|
FoolyCharged posted:I honestly wouldn't call freeze all that interesting in the Arkham series, because it's just the animated series freeze copy pasted repeatedly with no variation. The base is good, but rocksteady never left it. I'm mostly referring to the fact that Freeze is the most interesting boss in the entire arkham franchise (from City) and that the DLC in Knight managed to have a female character with agency that actually created real human emotions and connections in the audience, something the entire rest of the game could not accomplish (the female character with agency or the plot that actually resonated).
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
The Nightwing and Catwoman DLCs were my favorite for character personality and interaction. Batgirl was my favorite for length and boss fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
The female characters in AK are fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The female characters in AK are fine. Pro opinion right here. Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Lechtansi posted:Pro opinion right here. Seriously? Yes. Criticisms in the thread seem to come exclusively from a lack of understanding of the game's plot, a selective reading of the game's plot, a shallow, ignorant application of feminist critiques of narrative, and the tendency of LP threads that criticize games to become circlejerks. AC had massive problems with the depiction of female characters. AK does not. All female characters with any role in the narrative of AK(so, I'm not talking about, e.g., female police officer #3 at GCPD) have clearly defined motives and character traits, express agency, and undergo changes over the course of the game's plot, on a level fully comparable with the male characters. Female characters are not unduly sexualized (Poison Ivy and Catwoman are particularly massive improvements over AC). To the extent that female characters are injured, threatened, imprisoned or used as motivation for the main character, the same thing happens to male characters, if not more. Being a source of plot motivation doesn't make them weak, or their depiction sexist. It means they're NPCs in a video game. The game is very careful to make sure that all female characters who are placed in a position of weakness wind up in a position of relative strength, and repeatedly states and demonstrates their agency over the course of the plot. The only real exceptions I can think of for this are the female characters in the season of infamy episodes, which are clumsily written despite some other strengths. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I am in agreement on the female characters. I regret seeing no females among the firefighters however. There was a female paramedic in the infirmary at one point I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes. Criticisms in the thread seem to come exclusively from a lack of understanding of the game's plot, a selective reading of the game's plot, a shallow, ignorant application of feminist critiques of narrative, and the tendency of LP threads that criticize games to become circlejerks. AC had massive problems with the depiction of female characters. AK does not. I'm not gonna argue that the writing isn't poo poo overall, but given that two of the main female characters would have worked better as inanimate objects (riddler steals your family heirloom would have been more interesting than what they did with cat woman ), it's hard to say this game treats women well. Still better than AC but that game had most of the goon quips talking about raping catwoman so it's not hard to beat it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Lechtansi posted:I'm not gonna argue that the writing isn't poo poo overall, but given that two of the main female characters would have worked better as inanimate objects (riddler steals your family heirloom would have been more interesting than what they did with cat woman ), it's hard to say this game treats women well. Which two female characters are you referring to? Catwoman explicitly comes back to save you at the end of the Riddler plot, you have a series of dual combat and puzzle sessions with her, and she gets a side story where she destroys Eddie's robot factory and steals all his savings. Discendo Vox posted:To the extent that female characters are injured, threatened, imprisoned or used as motivation for the main character, the same thing happens to male characters, if not more. Being a source of plot motivation doesn't make them weak, or their depiction sexist. It means they're NPCs in a video game. The game is very careful to make sure that all female characters who are placed in a position of weakness wind up in a position of relative strength, and repeatedly states and demonstrates their agency over the course of the plot. The only real exceptions I can think of for this are the female characters in the season of infamy episodes, which are clumsily written despite some other strengths. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Which two female characters are you referring to? Catwoman explicitly comes back to save you at the end of the Riddler plot, you have a series of dual combat and puzzle sessions with her, and [Season of Infamy spoilers?]. Should probably tag that. It makes me feel a little better about Catwoman, though. Her combat and puzzle sections were as a puppet being told to do it or else by the Riddler, and her coming back to join in the boss fight seemed more like token revenge, but that last bit? That is some Catwoman story I can appreciate. On a related note, I really wish they would release the Season of Infamy stuff as a standalone. I'd love to play as Harley, Batgirl, Catwoman, and whoever else (been feeling a little Bat-hungry lately), but gently caress buying or playing Batmobile Simulator 2015 just to get to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Felinoid posted:Should probably tag that. It makes me feel a little better about Catwoman, though. Her combat and puzzle sections were as a puppet being told to do it or else by the Riddler, and her coming back to join in the boss fight seemed more like token revenge, but that last bit? That is some Catwoman story I can appreciate. I appreciate the note about the DLC being better - clearly the head writer with a raging hardon for men's rights took the day off when they wrote those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Batman is dealing with the riddlers bullshit under threat of violence too, except its not his personal health that's being threatened because it's Batman. If the riddler could coerce Cat woman by threatening all the cats in Gotham he'd probably do that. But shes too selfish for that work, so she gets threatened to put the screws to Batman. If this wasn't a videogame where Batman Does Everything it could be differently, but unless they made the game built around switching characters the entire time instead of a handful of puzzles and battles it wouldn't really work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Lechtansi posted:I appreciate the note about the DLC being better - clearly the head writer with a raging hardon for men's rights took the day off when they wrote those. The DLC, with the exception of the killing joke one by Montreal, were written by the same people. The writers aren't MRAs. Respond to the content of the argument, not a delusion you've made up in your head. Felinoid posted:Should probably tag that. It makes me feel a little better about Catwoman, though. Her combat and puzzle sections were as a puppet being told to do it or else by the Riddler, and her coming back to join in the boss fight seemed more like token revenge, but that last bit? That is some Catwoman story I can appreciate. The "token revenge" where she comes back to save the protagonist is a recurring element of her character that also ties back to one of the elements of her plotline in AC. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
SpookyLizard posted:Batman is dealing with the riddlers bullshit under threat of violence too, except its not his personal health that's being threatened because it's Batman. If the riddler could coerce Cat woman by threatening all the cats in Gotham he'd probably do that. But shes too selfish for that work, so she gets threatened to put the screws to Batman. No, that would work to get Catwoman to jump through hoops, because she does care about cats. The issue there is that Batman doesn't give a flying gently caress about felines, and he's the only one the Riddler is interested in playing with. So he has to threaten people, and randoms didn't go well for him in City, so why not just one person he can keep a tighter hold on and just dangle endlessly as a carrot in front of Batman. The fact that the character getting drafted for Riddler's amusement is one you got to play as and kick serious rear end in Arkham City doing her own thing is just a rather unfortunate coincidence. Discendo Vox posted:The "token revenge" where she comes back to save the protagonist is a recurring element of her character that also ties back to one of the elements of her plotline in AC. Yes, it's very in line with her character to come play tag team with the dark knight when the chips are down, I just expected her reprisal to be...bigger, I guess. A couple minutes of slapping him and his robots (wish she'd left some visible claw marks on him from the QTE) versus hours of captivity and having to perform for his amusement didn't seem right. But that DLC sounds like the bigger I was expecting, so I am eagerly awaiting that. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Yeah, um... Lemme think about these choices and agency. Because frankly, a lot of them are asspulls. And a couple of them just plain don't exist. One that doesn't exist, for example, is Ms. Langstrom. I'm not surprised most folks don't remember that, because she got killed before the Manbat plot even started, and the corpse is seen for maybe a minute. Maybe. Oh no, isn't it tragic how she tried to help her husband and died for it... Offscreen. Isn't it just such a shame that we want to go save this Manbat because... ...Oh. Oh wait. Then there's Barbara. We're told a lot how she put up a fight, we're occasionally given clues to where she is that she apparently left, and she makes the choice to throw herself off a building because Bats will save her. That's her as a character, and if it was just that, it'd be (relatively) fine. But no, we're made to believe for a pivotal portion of the game that she's committed suicide, instigated by the villain, in order to emotionally affect both Batman and Gordon, which drives the plot forward. Gordon wouldn't have gone after Scarecrow on his own if he believed his daughter was still alive, and wouldn't have stopped trusting Batman for that pivotal segment. Which is a fridging, faked or no. Poison Ivy... A supposedly intelligent character who spends most of the game not giving a flying gently caress about Scarecrow's plan, despite presumably knowing that the plants will die too. Go through the game, by all means, and show me where she shows awareness of this before the pivotal moment where Batman says "Oh hey, you do know your plants are going to die too, right?" There, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. And yes, putting a top on (In the loose sense of the word) is an improvement. But it's still male gazey as gently caress. Catwoman gets her own back at the end, it's true. At the very end. In many players' playthroughs, we're left to imagine what happens, because if you don't get all the Riddler Trophies, you don't get that much story. I'm pretty sure very few reviewers managed to get all the Riddler Trophies before they had to go to press. The only one that's even halfway decent is Harley. Oh, poor Harley, still chasing after Joker, still "Not Very Smart", considering how she's going to replace her lovely Mistah J. Now, let's think about the Male Named NPCs who've been tortured or kidnapped to motivate us. The Firemen count. But their chief made choices that led them there. Robin counts. He's betrayed by Bat decisions. Gordon doesn't, because the reason it happens is he's motivated by the Fake Suicide. Up till then, he was somewhat willing to trust Bats. These are the only ones I can actually think of who were kidnapped and/or tortured who weren't the main character or some nameless dead people. Oh, and Jason. Which still, unfortunately, leads to Bats and Joker. So all those men were also motivated by men. It's important to note, at this point, that agency (English Language) and agency (Feminist Critique) are similar, but different enough that you can get failed on essays if you confuse the two. I know this from practical experience. Agency in a grammatical sense is simply "Who is the focus of the sentence: Who is the one doing the thing?" Agency in the feminist literary sense is "Who is in control of the narrative here? Who has the power to affect the story with their actions, not their deaths or things being done to them? Just as importantly, how are they doing it?" Well, that rules Ms. Langstrom right out. Barbara's out, because she doesn't even take part in the majority of the narrative. She regains her agency in the wheelchair scene... And then mostly vanishes to the background. It's still Alfred doing the main helping. For most of the story she is a piece of scenery. Ivy, similarly, spends most of the story as scenery, and regains her agency at the very end, whereupon... Well, she may regrow from that plant, she may not. I doubt it's ever going to be clear. Catwoman's a borderline case, because she does have choices, but all of those choices are related to... Her being a captive. She is not in control of said narrative for most of the game, because we wouldn't have gotten to those good parts where she does things and is cool and oh wow without Batman having schlepped around solving riddles. That leaves Harley. Whose narrative largely revolves around a dead man. Discendo Vox posted:Being a source of plot motivation doesn't make them weak, or their depiction sexist. It means they're NPCs in a video game. So... Yeah, Writers Make Choices (Except, as we've discussed in the past, when they don't, because The Writer Will Do Something.) Except, according to the definitions of agency that have been hammered into me over the last ten to fifteen years... The narrative is still mostly male controlled. The men are there because of men, the women get where they are because of men. Ivy takes a position of disinterest for the majority of the game, is a passive actor, until she's told something she should already know... By a man. I could go on, but I think I've made the case clear enough that I don't have to bang on about this again. Because it annoys me every time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The circle begins anew Alexey posted:...because it can't not happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I don't think Scruffy showed it off, but if you go back to Langstrom's lab, Francine's body is gone and the lab is destroyed with a message left in blood(?), giving the implication that she's become a Man-Bat as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
The structure of your argument is to perform exactly the selective reading I previously referred to. You are ignoring, or explicitly raising and then rejecting any information that works against your thesis, frequently by employing a really poor understanding of the concepts involved. Langstrom Hobgoblin already covered the immediate problem with this. This is the closest you get to a valid example. As I think I previously mentioned, the whole Man-Bat sidequest looks like it got cut way down when devs realized they couldn't make the midair combat fun. Barbara Gordon JamieTheD posted:Then there's Barbara. We're told a lot how she put up a fight, we're occasionally given clues to where she is that she apparently left, and she makes the choice to throw herself off a building because Bats will save her. That's her as a character, and if it was just that, it'd be (relatively) fine. But no, we're made to believe for a pivotal portion of the game that she's committed suicide, instigated by the villain, in order to emotionally affect both Batman and Gordon, which drives the plot forward. Gordon wouldn't have gone after Scarecrow on his own if he believed his daughter was still alive, and wouldn't have stopped trusting Batman for that pivotal segment. Which is a fridging, faked or no. Barbara Gordon's death is, as explicitly as possible, a subversion of the use of female characters as motivators for all-powerful males. That's the whole point of the character arc of the game-that the character can rely on and trust others. More generally, you seem to be ignoring the parts of the game where she move the plot, helps you take out enemies, and hacks an army of drones. And the part where she kills a guy while leaving you a clue to her whereabouts. She has agency. Catwoman JamieTheD posted:Catwoman gets her own back at the end, it's true. At the very end. In many players' playthroughs, we're left to imagine what happens, because if you don't get all the Riddler Trophies, you don't get that much story. I'm pretty sure very few reviewers managed to get all the Riddler Trophies before they had to go to press. "I didn't read a part of the book, so it doesn't exist" is not a valid approach to interpretation. In the context of games, it might be valid if the existence of a part of the artifact of analysis wasn't visible- but it would still be a sign of poor and incomplete analysis. This is an absurd approach to interpreting any artifact unless you've decided to mainline secondhand Barthes. Poison Ivy JamieTheD posted:Poison Ivy... A supposedly intelligent character who spends most of the game not giving a flying gently caress about Scarecrow's plan, despite presumably knowing that the plants will die too. Go through the game, by all means, and show me where she shows awareness of this before the pivotal moment where Batman says "Oh hey, you do know your plants are going to die too, right?" There, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. And yes, putting a top on (In the loose sense of the word) is an improvement. But it's still male gazey as gently caress. Isley's character arc, which extends across the series, is parallel to Batman's in this game and in the broader series, which is part of why it gets so much prominence here. Ivy knows that the plants will die, but would prefer to do nothing rather than rely on other humans for help. Her decision to reverse on this, accept the help of others, and ultimately sacrifice herself, is supposed to make the player draw lines between her actions and Batman's. Isley's character design is treated as far from the male gaze as it is possible to get without a completely different character. She has no sexualized lines, there's no mind control, the camera (one of the biggest problems in game depiction of female characters) treats her as an equal, and no one else in the game comments on her in any sexual manner. (Sidenote: more generally, there's zero dialogue sexualizing characters in the game.) JamieTheD posted:The only one that's even halfway decent is Harley. Oh, poor Harley, still chasing after Joker, still "Not Very Smart", considering how she's going to replace her lovely Mistah J. You seem to be ignoring the parts of the game where Quinn is in active internal conflict about her path forward (and it's hard for it to be more explicit about that a depiction of multiple personalities). Quinn is generally depicted as competent over the course of the game. She is a victim of abuse who is, in the game's narrative, still trapped by the lived experience of that abuse. Within that context, she is depicted with independent motivations and agency. This is based on the best, least problematic parts of her classic depiction, and really the only possible way to handle her character given the previous games. JamieTheD posted:Now, let's think about the Male Named NPCs who've been tortured or kidnapped to motivate us. The Firemen count. But their chief made choices that led them there. Robin counts. He's betrayed by Bat decisions. Gordon doesn't, because the reason it happens is he's motivated by the Fake Suicide. Up till then, he was somewhat willing to trust Bats. These are the only ones I can actually think of who were kidnapped and/or tortured who weren't the main character or some nameless dead people. Oh, and Jason. Which still, unfortunately, leads to Bats and Joker. So all those men were also motivated by men. Every allied male character in the game but Alfred and Cash winds up being held hostage at one time or another. You rescue all of them, because you're the player character in a superhero video game. The reasons why characters wind up getting captured does not change the depiction of the character's agency itself. Gordon's motivations as he is getting captured aren't relevant to the general similarity of the depiction of male and female characters in the game. I know you want to dismiss this because you don't like it, but it's true. JamieTheD posted:It's important to note, at this point, that agency (English Language) and agency (Feminist Critique) are similar, but different enough that you can get failed on essays if you confuse the two. I know this from practical experience. I'm going to assume that by "english language" you mean linguistics, because otherwise your argument is nonsensical. I'm sorry you failed your essay. Unfortunately it appears not to have helped you. Your understanding of the concept of agency is simultaneously overly narrow and overly broad. JamieTheD posted:Agency in a grammatical sense is simply "Who is the focus of the sentence: Who is the one doing the thing?" Agency in the feminist literary sense is "Who is in control of the narrative here? Who has the power to affect the story with their actions, not their deaths or things being done to them? Just as importantly, how are they doing it?" While I appreciate the little carveouts here to try to exclude evidence, in conventional rhetorical analysis, and in many approaches to feminist literary criticism, the distinction you are trying to make is not meaningful. While agency is broader than the active verb of a sentence, your application of it is lacking because you ignore evidence that does not work, and the constraints of the setting. To the extent that they appear, female characters in Arkham Knight do control the narrative, affect the story with their actions (including death), and do so under their own power and motivations- at least, they do so to the same degree as male NPCs. You appear to want complete equality of narrative control for female characters, but that cannot work in the context of a videogame where you play as a male character. As was previously addressed, the effect of satisfying the standard you have created would be to make a completely different game. It would require that the main character be female, or that the central villains be female (surprise, Rocksteady isn't particularly eager to highlight Batman punching female characters, Dollotrons and the studio scenes aside). JamieTheD posted:So... Yeah, Writers Make Choices (except, as we've discussed in the past, when they don't, because The Writer Will Do Something.) Except, according to the definitions of agency that have been hammered into me over the last ten to fifteen years... The narrative is still mostly male controlled. The men are there because of men, the women get where they are because of men. Ivy takes a position of disinterest for the majority of the game, is a passive actor, until she's told something she should already know... By a man. I could go on, but I think I've made the case clear enough that I don't have to bang on about this again. Because it annoys me every time. I, too, have played that IF game. You are painting with too broad a brush, ignoring information that doesn't fit your thesis, and treating shallow internet crit concepts with greater deference and breadth of application than they merit. You're also being really condescending, and making allusions to some amount of training in theory doesn't help. Given its careful avoidance of even potentially problematic content, AK was written with an eye toward avoiding sexism in its depiction of female characters. This is almost certainly because of all the gender problems that previous games in the series had. The game has a number of significant issues and flaws. The writing of its women is not among them. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:I don't think Scruffy showed it off, but if you go back to Langstrom's lab, Francine's body is gone and the lab is destroyed with a message left in blood(?), giving the implication that she's become a Man-Bat as well. I actually had to google around a bit, specifically for the character. I was surprised she was a thing in the comics. She-Bat, that is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
I would also suggest that any problems with the writing of female characters in Arkham Knight is actually just a problem with the writing in general. Which is very heavy on the idea that whilst yes Batman should be getting help and trusting others he's still the most effective and powerful character in Gotham, he is the one who makes things happen for the heroes. On the other side it's Scarecrow who makes things happen for the villains. Everyone else are just pieces on the board, bar two. Joker, as a hallucination and disease he is a wild card factor, and Red Hood, who's final act nobody really saw coming even if Batman hoped he'd turn back to good. Admittedly these are all male characters, but that's a problem inherited from comic books, not one the Arkham writers created themselves. I'm honestly surprised nobody has made a continuity where Scarecrow is female actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
With all this talk of agency, I can only ask one thing. Did we ever let Robin out of the cell? Did...anyone?  (My issue is more with the relative punishment level of the male and female characters and how they respond to it, but that's a two page post nobody wants to read.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Yes. Scarecrow kidnapped him outta the cell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Unfortunately, a book and a game are not the same. This is exactly part of the problem, and funnily enough, Hobgoblin's post is a good jumping off point for pointing this out. The average "reader" of a book can miss things by not finishing the book. The average player of a game, however, can miss things for a variety of reasons, including "How the heck am I supposed to know to go back to this place for this story element?", the case with Francine Langstrom. And if your "book" is tedious enough to read that you don't get to the end, is that, then, a valid excuse on the author's part to say "Well, I'm sorry you missed this part where I made it somewhat better?" I'm not making this point to cause a ruck, by the way, because you are making some good points (Although the "They are NPCs" argument doesn't get around the writers' choices.) I'm making this point because games analysis is in its relative infancy compared to literary and film, and there are most definitely differences. The accessibility of a plot point is just as important as what the heck it is. I'm going to spoiler the example chosen (ZTD Spoiler): In Zero Time Dilemma, you can go back and look at all those drat signs that yes, Delta, the pretend deaf blind Mind Wizard who seems like a Time Wizard, was there all along, and behind it all (Leaving aside the other questions that can be raised), but the vast majority of them are very ambiguous, to the point of "I can see how this can be interpreted that way, but there is also no reason not to interpret it the other once the reveal has occurred", even on a second playthrough. Yeah, that wheelchair must be super low for them not to be talking to the loving dog. You make good points regarding the latter part of Barbara's arc, points I had forgotten. I will quite happily concede that, because, as mentioned, I don't mind being proven wrong. But I find your analysis of the suicide somewhat questionable in the context. How, exactly, is it a subversion? Both characters, Gordon and Bruce, are motivated by this, and Bruce should learn to trust... Who? Unless, again, my memory is playing tricks, It is not a subversion to say "Haha, you were wrong all along", more a Not-Twist (Unless, as implied, there's foreshadowing I'm completely forgetting. Memory problems don't make for great long term debate, sadly.) I'm less convinced by your argument with Pamela Iseley. TAS has her cover up more skin (And some may argue that's the "canonical" design), and if you can't see the panties, I really don't know what to say (Because the visual lines and high contrast definitely point them out in every image I've seen... EDIT: I may think it's lovely, but I can still appreciate the visual design artistry behind it...) I will, nonetheless, go back and try to spot this awareness that her plants are going to die that you refer to, because, as mentioned, my memory is somewhat flawed, and maybe I missed all those mentions of it between her capture and that one pivotal moment. In the meantime, I remain unconvinced. You also remind me that yes, the Robins got kidnapped. This, also, is a good point. Similarly with Harley, so I thank you for that. I'm also sorry you think I'm being condescending, a jackass (EDIT: And wrote in such a way that I gave that impression.) The feeling isn't mutual. Yes, I did mean linguistics. But I disagree with your proposition that narrative equality could only be achieved by not having a Bat Focussed narrative. Pamela, for example, could have wanted to do the thing she did from early on, and was being obstructed in other ways. Other obstacles could have been chosen. Francine Langstrom could not have appeared dead, because, let's face it, most of the people we've rescued have been a case of "I'm going to call an ambulance/the GCPD [suddenly they vanish, presumably because of an ambulance/the GCPD]" We can go back and forth on this pretty much forever "They could have -" "But this is what they did", but I doubt either of us is willing, beyond acknowledging that it is so. So you argue the case clearly for the most part, and it is not as bad. But that doesn't change the perception to Not-bad in my eyes, or make me feel that many of these choices weren't lazy. JamieTheD fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
JamieTheD posted:Catwoman gets her own back at the end, it's true. At the very end. In many players' playthroughs, we're left to imagine what happens, because if you don't get all the Riddler Trophies, you don't get that much story. I'm pretty sure very few reviewers managed to get all the Riddler Trophies before they had to go to press. My favourite bit is how you have to literally collect trophies to get your trophy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Given the current conversation about the effective usage of female characters, would this be a good/bad time to bring up the Killing Joke movie's controversial scene? And I don't mean the bullet to the spine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:Given the current conversation about the effective usage of female characters, would this be a good/bad time to bring up the Killing Joke movie's controversial scene? Oh, there's a killing joke movie? Odd, why hadn't I- ohgod 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
 Discendo Vox posted:Oh, there's a killing joke movie? Odd, why hadn't I- ohgod
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Oh, there's a killing joke movie? Odd, why hadn't I- ohgod It's out? Should I watch it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:It's out? Should I watch it? General consensus is - The book was better. See also: Conroy and Hamil being the only good parts Animation is really poor Extras don't add anything other than run time and I've heard, not seen, not confirmed myself but spoiling a big editorially added plot point is that Batman and Barbara were in a relationship, changing the tone of the story from "You crippled my friend" to "You crippled my girlfriend" Again, I didn't see it, but I had heard that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Oh. Wow. Disappointing. And unnecessary. Good job Warner Brothers and/or DC. You remain consistent on dropping the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
There's also a sex scene on a rooftop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Also, when someone in the crowd at Comic Con called them out on that spoiler during the Killing Joke panel, the movie's co-writer called him a pussy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
You guys, I'm starting to think Batman might be bad. I watched the Killing Joke movie and it just seemed...uninspired. The extra intro bit didn't do anything, the little post-credits bit was a little neato I guess. The scene with Batman and Joker laughing at the end kinda reminded me of Tidus in Final Fantasy X. Eh! It is what it is. Audio Tapes/Polsy This video doesn't have any of me in it, just audio tapes. It works similar to Arkham City where uncovering a certain set of riddles will unlock the tape, and usually the speaker in the tapes are tied to a certain area. Stagg's tapes are tied to the airship riddles, for instance. I'll be back and working on the other Arkham episodes and some easter eggs next week!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Oh Eddie, even the other villains are tired of his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Oh Eddie, It might be worth mentioning that Scarecrow seems to actually be using his psychology background. Want to get a narcissist to work for you? Gotta appeal to his ego and sense of self-worth!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
The exchange between Scarecrow and Riddler is probably my favorite in the game. "You're trying to appeal to my ego, aren't you!?" "Is it working?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
You can almost hear the eyes rolling back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Wow, looking at the character model, Scarecrow has the SHITTEST gas mask ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
The writing in Arkham Knight wasn't that bad, but it could have done with another draft or two to iron out some of the creases, and some elements needed reworking to make the plot flow better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:The writing in Arkham Knight wasn't that bad, but it could have done with another draft or two to iron out some of the creases, and some elements needed reworking to make the plot flow better. Honestly the plot would have been pretty ok if they had just cut the Knight himself and replaced him with Deathstroke from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
I don't know, I think it's kind of revisionist to consider the Arkham Series as being primarily about the Joker and Batman's relationship. It seems like an artificial concession to the series' non-stop joker jacking. I think it tried for something else. I'll try to keep it short since I'm not in a good place to long post but the most consistent thread imho present throughout the whole series, in all the games, in all the side quests, all the story content is Batman's very bad day in terms of really putting the screws on his character, faults and strengths. A lot of the side quests don't do anything to shed extra light on the Joker/Batman dynamic (at least until maybe the third game, when Joker's presence & commentary become nonstop) but they do take their cues from Knightfall, a story with similar content. They all grind out some facet of Bruce. Even though the series appears out of order, there's also been a rapid escalation and attrition present towards Bruce all throughout. Asylum was probably the closest you got to a batman in status quo story, but even that one's not meant to be an ordinary night for him. People who aren't familiar with the setting and characters get introduced to them here though. We start to see some escalation in City, Ras attacks Bruce's no kill policy (Bats stays the course tho), more of his allies are put in direct peril, Bats refuses to put Robin into action claiming he can do it alone (but ends up needing help after getting crushed by rocks anyway), and Bruce nearly turns his back on the greater good to save Talia but manages to stays the course at the end. Etc, etc, etc. Origins appears out of sequence but we definitely see a stressed out Bats here, due to inexperience rather than attrition though, who nearly kills crooks by dropping them off buildings (the league of assassins stuff also tries to push him to kill), he nearly loses an ally when Alfred just about bites it, his professional relationships are all strained and he's very nearly forced to give up being Batman once again. Finally we get to Arkham Knight and we see the culmination of all this attrition. The no kill policy is addressed again via Ras and you can finally choose to cross that line, Bruce's professional relationships are all in tatters, Bruce's solitary headstrongedness had him shove Robin into a locker for most of the game, though no allies die you walk as close to that line as you possibly can in exploring its consequences since the 'murder' occurs near the beginning of the game rather than the end, and Bruce finally does give up the cowl at the finale. Etc, etc, etc. The Joker's involvement as Bats' ~*one true nemesis*~ usually puts him at forefront of all this attrition, doing most of the damage himself and/or leading the attack, and it's not surprising he's now physically inside Bruce's head since this whole thing imho has been about wearing him out inside and out. If I had to give a quick and dirty summary of the series, I'd say Breaking of the Bat redux rather than some kind of exploration of the Joker/Batman relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 21:48
|
|
