Rocksteady Announce Suicide Squad Game

[Shark_Blade]

It?s early yet. People are complaining over cgi cutscene like they did Avengers game lol.

It?s by the Arkham developer so I have faith they will deliver.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Because TMNT games don't sell.

Tonnes of TMNT games were sold from PS2,3 & even PS4 era tbh.

They should?ve made TMNT Arkham Asylum style. Spiderman PS4 did it and it?s successful.

[Sumac]

Sadly, after 90s TMNT is no longer a powerhouse it was once.
Batman stayed strong throughout the years, TMNT went somewhat niche.

I wish someone made a big TMNT game on a high budget, but I don't think it is in the cards.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Sadly, after 90s TMNT is no longer a powerhouse it was once.
Batman stayed strong throughout the years, TMNT went somewhat niche.

I wish someone made a big TMNT game on a high budget, but I don't think it is in the cards.

With stuff like the IDW comics (especially the upcoming The Last Ronin) and the Batman/TMNT crossovers, you'd think Viacom would see this and license the brand to those that love the property. I'm sure there's some developer that would be interested.

Sigh, I remember those days when TMNT games were the talk of the town.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Sadly, after 90s TMNT is no longer a powerhouse it was once.
Batman stayed strong throughout the years, TMNT went somewhat niche.

I wish someone made a big TMNT game on a high budget, but I don't think it is in the cards.

Pretty much this. The TMNT video game license costs too much and isn't guaranteed to make a lot of money back in sales because the audience simply isn't that big.

The Batman Arkham games were huge and VERY expensive to make. Yes, the Batman license costs even more than the TMNT license BUT many million more people will buy a Batman game than would ever buy a TMNT one. Thus, if you make a Batman game, you're almost guaranteed to make some kind of profit back no matter how much the game costs to develop.

Has nothing to do with developers being fans of TMNT or having a love of the property. It was very obvious that the team behind "Mutants In Manhattan" were big fans with a lot of love; they just didn't have the money or the time to make a game that was any bigger or better than what they came up with.

That's always how it's gonna be. There's simply not gonna be a TMNT version of "Arkham" and it all comes down to money. Them's the breaks.

Since I don't like to pine for things that are impossible, I'd settle for a TMNT game like Mutants In Manhattan with a little more polish. That's plausible. Anything beyond that, though, it's silly to even wish for. It just can't happen, period.

[AquaParade]

The Platinum Games deal was completely blown. That was seriously a match made in heaven, and they even based it off the comics.

Can't believe they rushed it.

[Leo656]

It's fine, there's just not a lot to it. BUT, it has more "meat" on it than any other TMNT game and it's not like it's not fun. I find that most of the criticism towards it comes from people comparing it to other, bigger/better action games which isn't entirely fair considering it was a licensed game made for a small budget and released at a budget price.

Every few months I'll mess with it for a weekend and it's always a good time. Conversely, I've lost some of my shine for the supposed "best" TMNT game, "Turtles In Time", simply because I've had bowel movements that take longer to complete than that game does (don't judge me, I don't get enough fiber! ).

Given how MiM is essentially "the best TMNT game" by default, I confess that it bugs me how easily dismissed it is by many people. It's merely "Just Fine", but that still makes it the best game in THAT series, regardless of how low that particular bar is.

But it just stands to reason that if "Arkham" is the bar we're forever gonna compare TMNT games to, well, that road leads to nothing but disappointment so people probably shouldn't do that. Better to grade TMNT games on a curve, I think, and enjoy what's in there without pining for things that can't ever be.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Has nothing to do with developers being fans of TMNT or having a love of the property. It was very obvious that the team behind "Mutants In Manhattan" were big fans with a lot of love; they just didn't have the money or the time to make a game that was any bigger or better than what they came up with.

That's always how it's gonna be. There's simply not gonna be a TMNT version of "Arkham" and it all comes down to money. Them's the breaks.

I don't know. Do you really think a good TMNT game has to be big and expensive? Maybe trying to do an "Arkham" TMNT was the real mistake. Does a good TMNT game really need to be a free-roaming type of game? Being able to run the Turtles through the whole city is cool but it might not be what we really need in a Turtles game.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by frank_one

I don't know. Do you really think a good TMNT game has to be big and expensive? Maybe trying to do an "Arkham" TMNT was the real mistake. Does a good TMNT game really need to be a free-roaming type of game? Being able to run the Turtles through the whole city is cool but it might not be what we really need in a Turtles game.

You tell me. "Mutants In Manhattan" was perfectly fine and people panned it simply for NOT being Arkham-level in scope and scale and combat mechanics. The game as-is, is perfectly fine and people still say it's "garbage" because it didn't live up to the expectations they had in their head. So I can only predict more of the same.

I don't make the "rules", but it sure seems like "The Rules" for action games presently state that "If you're not 'Arkham', just stay home." I agree, that's not fair and it shouldn't be that way. But apparently it IS that way. Because people are spoiled rotten.

[frank_one]

I haven't played it myself so I can't judge the game but, yeah, expectations suck.

[Coola Yagami]

In my case, I could never get into the Arkham games. Just give me a fun game I can pick up and play without having to learn a zillion in-game mechanics and BS.

I loved Mutants in Mahnattan and loved the IDW comics feel. It was a pretty good and fun game, and ironically if it was TMNT Arkham, then I would have had to have passed on it. Most I would do is hope a friend has it and I'll watch them play it, like I do with the Arkham, NuLara and Uncharted series.

[Leo656]

Ahhhhh, give Arkham another shot one day brutha. Takes a little practice but it eventually gets SO intuitive. I felt a little intimidated the first time but after a short while I couldn't believe how immersive it was. Really great "Batman Simulator" down to the last detail.

Set aside a weekend to mess with the first one sometime, you'll figure it out.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

In my case, I could never get into the Arkham games. Just give me a fun game I can pick up and play without having to learn a zillion in-game mechanics and BS.

I loved Mutants in Mahnattan and loved the IDW comics feel. It was a pretty good and fun game, and ironically if it was TMNT Arkham, then I would have had to have passed on it. Most I would do is hope a friend has it and I'll watch them play it, like I do with the Arkham, NuLara and Uncharted series.

I gotta go with Leo on this one. The games aren't really that hard to pick up, which is saying something because I am *not* very good with the newer generations of game design.

It's like watching a new episode of TAS. I was all kinds of thrilled with it.

[Leo656]

There's definitely a lot of mechanics involved but it gets butter-smooth after too long. But I can see how some folks might be overwhelmed at the first jump.

It happens. I had some problems with the first Assassin's Creed controls so I got distracted by something else and never went back to it. But I got like six of the games on my shelf so I'm kinda mentally committed to giving it another shot one day. I don't even remember what tripped me up with that one. I was probably in a mood.

[AquaParade]

Yeah, Arkham raised the bar and expectations are high. Why shouldn't they be?
Is this coming from the guy who says tmnt fans accept any old thing? Now, hold on, I know you're actually referring to complete and total crap...objectively speaking...when you say that, but still, how can you argue against fans having a high standard?

Arkham-level is a bit much to expect, but it's not like Mutants in Manhattan is anywhere close, so I think it's reasonable fans expect more. It's exacerbated by the fact that the same developers are capable of so much more, as seen in games like Metal Gear Rising. Simply porting over those mechanics to TMNT would have blown the balls off of fans.

But okay, I don't mean to pick on the game. It's not trash, but it didn't live up to it's potential, which is a fair critique.

[Leo656]

It's because when TMNT fans say wishful things about video games, they act like all things happen in a vacuum, or on a level playing field, and that all it would take for a TMNT game to be "Arkham-level" is for someone to have the idea. Like some developer merely NEVER even thought of it and that's why it never happened. "I don't know why they don't just Do This!" Well, Because Reasons, that's why, at some point just get over it.

The fact is, it can't happen, because any developer who'd be involved immediately blows half the budget just acquiring the TMNT license, and I hate to have to say this as often as I do but TMNT is not as popular as TMNT fans like to THINK it is. So a TMNT game is NEVER gonna have an Arkham-level budget, never gonna have the team in place, or the time, OR the money necessary to make that dream a reality. Because TMNT games aren't guaranteed million-sellers. So no publisher would EVER allocate a Triple-A budget and team on a TMNT game. It's simply not happening, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. That's reality.

I'm all for aiming high, but y'know what? I've said this before, at SOME point it's "Wish in one hand, Sh*t in the other, see which one fills up first." People can cry forever about not getting something that's not even possible in the first place, OR, when something that's at least Good comes their way, they can spend less time trashing it for not being as good as their hypothetical, impossible Other Thing they'd rather have, and just realize "Okay, this ain't bad, and it's better than we've ever had or likely will ever get," and they can be appreciative. That's not "settling", it's just being realistic.

"Potential" is a funny thing, because even that is susceptible to a lot of variables. Like in THEORY, could a TMNT game be developed by someone that hits the gameplay marks of something like Arkham or MGS? Sure, and "In Theory" I could give Alexa Bliss the night of her life, but neither of those things are ever gonna happen for more reasons than I can count. Therefore, I try not to judge things based on arbitrary criteria mostly grounded in Wishful Thinking. I try and limit my hopes and aspirations to, "So how likely is this thing to ever ACTUALLY happen?" and go from there. "Potential" simply means "Might Happen." Well, what MIGHT happen is very rarely what WILL happen. So I don't like to even dwell on it too much, it's not healthy.

The "potential" of any TMNT game is inherently limited by the fact it's always going to be a series of budget-priced games aimed at younger kids. So, no, wishing a TMNT game could be Arkham or MGS or anything like that simply isn't realistic. That's like comparing the "potential" of a one-armed baseball player to Hank Aaron; the one-armed guy might hit great "for a one-armed guy", but he's still handicapped by factors outside of his control and the field will never, ever be equal. That guy needs to be graded on a curve, it's that simple.

Based on the last 20 years of TMNT games, I'd honestly say that MiM far exceeds the standards and "potential" as established by the franchise before it. They were low standards, but they're about what could be expected given the very real limitations set upon them. If the "potential" for the TMNT video game brand is limited by, "Kids games we can sell for under $40," then I'd honestly say something like MiM is about as good as one could or should ever reasonably hope for.

Not that it's a perfect game. It just does a lot more right than wrong, it's probably the best TMNT game that exists from any objective standpoint, and when MOST of the hate it gets is because "Well, there's much better action games (that cost a lot more money than this one did to make)", well... that's not entirely fair criticism. I feel like if more people played it for more than 20 minutes - which the "professional" critics who tell everyone how to think obviously did not - and weren't trying to compare it to some impossibly high standard, they'd have enjoyed it more.

Like, put simply, I don't expect my wife's little niece to do Picasso-level work with her finger paints. Likewise, I know what to expect from anyone who gets the TMNT video game license, and I'm going to grade their work on a curve because they're not working under the same conditions as the people who make Triple-A games. It's not fair to apply those standards to people making budget games for kids. And meanwhile, I can still point out what worked and what didn't, while at the same time realizing that "Well, this is probably as good as it gets for this license".

There's "settling for less", and there's "Recognizing that some things have a limit on how good they can ever possibly be in the first place, and being appreciative that they at least come close to hitting those limitations." I, personally, don't have a problem with a game just being Pretty Good. I don't demand Greatness from everything just because someone else made a Perfect game. It's not a level playing field, and "just" Pretty Good should still be allowed. Especially when circumstances won't ever let you even aspire to "greatness" in the first place.

I don't know, man. I've often said, people would enjoy more things to a greater degree if they weren't constantly hanging onto their own, rather-unrealistic expectations. I'm also getting more philosophical in my old age; I could enjoy what I'm given and find what's good in it, OR I can spend my entire life wishing I had better things. And I just feel like the latter isn't a great way to live.

I mean I've said this before, but it kills me that we haven't gotten, and won't ever get, a truly "great" Superman game. I understand that nobody's going to spend the money or the time in making one. I understand that "It's Not Batman" so nobody'd buy it. I KNOW all of that. And it kills me, but y'know what? I stopped ever expecting it. It's not happening, and I have to accept it as an impossibility and move on with my life. It's not worth clinging to or wishing for when it's just not ever happening.

I mean, at the end of the day they're just video games.

[AquaParade]

Y'know, I see what you're saying, but I just can't line it up with the way you speak about other franchises sometimes. You present it as a philosophy you stick by, but it seems to me more like you apply it where you choose. Other times it seems that your philosophy is that if we support products aimed at kids, such as this game, then we have only ourselves to blame for continuing to get that.
Now, I agree with this, but it doesn't seem like it applies here and that's what confuses me.

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate, so it's not a big deal. Not like you have to explain yourself but that's my two cents.

I agree that potential is a loaded word. Again, I dont expect Arkham from TMNT, it's not realistic. But when you have a developer that is capable of much more, even when doing a stich-up, rush job such as Metal Gear Rising, it's fair to expect a certain level of quality and be disappointed by the untapped potential.

Mutants in Manhattan is okay, but it could have been more, in a way that the ingredients were all on the table for a great game. Just needed a slightly bigger budget. TMNT are actually quite popular in the videogame space- they have roots. Platinun games is a popular developer. A bigger budget and better game could have been justified.

I'm glad it worked for you though. That's all you can really hope for.

[Leo656]

I feel like a lot of my positions are a bit more nuanced than anyone really recognizes but I'm not inclined to go into it very deeply.

In brief, though, it's like, with something like a TMNT cartoon show, or a movie, it's different from a video game. They're obviously going to keep making those things no matter what, but what we choose to support and ignore makes a difference in the sense of, "If people watch ____, they'll make more of ____." Thus, it matters. If people support "kids stuff" by way of TV or movies, they'll never try and make their TMNT version of "Batman Begins" or whatever, but they WILL always keep making more cartoons and movies. But the budgets, prep time, all of that is the same either way, whether they go G-Rated or R-Rated. So if people want more of X, they can very easily and loudly plead their case to that.

With a TMNT video game, there really is no chance on getting a $100 million budget and a crack dev team on the case. Those are not realistic expectations. So if a good game like MiM comes out, and it's "just" good but not great, and people don't support it despite it being good, the thinking behind the scenes is not, "Well, maybe we SHOULD try spending more money and getting a Triple-A team to make it next time," they're just gonna say "Well, TMNT games don't sell" and not make any more, period. Which is exactly what happened (I don't include mobile games in my video game discussions so I don't count that stuff). A Good game came out, people ignored it for not being a "Great" game, and now they just don't make TMNT games at all because they figure there's no money in it.

I can't help but feel like it could have gone differently, and we might have gotten a better sequel that addressed the first game's issues, IF people weren't just dismissing it and saying "Yeah, I'll wait for a TMNT game that plays like Arkham" when they're not ever gonna get that anyway.

But yeah, I don't know, there's different standards in play to a point for different situations. I always want people to aim high, but I also think it's implicitly understood, or should be, that some things should have a certain cap put on the expectations. Just for the sake of being realistic and not setting one's self up for disappointment.

I mean, if we want consistency, I am quite "consistently" an opponent of both Hope and Wishful Thinking, as I think they're very foolish things to cling to. Other things may vary case-by-case but that's pretty much set in stone. And I think that's ultimately what's important. Other things, less so.

[Turo602]

While I 100% agree with all your points about Mutants in Manhattan, I don't buy the notion that TMNT isn't popular enough to sell millions when all it takes is one critically acclaimed triple A title to get people to suddenly be interested in the property like they were with the Arkham games and even the latest Spider-Man game. No one gave a crap about their games for a long time either until the right people finally decided to invest in them and started moving millions.

TMNT is well known and well liked enough that people who don't normally seek out TMNT would get back in for a game that looks worth their money, especially if all their friends are playing and talking about it.

All video games are expensive to make today and consumers have gotten greedy with what games are worth their money based on longevity, which is why everything is either open-world or free to play today. Double A games are a dying breed unfortunately, but Ninja Turtles is a much safer IP to invest in than an original one, but it's currently in who's hands at the moment? Is it still Activision? It's not like they can't do anything amazing with it, which was also true about Ubisoft, but they're both terrible companies who rather stick to their annual cash cows.

Spider-Man used to be stuck in that situation, and while the games they churned out weren't half bad and sometimes even good, they weren't setting the world on fire because they were still rather mediocre investments to the average player and still mostly played by kids.

It may be wishful thinking to think we'll someday get an "Arkham" caliber TMNT game, and maybe we never will, but crazier sh*t has happened, including the very existence of the Arkham games amongst many other things that were once considered wishful thoughts. Hell, I remember someone on this very forum telling me once that I couldn't have my cake and eat it too for wishing for a Spider-Man game with both an open-world and linear levels, which we got in 2012 so...

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

Tonnes of TMNT games were sold from PS2,3 & even PS4 era tbh.

Maybe the PS2 era of the Konami return... though there's probably a reason there isn't new TMNT Konami games nowadays and it's not because they got tired of making them.

"Out of the Shadows" and "Mutants in Manhattan," the last two big games both hit with a thud.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Turo602

While I 100% agree with all your points about Mutants in Manhattan, I don't buy the notion that TMNT isn't popular enough to sell millions when all it takes is one critically acclaimed triple A title to get people to suddenly be interested in the property like they were with the Arkham games and even the latest Spider-Man game. No one gave a crap about their games for a long time either until the right people finally decided to invest in them and started moving millions.

TMNT is well known and well liked enough that people who don't normally seek out TMNT would get back in for a game that looks worth their money, especially if all their friends are playing and talking about it.

All video games are expensive to make today and consumers have gotten greedy with what games are worth their money based on longevity, which is why everything is either open-world or free to play today. Double A games are a dying breed unfortunately, but Ninja Turtles is a much safer IP to invest in than an original one, but it's currently in who's hands at the moment? Is it still Activision? It's not like they can't do anything amazing with it, which was also true about Ubisoft, but they're both terrible companies who rather stick to their annual cash cows.

Spider-Man used to be stuck in that situation, and while the games they churned out weren't half bad and sometimes even good, they weren't setting the world on fire because they were still rather mediocre investments to the average player and still mostly played by kids.

It may be wishful thinking to think we'll someday get an "Arkham" caliber TMNT game, and maybe we never will, but crazier sh*t has happened, including the very existence of the Arkham games amongst many other things that were once considered wishful thoughts. Hell, I remember someone on this very forum telling me once that I couldn't have my cake and eat it too for wishing for a Spider-Man game with both an open-world and linear levels, which we got in 2012 so...

I mean, fair point, but I'm working backwards from the idea of two things I know to be facts, those being, "There are WAY more Batman and Spider-Man fans than TMNT fans", and "A lot of TMNT fans don't play video games, or ONLY play TMNT games, and even then only sometimes."

I feel like there's more people in the potential pool for who'd ever play a Batman or Spider-Man game, than for who'd ever play a TMNT game. And I feel like there were a lot of people pre-Arkham who were Batman fans who were like, "I love Batman so much I'd gladly play a GOOD video game based on him, I'm just waiting for that to happen because 'Dark Tomorrow' wasn't good." With TMNT, a ton of the fans don't play video games anyway, even if they turn out good or better, and it's not like every single Batman fan plays video games either, but from the start you're working with an exponentially larger fanbase to begin with. So not all things are equal. Nah'mean?

I mean, I know for a fact that an extra million TMNT fans who don't normally play fighting games, or video games period, didn't all suddenly jump to buy "Injustice 2" just because they were in it. And they SHOULD have, that's the thing. It's a great game, an easy game, and even people with stumps for hands could figure out how to have a good time with it. And I'm sure the TMNT DLC moved the needle a bit but I know I saw a ton of people going "Well, that's awesome, and I love TMNT but I don't play video games/fighting games, soooo..."

That's the kinda thing that leads me to believe that the market of TMNT fans who will ALSO rush to support a video game with them in it, even a good to great one, really just isn't large enough to make much difference. Maaaaybe I'm wrong, sure, but history suggests that I'm right. I kinda doubt that there's all these people who've just never bought a TMNT game because they're waiting for Just The Right One before they dive in. I personally just think the number of people who'd ever buy a TMNT game, period, simply isn't that large to start with.

I mean, even the "good" and most famous ones from back in the era of the Konami games didn't make HUGE money compared to most of their contemporaries. They did good business but they weren't world-beaters. If it didn't happen Then, it's not gonna happen Now, that's how I see it.