RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Games and Tech Batman: Arkham Asylum

Sucks.

Which, as we all know from experience, means it's awesome.

The reason Legends of the Dark Knight started sucking so much is because it took more and more emphasis off of Batman and started making everything a "family" affair.

Do people really want that to be a trend in the video games?

the reason legends of the dark knight started sucking is because legends of the dark knight started sucking. robin was a casualty as much as batman. the dark knight returns and the morrison batman and robin are two examples of how robin is a great addition. its the story, not the character.

i prefer a loner batman as well, but throwing in some bonus content and an (optional!) playable robin doesn't, at all, on paper, take away from the game. now, maybe robin will be terrible, and the game will be terrible, and aw hole buncha other stuff will be terrible. only prometheus can know for sure.

but if the game is anything like the first, and robin's role is exactly as described in the only piece of information we have on his role then there's no reason to think anything will be a detractor, let alone "suck"

Pariah apparently can't read about playable characters on challenge maps and not the linear game proper, and tell the difference.

I didn't say it wasn't optional or that the whole game is gonna suck because of it. I said it can create a trend--and that tends to happen.

Batman and Robin's good numbers has more to do with Grayson faggots and Morrison zombies than anything else. Throw in the obligatory scumbag Collector ratio and you have better than average sales.

I'm not saying it was a weak point of the book or anything, but do you really believe that Carrie Kelly was a major selling point of DKR?

i guess the counter argument here is: there's no trend. like doc (and the article) said, this is an optional, playable character, on non-storyline events. i believe it's even less game-impacting than the optional-playable joker character in the first game. it's also less of a story-based-role (and thus less destracting) than gordon and/or oracle in the first title -- which, as we all recall, was a fucking awesome game. and that is the only "trend" worth basing the sequel on.



i'm a big morrison fan, but i disliked the latter (significantly more confusing) chapters of his JLA run. i also didn't really enjoy the whole batman RIP storyline. hell, i didn't even like damian being introduced / reintroduced. and i sure as fuck don't like anyone else being batman besides bruce wayne. however, all that said, the dynamic between grayson/batman and damian/robin was awesome. the first dozen or so books (or however many until morrison left) were incredibly enjoyable.



i wouldn't call her a "selling point", but i'd certainly say she's a major factor to how much i enjoyed the book. even if taken at the very base of her description, in which miller refers to her (and "robin", in general) as a tool to make batman look cooler. from that very core, basic aspect, she ruled. beyond that, i think she was a perfect fit for a batman long-since retired, who had a bitter falling out with the first robin and a more destructive ending with jason, the "final" robin. an excellent, and dynamically new, compliment to that aging dark knight.

i liked the tim drake / jason todd hybrid robin in the new BTAS cartoon (though not so much the dick grayson robin of the earlier BTAS toon). i liked the incredibly odd and whimsical stephanie browne robin issues of a few years back. i liked the all star batman and robin development, before that was cut.

generally speaking, i think i enjoy stories where batman is the supreme commander in an army, and robin is his most loyal soldier, and all of these examples fit that. the main exception to that is the damian robin, but that whole dynamic was so awesomely backward and new.

My point was that it could develop into a trend and become something less optional. This kind of stuff gives precedent for DC/Warner to tell Rocksteady that they'd prefer more family exhibition within the story. At least with optional characters like Joker, I don't have to worry about that kind of stuff.


Your preferences aside, there's not really a great deal of credence for saying that she was a major factor of enjoyment for the majority of DKR readers. Not saying they didn't enjoy her presence, but that wouldn't mean she was a necessity for the book's positive reception--or at least, for as much positive reception that it received.

As for Morrison: most of the people who bought his shit prior to Batman and Robin went on and on about how much they absolutely LOVED it (). If there was a pattern among readership similar to your own experience with his relatively recent stuff, I could better acknowledge your opinion as a reflection of the general feel towards his writing.

I'll buy two copies of Arkham City

Don't forget to pre-order from Best Buy so you can get the awesome Robin add-ons.

but that's a theory based on nothing. there's no indication robin will ever become a "starring role" in this game, this franchise, or future bat-titles. there's no indication that this was a move DC/warner brought to rocksteady. there's just as much credence to the theory that hugo strange will be batman's father. the only thing introduced is bonus content for those looking for it. playable robin, playable joker, playable catwoman... they're all the same little "oh, neat!" attributes. there's no reason to speculate beyond that, least of all to outright proclaim "[this now] sucks"



as said, i don't think she was necessarily a "selling point." batman is always the [only] selling point. but i think there's certainly intrigue about her character, and the story's evolving role of robin. carrie kelly was awesome, and i thought a great example of how robin could be well utilized. my suspicion is a large group of fans thought the same, and i can only assume frank miller, king of the "dark, grim, gritty, loner, rebel, crazy, kickass, rockstar-based-their-character-on-my" batman did as well, having created her. most certainly, i think she exceeded the role of being a "DC forced move; sucks" type.



who knows what the general populous thinks. but, also, who cares?

any pre-conceived bias for the book is countered by the pre-conceived bias against it. did you ever give it an honest try?

Something relevant to the topic: I just read in Game Informer that Catwoman is a mandatory participant during a couple intermittent segments of the game. Sucks.



If you're going to use quotes, then make sure they actually quote me.

I didn't say that he or any other family member would have a "starring role" (wouldn't surprise me if Batman was switched out for Grayson in a salute to Morrison though). I've been pointing out that future installments might call for more mandatory inclusions based on his acknowledgement in this game. I say this keeping in mind the past 70 years of comicbooks branching off an increasing number of sidekicks and associates from the main characters of the serials.



A tad off topic: It's funny you should bring up Frank Miller since he didn't actually warm up to Robin until he started writing All Star B&R. Even when he was writing DKR, he felt the whole adolescent sidekick idea was creepy. I think that was his point when Alfred was arguing with him over Kelly going back to the cave with them: Batman had bought into the hype and romanticism just like everyone else.

I couldn't tell you if it was a DC forced move or not. My point is simply that she was not a crucial element to the book's success.



If that's your approach here, then your arguments have been unintentionally stuffed with straw. My initial point was that 'family' trends tend to kill the writing and that this is a reflected by a decline in patronage.



I read a handful of the issues if that's what you mean.

Did I approach them thinking they had any hope of veing decent? No.

But it's all pretty irrelevant since Morrison's B&R is one of the root problems I have with the idea of building 'families.' After all, the book is called "Batman," but it's not actually the original character. On the contrary, it's his ward. The character that gave all these late-20s-to-mid-30s Nightwing fans Peter Pan complexes is wearing his face. And it was specifically because he was the first 'family member' to show up that all the writers and readers felt there was precedent for putting him there.

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...?)



so, "[this now] sucks" is you being upset that future games (not this one) might (not will) feature occasional (not starring) participants? 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?



no one is arguing that point with you. the success of any batman book or game is solely due to batman. however, the quality of that book (grouping the four together) was increased because of robin. granted, that's simply my opinion, but i'd wager miller would agree, having used the character so prominently - particularly when you consider he invented the role having killed off one robin and distanced another.

did you not enjoy carrie's role in the story? did she add nothing to it for you?



your critique on quality is an opinion. your critique on sales is fabricated. your critique on future trends is guesswork. there's not much to build on here, other than your glorious seal of disapproval.



i shall hand you some straw.

Exactly. To be honest, I found Morrison's Batman to be quite a tedious read at times. However, in retrospect, I find it quite enjoyable now that I see how a lot of the pieces fit when they seemed so terribly random. Is the run perfect? No. But, when I read it from that random ass issue of 52 all the way to B&R 16, I find it to be a compelling read.

Pariah, quit being so damned obstinate and disapproving all the time. You might find you actually like something.

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.



I had problems with it, but I felt it was a great game overall.



Yes.



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.



Nope. I was entirely indifferent towards her presence.

Luckily she wasn't like Todd or Grayson or that would have killed it.



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.

see, i guess this is the dichotomy i see in your thoughts; you loved the first title, and the team is back together to make a second game. most would simply assume there's another pile of goodness on the way, rather than jump to the conclusion that everything they've ever hated out of two converging mediums would asplode in their face.



i find that disappointing. there's so much to the character, particularly her relationship with bruce. adds a deeper level to the story i'd think you're missing out on.



my personal opinion? i largely dislike the batfamily. i hate huntress, batgirl, azrael, orpheus, spoiler, etc. i tolerate robin, nightwing, and oracle. i prefer a loner batman, or atleast a streamlined batfamily. and, as said earlier, i'm only willing to accept a grouping if batman is their undisputed leader -- none of this "ill show him" bullshit. batman is better. and should take a stronger stance on others in his city than saying "this is my city." while i do enjoy a select few takes on the team (many mentioned earlier) my preference is almost always a solo batman.

all that said... i think that has absolutely zero to do with DC's (or the entire industries) declining stance. in fact, if anything, i think the expansion of the batfamily likely sustains and increases an audience for the dying medium. batwoman isn't the reason less people are buying comic books, comic books are the reason less people are buying comic books.

at least that's the economic / industry stance. if you're asking about the quality of the books, and how that is in a decline due to character expansion, then again i point to it being a opinion point. i think there are a million quality stories left to be told, and i don't think that has any bearing on the character pool - it's the creators who must be taken to task. cartoon network's justice league unlimited is probably some of the absolute best story crafting i've enjoyed in the comic book world, and that's dozens of characters. the latest morrison batman and robin story is a brand new batman paired with a brand new character, both of which i dislike in principle, and i loved it.

You really do just make up your own facts to suit your arguments.

I believe DC's decline is related to the decline of print media in general, their over reliance on event books, and the up-coming company wide mini-reboot of the DCU. Nothing to do with the Bat-family.

Since when does arguing against the principle of creating an overdose of characters equate to only the Bat-family?

What you're talking about is exactly what I'm referring to. Constantly creating more characters encourages more obligatory synergy. Next thing you know, you have arcs or entire serials expressly devoted to team ups. And that inevitably leads to colossally homosexual crossover events.

My fear is that this phenomenon makes its way to the gaming medium and Warner/DC tells Rocksteady, "We could really do with the inclusion of this/these character(s) in the next game." I don't expect a Crisis sub-plot to rear its head, but I do expect them to use the game as a springboard for other characters in the same way they used Batman comics in regards to Bordeaux (admittedly, that had more to do with Rucka), Kathy Kane, Manhunter, Montoya, Grayson, and Damien.



I didn't say the game was gonna suck. I've said that aspects of it suck.



Which begs the question: what makes up the itinerary of contemporary comic books?

Just writing? Certainly not. It's a continuum of character debuts/showcases, extended families, team ups, replacements, clones (see also: Batman Inc.), and universal crossovers that are all being micro-managed by one person (Didio).

I give the main brunt of writers out there a lot of shit. But I cannot expect any writer to work well under those kind of conditions.



The show is completely modular where the characters come and go in manageable numbers as the writers please. It doesn't have to put up with an ever expanding and changing continuum.

Even if the current DC writers were decent, the setup they're forced to deal with is impractical.



By that token, it doesn't have to be a Batman comic then for you to enjoy it. Or rather, it doesn't have to be Bat characters even if it's a Batman book....Kinda defeats the purpose.

Roger. From now on, I'll just agree with everyone about everything.

none of this parallaxian fear relates to arkham city. your argument is referring to a world of video games that do not exist. you're already upset with the third title in the arkham trilogy, as well as the new franchise of superman and wonder woman games, months before the second batman game has hit shelves. ...and, notedly, only a few years after the first title impressed you so. even prometheus waits until he sees a rendering.

looking at just what we actually have to look at here, there's a single video game title. which you enjoyed. that same team is back, building a follow up. those are all the cards we have to play with. making any type of comparison to 70+ years of messy comic book continuity or marketing ploys is silly.

if you're whole argument is you "just saying it could," well then, ok, sure. but i'd counter we've seen no indication that this is the direction rockstar will head. they've already bucked years of bad comics, and a decent supply of shitty batman video games, to bring us a kick ass title. i'll give them the benefit of the doubt on a not-yet-released sequel.



a disadvantage i will grant the world of comics is the serial nature of having to come up with "something else" every 30 days. but shitty conditions are a shitty excuse for a bad story. a writer can bob-and-weave through the nonsense to pull something magical out of his ass. miller didn't invent batman. neither did christopher nolan or rocksteady. however, each was able to craft a tale how they wanted to, all based on the same premise, each different, and all awesome.

you also have to remember that if catwoman or joker, or even the paranoia-fulfilling huntress appears in arkham asylum 8, they will be rockstar's versions of the characters, designed to fit in their universe. similar to how miller's superman was a government punk, batman & robin's bane was a mindless goon, BTAS's mr. freeze was an awesomely complex villain, etc. the varied interpretation means, by default, they're not going to be who you "know" them to be.

and all that aside: you, personally, can instantly toss aside teamups and replacements and expanding families as bad stuffs. fine. but let's look at the flip side: have you liked every solo batman adventure? my guess would be a "no," and very likely a "of course not." that would again point to the quality of the story, itself; and have no bearing on the quantity of characters.



i've been known to enjoy stories that weren't batman stories, yes. however, the dick grayson / damian wayne "batman & robin" title was deeply affixed within the batworld. it was their dynamic together, as well as their misplacement in their own universe (namely: the batuniverse) that i found enjoyable. not necessarily dick continually questioning "am i as good as bruce", which is what most hacky writers have been breathing through grayson for years. instead, he flat out knows he's not -- and/or at least acknowledges he's different. further, it's having damian continually point out "he's not as good as bruce" that adds the unexpected and dynamic element of fun to the story.

and, please note: this is a story i am enjoying, not a premise. the two or three issues i've read thus far that carry a new writer (i believe starting with B&R 15?) have been poo. same characters, same world, different outcome.

They really need to lay off the "get down on your knees and slide under something" move. It doesn't really look that cool when you do it in slow motion.

You've been doing it wrong.

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. Just general predictions. And from what you've been saying, that's only "Parallaxian" because it has yet to happen. And if and when it does, you're telling me that you reserve the right to say that there was no original precedent for such a thing since you don't hold comic books in the same esteem that you do other forms of media. That kinda ignores the point of being able to identify them both as "media" outlets. Video games don't consist of serials all of a sudden?



This bares repeating: "At some point, one has to acknowledge that additional characters are an inherent strain on the serials."

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. 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.



Barring some specialized circumstances, I'll know it wasn't the inherent strain of additional characters that weighed down its quality.



Following "deeply affixed in the batworld" parameters, Bullock and Gordon dressed up as Batman and Robin would be a workable setup.

being here in the batman: arkham city video game discussion thread, you can see my confusion.



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.



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.



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.



the last line makes me question what we're discussing here.

the remainder, answered above.



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"?

"...Just general predictions."



"Esteem" was a poor choice of words; I wanted to say "literary esteem," but that wouldn't have made sense. I'm not trying to say you dislike one more than the other. What I'm pointing out is that you're trying to draw a distinction between the contents of the two mediums using solely the differences in presentation and the fact that video games simply haven't had as much coverage as comicbooks yet. But that does not address the serial nature that video games have in common with comicbooks.

Batman is clearly developing its own larger serial niche as a video game. There has been an undeniable interest in this development (see also: Warner Bros. buying Rocksteady)--especially with its continuum being based on the current era of books. This tells the powers that be that the game reaches out to the same demographic. The potential promotional uses for the game with regards to the DCU and its characters is evident without "Parallaxian fear."

There can very clearly be seen a correspondence between the two mediums after all. If you haven't noticed the "Arkham City" campaign in the DCU already, just pick up the latest issue of Wonder Woman. It has a mini written by Paul Dini at the end depicting Joker and Harley and their thoughts at the end of "Arkham Asylum" and their foreshadowing for the sequel. This kind of marketing is easily reciprocated.



Wait. Are you saying Asylum/City don't bare a resemblance to the current DCU?



I do not recall using the word "need."



Nine times out of ten it probably won't be "just as quickly." Which is the point.

Writing is not a strain unto itself. It's the weight of the device that strains the writing. Thus, there are certain things that are more difficult than others to write.



That all depends on your practical examples. Not the principle of writing in and of itself. From story to story, certain tropes have a tendency to manifest what's generally considered to be bad writing. Not sure why it's so incomprehensible that writing tends to be bad for a particular reason.



Sounds like me Pre-Crisis when I was preaching to Mxy about writers not having an excuse not to know every square inch of the DCU and its trappings at any given time.

Everyone is expected to do a job. But most employers can acknowledge when certain circumstances are impractical. Or in this case, fanboys.

I'm not gonna call someone a bad fireman/nurse/cop because they're unable to save everyone or anyone in a set of particularly heinous circumstances. Likewise, I'm not gonna call someone a bad writer if they can't juggle "families" of characters and extraneous crossovers while they're writing a serial in which they're ideally charged with only a main protagonist and a scant amount of support characters. Even in JLU, the writers only focused on a few characters at a time per episode.



Fair enough, but again, the lack of convention really defeats the purpose of actually calling it "Batman."

well, you're doing an awful lot of worrying about something that "need not happen".

the games will share similarities with the books. and the cartoons. and the movies, from today or the 90s. and these will be seen in content, presentation, distribution, etc. each also features it's own serialized franchise goal. they all also feature batman.

but there's no reason to think the "similarity" will bring your fears to fruition. in fact, looking at the "evidence" amongst all that is available and reviewable over the past 2 or 20 years, there's so, so much more reason to not be concerned. there's also so, so much more you could be fearful of, where a connection is significantly more imminent and apparent. but i don't see yours, and i don't think there's a reason to.

arkham city is not the first batman game to be successful. the 90s batfilms and 90s toons were both popular - in fact, much more so. there were correlations, synergies, and comparables, but in the end, they each remained their own world. the 90s batfilms went "family", but the characters also went "fruity", not to mention public.

looking at AA, there's a guy named batman and a cop named gordon. but they're independent from their comic book counterpart. just as a bold example, there's no "arkham city". the nolan films and timm toons have the same uniqueness amongst them. each had their own handling of the franchise, the content, the universe, the characters -- hell, even the costume.



that is, actually, the point. this is your opinion. with emphasis both on "your" and "opinion." you have pre-emptively dismissed any batfamily type story, with promethean precision. if a single person out there prefers batfamily to solo-man, then the perspectives are nullified. i've read a lot of shit batman stories over the years, and i'd say nine times out of ten, the reason for "shit" had nothing to do with batfamily or crossover.



i feel you're ignoring the loophole of there being no "perfect environment." like, ok, maybe its annoying and restricting writing about the sun being eaten by ...uh... a sun eater, and how that affects the real-world batman universe. but isn't that just as restraining / exhausting as explaining how the joker escaped arkham for the 50th time? the batfamily and/or crossovers are just one of many bits of history and continuity that the writer has to deal with.

brubaker can't pick up with a detective comics run, quickly kill off alfred, then tell the tale of how batman has no father figure. thats out of his control. what he could do, is creatively separate batman from alfred with a heart attack, or vacation, or whatever. its the writer's job to find a way to tell a good story in his way, regardless of the external issues.

for the record, in addition to already knowing these aspects of the job before you become a writer, i think it's also the writer's job to enjoy these challenges. whether its dealing with a time-flashing-zero hour, the hatred of another new robin, or a disinterest in batman's cape -- whatever the writer has a personal grief with, you'd think they'd have to / want to see these aspects as liberating, not just imposing. you get to create a world that does the shit you want it to do. geoff johnns, though message boardily hated, got to make a brazillion changes to GL within the confines of history, simply by tweaking what he could.



damian/grayson is not something i'd want to see permanently, nor is it something i think could continue to hit. i'd also, as said, greatly prefer bruce wayne batman. but it was incredibly well done, and perfectly suited for the title - especially with so much of the tale revolving specifically around bruce and his absence. if you give it a fair shot, there's a good deal there to enjoy

It am make her boobies stick up good!

Maybe I'm missing something but this game looks a hella more like the "real" Batman (ie, the O'Neill/Adams/Englehart/Rogers/Dini/Timm Batman) than anything Morrison's shat out since "Gothic." I'm almost hoping it DOES become "canon" Batman.

Really?



I suppose that is an awful lot of worrying....

Or are you implying that me taking the time to clarify my meaning at length qualifies as some kind of obsessive fearfulness? I'm only following your example here.



Actually, circumstances being what they are between the two mediums (which I've already mentioned), I'd say the concern is well placed.

Also, you have a bad habit of abusing quotations. I didn't use the word "similarity."



The consumer climate today is much different from the 90s when the videogame demographic was in its infancy and consisting of mostly sub-20 something year olds. And nowadays, people have a lot more to lose; there's more incentive to encourage and/or enforce synergy. Viral promotional campaigns that cross mediums (beyond just ads in comics) is really not that hard of a concept to grasp.



I've been speaking generally throughout this thread. I know you've been desperately trying to keep me from doing so in an attempt to confine my meaning to a matter of personal preference. But I've been paying very little attention to your efforts.

Enjoyment is subjective. Quality can be quantified. And--again--generally, the former is correlative to the latter. Just as certain literary tropes are correlative to overall bad writing. Sales tend to be a reflection of this.

If you just have a problem admitting that writing you like happens to be low quality, that's understandable but it completely ignores the point here. I mean, I'll admit I enjoyed a lot of Joe Kelly's run on JLA; a lot of fan-service there that made me giddy (of course, now that I've grown up a bit, it's harder to admit). But I'll always be able to acknowledge that the writing was terrible: all flair, zero quality.

However, if you really want to argue that quality doesn't tend to wain noticeably with an increase in bodies, that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to correspond with ignorance based on the sheer principle of "yeah, well...that's just like...uh...your opinion man."



If every Batman story up till now used only a minimal amount of characters, refrained from a barrage of team ups, kept the character from corresponding with crossover events (be they family or otherwise), the sales would be two to three times better than what they have been. Bad solo stories and all. Because the writing would be better.

"that's just yer opinion pariah!"

Yeah. But it's the correct one.



No. 'Cuz regardless, there's still fewer characters to deal with. Not saying its easy to come up with decent Joker scheme. But focusing your energy on that is more practical than juggling a boatload of characters. The book says "Batman." Not Batman family. Or Flash family. Or Superman family. Or Wonder Woman family...



And you think it makes sense to make it as difficult as possible for the writer to do said job?

Again, I'm not going to put blame squarely on the writer when the conditions are ridiculous and beyond the hope of any writer no matter how good he or she is.



Whether they enjoy writing within those confines or not isn't going to make the writing practical or even decent.



Wouldn't this mean that it simply would have been better to give the two characters their book rather than something showcased as a Batman feature?

yes.



and yet, nothing you've discussed has happened. not in the cold and distant 90s you remember, nor this current era. there's also no plans for such things, at least in the foreseeable future. so, it's possible you're absolutely correct about everything, and not only are the rest of us in this thread incorrect, but so are the media companies you're referencing. to which i concede a mighty bravisima.



that's all fine. everyone has geek out moments. but your base claim that batfamily books are of definitively lesser-quality than solo-batman books is still an opinion. potentially one i would even agree with, but something i'd clearly identify as an opinion. and one you paint with incredibly broad strokes, not giving those stories you've graded a fair (or simply "a") try.



it's an illogical one. based on nothing. like, really, nothing. i mean, hell, at the very core, the batfamily star "robin" was created only months after batman, and boosted (significantly) the sales of the titular character's books. your theory has already been incorrect for over 70 years!



i don't follow - why?

also, what is "too large" a family for you? it sounds like robin is out, but what about alfred? gordon? bullock? penguin? arkham? batmobile? is there a method to your theory? would the "magic number" translate to other characters, like superman? other media, like harry potter? was the cast of cheers too large? or less successful than the more streamlined fraiser spinoff?



conditions suck. in their job and in ours. writers are paid to make them unsuck as much as possible. granted, i'll readily admit some side stuff (be them crossovers or whatever) are messy, unnecessary, and detrimental. i imagine there are some mornings a writer wakes up, checks his email, and just shakes his head in woe. but until the reverse is true, and the 10 months without "events" produce issues of glorious perfection, i just can't shake the notion.



in other cases, maybe. but with morrison's run, it's the very clash of them being batman and robin that makes the pairing work [for me]. damian acting very much like the cocky asshole version of bruce wayne's son, critiquing the pretender in the cowl, in the middle of a joker attack, etc. there's a great "negative space" aspect to the run.

worth mentioning, as much as i didn't like the idea of the character, i really enjoy damian, at least morrison's. tim is tollerable, if not forgettable. grayson i prefer as nightwing, and out of gotham. every other sidekick (from jean-paul to huntress to spoiler to batgirl to batwoman) i'd much rather not be in my story, and not be in gotham. but damian, very quickly, became very awesome. he's a little shit, but for all the right reasons. there's an ultimate respect for bruce, and an inherent hatred for everyone else. he doesn't feel like he has to prove himself to anyone; rather, everyone has to prove everything to him. he's actually a better bruce than bruce most of the time. the fact that he's like 10 just makes it all the more awesome.

Roger.



I've already pointed out how the game's been given promotional content within the comicbooks. It's stands to reason that execs would be inclined for that arrangement to work in reverse if they so wished.

Say 'it hasn't happened' all you like. But don't disregard the precedent of the scenario.



Quality isn't subject to opinion though. That was my point.

Consider a movie with high production values but bad writing. One could argue over the story all they like, but the film itself couldn't be touched.



Batman got a boost in sales because he got his own book apart from Tec. Batman's staying power is built on Batman. Not extraneous characters. This is especially true today. It's specious to say that other characters aside from him are responsible for his popularity spurts. By your logic, the issues that didn't feature Robin should have killed the sales.



Quite frankly, I think it's self evident.

Instead of spending an ungodly amount of time organizing characters and budgeting their time according to the scenes at hand, you're just concentrating on the actual conflict of the story. Nine times out of ten, the former will be far more contrived than the latter regardless of what the conflict is.



The phrase "minimal amount" isn't equivalent to a "magic number." The key here would be having as few as possible. This, of course, conflicts with the modern principle of creating as many family members and associates as one thinks he or she can get away with and giving them all some face time at every available opportunity.

The point is that Batman was designed to only have a few close family members being Alfred and Robin. And circa 86, Robin was given less and less face time. In which case, Batman worked quite well with just Alfred the majority of the time. Being more practical as a loner character, the stories tended to have more quality to them. This was especially true of Legends of the Dark Knight since it didn't need to worry about family members or main continuity.

Bullock and Gordon are auxiliary characters. Villains like Penguin are simply apart of the conflict for the most part. However, there can be an overdose of them too--as Loeb has shown us time and again.

In the case of other characters, the minimal amount would seem to depend on their level of social extroversion or lack thereof. In the case of Superman, I'd say a healthy supporting cast is not impractical according to his openness with people. However, as is the case with all serials that emphasize the qualities and exploits of an individual character, too many egos apart from the main attraction will inevitably distract from it. So while a goodly sized "family" may or may not be practical for the character, the writer will still be stuck trying to balance the exploits of the main character with the participation of the family. And again, if it's too big, the writing will be impractical even if implementation of additional characters makes sense. As such, all main characters could stand to do with less "family" support regardless of whether or not their presence makes sense.



I wouldn't expect perfection. Just better, more practical writing on average.



I'm curious: would it have made you unhappy to have the book published as "Dick Grayson and Robin" even if the writing was exactly the same?

I agree.

that's ironically somewhat spot on. well played.



"it hasn't happened" is really all that needs to be said for your argument to not have a point.



that's a premise based on someone establishing the writing was bad and/or the productions were high. it's all based on perspective and subjective opinion. for a more detailed example, this difference of opinion is clearly evidenced in every episode of siskel and ebert, every oscar nominee or snub, every discussion on the view, every purchaser of a liefeld book, every reteller of the referees at the super bowl, and every utterance on the internet. ever.



adding robin to the batman comic, months after batman was introduced, boosted sales significantly. there's no debate or nitpicking here, that's simply what happened. this, quickly, defies your two points: (1) that batman has to be a solo character, when his solo run lasted less than a single year and the launch of his solo title featured robin on the cover. and (2) that batbooks with other characters reduce sales, when the number of prints doubled because of the addition of robin.

this, really, would conclude those specific points. in 1940.



i wouldn't make a claim that my personal preference is where sales are won or lost. that would be silly. books that i think are awesome can sell well or sell poorly, regardless of: author, artist, characters, extended families, crossovers, etc. personal opinions are not individually part of the industry's driving force, which is reinforced, every day, by... well, the industry.

we live in a world where american idol is by far the #1 show. where the kardashians are hollywood icons. where comic fans rave about captain america and poo on green lantern, but the box office is split between them by about 10%. with all the stuff continually being published or produced that you, specifically, loathe, i can't believe how that point isn't sitting with you.

as said very early on in this thread, i actually agree with you on my bat-interests. i am more often than not interested in the "dark" stories, the solo stories. i'd rather not have any of the added family, even robin. i'd rather have a black cape than a blue cape. i'd rather gotham not relate to other, more "comic booky" cities in the DCU. i'd rather the batmobile, hang glider, smoke pellets, and other tools didn't feature a batman logo on them. but i'm very clear on all of this being my opinion, and having no real basis on how the universe, as a whole, sees and/or buys the character.



does that make the episodes of justice league and/or justice league unlimited the "10 out of 10"? or the authority's original run? the legendary claremont x-men years? batfamily involving bat arcs, like no man's land? does this de-qualify the millions (!) of batfans that prefer batfamilies? or the obviously-numbers-based-decisions to create (and recreate) characters like batgirl, batwoman, batman inc., etc.?

these are beloved tales and characters to some folks out there, who would argue to the end that they are the higher quality, and that 70 years of "batman versus bad guy" story lines would be on the lower end. i mean, geebus, there's a whole world of fans that like the fucking legion of super heroes. the legion of super heroes! i likely can't make a stronger argument about quality (and grouping size) being more subjective than the fucking legion of super heroes! (the legion! of super heroes!!)



to you. and, quite frankly, to me. and, certainly, lots of other folks out there. who share our opinion.




i'm quite certain you wouldn't need my help in naming dozens of bat books, miniseries, titles, and even eras where a solo batman book (or cartoon, or movie, or tv series, or video game) was shit.



i honestly don't care much for what the book is called. in fact, i probably refer to it as "morrison's run" or "morrison's batman" more than "batman and robin." but, getting picky, naming it "dick grayson and robin" makes as much sense as calling other books "bruce wayne and robin," or "batman and damian" versus "batman and tim drake." grayson was (playing the role of) batman in the book - he was referred to as batman. and, again, one of the great joys i had in the book was the over-the-top obviousness of grayson not being batman. damian noted it, gordon noted it, alfred noted it, and grayson noted it.

it was interesting to see the dynamic of how respect had to be earned, or was outright taken away. it was refreshing to see a new pairing between "established" characters. it was awesome to have the continual deference to bruce wayne's awesomeness.

you and i aren't all that dissimilar on our personal preferences, and i think you're really short changing yourself by not giving the first dozen or so issues a try.

Rocksteady should take over from Nolan.