What I am upset with is certain trends found in serialized media. I haven't given any exact descriptions with regards to future DCU-based games.
being here in the batman: arkham city video game discussion thread, you can see my confusion.
you don't hold comic books in the same esteem that you do other forms of media.
that's not a point i've made. i adore comic books as well as video games. does this really need to be said on a forum bearing my name with sections like: comic books and video games?
but having respect for the medium doesn't force the correlation between the two you're demanding and/or fearing.
there's been ONE batman game in this line. there's been hundreds of bat-titles over the years. there's not a great deal of synergy between the two visions. looking at the current books, films, tv cartoons, and video games, there are four very different types of media, each with their own parameters. hell, there are other batman video games available now or soon (DCU online, mortal kombat vs. dc comics, guardian of gotham, the brave and the bold, imposters, lego, etc.) that bear no semblance to arkham city/asylum or the DCU comic books, let alone each other.
there need not be a correlation, attributes of one need not cross into the other, and every bit of established "proof" screams that. in fact, looking at the breadth of variety between media types, as well as within a specific medium, and you should actually be praising the gods of WB for their tolerance and variety.
could there be some game that relates to your specific concern? sure. but there's no more reason to believe that than any other theory, including those directly opposing.
This bares repeating: "At some point, one has to acknowledge that additional characters are an inherent strain on the serials."
and this bears stating: ongoing serials are an inherent strain on serials. in other words, a solo batman book can get old and bad just as quickly as a batfamily book. the evidence, again, is in a number of failed titles and arcs. thus, the arguments cancel out, and everything reverts back to a perspective of story quality, not character quantity.
By your logic, the powers that be could force another major crossover event on the continuum--the implementation of which the writers had no power over--and there'd be no question that the ensuing disaster would be entirely on the writers according to you.
if your job is to write, you're under the expectation to write well. that doesn't mean the situations wont occasionally overpower the role. however, that also doesn't mean it's a guarantee the role will succeed in a "regular" scenario. a good writer is a good writer and bad stories are bad stories. that description holds true for firefighters, nurses, groundskeepers, janitors and every other role.
Additionally, none of the examples you offered up had the writers forced to work in correspondence with an entire universe of characters. Miller's stories were contained, Nolan crafted his own origin, and Rocksteady got to pick and choose their comic references without an editor breathing down their neck.
the last line makes me question what we're discussing here.
the remainder, answered above.
Following "deeply affixed in the batworld" parameters, Bullock and Gordon dressed up as Batman and Robin would be a workable setup.
honestly, that'd probably be hysterical. it'd be a fun ride. i don't need every batman tale to be this epic journey through the darkness, with rooftop joker battles to the (near)death. personal preference? sure, i lean towards the dark knight as he was meant to be. but why would anyone shut themselves out of a good story and/or a fun adventure because things weren't what "they were supposed to be"?
