Paul Dini won't write next Arkham Game
 

So, if you have not heard about it, Rocksteady announced that the next Arkham game is going to be a prequel to the series where Joker is alive and well. I honestly think that was a stupid move. It's saying that so a Batman game is only good if Joker is in it? I liked the other villains in the Arkham games and was looking forward to seeing Scarecrow again in a sequel.

Anyway, Mark Hamill already announced his retirement as Joker; he said he would return if they did like an animated movie of The Killing Joke but that's it really.

But now, Paul Dini tweeted that he won't return to write this prequel. He wrote Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, and he wrote Batman: The Animated Series. This guy made me love Batman a whole lot more.

But now that he's not coming back; I don't think I'll like this prequel as much as I did the other Arkham games.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/...-for-next-game

Without Hamill and Dini I won't be buying it! I am not familar with video games making pequels. The only way to spike my interest now would be if Dick Grayson is Robin since its set at an earlier time. I guess now I understand Nolan's idea of not wanting to make something for sake of making something just because of the profits involved.

So you play video games solely because of the script and voice acting, and plan to boycott the next Batman game based on that even if the gameplay is really really good? That's interesting.

Unless the entire development team is different, it will still be a good game. Arkham wasn't the first game based on a comic book to have had involvement from an essential creator from the books or other media, it was just the first one that was really fun. Most games "written" by someone from the books are mediocre-to-awful.

I love 'em both but neither Dini nor Hammill are God. The two Arkham games would have been more or less just as good if they were written by anyone else and Joker was voiced by any studio hack. Those were gifts, not an essential part of the experience.

Hamill's Joker and Dini's glorified fanfiction self wouldn't fit with what they're going for in the next Batman game.

The next game is all about the Silver Age and the wackiness that comes from that. I'm excited as all hell for that ish. I am sick and tired of fans that demand Perma-Dark Batman.

This. We're talking about a The Shadow ripp-off dressed in the same threads as Superman and uses a bat as his symbol.

And Hamill isn't the definitive version of the Joker.

I don't like perma-dark Batman and I don't like campy Batman. I like him inbetween which is why I love the New Look through Jason Todd's first appearance. That 20 year stretch is amazing. If we do get the inconic Robin and Iconic Batgirl then I am in. If not I will just have to wait and see. Prequels have the problem of knowing how it all turns out and is just felshing out a backstory and something I am not as eager for as a sequel. Time will tell I suppose.

I think of Mark Hamill as the definitive Joker. I liked his portrayal even if is vocie only better than Romero,Nicholason, or Ledger. Of course its all only one's opinion anyway.

I doubt the game is even a hard-line prequel so much as just a Silver Age Batman story. What story were they really going to tell in a sequel anyhow? The ONE dangling thread was cut off and burned in DLC (Thank christ) and the universe felt tired and played almost immediately after the first game ended.

It would take A TON of leaps in logic to get from Gorilla men and space invaders to the first Arkham Asylum game.

I love Brave and the Bold to death so I hope this game is the silly and goofy in the best ways.

Get Steve Englehart to write it. He takes credit for nearly everything Bat-related anyway.

I'm less excited for that, the "silly" and "goofy". I think some people lay the darkness on too thick with their interpretation, but I think things can go too far the other way, too. Brave and the Bold wasn't awful or even bad, but it was also aimed mostly at kids, so it was fine for what it was trying to do. I don't think that a "goofier" style will work in a more "mainstream" version of Batman, especially not in a video game that's going to follow up on the previous two which so many people felt were so "definitive".

Guess we'll see, though. I'm not a huge fan of say, Sam Kieth's super-dark Batman, or even Frank Miller's, but I'm not much a fan of 60s comics Batman either. I think the character's tone was set well in the 30s and 40s, and perfected in the mid-70s onward.

I'd dig a Neal Adams-inspired Batman universe as the setting for a new game. That'd be sort of a decent balance.

EDIT: From reading more about it, it seems more like a Justice League game with a focus on Batman, rather than a straight-up Batman game. Which is good, there needs to be more JLA games, but it annoys me to no end that it is impossible for DC to market ANYTHING without calling it "Batman (Plus These Other Guys)," as if he's the only character worth anything. Like Lego Batman 2, is there any real reason it wasn't just called "Lego DC Superheroes" or something? Meh.

Amen to both!

I don't really go on IGN much and never looked at their comments section unti just now. Are all posters on there always such whiny c*nts who know right away if something's awful even if it's not coming out for years? Seriously, f*cking internet, man...

Ask Turo. He loooooooves IGN.

The stories in both Arkham games weren't that great so who cares?

Yes, they give me the news I want, the commenters can go **** themselves.

Anyway, I doubt Rocksteady is gonna go for a goofy Batman approach. They're most likely gonna go with what made the other games popular and continue the style they have already established, while taking inspiration from the silver age of comics. They did say the game is going to involve the Justice League, maybe that's what they were referring to? Maybe Batman is gonna team up with different heroes? And if this really is a true prequel, then I hope they're using this game to open up more possibilities for a sequel while still being able to expose other heroes.

Paul Dini says he'd love to do another Arkham game, but it's not in his hands. He never says that he isn't returning at all.

From the Variety article that the game was announced in:

Doesn't necessarily say or mean "Goofy". I didn't see that anywhere.

And for what it's worth, "Silver Age" and "Goofy" aren't interchangeable terms. Comics didn't suddenly become all serious and "dark" overnight in 1985, it just seems that way sometimes. The Silver Age had its share of depth, especially Batman. In fact, I would be surprised if the prequel was more "Adam West" Batman, sounds more like "Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil" Batman to me.

But it's too far away to tell. I just hope Superman's wearing his real costume and not that goofy new one.

Man, I'm really not sure how they can top themselves after two amazing games. I'm guessing Hamill is pretty much recorded his last Joker lines, so I can't see recasting him just to bring him back from the dead.

I'm also sad to admit that I've never even played either Arkham game. I'm thinking about holding out for the Wii U version and see if it's worthwhile.

EDIT:
Okay, this concept actually does intrigue me.

You say they're two amazing games then admit you haven't played either one of them.

Alrighty. What?

What can I say? I am wowed by pretty screencaps, previews, and positive reviews.

You don't have to point out every example of my logical flaws, Stryker. Trust me, I make a bunch of them on a daily basis. ;)

Yeah....don't do that.