Why is Arkham always in the Effing Title?

[MaximumBlade]

The first game was set in Arkham Asylum, a pyschiatric hospital located on the outskirts of Gotham City, so that's okay. But then we had Arkham City, an 'Escape From New York' style prison. But why is it called Arkham City? It's set in Gotham City ffs. And can you really have a city within a city? (Edit: Actually, you can. City of London and City of Westminister are both within London. My mistake ;-)).

Next, Arkham Origins which was not about the creation of Arkham Asylum, so again an illogical title. And now we have Arkham Knight, set one year after the events of Arkham City.

I realise this is all about the current franchise, but they are automatically assuming that fans of this franchise are stupid. That unless they put Arkham in the title, we won't realise that it's part of the same franchise. I think the title 'Batman' is enough to tip us off, don't you? Or if they are worried that the connection won't be made, they can always stick the blurb 'from the makers of Arkham Asylum' in the ads and on the cover.

This was just something that bothered me since Arkham City came out and I simply could not believe they did it two more times. I mean, enough with the 'Arkham' already. Anway, rant over lol. Let me know what you guys think about Arkham always being in the title.

[¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!]

Ok, look, the games are all titled Arkham because they're all part of the same franchise of games. They share a storyline that's common to them. Is it similar to the comics? Sure. That doesn't mean it's not its own franchise.

The "Arkham" part of the title is so that people see them and think "oh, they're part of the same story". There's plenty of Batman games. There's only 4 Arkham games.

[MaximumBlade]

Originally posted by ¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!:

Ok, look, the games are all titled Arkham because they're all part of the same franchise of games. They share a storyline that's common to them. Is it similar to the comics? Sure. That doesn't mean it's not its own franchise.

The "Arkham" part of the title is so that people see them and think "oh, they're part of the same story". There's plenty of Batman games. There's only 4 Arkham games.

Yes, Thank You for summarising what we have already discussed in earlier posts. It's just a shame that a company that came up with such a good game franchise couldn't be a little more sophisticated with the titles or a better story arc for that matter.

[MrJohnny164]

-Arkham Asylum: I think its pretty obvious...
-Arkham City: its called like that because its an "extension" of Arkham Asylum, they also used a part of gotham city to create it, so it actually looks like a city, so I guess thats why its called "City"
-Arkham Origins: it actually makes sense if you think about it "Arkham (ASYLUM's) Origins" (or at least the origins to the events in Arkham Asylum or to any Arkham related events). All the events in Arkham Origins lead to mayor Sharp re-opening the Arkham Asylum (you can hear him talking about it in a radio interview at the end credits)
-Arkham Knight: because thats the bad guy's name...

[ashwaah]

it's rocksteady's arkham trilogy; asylum, city & knight

origins was made by a different developer and wasn't part of rocksteady's plan for the arkhamverse trilogy, so it doesn't really even count. just warner wanting a quick money fix really by having another studio make an 'origins' title persay and knowing it would sell if it had arkham in the title

[v00d00m4n]

oh boy, guys, its just marketing - they use same work to distinguish this series from another batman games, movies, tv series and comics, to improve its recognition and sales factor, thats it.

However i must not that they actuallu tries to justify title in context of story, orgin kinda told how all the guye from Arkham began to mess with batman and how he put them there instead of normal prison, 1st game kinda was about named asylum, 2nd moved it to part of old city, and 3rd i suppose is the mix of Dark Knight and Arkham titiles, probably measn something like Knight that will put every psycho in arkham asylum.

[¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!]

No, the last one means to the villain, which calls himself as the Arkham Knight. Doesn't have anything to do with the Dark Knight.

[Nobodies]

Originally posted by Voodooman:

oh boy, guys, its just marketing - they use same work to distinguish this series from another batman games, movies, tv series and comics, to improve its recognition and sales factor, thats it.

However i must not that they actuallu tries to justify title in context of story, orgin kinda told how all the guye from Arkham began to mess with batman and how he put them there instead of normal prison, 1st game kinda was about named asylum, 2nd moved it to part of old city, and 3rd i suppose is the mix of Dark Knight and Arkham titiles, probably measn something like Knight that will put every psycho in arkham asylum.

I guess you thought that Arkham Knight is the Dark Knight? IIRC they're already revealed in the trailer that the Arkham Knight is one of the villain in this game.

[Warrior of Right]

it's the arkham series that why, what didn't make sense is why they put arkham into origins......
oh right to decieve poeple and help sell that garbage.

[Joe Kerr]

Originally posted by ¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!:

Originally posted by Killer:

Arkham City was designed to replace/expand upon Arkahm Asylum

Arkham City was a planned sequel for Arkham Asylum. Not replacing it or any of the sort. It was already being planned during Asylum's development, which is why Rocksteady added a secret room in Sharp's room with blueprints of the Arkham City layout.

Right...I didn't mean that the game was replacing the other game....rather that one fictional location was replacing/expanding on the other fintional location

[¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!]

Originally posted by Joe Kerr:

Right...I didn't mean that the game was replacing the other game....rather that one fictional location was replacing/expanding on the other fintional location

Yeah, I realise that now. Guess I wasn't thinking correctly that day.

[Dimasick]

If somebody doesn't understand why it's ARKHAM, then play Asylum and collect all Amadeus Arkham's dairy notes...

[Tumas Altaawus]

City of Westminster and the City of London are both within Greater London, which is its own county.

[MaximumBlade]

Originally posted by Chargeback Thomas:

City of Westminster and the City of London are both within Greater London, which is its own county.

Thanks for pointing that out. Although technically, it's a ceremonial county.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England
So it appears my original assumption was correct, you cannot have a city within a city.

[¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!]

The "City" in Arkham City is just a name to imply it's like a city for criminals, not that it's an actual city with its own government. It's a prison with a fancy name, that's all.

[MaximumBlade]

Originally posted by ¤ βℓооđч ¤ Nico-Kun!:

The "City" in Arkham City is just a name to imply it's like a city for criminals, not that it's an actual city with its own government. It's a prison with a fancy name, that's all.

Is that what the developers said? If so, a link to the relevant article would be nice. And if they didn't, then it's just speculation on your part, isn't it?
Fancy name or otherwise, calling it a City makes no sense.