Apparently, Telltale games are making yet another series of games to add to their stable. And this new one will be a Batman game series.
What hasn't Batman got enough games already?
Showing posts with label Batman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
World's Finest
Met a guy named Marty today. Nice bloke.
Anyway!
Recent news has emerged that a new DLC will be coming for Batman: Arkham Knight, in the form of Batman vs Superman Batmobile. It will include the new Batsuit and Batmobile from the upcoming Batman vs Superman movie.
One can only wonder how many were disappointed that it's not a feature that allows Batman and Superman to fight one on one.
Oh wait, Rocksteady is made of Batman fans and one can imagine Superman being treated on a level comparable to "He Who Should Not Be Named". Likewise, one can imagine a one-one-one feature being added just for the sake of seeing Superman getting his lights punched out by Batman - even if there is indeed something deeply unsettling about a symbol of hope being beaten up by a guy with loads of money.
Oh well, at least there's always Injustice: Gods Among Us
Anyway!
Recent news has emerged that a new DLC will be coming for Batman: Arkham Knight, in the form of Batman vs Superman Batmobile. It will include the new Batsuit and Batmobile from the upcoming Batman vs Superman movie.
One can only wonder how many were disappointed that it's not a feature that allows Batman and Superman to fight one on one.
Oh wait, Rocksteady is made of Batman fans and one can imagine Superman being treated on a level comparable to "He Who Should Not Be Named". Likewise, one can imagine a one-one-one feature being added just for the sake of seeing Superman getting his lights punched out by Batman - even if there is indeed something deeply unsettling about a symbol of hope being beaten up by a guy with loads of money.
Oh well, at least there's always Injustice: Gods Among Us
Friday, October 3, 2014
This Looks Like a Job For Superman!
So a new Batman game is on the way for the eighth console generation so now would be a good time as any to talk about DC’s greatest hero – that’s right, Superman.
Superman may be the greatest of all superheroes and the wellspring that all others have come from but such a distinction can’t stop him from having crummy games. And it’s not just the notorious Superman 64 - the Superman brand has, throughout gaming history, has lent itself to flops like the Arcade game and the 2600 game. And somehow the alleged Superman Curse seems no longer confined to actors.
Is it possible to make a Superman that’s actually any good? Well the first problem would be to overcome the inescapable truth that Superman is the embodiment of the invulnerable power fantasy. And invulnerability is a very hard thing to do in a medium where a player finds himself up against legions of obstacles all of which are life threatening. So how does one make a game around a character that is practically bullet-proof AND not make it boring?
One possible solution would be focus on one of Superman’s characteristics – that being the power of flight. Who wouldn’t want to be placed in a Sandbox environment and be given the ability to take off and fly with ease (or at least without the necessity of hijacking a helicopter)? I mean if Nights Into Dreams can prove that a game can be made around a flight mechanic then there’s no reason why a Superman game couldn’t work. Why, I’ve played the Commander Keen games with the jump cheat on (so sue me) and somehow I could easily imagine that working as a Superman game.
But making a game around a character who is bullet-proof is only half the problem – Superman is the ultimate good guy and doing everything to everyone may not appeal to the modern gamer. True being the good guy is never easy but it can work given a suitable risk/reward system: if the player, say, faces the task of rescuing people from a collapsing building caused by a bad guy, there lies a challenge of rescuing the people. If the player manages to rescue all of them, they will be rewarded but if one or all the people die they will be penalized. And such penalties could come in the form of populace reaction: If Superman does a bad thing the people of Metropolis will distrust him and will react accordingly. This in turns will inspire the player to try and work their way back in Metropolis’ graces. It may not be an easy undertaking but, given the right amount of reward, it may work (and hey, who can’t deny the appeal of being Superman and shifting heavy objects?).
But the ultimate question is whether or not anyone wants a Superman game. Which brings me back to Batman: In recent years Batman has been blessed with games and movies that have ultra-successful whilst Superman has had to contend with his once glorious name becoming toxic with the afore-mentioned Superman 64 and the polarizing Man of Steel. And thus who in turn, has the largest command of the nerd cash? Hint: Not Kal-El.
That is something I’ve noticed: The people who love Batman hate Superman with just as much vigor. Indeed, I heard that the recent Arkham games were made by people who loved Batman and wanted to do the best job possible. While such dedication is admirable I can’t help but picture Rocksteady being full of people who would fall over themselves to make Batman game but would be anything but enthusiastic to make a Superman game. It is also somewhat telling that the only way it would seem to save the Superman movie franchise is to do a crossover with Batman. Yep, the only way to save your franchise is to get in someone else to do it for you.
I can see a Superman working providing the right amount of thought is put into it and is made by people both passionate about Superman and committed to doing the best job possible. The only problem is whether or not the appropriate numbers can be generated from those people who are far more enamored of Batman.
And as a parting shot consider this: We may all laugh at movie producer Jon Peters and his complete misunderstanding of Superman but somehow I can’t help but think Mr. Peters has become something of an avatar for those who aggressively place Batman on pedestal whilst denouncing Superman.
Superman may be the greatest of all superheroes and the wellspring that all others have come from but such a distinction can’t stop him from having crummy games. And it’s not just the notorious Superman 64 - the Superman brand has, throughout gaming history, has lent itself to flops like the Arcade game and the 2600 game. And somehow the alleged Superman Curse seems no longer confined to actors.
Is it possible to make a Superman that’s actually any good? Well the first problem would be to overcome the inescapable truth that Superman is the embodiment of the invulnerable power fantasy. And invulnerability is a very hard thing to do in a medium where a player finds himself up against legions of obstacles all of which are life threatening. So how does one make a game around a character that is practically bullet-proof AND not make it boring?
One possible solution would be focus on one of Superman’s characteristics – that being the power of flight. Who wouldn’t want to be placed in a Sandbox environment and be given the ability to take off and fly with ease (or at least without the necessity of hijacking a helicopter)? I mean if Nights Into Dreams can prove that a game can be made around a flight mechanic then there’s no reason why a Superman game couldn’t work. Why, I’ve played the Commander Keen games with the jump cheat on (so sue me) and somehow I could easily imagine that working as a Superman game.
But making a game around a character who is bullet-proof is only half the problem – Superman is the ultimate good guy and doing everything to everyone may not appeal to the modern gamer. True being the good guy is never easy but it can work given a suitable risk/reward system: if the player, say, faces the task of rescuing people from a collapsing building caused by a bad guy, there lies a challenge of rescuing the people. If the player manages to rescue all of them, they will be rewarded but if one or all the people die they will be penalized. And such penalties could come in the form of populace reaction: If Superman does a bad thing the people of Metropolis will distrust him and will react accordingly. This in turns will inspire the player to try and work their way back in Metropolis’ graces. It may not be an easy undertaking but, given the right amount of reward, it may work (and hey, who can’t deny the appeal of being Superman and shifting heavy objects?).
But the ultimate question is whether or not anyone wants a Superman game. Which brings me back to Batman: In recent years Batman has been blessed with games and movies that have ultra-successful whilst Superman has had to contend with his once glorious name becoming toxic with the afore-mentioned Superman 64 and the polarizing Man of Steel. And thus who in turn, has the largest command of the nerd cash? Hint: Not Kal-El.
That is something I’ve noticed: The people who love Batman hate Superman with just as much vigor. Indeed, I heard that the recent Arkham games were made by people who loved Batman and wanted to do the best job possible. While such dedication is admirable I can’t help but picture Rocksteady being full of people who would fall over themselves to make Batman game but would be anything but enthusiastic to make a Superman game. It is also somewhat telling that the only way it would seem to save the Superman movie franchise is to do a crossover with Batman. Yep, the only way to save your franchise is to get in someone else to do it for you.
I can see a Superman working providing the right amount of thought is put into it and is made by people both passionate about Superman and committed to doing the best job possible. The only problem is whether or not the appropriate numbers can be generated from those people who are far more enamored of Batman.
And as a parting shot consider this: We may all laugh at movie producer Jon Peters and his complete misunderstanding of Superman but somehow I can’t help but think Mr. Peters has become something of an avatar for those who aggressively place Batman on pedestal whilst denouncing Superman.
Monday, July 8, 2013
At the Movies
Some random thoughts about Movie Tie-in games:
Yes we all know about these: Shoddy games that were thrown together in a short space of time with no thought beyond simple brand recognition. They are despised by gamers everywhere and treated with nothing but absolute contempt for their purpose and utter shamelessness in proclaiming it.
I find the contempt for movie-tie-in games interesting because I grew up in the era of the Commodore 64. There were certainly a lot of movie-tie-in games there but some of them were creative, interesting and fun to play. Okay so maybe back then the developers had a far inferior platform to work with (compared to now) but it's interesting to see some movie-tie-in games where effort was being put into and not being just a quick cash grab.
Here's some worthy of note:
Batman.
It follows the plot of the original Tim Burton movie closely and does so with different styles of gameplay. The music's pretty good too (or at least for a c64 SID chip)
Top Gun
Here's a clever use of a film license: A split screen dogfight between enemy jets! And the absence of Tom Cruise is even better!
Platoon
An odd choice for a film license to be sure but it works here. Somehow.
Still the music is pretty good
Ultimately though, these are relics from an age long gone. Now, the reason why movie-tie-in games are such a damning sight is that the developers have a very limited amount of time to deliver upon a brand. Is it therefore any wonder why many of these movie-tie-in games come across as being half-arsed? Of course there is only one movie-tie-in game that is highly regarded (both then and now) and that's Goldeneye 007 on the N64. But even that a) had something of it's own say b) was the product of a long time in development even well beyond the movie's original year of release and c) really something revolutionary hiding behind the guise of brand recognition. And Goldeneye 007 turned out to be both a massive hit and a revolution in console FPS. So what does that success represent for movie-tie-in games? One in a hundred? One in five hundred? Lightening in a bottle?
Still is there any hope for movie-tie-in games to recover from this stigmata and somehow be taken seriously? Probably not but ina way I am hopeful. It would be nice to have a movie-tie-in game to be both recognised as brilliant and not Goldeneye 007
Yes we all know about these: Shoddy games that were thrown together in a short space of time with no thought beyond simple brand recognition. They are despised by gamers everywhere and treated with nothing but absolute contempt for their purpose and utter shamelessness in proclaiming it.
I find the contempt for movie-tie-in games interesting because I grew up in the era of the Commodore 64. There were certainly a lot of movie-tie-in games there but some of them were creative, interesting and fun to play. Okay so maybe back then the developers had a far inferior platform to work with (compared to now) but it's interesting to see some movie-tie-in games where effort was being put into and not being just a quick cash grab.
Here's some worthy of note:
Batman.
It follows the plot of the original Tim Burton movie closely and does so with different styles of gameplay. The music's pretty good too (or at least for a c64 SID chip)
Here's a clever use of a film license: A split screen dogfight between enemy jets! And the absence of Tom Cruise is even better!
Platoon
An odd choice for a film license to be sure but it works here. Somehow.
Still the music is pretty good
Ultimately though, these are relics from an age long gone. Now, the reason why movie-tie-in games are such a damning sight is that the developers have a very limited amount of time to deliver upon a brand. Is it therefore any wonder why many of these movie-tie-in games come across as being half-arsed? Of course there is only one movie-tie-in game that is highly regarded (both then and now) and that's Goldeneye 007 on the N64. But even that a) had something of it's own say b) was the product of a long time in development even well beyond the movie's original year of release and c) really something revolutionary hiding behind the guise of brand recognition. And Goldeneye 007 turned out to be both a massive hit and a revolution in console FPS. So what does that success represent for movie-tie-in games? One in a hundred? One in five hundred? Lightening in a bottle?
Still is there any hope for movie-tie-in games to recover from this stigmata and somehow be taken seriously? Probably not but ina way I am hopeful. It would be nice to have a movie-tie-in game to be both recognised as brilliant and not Goldeneye 007
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Go back and do it again
Haven't said much this past week: Mostly becuase it's the Christmas season and this is the time of year people are taking breaks and making the effort to visit family and friends.
Other than that I'm still continuing on with Mass Effect. It seems daft but I'm keen on unlocking all achievements to build a Shepard to take into ME2 and beyond.
The idea of 360 achievements to encourage repeated plays is an interesting one but I have doubts as to whether it is a successful one. Now there is appeal in having game achievements that affect future plays - that is kinda cool. However with Mass Effect, if you play anything like me, it now becomes a challenge to play through multiple times to unlock everything - and for what? The ultimate play through just to prove...something. Much like World of Warcraft being propelled by new quests every week, it's just like Alexander the Great invading India on a regular basis.
I do recall as a child playing Batman on the Commodore 64. Sure I could complete in one sitting but it wasn't the longest game in the world. Conversely, an RPG is something that demands many hours of playtime - perhaps that is why so many Final Fantasy games are listed in my Hall of Shame. Indeed, doing the same thing in Mass Effect is beginning to get tedious to me. Indeed, I have three achievements left (Asari Ally, Extreme Power Gamer and Medal of Valor) and it would indeed be a kick in the nuts if I get to the end of my current play through and not get all of them.
Are achievements really there to be done in the same sitting? I mean to do that, you would have to be keen indeed.
...or least have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands.
Other than that I'm still continuing on with Mass Effect. It seems daft but I'm keen on unlocking all achievements to build a Shepard to take into ME2 and beyond.
The idea of 360 achievements to encourage repeated plays is an interesting one but I have doubts as to whether it is a successful one. Now there is appeal in having game achievements that affect future plays - that is kinda cool. However with Mass Effect, if you play anything like me, it now becomes a challenge to play through multiple times to unlock everything - and for what? The ultimate play through just to prove...something. Much like World of Warcraft being propelled by new quests every week, it's just like Alexander the Great invading India on a regular basis.
I do recall as a child playing Batman on the Commodore 64. Sure I could complete in one sitting but it wasn't the longest game in the world. Conversely, an RPG is something that demands many hours of playtime - perhaps that is why so many Final Fantasy games are listed in my Hall of Shame. Indeed, doing the same thing in Mass Effect is beginning to get tedious to me. Indeed, I have three achievements left (Asari Ally, Extreme Power Gamer and Medal of Valor) and it would indeed be a kick in the nuts if I get to the end of my current play through and not get all of them.
Are achievements really there to be done in the same sitting? I mean to do that, you would have to be keen indeed.
...or least have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)