consequences of killing in real life. The swearing on the other hand is still a real spoken word heard by real ears, and has much the same effect as hearing a swear word spoken live, whatever that effect may be).

    • Baka says:

      Holy censored middlefinger Batman, that’s a really fucked up explanation!

    • JackShandy says:

      No way. If that was the case, sex would be ok to show – it’s just a fake penis! This is just the thing where people are disproportionatly fine with death because they need it to satisfy their animal instincts.

    • JackShandy says:

      No way. If that was the case, it would be fine to show sex – it’s just a fake penis! This is just the thing where people are disproportionately fine with death because they need it to satisfy their animal instincts.

    • Berzee says:

      Hardly!

    • Askeladd says:

      Well that all doesnt make sense, but we all know that anyway.
      Its always “the other people”.

    • 8-bit says:

      if you can get away with saying fuck at least once in a 12A movie these days then you should be able to get away with saying it in a trailer for a game. but only once, we have to be consistent about these things.

    • jamesgecko says:

      I scrolled down to say the same thing as Berzee. I have issues watching real-life violence. A lot of video game violence is clearly unrealistic. Swearing, on the other hand, is swearing.

    • Stephen Roberts says:

      Fuck censorship.

    • One Million Monkeys says:

      @Berzee But if you consider the articulations of killing being artificial, then why not deem all actions in that given context just as fake?

    • Berzee says:

      One Million Monkeys, for me it goes like this:
      Effect of Real Life Murder — a human being’s subscription to Earth is forcibly canceled.
      Effect of Computer Game Murder — I see a death animation.
      Effect of Real Life Swearing — I hear a swear word.
      Effect of Computer Game Swearing — I hear a swear word.

      Yay Jamesgecko, you sensible rascal!

    • aerozol says:

      A fake person really swearing is kind of similar to a fake person really killing another fake person.
      If you’re offended for the principle of it, because your ears heard the ‘evil’ (or whatever) words, and not because of the actual meaning of it, including context and everything, I guess just hearing certain atmospheric vibrations in a certain order could be enough though.

    • One Million Monkeys says:

      @Berzee
      I follow you quite far. For example in Battlestar Galactica (If I recall correctly) they have invented their own set of swearing phrases, that has no meaning outside that fictional context. So here the swearing is as ‘fake’ as the killing.

    • gwathdring says:

      Well said, million monkeys.

      I don’t buy the “real swearing” argument because of the above idea, and also because it assumes real swearing is more objectionable than fake violence. They are similar to me. If I had to pick, I might even rather expose children to verbal obscenity than to certain types of fake violence. As with sexually suggestive imagery, verbal obscenity is a reality of our world more commonly interacted with outside of entertainment media than violence. Living in the United States and most of Western Europe, one typically comes across peers swearing far more often than one comes across peers shooting each other. The real world ramifications of swearing are typically that you will moderately offend your seniors and draw raised eyebrows, mild offense, indifference or possibly admiration or confusion from your peers and juniors. It’s not something done in polite company, and it’s par for the course everywhere else. The real world ramifications of play violence like mock-wrestling are less severe but could be described similarly; it’s not something done in polite company, but it’s not really of note elsewhere. I don’t see a big moral line to be crossed between the two.

      Furthermore, I think censored swearing has no place in this type of advertising. If the swearing is going to be in the game uncensored, it should be in the trailer uncensored. If it’s going to be in the trailer at all, whether or not it’s going to be in the game, it shouldn’t be censored in this manner. Intentionally including content you plan to censor like this is evoking the exact same messages, tropes, and reactions as using the content itself. I can understand the amusing irony of the classic in-world audio cut or visual blockade that does the censorship work on the other end of the production and titillates the audience with the power of suggestion. Also the noodle device of an implausibly long censorship bleep can be amusing when used right. But pure audio redaction of the words is, to me, sloppy, lazy, and no different from including them. If you are truly trying to market to people who you think shouldn’t hear the words, you shouldn’t be including them. And if you are marketing to a group you think is fine hearing the words … why exactly are they censored?

    • Berzee says:

      Aerozol, I don’t believe that anyone really believes that words are nothing more than their audio vibrations or a few curly lines on a page. Why are you thinking that what I’m writing here and now means anything other than “zoop a zoop a zoop”, then? =P

      You also imply that words have different meanings in a computer game than they do in real life, but that couldn’t be what you mean (or else you would be really confused when a soldier says “shoot that man!” you would be like “hmm, shoot probably has a different meaning here…does he mean I should hug that man…unless man has a different meaning tooo…..WHAT DOES IT MEAN?”). I suppose what you mean is that if swear words are considered offensive, their offensiveness must originate from the human thoughts and emotions behind their utterance, and that such human thoughts and emotions cannot exist in a game character, so any swearing that comes out of the game character’s mouth is meaningless or at least much mollified.

      Which is a very evocative argument to be sure, and because I don’t buy that evilness is inherent in certain atmospheric vibrations, I have entertained such theories as the one described in the previous paragraph myself. But I am not sure if that is what you are espousing or no…

      “A fake person really swearing is kind of similar to a fake person really killing another fake person,” you said. At first I thought that by “context” you mean “not a live voice” but now I think you mean “not a real person”. So that when a voice actor swears in character, it is less like swearing than when he swears out of character. Is this what you meant?

      As for me, I continue to think that fictional dialogue shares more similarities with real dialogue…than fictional lives of game characters share with real human lives.

    • Berzee says:

      Gwath, if you don’t buy that argument for why swearing is censored more than violence — why do you think swearing is censored more than violence? Or do you not think it is?
      You may have meant “I don’t buy the argument” in the sense of not believing it is the true nature of fake swearing…but do you buy it as an argument for what people *might believe*?
      The fake violence / real swearing thing is what I believe and why I dislike swearing more than (not icky) violence in my games. (Why I dislike real swearing at all is another topic =). But however you feel about the silliness of such a belief, you can rest assured at least that it does explain the mysterious motivations of at least some people like myself.
      Agree with you about the censorship-should-represent-the-final-product thing.

      [note that by censorship I mean the sort of self-censorship done here...third parties trying to blot things out of existence is not something I enjoy, as a general but not universal rule]

    • Berzee says:

      Regarding Battlestar Galactica, I have noticed that and even considered using it in my own stories. But then I get confused by thinking of how, if you invent a word that is supposed to be coarse and taboo, and then use it profusely, aren’t you still aiming generally for coarse and taboo? Especially if you have in your mind what it actually means — then you’re just substituting syllables and tricking yourself into thinking it means differently. On the other hand, I say “dang it” and am occasionally quite surprised to find that I *do* mean something different by “dang” than I would by the word you might expect it stands for. Then I usually give up and decide that in my books, my characters will just say things like “Disappointed!” and “ANGER!”. (It’s healthy to talk about emotions like that.)

      On a side note, a few swear words I can explain my objections to. Ones of a sexual nature I object to because I prefer sexuality be 1) private and 2) joyous. So taking something private and joyous and making it public and (not always) derogatory is not my favorite thing.

      I can also easily explain why I think it’s strange for people to say “damn” flippantly, since taken literally it means they would be trying to condemn all manner of objects and people to eternal condemnation. Not that people are usually literal about it of course =) hence my second objection, that I would like the word to be saved for the strong and serious use, because now if you really *DO* wanted to use it in that sense of eternally condemned, you have to go the long way around and actually SAY “eternally condemned”, which takes longer lacks a bit of the nuance of the former.

      Finally, when people use “God” as an exclamation, I encourage it if I suspect there is an attitude of prayerfulness behind it, but I find that’s not always the case? =P Funnily enough this is seen as one of the milder forms of profanity if seen as profanity at all, but it’s probably the one I should object to the most. If you believe in Him it’s weird to use His name to mean “I am surprised and/or upset”, but if you don’t believe in Him it’s as weird as saying “Oh Easter Bunny”.

      Since I think that poop is funny, I can’t really explain why I flinch at hearing other words for poop. Heee, poop.

      I know none of these latter thoughts were requested, but these are internet comments, and they must roam wild and free.

    • yutt says:

      @Berzee

      That is an excellent explanation I would have never thought of. Initially I was on the side finding this hypocritical, but you make an excellent point.

    • gwathdring says:

      @Berzee

      I meant it doesn’t convince me. I disagree that it adequately makes the case as to why we SHOULD censor swearing in this particular trailer.

      As to why swearing is censored more than violence, I think the question is poorly phrased. Violence is more severe than swearing in my opinion, but is also considered such by society. Violence in media, however, is more superficially more acceptable in society than swearing in media. Put more simply, only the most extreme simulated violence is considered obscene, while some language used relatively commonly is considered obscene. Obscenity, by virtue of definition, is taboo and thus often censored. That is why swearing is censored more than violence; the types of violence we feel needs censoring occurs less often than the types of language we feel needs censoring and furthermore that language is simultaneously considered an important part of our cultural and emotional expression. I recognize this is a fact of modern society. But I don’t think this is reasonable. I don’t think it makes sense to consider something simultaneously routine and taboo. This is how we treat swearing. It is normative and obscene all at once. I think that is a fundamentally unhealthy perspective.

      As a side note, this is also how Americans at least treat sex: simultaneously embracing our inherent preoccupation with it and decrying it as immoral and obscene resulting in a twisted mess in which the cheapest and most damaging sexual images and ideas are pushed to the fore while healthy sexual attitudes and knowledge is clamped down. This sort of dichotomy needs to be converted into a dialectic, turning our discomfort with aspects of culture and biology we can’t avoid into a grounding for discussion and openness rather than an excuse for fear, mistrust, disgust and misinformation.

      I must admit I am somewhat biased here, because I bring my broader philosophical ideals to this more specific issue. In general, I think censorship is a poor answer to obscene material; it does nothing to address either the discomfort the in-group feels with the material or the reason the out-group wishes to express the material prior to being censored. It simply silences one to satisfy the other. This leads to poor understanding of the obscenity’s origin and poor understanding of the reasons why that material wasn’t considered objectionable in the first place which are often perfectly reasonable.

    • Berzee says:

      Thanks, yutt =)
      This trailer was self-censored for some reason though, right? Or maybe not? I didn’t watch it.
      Saying “something is censored because it is considered obscene” doesn’t answer very much, since it only leaves you with the question “why is it considered obscene?” instead of “why is it censored?”. It’s like saying “something is expensive because it is considered valuable”. And as to why the swearing is considered more obscene, you already know my theory. ;) Yours about the worth of words is a good point too, though…as is the bizarre fact that swearing is considered both crude and entirely normal, routine and taboo. Very odd…
      True comment about the current treatment of sexuality. Treating it with Uttermost Importance is sort of asking it to be a god for us, which is not very fair to either gods or sexuality. =P And treating it as something vaguely shameful is just dumb. I think it happens because of people making the first mistake, and then being vaguely ashamed of how they mistreated something that is otherwise a very fine aspect of being human. (Imagine by way of parallel, if you drove recklessly and were vaguely ashamed of the sportscar =P … edit: well ok, that’s sort of a stuffy metaphor).

    • gwathdring says:

      “Saying “something is censored because it is considered obscene” doesn’t answer very much, since it only leaves you with the question “why is it considered obscene?” instead of “why is it censored?”

      Well, yes. To an extent, that’s my point. Why the content is censored isn’t especially clear. It’s partially because of a whole mess of traditional attitudes and historical definitions and so forth and partially simply of FCC regulations and partially because of expectations that result from the censorship itself … really a large part of censorship rationales are self-fulfilling. Words can be obscene because they offend and can even offend purely because they are considered obscene. The nature of obscenity is a rather more complicated affair.

      That’s why I think censoring vulgar language is usually unhealthy. I do not believe in is institutionalized censorship for it’s own sake, which ties in to the “why put the words in the trailer if you’re going to bleep them out” idea and the confusing taboo/mundane nature of verbal obscenity. I think there are contexts where words are more obscene than others, and censoring words equally in all contexts confuses matters.

      For example, I don’t think saying “Oh FUCK, I stubbed my toe” is obscene. Improper in certain settings, sure, but not obscene. Saying dreadful things about someone’s character or filling their ears with hateful sexual slurs punctuated with that same word, “fuck” becomes an entirely different matter. The context of the hateful sentence gives the word itself more power in turn making both the sentence and the word more obscene than the two would be separately. Verbal obscenity is a complicated alchemy of cultural and personal perspectives, in turn mostly reliant on intent and immediate emotional stimulus. The words themselves typically vary in strength depending on context. I’m not comfortable giving an example sentence of “fuck” used in what I consider an obscene way–it can feel that viscerally vulgar to me. And yet I can stub my toe, say it, and not feel ashamed in many environments.

      Which, for me, all circles back to the key idea: obscenity is governed by intent and as such if you intend to be obscene, it is dishonest to censor yourself after the fact; if you do not intend to be obscene, it is lazy to rely on swearing to generate attention and emotional impact only to censor it to avoid the negative consequences inherent in those culturally charged words. It’s one thing when the censorship is unintentional: a movie or song being aired on airwaves policed by the FCC. It’s another thing entirely when that censorship is self-issued. There aren’t many circumstances where I think it’s honest and reasonable to intentionally insert obscene content into fictional media and censor it at the same time.

    • Muzman says:

      Enough post structuralism. Everyone knows excessive bleeped swearing is 50% funnier than regular excessive swearing.
      Scientific fact my friends.
      What’s more alarming is they had to protect our precious eyes from seeing a cartoon joker person flipping the bird.

    • gwathdring says:

      Agreed, but for me it needs to be a bit more excessive to be funny. As it was, it just seemed unnecessary to bleep it to my mind.

      Also I don’t think post-structuralism means what you implied there. At the very least, if you think I’m post-structuralist I have miscommunicated. :P

      I sort of classified the redacted middle finger the same way as the bleeped swearing. A bit perplexing given the tone of the video.

    • aerozol says:

      @Berzee you misinterpreted my post. I’m not saying that words are meaningless, but that their meaning depends on context. You were getting pretty close with actor in character vs out of character though, that for instance changes things a lot.

      By context I mean: the situation within which the words arising, and also how we interpret this situation (different for every individual).
      If a soldier says to ‘shoot someone’, we take a lot from the context, for instance that it’s a soldier talking. The situation would be entirely different if you were playing a video game, or a kids talking (for instance).
      Similarly if someone says (or yells) ‘f*ck you’ at you while they’re running at you with a knife, it’s different to a good friend saying it after you’ve made fun of him.

      If for personal reasons you think the words are offensive in ANY context (but, for instance, violence isn’t), it has a lot to do with your personal history (upbringing etc), but that’s not enough to convince me that one is actually distinctively different in a game situation. Showing a very young child ‘game’ violence would be very offensive, and also to anyone who is not used to it- most peoples parents on this site, I suspect.

      I think it’s your personal circumstance which makes one seems worse than the other, mainly what you’re used to. Not to generalise (ok, a little hehe :) but the US’s system of ‘violence = ok’ (depending on the context it’s presented in, eg patriotic), and ‘swearing/sex = bad’ (no matter the context), is self-perpetuating. Basically, you’re used to one, and not the others, and because everyone thinks this, it’s not going to change easily.
      I can’t say that that’s universally wrong, but from my point of view (context, even), it’s the wrong way around.

    • Muzman says:

      gwathdring: I assure you my usage of post structuralism and all terms is 100% at all times. Scientific fact my friend.

    • Dhatz says:

      someone should do a uncensored gag on fucking censorship.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nogo says:

      Even though this will probably get lost in the noise the “American doublethink” actually makes a decent amount of sense.

      Kids will discover violence and it’s consequences quite well on their own, but things like sex and swearing require parental guidance because there are a lot of mores attached. Violence is a more itself which is easily understood by even small children. Whereas swearing and sex are potentially OK things to do, but require guidance and education to know when they are appropriate.

      Us being freedom loving sonsaguns we want the freedom to expose our children to objectionable content at our own pace.

      IE. Would you rather have your five year old attempt to reenact Batman fighting the Joker or Batman having a late night rendezvous with Catwoman? As an added bonus they could be using wildly misunderstood racial slurs while doing it!

    • aerozol says:

      “Kids will discover violence and it’s consequences quite well on their own, but things like sex and swearing require parental guidance because there are a lot of mores attached. ”
      Really? You had trouble discovering sex on your own? Maybe you needed a map?
      Violence and its consequences are NOT something that kids should ‘discover’. Swearing though, the consequences are quite bearable in comparison, wouldn’t you say?

    • Berzee says:

      I think what he’s actually saying is that violence is pretty much the same everywhere but (as he said precisely) the other ones have a lot of mores attached.

  3. D3xter says:

    Is it… is it Batman?… No it’s just a man with a bat dressing up like him.

  4. Vexing Vision says:

    This disturbs me in a very pleasing manner.

  5. Premium User Badge

    Vitamin Powered says:

    So it’s TF2 but with more bank robbing? Fuck yes.

  6. jon_hill987 says:

    I DON’T WEAR HOCKEY PADS!

  7. ResonanceCascade says:

    Tee Hee! I’m really glad to see Monolith get back to their twisted, hilarious roots.

  8. Jake says:

    I don’t really like the look of this, it seems like an attempt to shoehorn Batman imagery into a Team Fortress clone. The exaggerated art style/humour doesn’t look right for a Batman game, nor does all the manic shooting.

    • RakeShark says:

      I’m pretty sure the point of the Impostors line of thinking is to get out of the grim-dark goth sole/soul of what we’d come to expect from a Batman game. Also remember Gotham is a pretty nutty place. Most of the mainstream Batman series don’t go into the humor of it, but a lot of one-offs in the same comics do. Look through the Gotham Knights collections after the main piece to see some of it.

      In a sense, this is more Judge Dredd than straight up Batman. And that’s not a terrible thing.

  9. Fartango says:

    Here’s hoping for some really excellent character customization!

    • westyfield says:

      Have they said whether there will be customisation or not? It would be awesome if you could create your own Batman ripoff character, boring if not.

    • Patches the Hyena says:

      Oh MAN. With proper customisation (and good mechanics of course) this might tempt me away from TF2.

  10. DK says:

    I can already tell you that all the flying and jumping powers are going to be horribly underpowered and practically deathtraps, because they’ll be balanced for the vertical handicap of gamepads.

    • Jamison Dance says:

      If only there was some way to have different balance on different platforms! Alas, such an impossibility remains outside the realm of human achievement.

    • DK says:

      It requires effort – something that’s in short supply for the last few years.

      Hell, even ignoring larger trends, just look at the Monolith/WB Games history. It’s nothing but shoddy ports all the way down.

  11. Vague-rant says:

    I want there to be a large bat which dresses like a man.

  12. xrabohrok says:

    I’m getting vibes of BLOOD with this one (yes!).

  13. Premium User Badge

    LarsBR says:

    I found the concept and art direction extremely interesting, but then I saw game play footage :-(

    Does not appeal.

    • Dave Mongoose says:

      I agree: It’s disappointingly underwhelming. Yes, there are crazy weapons and ziplines and everyone looks silly… but there doesn’t seem to be much pace to the combat or impact to the weapons, and the models and textures are pretty bland.

  14. Premium User Badge

    shoptroll says:

    This looks like it could be fun. Nice to see someone taking the imposter batman idea from the start of Dark Knight and spinning it into a multiplayer game. Much much better idea than trying to shoehorn/graft a multiplayer mode onto Arkham City, like was done with BioShock 2.

    As this is supposed to be download only, I can’t imagine it being much more than Section 8 and I think that’s about what I’d expect this game to cost.

  15. sonicblastoise says:

    Ahhh, tewiffic

  16. Warlokk says:

    This looks delightfully insane… I will now have to keep an eye on this one. Batmans vs Jokers in a mad TF2-esque battle can only end in gruesome over-the-top fun. Hopefully. Maybe.

  17. aDemandingPersona says:

    ok. Somebody needs to make the TF2 mod now.

  18. apa says:

    And they’ve got some sort of a license for this?! IPR lawyers, wake up!

    Looks fun, I hope there’s enough stuff to do in the game.

  19. 123 says:

    please no GFWL :(

  20. Hakkesshu says:

    Wait, so someone really made an FPS about dudes LARPing Batman and the Joker? What?

    • Premium User Badge

      lurkalisk says:

      Hardcore, underground LARPing. Unless the regular sort is a whole lot more dangerous then I thought…

  21. Premium User Badge

    Gabbo says:

    Batman, TF2 and NOLF put in a blender, with this as the result? I’ll give it a shot, I’ve enjoyed Monolith’s work before.

    @apa Monolith are owned by Warner Bros. What licensing do they need?

  22. Shodex says:

    But, will they be wearing hockey pads?

  23. SpaceAkers says:

    Did we know it was a download / budget title before these videos?

    On the one hand, it’s probable price of $15usd makes it closer to an instant purchase. On the other, it may mean the game is subpar…..

    Also, I don’t really see anything that looks like TF2. I saw a deathmatch game with a bunch of hitscan weapons. Just cause a game may or may not have classes, does not mean it’s anything like TF2!

  24. gwathdring says:

    Men and women dressing up like a man dressing up like a bat to fight crime so that they can fight crime as well as men and women dressing up like a man dressing up like a clown to commit crime so that they can commit crime and fight the former.

    Dear god …

  25. Skusey says:

    It certainly is a Good Concept, but I’m not sure it will be a Good Game. I hope it will, but nothing I saw there looked too promising to my eyes.

  26. DSR says:

    Looks “ok” for a game which could be put on a Blu Ray disk with the recent Batman movie or as some silly gimmick game for 9$ on Steam.
    But If they are going to charge full price for THIS, well…
    Good luck.

    Monolith died for me long time ago.
    NOLF 2 was great, but not as good as the first one.
    Contract JACK and their recent titles are rubbish.
    First FEAR was very entertaining, though. Mostly because of clever AI and fun gameplay with slow mo. Even though, it was all about dull gray corridors.
    FEAR 2 is horrendous. For me, its like DeusEx:IW compared to DeusEx.
    FEAR 3… Well, I don’t know if there is any demo for this one. Not interested in their half baked sequels anymore.

    • Premium User Badge

      Gabbo says:

      Monolith isn’t developing Fear3

    • DSR says:

      Oh, that explains everything.
      My bad, then, sorry.

      A good friend of mine(FEAR2 fan) could not play FEAR3 for more than half a hour and then told me how bad it is(Which was strange considering how much he liked FEAR2 which I hated).

      Now I see…
      Developer: “Day 1 Studios”.

      I guess then, its not a…
      *sunglasses*
      …day one purchase for me
      YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAH

  27. takfar says:

    Looks interesting, and the aesthetics remind me of No One Lives Forever. Which was an awesome game. Which reminds me of, CMON MONOLITH WE NEED ANOTHER NOLF!

  28. Araxiel says:

    Now let’s talk about Batman’s “No Killing”-Policy

    Also, this game seems like a Brink mod to me.

  29. Premium User Badge

    Nogo says:

    What’s with all the TF2 comparisons?

    Has everyone forgot Shadowrun already?