Games: Rate and Discuss

[Sheepo]

It is true that writing can be great regardless of the styling. It is also true that AA's writing is not great. Finally,it's true that modern Batman movies have great writing. My argument that it is not reasonable to compare modern Batman movies to Arkham Asylum in terms of story content is relevant and withstanding. The content of the story is subjective to the audience to which it is being written. The ability of the writers to tell a story something that can be compared and contrasted though.

Wow, it's very hard to understand you. So you're saying that the blockbuster movie demographic demands a better story than the mainstream video game demographic? And that if either demographic gets better writing than they demand they won't buy it? Or that attracting people with higher standards isn't worth what it would take to write a decent story?

 

[Yorick]

My argument that it is not reasonable to compare modern Batman movies to Arkham Asylum in terms of story content is relevant and withstanding. The content of the story is subjective to the audience to which it is being written. The ability of the writers to tell a story something that can be compared and contrasted though.

What I meant by "real Batman" is mainly just referring to the pre-Dark Knight movies where he's... well... just a quiet guy with a lot of neat toys.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

This is how this conversation just went.

Samon: Arkham generally fails. It has a lot of cliches, and completely ignores how great the Dark Knight was, and all the issues that it dealt with.
StarBob: I agree, but New Batman is Real, and Old Batman is Fantasy. The game draws from the Fantasy side.
Samon: Regardless, there's room for telling an new story in an interesting way, rather than "mutant army".
StarBob: You can't compare Arkham Asylum to The Dark Knight, all they have in common is Batman.
Sheepo: Any incarnation of Batman has the potential for intelligent writing.
StarBob: You're right.
Samon: So what you're saying then, StarBob, is that you're an idiot.
StarBob: You still can't compare Arkham Asylum to The Dark Knight. The... the content is subjective to the audience it's being written for..... Yeah, I'm an idiot.

First of all, what reasoning is there for not being able to fit a decent amount of story into a game? A game is longer than a movie, it has some very different mechanics on how the story is told, sure, but there's no reason to skimp. In fact in a 6-10(?) hour game, there's no reason to skimp at all. Not when that's what you know you're writing for. And if you're talking about where it's being directed as far as market, Arkham Asylum's ESRB rating puts it at "Teen" - which is the equivalent of the Dark Knight's rating of PG-13.

Secondly, in the Pre-Dark Knight movies, Batman is a cardboard cutout with no personality. He only spouts cliches when he bothers to say anything. That isn't a character, that isn't good writing. If you want to compare Arkham Asylum to the source material, you should be looking at the comics, not the incredibly, incredibly shite films. The graphic novels were a hell of a lot better written than Arkham was.

So, let's see.

Starbob says that "Content is subjective to audience" which is true, but irrelevant in this case. He also says that "You can't compare old things to new things" which is just ridiculous. And he thinks that "Real Batman" is the one from the Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6epsGrcuTs

 

[StarBob]

Wow, it's very hard to understand you. So you're saying that the blockbuster movie demographic demands a better story than the mainstream video game demographic? And that if either demographic gets better writing than they demand they won't buy it? Or that attracting people with higher standards isn't worth what it would take to write a decent story?

Sorry I wrote that in the middle of action at work.

What I was trying to say is that, comparing Arkham Asylum to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in terms of their content (i.e. the substance of the story, not the way it is told) is not a reasonable thing to do. They're two stories with a similar subject, but written and directed from vastly different worlds. Comparing them is akin to comparing... hm... how about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Willie Wonka and the Chocolate factory. Aside from the obvious difference being the 30 odd years that separate them, they told the same type of story from entirely different viewpoints. I won't go into details, but the premise is similar enough for this analogy.

The point I'm making is that, yes, it is very possible to compare them directly and say one is better than the other, but it does not mean that one is a failure. Using something good to prove that something else is bad does not in any way prove that something else is bad even if it's relating to the same subject. The Dark Knight and Batman Begins are good movies. Arkham Asylum is a good game. Arkham Asylum is not bad because those movies were good.

He also says that "You can't compare old things to new things" which is just ridiculous. And he thinks that "Real Batman" is the one from the Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher movies.

I didn't say that at any point. I said, as I've said again in this post, that you can't make an argument that something is bad because something of similar subject matter was good. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, but I have now.
Also, when I said "real batman" I was referring to the comic batman and the adaptation of that character where he's dark and gritty, not just a guy with no personality like in the pre-dark knight movies. That's what I said here -

I'm guessing you aren't a fan of the comics and the "real Batman" that it holds? I mean the new Batman movies are much more comic-faithful in the gritty twisted way.

I don't know how I got myself backwards there, but, as I said I shouldn't post at work because I just type shit out and hit submit.

Oh well I hope this clears things up before I get bashed more for expressing a counterpoint... but hey this is the internet I don't know why I'd expect any less.

 

[Sheepo]

Ignoring your confusing and probably incorrect stance on relative quality, we're able to agree that the quality of something can be discerned based on... its quality? Arkham Asylum is an okay game, that's fun and is pretty dumb.

 

[StarBob]

Ignoring your confusing and probably incorrect stance on relative quality, we're able to agree that the quality of something can be discerned based on... its quality? Arkham Asylum is an okay game, that's fun and is pretty dumb.

I made it as simple as possible without sacrificing meaning. I'm pretty sure that "incorrect" can't be used when referencing someone's perception of a subjective matter, especially when you're trying to quantify the quality of a game... I think that's why they invented metacritic to average review scores...



but yeah I guess we can agree that the game can be described in that manner.

 

[Sheepo]

Well, when it's hard to determine your point on a subjective matter, or whether the point you're trying to make is even on a subjective matter, I usually don't give you the benefit of the doubt. In retrospect, it looks like you're trying to say that giving things relative qualities is dumb, which I actually agree with pretty strongly. However, it was pretty irrelevant and confusing, and your Willy Wonka analogy made no sense.

 

[StarBob]

Well, when it's hard to determine your point on a subjective matter, or whether the point you're trying to make is even on a subjective matter, I usually don't give you the benefit of the doubt. In retrospect, it looks like you're trying to say that giving things relative qualities is dumb, which I actually agree with pretty strongly. However, it was pretty irrelevant and confusing, and your Willy Wonka analogy made no sense.

Well it's surprisingly hard to come up with a franchise of entertainment that has been interpreted by more than one person off the top of your head. I feel like there are a lot of them, but that's the one I came up with first.

And yeah that's basically what I was trying to say from the start about Samon's take on Arkham Asylum. Looking at it relative to The Dark Knight is a very poor way to determine whether it's good or bad.

 

[stemot]

Arkham Asylum was a great game. I loved the design of Arkham itself and the combat mechanics. Brawl with it's combo structure and amazingly well animated, flowing animations and silent predator with it's faux stealth mechanics. The design of it's characters I never had a problem with, there have been so many iterations of Batman and his enemies in the comics, both with the "muscles upon muscles" look and without. In fact I found the character design for the most part to stay true to universe Batman is set (the comics, not The Dark Knight, which should not even enter a conversion about a game based on the comics with regard to aesthetic design) whilst having a darker look to them.

I found the story to be functional, it did it's job in setting up Arkham as the players playground and the dialogue was quite good in parts abysmal in others. Though Jokers lines made up for any of the poor Batman delivered lines.
The fact the game gets so many things right with regards to gameplay and the mechanics used within makes it easier to overlook the sometimes patchy scriptwriting and story.

It was easily GOTY for me last year.

Oh, and Starbob, your fighting a losing battle mate. Just enjoy the game .

 

[StarBob]

What exactly am I losing? The battle of game reviews? Seems like one of those things no one can win.

 

[stemot]

What exactly am I losing? The battle of game reviews? Seems like one of those things no one can win.

Okay, fair enough .

 

[Shift]

Arkham Asylum was a great game. I loved the design of Arkham itself and the combat mechanics. Brawl with it's combo structure and amazingly well animated, flowing animations and silent predator with it's faux stealth mechanics. The design of it's characters I never had a problem with, there have been so many iterations of Batman and his enemies in the comics, both with the "muscles upon muscles" look and without. In fact I found the character design for the most part to stay true to universe Batman is set (the comics, not The Dark Knight, which should not even enter a conversion about a game based on the comics with regard to aesthetic design) whilst having a darker look to them.

I found the story to be functional, it did it's job in setting up Arkham as the players playground and the dialogue was quite good in parts abysmal in others. Though Jokers lines made up for any of the poor Batman delivered lines.
The fact the game gets so many things right with regards to gameplay and the mechanics used within makes it easier to overlook the sometimes patchy scriptwriting and story.

It was easily GOTY for me last year.

I would have to agree this.

 

[Yorick]

StarBob, do me a favour and read my post at least four times before you reply, because nothing seems to be sinking into your thick skull.

What I was trying to say is that, comparing Arkham Asylum to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in terms of their content (i.e. the substance of the story, not the way it is told) is not a reasonable thing to do. They're two stories with a similar subject, but written and directed from vastly different worlds. Comparing them is akin to comparing... hm... how about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Willie Wonka and the Chocolate factory. Aside from the obvious difference being the 30 odd years that separate them, they told the same type of story from entirely different viewpoints. I won't go into details, but the premise is similar enough for this analogy.

No it isn't, that's an absolutely terrible analogy, and you've managed to completely miss my point. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Willy Wonka are the same base story, both movies are based on the same book, though with marginal differences and yes, different viewpoints. But they're the same base story. That is not true of Arkham Asylum and The Dark Knight. They are different in quite a few ways.

The point I'm making is that, yes, it is very possible to compare them directly and say one is better than the other, but it does not mean that one is a failure. Using something good to prove that something else is bad does not in any way prove that something else is bad even if it's relating to the same subject. The Dark Knight and Batman Begins are good movies. Arkham Asylum is a good game. Arkham Asylum is not bad because those movies were good.

Arkham Asylum is not a good game, and while it's not bad because those movies were good, it's bad for the same reason that those movies are good. Arkham Asylum has a ridiculously silly art style which would be very easy to overlook if it wasn't for the fact that it has a terrible, terrible story, and some really flat characters. That would make any game suck.

The point that was being made that brought up the comparison is the argument that The Dark Knight changed how Comic Book Movies should be made, because it completely transcends the idea of just doing a mediocre summer blockbuster, like the previous incarnations of Batman were.

I didn't say that at any point. I said, as I've said again in this post, that you can't make an argument that something is bad because something of similar subject matter was good. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough, but I have now.

You've certainly made it clear, but that doesn't make it right. People often compare movies to the books that they are based on, or how about games that are based on books - even loosely - such as American McGee's Alice, or games based on Lovecraft's works, or Sherlock Holmes. In the case of Sherlock Holmes, you're certainly comparing the content of the game to the content of the books. In fact that was one of the big problems people had when Dante's Inferno was announced - that it had absolutely nothing to do with the book, but merely used Dante's levels of hell. The movie I Robot had nothing to do with Asimov's book short of using his 3 Laws, and it was slaughtered because of differences in content.

Even if you don't agree with me, and you want to look at Batman Arkham Asylum when compared to other games or even on its own, it is still mediocre at best. Yes it has a decent control style and gameplay mechanics, but it also features a terrible story, a horrifyingly linear experience (which is nothing like Batman should be), boring characters, an overabundance of bosses (all of whom have dreadfully dull fights) and a ridiculous art style, and even the voice acting is eh. It isn't, by any stretch, a good game, and certainly not "Game of the Year" material.

 

[stemot]

It isn't, by any stretch, a good game, and certainly not "Game of the Year" material.

There is much to love about the game, sure it gets some things wrong but being linear is certainly not something that should be put forward as a bad attribute to any game.

The game has had overwhelming critical and commercial success, which for a licensed super hero game certainly would not have happened if the game was "mediocre at best".

I have no problem with people who don't like this game, but it is a good game and certainly one of the best of last year.

 

[Yorick]

The game has had overwhelming critical and commercial success, which for a licensed super hero game certainly would not have happened if the game was "mediocre at best".

Doom 3. Bioshock. I rest my case.

 

[kupocake]

Doom 3. Bioshock. I rest my case.

You were overwhelmed by Doom 3's success?

 

[Barnz]

Hey guys, Bioshock is a great game.

 

[Yorick]

You were overwhelmed by Doom 3's success?

Come back when you learn English.

The game was a critical and commercial success for id Software; with more than 3.5 million copies of the game sold, it is the most successful game by the developer to date.

 

[stemot]

Doom 3. Bioshock. I rest my case.

Read my post. Neither were super hero licensed games as I stated. Arkham Asylum was joining a genre that had failed to make any impact with gamers, which meant both critics and fans were ready to tear the game a new one if it failed. It didn't. Silly to rest your case.

 

[Rizzo]

Doom 3 was pretty sick when it came out.

 

[Asknoone]

What exactly am I losing? The battle of game reviews? Seems like one of those things no one can win.

Don't be so sure.

 

[Yorick]

Read my post. Neither were super hero licensed games as I stated. Arkham Asylum was joining a genre that had failed to make any impact with gamers, which meant both critics and fans were ready to tear the game a new one if it failed. It didn't. Silly to rest your case.

Wait, so you're saying that it wouldn't have been popular if it was only mediocre? Maybe you live in a cave, but every other super hero game ever made has been complete rubbish.

 

[Warbie]

I'm honestly surprised to read people having issues with Arkham's story. We're talking Batman here. 1000's of comics that read as well as your average soap opera and a bunch of fun action movies/cartoons. It's hardly doing the franchise a disservice. The important thing is that as a game it succeeds. The fighting is the best example of super hero combat in a video game and it made me feel like Batman. Job done. Try watching Dark Knight after playing Arkham - it's hard to take Christian Bale's Batman seriously with his ridiculously deep Batman voice.

 

[stemot]

Wait, so you're saying that it wouldn't have been popular if it was only mediocre? Maybe you live in a cave, but every other super hero game ever made has been complete rubbish.

That's exactly my point. So why exactly would the game hold such high scores and have so many people praising it if it was just another shitty super hero game or simply mediocre? It would have been consigned to the bin like the rest of them. Like I said, people were waiting to tear this a new one simply because of the bitter taste the super hero genre has left in gamers mouths but the fact it was a decent game is why it was reviewed and received so well. Just because you didn't like it does not mean that it doesn't deserve it's high acclaim. It was a good game and a great super hero game.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Wait, so you're saying that it wouldn't have been popular if it was only mediocre? Maybe you live in a cave, but every other super hero game ever made has been complete rubbish.

Wrong. The original Spider Man game made before the movies. Man, I used to love that game.

 

[kupocake]

Come back when you learn English.

Since we're evidently all fourteen years old again, how about you use English to deduce that I asked you whether you thought that 3.5 million sales an a metacritic score of 87% was 'an overwhelming critical and commercial success'?

Or you could, you know, just be civil for once?

 

[StarBob]

Don't be so sure.

I guess we can argue on subjective matters of opinion for all eternity until some mighty power declares a winner, if you prefer.

For Yorick - I'm fairly sure that since you jumped in mid debate and are handy with taking things out of context and making exaggerated statements, that I don't want to bother replying to the things you say anymore. It is fascinating though, how riled up you've gotten from someone not agreeing with you about the perception of a game.

I mean I guess if we look at the numbers, a large majority of game reviewers gave it top tiered scores... but I guess they could all be wrong and some guys on some forums know the real deal. I'll just take my "thick skull" that agrees with the majority for this particular case, and wander off into the sunset enjoying games I find fun.

 

[Sheepo]

What exactly am I losing? The battle of game reviews? Seems like one of those things no one can win.

It's amazing that we seem to agree competely with each other, yet are also at war with each other.

-The gameplay is fun

-Because the style of the game stays true to some instances of the Batman universe, it's okay that it's needlessly irritating and ugly.

-I found the story to be functional, it did it's job in setting up Arkham as the players playground.

-The dialogue was quite good in parts. Though Jokers lines made up for any of the poor Batman delivered lines.

1) Agreed.

2)

The art style is dumb, whether it looks like some comics or not. It very rarely manages anything but making all the characters look half retarded (though I suppose that supports their lines and voices also being half retarded) gorillas. It would be one thing if this were the whole deal, but one of the most aggravating things about AA is that it tries to get dark and gritty and psychological and just pumps out boring cliches. Frankly, I don't know how I'm supposed to be horrified by these barely touched guards that look more like they're napping than dead.

3) Having a story that's functional is like having a meal that's edible. Story should complement gameplay and gameplay should complement story. Is the game still 'pretty fun' without having deep themes, a strong atmosphere, or a good story? Yes, but that's all it can be. It barely scrapes the surface of its potential.

4) Can you remember any good lines? I can't. The Joker quickly got old with his constant fluctuations from very dark and violent dialogue mixed with his, 'Oh that's just plain silly' dialogue, where he doesn't truly say anything. The only decent writing the game had was in, as I've said, some of the Zsasz, Amadeus, and Scarecrow tapes.

The game has had overwhelming critical and commercial success, which for a licensed super hero game certainly would not have happened if the game was "mediocre at best".

Because it's the first licensed super hero game to have critical and commercial success, that indicates quality? Who made up these rules? Did it also have to be released on opposite day while I had my fingers crossed? And you're ignoring the fact that some of the better super hero games were made before the kind of critical and commercial success Arkham Asylum had was even possible for a video game. Critical and commercial success and quality have a pretty flimsy correlation. Some of the greatest games ever made have been played by fewer people than will play MW2's multiplayer today*.

*I would guess

The fighting is the best example of super hero combat in a video game and it made me feel like Batman. Job done.

Absurdly low standards you got there.

Wrong. The original Spider Man game made before the movies. Man, I used to love that game.

<3

Or you could, you know, just be civil for once?

I wouldn't get my hopes up for much of a victory on that front. He's not really worth the effort anyway.

I mean I guess if we look at the numbers, a large majority of game reviewers gave it top tiered scores... but I guess they could all be wrong and some guys on some forums know the real deal. I'll just take my "thick skull" that agrees with the majority for this particular case, and wander off into the sunset enjoying games I find fun.

For one thing, didn't you and Samon have basically the same opinion on the game? I suppose he might disagree with settling for simply fun games, but if you both think exactly the same way about it, where's the argument? And as for the "large majority of game reviewers", I've found that all but a few game critics out there require more than three things to give a great review:
a) Polish
b) Graphics
c) Fun
Which, if all you want is a fun, pretty, functioning game, is alright I suppose.

 

[Warbie]

Absurdly low standards you got there.

Name a game that does it better

 

[Sheepo]

There is no game that has better superhero fighting or makes me feel more like Batman, no. Does that make for a great game, or game of the year? No.

 

[knut]

man i have lost all track of who samon is in this thread. i'm seeing like triple and i'm not even drunk tonight

 

[Sheepo]

Yes, we're arguing over a game's quality. Try to remain calm and breath slowly until order is restored.

 

[knut]

what quality its batman batman was only good when mignola did it

****sake guys

 

[bam23]

Yakuza 3 - 8.5/10

Damn, PS3 owners that don't mind reading subtitles owe it to themselves to give this game a chance. There is a demo up but it's not very representative of the full game. Combat is definitely a little clunky but you get better at it as you go, becoming a non-issue really, but there are some quicktime events and they're annoying as usual. There is SO MUCH you can do in this game. At 24 hours and beating the full story (which was actually pretty decent) while dabbling in side quests and some mini-games I only had a completion of 16.90% of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_3Skx0ewso&feature=related

 

[Warbie]

People handing out tissues in Japan is the weirdest thing. I get hayfever and was suffering quite badly while in Tokyo - within minutes i'd been given enough packs of tissues to last the hoiday. Nice, but weird.

 

[stemot]

Y'know Sheepo, I have neither the time or desire to take part in a multiquote battle over a game that has proven it's worth. I've learnt that these discussions rarely end with you listening to the other party. The game is certainly GOTY material, check out the list of games released in 2009 on wikpedia with only really Assassins Creed 2 and GTA IV standing out and Batman is better than both, it's won Bafta's and sold shitloads and is praised by fans of Batman comics and fans of games alike.

I'm sorry you didn't like it but i'm with the majority on this.

man i have lost all track of who samon is in this thread. i'm seeing like triple and i'm not even drunk tonight

It's more his collections of Mini Me's.

 

[Dynasty]

Assassins Creed 2...and Batman is better than both...

WHAT!?

Nobody's going to insult the awesomeness that is AC2 in my presence.

 

[stemot]

WHAT!?

Nobody's going to insult the awesomeness that is AC2 in my presence.

Not insulting it it any way, was a decent enough game. The only thing is it failed to grab me as much as the original game. Maybe I just preferred the setting of the original or it could be the at AC2 on the PC has f*cked up mouse controls.
I feel though that Batman was a better game. It was appealed to me a lot more than AC2 did. Sorry.

 

[Sheepo]

Y'know Sheepo, I have neither the time or desire to take part in a multiquote battle over a game that has proven it's worth. I've learnt that these discussions rarely end with you listening to the other party. The game is certainly GOTY material, check out the list of games released in 2009 on wikpedia with only really Assassins Creed 2 and GTA IV standing out and Batman is better than both, it's won Bafta's and sold shitloads and is praised by fans of Batman comics and fans of games alike.

I'm sorry you didn't like it but i'm with the majority on this.



It's more his collections of Mini Me's.

>Stemot starts argument
>Argument ensues
>Stemot doesn't have time for the argument
>Criticizes me for responding to his response to my opinion

Yeah, sometimes my need to shove my opinions down other peoples' throats just makes me sick.

How can you say I'm not listening to you when I directly respond to what you're saying? Well, if this is the end post, I may as well reinforce: Popularity =/= Quality.

 

[stemot]

>Stemot starts argument
>Argument ensues
>Stemot doesn't have time for the argument
>Criticizes me for responding to his response to my opinion

Yeah, sometimes my need to shove my opinions down other peoples' throats just makes me sick.

How can you say I'm not listening to you when I directly respond to what you're saying? Well, if this is the end post, I may as well reinforce: Popularity =/= Quality.

EDIT: Can't be arsed arguing, Sheepo wins, even if his views don't match mine.

 

[Asknoone]

Sheepo won before you even started.