Will we have options for Batman to... kill? gasp
Now that Batman vs Superman is out and it features a drunken killing Batman think we will be able to have the option to do so in this game, kill or stay on the righteous path.
Would make choices very interesting
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Don't think so.Telltale likes to stick to the source material, and since that's one of Batman's most basic rules, it's very unlikely they'll ever break it
If Batman was able to kill, it would literally ruin the entire game for me. Batman doesn't kill.
He uses to kill when he first came around though ti be fair
http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html
Considering TTG is not following any other established Batman timeline, I think it's possible that they will have options for Batman to kill, it's true that TTG likes to stick to the source material since they have to because all the previous games they've done are actually canon within an already established timeline but their Batman game has it's own timeline I'm pretty sure, meaning they could let you make Batman a villain or a hero.
I don't see him killing someone directly, but he can probably do it indirectly. For example, if you're given a chance to break someone's leg or arm, it could result in the person unable to get away. You broke his leg? Now he isn't able to dodge that car, and gets ran over.
And maybe you'll get the choice to kill the main antagonist.
I think you might be able to kill. It would be cool to be faced with that choice and try to stick with it even when it grows very difficult. I'm sure that's the choice Batman has to endure all the time.
Yeah actually being givent he choice to kill would make you feel like batman.
Having to stop yourself from killing some really evil dude to follow your moral code.
I doubt it would be an ongoing choice throughout for example being given the choice to kill thugs seems a bit pointless to me. Perhaps at the end of the game or near the end of the game not killing say the Joker as an example - may have unforeseen consequences. Killing him breaks the moral code and Batman becomes the very thing he has fought against however that could potentially save lives.
By having the choice to kill I think that should also include a hidden way in which you can be a true dark knight by stopping the villain and saving as many people as possible.
*I have no problem with Batman killing but I prefer him not to.
None of this is canon.....at all.
Classic non comicbook reader straw man argument. Yes kid, there are a few kills he made before your father was born, 4 wipe out chronologies behind. So no, batman doesn´t kill in the comics, at least not any version of the character you´re even familiar with.
NO!! I had it with these motherfucking directors in my motherfucking adaptations. We already have a gazillion movie versions of batman that kills with no remorse.
1-Keaton didn´t give a fuck, so he would randomly kill a few henchman from time to time and obviously killed his nemesis without blinking.
2-Bale will preach about it but in the end "he doesn´t have to kill you, he just won´t save you".
3-Arkham games version was fine till Knight, where not only tons of execution movements do seems as he´s killing these guys, but he drives over properties and pedestrians as nothing, and I don´t care the in-game excuse about "non-lethal darts", all those people he killed.
4-Batfleck is the tip of the ice, a maniac that will go after the kill for the fun of it.
And yet not a single fucking time did a comicbook nerd come close to this people and say "psst, you know the one rule Batman has? NO KILLING!!". Even TDKR, the most extreme version of Batman and the one most of the movies take their inspiration, takes a gun from his new formed mutant army and says "this is the weapon of the enemy" and breaks it. So for once, JUST FOR ONCE, I will like an adaptation that is capable of looking at the source material and change the stuff that needs changing or expanded, rather than making him a killer because it looks edgy and cool, which is probably the line of thoughts Snyder followed to make him a killer just like he made a killer out of Superman and now we have a whole plot line in BvS about Snyder excusing the criticism and trying to pull a "it was all planned from the start" card.
Well the arkham games stayed true to it. An entire series of 4 games and Batman kills no one.
Also i find it funny that BVS was based on TDKR and yet decided to make Batman trash his own ideals when he clearly was willing to die for them in the original story.
Well he could be Keaton Batman.
It's not a strawman, it's a fact. Earth 2 (Golden Age) Batman killed criminals all the time and even used a gun, and those were issues made and written by Bob Kane, the creator of Batman, himself. Just because the universe (those particular comics) is decades old or discontinued doesn't mean people, whether comic book readers or not, should completely disregard them as if they don't exist. Both DC and Marvel constantly retcon/reboot/recreate different universes for their super heroes all the time and they're going to keep doing it long after we're gone as well. For example, the Batman Arkham games are set in a completely different universe from New Earth, Prime Earth, Earth 1, Earth 2, etc. Do we know for sure if Telltale's Batman game takes place in the new 52 verse or a different universe all together that they made up like the Arkham verse?
Come on, it's obvious that the bomb and not batman, who put ther bomb in the guy in the first place, was the one that killed this guy.
enter link description here
They should give you the option to either kill or be the Batman who never kills or be a Batman who kills when it is necessary.
Batman arguably kills Ra's al Ghul in Arkham knight season of infamy dlc
Well yeah but an argument can be made than that isn't really life. Also its determinant.
To be fair,the "no killing rule" can greatly limit the creative freedom of the writers.The Arkahm Knight's batmovile is a great example of this, they had to completely adapt not only the batmovile but the enemies Batman faces with it so it wouldn't break Batman's golden rule (And there's not much they could do about killing pedestrians, that's the player, not the game itself).So i don't think all this guys batman has killed is the writers trying to be edgy (At least most of them), just them pushing the rule to its limit and using technicalities to get away with it.
Actually, most of those are. Most of those are canon in the Earth 2 verse of Batman, which are the very first issues of Batman written by Bob Kane when they came out in 1939 and the 1940s. There isn't just a singular canon within the DC universe. Most events that happen in there respective universes, whether Earth 1, Earth 2, Prime Earth, New Earth, Animation verse, "Tim Burton" verse, etc., are canon within those universes. Marvel does the same thing too, examples being Earth-616 and Earth 1610 (Ultimate universe) both being canon universes.
Yes i know, comics are weird. But what i meant was that the batman (batmen) in all these examples have nothing to do with the current main interpretation of the character. Therefore no of them count as a 'batman kills' moment at least not in the way they imply.
Anyway thank you for your comment.
Well, to be fair, interpretations of Batman (as well as superheroes and super villains in general) change almost each generation or every time there is a reboot within the DC/Marvel universe. So I wouldn't exactly say those Batmen don't count. That's kinda like saying Miles Morales or Miguel O'Hara don't count as being Spider-man even though they are Spider-man in their respective universe and are acknowledged as such, even by Stan Lee. Many people who collected comics when they were young back then are still familiar with Golden Age and Silver Age Batman and may not know anything about New 52 Batman since they may have stopped collecting comic books. Take the Riddler for example. There are a few interpretation of the villain where sometimes he's as crazy and neurotic as the Joker, and other times he's a very calm, collected and calculating individual. I wouldn't say one personality is canon or doesn't count more than the other since bother interpretations are valid and equally canon. Who's to say that Telltale Games' Batman isn't a different interpretation of the Batman, just like almost every single live adaptation of Batman has been a different interpretation of the character.
Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity for Telltale to take advantage of the choices in their games to which some players could choose to play as "morals on" Batman or "morals off" Batman if they so chose?
Possibly, but the 'no killing' rule is the most concistent aspect of Batman. It has been in the works since the Silver Age and is wildly accepted as what makes him who he is. If Batman kills in the game telltale runs the risk of angering the tradicional Batman fans who would'nt care if this was a new interpretation.
I don't want to be that guy, since I consider myself to be a traditional Batman fan (read most of the comics, played the games, seen the Adam West show, seen all the cartoons, movies etc.), but if those fans in general get angry, so what? That's on them. It doesn't make sense to be angry over something that's optional or determinant. You said yourself that Batman killing Ra's al Ghul was determinant in Arkham Knight, so how would this be any different? I also didn't see fans getting upset over that option in the game or getting angry at the Tim Burton's interpretation of Batman in his live adaptations (he killed criminals in those movies too). It's not like people are advocating Batman's personality to be Punisher levels in terms of killing people in this game. If it helps, I actually want Batman to be able to maintain his "morals on" personality, but if they give us the option that could cause criminals to directly or indirectly die from his actions, it wouldn't be destroying an established concept but giving a nod to the Golden Age personality of Batman, Bob Kane's original portrayal of the character.
Fans are always going to be angry at something when developers or creators do something that isn't exactly how they wanted it. This is something no story teller can avoid. I'm willing to bet that some of the first fans of Golden Age Batman were angry and annoyed when he stopped killing criminals, but then just decided to live with it and move on. Luckily, I'm a fan of both personalities of Batman so either one doesn't affect me.
Ok then fair point. It may be handeled well. However i do forsee conflict in the future if that road is taken. You can already hear comments declaring either versión of him superior and insulting those that dissagree. And even those saying this isn't batman. So it will be very difficult to make a Batman be at a point where he feels that is a choice and there is a good argument towards it.
By the say i'm curious. You say you love both batmen so if it came down to a choice which one would you like to follow?
Instead of killing itll probably be more like save one, let the other die kinda thing that was in the walking dead.
So, I'm not so much a comic book fan as you guys but if I could give my two cents to the conversation: Obviously this no killing rule is a big part of Batman's character so of course Telltale's writers shouldn't just throw it away and have him kill left and right. But if you ask me they should play with it, take it as one of the themes of the season - after all this "rule" is Batman's choice, and this game will be based on choices as always with ttg. Now, I don't think we need to have this choice with every single thug that we fight against, but I do think that having couple moments in the season where you must choose to kill or not to kill could work. It would really put us in Batman's shoes - which essentially is what this game is going for - and could be done tastefully enough so that traditional fans shouldn't have a problem with it. Especially since it would always be a choice and you could play the game with zero kills if you wish to.
Yeah, stuff like that as well as divisions will always happen with any established character or series no matter how long or short they've been around. I've seen it happened to just about every fanbase I've come across, from Final Fantasy (one of the worst fanbases in my opinion), Zelda, TWD, DragonBall, etc. The more popular an established character or series is the more likely you'll see division among the fans.
Hmm, I don't know to be honest. lol. It's not really all that black-and-white for me since I can see both ideologies having their faults and benefits. For the "no kill" rule, while noble to a T, one could argue it doesn't really save a lot of lives in the long run since Batman's enemies, especially the Joker, seem to always be able to escape jail or the Arkham Asylum every time they get caught, and go on killing more innocents until Batman stops them again. Whereas, with the "kill" rule, one could argue him killing certain criminals, like the Joker (who just never changes) can be beneficial for innocence living in Gotham City in the long run, but if he went overboard, Batman would be no different than the criminals himself. So it really depends on the criminals he's fighting, but all in all, I would like to believe I'd follow the "no kill" rule Batman more so than the "kill" rule Batman.
This has been a great discussion by the way.
And by the way, I agree wholeheartedly with WildlingKing. He basically said what I was trying to convey in terms of players having the choice in Batman's morals.
Good argument.
I know. Its been such a good change from the usual: "You're opinion is stupid" fights. Im glad to see we can talk about this and be fair to each others opinions.
What about when he throws that one guy down the bell tower?
What are you talking about? That guy was clearly just knocked out unconscious
Most likely that will be a choice maybe towards the end of the game.
That's why I said "arguably"
now player 1, which robin will you choose?
Lol
Even "modern" incarnations of a batman ends up killing at times.
It has ranged from "accidents" to "intentional" after being pushed too far.
Return of the Joker has flashback that shows how Bruce Wayne as Batman ended up killing the Joker due he did something really horrible to his closed one.
Arkham Knight DLC has a quest where Batman has a choice to intentionally break his no kill rule to do the right thing.
I'm sure there are more examples.
Did you need to come across as a dick tales?
gasp
But then, it wouldn´t have being easier to not put pedestrians?
This is why you can´t have a good Superman game, because he has limitless powers and fans know it, so not including them will make fans rage and including them means you have step up the challenges the character faces. Batman no killing rule doesn´t have to be a barrier that takes away gameplay, but a new form to approach it. Imagine the predator maps of Batman Arkham series if you had a gun and could kill everyone, the non-lethal approach generally adds to most games, rather that take away any element. And the fact that he doesn´t kill means that he has to outsmart the baddies, which is what makes both the characters and the source material so awesome.