What a knight we've had. (See what I did there? Knight?) In the vein of all events like these, DC fandome has come and bombarded us all with an absolutely nauseating amount of filler with a slant few actual trailers and announcements thrown in there. And As someone who as never been the most out-and-out DC fan I must say, everything I saw actually did seem at least somewhat cool. That teaser for The Batman looked great, Synder's Justice League cut looks intriguing enough to give a shot (Fool me twice...) and the two games they announced seemed pretty solid and interesting. That's right, as you'll probably have known by now, DC announced two new games in the near-to-far future and I intend to talk about both of them in great detail in the months to come. For now, however, I want to address the rollercoaster of emotions I had when hearing about 'Gotham Knights'.
So here was a game which was apparently leaked the night of this event, so most everyone knew it was coming, but I was a rube who was still waiting for 'Suicide Squad' and thus I was pleasantly surprised to see that Warner Bros. Interactive were hard at work on a whole other game inbetween. Whatsmore, this game is set in Gotham and was dealing with the Bat family! And the trailer even started with the chilling announcement that Bruce Wayne, and through him Batman, is dead. "Oh my," I immediately thought, "Are they picking up the Arkham-verse? Is this a direct continuation on from 'Arkham Knight'?" To which the answer is a pretty decisive, 'No'. The trailer then went on to show us that Commissioner Jim Gordon was also dead (Something which never even happened in 'The Dark Knight Returns') and that his daughter, Barbara, was suspiciously non-crippled. Evidence if ever you needed it that this was not an Arkham-verse game. Despite the fact that Warner Bros. literally own Rocksteady so what would the actual harm be in borrowing their storyline? And why have your game set-up be so oddly similar to the last Batman game's leaving off point? And why not hire Kevin Conroy to do Batman? (So it's safe to say that 'immediate disappointment' was the first emotion I associated with this product.)
As it happens what this game is actually about is another version of Gotham city wherein Batman is presumed dead under mysterious means and thus he's called upon his extended Bat-family to take up the mantle in his stead. That means Batgirl, Robin, Nightwing and- Red Hood? Have joined the fight. Hang on, Batman called up Red Hood before calling on Kate Kane? Doesn't Batwoman operate out of Gotham too? She wouldn't even have to relocate! (This some straight bull.) And, once again, this is proof that Arkham's storyline is not being considered, because despite the odd character shift that the Arkham Knight went through in the last few minutes of the story, I doubt Batman would give him the keys to protecting the city. In fact, even without the whole 'Arkham Knight' story this still rings odd to me; Red Hood kills people, no? Isn't that adverse to Batman's entire ethos? But hey, maybe he'll need that sort of hardline willingness to break the rules given the fact that these Gotham Knights are set to go up against The Court of Owls.
That's right, afterall this time of speculation we're finally getting a Batman game featuring The Court of Owls, and it's not being made by Rocksteady. I mean, not to knock on Warner Bros. Interactive, but that's a big shame. Rocksteady proved for years that they had that special eye for capturing the heart of the Batman's rogue's gallery, and I feel like no matter how good The Owls are bought to life, Rocksteady would have done it better. But I should probably spill in case you're unaware. The Court of Owls was a rare example of a newer comicbook hero storyline that introduced a brand new enemy and yet still proved to be neither overly derivative nor lazy. It introduced a new criminal organisation into Gotham that was formed off of some of Gotham's oldest and most influential families, all dead-set on playing the 'shadowy cabal that guides the hand of politics'. And they also happen to dress like owls, a natural predator of bats. (Apparently these guys have secretly been around for generations, so that was just a coincidence.)
So there we have it, a new Batman to get all riled up for. Except; Warner Bros. were nice enough to give us a little bit of a Gameplay demo so we could see exactly what this game has in store for us (Isn't that nice) and what we saw was instinctively troubling to some. Before I address this I must say, this perception is in no way WB's fault, they were just a victim of bad timing and the industries' bad habits. The second any of us saw that this game would feature 4 heroic main characters and multiplayer, the Avengers game popped to mind alongside those accursed words 'Live service'. Now I don't have the strength to get into why a live service Superhero game sounds pretty crappy, but judging by the dubious reactions around the Internet I don't even need to. Matters were only worsened bit way through the trailer when we saw enemies with level numbers above their heads, and splash text with damage indicators. In short; Warner Bros. did everything in their power to make this game appear to be a Live Service, thus putting the fear of god into all us Batman fans who just wanted a good game, not another second job. And the funny thing is; I don't even think this game is actually a live service at all. Actually, I think it sounds like a pretty cool little game.
Now I'm not going so far as to call it a worthy successor to the Arkham games, but even without that title this footage did work to scratch my Batman itch somewhat. Set in an openworld of Gotham, likely adapted from Rocksteady's work on Arkham Knight, 'Gotham Knights' feels like 'Middle Earth: Shadow of War' bought to the world of Batman. Which is strange, as 'Shadow of War' actually adapted it's gameplay from the Arkham games. (Funny how cylindrical things can be.) So whilst the combat lacks the impact of previous Arkham titles, there's still that level of fluidity and agility which made Arkham such a great power trip. Throw that base ontop of the fact that all the hero's of the game seem to have their own movesets and gadgets, and there's a solid foundation right here. Speaking of those other heroes, they can join the player through the co-op system which ,strangely, is said to consist of only one to two people, making for some great dual takedown opportunities.
So this isn't some hub-based mess like Avenger's is shaping up to be, that's good, and it appears to just have some RPG mechanics and systems thrown in rather than turning out to be another soulless Live Service, that's great! But that doesn't automatically mean the game is any good, and indeed some of what we saw did sort of hit my 'mediocrity' bone a little bit. First off, the mission we saw in the trailer depicted Batgirl racing on her bike in order to stop >sigh< a portal shooting up into the sky. Really guys? Isn't a meme by now for how lazy a plotpoint this is for Superhero stories? Fan4stic, Suicide Squad, Avengers, Man of Steel, Ghostbusers, Star Trek and I think Justice League, (I forget) it doesn't really bode well for your narrative ingenuity. Then there is Batgirl, who was the focus this gameplay, (and who's likely my future main.) she just felt off. Not to say that every version of a character should be a carbon copy, but there are a few running personality traits characters keep in order to make them recognisable. Batgirl is one of those that has changed considerable over the years, not as much as Supergirl has (in the comics, not that abominable CW show which I still watch. Send help.) but enough to be a great character capable of holding their own story. Thus it's not as though there's no precedent for Batgirl to play the wise-cracking aloof hero, but when that's the stereotype for every screen hero ever, (such to the point where DC is literally re-releasing Justice League in order to pivot from that stereotype. Along with other things) it makes all of her witticisms stick out like poor, unfunny, cringe-soaked, thumbs. And then finally there is the boss of this encounter, Mr Freeze. His bossfight just looked super generic from what we saw of it, a far cry from his depiction in the Arkham series as one of most ingenious and memorable encounters from 'Asylum' and the 'Origins' DLC 'Cold, Cold Heart'. It's just more fuel for the fire which says that Batman license was in better hand with Rocksteady, they knew how to play to a villian's strengths beyond his apparent powers and make a setpeice worth remembering.
Yet even with my criticisms, and they go on beyond the three I mentioned, I haven't written this game off nearly as hard as I've written off Avengers. In fact, I haven't written off Gotham Knights at all. I like the idea of a co-op adventure with the Batfamily, and am glad for the small miracles coming out way such as the open world aspect and the ability to play solo. The RPG aspect coming to the game has, if done well, the potential to really throw some growth into the gameplay and though I've already picked Babs as my goto, there's not a hero on offer here that doesn't appeal to me on some level. I want to play as them all and that's one of the most important desires to establish off the bat. (I did it again! Didn't even mean to that time.)Who knows what this game could be capable off once it fruitions? Individual character narratives as they each undergo their growth into becoming the sorts of heroes they need to be in order to live up to Bruce's name? Will we get some interpersonal drama as Red Hood clashes with the others over his penchant for killing? Probably not, but I can look to that great batsignal in the sky and hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment