Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
HenessyHero
Mar 4, 2008

"I thought we had something, Shepard. Something real."
:qq:

FAT WORM OF ERROR posted:

Batswarm spam has been the key to the bigger combos in my experience.

Batswarm seems to do damage now though :argh:

I've lost a couple combos because the dude I was going to punch next was already KO'd by my batnado.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Phylodox
Mar 30, 2006



College Slice
I dunno. For reference I'm playing the PC version with an X-Box controller. Going from Asylum and City to Origins I couldn't keep a combo going to save my (or Batman's) life. When I stopped trying to chain three hits together and stopped between each hit to assess the situation, it just clicked and now I regularly get super-combos.

Also, Origins is in the same continuity as Asylum and City, right? I only ask because the first meeting between Joker and Harley is presented completely different in the Asylum recording and the Origins sequence. Not that I care, but, y'know, that kind of thing gets to continuity-obsessed fanboys.

Not like me.

I don't even care.

Like...at all.

:(

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Phylodox posted:

I dunno. For reference I'm playing the PC version with an X-Box controller. Going from Asylum and City to Origins I couldn't keep a combo going to save my (or Batman's) life. When I stopped trying to chain three hits together and stopped between each hit to assess the situation, it just clicked and now I regularly get super-combos.

Also, Origins is in the same continuity as Asylum and City, right? I only ask because the first meeting between Joker and Harley is presented completely different in the Asylum recording and the Origins sequence. Not that I care, but, y'know, that kind of thing gets to continuity-obsessed fanboys.

Not like me.

I don't even care.

Like...at all.

:(

The original Arkham one is taken directly from B:TAS. They revised it for Origins when they decided to make Arkham its own continuity instead of a B:TAS spinoff-style game.

Alternate answer: The loving Flash rebooted the universe in-between games.

ToastyPotato
Jun 23, 2005

CONVICTED OF DISPLAYING HIS PEANUTS IN PUBLIC

Phylodox posted:

Also, Origins is in the same continuity as Asylum and City, right? I only ask because the first meeting between Joker and Harley is presented completely different in the Asylum recording and the Origins sequence. Not that I care, but, y'know, that kind of thing gets to continuity-obsessed fanboys.

Not like me.

I don't even care.

Like...at all.

:(

That bugged me when I decided to replay Asylum. I remembered the tapes existing when I got to that part in Origins, but when I listened to them again in Asylum I was a bit disappointed.

Hip-Hoptimus Rhyme
Mar 19, 2009

Gods don't make mistakes
If anything, I'd just choose to believe that the events of Origins don't really matter, since it's not like they're tied directly into stories of AA and AC.

Phylodox
Mar 30, 2006



College Slice

ImpAtom posted:

The original Arkham one is taken directly from B:TAS. They revised it for Origins when they decided to make Arkham its own continuity instead of a B:TAS spinoff-style game.

I know, albeit done better in The Animated Series because Harley used to sound like a normal, professional young woman instead of always sounding like a ditz.

That said, I really liked where Origins took that scene. Paralleling Harley's obsession with the Joker with the Joker's obsession with Batman was clever. It gives the whole dynamic uncomfortable romantic subtext that feels new and interesting (even though it's been hinted at before by Miller, Morrison, etc.)

Captain Baal
Oct 23, 2010

I Failed At Anime 2022
I think the more annoying thing is that Harley seems to perpetually have her Brooklyn accent despite actually getting it after becoming clown lady... oh and she's a complete idiot, but I don't really expect anything more from a current depiction of Harley really.

Sober
Nov 19, 2011

First touch: Life.
Second touch: Dead again. Forever.

HenessyHero posted:

Batswarm seems to do damage now though :argh:

I've lost a couple combos because the dude I was going to punch next was already KO'd by my batnado.
This happened in AC too I believe, it does a tiny amount of damage.

Also explosive gel and a bunch of other gadgets (?) give points now so yeah, I don't even want to look at the leaderboards.

jivjov
Sep 13, 2007

But how does it taste? Yummy!
Dinosaur Gum

Pirate Jet posted:

So the Black Mask Challenge Pack IS what you got for pre-ordering the game?

I think so? I just got the game and Season Pass over the Black Friday weekend and the Black Mask Pack + the Online Supply Drop were the only two things left on the Steam Store page that I didn't own.

Seventh Arrow
Jan 26, 2005

I preordered the game on Steam and I had to get Black Mask separately, so I dunno. It wasn't covered by the season pass, either.

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Would you be my new best friends?

Phylodox posted:

I dunno. For reference I'm playing the PC version with an X-Box controller. Going from Asylum and City to Origins I couldn't keep a combo going to save my (or Batman's) life. When I stopped trying to chain three hits together and stopped between each hit to assess the situation, it just clicked and now I regularly get super-combos.

Also, Origins is in the same continuity as Asylum and City, right? I only ask because the first meeting between Joker and Harley is presented completely different in the Asylum recording and the Origins sequence. Not that I care, but, y'know, that kind of thing gets to continuity-obsessed fanboys.

Not like me.

I don't even care.

Like...at all.

:(

Hey, if they have to have a past, they prefer it to be multiple choice :haw:

Orgophlax
Aug 26, 2002


Seventh Arrow posted:

I preordered the game on Steam and I had to get Black Mask separately, so I dunno. It wasn't covered by the season pass, either.

I didn't preorder (about a week or 2 after release), and got the Black Mask stuff, as well as a Joker & Bane crew "Vanity packs". I did get an online code from Gamestop though, not through Steam directly.



On a different subject, finally got around to watching Under the Red Hood at the behest of many in the thread from much earlier, and I must say, I don't really like John DiMaggio as Joker. His voice is just too deep for my liking. Needs to be high, and a bit squeaky.

MeatwadIsGod
Sep 30, 2004

Foretold by Gyromancy
I didn't care until Under the Red Hood until a second viewing. The first time I was just jarred by different it was from Hammil's Joker, but I really got into DiMaggio's take the second time. He seemed really sinister and I dug his laugh.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?
All kinds of media is making rethink Batman's "don't kill" policy. Under the Red Hood had be rooting for the Red Hood to win and this game just makes me think that Batman is an idiot.

Captain Baal
Oct 23, 2010

I Failed At Anime 2022

blackguy32 posted:

Under the Red Hood had be rooting for the Red Hood to win

Except it wasn't. Jason Todd is very clearly portrayed as someone who is wrong in every single thing he says and thinks. If you seriously believe that movie was rooting for him, then you read far too much into stuff that wasn't there.

EDIT: My bad

Captain Baal fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Dec 4, 2013

Crashbee
May 15, 2007

Stupid people are great at winning arguments, because they're too stupid to realize they've lost.
Hey, spoilers.

MrJacobs
Sep 15, 2008

Pirate Jet posted:

So the Black Mask Challenge Pack IS what you got for pre-ordering the game?

Black Mask Pack was exclusive to Gamestop as a pre-order/brand new 1st shipment copy bonus.

Deathstroke was the actual pre-order bonus.

MrJacobs
Sep 15, 2008

blackguy32 posted:

All kinds of media is making rethink Batman's "don't kill" policy. Under the Red Hood had be rooting for the Red Hood to win and this game just makes me think that Batman is an idiot.

I liked his rational of if he kills, he won't stop. So you have the most dangerous man on earth now running around murdering the gently caress out of people like the 1930's again.

I still don't understand how the gently caress Amazo got his rear end handed to him though. Batman wasn't prepared for that kind of poo poo.

MeatwadIsGod
Sep 30, 2004

Foretold by Gyromancy

MrJacobs posted:

I liked his rational of if he kills, he won't stop. So you have the most dangerous man on earth now running around murdering the gently caress out of people like the 1930's again.

Scott Snyder's Death of the Family arc touches on this idea nicely and is a great Joker-Batman story. The reason I like it is that his "no kill" policy taps you on the shoulder and says, "Remember that this guy is crazy." He's honed his mind and body in this single-minded devotion to justice, but the "no kill" policy is a reminder that even at 30ish years old he's permanently scarred by the death of his parents. Even Origins does a good job of outlining how crazy/endless his mission is. There's a great section where Roman Sionis calls Batman a mark because he loves the justice system so much even though the criminals he apprehends are on a revolving door in and out of prison. It's one of the reasons why my favorite portrayals of Batman don't merely show him fighting crime but also its root causes.

MeatwadIsGod fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 4, 2013

HenessyHero
Mar 4, 2008

"I thought we had something, Shepard. Something real."
:qq:
I think most people think too hard about the no-kill policy. Bats stops violent crimes in progress, full-stop. Bats is not a judge, jury or executioner. He doesn't even process crooks though he all but gift-wraps them for GCPD. Everything beyond physically halting a crime is left to the justice system, to prosecutors, judges et al. It's the responsibility of professionals to determine the fate of a criminal. The only reason why this seems insufficient is that most rogues are ad hoc insane and go to an asylum instead, mostly so they can keep dodging a death penalty, and remain recurring villains because it's a comic book.

I know the 'if I start I won't stop' thing has actually appeared in comics but I always found the very first explanation given way back when Bats was first written with the one rule to be more than satisfying.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?

Sex_Ferguson posted:

Except it wasn't. Jason Todd is very clearly portrayed as someone who is wrong in every single thing he says and thinks. If you seriously believe that movie was rooting for him, then you read far too much into stuff that wasn't there.

EDIT: My bad

It was a typo. I meant had me rooting for him.

MeatwadIsGod
Sep 30, 2004

Foretold by Gyromancy
True. The "no kill" policy is more at the forefront of these games when you have characters like Joker killing dozens and dozens of people. Batman in the earliest issues (like '39-'42) did actually kill in a few instances, but honestly it's just one of those traits that makes him more heroic and I'm fine with that. Batman: The Animated Series actually addressed it nicely by having Bruce Wayne as a board member at Arkham Asylum so he can improve security and make his job as Batman a little easier. It's a comic book so certain conceits apply. Still though, I like getting into the Batman psyche as much as comics, movies, and games allow.

EDIT: To get back to the thread topic, I liked that the Bruce Wayne skin didn't have that same grim expression as the Batman skins. He actually looks a little saddened and has some bruising on his face, which I liked.

MeatwadIsGod fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Dec 5, 2013

Phylodox
Mar 30, 2006



College Slice
I think Batman's "no-kill" policy seems silly if you think of it over the whole run of the comic, some seventy-odd years encompassing probably thousands of innocent deaths at the hands of his foes, but I don't think it's supposed to be looked at that way. Unless it's specifically set during Batman's earlier or later years, I've always thought of the comics as pretty much perpetually taking place during some nebulous period about ten to fifteen years into Batman's career wherein each of his villains has broken out of Arkham only a handful of times. Other than the Joker, who's been explicitly linked to somewhere around a thousand deaths, I'd imagine that each of Batman's enemies is responsible for a few dozen deaths each. Still pretty extreme, but not as insane as if you take the whole run of the series into consideration.

EDIT: I also like the explanation that the world's psychiatrists won't allow any of Batman's villains to be executed because they all want a chance to analyze them.

Phylodox fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 5, 2013

Kaizer88
Feb 16, 2011

MeatwadIsGod posted:

True. The "no kill" policy is more at the forefront of these games when you have characters like Joker killing dozens and dozens of people. Batman in the earliest issues (like '39-'42) did actually kill in a few instances, but honestly it's just one of those traits that makes him more heroic and I'm fine with that. Batman: The Animated Series actually addressed it nicely by having Bruce Wayne as a board member at Arkham Asylum so he can improve security and make his job as Batman a little easier. It's a comic book so certain conceits apply. Still though, I like getting into the Batman psyche as much as comics, movies, and games allow.

EDIT: To get back to the thread topic, I liked that the Bruce Wayne skin didn't have that same grim expression as the Batman skins. He actually looks a little saddened and has some bruising on his face, which I liked.

Makes you wonder why there hasn't been some grassroots "Mother's against Joker" group formed lobbying for the psycho's to get executed. The whole "Never kill off a villain" is always what brings me out of enjoying the longer running comics. Much prefer the One-offs like "Red Son" or such where they can have self contained stories where things change.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?

MeatwadIsGod posted:

True. The "no kill" policy is more at the forefront of these games when you have characters like Joker killing dozens and dozens of people. Batman in the earliest issues (like '39-'42) did actually kill in a few instances, but honestly it's just one of those traits that makes him more heroic and I'm fine with that. Batman: The Animated Series actually addressed it nicely by having Bruce Wayne as a board member at Arkham Asylum so he can improve security and make his job as Batman a little easier. It's a comic book so certain conceits apply. Still though, I like getting into the Batman psyche as much as comics, movies, and games allow.

EDIT: To get back to the thread topic, I liked that the Bruce Wayne skin didn't have that same grim expression as the Batman skins. He actually looks a little saddened and has some bruising on his face, which I liked.

I thought that the game should have went deeper with the character. Gordon makes a awesome statement midway through the game about how even though Batman doesn't kill, he still turns in people with broken bones, etc.

But in the end it is just a video game because the beating he gives the Joker at the end would easily kill most people.

MeatwadIsGod
Sep 30, 2004

Foretold by Gyromancy
Honestly, continuity in comics something I tend to ignore. I don't really think about Year One, Knightfall, No Man's Land, etc. all being in one big-rear end arc. I just treat them as stand-alone stories about a single character. I enjoy Batman for the characters and the stories, not doing mental gymnastics to fit a bunch of disparate elements together.

blackguy32 posted:

I thought that the game should have went deeper with the character. Gordon makes a awesome statement midway through the game about how even though Batman doesn't kill, he still turns in people with broken bones, etc.

But in the end it is just a video game because the beating he gives the Joker at the end would easily kill most people.


This was most jarring to me in Arkham Asylum when Batman is saving guards from Joker gas. He comes to a Joker goon hanging off a ledge and saves him, and then he proceeds to basically break the dude's neck. I'm cool with that too. These are video games and they're intentionally brutal depictions of the characters.

MeatwadIsGod fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 5, 2013

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

HenessyHero posted:

I know the 'if I start I won't stop' thing has actually appeared in comics but I always found the very first explanation given way back when Bats was first written with the one rule to be more than satisfying.

Funnily enough I just started reading Batman from the very beginning starting with Detective Comics and he straight up murders dudes. He broke a dude's neck, flung a dude off a building, and shot dudes up with guns on his batplane. I'm really curious now to get to the point where they decided that Batman wouldn't kill anyone and how they go about it.

Phylodox
Mar 30, 2006



College Slice

DrNutt posted:

Funnily enough I just started reading Batman from the very beginning starting with Detective Comics and he straight up murders dudes. He broke a dude's neck, flung a dude off a building, and shot dudes up with guns on his batplane. I'm really curious now to get to the point where they decided that Batman wouldn't kill anyone and how they go about it.

Did they ever really address it in the comics or did they just kind of sweep that whole part of his story under the rug? I thought his "no-kill" rule came about in response to the creation of the Comics Code, not out of any explicit story reason.

MeatwadIsGod
Sep 30, 2004

Foretold by Gyromancy

DrNutt posted:

Funnily enough I just started reading Batman from the very beginning starting with Detective Comics and he straight up murders dudes. He broke a dude's neck, flung a dude off a building, and shot dudes up with guns on his batplane. I'm really curious now to get to the point where they decided that Batman wouldn't kill anyone and how they go about it.

Someone made this nice little synopsis on the Batman sub-reddit:

http://imgur.com/a/7CoXf

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?
I do think it is pretty funny that Frank Castle/The Punisher doesn't really have many arch-nemesis due to the way his character is set up.

HenessyHero
Mar 4, 2008

"I thought we had something, Shepard. Something real."
:qq:

DrNutt posted:

Funnily enough I just started reading Batman from the very beginning starting with Detective Comics and he straight up murders dudes. He broke a dude's neck, flung a dude off a building, and shot dudes up with guns on his batplane. I'm really curious now to get to the point where they decided that Batman wouldn't kill anyone and how they go about it.

IIRC, the rule was first written out explicitly as recently as the early 80s (and it caught fans off guard! People wrote in about it). Bats had, however, enjoyed roughly two decades of comics being relatively kill free/limited kills due to new restrictions placed on them. I imagine it just seemed like a natural evolution at the time to that writer.

What's neat about the old comics is how much of a hardass Batman was though. A scientist acidently spills chemicals on himself, becomes a mindless monster, goes on a rampage and is reverted into his old form by Bats who then snaps his neck because: No Excuses.

HenessyHero fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Dec 5, 2013

raditts
Feb 21, 2001

The Kwanzaa Bot is here to protect me.


HenessyHero posted:

I think most people think too hard about the no-kill policy. Bats stops violent crimes in progress, full-stop. Bats is not a judge, jury or executioner. He doesn't even process crooks though he all but gift-wraps them for GCPD.

Yeah, but the thing is he gift wraps them by tying their shattered limbs in a bow.

Beeez
May 28, 2012

HenessyHero posted:

I think most people think too hard about the no-kill policy. Bats stops violent crimes in progress, full-stop. Bats is not a judge, jury or executioner. He doesn't even process crooks though he all but gift-wraps them for GCPD. Everything beyond physically halting a crime is left to the justice system, to prosecutors, judges et al. It's the responsibility of professionals to determine the fate of a criminal. The only reason why this seems insufficient is that most rogues are ad hoc insane and go to an asylum instead, mostly so they can keep dodging a death penalty, and remain recurring villains because it's a comic book.

I know the 'if I start I won't stop' thing has actually appeared in comics but I always found the very first explanation given way back when Bats was first written with the one rule to be more than satisfying.

I agree completely. I don't think there's anything wrong with Batman deciding to fight against crimes without killing anybody, his relationship with the police and Gotham as a whole would be very different if he could decide at any moment to kill someone. He also is trying to make a corrupt, crime-ridden city better, so I think he generally believes in redemption, too. Even Joker was offered redemption in the Killing Joke, because Batman totally understands the anger and hate that a lot of the villains feel, he just decided to not take it out on the world at large.


HenessyHero posted:

IIRC, the rule was first written out explicitly as recently as the early 80s (and it caught fans off guard! People wrote in about it). Bats had, however, enjoyed roughly two decades of comics being relatively kill free/limited kills due to new restrictions placed on them. I imagine it just seemed like a natural evolution at the time to that writer.

What's neat about the old comics is how much of a hardass Batman was though. A scientist acidently spills chemicals on himself, becomes a mindless monster, goes on a rampage and is reverted into his old form by Bats who then snaps his neck because: No Excuses.

I'm not sure which story you're referring to here, though. The neck snapping of one of Hugo Strange's Monster Men was treated as a tragic necessity and there wasn't any indication he could have turned back IIRC.

HenessyHero
Mar 4, 2008

"I thought we had something, Shepard. Something real."
:qq:

Beeez posted:

I'm not sure which story you're referring to here, though. The neck snapping of one of Hugo Strange's Monster Men was treated as a tragic necessity and there wasn't any indication he could have turned back IIRC.

Different story. The pertinent details were that the lone scientist had fully reverted back, had his agency restored and was actually regretful of the crimes committed outside of his control but Bats kicked him down a flight of stairs anyway. The scientist broke his neck on the last step. I'll point you in the direction of the issue if I can find it. It was pretty stone cold.

Jurgan
May 8, 2007

Just pour it directly into your gaping mouth-hole you decadent slut

blackguy32 posted:

I thought that the game should have went deeper with the character. Gordon makes a awesome statement midway through the game about how even though Batman doesn't kill, he still turns in people with broken bones, etc.

But in the end it is just a video game because the beating he gives the Joker at the end would easily kill most people.

Am I the only one who didn't want to beat up Joker in the end? I felt sorry for him, kind of, and he was completely trapped, so I just wanted to leave and let the police take him, but the game forced me to give a beatdown. I guess I take the "no kill" policy a little further, and would prefer to do the minimum amount of violence necessary to stop the villains.

Of course, the only reason not killing enemies is a debate is because they always get out eventually and kill more, and the only reason that happens is because popular villains sell comics. In real life, someone like the Joker would be locked up in a supermax prison and would never see freedom again.

The other question is, Batman doesn't kill villains, but does he have to save them? Origins and most other media clearly say yes. Nolan's movies were inconsistent, where he left Ra's to die on the train but saved the Joker from falling to his death. Batman could get in trouble or be tempted by killing villains, but when one villain kills another, does he really have to risk his life to save them?

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.

MeatwadIsGod posted:

Honestly, continuity in comics something I tend to ignore. I don't really think about Year One, Knightfall, No Man's Land, etc. all being in one big-rear end arc. I just treat them as stand-alone stories about a single character. I enjoy Batman for the characters and the stories, not doing mental gymnastics to fit a bunch of disparate elements together.

I find this is the only way I can enjoy comics anymore and you're absolutely right.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?

Jurgan posted:

Am I the only one who didn't want to beat up Joker in the end? I felt sorry for him, kind of, and he was completely trapped, so I just wanted to leave and let the police take him, but the game forced me to give a beatdown. I guess I take the "no kill" policy a little further, and would prefer to do the minimum amount of violence necessary to stop the villains.

Of course, the only reason not killing enemies is a debate is because they always get out eventually and kill more, and the only reason that happens is because popular villains sell comics. In real life, someone like the Joker would be locked up in a supermax prison and would never see freedom again.

The other question is, Batman doesn't kill villains, but does he have to save them? Origins and most other media clearly say yes. Nolan's movies were inconsistent, where he left Ra's to die on the train but saved the Joker from falling to his death. Batman could get in trouble or be tempted by killing villains, but when one villain kills another, does he really have to risk his life to save them?

Obviously not, since he barely lifted a finger when Joker killed the Electrocutioner

Captain Baal
Oct 23, 2010

I Failed At Anime 2022
I found pummeling the poo poo out of the Joker at the end to be very cathartic because I am so very loving tired of seeing him now, especially in this game when I was looking forward to Black Mask.

That and I love JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.

Synonymous
May 24, 2011

That was a nice distraction.
Bit of a lore question (because :spergin:), but if Sharp attempted to murder the Joker in his cell, the whole reason his break out was possible, why does the Joker never even allude to that event? Seems like taunting an authority figure over their own psychological instability is the Joker all over, plus it's kind of a big deal the Warden tried to shank you. Seems like the sort of thing you'd talk about.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

blackguy32 posted:

Obviously not, since he barely lifted a finger when Joker killed the Electrocutioner

That happened literally 40 floors away and in a different room. Batman became aware of what was happening when the body of the person in question came through the ceiling.

  • Locked thread