Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
But there's no reason to. You would have to explain way too much stuff and create a set of new mechanics for the Nightmare Batman that Bruce has become, when it's just way easier to do a prequel, not to mention a prequel would still be continuing the Arkham series even if it didn't tell a story set past Arkham Knight.
Given that WB Montreal will most likely be developing the next Arkham game they're obviously more likely/willing to want to do a sequel to their game (Origins) than Rocksteady's.
Storywise there's tons of plot points that we haven't seen happen yet like Harlene Quinzell becoming Harley Quinn. Bruce meeting ♥♥♥♥ Grayson and him becoming Robin. Batman's first encounter with characters like Ras, Talia, Killer Croc, etc.
After they do another Arkham game or two they'll no doubt start another Batman series set in another universe, but expect another Origins game or two before that happens.
Has anyone seen Batman beyond? That's pretty much the continuation of Batman. The end in this game with the monster like bat looked A LOT like Terry's costume from Batman Beyond. The figure growing upwards can easily be explained by the fact that this new bat suit has rocket boosters in the feet, he jump jets upward then rockets forward. It explains the cloudy mess surrounding him. I would suspect there is still some fear toxin around the city or some of the criminals are still experiencing hallucinations from it, that would explain the scary effect surroudning him. Batman is still alive and acts much like Oracle to Terry in his new bat suit.
I was thinking though that maybe Azrael had taken over as a new batman, or maybe Jason Todd had made up a batman costume to carry on as red hood bats or something, and that whichever one of them it was had modified the fear toxin for their own use, and would perhaps hit people like a mugger or something with a tiny dart with toxin in it, to terrify them, and then they would give them a beating, batman style.
This way that mugger would do more good for the new batman than just beating him alone, because he would spread word of a demon-bats, prowling the night, more dangerous than batman ever was, supernatural and everything.
Because batman was all about spreading fear through the criminal ranks, right? Make them fear something, give them something to be afraid of.
Scarecrow's fear toxin, if modified properly, would be perfect for that, and so that was what I thought maybe had happened.
The rumours would be held up by the fact that a supernatural batman would be because the "real" batman (Bruce Wayne) was now dead, and so this was his "ghost", still stalking the streets at night to deliver vengeance and justice to the evil-doers of Gotham
Nice story, but I don't know if that's what they were going for. Since I probably won't be buying any more games in this franchise (after this diabolical farce anyway), I can imagine that is what happened after the end, and not bother thinking about it too much past that point
I think that the ending wasn't something that acually happened. I think it was just a metaphorical way of showing us that Gotham is now safe. Think about it.
The robbery in progress was pretty much exactly what happened to Bruce in Crime Alley. The pearls and everything. But then, this "ghost" of Batman rises and scares the thugs. I think that it means, that the Batman has indulged enough fear into the city and the criminals in it, that they still fear him coming back, thus making Gotham actually safe.
Origins had a number of ties to both Asylum and City, and Knight had numerous references to Origins.
They'll never do that because none of those characters have the sales potential of Batman and WB knows that.
True but that doesn't mean they need to make a game set after Knight in order to do that. They could easily do two games set between Origins and Asylum.
They'll most likely do another Arkham game or two set between Origins and Asylum and then just reboot and start another Batman game franchise after that.
Agreed it all depends on what WB wants to do.
Like I said for a sequel to AK you would have to be very creative. I have some ideas on that front.
Though if we get to play as Nightmare Batman that be sweet.
Origins was non-canon. WB development studio said that when they made it. It was quite nice in the end that rocksteady did make references to it, like the stuff in evidence lockup from electrocutioner and stuff like that.
But it doesn't matter whether the next games they make are more origins-based, or based after knight. All that people are saying is that they will of course continue this franchise into the forseeable future.
The thing that bothers me is that they don't seem too interested in re-releasing the fixed version of this game yet. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see this game released again for a full year or so, when they release a cheap GOTY edition or something.
I mean, we already know they knew about these problems a year ago and did nothing. So why would they do something now? Refunds are over now, they have their money. And nobody else is going to buy this game even if they DO release it, fully working and fixed with extra DLC to say sorry. Because nobody trusts them now.
No, they can't. Making the game wouldn't be hard however gettting people actually interested in it would.
Nobody gives a ♥♥♥♥ about Azrael, and not alot of people outside of comic fans know who Nightwing is.
I don't think you understand the fact that these games need to have mass appeal on a level beyond comic books fans.
No, it's not because they treat/market each Arkham game as if it's their first Arkham game as a way to maximzie sales profits.
Nope, because that would only appeal to people have played the existing games and not anyone who hasn't played an Arkham game which is an audience that WB will always be going after.
Uhm no it wasn't.
There are numerous references, quotes, items, etc, in Knight that are specifically from Origins in the game.
Multiple characters in the game talk about the events of Origins. Batman's shock gauntlets from Origins are in the GCPD Evidence Room with specific dialogue about it saying how Batman used them during the events of Origins when he fought Black Mask. Batman, Deathstroke, and various thugs reference the Deathstroke Vs Batman fight from Origins. Firefly specifically refrences their fight on the bridge from Origins.
There's probably at least 50 or so things in the game directly tied to Origins.
No, they didn't. You are flat out lying and/or making stuff up. I don't why though since Arkham Knight is full of references to Origins that easily disprove what you're saying.
That doesn't make any sense. They wouldn't acknowledge Origins to the extent they do if it wasn't canon.
Btw it's not Rocksteady's decision what is or isn't canon in the Arkham verse. It's up to WB.
They could do catwoman. They could do anything.
I never said rocksteady said origins wasn't canon. WB said it. They said it wasn't strictly a part of the timeline. How could it be? How could batman use a grapple boost gadget for the first time in arkham city, that is a prototype, but have it right from the start of origins that was like 10 years previous? How could he have more fight moves? It makes no sense.
And that's why they said it wasn't strictly a part of the arkham timeline or anything, just a fun game they wanted to make.
Rocksteady didn't even develop it, so why would they say anything about it?
It didn't have all the proper voice actors, the same writers, developers, anything. It had a very different art style, far more exaggerated features on people, more comic book-like in appearance.
But hey, of course I am "flat out lying", because that's what I do.
Fool.
In every demo you would hear things like "the nice fun combat you have come to know and love in this series", or "of course we have brought back those great elements you loved in the previous games, but we have built upon them".
Why make a sequel if you aren't going to market a sequel?
Not only don't you know the games very well, you don't know marketing, do you?
He already won. He crippled Batgirl, beat and brainwashed (or killed depending on the version) Jason Todd and in City killed Talia. Not to even begin to mention the countless number of people he killed and families he destroyed in doing so.
He may not have won in trying to take over Batmans mind but he won in being very destructive to anyone who crossed paths with him.
Origins is not considered part of the trilogy but it is canon and part of the same universe. The Rocksteady trilogy is an overarching story, meaning it begins in one game and continues through the resat. That is why all the events of AA are what have directly affected AC and AO and the Joker is so prevalent even though people didn't want him to be. That is why there are multiple references to the events.
Origins is just a prequel but I see it more as a prologue, it sets the stage for the events that would eventually end up starting in AA/AC/AK and introduces characters to the series that are throughout the game.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/03/26/rocksteady-studios-comments-on-batman-arkham-origins.aspx
BTW:
So Rocksteady considers it Canon. And I doubt WB, who owns the rights to Batman and were the developers/publishers of Origins, would not consider it canon.
Again, it wasn't what rocksteady said, it was someone from either WB the development studio who made origins I believe. I know it was WB.
This is a LONG time ago, remember.
So maybe they developed the game to be not exactly true to the rest (especially since he uses gadgets only introduced as brand new in arkham city, because that is just nonsensical), but rocksteady decided to take it on board and use it.
I did like that RS took some things and gave a nod to them, like anarky and stuff. But origins is a sub-par game in every way to the RS trilogy, so it made sense to me that it was just a fun little arkham game aside from the "real" games.
That's not what millions of people want though. Millions of people bought it because it was Batman. Batman sells in a way that Nightwing and Catwoman never could.
When did I say otherwise?
No, they didn't.
Again, no they didn't.
You're more than likely getting confused about what they said about his age, in that they WB (Montreal) said people shouldn't try to hard to figure out exactly how old Bruce is in Origins and Asylum and what the exact year count is between the two because just like in the comics it won't make sense.
Because it's a video game, one that was the third in a series but also a prequel which meant they were recycling an engine that already had all this tech and features built into that WB Montreal was going to take advantage of despite it being a prequel.
It's a probelm that most video game series have when they do prequels, especially on the same engine. When it comes to these type of games, or most games in general, it's always gameplay first, and story second. Even if the gameplay contradicts the story they still do it because that's what they feel is more important. It also has to do with the fact that the gameplay stuff is more expensive and difficult to change compared to a story.
Again, no they didn't. Note the fact that you can't find any proof of this fact.
What are you talking about?
Roger Craig Smith and Troy Baker replaced Kevin Conroy and Mark Hammill because WB wanted versions of the characters that sounded younger, as if they were in their 20's. Both Conroy and Hammil have mentioned that they themselves understood why they weren't used for the game and both have praised Smith and Baker for their performances of Batman and Joker.
Paul Dini was the lead writer on Asylum and City. On the podcast Fatman On Batman Paul Dini explains that he wasn't asked back for Origins (or Knight) because WB wanted to start doing everything like the writting internal and since Dini is an ouside contracter on the project and not an employee of WB he was not asked back to write Origins or Knight.
Doesn't mean Origins isn't canon.
Also doesn't matter.
343 Studios took over the Halo series from Bungie, but that doesn't mean that everything 343 Studios has done on Halo has been non canon.
A different art direction doesn't make it non canon. Note that Arkham City comics that Paul Dini wrote don't look anything like the art style in the games, but they're still part of the Arkhamverse canon.
[qoute]But hey, of course I am "flat out lying", because that's what I do.[/quote]
Yeah, and that's been well established here.
Except for the fact in every interview when asked if someone needed to play the prior game(s) to enjoy the new game they always said no, as is common with most video game sequels now days even if they have extensive back stories, ie Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, they still get pushed on people as a starting point in order to maximize potential profits.
No, you didn't. You'd easily be able to provide a link to it if that were the case, but it's impossible for you to do so because no such quote was ever stated.
Also not true.
Origins was announced in April 2013 and came out October 2013. It didn't have a long lead time on it's announcement up to it's release like the Rocksteady games did.
So once again, you're lying because you weren't reading anything about Origins "long" before it came out, because it's existence was known about for very long before came out, especially when information only about it only began leaking out around 2 weeks before it got officially announced.
Again, no it wasn't.
April 2013 which is the earliest you would've read about the game isn't a "LONG" time ago.
Except they did.
That's a video game being a video game.
Hey guess what, I got news for you genius. In Origins 2 Batman is going to have a Batmobile nearly identical to the way the one in Knight moves and operates simply because that tech is now part of the engine and easy to exploit, same with all his new combat moves, gadgets, etc.
Would it have been better had they made it so that Origins gameplay better matched the storyline? Yes, however it would've taken longer and been more expensive to do that rather than just recycle basically everything from City, which is exactly what they did and why they did it, and why they will do the exact same thing again with Origin 2 using Arkham Knight's engine. The engine is/was too expensive, too robust, etc, for them not bring those features forward even if it breaks the lore.
It's not Rocksteady decision. Rocksteady didn't write any of the Arkham games. The first two games were written by Paul Dini and Origins & Knight were written by various WB/DC writters.
Again, RS didn't write Arkham Knight. WB/DC did. Arkham Knight has some of the same writters on it that Origins did, so if the writters put stuff in the script that was in Origins or whatever, Rocksteady HAS to put it in the game. They have no choice in the matter.
The only way/reason something from the WB/DC script wouldn't make it into the game is if it wasn't actually doable from a tech, time, or money standpoint.
[/quote]
That doesn't mean it's non canon. You just don't want it to be canon because of your own personal opinions.
Oh and btw Arkham Origins Blackgate is canon too. Doesn't matter if you didn't play, don't like it, or what to make up another BS lie about how it's not canon, because it like Origins is canon and part of the Arkahmverse canon.