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.
there need not be a correlation, attributes of one need not cross into the other, and every bit of established "proof" screams that.
I do not recall using the word "need."
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.
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.
Nine times out of ten it probably won't be "just as quickly." Which is the point.
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'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.
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.
Fair enough, but again, the lack of convention really defeats the purpose of actually calling it "Batman."
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
