Once upon a time, I
hoped that when Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy came to an end, we could all shut
the hell up about Batman for a while.
Not forever. Just long enough to
give the guy a rest. Long enough for the
public conscious to focus on someone else.
Something else, either canonically or stylistically. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the
case, seeing as how the question of “How do we make a good Superman movie?” has
been answered with “Add Batman to it.” Riveting.
I’ve wondered before if
the presence of the Dark Knight Trilogy has had a negative impact on games (or
media in general), but that’s all guesswork, and I don’t want to dive into that
discussion anytime soon. That said, the
release of Batman: Arkham Origins has
gotten me thinking about the character and his mythos in general, and how he’s
portrayed in whatever he may appear in.
By now I’d hope you know what I prefer, but I want to make it clear that
I don’t hate Batman. I just hate it when
he -- or any character -- isn’t used well.
And indeed, I was under the impression that this so-called prequel game
would give me a fresh perspective on the caped crusader, in a way that only a
prequel can.
Then again, that only
raises its own set of problems.
I admit that I haven’t
played that much of Origins, so if
you’re looking for an in-depth judgment on that game, you should probably look
somewhere else. I have a few impressions
of it, though, based on my early forays and watching my brother punch his way
through several hours of content. I
don’t want to say the game is good/bad until I’ve had more time with it,
but there are things that I like about
it, and things that I dislike about it.
So for now I’ll just say this: I ran into a glitch that glued Batman to
a wall in the first thirty minutes of the game, forcing a restart. Take that as you will…besides the implication
that walls are Batman’s one weakness.
What I find supremely
interesting is that for a “prequel” -- for a game with “origins” in its title
-- at its outset it doesn’t seem too eager to set up the origin of Batman. It’s possible, and probably likely that the
stuff I’m after is later in the game.
I’m actually interested in seeing the transformation of a mere man
(albeit one empowered by ridiculous wealth, resources, and opportunities) into
a symbol of dark justice. And the reason
I’m interested is because of the promos that I’ve seen almost non-stop on
YouTube.
It’s easy for me to
poke fun at that promo -- “Oh no! He’s
becoming a generic space marine!” -- but it did suggest promise. Potential.
One of the problems I’ve had with games in the past and present (and to
some extent in Nolan’s trilogy) is that the balance of power is too-far
skewed. It seems like too many games are
trying too hard to make me feel like a badass, or a predator, or an
ultra-skilled ninja, and it’s long since stopped being rewarding in the way
devs intended.
Little wonder, then,
that I take issue with Batman and Batman games; the Arkham series has always felt more like games that are more fun to
watch than they are to play, because flailing at goons trying to pin me in a
circle and effortlessly countering their attacks has never felt compelling for
me. (Then again, I could say the same
about the Assassin’s Creed games.) The stealth is more intriguing, sure, but
even that stacks the deck in a way that just leaves me dissatisfied. So my hope was that with Origins, I’d get that overwhelming power stripped away so I could
learn about and understand Batman -- because as it stands, being Batman is as much fun as dusting the Batcave.
I wouldn’t have minded
seeing a young Bruce Wayne going on a journey to become the Bat. They didn’t even have to make that the crux
of the whole game; Uncharted 3 had
young Drake and his quest for general tomfoolery, after all. I just expected a step back that would change
the franchise in an unexpected, but incredibly-welcome way. Shame on me for setting my expectations so
high; Batman starts off with all his technology, all his skills, and in the
span of a single night gains the better part of his rogues gallery.
In fact, the game feels
more like an installment of Mega Man than
a full-on prequel; Batman has to take on eight assassins (playing their roles
as Robot Masters) in an effort to thwart the plans of Black Mask (Dr. Wily…or
would Joker be Dr. Wily, since he’s probably the game’s real bad guy?). It’s too early to say if I’m going to get
anything out of the game that I want -- character development doesn’t tend to
happen in the first couple of hours -- but for what it’s worth I don’t feel
like I’m going to get a cure for what ails me for a while. Even if there’s a slight chance I’ll get my
hands on Electrocutioner’s gloves after beating him.
I’m willing to give the
game another shake, though, but I’m more than a little concerned. The less-than-flattering reviews haven’t made
me too eager to see what lies around the Bat-Bend, and that rough start with a
less-than-charismatic hero isn’t making the trip any more enticing. What REALLY worries me, though, is that even
my brother -- whose love of Batman is only rivaled by his love of Spider-Man --
told me one day that Origins isn’t as
good as he hoped. Bear in mind that that
statement came from a guy that doesn’t obsessively
over-think and nitpick whatever comes his way, and is willing to overlook the
flaws of nearly every game set before him.
(Though The Bureau was where
he drew the line.)
Part of that likely
comes from his personal biases. In the
same sense that I’ve got a strong…well, let’s call it distaste for stupidly-gritty fare, he’s said several times before
that prequels are awful. Even a Batman
prequel wasn’t enough to sway him, even if it didn’t stop him from buying. His reasoning is something that I agree with
in a lot of ways. Rather than advancing
the canon in a meaningful or appreciable way, they’re content with stepping
back, undoing the developments (story-wise or character-wise) that made the
earlier installment worthwhile in the first place. It’s a story that would rather wade around in
the shallow end -- the status quo -- under the pretense that it’s a safe bet,
but paradoxically run the risk of either A) adding nothing but a stopgap for
something that actually matters, or B) hurting the canon it’s trying to stand
in front of. Hell, just saying the word
prequel (or reboot, in some cases) brings with it some serious negative connotations.
It’s not a problem
limited to movies, of course. 2013 saw
the release of both God of War: Ascension
and Gears of War: Judgment, both
prequels to blockbuster franchise, and both failing (by and large) to meet
either fan expectations or sales
prospects. It’s easy to blame the
problems of both games on the fact that they’re prequels that apparently don’t
add anything to their respective canons, and in some ways I think that’s a real
issue…though given my time with Ascension,
that’s not the only problem. I was under
the impression that stories are supposed to move forward, not backward; I want
to see what Sera is like now that Delta Squad has saved the world, or the ramifications
of Kratos’ actions in his quest for revenge.
I don’t want games that just dribble a little spit from the corner of
their mouths, and rained upon us filthy gamers while we wait for Gears 4 and GoW 4 to ACTUALLY continue the story.
It’s enough to make me
wonder if the prequel model as we know it is broken. From a story perspective it’s got the
potential to cause some real problems -- but for games, it might be even
worse. It creates problems for the scale
and threat of the enemies in the game, as well as the characters mucking about
within. How do you create a distinct and
perceivable enemy in a game without taking away from the challenge established
by previous games, BUT without making them more dangerous than anything ever
faced in the later parts of the canon?
How do you justify their existence, and how do you explain away their
presence once the main story starts? How
do you make a player character -- or any character, really -- distinct from
his/her future incarnation? How do you
give a character new tools and powers in the prequel without making the player
wonder why said tools never get used again?
There are a lot of ways to create a nasty disconnect, and I can’t shake
the feeling that before my time with Origins
is done -- assuming I even get that far -- I’m going to be left with
questions the devs probably didn’t want me to ask.
There was an episode of Extra Credits
a while back that talked about the potential of prequels and reboots; the idea
was that when the level of spectacle and one-upping the last installment got
too high, the devs could hit the reset button (reboot) or step back into the
past (prequel) to give themselves a new foundation to work with. If that’s the case, it’s entirely possible
that Origins, Ascension, and Judgment aren’t going to be the last
we’ve seen of prequels. All things
considered, those three games aren’t even the first we’ve seen of prequels; Devil
May Cry 3, Snake Eater, Resident Evil
Zero, Birth by Sleep, and the ever-beloved Metroid: Other M are just a few examples we’ve seen over the
years, each of varying quality. So let it be known that prequels
can be good. They can contribute
something meaningful as well as fun.
They can be not terrible.
So will Arkham Origins prove to be not terrible? I’m hoping so, and the fact that I’ve still
got some optimism for it has to stand for something. I do like the detective aspect of the game,
and I hope it gets utilized well. The
city may have been reused, but I do like its aesthetic, and exploring it
reminds me of the grand old days of Spider-Man
2. And of course, I want to see
what kind of juice the story’s got in store.
I don’t want to believe that the game is just a triple-A cash grab that
was bred for sale simply because Batman is in it. And the best way to gain proof of that for
myself -- to gain a new perspective on this character -- is to have a look for
myself.
But let’s set aside
that game for now. I want to use the
rest of this post to open the floor for discussion -- see where some of you
weigh in on the subject of prequels.
I’ve played my fair share of games, but not nearly enough to be an
all-knowing authority. Nor do I have the
variance in opinion and taste that even a party of four might hold. And that’s exactly why I’m calling upon you
for a response: what do you think of prequels?
Can they be used effectively for games?
Or by nature are they destined to be filler at best? What do you want to see out of them? What don’t
you want to see? Who would win in a
fight, Batman or my dog if he doesn’t get his daily helping of cheeseburger
pellet dog food when he demands it?
Let me hear your
thoughts in the comments. Till next
time, then, I’ll see you soon. Same blog
time, same blog…uh…blog.
Whew. Nailed
it. Now then, let’s see how Arkham Origins turns out.
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…this
isn’t gonna work for me.
I am not digging Origins. It's so soul less and unoriginal. I just want the game to end.
ReplyDeleteI hate to admit it, but I was thinking the exact same thing as soon as I hit the thirty-minute mark. I don't know enough about the Arkham games' "formula" to comment, but Origins just feels so wrong to me. Just all these intangibles that keep me from getting what I want out of the game.
ReplyDeleteSuch a shame. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised; I get the feeling they added Bane because of The Dark Knight Rises, not because he'd fit in the game's story. It's possible he does, but I can't bring myself to find out how.