Bruce Wanes: Batman Arkham Series Finale Leaked, Has Car

By Alec Meer on March 4th, 2014 at 3:30 pm.

Update: official trailer released, and below, right at the very bottom of the post.

First there was Batman: Arkham Macguyver, then there was Batman: Arkham A Bit Of City, then Batman: Arkham Oranges, and now there is Batman: Arkham Nighty-Night. Oh, alright, just Arkham Knight. But I’m only calling it that this once.

And it has a driveable Batmobile! Jeez guys, why’d it take you four games to come up with that idea? But all jolly exciting – a car, and Rocksteady back at the helm, should mean a mite more sense of advancement than the solid but rinse’n’repeaty Arkham Oranges. (Though hopefully the returning dev has learned a thing or two about thug dialogue.)

News of Batman: Arkham Nighty-Night cropped up on an unwise listing on GAME’s website, promptly pulled, but the world’s greatest detectives over at NeoGAF had inevitably spotted it and saved it for posterity.

It’s billed as the ‘finale’ to the Arkham series, apparently features the Scarecrow as the big bad (though I won’t be at all surprised if there’s someone else ultimately pulling the strings), and the usual rogue’s gallery. There’ll be challenge maps starring Harley Quinn for pre-orderers/DLCers, ad yes, the Batmobile.

I would like to drive the Batmobile. There, I said it: I’m excited about pretending to drive a pretend car with big fins. I am thirty-five years old.

\o/ BATMOBILE \o/

 

Here’s some first look footage, too:

That car sure can jump.

Batman: Nighty-Night is due for release on PC and the more expensive consoles later this year, apparently. Also apparently, it, “offers gamers the ultimate and complete Batman experience as they tear through the streets and soar across the skyline of the entirety of Gotham City.”

‘Entirety’ had better mean what it sounds like. And if it does: oooooh.

Update: an official trailer for you.

Bruce’s dad has a surprisingly spooky voice, no? And also clearly expected to kick the bucket at a moment’s notice. Perhaps I should write an ominous and over-earnest letter to my child, just in case.

, , , , , .

119 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Premium User Badge

    Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    I wonder if sequels are also more important than game breaking big fixes? Also bug fixes. Stupid keyboard with tiny keys suitable for elf hands.

    • Germo says:

      This one’s being made by Rocksteady. The one with the game breaking bugs was made by Warner Bros. Montréal. So I guess the answer is no? DLC is, though.

  2. BarryK says:

    When the first thing I learn about a game is that it’ll have exclusive pre-order DLC I pretty much write the game off entirely. Granted it doesn’t help that the last game in the series (by another developer) was trash.

    • tyren says:

      I never play challenge maps in these games anyway so I tend to not care about their “exclusive playable characters.”

  3. lordfrikk says:

    Finally!

    • SillyWizard says:

      Finally! A Batman game starring David Boreanaz!

      Finally! Another retarded take on the Batmobile!

      Finally! Another game where the poor, ill-equipped police are threatened by evil terrorists with access to top-of-the-line weaponry! Good thing Batman is there to rescue a police dept which — as Gotham is essentially NYC — has 34,000+ uniformed officers, a $3.5b annual budget, and is larger than most standing armies in the world.

      Farts.

      • hypercrisis says:

        I always assumed Gotham was a Chicago analogue

        • benjaminlobato says:

          Gotham is a nickname for NYC. It was first used as a reference to Gotham in Nottinghamshire, based on the alleged stupidity of the people there.

      • Premium User Badge

        Rizlar says:

        David Boreanaz! *swoon*

  4. wu wei says:

    I thought the next Rocksteady Batman game was going to be Silver Age influenced?

  5. Neo says:

    What was the deal with “thug dialogue” in the previous games?

    • EnragedPixel says:

      I think they talked about Catwoman using not-so-nice words? Them being thugs I didn’t really react to it in any other ways than beating the snot out of them though, but other people found it offensive.

      • nearly says:

        it wasn’t so much that it wasn’t kind, it was that it was needlessly sexist, cliched, generic and extremely repetitive

        • Premium User Badge

          Jackablade says:

          The issue was mostly that Rocksteady only wrote a few lines of dialogue for while the player was running around as Catwoman and had a few voice actors read them. The result was that the dialogue lines featuring the word “bitch” got played an awful lot. The post game sequence where Catwoman is going after Two Face got a little bit like that “Kyle’s Mum Is a Big Fat Bitch” song from South Park after a while.

    • Premium User Badge

      Mitthrawn says:

      Yeah I never understood the outrage. It was as though some on the internet expected hardened criminals who beat people for a living to also be socially enlightened when it came to women, and in particular to a woman who was, at that particular moment, kicking their ass. Made absolutely no sense to me.

      • Zekiel says:

        I never got that upset either, but I think the criticism was that the criminals never made similarly sex-themed insults to Batman. The argument that “well they say nasty things because they’re nasty people” I guess leads to the criticism that (for realism and/or parity) they should have been making not-so-subtle insinuations about Batman’s relationship with Robin while fighting him.

        • Premium User Badge

          Mitthrawn says:

          Well I think you play almost all of the game as one or the other right? There’s a dlc mission with both but none in the main game. It also makes sense that they would be making these comments as the only hurtful way to get back at a woman who was physically beating them, thus emasculating them. To me it seems a perfectly reasonable response. At the same point, I understand that a female gamer, in the midst of a leisure time activity, would find it jarring and unsettlling to be called a bitch or whatever. In that case though, I would say, just like if they called Batman a pedophile or gay, that as a player you need to divorce yourself from the character. The goons are making a judgement about this in-game character, nothing at all to do with the player.
          TLDR I’m fine with devs making sexist insults for both parties, but the real problem is players not divorcing themselves of their characters.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            “Use a wide range of Batman gadgets and abilities as you become the invisible predator and attempt to foil the Joker’s demented scheme.”

            Pulled directly from Rocksteady marketing material. The games are designed from the ground up to make you feel like you are that character, you can’t blame the players for not divorcing themselves when it’s this way by design.

      • Agnol117 says:

        The issue is that it’s fundamentally problematic to imply that the worst thing that can be done to a man is to kill him, but the worst thing that can be done to female is rape. Furthermore, the fact that the taunts were both specifically gendered and attacked Catwoman simply on the basis that she was female is a bit off putting.

        • Syphus says:

          As if Gotham is an especially enlightened place? I don’t see these kind of coplains from movies nearly as often. Yea they’re awful, and obviously sexist etc etc, however they go with the theme. Its like complaining about the language in 12 Years A Slave.

          • Agnol117 says:

            If you don’t see these complaints about movies, it’s because you’re not frequenting the parts of the internet where people are apt to do so. They exist (honestly, in greater volume than they do with regards to video games).

            That being said, if you don’t see how it’s problematic that a character with nearly as much history and complexity as Batman is reduced to sex object and the target of misogynistic attacks, then I can’t help you.

          • Volcanu says:

            @ Agnol117

            Surely there is a distinction between having misogynistic characters and a game with a misogynistic tone over all? The same way that a film like ’12 years a Slave’ contains racist characters, using racist language, but is not itself a racist film with a racist message. Similarly a film like Schindler’s list has Nazi’s using deeply offensive anti-semitic language, and well..the holocaust, but the message of the film is demonstrably not anti-semitic.

            I get that there could be a legitimate criticism that this game is not primarily dealing with such heavyweight topics, it’s not an exploration of the theme of sexual violence against women for instance, – and that such insults jar against the general tone of the game. I would find it jarring if say, the imperial stormtroopers were shown sexually assaulting Princess leia during her detention on the Death star. Such things have and (do) happen to vulnerable women – probably more so under repressive regimes, but it would be totally out of kilter with the light and fun tone of the rest of Star Wars.

            But if the game is striving for a plausible depiction of the ugliness of criminality then having characters who try to denigrate a complex, female character with such threats is, I think legitimate – providing the game itself does not endorse or glamorise such a world view.

          • Agnol117 says:

            The problem is that isn’t “striving for a plausible depiction of the ugliness of criminality,” or at least doesn’t seem to be. The various rape threats really don’t fit with the tone of the rest of the game, and even those are only part of the larger issue.

            Even if we ignore the industry-wide issues with the portrayal of female characters, we’re still left with the developers presenting Catwoman as basically a caricature of who she is in the comics. She’s reduced to a sex object and stripped of anything resembling personality, and this is done by the people who made the game. This is the real issue here, not just how the thugs respond to her.

          • Zekiel says:

            Bravo.

          • nearly says:

            @Volcanu

            Read Film Crit Hulk’s write-up (Hulk Vs. Arkham City). I found the game indeed has a misogynistic tone over all.

        • woodsey says:

          And yet convincing from the characters it was coming from. Strangely enough, I don’t think the authorial voice in the Arkham games is intended to emanate from the street thugs.

          • Agnol117 says:

            The problem is that presentation helps to normalize it, particularly when the industry already has issues with portrayal of females.

          • fish99 says:

            That’s a weak argument Agnol, saying a game can’t reflect problems in society because it helps normalize those problems. It’s like the people who accuse an author of being racist because there’s a racist character in their book.

          • Zekiel says:

            @fish99 See my point further up the thread about the fact that its fine for the thugs to use sexualized insults/taunts against Catwoman, but for some reason the same thugs make non-sexualised taunts against Batman. Sure, you can assume all the thugs are hetero, but hetero thugs in real life would likely be making offensive homosexual slurs against someone like Batman. [Excepting of course that not surprisingly no-one like Batman exists in real life]

        • MkMax says:

          part of Catwoman’s character is being oversexualized, that includes the way males react to her, if you took that away she wouldnt be catwoman, i can see how it can be found disturbing but i think thats a case of “maybe you should look into some other games” instead of trying to change the game itself

          look at the new southpark game, some ppl have been complaining about the countless disturbing sexual references in the game (which i have to say can be REALLY disturbing), but thats pretty much what southpark is, the show has a lot of that, you cant take it away without losing something

          gamers seem to have a lot of trouble accepting that they dont have to like every game/story/character just like they dont have to like every kind of movie or every kind of comic or every kind of food or every kind of porn

        • Stompopolos says:

          Just like it’s “fundamentally problematic” that blacks are only referred to as niggers in Huck Finn? Women want equality? Fine, that means it’s ok to swear at them, hit them, kick them in the ovaries if you think they’re being sleazy or a jerk, cut off their vaginal skin at birth, etc etc etc

          • Sheng-ji says:

            It’s not OK to do any of those things to a man either. I take it you believe two wrongs do make a right then.

          • Agnol117 says:

            If you really think that’s equality, you’re part of the problem.

          • Stompopolos says:

            “It’s not OK to do any of those things to a man either. I take it you believe two wrongs do make a right then.”
            How about you confront those issues then?
            “If you really think that’s equality, you’re part of the problem.”
            Way to completely ignore my point. I was being sarcastic, you self-righteous ignoramus.

      • SuicideKing says:

        It’s based on a fictional comic book character, not supposed to be RealitySimulator 5: Batman Edition.

        Batman games, especially one with the player playing both male and female lead characters, are going to be played universally, just like the comics were read universally.

        I think we should always remember that it’s a GAME. If I wanted to see how bad sexism and misogyny is in the real world, i’d just take a stroll with a female friend of mine, and observe other men around us.

        • MkMax says:

          what ? comics meant to be read universally, did you accidentally wrote it inverted ? comics came up with the whole stripperific and ultra oversexualized character designs and i dont know any real world where a regular men treat women like that, are you coloring the world with what you see on tv ? you know thats extremely biased right ?

          • Agnol117 says:

            Believe it or not, comics are meant to be read universally. The problem is that the misogyny that so clutters the genre has made it something of a boys club, which turns women off and, in turn, leads to more terrible sexist portrayals.

            Also, you never seeing sexism in the real world means one of two things: that you’re not paying attention, or that you’re leading a very sheltered life.

          • PopeRatzo says:

            comics came up with the whole stripperific and ultra oversexualized character designs

            You’ve never seen Gilda?

    • Chubzdoomer says:

      It’s hard to believe people made such a big deal out of the thug dialog. I had no idea it was an issue until you mentioned it! Then again, this is the Internet and we are living in an era in which you can’t do anything without offending someone, so perhaps I shouldn’t be so shocked.

      • Urthman says:

        Yeah, yeah. Tell me something you don’t like about video games and I’ll sneer at you for being “easily offended” by something that doesn’t bother me.

        If you like playing games where you listen to women get called “bitch” and threatened with rape, then own it. Some of us don’t like that and think less of people who do.

        • derbefrier says:

          and most of us dont give a shit that some random person on the internet has that classic liberal superiority complex.

        • Chubzdoomer says:

          That comparison barely makes sense. Pointing out a video game’s flaws is offering critique based on what the game does good and bad, not nitpicking things that offend one’s self on a personal level. Crying foul because some thugs call a female character “bitch” in a video game, however… I’m sorry, I just find that absurd. I didn’t even notice those things as I was playing as Catwoman because so many equal or worse things have been said in the majority of R-rated movies out there. I suppose that’s why politically correct folks such as yourself drive me up the wall — you like to make mountains out of molehills.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Funny how those comfortable with the status quo can only seem to see gender equality as a “molehill” not the “mountain” it may feel like for someone who is on the wrong side of gender abuse every day of their lives.

          • Agnol117 says:

            The only reason it looks like a “molehill” is because you’re looking at it as one facet of something that happens in one game (there are larger problems with Catwoman’s portrayal) rather than looking at it in the context of the problem that is both society and industry wide.

    • quarpec says:

      well speaking as a man on the internet, i thought the comments about raping catwoman was fine and ok and the females who complain should grow a thicker skin

      • TheMightyEthan says:

        When did they talk about raping her? Honest question. I remember them calling her a bitch and other misogynistic things, and I remember goons talking about wanting to “take a ride on the Harley” and whatnot, but I don’t remember any specific rape references.

        • Zekiel says:

          The word rape was never used, but the implications in some of the taunts were pretty clear.

          • TheMightyEthan says:

            Again, not trying to argue, but I don’t remember that. Could you be a little more specific? (I realize it may be unrealistic to expect someone to remember specific enemy taunts from a game that old.)

          • hypercrisis says:

            Rape was never part of the original controversy, and I don’t recall anything like that. It was the liberal use of the term bitch to the point where it was in almost every line of dialogue referring to Harley or Cat.

          • Zekiel says:

            @TheMightyEthan

            The line I remember is “We’re going to have fun with you Catwoman” (said in such a way that it was very clear what they were referring to).

            I think Hypercrisis is right though – I believe the original controversy was more over the over-use of “bitch”. But it is definitely rather telling that every single female character in the game is over-sexualized both in presentation and how thugs refer to them.

  6. Premium User Badge

    cpt_freakout says:

    That Batman portrait from the Official First Footage TM looks like an old man dying from cancer.

  7. Ace Rimmer says:

    Preorder now for the exclusive Arkham Nightie DLC!

  8. DanMan says:

    Wow, such graphics.

    edit: damn, you ruined my awesome remark by posting a proper trailer!

    • Premium User Badge

      Mitthrawn says:

      Wow. That’s way more exciting (though expected).

      • Premium User Badge

        Stellar Duck says:

        Much more exiting indeed! As long as it’s still Arkane making it.

        Just add a player body and all is set.

        As for Batman, I got halfway in the new one and never went back. I think I’m done with that series now. Arkham City was bad enough, but Origins were just too unfocused.

  9. Premium User Badge

    RedViv says:

    Jeffrey Combs please, this time around?

  10. Artfunkel says:

    Box Art Soundtrack. I just made that a thing.

  11. sleepisthebrotherofdeath says:

    Batmobile was in Arkham Asylum.

    You couldn’t drive it. But it was in there.

    • Zekiel says:

      It had junk in the trunk

      Edit: sorry “explosive gel”. Don’t know why I thought it was junk.

  12. FlammableD says:

    Rocksteady back means I’m more likely to check this one out, but I’m more worried about whether the writing team is back for this one.

  13. int says:

    You and your Arkham Kniggits!

  14. Dextro says:

    So honest question: is Arkham Oranges worth it if one can get it for cheaps? Or should one just skip it altogether and wait for Arkham Nighty-Night?

    • Premium User Badge

      Mitthrawn says:

      If you liked arkham city and wished it was twice as long, then yes. it continues most of the stuff rocksteady did, it just doesn’t add much. And what it does add, it occasionally flubs. I am partway through it now, and really enjoying it, but I spent 30-40 hours with City so YMMV.

      • Dextro says:

        I have to admit that I was getting a bit bored of Arkham City at the end but you can never punch enough thugs in the face. Maybe sometime during the year I’ll pick it up on the cheap then. Thanks :)

    • Premium User Badge

      RedViv says:

      Do you want more Arkham City? Do you not mind having far more padding for more of a running time and less fresh ideas?

      • Zekiel says:

        I really cannot decide whether I ought to play it or not based on these recommendations. I absolutely loved Arkham City. But I also appreciated the fact it had (for me) zero bugs and had good pacing. From what I hear Arkham Oranges has a fair number of bugs and rubbish pacing. So I’m rather worried that I’ll retrospectively damage my Arkham “experience” by playing it. :-(

        • Talon2000uk says:

          Personally I loved it. I thought the pacing and story was actually better than city, thought most would probably disagree. If you love the first two you will like this one. Plus its got Martin “Motherfucking” Jarvis as Alfred! What’s not to love.

          I got 100% on Origins, something I never did on city as I got board after the main story finished. I am so looking forward to Arkham Knight. Batman GTA. Bring it on.

          As you can see from the above I’m rather a Batman fan. :D

          • Zekiel says:

            Thanks for the recommendation! Might pick it up in a sale.

            On the other hand I probably ought to deliberately not pick it up in a sale due to the whole “DLC rather than fixing bugs” rubbish. Grrrr.

    • rikvanoostende says:

      I wanted Arkham Oranges, but it gave me Lemon Lime.

    • jonfitt says:

      I’m with you. I picked up Asylum and City for cheap and loved both of them. I’ve read conflicting things abotu Oranges, and am not sure if it needs playing.

      The first game had the amazing combat, and I felt like it had done everything it was going to by the end. Then the second said, let’s improve that combat, and now add a huge place to explore and make it GTA-like. Along with that comes a lot of padding and collect-em-ups which aren’t my bag. It was great, but also by the end I felt like I had got the measure of it and I was bungying about the city trying to get to the next mission, ignoring the goings on around me. The city became an obstacle, the mystery had gone.

      What does Oranges add that makes it a worthwhile sequel? If it’s City but done again, that’s not too bad, but nothing to shout about.

    • Premium User Badge

      PikaBot says:

      The appropriate term is ‘mixed bag’. It lacks the polish of the first two games, and unfortunately that just reveals how much the previous games relied on polish. Not just in the QA sense – although there were a fair number of bugs to be sure – but in things like environmental design or camera movement. Although the Arkham games have always been fundamentally on-rails experiences, the rails have never felt quite so obvious before. And in a fight, if you’re anywhere near a wall, the camera tends to shoot up into least helpful angle possible, so you can’t see attacks coming.

      Combat also feels shakier than the previous games. I’m not sure whether it’s sloppy dev work or deliberate changes, but enemies attack much more aggressively and the window for blocking is different. I felt like I got hit by a lot more bullshit attacks from way off-screen.

      The game also doesn’t do a good job endearing itself to you. The first part is spent running around Blackgate, which is a really, really dull level with no visual flair, and then getting through a boss fight with some horrendous graphical and sound bugs. And then it asks you to pay attention to Black Mask, which I am almost morally opposed to.

      Finally, the fact that there are absolutely no civilians out and about and the repeated environments are a major disappointment. Although it’s certainly not a one-to-one, the areas of the city open to you correspond unpleasantly with the areas of the city already modeled for Arkham City, and even some interiors – they made the GCPD station fresh, thankfully, but did anyone really want to go back to that goddamned steel mill?

      So that’s all the problems with the game. But are there good points? Yes.

      First, the boss fights are SO much better than previous games. They all play slightly differently and there’s none of that silly horseshit desert nonsense. In addition, there are specialized goons who need handling in specific ways and that adds a lot more variety to the combat.

      Second, they added a few new gadgets to the game that are a great deal of fun to play around with (although when fully upgraded they do kind of break the game hilariously).

      Third, the game has unquestionably the strongest narrative of the Arkham games (spoilers to follow). It’s largely about the nature and formation of Batman’s relationship with many of his supporting cast – there’s a lot of great stuff with Alfred, who finally makes an on-screen appearance, Gordon is top notch and you actually team up with him to fight thugs at one point, little fangirl Barbara Gordon was great, and even though bringing the Joker back felt initially like a cheap move and treading old ground, they approached the relationship from the Joker‘s perspective this time which felt fresh and interesting. Plus you get to beat the shit out of him in a church to the tune of Carol of the Bells, which was fantastic.

      And finally, although it’s clear that it’s seen less love than it’s predecessors, the Arkham formula is still a solid one and they haven’t screwed it up so completely as to be unenjoyable. Gliding around still feels good. Perching above a group of goons and listening to then talk about you, and then dropping on top of them still feels good. Watching a group of disciplined thugs go shaky-kneed and start shooting at shadows as you pick then off one at a time still feels good. Even if it’s not as well put together as Asylum or City, there’s still plenty to enjoy here.

      So, yeah. Your call. I wouldn’t pay full price for it, but picking it up on sale seems reasonable.

  15. Solidstate89 says:

    The Batmobile sort of looks like someone turned a Pagani Zonda into a tank.

  16. Zekiel says:

    OK she does not look like Harley Quinn.

    Also for a man who spent several minutes pondering nothing in the Batcave, he does then seem in an awful hurry to get to the source of the pitched street battle.

    Other than that – excellent trailer.

    • Premium User Badge

      RedViv says:

      Someone has fused earlier Harley with Tara Strong into one fresh new design. SCIENCE!!! is grand.

    • Zenicetus says:

      I noticed that too. She looks very generic now. So does the Penguin. Both models look a bit plastic and less stylized than in Arkham City. I guess they’re not re-using assets from the earlier game, maybe due to the switch to “next-gen” console graphics?

      • Premium User Badge

        Jackablade says:

        There’s a quote from one of the developers somewhere that there are characters with “as many polygons as the entirety of the Arkham Asylum environment”. While that sounds completely ridiculous and is probably taken out of context, it’s fair to assume the characters are all getting a signficant new-gen remodelling.

  17. Steven Hutton says:

    The biggest step forward for this franchise would be to take a step back. Open world is not very Batman. The smaller, tighter environments of the first game were way better,

    • skyturnedred says:

      Have to agree with this. While I did like Arkham City, I felt Asylum was a much better game.

      • MkMax says:

        yes, i agree, Asylum was better

        i felt the city just got in the way making me waste time and diluting the content, the first game was also more focused instead trying to bring every single character into the story like the other games

    • Chubzdoomer says:

      I honestly feel the same way. Arkham City was good, but I thought Arkham Asylum was better. It felt like there was too much tedious grappling and gliding around the city just to get to each mission and the majority of extra content (side missions in particular) was super forgettable. I felt Asylum was a more “focused,” tightly-knit experience without any unnecessary fluff. Although open worlds are trendy these days, sometimes I feel they have more negative implications than positive.

    • Kollega says:

      I have to join in saying that Asylum was better than City. There’s the issue of less focus, there’s the issue of the main storyline driving you forwards with such speed that you don’t really want to fuss with side mission content, and there’s my personal dislike: AC being so damn gritty that I could barely make heads or tails of it. Everything, everywhere was rusty, grimy, blood-splattered and decaying to such an extent that it was just painful to look at. AA was much more conservative with grit, and that was a good thing.

    • jonahcutter says:

      The gameplay systems were better in City. They really expanded on what they had created in Asylum. The fighting. The puzzles. The movement. All had were more complicated and offered more options while still being very user-friendly. Asylum is great. But City is an excellent example of a developer taking their already successful systems and making them better.

      In narrative though, Asylum was far better. It was a lot tighter and had more impact. The pacing was excellent. It had a tension and real drive forward. City struggled to maintain that tension with it’s many open-world distractions (as fun as they are).

    • Werthead says:

      From a game design standpoint, I agree. But from a BATMAN atmosphere-evoking game, I’m not so sure. Batman perching on the corner of a skyscraper before swooping down to bust some thugs’ heads fits the character much better than cowering in an air vent for ages.

    • fish99 says:

      They’re very similar games, but I’d just give the edge to City on the fun factor of grappling round the city, the spectacular environments, and I enjoyed the story more.

      • The First Door says:

        Interesting! I thought the story in City wasn’t as good as in Asylum to be honest, as it just wasn’t very focused. I felt there were too many baddies, so none of them got much depth. I much preferred having fewer characters appear more often, as it let them explore their relationships with Batman more. Plus I really missed the Scarecrow bits, one of them in particular (which I don’t want to spoil) is my favourite little twists in a game for ages!

        Still, I’m not saying City wasn’t an excellent game too, because it certainly was!

  18. MkMax says:

    it looks more like an Arkham oranges dlc than a whole new game

    they set the franchise on fire with by refusing to support oranges anyway, even if rocksteady is involved they still report to a higher power that has shown no interest in doing so

    about the car, sure it would be cool to drive around in a heavily armored car full of toys but i cant really see how you can add that to the usual arkham gameplay without diluting the city even more than the previous games have, are they going to go full retard with the copy and paste so you have a “whole city” to drive around ? are we going to have to drive 10 minutes between missions to get there ?

    • Zekiel says:

      Yes I don’t understand this either. I love the Batmobile in concept. But the coolest thing in Arkham City (and the main reason I prefer it to the absolutely excellent Asylum) is being able to grapple around and glide all over the place. The sense of freedom of movement is spectacular. Being able to jump into a car and drive around is… less spectacular. There are already loads of games in which I can do that, thanks. (The only other game I can think of that lets me grapple around is Just Cause 2.)

    • The Random One says:

      It’s interesting noting that in the Amiga game the Batmobile driving sections seemed to include mostly dodging traffic and making turns at the proper places.

  19. Moraven says:

    And another franchise hitting the multiple dev, annualized releases. Yah, I doubt they will stop producing Batman games even if this is the end of the Arkham series. Warner Bros needs to hold onto their 1 big AAA hit.

    The best part of this is it is from Rocksteady, they have had 3 years to work on it, and it is all next-gen.

  20. Premium User Badge

    binkbenc says:

    1:01 Tyrion Lannister IS Batman.

  21. Premium User Badge

    ffordesoon says:

    I will play the shit out of this.

    That said, if that’s Thomas Wayne’s will, why does it sound as if he wrote it knowing he was going to be killed by a mugger when Bruce was a child? Was he, like, going to rewrite it if he did live to see Bruce grow up?

  22. bhauck says:

    I’m not kidding, that Amiga footage looks great. I thought the Amiga was some mid-80s mess of giant pixels, but that game looked really nice.

    • Premium User Badge

      Vandelay says:

      I’m sure it was actually terrible, but I loved that game as a kid. The cackling Joker when you died freaked me out though, so I had to run away and hide whenever he appeared… 21 years old I was.

      Anyway, new Batman. Disappointing to see they aren’t doing anything more interesting, such as a completely new setting, but I skipped Oranges, so my appetite for this is probably greater than those that didn’t. Don’t really see why I would want the Batmobile when I already have the grapple though. I can see it being forced upon you in some missions, which would be a pain.

      • Werthead says:

        The fact that the Batrope seemed to ascend from Batman’s crotch and you could use it to knock out bad guys dozens of feet away made it, quite clearly, The Best Thing Ever when I was 12 years old.

  23. SuicideKing says:

    Holy crap, please let this game look 80% like that at least.

    Though i wish they would have used the Batmobile of my childhood…i think Asylum had that one.

  24. jonahcutter says:

    Origins was good, not great. So this will be interesting to see if Rocksteady can bring anything fresh back to the game, or if the formula is just maxed out. If it’s no worse than Origins, it will still be worth buying and playing. Hopefully they evidence some self-respect and accept the responsibility of actually fixing their game’s bugs.

    I am digging the design of that Batmobile. Not so ridiculous and overdesigned like the old super-finned, Corvette-inspired version from the Burton films. And not so tank-like from the Nolan ones. It actually looks like a vehicle that conceivably could be built and driven around in city streets (admittedly, if you had an in-need-of-therapy fetish for bats). Though, I don’t see how they fit vehicles into the past games’ environmental designs. So perhaps the driving will only be on specific streets or for specific missions.

    Also looks like they may be going with a riot-in-the-streets conceit, so they can justify not showing any actual city inhabitants. Everybody is behind locked doors! The city has been turned into a prison! It’s Christmas Eve and it’s cold outside! This is the one major failing of all the games: Very little sense of Batman as a detective and crime-solver, who moves invisibly through a populated city (The puzzles were a stand-in for this I suppose. And while fun, they’re more 60’s, camp Batman than gritty, detective Batman.) The Arkham series does the action-adventure side very well. But it does the shadowy detective side for shit.

    That trailer worked on me though, sucker that I am for these games. Made me want to go back and play them again.

  25. jarowdowsky says:

    Oh, just, FUCK, I really was looking forward to something interesting with the next Batman game.

    Something wonderful and silver age, filled with heroism and odd characters – Super Friends meets Brave and the Bold with a touch of Justice League Unlimited.

    I guess grim and gritty is what most people want :(

  26. Jerppa says:

    I wonder how they will bring back the dead guy from Arkham City?

    • Werthead says:

      I’ll have huge respect for them if they just don’t. It’s not like Batman doesn’t have multiple other enemies to fill in.

      • Jerppa says:

        Agreed. I hope Two-Face has bigger role in the story. IIRC he didn’t do much in AC.

        • Zekiel says:

          Yes. I agree about not bringing back Mysterious Dead Person.

          Also about Two-Face having a big role. It was disappointing how little he did in AC. Also his dialogue (especially at the start) was absolutely dire. It can be done better!

    • tyren says:

      They don’t, or at least they’re keeping it VERY under wraps if they are. The only mention of him in the Game Informer article is a line reminding you that he’s dead.

  27. PopeRatzo says:

    Arkham City is going to have to get a lot better if Batman is going to be able to drive the Batmobile around town.

    The smart move would be to have Joker and other baddies also have cars so there can be races, and stunt routes, and Marked Man and DJ Atomika. But that’s just me.

    I am prepared for whatever is to come, Arkham style. I haven’t been disappointed yet. There were some rough patches in Origins, but it was still better than all but a handful of 2013 games.

    • Zenicetus says:

      I think the car is only there because it’s the last thing they haven’t done. Well, that and bat-boat, bat-plane, and maybe those are in this too.

      I just hope there aren’t any scripted driving chases on a countdown timer, like in Mafia 2. I really hate those.

  28. Premium User Badge

    Clement says:

    I fear the batmobile is a bad idea. It wasn’t implemented in previous games due to the nature of the area being rather small and unsuitable for driving and also you can almost literally fly around the entire map. Why drive when you can fly?

    Okay, I haven’t actually played oranges but I assume it is the same type thing. I’m waiting for the goatee version during a steam sale because I feel certain it is not worth so many of my monies.

    • jamesgecko says:

      The way to do batmobile is to make the city enormous, make the car callable in five seconds no matter where batman left it, and make driving much faster than zipping and gliding around between rooftops.

      The enormous city is clearly the hardest part, and the whole game would need to be designed around it. But given how crazily dense some areas of City were (I remember a gang, a hostage or two, and a VR simulation right in front of a building you had to enter for the main mission), I don’t think they’ll have much of a problem with that.

  29. tomimt says:

    You know, I’ve always wondered why no-one has made a solid spy/espionage/action/adventure game out of MacGyver. Despite the series is a bit dated, it still has great elements in it that would work nicely as a game. If any 80’s property deserves a game revival, it’s MacGyver.

  30. Dawngreeter says:

    I honestly don’t get why a silver age batman would be a thing someone wants. Even most of the modern stuff (talking about comics here) is unreadable at worst and just simply boring at best. New 52 Detective Comics held my attention for whole of, what, 6 issues? Started off great, then promptly went back to “here’s a random superhero jumping a lot”. And that’s pure gold compared to silver age stuff.

    • Zekiel says:

      Have you played Freedom Force? One of the truely great superhero games (not that it had that much competition, but still…) Its campy, tongue-in-cheek and genuinely hilarious because its a very loving riff/reference/spoof of Silver Age comics. Silver Age Batman would be extremely different in tone to the Arkham series, but it could be brilliant.