Topic: Batman: Arkham Origins

Well I guess Kevin Conroy wont be coming back as Batman. Sorry to say but no Rocksteady, No Dini, No Conroy its sounds like this game is more and more of a cash in due to the popularity of the Arkham games. They more I hear about this game the less and less its making me want to get it. Anyone else feel that way?

@Tasuki
I know! I am starting to get very scared for this game :/

You guys get freaked out too easily. I'm actually not that suprised by this.. For one thing, there are other people who could perfectly voice Batman.. I still have faith in this game..

Hey guys, guess what? Conroy and Hamill never influenced the Arkham games in anyway aside from voicing them, there are clearly better Batman writers that aren't Dini and Rocksteady has complete faith in WB Montreal. You can start calling this a cash-in when you play the actual game okay? Are we at an agreement that, with no prior exposure to the game personally, you can't judge a game by the fact that Mark Hamill, Kevin Conroy and Paul Dini aren't going to be in it? Cause if we are, then I think we just avoided another Sonic 4.

I'm more annoyed at Kevin Conroy not being in the game because it feels completely arbitrary. I appreciate the devs not wanting the game to be completely re-hash and its better than if this was a sequel but still we'll have to see if the devs actually make a worthy Arkham game.

Ok I understand that there are different actors who can and have played Batman and its not the fact that Dini and Rocksteady and even Conroy leaving that has me scared its the fact that they seem to have an all new voice cast, a new writter and a new company behind it but they say its part of the same series. I dont know about you guys but does Batman Forever sounds familiar? Lol

Kidding aside though I hate it when they change everything than say oh its still part of the series to me that just says cheap cash in. Instead of calling it Arkham Origins why not call it Batman Origins instead? That would have been like taking Batman Begins and Calling it Batman Triumphant (which was the name of the Batman movie after Batman and Robin that was cancelled) and saying oh its part of the on going series.

No one comes close to Conroy by a long long shot as the voice of Batman in cartoons and videogames!
Same goes for Joker with Hamill. The guy that did the voice of Joker for Injustice was good, but still felt funny and not the same at all.

Watch Batman: Year One. Ben Mckenzie does an outstanding job.

I agree, the guy who does the Joker in Injustice is okay, but not Mark Hamill. I think he just... doesn't laugh enough. Like in this one scene when he says, "That's funny!" and then there's just... silence. What kind of Joker doesn't laugh at funny things!? Aw well, I'm getting kinda nit-picky with this though...

Conroy not voicing Batman would bother me a lot less if I thought this game was going to be worth damn. As it is, this is a minor issue but added to the other crap like no Dini, no Rocksteady and unnecessary multiplayer that wasn't asked for and will lead to a lesser single player campaign, it's just another reason to not feel good about this game. As far as some other comments, Rocksteady isn't going to say it thinks Montreal studio will do a bad job, even if people there really do believe that and WB certainly would not allow them to. And I don't want to hear that WB wouldn't let a bad Arkham get made because there are far better game companies who have released bad games in a series for a quick payday. I can also say without doubt this is a cash-in before playing it because of one addition.. multiplayer. As soon as that's added to a game you know the single player experience will be sacrificed. As much as I liked the new Tomb Raider the game would've been a million times better had time and effort wasted on useless multiplayer been spent on improving the challenge tombs, maybe they could've even been worked into the narrative, we'll never know because the devs sold out. The game that bucked this trend, Bioshock Infinite, an FPS ironically enough, was a better game for it. Now these idiots are selling out and adding a feature to a series that has been perfectly fine without it. Shameless and pathetic. There is absolutely no doubt this game will pale in comparison to the masterpieces that are Asylum and City, hopefully it doesn't sell better.

I'm looking forward to both the Wii U and 3DS game,but I'm not going to have very high hopes for it.

Continuity is the problem. Conroy is/was the definitive Batman in all galactic form. That aside, this is carrying the Arkham label. This decision is strange. Conroy has already done a younger, rough around the edges Batman in the past, and displayed his versatility 5 different ways in the more recent Gotham Knight. There's either something else at play, or simply a foolish decision. Or a rotten rumor. Sounds legit though.

I respect you guys' opinion, but calling a game a cash in because X voice actor isn't voicing X character is kinda silly.

Come on guys, I thought we learned back in the NES era that all comic book character video games are cash ins.

Under your logic all video games are cash-ins after how good Arkham had been.

Obviously you didnt read my post above otherwise you would have seen thats not the reason I think its a cash in. I will repost in case you missed it.

Kidding aside though I hate it when they change everything than say oh its still part of the series to me that just says cheap cash in. Instead of calling it Arkham Origins why not call it Batman Origins instead? That would have been like taking Batman Begins and Calling it Batman Triumphant (which was the name of the Batman movie after Batman and Robin that was cancelled) and saying oh its part of the on going series.

@Tasuki It has the same basic gameplay, free flow combat, stealth, and stuff so how would you not call it Arkham game. A new developer and some new voice actors don't warrant a series change by themselves. It also is part of the Arkham story too. A lot series transistions to new devs have worked out pretty well recently too.

I'd disagree more if it wasn't a prequel. I don't personally know of any prequel, unless you count Yoshi's Island, that isn't pretty clearly just a cash-in. From my understanding this is just the loophole to avoid every movie just getting a remake or a sequel that wouldn't have the popular character/s.

Now, that doesn't make it a bad thing that it's a cash-in. Not necessarily. It could be a scenario where the publisher wanted the cash-in and the developer just make a cool game despite that. For all we know it could be the Assassin's Creed Brotherhood of the series, which is arguably the best game in that particularly franchise.

Don't really think that is my logic at all but whatever,