New Batman Arkham game to be revealed soon.Are you ready for another Batman game

knowing it is NOT being developed by Rocksteady? Rumors suggest WB Montreal is developing the game and it's supposed to be released later this year. 

I am VERY conflicted about this. Pawning a major franchise off to a second tier dev is never a good idea. I also have a feeling this game wouldn't be a true sequel, and more of retread of old ideas much like the Assassin's Creed spinoffs. That said, I love the Batman Arkham games and wouldn't mind playing another one later this year on next gen consoles. This also means a longer dev cycle for Rocksteady's next Batman game which will give them a chance to develop a true next gen game and a true sequel with lots of new ideas. 

What do you guys think?

Here is a link to the original story:

http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/13/new-batman-arkham-game-reveal-in-2-3-months-rumour/

Don't kow how I feel about this. I'll wait for more details.

Yep! I love the past 2 and I'm sure Rocksteady wouldn't let any subpar games come out under the banner. 

Yep! I love the past 2 and I'm sure Rocksteady wouldn't let any subpar games come out under the banner. 

immortality20

Rocksteady isn't developing it. They're working on a new comic book IP, allegedly based in the "silver age" of comics. The new Batman Arkham game will be developed by one of WB's in-house studios.

I'm ready for another Batman game. But I see no logic in keeping the Arkham title. They won't rehash the Arkham City storyline, and setting it just in Arkham Asylum would be a major step back. I say ditch the Arkham name and just name it Batman....something. Or if they're feeling particularly unoriginal, Batman Gotham City.

So what is Rocksteady working on? Is it actually another Batman game?

what ever happened about the rumor of Rocksteady developing a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game?

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

Don't kow how I feel about this. I'll wait for more details.

turtlethetaffer

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Don't kow how I feel about this. I'll wait for more details.

Lulekani

no some multiplayer would be terrible

knowing it is NOT being developed by Rocksteady? Rumors suggest WB Montreal is developing the game and it's supposed to be released later this year. 

I am VERY conflicted about this. Pawning a major franchise off to a second tier dev is never a good idea. I also have a feeling this game wouldn't be a true sequel, and more of retread of old ideas much like the Assassin's Creed spinoffs. That said, I love the Batman Arkham games and wouldn't mind playing another one later this year on next gen consoles. This also means a longer dev cycle for Rocksteady's next Batman game which will give them a chance to develop a true next gen game and a true sequel with lots of new ideas. 

What do you guys think?

Here is a link to the original story:

http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/13/new-batman-arkham-game-reveal-in-2-3-months-rumour/

S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="Lulekani"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Don't kow how I feel about this. I'll wait for more details.

Flubbbs

no some multiplayer would be terrible

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Don't kow how I feel about this. I'll wait for more details.

Lulekani

Don't know how I'd feel about that.

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

UpInFlames

I would be disappointed if they weren't tackling Superman game next. Next gen should give them enough power to make a great looking open world superman game. 

Not really convinced. Love Bats but not totally sold if Rocksteady is'nt doing it. 

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

S0lidSnake

I would be disappointed if they weren't tackling Superman game next. Next gen should give them enough power to make a great looking open world superman game. 

No, anything but Superman, please!

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

[QUOTE="Lulekani"] Yes, better to wait. Some multiplayer would be nice.famicommander

no some multiplayer would be terrible

I'll wait until I see more gameplay footage.

Also, why do people feel the need to have multiplayer? Just because it needs to be like any other game that has multiplayer tacked on for the hell of it? Please!

I'm a bit torn, I think a different superhero would work better at this point.Allicrombie

I'll withhold judgment until I see some gameplay. A lot of people are quick to dismiss sequels without the original developer but I think it works just fine sometimes. Bioshock 2 and Sly 4 are two games I enjoy, for example.

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

UpInFlames

Yeah if by milking you mean improving every single aspect 10 fold then indeed.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

Goyoshi12

Yeah if by milking you mean improving every single aspect 10 fold then indeed.

A sequel every few years is clearly milking :P

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

IndianaPwns39

Yeah if by milking you mean improving every single aspect 10 fold then indeed.

A sequel every few years is clearly milking :P

Clearly.

I have been a Batman nerd since I was young. I thought the other games were pretty fun for the action and the strategy, but the stories were a bit goofy and the games were a bit too linear (I thought the side quests were boring so I could never be bothered to do them) for my tastes. If the sequel had more of an open world like Spiderman 2 and 3 then I'll be far more likely to get them at launch. As it stands now it is looking like one of those games that I wait until it is cheaper before I make the purchase. In my opinion, the others were fun, but they certainly are not worth $60.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

I really enjoyed Arkham Asylum despite not being much of a comic book fan. I'm not sure if I'll bother with Arkham City, just seems like they are milking it. Now a third Arkham game, that's just going overboard with it. That said, I'm glad that Rocksteady isn't chained to it (I don't understand why people don't want talented developers to branch out), although I am a bit disappointed that they're working on another comic book license. But I'm curious to see what it is.

S0lidSnake

I would be disappointed if they weren't tackling Superman game next. Next gen should give them enough power to make a great looking open world superman game. 

As much as I liked Arkham Asylum and City, I will not play this game unless it does something ambitious, which it most likely wont

I liked Arkham Asylum but wasnt blown away by it which is why I waited a full year to buy Arkham City. I like Batman, so as long as the game is good I'll play it but I wont be getting it day one or even Year One.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one can talk to a horse of course that is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed.

Not interested, however I am eagerly anticipating Rocksteady's silver age Batman game coming next year, love silver age Batman.

Batman Arkham Asylum was fantastic and Batman Arkham City is the only game I could omfortably give a 10 last generation, but this new game is supposedly not by Rocksteady... Like others have said: so conflicting.

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

[QUOTE="Lulekani"] Yes, better to wait. Some multiplayer would be nice.famicommander

no some multiplayer would be terrible

No, co-op isn't a good thing in games like this, batman is an example of a perfect single player game, something that's lacking in gaming today, single player games. Stop trying to shoe-horn multiplayer into every damn franchise, it's ruining gaming. 

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

 

no some multiplayer would be terrible

23Jarek23

No, co-op isn't a good thing in games like this, batman is an example of a perfect single player game, something that's lacking in gaming today, single player games. Stop trying to shoe-horn multiplayer into every damn franchise, it's ruining gaming. 

[QUOTE="famicommander"][QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

no some multiplayer would be terrible

23Jarek23

No, co-op isn't a good thing in games like this, batman is an example of a perfect single player game, something that's lacking in gaming today, single player games. Stop trying to shoe-horn multiplayer into every damn franchise, it's ruining gaming.

Agreed. We're running very low on AAA single player only games and the Batman games are examples of how to do an extremely content rich single player experience without having to shove multiplayer in it. Seriouslt, you can get well over 40 hours of gameplay out of Arkham City at the very least.

I just watched all three of the Batman trilogy movies in a row. I wanted to buy Arkham City instantly. Now this has me more hyped!

[QUOTE="23Jarek23"]

[QUOTE="famicommander"] Disagree. Batman's universe is full of potentially great co-op partners and not enough games have local co-op play. Nightwing, Red Robin, Batgirl, Batwoman, Catwoman, Red Hood, Robin, etc. Imagine an open Gotham City where one player could freely explore the city in the Batmobile, while another stalks the rooftops as Nightwing. I'd buy a game like that.Pikminmaniac

No, co-op isn't a good thing in games like this, batman is an example of a perfect single player game, something that's lacking in gaming today, single player games. Stop trying to shoe-horn multiplayer into every damn franchise, it's ruining gaming.

Agreed. We're running very low on AAA single player only games and the Batman games are examples of how to do an extremely content rich single player experience without having to shove multiplayer in it. Seriouslt, you can get well over 40 hours of gameplay out of Arkham City at the very least.

This talk of multiplayer interfering with single player games reminds me of another reason to love Rocksteady. They didn't add multiplayer into Arkham City because they wanted to focus all their attention on the single player and they didn't care if the box didn't have the added "multiplayer" advertisement on it*.

I can't help but wonder what already awesome single player games would be if there wasn't unnecessary attention spent with the multiplayer. I loved Bioshock 2, for instance, but the multiplayer was forgettable. The same goes for Tomb Raider, which I'm enjoying immensely. I'm not saying these MP modes interfered with my enjoyment of the games (although in my own stupid little way I'm angry I won't be able to get the Platinum trophy for Tomb Raider) but it's interesting to think if the single player portion would have been larger and better if the MP effort was dropped.

* Link to the Rocksteady guy saying that, in case anyone wanted another reason to love those guys: http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/batman-arkham-asylum-2/1149876p1.html

I've made this argument before but it bears repeating:

Objectively, Arkham City is the better game. I understand some people prefer the more linear aspect of the first game but when you examine both titles under the scrutiny of objectivism, AC is the superior game by a significant margin.

AC has more content, enjoys an open world construct that better emulates and distills the character as he appears in the comics, contains a deeper and more refined combat engine, delivers far more varied environments and bosses, has an improved and more versatile detective mode, and features two playable protagonists and two additional characters in the combat and stealth challenges. It literally improves on everything that was already exceptional in the first game.

Regardless, both Arkham games are two of the very best of this generation and I would actually rank AC as one of the best games ever made. The combat alone was a stroke of brilliance and both games ooze quality and polish, along with phenomenally good production values.

As to the third game, I hope it's good. If they follow Rocksteady's lead it could be a nice way to tie up the franchise before giving us a new Batman next gen.

Gonna wait tell I see some info on the game first.