• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Who did Batman better? Nolanverse or Rocksteady/WB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In some sense, there is satisfaction to be had into having Batman on the top of the comic game, the animated game, the comic book movie game and damn near the videogames.. Game.
 
Baldwin_the_First said:
Nolan by a mile. Hell, even Nolan's choregraphies are better than Rocksteady's combat gameplay. That's how much Arkham's combat sucks.
Click to expand...

Suuuuuuuuure...
2QcNSmR.gif
 
The problem with Nolan's Batman is all about how he ended the series. If it's to be taken literally, Robin becomes the new Batman, with no training or tutoring, just left to fend for himself basically.

Nolan didn't consider the larger universe when making the trilogy and didn't leave much room to expand on the characters unless Bruce were to return after his "vacation". Although this could be one of the reasons it was as successful as it was.

Rocksteady/WB didn't do a very good job either setting up his supporting cast. When did Tim become Robin in their universe, or Jason, or even Nightwing?
They leave a lot of stuff out that fans actually care about.
 
Rocksteady's writing has problems that aren't that much removed from your average video game writing flaws. Shit falls apart at the last minute, stories are written around setpieces, etc. etc. Not that it makes the games a bad thing. They are, after all, video games that "play" by different rules. But looking at just the stories there's zero doubt that the Nolan films were written better (even if Rising was kinda assy).
 
Discotheque said:
Conroy has been terrible in the games, you can tell he just phones it in now

And Dini is no better
Click to expand...
Discotheque said:
yeah origins batman is the best one in the game series. rocksteady batman is pretty dull.
Click to expand...

Preach. One of my favorite moments in Origins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5meg74IhGAI&feature=youtu.be&t=138
Yeah it's straight up "I am the one who knocks: Batman edition" but you get the idea.

I can't tell if it's the writing so Conroy doesn't have much to work with, or if he's just there for the paycheck. Maybe a combination of the two since Hamill was excellent in every installment. He doesn't seem to have the same range he used to have.
 
Kelsdesu said:
Why troll? Or is this sarcasm?
Click to expand...

SargerusBR said:
Suuuuuuuuure...
2QcNSmR.gif
Click to expand...

It's neither sarcasm or trolling. Arkham's combat is legit bad. There's no depth at all to the striking. No versatility, no freedom, no creativity, all you can do and need to is mash square/X after stunning or vaulting over a opponent to knockout the guy you're fighting. Only thing that makes you unable to do it as easily as i'm saying is because they give you a tremendous amount of ennemies for batman to fight at the same time, which is a extremely easy and cheap way to add difficulty to your game.
Take Sleeping Dogs for exemple where it is extremely similar, yet has much more depth than Batman's. Know why? Because you can mix in punches/elbows, kicks and grabs with the face buttons, and you can have variants of these strikes by holding buttons down while also having variants to actual combinations depending on what you press beforehand. Arkham's games doesn't even let you do this even after 4 tries at a batman game. Just make it so bumpers on a controller can act as modifiers and you could add much more depth to your plain as hell combat.

And I know Nolan's choregraphies are extremely bad. That was the point of it.
/nerd rant
 
Baldwin_the_First said:
It's neither sarcasm or trolling. Arkham's combat is legit bad. There's no depth at all to the striking. No versatility, no freedom, no creativity, all you can do is mash square/X after stunning or vaulting over a opponent to knockout the guy. Only thing that makes you unable to do it as easily as i'm saying is because they give you a tremendous amount of ennemies for batman to fight at the same time, which is a extremely easy and cheap way to add difficulty to your game.
Take Sleeping Dogs for exemple where it is extremely similar, yet has much more depth than Batman's. Know why? Because you can mix in punches/elbows, kicks and grabs with the face buttons, and you cna have varients of these strikes by holding buttons down while also having varient to actual combinations depending on what you press beforehand. Arkham's games doesn't even let you do this even after 4 tries at a batman game. Just make it so bumpers on a controller can act as modifiers and you could add much more depth to your plain as hell combat.

/nerd rant
Click to expand...


Are we gonna ignore that you can use your gadgets mid-combat to diversify your combos? Knight even takes it a step further and lets you use weapons/environmental takedowns. Pretty disingenuous criticism.
 
Courage said:
Are we gonna ignore that you can use your gadgets mid-combat to diversify your combos? Knight even takes it a step further and lets you use weapons/environmental takedowns. Pretty disingenuous criticism.
Click to expand...

"Stunning opponents" refers to exactly this. There's actually a specific ennemy in Arkham's Knight that needs you to actually stun him with a gadget that shoots electric pellets where afterwards all you need to do is mash the square/x to get him down. That's exactly my point. It's not diversity, it's bad gameplay design. How is it disingenuous? It's exactly what Arkham's combat is.

You take for exemple the fact that you can do environmental takedowns and use weapons, but this is also possible in sleeping dogs while also having much more in-depth combat. It's simply just not a good enough try for a 4th game.
 
Always saw nolanverse as awesome movies but a shit adaptation.

ZERO time is dedicated to detective work. Batman BELIEVES WHAT THE JOKER TELLS TO HIM ABOUT RACHEL !!!! Real batman would have saw that lie coming MILES away.

At least arkham has puzzles and riddler stuff.
 
Baldwin_the_First said:
"Stunning opponents" refers to exactly this. There's actually a specific ennemy in Arkham's Knight that needs you to actually stun him with a gadget that shoots electrics pellets where afterwards all you need to do is mash the square/x to get him down. That's exactly my point. It's not diversity, it's bad gameplay design. How is it disingenuous? It's exactly what Arkham's combat is.
Click to expand...

You're acting as if you can't cheese Sleeping Dogs combat and that the addition of more inputs somehow makes the combat more in-depth and interesting. They're in the same ballpark in terms of variety. This is coming from someone that loves Sleeping Dogs.
 
Courage said:
You're acting as if you can't cheese Sleeping Dogs combat and that the addition of more inputs somehow makes the combat more in-depth and interesting. They're in the same ballpark in terms of variety. This is coming from someone that loves Sleeping Dogs.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing the fact you can use batarangs and a shocking gun, to actual in-depth combinations, grabs and striking that have variants to them (which also presents a whole other string of possible combinations)? lol you're the one being disingenuous in your attempt to defend it.

I get you're hyped now cause you're playing it, but that's just silly. Sleeping dogs has by far better combat than Arkham's. You can be happy with your minimalistic gameplay for all I care, it doesn't change the facts.

Also, special moves in Arkham's shouldn't be restricted by a "combo count" if the gameplay is as basic as it possibly can in the first place. It's bad gameplay design I tell you, which has made it's way to a fourth and hopefully final game with this type of combat.
 
Platy said:
Always saw nolanverse as awesome movies but a shit adaptation.

ZERO time is dedicated to detective work. Batman BELIEVES WHAT THE JOKER TELLS TO HIM ABOUT RACHEL !!!! Real batman would have saw that lie coming MILES away.

At least arkham has puzzles and riddler stuff.
Click to expand...

Come on now, he didn't have any choice but to believe his word considering the situation he was in.
 
My favorite part about the Batman story is the whole thing about Bruce Wayne being a dad and all of his kids. So the Arkham games win by default because they actually include the kids.

Nolan thought he didn't need a Robin and then realized how necessary it is to Bruce's character. Still messed up though.
 
Courage said:
Are we gonna ignore that you can use your gadgets mid-combat to diversify your combos? Knight even takes it a step further and lets you use weapons/environmental takedowns. Pretty disingenuous criticism.
Click to expand...

And here I thought the Arkham games's combat was universally praised in the medium. To the point where other games have come to copy the combat system in it.
 
Toa TAK said:
And here I thought the Arkham games's combat was universally praised in the medium. To the point where other games have come to copy the combat system in it.
Click to expand...

Only thing that has been "copied" is the defense portion. Or you might have a better idea as to how they can incorporoate defense in a game that wants you to be able to counter a opponent whitout the need of a dodge roll? Let's have it, I'm always intrigued by gameplay design ideas.
 
TheKaeptain said:
Grant Morrison>everyone.
Click to expand...

I love Grant Morrison work in Batman as much as i can like a superhero run , but i read O'Neil as a kid and his impact is impossible for me to deny. And when i was a kid , i envsioned Batman in our world. Exactly the same expression Nolan bros ended up dictating in their movies. That's why its such a transcendental representation of Batman legacy. But Grant Morrison after those two triumphs everything.
 
Dark Knight is one of the best films ever, but Begins was meh and Rises was the worst movie i've ever seen.

So Rocksteady for me as the obvious 3 games were great and Origins at least looked nice.
 
Paul Dini wrote the first two Arkham games and Geoff Johns consulted on Arkham Knight.

I think the Arkhamverse is the best Batman trilogy we will ever get.

Knight > Rises

I don't know why people say Bruce Timm with regards to the golden age of the DCAU, I know he defined the look of the series'.
But wasn't Dini responsible for most of the writing?

And Timm isn't infallible. He changed the Joker's look to that black eyed look and liked it.
 
Rocksteady's games really feel like an extension of the animated series. It's hard to compare them though since their focus and scope are completely different.

Also at least Nolan's Batverse doesn't have Riddler shit splattered everywhere AMIRITE
 
My problem with Rocksteady games is it forces encounters. Even when you can sneak past you have to take everyone out to continue.

Why? Gotham Police force can deal with that; there are much bigger things for me to deal with than causing permanent brain damage or death.
 
Nolan.
The Rocksteady Batman is just a grim brooding dude. No character, no flaws, nothing. He just hits people and has always this face >:| no matter what.
He can fight a bunch of people dressed like bunnies on a clock floating through space, he doesn't care.
 
Kathian said:
My problem with Rocksteady games is it forces encounters. Even when you can sneak past you have to take everyone out to continue.

Why? Gotham Police force can deal with that; there are much bigger things for me to deal with than causing permanent brain damage or death.
Click to expand...

Because it's a videogame and you're the goddamn Batman. It's your job to smash criminals' faces in.

SargerusBR said:
Suuuuuuuuure...
2QcNSmR.gif
Click to expand...

Hahahahhaa fuck. That guy on the left tho.
 
Nolan. Comparing the writing in those films to Rocksteady is just insane, how anyone can say they do a better job with Batman boggles the mind. They're a poor man's version of TAS.

Nolan captured the heart of what Batman is to me, and had the best Joker of all time.
 
Also, anyone who's beaten Arkham Knight knows how much that game owes to Nolan. There were countless direct references to the Batman Begins and TDK.
 
I give the edge to the Arkham games for a big reason:

Gotham had character.

What I mean by this is Gotham, the city and setting, always had an interesting look and atmosphere to it. Gotham is built like a 40's - 50's city infused with comic book flare. The games, the cartoons, and hell the recent tv show gave city character.
Nolan's gave us Chicago and Pittsburgh, and that's it. Yes, it was suppose to be a more realistic Batman universe, but he could have bother to make Gotham more unique.
 
From a narrative and character standpoint:

WB Montreal - Pretty good.
Rocksteady - Acceptable for a video game. Expected better from Paul Dini.
Nolans/Goyer - Very poor.

I have high standards for Batman stuff.
 
Rocksteady because it's not actually ashamed of its source material and uses characters that aren't "realistic".

None of Batman's characters are realistic guys.
 
Nolan >>> Rocksteady

Rocksteady's Batman starts out as this great detective who turns into an arrogant dick and then into a full blown angry asshole over the course of 3 games, threatening petty thugs by running them over and becoming shocked at twists people saw coming miles away.

Nolan's Batman had no purpose, was lost, willing to risk it all for petty revenge, but the people around him changed him and tried focus him to give him purpose. At the end of the day, yeah, he was willing to risk it all, but at least he had purpose for the greater good when he did it.
 
I loved Rocksteady's universe. There was a real sense that Batman had been at this a while; he was on conversational terms with all his villains, often willing to work alongside them. I loved his relationship with Freeze in Arkham City; Batman needs his help at first, so he rescues Freeze from the Penguin and sets him up in the GCPD. The next time they meet, Freeze pushes things too far and they end up fighting, but once Batman beats him they're back to a cautious respect. Batman even helps Freeze track down his wife, whose body has been taken by one of the other villains in the city.

There are lots of other examples like this, like Batman telling Ivy 'Don't be here when I get back' in the first game (of course she doesn't listen :P). It really felt like we were stumbling upon a lived-in universe, and it was written well enough that there was no need for origin stories or any heavy exposition. They basically just aged up The Animated Series a little bit.
 
I just had this exchange in Arkham Knight:

Poison Ivy: They had a plan. Something about taking over Gotham.

Batman: Over my dead body.

Poison Ivy: I believe that was the idea.
Click to expand...

LOL wtf? What shit writing. Batman's the world's greatest detective, but he couldn't see that coming.
 
I'll give the edge to Nolanverse.

In fact, I'm sure that without the existence of Batman Begins; the budget of Batman AA would have been different; and we would have received the typical mediocre Batman game.

We should thank Nolan that made such an awesome movie, for all the Batman, and superhero movie, renaissance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Who is the better actor, Will Smith or Maggie Smith?
12
564
Avid Reading Horse replied
  • Poll
Who's the better filmmaker: Christopher Nolan or Martin Scorsese?
2
90
2K
Sonik replied
How did you get better at handling conflict?
2
60
2K
kpopSuperstar replied
  • Poll
Which rapper is better: Will Smith or 2Pac
44
1K
Chuck Berry replied
  • Poll
Superman (1978) vs Batman (1989) vs Spider-Man (2002)
2
81
808
MrCunningham replied
Top Bottom