that description makes catwoman's involvement not that dissimilar to roles other characters played in the first game. which, again, was awesome. (actually, that's a good point - do i recall you not liking the first game...?)
The player wasn't required to man any of the other characters in the previous game to keep the story moving. That will apparently be Catwoman's function in this game. Sucks.
Quote:
(actually, that's a good point - do i recall you not liking the first game...?)
I had problems with it, but I felt it was a great game overall.
Quote:
so, "[this now] sucks" is you being upset that future games (not this one) might (not will) feature occasional (not starring) participants?
Yes.
Quote:
a theory based on DC (not rocksteady) and their convoluted comic book franchises (not video game franchise) over the span of 70 years (not 3). ...that about it?
Rocksteady is owned by Time Warner, which in turn owns DC, who oversees all contents of the game. It's the iron triangle of comicbook media.
Quote:
did she add nothing to it for you?
Nope. I was entirely indifferent towards her presence.
Luckily she wasn't like Todd or Grayson or that would have killed it.
Quote:
your critique on quality is an opinion. your critique on sales is fabricated. your critique on future trends is guesswork.
Thought experiment time: do you personally believe that DC would still be in the decline that it is without being totally congested by the consistent creation or rehashing of more and more family/associates?
Forget about story for a second and think about the burden that an increase in character accountability puts on the writing. It's one thing to say a capable writer can handle it, but it's quite another to consider how practical it would be for said writer to implement it. At some point, one has to acknowledge that additional characters are an inherent strain on the serials.
