Bitmob_vb_ Bitmob is now a part of VentureBeat
Separator

Batman: Arkham Asylum 2 -- Innovate, Don't Reiterate

Mikeshadesbitmob0611
Monday, December 28, 2009

Editor's note: We've all read rants about game franchises being farmed out for cash-cow sequels. In his piece, Michael avoids this compulsion and artfully dissects why making a second Arkham Asylum seems particularly unnecessary. - James

I cringed a little when developer Rocksteady recently announced Batman: Arkham Asylum 2 at the Spike TV Video Game Awards. A few weeks ago, I had the chance to play through the original. Its presentation impressed me. But while I have no doubt that the creators will be able to deliver a great product twice, I don't think we need another Arkham Asylum so soon...or ever.

 

That's not to say that I'm against another title starring the World's Greatest Detective -- just another Arkham-centric game. I believe that the island-asylum premise should remain a one-shot in Rocksteady's established universe.

Most previous Batman games focused entirely on one aspect of the character: his combat prowess. In the past, game designers often got stuck in the rut of using the license to make platformers or beat-em-ups. Arkham Asylum is different.

In a way, the game begs a sequel. It's a great experience. It accurately portrays all of Batman's key characteristics. The ability to smash heads is definitely in there, sure, but so are the ingenuity, the deductive acumen, the stealth, and the value for human life that make the character so beloved. Whisking each part of the Caped Crusader's unique style into a single, potent mixture, Rocksteady succeeded in creating the most faithful Batman game ever.

Moreover, Arkham Asylum wasn't perfect. It featured some repetitive sequences. Also, some contrivances, like the conveniently placed gargoyle statuaries in each room, felt like uninspired gameplay capitulations that took away from the overall immersion. Solutions to these problems would be welcome.

So if the game is great, and it contains a few unpolished features, why am I not clamoring for a sequel?

I don't think more of the same -- or even more of the improved -- would do Rocksteady's first breakout game any greater justice. I felt very satisfied when I finished foiling the Joker's plan. The length was just right -- nothing dragged on too long or felt rushed. I fought all the villains I really cared to encounter, and, for me, the credits rolled at just the right time. My contentment with the length doesn't come from frustration -- quite the opposite: Arkham Asylum has an impeccable sense of pacing and flow. "Complete" is the best word I can think of to describe it as a product.

A sequel -- especially one year after the fact -- seems premature and a little unnecessary. In this economic climate, I can understand the desire to develop stable, money-making franchises. Batman's brand recognition is a key boon, too. But as a fan, I feel that Batman: Arkham Asylum could be sullied artistically by piling on more levels, more villains, and more locales.

Please Rocksteady, take what you learned and explore another part of the Dark Knight's canon -- find a setting that works the way Arkham did. Come up with a fresh take on the subject matter and a new title for the game. Don't just transplant Arkham's gates into Gotham, polish the product incrementally, and release the same game again. Give us another novel experience in the Batman universe -- a new way to don the cape and cowl of one of popular culture's most iconic heroes.

 
Tags: Batman: Arkham Asylum, sequels, Batman: Arkham City
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Related Stories
 
Comments (13)
Add a new comment
Redeye
Jeffrey Sandlin
December 28, 2009
I was honestly so pissed off by the last half of Arkham asylum that I did a bitmob wide tirade against it, I still maintain it's a half finished mess that only garners as much praise as it does because people looked past it's faults out of the need to crown SOMETHING the end of an era of poorly made batman games. A fairly good game with alot of problems is good enough to rise to 'best game of the decade' status in some people's minds if it fills a niche they desperately want filled. As for the concept of a sequel....honestly to me if they would have changed the title and dropped the goofy 'gates of arkham at gotham' plot contrivance I would have no problem with anything except for one issue. They aren't giving themselves enough time to actually do the game justice. If they couldn't finish the last game with all the time they had to finish it before releasing it what makes them think turning around and doing the sequel in only a years time wont lead to another half finished product. They don't respect exactly how impressive the game formula they created is and will continue shoehorning in forced and poorly concieved padding for the entire second game like the last half of the first game was stuffed to the brim with padding and bullshit. I'll wait till the dust clears. This is definately not a surefire purchase for me.
Default_picture
Gerard Delaney
December 28, 2009
I enjoyed Arkham but don't really mind either way if there is a sequel or not. The game was a solid release, nothing original but with alot of polish. I think the sequel will be competent but I am unsure how Rocksteady will make it work. A little sidenote on the short development time is that Arkham was finished for about 5-6 months before release and got a fair bit of polish with wouldn't have taken a whole team to do. It is likely that the now announced sequel was in the some early stage of production during this period and therefore won't be turned around in 12 months once it comes out
Me_and_luke
Bryan Glynn
December 28, 2009
Great article, Mike. The rush to 'sequel-ize' a game is one of the biggest follies of the game development industry, in my opinion. So often, games that felt overall complete - both in story and/or superiority of gameplay - never needed a sequel; let them be, I say. I think the upcoming BioShock 2 is another prime example of this. As much as I was absolutely enamored with BioShock, the game felt like it had a solid ending, and that there wasn't any necessary or feasible way to continue the story (I am still interested in a prequel, however), and I would have been content with that. Of course, like you say, everything is about money, and we all know that BioShock 2 will end up selling well, whether or not the game is up to par with the original.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
Michael Rousseau
December 28, 2009
I agree with Bioshock 2 being largely unnecessary. While I hated the ending(s), and the final boss was a bit of a joke, Bioshock seemed "done" to me. I'll still play the sequel, because 2k deserves the benefit of the doubt from me, but I'm a little wary. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "down with big corporations and the sequel factory" people. I love sequels when they're well-crafted and add to the original property. I understand the business, and if I make it into the industry, I have no problems with helping that business to flourish any way I can. I just think that, artistically, some sequels are unnecessary.
Jason_wilson
Jason Wilson
January 03, 2010
"Please Rocksteady, take what you learned and explore another part of the Dark Knight's canon -- find a setting that works the way Arkham did." Gotham begs for exploration. Batman can take on the organized gangs and goons of the city -- folks like The Penguin and Rupert Thorne. Another of the crazies from Arkham could get loose and set up shop someplace else, creating an exciting and terrifying place for Batman to explore. A crisis could develop and carry Batman outside of Gotham -- he's gone across the globe to face Ra's al Ghul in the past. Batman's world is expansive, with plenty of stories to tell. No need to return to Arkham for a sequel. Make the series about the man -- about Batman -- not about the place.
Default_picture
Steve Nyktas
January 03, 2010
Personally, I just finished Arkham Asylum a week ago, and while I loved it, I also agree with Michael in that I like having a breather between sequels. It is rare to get a game so quickly, so that calls for concerns about the quality too. All that said, I might be ready for a new Batman game later this year after some time has passed - after all, TV shows usually have about the same gap between them too. There's also no way to know that the quality and innovation won't be there - sometimes striking while the iron is hot is the easiest way to maintain creativity and make something new.
Image2496
Moeez Siddiqui
January 03, 2010
All I will say is, you need to read "No Man's Land" volumes (the trailer shows A LOT of nods to it), to see how amazing this game could be if it took inspiration from that. Being able to see the Cataclysm in gameplay would be insane, and how about situations to save citizens from Joker's goons on the streets, with Ass Creed-like rooftop sneaking. Arkham Asylum 2 can be TOTALLY DIFFERENT to Arkham Asylum, because the game is opening up. I think Rocksteady knows open-world games can suck in terms of pacing, and tight design, so I think they're more than capable for putting a lot of gameplay twists in a Gotham environment.
Default_picture
Luke Flora
January 03, 2010
I don't recall what podcast I heard it on recently, but someone brought up the counter to "innovate, don't iterate," and I lean towards that. If a game can deliver a more refined experience and keep my interest, I have no problem with a sequel. In fact, I love good sequels. If 343 can put out Halo games that are the same quality as the originals, and the plotlines remain interesting, I'd keep buying them. It seems to me that sequels often get more commercial and critical acclaim than the original entry in a franchise, and that's not a bad thing until you reach the Tony Hawk phase. When the game mechanics are just as busted as they were in the previous game and the story has petered out, that's when you need to call for innovation. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Default_picture
Jon Cole
January 03, 2010
I'm with Luke on this one, actually on both counts; I can't remember what podcast it was either, but the gist of the conversation was basically that this past year of games has been far more about execution rather than innovation. And guess what? Almost every widely successful game this year has taken a time-tested formula, made small innovations, and made massive refinements of the older elements. Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Halo 3: ODST, Modern Warfare 2, and Dragon Age: Origins all come to mind. Furthermore, I had a bunch of fun with all of these games and I'm frankly glad that they didn't do too much new because in these economic times, I don't have money to blow on too many experimental games. I'd rather leave that to the indie developers who are much lower risk to both them and me.
Default_picture
Luke Flora
January 04, 2010
I meant to say this before, but I do agree that Arkham Asylum 2 probably shouldn't take place at Arkham Asylum. There are still plenty of great locations to be explored in Gotham, and at least the gargoyles could be placed in more sensible locations.
Mikeshadesbitmob0611
Michael Rousseau
January 04, 2010
It's mostly the title that I have a problem with, and a lurking fear that Arkham will again be somehow central to the plot. Also, the "innovate, don't reiterate" was added by my editor to add more punch to the title. It works, but I thought you guys should know before you hang me. A new game based on the same engine would likely be better, so long as Rocksteady takes the lessons of Arkham 1 into account and makes improvements where needed.
Default_picture
Spencer Gregory
January 04, 2010
From the business standpoint, any game "begs" a sequel if it made enough money the first time. I have no doubt that the success of Arkham Asylum this year was the main reason for Rocksteady to revisit the locale. Besides, re-using the same environments cuts down on a lot of development woes.
Default_picture
Mark
January 04, 2010
I believe it was former Gamespot editor Greg Kasavin who mentioned the counterargument to game innovation on Bitmob's very own Mobcast. I thought he made a good point too, which is why my only concern about a new Batman game is the games setting and not how it would play. That said I think Rocksteady has stated that they're isn't much more they can creatively do with the Arkham setting which makes me think that the their marketing department made the decision to call the game Arkham Asylum 2 mainly for brand recognition purposes.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.