Batman: Arkham Originsss – Copperhead Slithers To Town

She is going to give you the angriest hug

Look, it’s Copperhead! You remember Copperhead, don’t you? You know, the guy in the ridiculous outfit that makes it look like he’s a rat with his toes wedged in a snake’s rib cage and wait that’s not a guy at all. Yes, it seems that Armature has been inspired by Copperhead’s New 52 makeover, so the nefarious contortionist is a she now. Which is great, except she’s hardly wearing anything because videogames. And comic books. The two mediums are pretty chummy on that one. Sigh. But, if nothing else, a new Batman: Arkham Origins trailer makes her seem pretty capable, slipping around Batman like a hundred slippery nooses and rendering his combat skills moot. Have a look and see what you think.

Apparently her in-game movements required three mo-cap actors, including a martial artist and a Cirque Du Soleil performer. That’s really quite something. Rocksteady or not, it looks like Warner and Armature aren’t slacking on the production values, at least.

I’m still not buying the whole “young, unrefined Batman” thing, though. He hardly looks it, and it doesn’t help when promotional materials (like this one) have him reacting to villains like, “Oh, so-and-so! It’s you, someone I have clearly gotten to know via our previous run-ins and Sunday afternoon badminton games.” Also, Origins sure does have a lot of villains. Here’s hoping the story doesn’t get too sloppy in an effort to pay each of them a proper visit.

Batman: Arkham Origins will be out in October. Are you at all interested, or did the second game leave you Arkhamed out?


  1. Iceman346 says:

    While the general formula inherent in the Arkham Games still works for me (haven’t seen a better group brawler system in any other game yet) the second game was too “gamey” for my tastes.

    While the Asylum in the first game was somewhat believable in Arkham City the Riddler nonsense took over the whole game world and just looked out of place everywhere destroying my immersion and hurting the atmosphere.

    I will probably buy this game because more Batman is always a good thing but I just hope they dial back on the optional stuff.

    • PopeRatzo says:

      Maybe have the Riddler stuff appear when the story is completed, to give another reason to hang around and wander after the main story is over.

  2. TheApologist says:

    I’m all for a third Batman game, but I suspect I’ll be waiting for a full Rocksteady sequel. The annual updating of Assassin’s Creed has broken my desire to play all the releases in a franchise, even a franchise I’m fond of.

    • Choca says:

      Having played Arkham Origins at E3 I actually found it more interesting than the Rocksteady ones in a few ways so you might be surprised.

      But then I did find Arkham City a tad disappointing so YMMV.

    • Lemming says:

      I’m with you on being dubious about the lack of Rocksteady’s involvement, but so far I’ve not seen anything to make me avoid this sequel. I don’t think you should be so brand-loyal/quick to dismiss as you may be missing out on some great Batman gaming. My biggest beef with this new one is the lack of Kevin Conroy.

      • TheApologist says:

        Oh, if it turns out great then I’m on board, and interesting that the E3 demo looks good. I’m not really speaking from loyalty to Rocksteady, rather just that repetition can mean diminishing returns and it *seems* unlikely that the not-lead studio will be given room to make significant changes.

  3. RedViv says:

    I could be snarking about that outfit, but I don’t want to make an asp of myself.

    • Kollega says:

      I just hope it doesn’t lead to the calls of “snake it, baby!” from the audience.

    • ZyloMarkIII says:

      Boo! Hiss! That pun was in poor taste.

      • RedViv says:

        I am sorry, but I had to focus my energies on avoiding mention of how her more jiggly bits would rather slither out of that costume, seeing how she coils in movement.

    • MajorManiac says:

      They probably made the male skin first, but decided to shed it and use this new one.

    • brulleks says:

      Great, you just adder go and start a pun thread, didn’t you?

    • The Random One says:

      I liked that pun so much that if I hadn’t registered long ago, I’d create anaconda just to praise it.

    • theblazeuk says:

      I’m glad to see you’re not being venomous about the costume

    • chewbaccasdad says:

      I read that the concept costume was a lot more revealing, but they decided to scale it back.

  4. JohnS says:

    I really disliked the story in Arkham City:

    [Spoilery discussion!] Early on it’s established that Protocol 10 is the big secret we have to reveal (“Great! Let’s get detectiving!”), but then the vast majority of the game is spent finding the cure/the guy who can make the cure/the ingredient we need for the cure/the guy who stole the cure, before Protocol 10 is revealed to us, not through detectiving but because *it started happening*, and we spend 30 minutes foiling it and 30 minutes working towards the damn cure again. It didn’t help that Protocol 10 turned out to be really really lame.

    The game would’ve been so so much better, if it had been mainly about Batman working out the mystery behind the shadowy conspiracy who let Arkham City happen (or something a little more fleshed out). Now it was just about Batman trying to take back his cure from the schoolyard bullies who kept holding it over his head and throwing it between each other.

    • Zekiel says:

      I love this description of AC’s plot :-)

    • nearly says:

      Also, Protocol 10 was the real climax of the game and all the extra bits with the Joker basically felt really unnecessary and frankly kind of dumb.

      • Zekiel says:

        Well it would be (that’s how the intro set it up) if it wasn’t for the fact that for 75% of the game you’ve been running after the Joker’s cure. It’s like the writers suddenly remembered they’d set up this Protocol 10 thing and realised they had to resolve it before going back to what they really wanted to be doing with the Joker plot. (OK that’s hyperbole because they do have the countdown.)

        Anyway I disagree – I think Protocol 10 could have been good but was poorly executed (even when they were focusing on it). They didn’t give me, as the player, a reason to actually care about [SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER] the fact that Strange was trying to kill all the inmates. They’d spent the rest of the game demonstrating that the inmates were a horrible bunch, and they hadn’t really established any reason why Batman would want to prevent him doing that. Sure if you think about it enough you know its consistent with Batman’s character to want to stop Strange, but they didn’t do any foreshadowing about his morals which would lead to him abandoning his True Love (TM) to stop someone killing a bunch of criminals instead.

        I’m being harsh on the game in spite of the fact that this is very possibly my favourite game ever. I don’t really think the plot’s terrible, just a bit of an odd tension between the Protocol 10 plot and the Joker cure plot.

        • DickSocrates says:

          The first real trailer for ACity was utterly amazing. If the game had kept to that tone and actually been about the mindgames against Dr Strange, the game could have been spectacular. That Strange is basically not in the game at all and you don’t even ****** fight him was such a huge let down. I was convinced there’d be a Batman vs Batman fight at the end as I’ve seen that Strange trained to be as fit as Batman and impersonated him (or something, I don’t read comics). That isn’t touched on at all, he dies and it isn’t even at your hand. OR the Joker’s hand for that matter, but the third main villain of the game that literally no one outside of hardcore comic book addicts care about or even know about.

          I have plenty more complaints about AC, but the long and short of it is, Arkham Origins will have to show me something insane for me to consider buying it. I discovered Arkham Asylum much later than everyone else and thought it was amazing. Was hyped to the point of madness for Arkham City and it was such a let down (not because it was bad, it was just blah) I don’t care about the next game.

          One last thing, I hope they remove Batman’s rapid punching move as it looked silly and could be abused.

  5. UmmonTL says:

    Regarding Copperheads outfit, the skintight clothing makes sense for a contortionist. But the top wtih that ridiculous cleavage looks like she might “pop out” at any second and her pants ride dangerously low as well. The costume could be made somewhat sensible if she at least bound her boobs (*gasp* the sacrilege) and had some straps or something connecting the top to her pants so those are kept in place. But a full-body outfit seems like something she would sweat herself to death in unless one of her powers is that she’s cold-blooded? Her combat style looks cool but I can’t see how it will translate into actual combat. Maybe she’ll counter every melee attack and you will have to use gadgets to catch her off guard?
    As for the “young” Batman, it seems a bit strange that some supervillain would suddenly start this kind of manhunt if he’s pretty much unknown. And why are there so many supervillains around already?

    • Kollega says:

      Yeeeeeah, i also wanted to mention that this particular outfit doesn’t seem that excessively revealing, and skintight clothing kinda works with her fighting style. Of course, it’s not an Appolo 11 space suit and not “longcoat-valenki-scharf-and-ushanka” ensemble that you’d need to survive Russian winter, but i don’t think this is really that objectionable.

    • Viroso says:

      Keeping in tradition with the Batman Arkham games, designing the female characters to be hot first and to be interesting/make sense second.

      • Haysoos says:

        Make sense? MAKE SENSE!? These are COMIC BOOK games. THEY DONT MAKE SENSE. You can see every crevice of Batman’s bumpy stomach, and a fine crease up his ass. Realism doesn’t even enter the equation, so don’t bring your “she should be wearing armour without boob plates” criticisms to a discussion on bloody comic book characters.

        Honestly, criticizing DC characters for not making sense. What next?

        • nearly says:

          there’s not really a valid defense. the Arkham games in general have followed the Nolan films to an extent and aimed at a more realistic Batman, though they at least keep supervillains around. the most crazy stuff is still generally within reason.

          also, how are you seeing Batman’s ass through his cape?

          • Haysoos says:

            With camera manipulation, i can sneak a peak while he majestically glides over Arkham. Believe me, the crease is deep.

        • Viroso says:

          Why has it always to be like this on the Internet, everyone has got to be obnoxious. Can you imagine talking to someone like that, face to face. You say something and the person goes on a diatribe “MAKE SENSE? MAKE SENSE?!” waving arms and whatnot. It’s like everyone’s on a stage.

          Making sense isn’t just being realistic, it is making sense within the game’s fiction, making sense for the character’s personality, making sense for the character’s concept. For an instance, if you gave Batman a bright red cape it wouldn’t make sense for the character.

          • Nicodemus Rexx says:

            Hear hear; context is always key.

            (half of this commment was because I liked your point; the other half was because I just REALLY wanted to use the word “Context”, lol)

        • Focksbot says:

          Pretty sure that’s molded armour (a la Schumacher) not skintight spandex Bats is wearing.

      • SuicideKing says:

        True, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy in AA. Haven’t played AC.

    • PopeRatzo says:

      You’re worried about the practicality of Copperhead’s costume, but have no problem with Batman running around in his union suit?

      It’s a comic book for chrissake. The female characters are not supposed to be in burkahs.

      • Rikard Peterson says:

        It’s a comic book. It’s a video game. It’s also a part of our culture, and if you want to make a change in culture, where you’re standing is a good place to start. In the case of this site, that means computer games.

        • nanowired says:

          These arguments are silly because they are all about restricting artist creativity and nothing to do with improving gameplay. Creators will create. If you want to change culture, you start with history – go destroy all those fine art works involving naked women.

      • Focksbot says:

        Um … how is ‘it’s a comic book’ a reason? She should obviously be wearing a padded leotard or something – gymnasts generally don’t go for boob cups. It’s silly, and it makes the game look silly.

  6. Jakkar says:

    Don’t forget, in your haste to defend the right of women to cover more than 30% of their surface-area with clothing, that they do have a right to wear less – particularly performance-artists and sociopathic villains. All the more-so when there’s crossover between the two.

    I’m perfectly comfortable with my female psychovillains wearing as little as they want. I’ve known a few rather villainous women who love to dress minimally and provocatively, whatever the weather, as a personal choice.

    • Drake Sigar says:

      Most things are ok in the appropriate doses. When ALL the female characters have Jessica Rabbit figures and wear very little, it’s hard not to see an unpleasant pattern emerging.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        In the interest of fairness, are you opposed to all the male figures (aside from freaks like the Penguin) being shaped like stock comic-book muscle men?

        • Zekiel says:

          That’s not really fair. Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow, Ra’s al Ghul all look distinctly dissimilar. Bane and Killer Croc are the only two I can recall from the Arkham games as being musclemen.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            It’s a pretty fair point to make. The majority of the male figures in the games are built like steroid-abusing body builders, including Batman. They’re all based on stereotypical comic book body images, and that shouldn’t be any less offensive than disproportionate representations of barely-covered female figures.

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            It’s not at all a fair point to make because, as just one of a gajillionty examples, at no point does Batman end up in all these poses clearly meant to show off his ass, while Copperhead did so like three times in that one video, and Catwoman spent at least half AC doing so.

            And anyway the point you’re trying to make doesn’t really make sense, since whether it’s idealized male figures or idealized male figures, they’re being created mostly by and for men, within a patriarchal context. So comparing them the way you do here is misleading.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Gunner, should I even bother mentioning the “bonus content” zoom option in Arkham City that allows you to get a close anatomical view of various male figures from the game? That was also created by men, yet it allows for gratuitous shots of male crotch, chest, and buttocks. Is something like that only gratuitous when it’s focused on female anatomy?

            A game like Skullgirls can be accused of sexism, but since its characters are designed by a woman, it seems to get a free pass. That doesn’t make fucking sense.

            The “created by men” argument shouldn’t hold as much water in the discussion we’re having right now. The particular point I’m trying to make here is that this is really a case of entrenched comic book stereotypes rather than pure misogyny. Let’s not forget that women also design this crap.

          • DXN says:

            Since when have entrenched comic book stereotypes been incompatible with rampant sexism/misogyny?

            DC and Marvel are one of the bastions of ridiculous male-gaze-oriented takes on the human form. That includes constantly sexualised women and power-fantasy strong-men (although male characters are also given far more leeway to have unusual body types in order to reflect their personality).

            All of this is such basic stuff.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            “Since when have entrenched comic book stereotypes been incompatible with rampant sexism/misogyny?”

            I never said they were incompatible. I simply implied that blaming scantily-clothed female characters on contemporary sexism while ignoring the obvious objectification of male physicality is irrational and shortsighted.

            Basic stuff indeed.

          • DrScuttles says:

            If Batman kept getting caught in Hawkeye Initiative poses, I might have conceded you have a point that comic book males are ever objectified.

          • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

            Gunner, should I even bother mentioning the “bonus content” zoom option in Arkham City that allows you to get a close anatomical view of various male figures from the game?

            You probably shouldn’t. You should probably look up the term “false equivalence” instead.

            Yes, you can look at Batman’s bulge. You can equally look at everyone’s bulge because everyone has bulges and there they are standing there. This also – PROTIP – works in real life: there are bodies everywhere, and you can look at them! Honestly not sure what your point is. Maybe if Batman’s costume showed butt cleavage for absolutely no reason, then you’d almost have a point, then it would at least be equivalent to Catwoman going into battle with dozens of armed thugs but not even bothering to zip up her suit. But even then you’d still need to show me a few thousand more examples from pop culture to actually balance the scale.

            A game like Skullgirls can be accused of sexism, but since its characters are designed by a woman, it seems to get a free pass.

            The thing about that game that’s kind of put it in a gray area for me isn’t that it was designed by a woman (didn’t know that), but that it looks like it might be intentionally sending up fighting games. But I haven’t played it, probably never will, don’t know for sure, but still think it looks potentially problematic even now that I know a woman designed the characters. So, there.

            The particular point I’m trying to make here is that this is really a case of entrenched comic book stereotypes rather than pure misogyny.

            You… don’t have to pick just one. They’re not exclusive. These stereotypes are happening within a patriarchal society.

          • Bhazor says:

            Male and female comic book characters both look ridiculous. It’s like they were designed for little kids or something.

          • Focksbot says:

            “It’s a pretty fair point to make. The majority of the male figures in the games are built like steroid-abusing body builders, including Batman.”

            Bollocks. Loads of game characters are slender lads, and there are even a good quota of Hondas.

          • Focksbot says:

            “A game like Skullgirls can be accused of sexism, but since its characters are designed by a woman, it seems to get a free pass.”

            Wtf. Skullgirls passes because there’s a lot of genuine variety in the costuming. There’s only, like, one character with her tits spilling out everywhere. It’s like the only game where women get to be portrayed as a collection of zany freaks in the way men usually are in SFII and every fighting game since.

          • Focksbot says:

            “… while ignoring the obvious objectification of male physicality is irrational and shortsighted.”

            Dude, come on, catch up. It’s not objectification if the reader is invited to identify with the character. Like the fella above said, this is Understanding Sexism 101. The male comic book stereotype is based on athletes and martial artists. The female one is based on porn stars. Gee, that’s really the same thing.

          • Emeraude says:

            Gee, that’s really the same thing.

            I’ll only be half trolling when saying, that yes, it is.

            All three propositions are useless activities that gets glorified in spite of it. Th porn Star probably being the less so of the three.

    • Unrein says:

      They certainly have the right, but Copperhead is not a real woman, but a fictional creation. It is always the creator and their motivations that must come to scrutiny when discussing sexism and objectification, not whatever in-universe fluff they come up with that can be used to justify absolutely anything about the character. That’s why it’s always annoying when people jump straight to in-universe explanations (“But Skimpy Space Latex Dominatrixes are TOTALLY common and plausible in the Zforglib universe!”) to defend some ostensibly sexist aspect of a character in these discussions, equaling nothing but noise. You have to look at the whole package of the complete work and creator, not just the lore.

      • Archonsod says:

        Assuming of course you buy into the idea that the interpretation of random muppets is as valid as that of the creator themselves.

        • Unrein says:

          That’s a tad condescending, don’t you think? What makes the creator’s interpretation more valid than that of the audience?

          • dE says:

            Disclaimer: Not argueing about the topic but creator’s interpretation here.
            The creator’s intent is more relevant because he/she actually knows what he/she set out to do. It’s fair to point out that it might have failed, but that does in no way change the creator’s intent. It’s a bit of a cult movement to accuse people of all sorts of things under the pretense of “I, the recipient know better than the creator, what the creator intended”.

        • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

          For any “creator” to be worth the title they should be aware of what else is out there and how their creation is likely to be taken up in society as it exists.

    • Viroso says:

      The problem isn’t that she doesn’t wear much.

      I really liked a lot of the designs they came up for the villains in the Arkham games. Penguin with a bottle through his eye, Mr. Freeze’s armor, Scarecrow’s syringe gloves. Lot of great designs, at least with Rocksteady, you could see they had a lot of good ideas.

      But then you had the female characters. Their idea of reinventing them was cleavage and ass shots. I know the source material isn’t very conductive to sensible female character designs in the first place, but if they could make the Penguin look interesting I’m sure they could do a lot better.

      So the problem doesn’t have to do with prudeness. Here is what the problems are:
      First is, do you like bald space marines? Isn’t that overused and boring by now? Same goes for the design of almost every female character in the Arkham games, and video games in general. They’re going for an overused style and they’re boring. That alone is bad enough. But there’s another issue, it’s how all of these designs value hotness first and whatever else the character may be second.

      Male characters can be anything, they can be attractive or hideous, fat or skinny, mutant or zombie, whatever you imagine. Female characters have to be hot. And it happens in so many games. If it happened when it made sense for the character and for the game, it’d be okay, it’d be variety. But it happens everywhere. That’s alienating to a lot of people and sends the wrong message too.

      • Zekiel says:

        Good summary I’d say. There is one moment in Arkham City where it looks like they’re going for equal opportunity objectifiction – Mr Freeze’s intro has him wearing an outfit that leaves little to the imagination. Then he gets his cool armour. Meanwhile Catwoman/Ivy/Harley/Talia just stay looking objectified for the whole game.

        • Fred S. says:

          They are objects. There is not a single actual female or male person NPC or player character avatar in any video game anywhere. Every character in a video game is an object, nothing more, nothing less. They are programmed to be and to do exactly and only what they are. They have stereotyped appearance and stereotyped behavior. They cannot possibly be anything else, no matter how hard we fantasize about them or what we suppose that they represent.

          • Viroso says:

            I don’t think that’s what he meant with objectified.

          • Zekiel says:

            That is true. Perhaps objectification is the wrong word – I think sexist certainly is a really description. I feel like the overwhelming tendency to depict women in computer games as sex objects could contribute towards objectifiction of real women in the real world. But that is not quite the same as saying Catwoman (et al) are being objectified.

    • bleeters says:

      I tend to view it as akin to the endless parade of protaganists that are brown haired white dudes.

      There’s nothing inherently wrong with brown haired white dudes. I’ve nothing against their brown hair and white dudeness. It’s just that when they’re revealed, and oh look they’re brown haired and white and dudes again, it all gets a little tiring.

      Whenever someone somewhere rolls out another female character in a form fitting skin tight suit that also conveniently doesn’t cover their chest and/or waist, well. I’m sure it might make perfect sense for them. I’m sure it’s no big deal on an individual basis. It’s just a little tiring, because that’s practically all we ever see.

  7. Stardog says:

    Larger open world than Arkham City? I’m in. Arkham City was a great game.

    • RedViv says:

      Hmm. I found the bigger world probably the most bothersome aspect. Diluted the (otherwise excellent) gameplay a bit.

      • Low Life says:

        I found the more focused experience of Arkham Asylum quite a bit more enjoyable. Quite a bit, as in completed Asylum (and enjoyed it immensely) but only ever played a few hours of City. I should probably give City another go at some point.

  8. lilly_watson says:

    my roomate’s step-aunt makes $61 hourly on the computer. She has been out of work for five months but last month her paycheck was $20774 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site…..b­u­z­z­5­5.ℂ­ℴ­m

  9. kwyjibo says:

    Isn’t this just a reskinned catwoman? Isn’t the whole slinking acrobatics catwoman’s thing? Or is she a man now?

    • tnzk says:

      Oooooh Catman.

      And please put him in a thong.

      • BooleanBob says:

        Misread as Cartman, day ruined.

      • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

        Catman just spends his days lamenting his castration. Accursed responsible owners! He got fat and now spends his days ambling about his home, sleeping and eating, and the closest he gets to supervillainy is to ruin furniture and vomit on the carpet.

    • The Random One says:

      That’s what I thought as well. She’s essentially either Catwoman with poison, or Poison Ivy with catlike agility.

  10. SMGreer says:

    Aren’t the stories to both the previous games pretty awful? So I won’t be surprised if this game’s plot is sloppy.

  11. MajorManiac says:

    I’m still a little bemused that people worry about the story in an action game.

    I couldn’t care less what the story is, as long as the action game-play is good. So I hope they do cram in as many villains as possible and add as much diversity to the fighting as possible.

  12. dE says:

    What is german kiddie rapper Sido doing in a batman game?

  13. Rich says:

    When did they change the voice of Batman? :(

    • GeneJacket says:

      WB Montreal decided not to use the original voice actors for any of the characters in this game, because everyone’s younger, so obviously they’d sound like completely different people.

      Roger Craig Smith is voicing Batman and Troy Baker is Joker. The only actor coming back is Martin Jarvis as Alfred.

      • Rich says:

        Oh it’s a prequel. I probably should have guessed that from the name.

  14. GeneJacket says:

    “Yes, it seems that Armature has been inspired by Copperhead’s New 52 makeover…”

    Actually, you got it backwards. The new design was done by WB Montreal specifically for the game, but DC liked it so much they’re using it to relaunch the character into the New 52 universe after the game comes out.

    • Lemming says:

      Yep was going to post the same. It’s nice when DC take a cue from other sources. Harley Quinn is the last one I can remember: She was an invention of the animated Batman series, and then DC adopted her.

  15. Lemming says:

    I don’t have a problem with the way she looks (big surprise from a male, right?), it fits with the rest of the Arkham gang, and side by side with Catwoman, Harley and Ivy she’s practically in a burka. At first I thought, hey it would’ve been cool to see someone with a more persian/arabian flavour, like so, but then when I looked up where a Copperhead pit viper is actually from (The US) it makes sense that it’d be a white american girl after all.

  16. Kuranghi says:


    So much vitriol in this comment section, but MajorManiac gets it. It’s supposed to be an over the top, unrealistic, comic-book, action game.

    Bring on the giant green question marks denoting puzzles, beating up informants to reveal collectibles [Literally one of the best (integrated) ways to stop you having to go on the internet for hard-to-find ones I’ve seen in a game] and the side missions that involve calculating bullet trajectories and resucing innocents from ridiculously stupid puzzle rooms.

    Batman’s gotta have some brooding up on rooftops action, not to mention detecting/contemplating puzzles [even if they are too easy, idiots play games too unfortunately].

    A completely linear game would be great too, maybe Rocksteady’s next one will be but it won’t be as *fun* as landing with a shockwave in a random group of thugs and twatting them all.

    • The Random One says:

      My main problem with her design isn’t that it’s apelative, but it’s so short of being interesting instead of apelative. As someone pointed out, if she didn’t have the glorious clevage and wore pants around her waist she would look like a punk rocker. Who doesn’t want to see a superhumanly agile, poisonous punk rocker chick beating up Batman? Please reply so I can identify the robot dopplegangers.

      • Emeraude says:

        My main problem with her design isn’t that it’s apelative, but it’s so short of being interesting


        Which can quite aptly sum up my problem in general with the Arkham games now that I think about it: : they’re so short of being interesting.

        This will probably sound harsher than I mean. They’re not bad games. I enjoyed them. They’re just quintessential B-games (which is good, we need more of those) made with AAA presentation and budget, but somehow the latter seem to matter more than the former. It’s jut a matter of going through motions and phrases of your gaming grammar that are commonplace, but that’s why you enjoy the experience… And yet at times they seem so close to hit other, rarer, notes.

  17. Xzi says:

    “Which is great, except she’s hardly wearing anything because videogames.”

    I see pants, a shirt, and even gloves. Her ankles aren’t even showing, so that should be perfect for the Amish prudes working at RPS these days.

  18. TuringMachine says:

    Just FYI, this trailer syncs up so well with

    Don’t ask why I was listening to that at 3 am.

  19. Noviere says:

    A man in a skin tight suit whose fighting style consists of rubbing himself all over Batman would’ve been highly inappropriate! Better make it a girl… and have her tits out too! Cause, uh… unhindered artistic expression/creativity!

  20. Gap Gen says:

    If you win this game, you prolong the institution of slavery. For shame, sir. The Union must be preserved!