To the Batmobile, my friends! Warner has confirmed the existence of a new Batman: Arkham game in a chat with investors transcribed by Yahoo Finance. It's not all unqualified good news, however - according to VG247 sources, the new game is not being developed by peerless license handler Rocksteady Studios.
"We also have a strong games release this year, which will include the next release in the Batman Arkham franchise," CFO and chief administrative officer John K. Martin revealed during the call. "So all in all, we expect Warners to post another very strong year in 2013. And with a little luck, the year should be as good or maybe even a little bit better than 2012."
Could this relate to one of those mysterious Arkham domains registered by Warner associate MarkMonitor earlier in the year? More as we get it.
11 comments so far...
FishyGinger on 12 Feb '13 said:
Arkham Universe, involves the BatShip, the reanimated Patrick Moore and is essentially a Mario Galaxy clone. Am I close?
Captain_Chao5 on 12 Feb '13 said:
As long as this isn't just for the Gertrude - I'll be buying it!
CunningSmile on 12 Feb '13 said:
My guess would be this is the JLA prequel that was rumoured, under development since before Arkham City shipped by another studio whilst Rocksteady are busy making Arkham 3. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Rocksteady left too many plot threads dangling for them to not follow up, and everyone involved has been too vocal a fan of the Batman universe for them to hand it over to someone else to finish or for them to take a step back and do the prequel. However a more stand alone game made by someone else would keep publicity going whilst they finish Arkham 3 for release the following year.
Shamanix on 12 Feb '13 said:
Please whoever is doing do not f**k it up, it's one of the best franchises at the mo and please don't add some stupid MP mode just because it may "expand" the audience! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
PonderingWalrus on 13 Feb '13 said:
Like what? I never played Arkham Asylum but the storyline of Arkham City seemed to get tied up pretty well. Unless you are referring to plot threads that are opened in the Harley Quinn dlc (I haven't played it yet).
Furie on 13 Feb '13 said:
The stories don't need to be played together but, much like fried chicken and hot sauce, they are best together. The Scarecrow played a large role in the first game, and there is a secret area in the second (mimicking the secret area in the first) that hints at him returning for the sequel to City. The Azrael stuff and Hush stuff play out like cameos, but there was something similar in the first game that played out as a driving force behind the plot in the second. Then there's the way the relationship this Bats has with his Robin, which is begging to be expanded upon. Not to mention loads of little things, like Croc being in the sewers once but not showing up again in the game, that could be expanded upon.
Personally I think they went out on a high with Arkham City as that ending was the perfect place to leave the series if they chose to. But there is still plenty of ground to tread if they want to.
CunningSmile on 13 Feb '13 said:
As Furie said the biggest are the Hush and Azrael ones. With one you've got a serial killer who knows your secret identity, hates your guts and now has your face wandering around, with the other you've got a religious fanatic who specifically tells you that the order he belongs to is planning on bring the apocalypse to Gotham in the near future and you don't consider those dangling plot threads? There's also several mentions of crime lord Black Mask having been the only person to have escaped Arkham City and taking over the neighbouring city of Bludhaven (not to mention about a million other references to that city) so that's three off the top of my head besides the Scarecrow and Croc ones Furie mentioned.
I'd love to see what you consider dangling plot threads if that's neatly tied up!
SidTheSloth on 13 Feb '13 said:
^Not to mention the fact that the devs announced they'd be looking to follow up on said threads with the DLC, which perplexed me all the more when all we got was Harleys DLC...
If a few other people hadn't read the same thing i'd have started to think i imagined them saying that, as it is i suspect they did indeed hold that stuff back for a sequel/follow up.
I can only imagine at this news that there is a naked Golliwoza streaking around the UK somewhere, happy dancing on car bonnets akin to monkeys at a safari park...?
PonderingWalrus on 13 Feb '13 said:
I understand and agree with you that there are plenty of things that could be expanded on from the first two games; but these were all side missions rather than central plot threads so they could have left them be. I was referring to the main plot-line as what has been neatly tied up (for the most part anyway).
CunningSmile on 13 Feb '13 said:
The two Arkham games were written by comic writer Paul Dini and this is a classic method of plotting an ongoing comic. You tie up the A plot (in this case the Joker illness) but put in B plots that later become the A plot of the next story arc. It's from that point of view that I think they've left a lot dangling. From a game point of view you're right they are only side quests, but for the writer they would be the story he's hoping to tell in Arkham 3.
golliwoza on 14 Feb '13 said:
Can someone point me to the nearest time machine? I have gone overload again.