If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kotaku)   After destroying the movie industry in every way humanly possible, Warner Bros. has decided it's time to branch out   (kotaku.com) divider line 56
    More: Sad, Warner Brothers, Arkham Asylum  
•       •       •

20023 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2010 at 9:20 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-23 08:27:15 AM  
... didn't WB already do extensive work on the F.E.A.R. series?
 
2010-02-23 09:22:41 AM  
The WB TV network sucked too.
 
2010-02-23 09:22:53 AM  
yawn
 
2010-02-23 09:23:25 AM  
If they keep the same team in tact with Rocksteady to do more DC-related games...

We -might- see an epic streak of DC-gaming win.


/don't want to added the 'Or' to this, too depressing to think of the alternative
 
2010-02-23 09:27:27 AM  
Does this mean we'll get an Animaniacs video game?
 
2010-02-23 09:29:26 AM  
At least if they make a new Superman game there's no way humanly possible they can fark it up as bad as Superman 64.
 
2010-02-23 09:30:08 AM  
So what? Who cares? How is this Farkworthy?
 
2010-02-23 09:32:08 AM  
To be fair, Warner Bros was involved with the most awesome game ever...

upload.wikimedia.org
/hot like God using a flamethrower on Cthulhu
 
2010-02-23 09:32:16 AM  
FarkinginNC: At least if they make a new Superman game there's no way humanly possible they can fark it up as bad as Superman 64.

I have not played it, but it is legendary in its suckiness. It is really the second coming of ET: the game?

/or the NES Superman game where you had to take the Subway across the city?
 
2010-02-23 09:32:16 AM  
Carth: Does this mean we'll get an Animaniacs video game?

We already have an Animaniacs video game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRpTLo8x2EE
 
2010-02-23 09:32:52 AM  
www.digitpress.com
 
2010-02-23 09:35:01 AM  
Warner Bros already had just about everything DC related anyhow. Go to a Six Flags and check the rides.. Batman, the Joker, Mr. Freeze...Bugs Bunny playground..
 
2010-02-23 09:36:13 AM  
Nemo's Brother: FarkinginNC: At least if they make a new Superman game there's no way humanly possible they can fark it up as bad as Superman 64.

I have not played it, but it is legendary in its suckiness. It is really the second coming of ET: the game?

/or the NES Superman game where you had to take the Subway across the city?


I still have a copy of ET, and Superman 64 might be worse than it. Absolutely awful. Atrocious controls, stupid gameplay, and lazy development. The developers were either so rushed or so lazy that they put this green mist around the edge of the screen so that you basically had to fly in a straight line or you died. Terrible. See Fooshards post as an example of the suck.
 
2010-02-23 09:38:39 AM  
Schwhat: Carth: Does this mean we'll get an Animaniacs video game?

We already have an Animaniacs video game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRpTLo8x2EE


I played that game. It was a decent platformer, nothing fancy.
 
2010-02-23 09:42:07 AM  
Nemo's Brother: I have not played it, but it is legendary in its suckiness. It is really the second coming of ET: the game?

You can at least finish Superman 64, ET is impossible.

But it is the worst game ever put out on a Nintendo Platform, period.
 
2010-02-23 09:44:57 AM  
Destroying the movie industry?

Harry Potter series
The Hangover
Watchmen
Terminator
The Dark Knight
The Matrix...

Man, they really are destroying movies......
 
2010-02-23 09:45:58 AM  
On with the show, this ain't it.
 
2010-02-23 09:46:01 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf:

You can at least finish Superman 64, ET is impossible.

But it is the worst game ever put out on a Nintendo Platform, period.


I don't know. You ever play Pit Fighter on the SNES? That game is so gawd-awful that I think it beats out Superman 64 on the suck meter.
 
2010-02-23 09:46:19 AM  
The only people ruining the movie business are the patrons going to films that submitter (and the rest of the internets) deem unworthy of being made in the first place. Go cry to your mommy upstairs, loser.
 
2010-02-23 09:49:57 AM  
Lord Farkwad: The WB TV network sucked too.

www.tvweek.com
whut?!
 
2010-02-23 09:51:08 AM  
Dr. Frisbee: I don't know. You ever play Pit Fighter on the SNES? That game is so gawd-awful that I think it beats out Superman 64 on the suck meter.

Ohh that turd was bad, but Superman is a special kind of bad.
 
2010-02-23 09:58:37 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Nemo's Brother: I have not played it, but it is legendary in its suckiness. It is really the second coming of ET: the game?

You can at least finish Superman 64, ET is impossible.

But it is the worst game ever put out on a Nintendo Platform, period.


What I finished ET in 10 minutes. It's easy!
 
2010-02-23 10:01:22 AM  
IdBeCrazyIf: Dr. Frisbee: I don't know. You ever play Pit Fighter on the SNES? That game is so gawd-awful that I think it beats out Superman 64 on the suck meter.

Ohh that turd was bad, but Superman is a special kind of bad.


I just wanted to comment that under the Geneva Convention, we can't force prisoners at Gitmo etc. to play Superman 64 as part of an interrogation, or as part of a prison sentence either. I think ET and maybe Star Trek Legacy may be the only other games to have this distinction.
 
2010-02-23 10:12:12 AM  
Ummmm, Warner Bros. has been in the video games business since 1976. So, you know, basically since video games have been around. I would not call that "deciding to branch out."
 
2010-02-23 10:12:18 AM  
martlet1: Destroying the movie industry?

Harry Potter series
The Hangover
Watchmen
Terminator
The Dark Knight
The Matrix...

Man, they really are destroying movies......


to be fair, the watchmen was a really sh*tty movie. as was the matrix.
 
2010-02-23 10:13:18 AM  
Subby is crazy. Warner Bros has been very awesome in the recent years, except for their printed comics division that is.

They published a very ambitious (but a little flawed) gem called Scribblenaut. Arkham Asylum is awesome, and Warner Bros deciding to lock down the developer hopefully to do more superheroes game, sounds logical to me.
 
2010-02-23 10:15:47 AM  
Batman:AA was a massive disappointment gameplay wise.

It had all of the elements not to be, and then we never got to beat up anybody important. It was just the Bane boss fight over and over. There should have been the ability to pound on characters that we knew.

The next game needs boss fights like Xmen Origns:Wolverine. The Sabertooth fights in that game were simply awesome, and Rocksteady needs to add something similar.
 
R3
2010-02-23 10:22:39 AM  
For all of yous youngins: you know what else WB Destroyed?
Atari, back in mid-80s.

/now get off my lawn!
 
2010-02-23 10:23:47 AM  
Jarhead_h: Xmen Origns:Wolverine

The only time where a game from a movie was actually better than the movie
 
2010-02-23 10:30:53 AM  
Rocksteady's Batman game was pretty good, hopefully WB will be smart enough not to fark with them long enough for us to get one more good game out of them before they go down the tubes.
 
2010-02-23 10:32:53 AM  
Jarhead_h: Batman:AA was a massive disappointment gameplay wise.

It had all of the elements not to be, and then we never got to beat up anybody important. It was just the Bane boss fight over and over. There should have been the ability to pound on characters that we knew.

The next game needs boss fights like Xmen Origns:Wolverine. The Sabertooth fights in that game were simply awesome, and Rocksteady needs to add something similar.


It just seemed too small to me level-wise; I'd hope for a sequel they'll let you stalk the streets of Gotham. And vary up the enemies a bit more; I was dying for some Mr. Freeze action when I saw his refrigerated cell.
 
2010-02-23 10:36:32 AM  
Jarhead_h: Batman:AA was a massive disappointment gameplay wise.

What? That was the only game where I've actually looked forward to fighting larger and larger groups of enemies, and ran straight at them whenever I found them. I have never, ever played a game with melee combat that fun.

Saying it was the Bane fight over and over ignores all of the mob combat, stealth/stalking segments, gadgets, story, platforming, and the Sandman and Croc and Poison Ivy encounters, as well as the fact that you did get to beat up on Joker at the end. It's fine that you'd have preferred more fight encounters with more of the major villains, but using that as a basis to call it a "massive disappointment gameplay wise" and accuse it of having no variation at all is disingenuous.
 
2010-02-23 10:36:46 AM  
Masso: They published a very ambitious (but a little flawed) gem called Scribblenaut. Arkham Asylum is awesome, and Warner Bros deciding to lock down the developer hopefully to do more superheroes game, sounds logical to me.


Well that's the thing. Hopefully they can just fund Rocksteady, point them in a general direction, then step out of the way.
 
2010-02-23 10:41:59 AM  
Crotchrocket Slim: It just seemed too small to me level-wise; I'd hope for a sequel they'll let you stalk the streets of Gotham.

I completely agree with this. A sandbox game building on Batman: AA would be all kinds of awesome. One of my only real complaints about AA is that it gave me just enough freedom to feel restricted by the linearity of the story. Having a collection of nonlinear side quests around the island would have made the game almost perfect in my own estimation.
 
2010-02-23 10:53:53 AM  
If they aren't afraid to produce M rated games, this will be good. Remember the DC vs. MK debacle. NO BLOOD, NO BLOOD!
 
2010-02-23 10:56:12 AM  
As a recently outsourced employee of WB, I am not really getting a kick out of this.
Bastids can kiss my fooking a$$
 
2010-02-23 11:03:29 AM  
SpaceButler: Crotchrocket Slim: It just seemed too small to me level-wise; I'd hope for a sequel they'll let you stalk the streets of Gotham.

I completely agree with this. A sandbox game building on Batman: AA would be all kinds of awesome. One of my only real complaints about AA is that it gave me just enough freedom to feel restricted by the linearity of the story. Having a collection of nonlinear side quests around the island would have made the game almost perfect in my own estimation.


Agreed. Give me a Gotham that lives like GTA IV's Liberty City. Let me roam the rooftops at night. Let me borrow cars or chase down villains in the Batmobile. Let me fly the Batwing around. Let me patrol and stop petty crimes as well as pursuing a series of bigger, badder villains.

And since it's all DC, how about some appearances by other DC characters? Let me bump into Green Arrow while I'm on patrol. Let me call on Etrigan if I have an odd case that calls for his expertise. Let me stop by a nightclub where Zatanna is performing. Let me bump into Nightwing in the middle of tracking down Two-Face.

Batman:AA was awesome, but you're right-- It's because it was so awesome that you get a real sense of just how restricted your movements are. It's especially annoying when they block off an entrance or render a whole map section inaccessible just to herd you toward the main plot. I also would have liked to have seen other supervillains running free, but we didn't really get that many of them.

The only other thing I disliked was that the default costume mode showed Bruce's eyes in the cowl's eye-holes, instead of the standard you see in the comics (grey/white lenses). Not seeing his eyes makes him seem otherworldly and frightening to criminals. Being able to see his eyes softens his appearance.
 
2010-02-23 11:05:11 AM  
Some people are missing the point. They now have a MAJORITY SHARE in Rocksteady. WB is the same company imposing a month long hold on Netflix rentals for newly released DVDs/Blurays. If they're willing to set that kind of precedent who knows what they're going to do to Rocksteady and their plans for any Arkham follow-ups? Jesus, a lot of you are dense. yeah I know, "welcome to Fark." Let's see, they could:

1. Impose a limit on what systems Rocksteady's games will debut on or even ever be released on. In other words if you like the PC version of the game like myself then potentially say goodbye, c'est la vie.

2. Remove content that WB decides isn't appropriate for their brand.

3. Completely get rid of whatever storyline Rocksteady happens to be working on and make them do some silly movie tie-in with the Batman films.

4. Basically do whatever the fark they want.

Yeah, WB owning a majority stake in Rocksteady is just great.


/Yeah, I am the submitter and I hope I'm wrong but fear I'm not.
 
2010-02-23 11:10:41 AM  
soylent green?
 
2010-02-23 11:13:03 AM  
loney tunes was a vital part of my childhood
 
2010-02-23 11:14:57 AM  
Grungehamster: To be fair, Warner Bros was involved with the most awesome game ever...


That game was too easy:

art.penny-arcade.com
 
2010-02-23 11:22:06 AM  
Warner Bros. now has the LOTR license.
A Rocksteady LOTR would be fabulous.
 
2010-02-23 11:23:11 AM  
dopeydwarf: 1. Impose a limit on what systems Rocksteady's games will debut on or even ever be released on. In other words if you like the PC version of the game like myself then potentially say goodbye, c'est la vie.

Generally, things are exclusive either because a) MS, Sony or whoever pays the publisher a huge amount to not publish on the competitor's system or b) a game is developed for one platform due to technical issues.

If you're as money-grubbing as WB, "A" would be decided based on what the console manufacturers do and not on any money making scheme. You shrink your potential sales base by going exclusive. As far as "B" goes, WB would probably want to either keep the content easily translatable or pursue that cash deal that comes with "A".
 
2010-02-23 11:28:40 AM  
dopeydwarf: Some people are missing the point. They now have a MAJORITY SHARE in Rocksteady. WB is the same company imposing a month long hold on Netflix rentals for newly released DVDs/Blurays.

It was Netflix who approached WB. Warner Bros was probably surprised Netflix wanted to impose the hold upon themselves in exchange for ample supplies of latest movies. Link (new window)
 
2010-02-23 11:51:47 AM  
Masso: dopeydwarf: Some people are missing the point. They now have a MAJORITY SHARE in Rocksteady. WB is the same company imposing a month long hold on Netflix rentals for newly released DVDs/Blurays.

It was Netflix who approached WB. Warner Bros was probably surprised Netflix wanted to impose the hold upon themselves in exchange for ample supplies of latest movies. Link (new window)


Plus I don't see what the big deal about the hold is. Obviously the people who make the movies would like some lead time to sell the things first.
 
2010-02-23 11:52:12 AM  
acaciaavenue: The only people ruining the movie business are the patrons going to films that submitter (and the rest of the internets) deem unworthy of being made in the first place. Go cry to your mommy upstairs, loser.

c3.mobimgs.com
 
2010-02-23 12:09:53 PM  
SpaceButler: Jarhead_h: Batman:AA was a massive disappointment gameplay wise.

What? That was the only game where I've actually looked forward to fighting larger and larger groups of enemies, and ran straight at them whenever I found them. I have never, ever played a game with melee combat that fun.

Saying it was the Bane fight over and over ignores all of the mob combat, stealth/stalking segments, gadgets, story, platforming, and the Sandman and Croc and Poison Ivy encounters, as well as the fact that you did get to beat up on Joker at the end. It's fine that you'd have preferred more fight encounters with more of the major villains, but using that as a basis to call it a "massive disappointment gameplay wise" and accuse it of having no variation at all is disingenuous.


You're honestly going to defend the game using the CROC encounter? Do you also like hitting puppies with a rolled up newspaper, because that was the entire essence of that most disappointing anti-climax of the damn game, second only to the final fight were you don't fight the Joker either. The Poison Ivy fight was okay, and the Sandman stuff added lots of atmosphere, but in the end something like 80% of all the boss battles were a repeat of the damn Bane fight.

And yes, the mob fights were just plain awesome. Too bad there weren't more of them.

Again meld the boss fights for Xmen Origins into the sequel and they will have game of the decade material.
 
2010-02-23 12:42:19 PM  
Vampire:Bloodlines while originally buggy (lots of later patches helped a lot) was massively cool in that it gave you a choice of using melee weapons or ranged- in combo with a vampire's special abilities (imagine a gunfighter that reloads at 10X speed- one Desert Eagle, plenty of ammo and an entire Mexican drug lord's private army is gravy, particularly if you get hungry)- and various occult abilities to boot. Plus, there were several scenarios where you could basically avoid combat entirely if you wanted to. ("Run Away" is actually not a bad option if you have a character that can move 120 mph!).
 
2010-02-23 01:31:33 PM  
SpaceButler: Jarhead_h: Batman:AA was a massive disappointment gameplay wise.

What? That was the only game where I've actually looked forward to fighting larger and larger groups of enemies, and ran straight at them whenever I found them. I have never, ever played a game with melee combat that fun.

Saying it was the Bane fight over and over ignores all of the mob combat, stealth/stalking segments, gadgets, story, platforming, and the Sandman and Croc and Poison Ivy encounters, as well as the fact that you did get to beat up on Joker at the end. It's fine that you'd have preferred more fight encounters with more of the major villains, but using that as a basis to call it a "massive disappointment gameplay wise" and accuse it of having no variation at all is disingenuous.


Agreed! I thought it was a pretty awesome game.
 
2010-02-23 01:54:32 PM  
SpaceButler: Jarhead_h: Batman:AA was a massive disappointment gameplay wise.

What? That was the only game where I've actually looked forward to fighting larger and larger groups of enemies, and ran straight at them whenever I found them. I have never, ever played a game with melee combat that fun.

Saying it was the Bane fight over and over ignores all of the mob combat, stealth/stalking segments, gadgets, story, platforming, and the Sandman and Croc and Poison Ivy encounters, as well as the fact that you did get to beat up on Joker at the end. It's fine that you'd have preferred more fight encounters with more of the major villains, but using that as a basis to call it a "massive disappointment gameplay wise" and accuse it of having no variation at all is disingenuous.


Sandman? I finished the game. Where the hell was Sandman?
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report