Reasons Why Batman: Arkham Origins is a Bad Idea

Hi. I was just bored and wanted to write something about video games. Wasn’t sure if I could do a good review, so this seemed as good as anything.

Now, as I’m sure most of you are aware, Batman: Arkham Origins was recently announced as the third entry in the popular Arkham Franchise, taking place before the events of Batman: Arkham Asylum. It is set to be released on October 25, 2013 for the PlayStation 3, X Box 360, Wii U, and Microsoft Windows.

For those who don’t know, I love the previous two Arkham games. I love them about equally (I love the combat in City MUCH more than Asylum, and I LOVE the open world, side missions, and other playable characters in City, but I like all other stuff such as story, riddler trophies, and other in Asylum more. But this is going off-topic), and I rank them the second and third greatest superhero games of all time. In March, I heard that Warner Bros. had plans to announce a third Arkham game around the same time Injustice: Gods Among Us was released. I was thrilled. The day came, and I was so disappointed. Arkham Origins is just a terrible idea, and I have no clue why people are supporting this. In this blog post, I’m going to say why Batman: Arkham Origins is a bad idea. I have no clue where to start, so I’ll just start writing and see where it goes.

Prequels are Rarely a Success

For games, movies, and TV series, prequels are rarely a success. I could go down a long list of prequels, most of which were failures, but I don’t feel like it. But can anyone name any prequels that were successful? The only one I can think of was X-Men: First Class (I know that was a movie and Arkham Origins is a game, but this about prequels in general), and I hated that movie. But it was still successful. The only good prequel I’ve ever seen that I liked was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but that was still a critical failure for some reason. I’m not trying to turn this in to a discussion about X-Men movies, but I’m trying to show that prequels just aren’t successful. Why would this game be any different?

It Has Nothing To Do With The Title

Here’s what we know of the plot so far according to Wikipedia (shut up, they’re a reliable source):

“The events of Arkham Origins are set several years before Batman: Arkham Asylum, in the middle of winter in fictional Gotham City. Batman is an experienced crime-fighter, but has not yet become the veteran superhero portrayed in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Batman has battled with normal criminals and gangsters and is used to being stronger and faster than his targets, but on a snowy Christmas eve he is confronted with far more dangerous enemies: super villains tasked with killing Batman. The sadistic and brutal Black Mask has placed a bounty on the superhero, and Batman must discover why the villain harbors a deep hatred for him. Black Mask is the most powerful man in the city, possessing vast wealth and resources, and controls Gotham's criminal underworld, having eliminated his opposition and begun consolidating his power. His mask conceals his identity, allowing him to operate publicly as Roman Sionis, head of Janus Cosmetics. Black Mask's henchmen help instigate a rise in crime and gang activity in the city. Captain James Gordon and the Gotham City Police Department are wary of the new superhero in their midst, and are not his allies with corrupt cops actively working against him. Arkham Origins will feature the debut of the assassin Deathstroke, Alberto Falcone, and the return of the Penguin and Batman's butler Alfred Pennyworth from Arkham City.”

There’s what we know of the plot so far. I admit, it is a cool plot. I love the use of Black Mask and Deathstroke. However, this has nothing to do with Batman’s Origins. I have no problem with that, as it has been showed so many times it’s lost all meaning (I’ve seen his parents get killed more times than any other characters). But that plot has NOTHING to do with Arkham Asylum or some variation of it (like Arkham City). So why does this have the words “Arkham” and “Origins” in the title? This has NOTHING to do with the Arkham series, other than being about Batman (and I assume will have people such as Kevin Conroy and Nolan North returning as voice actors). This game does not relate to the Arkham franchise, and I don’t acknowledge it as part of the series. As far as I’m concerned, a third Arkham game has yet to be confirmed.

The Franchise Had So Many Directions It Could Of Gone

With everything in Arkham City, they couldn’t come up with something besides a prequel!?! There were so many great villains and stories that could of been used. Even if they were too lazy to come up with their own plot, they’ve never heard of stories such as The Long Halloween, No Man’s Land, Hush, and The Dark Knight Returns? The clearly had enough creativity to come up with a plot, so what would of been so difficult about turning their plot with Black Mask & Deathstroke part of a story that also involved Scarecrow, Hush, another villain or two, somehow involve Arkham, add in Azrael as a major part of the game and possibly a playable character, and boom! You’re done! Seriously, they can’t come up with anything to continue the franchise? I already have two ideas, and I barely thought about it for 5 minutes.

Batman: Arkham Terror

A more horror themed game involving Scarecrow as the main villain, also involving Man-Bat & Killer Croc as major villains. Azreal is now a playable character (similar to how Catwoman had 4 episodes in Arkham City). Takes place in an open world Gotham, including the now abandoned Arkham City. There’s also a level where you return to Arkham Asylum, now completely vacated.

Batman: Beyond Arkham

Taking place in 2040 (or 2050, changing it some from the TV Series), with Terry McGinnis the main playable character. The main villain of the game would be the Joker’s child (hinted at with Harley’s Pregnancy Test in Arkham City), with Blight, Inque, Shriek, Spellbinder, and Stalker possible villains. It’d be another open-world game, this time with the futuristic Gotham and the Batmobile playable. Hush would also be in the game. Some of you may be thinking how Hush would fit into the game since this takes place decades later. From what I’ve read online, Terry was introduced in the main DCU in Batman #700 and received his own mini-series a few months later. Hush was the main villain of that series (From what I’ve read). So, it worked in this comic, why wouldn’t it work in this game?

There, without even thinking, I just came up with two ideas that actually tie into the Arkham games instead of a crappy prequel. I admit that they were a bit lazily slapped together and need a bit more plot, but give me about a week, and I could have a full plot synopsis complete with side missions for both games, and both games actually have something to do with the previous Arkham games. If I can come up with these ideas with barely thinking, imagine what people who love Batman even more than I do and know much more than I do could come up with. Seriously Warner Bros, that prequel is the best you can come up with!?!

Conclusion

I was going to make this blog post longer. However, I can’t think of more reasonings (I wrote them all down somewhere. I need to find them) right now. But I think this is good for now. My biggest question about this game is “Why is this being made?” The best reasoning I can come up with is that with no Rocksteady, Warner Bros. was too lazy to come up with a plot to continue the series. Since they were too lazy, they just came up with their own plot. To make sure no one had questions like “What about Scarecrow? What about Hush?”, they just made it a prequel so it didn’t have to build upon the events of the previous games.

Now the title is probably incorrect. It should be titled “Reasons Why Batman: Arkham Origins is a bad idea to continue the Arkham Franchise.” The combat will be the same with is fantastic, plus I really like the plot. But for a way to continue the Arkham Franchise, this is just a terrible idea.

So in short, Batman: Arkham Origins is a bad idea to continue the Arkham franchise. I refuse to acknowledge this as part of the Arkham Series, and I eagerly await the announcement of a third game.

What are your thoughts on Batman: Arkham Origins? Are you excited? Do you share any of my thoughts? Please leave it in the comments.

"I refuse to acknowledge this as part of the Arkham Series"

wow... talk about self-entitlement.

Anyway, I think it's great. And it's definitely not a bad idea. I wonder though, if the Arkhams game are not the best superhero games are there, which one is?

I agree. I think it'll be good. Saying he refuses to acknowledge it before actually playing it is just ridiculous.

The only good prequel I’ve ever seen that I liked was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but that was still a critical failure for some reason.

The only good prequel I’ve ever seen that I liked was X-Men Origins: Wolverine,

The only good prequel I’ve ever seen that I liked was X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The only good prequel I’ve ever seen that I liked was X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The only good prequel I’ve ever seen that I liked was X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Nope.

I bet 10 bucks that it will be good and that you'll buy it.

Also isn't the game play more important than what happens in the plot?

@snascimento: I'd personally say Marvel Ultimate Alliance. City is probably a better game, but I just love MUA much more.

@frogdog:That post about my thoughts regarding the Wolverine movie was irrelevant. As for your second post, I find the plot equally as important as gameplay.

@the_lunact_and_manic:I never said it wouldn't be good or that I wouldn't buy it. I'm saying it won't be good as part of the Arkham series, and I won't be buying it until I can get it used for 20 bucks (like you can do now with Arkham City)

I figure they still have twists and turns to go. THey've said that it's called Arkham Origins because it's the Origins of his relationships with his foes.

I think it's premature to say that it has nothing to do with Arkham itself just from the blurb that the game has announced.

Arkham Asylum/City are the names of the setting, Arkham Origins probably hinges more on the plot.

(Can you please hate on it after it releases?)

Also as for successful prequels in the money range, I direct you to the following: The Hobbit 1 (over 1 billion), The Star Wars Prequels (over 700 million each), and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (333 million and that's in 1983 where 300 million was a lot more than it is these days)

@thecannon: Gameplay involves the controls, level designs and combat. If that falls apart, then nobody would pick up the game, regardless of the plot.

I'm okay with it. It's the best way to do it without creating the joke-game "Arkham World."

That said, if they made Arkham Beyond revolving around Terry, I would definitely buy that in a heartbeat.

I am hesitant about this game, but I'm reserving judgment until we are much closer to it actually being out.

Oh, and to address the "Arkham" name, this isn't Batman Origins, it's Arkham Origins. It's the introduction of Batman into the twisted world of Gotham supervillains, an "Arkham" mentality, if you will. I think the name is actually fitting, especially after reading the Game Informer article on it.

That game would be all kinds of awesome.

@thegreyoutcastx:

Completely revamped flight controls, all new gadgets, new enemies, and a new melee style...

Man. I want that game!

Likewise!

I would also like it if you could actually experience and do things in the Batcave (the real one) given that Bruce would be operating from it, and learn what happened to Dick, Tim, etc post Arkham City along with Bruce giving Terry insight on his old rogues. (Not necessary, but a personal want)

I am hoping that I can go into and out of the Batcave as I wish in Arkham Origins, and potentially go into the Wayne Mansion if I like.

YES! I'm glad I am not alone in that thought. I mean, it's a Batman game, and the closest we've gotten to the Batcave/Wayne Manor is challenge maps for AC. Seems like it's overdue.

They could do like Croft Manor in Tomb Raider Lengend and Anniversary. Basically you have full access to the mansion, but there is kind of a mission in it, I remember Lara's mansion was one of my favorite parts in TR:A, very well done.

Injustice comic is a prequel. Its the most successful 1.00 comic ever.

This, TheCannon always amuses me.

1. Temple Of Doom
2. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
3. The Godfather Part II
4. Star Trek (2009)
5. Casino Royale
6. X-Men First Class

There are a few I heard good things about, but I haven't seen like: The Good the Bad and the Ugly & Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me.

I know there are far more disappointing and unsuccessful prequels, but I'm just making a point.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAA

Yeah that is a good laugh.

Technically only 1 or 2 of those are the rest are reboots while in another sense you are absolutely right. Prequel as he means it refuses Reboots whereas dictionary allows them to be. 100% prequels mentioned are is X-Men First Class. I do not know Temple of Doom so I can't be certain.

Here are some excellent Prequels yet are always listed as prequels:

1. Star Wars Episode I
2. Star Wars Episode II
3. Star Wars Episode III
4. Hobbit: Unexpected Journey
5. Hobbit Desolation of Smaug(hasn't come out yet but will receive critical aclaim)
6. Hobbit There and Back Again(same as above)
7. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
8. The Scorpion King(and its sequels...haven't seen them so they might not be allowed on list)
9. Puss in Boots

With the one I mentioned I can only mention 10 good reboots that I know of.

As for this blog I can't help but laugh this guy is totally...himself. He never changes and I don't know if it is a good or bad thing. Its always his way or no way. There's no openness to change. Well I like the idea and believe it will be awesome. Can't wait till he recants these words.

I am not even slightly surprised that this blog came from the same person who thought MUA was a better game than Arkham City.

We'll see what happens when it comes out. I'm betting it will be awesome maybe not as great as the first 2 but pretty good.

I agree that they have overdone the whole Arkham name thing, but I do not think that is enough to certify this as a horrible game. Even if it was half as good as it's predecessors, I would buy it.

I'd imagine it's called "Arkham ORIGINS" is because Batman isn't the hardened veteran we had in the first two. It even says that he hasn't encountered a proper super-villain, he hasn't been truly tested.

But that will have changed after the events of this game,he'll really know what it's going to take to rid Gotham of the villains that plague it. So, yeah, it's his origin in a sense.

this

Wow, seriously speaking. I don't know how you expect anybody to take you seriously anymore. X-men Origins: Wolverine was a goo---- I'm sorry I can't finish typing that sentence without laughing hysterically, I don't know how you did it. Or maybe you didn't and you are just trolling.

I think the only real thing to worry about in this game is that it's not being developed by Rocksteady. I'd even put a question mark at the end of that because Rocksteady stated they'd be having an advisory role in its development and as long as WB Montreal sticks with the core gameplay mechanics, there's a very small margin of error. Story's not a big deal to me, though it'd be a plus if it was up to snuff with Asylum and City.

What has me interested is the synopsis which I hadn't read: " Batman has battled with normal criminals and gangsters and is used to being stronger and faster than his targets, but on a snowy Christmas eve he is confronted with far more dangerous enemies: super villains tasked with killing Batman." This is just me speculating, but I'll go on. Rocksteady had originally envisioned Asylum as a game similar in atmosphere to Bioshock, in the vein of a survival horror game, but they scrapped that because he was Batman and it wouldn't be very congruent. This, however, is how that WOULD work: taking him out of his element against supervillains (which he's never faced before).

The game isn't even out yet

This

"Arkham" is a branding of this franchise and doesn't by necessity tie gameplay to the asylum itself.

Also, if Prequels are rarely successful, no one told that to Star Wars or the Hobbit. Like them or not, they're huge financial successes.

I think it's way too premature to try to shoot something down based on the little information we know. You don't even know what you're aiming at. The first two games were spectacular...that doesn't earn a little faith?

In some way I do agree with this article... I have enjoyed and spent many hours/days playing the previous games, and from what Ive seen from gameplay trailers, I just see another arkham city game. Rocksteady took alot and of risks that paid off which brought an amazing gameplay experience to AC from its prequel AA. Dont get me wrong, AA was a story masterpiece aswell, but rocksteady got everything nailed perfectly first time which gives the new developer's an easy job of just adding new features and story. They have changed detective mode, as pretty as it looks it is an uneeded change. If left the same they wouldnt of got any complaints, so why change whats not broken? If Rocksteady continued as the leading developer, I think the game would of brought the same excitement as when AA was announced. From gameplay trailers ive seen the roads look to crammed like AA so, I really cant see a driveable batmobile which is disappointing me. Im not hating on the game but I want a new game feel not just a AA with things changed I actaully enjoy as thats a big risk. They are replacing mechanics that rocksteady used to get this game on the map. Im not doubting this game as I havnt played it yet but I just really hope Im not wasting my money and time buying and playing this game.

Since Batman is starting out. So too are his enimies. Arkham probably hasn't been built yet or was not specialized in the criminally insane, until the events of Origins..didn't think of that didja Cannon?