Superheroes have historically had a bad run outside their original comic book medium. As hard as it might seem to remember today, the genre never quite took hold in cinema or in video games. Yes, there weren't shortages of either, but they never actually took off. Largely, nothing resonated with fans until the new millennium. There had been a slew of decent Spider-man games, but Rocksteady really broke new ground with 2009's Arkham Asylum. Not only the best Batman game ever made, it was immediately in the running of best superhero game. Flash forward six years, and the studio had - taking a page from Christopher Nolan, whose Batman trilogy are unquestionably the best Batman movies - decided to wrap up the Arkham series with Arkham Knight.
PC release disaster aside, the game expands on elements of Arkham City, drawing on the change to open-world gameplay instead of the linear, claustrophobic nature of Asylum. This goes a long way to creating a more "Batman feel" rather than the gamier approach to Asylum. For example, unlike the first game, Knight just starts. Players immediately take control of the Caped Crusader, complete with various gadgets. While some gadgets remain withheld until you either find them or acquire them when the story demands, the game basically just starts. There is no build up the way there was with City. There isn't the classic fetch-quest game-like nature of Asylum. On the one hand, this choice has the game taking off at 100 mph, and it rarely slows down. The urgency is present from the get-go, and if you have been a long-time fan of the series, it's nice to just start. For players with experience, that aspect mixed with the open world nature of the game means that kind of do get free reign to accomplish what you want when you want.
On the other hand, however, it does feel like Knight was not designed with new players in mind. Where City had some more tutorial elements early on, with the idea that new players might be jumping on board, Knight appears to abandon that notion. For a video game, it is a relatively bold decision. When you look at any series, there are almost always design choices made to accommodate brand new players. Yet Knight feels like it is designed with just people who have played an Arkham game before. Some might call it bad design, but it is worth noting that gaming is among the only industry in which this can be considered a problem. People don't often criticize the third film in a trilogy for lacking accessibility to new audiences, for example, because it is taken as a fact that you should have seen the preceding films first. The same thing is true of books, or comics.
The decision to commit to a finale rather than another installment is solid, although it could have used a few more areas that required brushing up of old skills. Some gadgets only get used once to solve a single puzzle, and then you can get through the rest of the game without it. It may have been better and more cohesive to include sections of the game that actually did require the batclaw or the zipline, so players shake off the rust and can more easily remember how they work and their value in combat scenarios. Knight maybe does the worst job of the trilogy integrated the gadgets on a whole.
Combat is rather unchanged, which is neither great nor awful. The fluidity of fighting was always one of the strong points of the Arkham series action. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Still, you can only go so long without making any alterations. In this case, Rocksteady provided two key additions. The first and most satisfying - despite being a simple and minor addition - was the segments wherein you team up. Through a few side missions and a couple of story missions, you wind up overwhelmed by enemies and are joined by an ally (Robin, Nightwing, and Catwoman specifically). After building enough momentum, you can perform tag-team moves, then switch to the other character. The fighting isn't that different, but Nightwing, Robin, and Catwoman all do play a bit different than Batman, so the slight change in pace actually does a lot to freshen up the fighting.
Most controversially, however, is the addition of the Batmobile. On the surface, it isn't a bad element. Resembling the tumbler from the Nolan trilogy, the Batmobile is this rocket-propelled tank that fires various types of (nonlethal?) rounds. With the ability to launch yourself into the air and glide around, it isn't always the most efficient way to travel, but it sometimes pays to be near the ground level, as that is where you can track Riddler informants as well as find side missions. Combat in the Batmobile isn't even awful in its own right either. Sure, you are often overrun with enemy tanks, and it ultimately boils down to dodging and firing, but it actually is quite fun!
The ultimate problem with it, however, is how frequently you need to engage in tank battles, especially if you attempt to get 100% completion through all the side quests. It isn't so much an issue of it being awful as much as it is there needed to be less of it. The more tank battles you found yourself in, the less fun it became. Tedious might be better suited for Riddler quests, but it applies to tank battles as well. Additionally, tank boss battles were just the worst. Any situation in which you have to "flee" a special tank were horrendous. For starters, the camera zooms out, so you suddenly find yourself having a different angle and having to adjust your driving in just those moments. Secondly, it does not take much at all to knock you off your course, and they weirdly throw a ton of crap in your way that will knock you off your course. Not so bad when you're just driving around the city, going from mission to mission; more problematic when you're desperately fleeing a boss tank and if you miss just a beat, you get game over.
The strength of Arkham Knight is its story, though. While Rocksteady did few favors by clamoring to the idea that they created a "new character" (when they literally just gave an existent character a new name), the story itself isn't rocket science. Comic fans will recognize almost immediately who the Arkham Knight is just from the design. Players who have virtually no knowledge of Batman comic history will also be able to figure it out at a certain point well before the "reveal." Still, despite the mystery elements and some twists not working so well, it might very well be the best take on a classic Batman story. In many ways, it actually is superior to its comic book counterpart.
As an aside, one of the things Arkham games have done rather well is incorporating Batman's rogues gallery into the open world environment. Many open world games suffer from a lack of focus. There will always be a disconnect between story and game when there is a scenario in which you have to rush to do something in the story, but the game gives you the freedom to do anything you want. That is still present here, of course. (You have to hurry to save Barbara! Or, ya know, spend hours finding Riddler trophies or hunt down Man-bat.) Still, that every side mission is centered around a particular villain means each side quest has its own mini-story. Yes, it does absolutely wind up distracting from the urgency of the central narrative, but at least it feels like it contributes something. Hunting down the likes of Firefly, Two-Face, Penguin, and Deathstroke (the most disappointing boss fight, by the way) at least feels like something Batman should be doing, even with a larger, more significant story happening congruently.
While the central plot of the game from a macro-level is driven by Scarecrow and Akrham Knight, the bigger, yet more micro-level plot is driven by the Joker. Some might not be into the Joker returning for such a prominent role after having been a primary antagonist in Asylum and City, it did seem like this was how it had to end. The Joker is the quintessential Batman villain, and given how much "fear" was a part of the predominant themes of the story, he had to be heavily involved. It is not hard to blame those who found the Joker a bit tedious given he was heavily featured in the previous games, but taken as a whole, it made narrative and thematic sense.
Of course, the ending felt strangely unsatisfying. Ambiguous endings are fine, but this felt like it could have used just a couple more minutes of explanation. Things change so quickly at the end that it isn't exactly clear what is even going on. And it is only made worse when you get the 100% ending, with a super strange scene that either makes no sense at all or has horrific implications. For an otherwise great story to end with that was nothing short of disappointing. In some sense, it might have actually been more satisfying to get the clear death of Bruce Wayne. At least then, we'd have a clear conclusion. Elements of "passing the torch" are scattered throughout the game, but they don't pay off. And then there is the return of the Arkham Knight at the end that comes out of nowhere. It all felt rather rushed. Adding great music didn't make it suddenly feel more bittersweet, as they intended.
As far as superhero games go, few do it better than the Arkham series. As far as Batman stories go - and I am aware I am the only person who doesn't really find Batman stories all that great - this is among the better. That he is written to be intimidating, but have this underlying anxiety that makes him feel completely human is among the best writing for the character in any medium. Arkham Knight is still fun to play, and completely engaging. I happened to prefer it better than Arkham City, but it is not without glaring flaws. Granted, it the game barely technically works on PC, but it's probably worth picking up at this point if you are a console owner.
REDUCTIVE RATING: Pretty Good!
No comments:
Post a Comment