Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡Here: go.babbel.com/t?bsc=1200m60-youtube-fullfatvideos-mar-2023&btp=default&RUclips&Influencer..fullfatvideos..USA..RUclips
ok Full Flat... i dont think you know enough of Cole as a character and inFAMOUS in general.... cole in the 1st games box art has white lightning and looks pretty scary if you look at his face... there are 2 art styles of coles box art and it is his 'good' aka white lighting and his evi one looking pale and black stuff on his skin and outfit especially cole having red lightning this time... now a lot of ppl don't know this but canonicaly cole does more bad stuff than good stuff in the novelizations or comics of the game.... coles character just suits and is more natural in his evil path because not only bad karma cole tried to do good in the beginning, ppl still view him as a terrorist... evil timeline coles switch into killing or injuring innocents is at the train where he says that 'risked my life to save their families and they want to stone me in return' - cole still did good things even if you're going with the evil timeline because the truth is that the evil path is more nuanced than the good karma where it feels forced and so your argument with inFAMOUS doesn't work especially since that Sucker Punch originally was going to make inFAMOUS 2s evil ending canon but Sucker Punch stupidly decided to make the good ending canon which breaks the lore for their next planned game they were going to make aka 'inFAMOUS Second Son' I don't understand why ppl say that in all inFAMOUS games (especially with you saying that one of inFAMOUS 1s criticisms was its evil path not feeling nuanced) the evil path doesn't feel 'right' evil karma just doesn't feel 'right' and isn't as thought out than the Good karma... inFamous 1s evil path is grey as shit which you can be both good and evil elsewell - what I like to do for evil karma run is to do the 1st good choice of the game but then do the 2nd evil choice in the game or reverse those decisions with the 1st being evil and the 2nd being good which helps the grey aspects of the evil timeline and it's canonical counterpart more satisfying... this is the same thing for inFamous 2 elsewell... both inFamous games dont have black and white morality systems if you actually explore its meaning in those games except for a whole Good karma path since it is basically like a generic goodie 2 shoe/superman which feels unnatural... the only inFAMOUS game that has a black and white morality system is 'inFamous second son' - now I can explain all day why Delsin being evil is actually canon since Sucker Punch haven't confirmed what Delsins karma is canon but im done for now
bruh Web of Shadow's spiderman is dark without the symbiote on him... there are 4 endings depending on how much you're willing to use the symbiote or not... the symbiote just amplifies peters intentions... WoS spiderman already looks like he kills ppl... again it makes sense to use the symbiote in the first place because thats how it'd be with the way WoS was going for
What do you think about a Batman story where he’s in some kind of war? Should he kill then? Like Apokalypse invades all the time, should he kill parademons? If Batman gets forced into some larger conflict where he is one of many against hordes, should his morality continue to apply?
Imagine a superman boss fight where you have the option to kill him between each phase getting progressively difficult and each failure wearing you down
@@Batman-ps4om imagine your arms, legs and head fly off, then you instantly revive and see your dismembered corpse lie in front of you as it flickers out of existence
One thing I'd like to add is that if a Batman game did allow the player to kill, it should also show Batman trying to rationalise why he did afterwards. Maybe a corruption arc could play out the more the player kills to solve problems, as Batman keeps making exceptions to the no killing rule, becoming increasingly hypocritical and lazy in his justifications. Back up the "what if" scenario with "how".
To go along with that, I would also add certain kill options that only appear if you've taken early ones. Enemies that you definitely don't have to kill and wouldn't even get the option to if you hadn't already started down the path
I'd add an ending where Batman kills the Joker only which means he's pretty much still batman just crossed the line and an ending where he kills the whole rogues gallery and is hunted by the police
I also think it would be interesting to have consequences if you chose to have Batman kill such as the citizens of Gotham turning against him, the GCPD now reconsidering their deal and the Bat Family confronting him on it maybe with a Nightwing fight if you choose to have Batman Kill!
The only time a Batman game has had a morality like this was The Telltale series, I hope if they ever make part 3 they take this into consideration, it would definitely add more impact to *your* batman
Telltale should have given the option to kill instead of just "brutalizing" what if we kill Falcone to send a message instead of just slamming him on a piece of broken rebar and just hurting him real bad
@@MichelangeloVA Really hoping they do because the Batman Telltale, next to Game of Thrones and Walking Dead, was the best one. There's so much they can do with the concept and it'll definitely earn good money from the fans if they do it. Also slim chance I know, but they really need to finish the Game of Thrones story. It left everything so open and I for one need to see the story end.
One of my favorite things about Arkham Knight is playing as Red Hood, watching him snap a person's neck, then seeing him labeled "unconscious" in Detective Mode. Sure buddy, sure. I just find it funny that the game's internal systems (technically not allowing Batman to kill) cause something like that to happen, thus breaking the experience for the characters that can and will kill.
I recall reading a batman story where he killed a criminal to save someone and turned himself in to serve the consequences, putting aside the batman mantle, as he think he no longer deserves that mantle. I think that was pretty neat, to basically say that the day batman kills, should also be the final day of batman being batman.
A few momentary exceptions aside, this is what convinces Batman to retire in the DCAU as well. He gets too old and his body too broken down for his beyond suit to compensate, and he's forced into a situation where he had to shoot and kill his opponent in order to survive, which is the day that Batman formally retires from duty.
@@Tyler_W Actually, in batman beyond, he literally just holds a gun. He gets a heart attack, and has to aim it at a criminal. That’s when he decides he doesn’t deserve the mantle anymore
An interesting alternate version of Batman with no "no killing" rule is the Grim Knight: a Bruce Wayne that picks up the gun after Joe Chill killed his parents and immediately get revenge. So he learns a very different lesson, that lethal force is the best way to keep the criminals down. The guy does become a sort of despot, monitoring all of Gotham and shooting with drones anyone that try to commit a crime
Batman killed in 66 (the Movie) and in 89 the movie infact Keaton Batman killed more than Batfleck...he killed Joker and Penguin (and countless henchmen) the no killing was a stigma created by the Warner Brothers deal with McDonald's (to sell toys) he even packed heat in his original Detective Comics debut
@@hasanwallah7015 think you might've answered the wrong comment. Also, the no killing rule appeared in the comics about a year after his first appearance
Leaving Batman’s morality in video games up to the player to decide is certainly interesting for future games to explore. So far the closest thing to that type of game at least narratively is telltale batman. However, that’s more focused on Batman’s dual identity and what the player considers more important, the vigilante or the billionaire.
@@FullFatVideos I feel Like Grundy and Parademons are the only exception since I don’t really consider either of them living so I don’t have a problem with the League members even Batman using more force that he wouldn’t with his other rogues!
4:48, Regarding the morality of the Arkham games, the stories actually do a great deal in delving into the cyclical nature of Batman’s war on crime, a cycle that may very well be partly enabled by Batman’s insistence on being non-lethal. Asylum first explores this cycle by portraying Batman’s enemies as deeming him just as insane as them for failing to see his part in perpetually keeping their war going by getting them locked up, only for them to escape and cause havok all over again. Hugo and Ra’s plan to bomb Arkham City is directly in support of breaking this cycle at the cost of the lives of Gotham’s criminals, a price Batman opposes. Batman’s ultimate solution to breaking the cycle before his allies are lost or corrupted by his war is to return to being a mythical figure, meta-narratively and literally taking himself out of the game. The death of the Batman and Joker, either Joker’s physical death or Batman’s metaphorical death, is a break in the cycle that marks a new era for Gotham that, while not erasing all its ills, opens the door for the next generation to hopefully do a better job in changing the city for the better.
Now that we live in a post-Snyder Cut world, I actually really appreciate how Batfleck’s character arc parallels the character’s publication history since Bill Finger’s Batman was originally comfortable with murder and even holstered a gun.
I wish we got to see more of that arc, since it isn't shown as much. Like, just like Full Fat Videos said, he straight up murders a bunch of thugs after "realizing" that one of the most dangerous man (in his opinion) still is just a man and shouldn't be killed because he's a threat.
Batman Christian Bale burned down the League of Assassins monastery with everyone still in him. He attacked Two-Facede a building. He left Ra's Al Ghul to death on a condemned train. Batman Christian Bale said he would not kill and then killed several people.
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" "But you created the circumstances in which i died!" "Lalalalalalalalaa i can't hear you" "We both know your ethical loophole is bullshit!!"
I feel like Christian Bale’s Batman more so had a “I try my best to avoid killing, but don’t always succeed” mantra more than he had a no kill rule. Like he definitely has a strong moral compass and tries to protect human life as much as possible, but there are definitely situations he’s put in where it’s not possible to save everyone. On one hand I think it’s an interesting take on the character and it works especially well for the more realistic approach Nolan took with his trilogy, but on the other hand it’s execution stops me from considering the Nolan trilogy as the definitive Batman iteration.
He didn't really have a choice in the monastery, it was either kill a thief or the highly trained assassins that posed a threat to society. I think I'd know what I would pick
The first two infamous games were my all time favorites growing up. I think the dimension of choice, as often cartoonish as the evil choices could be, really gave you a since of accomplishment and purpose in helping people. Civilians dying by your own hand on accident really made it feel impactful as you got better at helping people and continually made the choice to do so. I also really thought the user-generated content in Infamous 2 was genius and had tons of hidden gems, it really is a shame no other games like the recent Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order / Survivor series have tried that. It really adds tons of content to extend the lifespan of a single player game.
Yea I've always saddened that the first two Infamous games have not gotten any direct PS4/5 ports. All I want is 60FPS, I don't even care if the resolution/graphics remain the same otherwise
This is why I love Star Wars Knights of The Old Republic 2 despite it being unfinished, the game world is in such dark disrepair, but you can follow the light and make a difference
Interesting video! I feel like Telltale tried to do something similar in their Batman game, allowing you play either a righteous or a brutal Batman. However, the game was very selective about the choices you could make and how much those would influence the story. It would be cool - as you say in the video - to have a system where you could make the choice to kill organically instead of at set points in the game. I don't know if I would ever kill as Batman in a playthrough, though.
I've only played the first episode, but I believe The Telltale Batman game does something similar to this. Not sure if killing's on the table, but you can definitely choose to be more brutal if you want. Also, this reminds me of a moment implemented into Batman Arkham City, where you play as Catwoman and can choose whether to save Batman or let him die and if you choose the wrong option you get end credits, plus audio from Oracle saying how everyone is doomed! OH, and you can also choose whether to kill Azrael in Arkham Knight AND with Batman in the Ras al Ghul Arkham Knight side mission. This a small addition, but it's pretty cool Rocksteady did stuff like this. Don't really have a point here, I just wanted to spotlight the Telltale game, and praise Rocksteady some more, cause they aren't getting too much of that these days. 🤞 for Suicide Squad KIll The Justice League
I think the best way to modify the Arkham Combat in a small way to allow for an option to kill in basic combat against henchmen is to change the “instant knockout smash” option that is given to Batman on “down-but-not-out” henchmen into a sort of fatal kill move. I think this option maintains the fun in the free flow combat while emphasising the “easiness” of just killing the criminals as opposed to having to fight them until they are knocked out in a traditional sense
It's kinda weird that you used The Dark Knight as a good example of Batman's one rule, since he tackles Harvey off of a building and kills him at the end. It's probably my biggest gripe with the movie that this moment isn't really acknowledged
Yeah I agree. I always assumed that it was in a sense a small victory for the Joker as the Joker really did push him to break his rule... but I wish it had gotten just a little more attention that Batman had to concede.
Even Ra's death with the whole "I don't have to save you" bit. Like no? Batman would save him. Harvey's death is even worse. How is Batman breaking his one rule not given any gravity in the TDR? The entire trilogy plays so fast and loose with such a fundamental tenant of Batman's character. People shit on Snyder's Batman but at least he acknowledged that he killed instead of sweeping it under the rug like Nolan
I was wondering if someone else would acknowledge this. Interestingly, Nolan’s Bruce has caused someone else’s death in each of his films, from members of the League of Shadows when he ignited their base with explosive powder, Ra’s Al Ghul when he left on board a train that was about to crash, Harvey by tackling him away from Gordon’s family and off a ledge, and Thalia and some of her men when he caused her car to crash while chasing her to disarm the nuke in her possession. Going further than that, even Kilmer’s Batman contributed to some of his enemies deaths, notably when he distracted his version of Harvey with a scattering of coins in the air to cause him to lose balance and all to his death. Nearly every cinematic Batman has done something like this, but usually in situations where they had little control of the outcome and no way to safely and cleanly resolve a volatile situation and simultaneously consider and maintain the safety of everyone involved, but was nonetheless required to act quickly, efficiently and without hesitation in defense of themselves or others instead of as an indulgence like Snyder’s Batman was shown to do. Nolan’s Batman even comments on this distinction by Bruce specifically refusing to be an “executioner” but still being willing to do “what is necessary”, even if that means endangering his enemies’ lives. His choice to abandon Ra’s on that crashing train is born from two factors, first knowing Ra’s would simply hatch a new plot to destroy him, his allies and Gotham should he survive and secondly Ra’s and his League being directly responsible for Gotham’s economic struggles and indirectly responsible for the Wayne’s being murdered by an impoverished and desperate Joe Chill. Instead of only focusing his wrath on petty criminals, Bruce instead ends up eliminating one of its major sources in his city, another theme of Batman Begins being that of systemic corruption being ignored over its symptoms. Comic-book and animated versions Batman comment further on this distinction with Bruce’s fear that he will lose any sense of mercy, empathy, compassion or restraint if he allows himself to be an execute his enemies, becoming just like the League, Ra’s or comics characters like Red Hood who only care about punishing the guilty rather than protecting the innocent. But Nolan’s Batman demonstrating this balanced view on killing and interrogating the validity of Bruce’s aversion to being an executioner despite how many laws he breaks being a vigilante while also showing an external reason for Batman’s mercy being his belief in the honor and moral integrity of even the most unlikely people helped cement that iteration as one of the more interesting cinematic takes on the character.
@@neareed9241 The whole "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" thing is BS anyway. Batman DID kill him, Batman crashed the train. His whole plan was to crash the train. If I cut the brakes on someone's car, I've killed them.
...So...the Dishonored games lol They pretty much implemented those ideas. That incentivises going no-kill narratively with how the world and characters react to your actions. The no-kill route is also quite often more difficult so there is that bit of extra challenge making it that much more satisfying.
And to a similar extent, the Metal Gear games, where non-lethal options are available and at times encouraged for score purposes. While their are unavoidable sections where killing is the only option or part of the narrative, the protagonists themselves are often shown ruefully resigned to the fact that they’ve killed others (at times even ashamed when they find themselves enjoying battle as they deem themselves contributing to systems of violence) but are nonetheless willing to do so again in order to defend themselves or others as well as if their isn’t another way to complete their objective. Within the context of the narrative, the character’s are also meant to be legendary stealth operatives that could infiltrate fortresses and not only survive, but also avoid combat no matter the number of guards. However, both combat and lethal options still exist and aren’t penalized in any way other than score purposes, as it would be in character for these individuals to be willing to use lethal force to survive just as much as they use stealth. It’s ultimately left up to the player wether or not they feel merciful or wish to challenge themselves by completing an objective without violence or bloodshed.
Pretty much. Superhuman Simulator that gives some options. Infamous could've been left alone as a superhero game without the "choice" system. Either commit to being a SUPER-HERO game or just do what Dishonored did instead.
@@lucascoval828 Dishonored is literally the same way though "killing bad" and then the pacifist option for the targets is usually worse than actually killing them. Like selling a girl to her obsessed stalker, but if you do that you get the stereotypical "and everyone lived happily ever after" like....?
@@citizenvulpes4562 you can still get the good ending in that game if you only kill the assassination targets. You have to kill about a quarter of the guards or more in each level to get the bad ending. It’s not about whether you kill a single person it’s about who you kill, how many, under what circumstances did they die (loudly or quietly) and how there death impacts the spread of a plague. Claiming the morality system in dishonored had no nuance is basically a self report that you don’t know as much about it as you think you do.
@@callmev3531 excluding boss battles and the quarantine platform mission in V only mgs1 forces you to kill, but otherwise everything else you said was accurate and I agree.
I know it's often viewed as a memed-to-death example, but I do think Undertale (and to an extent Deltarune) is another example of a franchise that offers these kinds of moral options like what Batman games need. I will say though that the incentivization is a bit weird with them though...the games being as meta as they are, their moral choices they present tend to be more concerned with awareness that some people are trying to meet certain completions goals rather than making the choices for the sake of the choices, but nonetheless the ramifications of those choices are still fully on display. For a batman game, there would definitely need to be a similar depth to the branching paths, which is probably too daunting a task for most developers. Would still be very interesting to see.
In Arkham knight in the most wanted missions, you can choose to not save ra's Al ghul, like instead of giving him the Lazarus pit serum you can destroy it and the tubes connected to him, and allow Nyssa to be come the demon head or you can save him and he kills Nyssa, it's a pretty cool choice
This idea reminds me of the Dishonored games, where you have the choice to kill or pacify every enemy you come across. In literally every situation, it's easier to just kill your enemies recklessly, sparing their lives isn't easy, but it almost universally creates a better world. In the first game, if you kill all your enemies, the young empress you protect becomes a tyrant over a plague ridden, dying kingdom, but if you don't kill, the kingdom thrives. A Batman game very much like that would be absolutely perfect
The kotor games had a similar system to the infamous games, the good choices were canon and a lot more fleshed out than the darkside options, but the option still remained and truly made you feel as although you were in an ongoing struggle against dark temptation, with any perceivably evil dialogue option setting you down such a path.
One Batman game I can think of that sort of does this is The Telltale series. Batman's choices determine if the people hate or accept him. You can let Catwoman die, be as cruel to the joker as possibly, you can impale Falcone on a medal rodd. Telltale series Batman games are definitely the most like what you were saying about choices defining the game.
I think Arkane Studios would be perfect for this kind of Batman game. Dishonored 1+2 and Prey have a lot to do with your own code as a person. Prey 2017's entire theme is empathy towards people and one's personal reason for choosing to end or not save those deemed worth dying. Would be awesome to see them tackle Batman with this approach
I've never really heard of this criticism that the Infamous game's evil routes were not as fleshed out as the good ones until now. You earn different powers, the city interacts with you in different ways depending on your karma, the choices on why Cole would choose evil actions made sense, and you would get different cutscenes and ending depending on which route you take. The fact that the good ending becomes canon anyway shouldn't matter. Sure, the overall story remains fundamentally the same, but how you engage with it and how the game reacts to your action are what really matters.
A batman game could implement a mechanic where if you kill, a (heavily nerfed version of the) Failsafe robot activates, maybe just a drone of a big bad one, and it chases you so that if you stay somewhere for too long or spend too long on a mission it catches you and you have to kill it. Probably not one drone per person you kill but like maximum of one every so long in the game, and then if you dont kill someone in x time span one doesnt come after you (probably based on like story missions not actual time) Then, later in the game, there can be a boss fight/arc against the main Failsafe, maybe there's a pivotal game moment where the player can choose to kill the penguin or not, and if they don't, he does what he did in the comic arc and frames batman for his death. Then Failsafe Proper activates and there's like either a big storyline where it's hunting you and you have to find some macguffin to stop it or team up with one of the technological villains (braniac??) or batgirl/oracle. I think that kind of plotline would be really interesting in a game that plays with the idea that you can kill if you want, in an even better way than it worked in the comics. Showing that at some point in the past, the character you're playing as realized he might someday do this, realized that someone like you might be in control, made a failsafe. It's almost a meta rebellion against the player, while also being really effective in-story
The telltale games do something like this with batman. And I have to say that through Telltale I fell in love with BATMAN. The morality that he has, the choices he has to make and live with the consequenses. That's the special thing about this superhero. It isn't that he's rich, or that he has cool gadgets. The awesome thing to me about Batman is that despite him being fear itself, he struggles so much to do the right thing sometimes and it affects him a lot
A really great example of what You said is Evan Wright from Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number, He's just a journalist, not a blood-lusted maniac like the rest, His only kill is during a cutscene, and it wasn't even intentional of His part, You can play Him without killing or go nuts for the hell of it, although it doesn't matter much to the overall plot, You have the choice, which makes His ending and Your choice for it a lot more impactful because YOU WERE Evan Wright, a blood-fueled maniac, someone who only killed when nescessary, or a loving father who was surrounded by violence and had the balls to not embrace it like the rest, Your choice, Your character, this is what Web of Shadows tried to do, and what I want to see in a future Batman game.
Well, in infamous 2 originally the evil ending was supposed to be canon, but the devs changed it because more people had the achievement for the good one, so they didn't want you to be the hero in that one. Also, the fact that they changed it just because more people did the good route still bugs me.
I think this would be a brilliant choice for a theoretical game where you play either a reformed Red Hood or Damian Wayne, both potential inheritors to the cowl who have their own takes on the One Rule and struggles with it.
I think an under the red hood game would work really good with this idea with Red Hood telling you to kill Joker but Batman's moral code telling you not to and the player having the choice wether or not to kill Joker
Great Video with an interesting premise! I’d be curious to see A Batman game which operates with Infamous logic, I’d stay true to Batman with how I’d play it but I think an interesting idea(although I could see it being very difficult to pull off) is that if the darker choice is taken that there are consequence for instance choosing to put civillians in harm or being ignorant to their harm causes strain with your relationship to the GCPD or if you kill the Joker, then Harley Quinn will come after you as a horrifying monster who becomes more violent and uses People close to Batman as hostages(with the choice to spare Harley leading to her being locked up in Arkham whilst killing her turns the Batfamily against you with a possible final fight against Nightwing after facing Scarecrow), That idea would be tricky but I think it could be interesting!
I actually really like this idea, and Batman's definitely one of the superheroes most deserving of a take like this - it feels more appropriate to need to think about those things for Bats than it does for Supes or Spidey (though I could get behind it for them, too). Actually makes me hope that the devs would also implement some of the "Dishonored"-style effects of taking the bad/chaotic options, and make that have an effect on the Gotham you deal with, potentially closing or opening options for stuff because of your actions and maybe even having the citizens (or villains) act in different ways at the climax. Per your Dark Knight example, it could be something like brutal treatment of criminals means they'd trigger the explosion, lack of regard for civilians would lead them to trigger it, or a rather moral Bats who tries to save people would lead neither to trigger it. Maybe I'm just missing the Telltale games, which were admittedly a little too basic for some of those and often had to re-route later so they didn't have too many factors, but I found them fun. Same with Mass Effect and even Dragon Age, they had some decent moments that at least lead to different outcomes.
@@hcxpl1 Since the original video discussed the climax of The Dark Knight, where the boat of prisoners and the boat of other citizens each have a bomb trigger and are coaxed to "blow up the other" (even though it secretly would've blown up themselves) - in my suggestion, how you treat people in the world of the BatGame would effect what choice those people make.
I wasn't sure where you were going with this, but yeah, I 100% agree. As someone who loves the branching morality plot lines, this would be brillian to see implimented.
6:40 actually i believe that sucker punch said that the evil ending was the cannon one, which most people didn't really like. Well rather it was supposed to be the cannon ending, but they looked at which ending got played more and decided on that to being the cannon ending, in this case the sacrifice cole ending.
Now in a pitch meeting this would definitely pass, summed up in short: "A Batman game with a honor system like red dead, where your actions have real consequences." This is a feature we need to see if Rocksteady ever wants to make another Batman game
Batman having an Evil Easy Mode and a Good Normal Mode should be interesting. Choosing what Lucius develops between Batarangs better at stunning people for quick non-lethal finishers or weapons that can wound (or kill if you throw enough) at range would be an interesting first choice for Year One Research. Even stuff like the Batmobile slowing down and becoming electrical around criminals in Arkham Knight could be interesting. Either Batman doesn't bother to slow down, or he makes sure there's no way he can accidentally kill people. The Grapple Gun also being an actual Gun could be a good endgame choice. Either it's a better Grapple with more flexibility, or another way to kill bad guys. One method of combat is like the current Arkham games while other is closer to Devil May Cry.
Batman Christian Bale killed. He crushed a bandit driving to Joker with Batmobile. He shot the driver of the Talia truck, killing him and Talia as well. Not to mention that he left Ra's al Ghul to die, something Batman would never do in the comics.
He shit more than the driver, he liked at least 2 men in the camo tumbler when he used the mini gun and that's not counting how many people might have been killed chasing the joker though the parked cars. We saw kids were in one , seeing it. We don't know if other people were in the ones destroyed ( it seemed to a place for homeless)
I could imagine a "year one" type story where Batman pre cape and cowl (think balaclava and a motorcycle overall) kills the first petty criminal he stops, causing an almost fear gas-like panic attack where he sees himself as his parents killer and breaks down crying on a rooftop. After that we can have a PTSD fuled Bruce in the batcave feel sorry for himself and repeatedly tell himself that his plan didn't work and that he's a failure. Then Alfred comes along and gives him an inspirational speech, leading to him deciding on the Batman persona
Agreed completely, although ideally the game you're describing would take yearsssss to develop because it would need to have an alternative story beat for every main bad guy you chose to kill. For example, if there are ten bad guys and you kill the first one but no one else, it could be like a "I killed someone once and vowed never to again," type of story, but if you kill the first nine and spare the last one, it could be a story about how you realized that killing the bad guys didn't really accomplish anything and how if anything you've just made things worse because more, worse bad guys have risen up to take their place. As lame as it sounds, the concept would actually be better in the form of a Choose Your Own Adventure book first lol and then adapted into a game. But overall I agree with the concept.
A Batman game set in the Arkhamverse where you play as Jason pist-Knightfall. You 100% CAN kill everyone. It ends with Jason as the Prince of Gotham essentially, having more or less taken iver crime in the city per Under the Red Hood. Or, you can choose to follow Batman's example and actively avoid killing, replacing your bullets with slam rounds or dropping the guns entirely. Game ends with Jason donning the cowl of his own personalized black and red Batsuit
I really liked how detailed this video is about Batman's one rule, but recently been playing Arkham Knight after playing Asylum, City and Origins and completed a Most Wanted mission about Ra's Al Ghul. In this mission you actually have a choice to kill him for good or let him live after the excess use of the Lazarus Pit and between these choices you have 2 very different outcomes from the decision. I would recommend looking into it. Great video :D
I think the rethoric of true and false batman is bad, rather it should be; which batman do you want to be? Do you want to be a classic super friend batman, the symbol of hope, or maybe the gritty dark batman who drives fear into criminals? You can be like the redhood, killing the worst of criminals, or an Azreal going even further in cleaning the streets of gotham. You might even choose to go full owl man. I like the idea of a game asking you which batman you want to be, which one do you have more fun playing as, and which one do you think gotham needs.
Basically what we need for the perfect Batman game is a mix of the Arkham Games combat and Telltale Batman's Story and choices. This video also made me REALLY want to play the Arkham games again, so I think I know what I'm doing tonight then...
In the Mercenaries games, there is no strict rule against collateral damage, but collateral damage hits you the one place a mercenary cares about: your wallet. Thus, you still played careful to try to minimize the damage you did and brought the major targets in alive if you could.
Affleck’s Batman is one of my favorites. I prefer a Batman who doesn’t which is why I love pattinsons Batman, but affleck is my second favorite. BVS never glorifies Bruce’s actions and Alfred lectures him multiple times. Affleck plays the part perfectly and he is arguably the scariest Batman just because his lines are blurred. His character arc in the DCEU was to return to his former glory and learn to be a good man. He doesn’t stay the same. He changes for the better.
Exactly, all of the characters in Snyder's films were meant to go on journeys to become the characters we've always known. So many people want every DC superhero to start as the perfect version of themselves instead of growing into it.
@@ethancoppel agreed 100% man that’s why I loved Snyder’s vision. They actually have character arcs and ZSJL was amazing. They were all essential to winning and it felt triumphant.
Literally it does work in the movie. Now BvS was supposed to come out as BvS Ultimate Edition but the studio kept bitching movies & they shoehorned in 3 new characters & the Death of Superman. It was supposed to be MoS 2 then a solo Batman movie. This Batman was jaded, tired of fighting only for criminals to walk out the next week. I get it. Then Sups death changed him to the Bat he was before.
Well ... imagine a Azrael-Batman game. You either follow the rules and be the hero or you go rogue and in the end you get taken down by the Original. I think this would feel awesome.
Games late 2000s-early 2010s: We’re going to provide some agency to players to make their decisions which affects the world around them in a reasonably positive or negative way (Fallout NV, Infamous, etc) Games nowadays: It costs too much to make multiple outcomes that are different and not superficially affecting the world, also if they kill this one person it will break the storytree so we will make them invincible
1:25 The point of the Martha scene is that it changes his view on killing Superman, not on killing in general. He stops killing at the end of the movie because of Superman’s sacrifice. That's what changes him. It's why he is a changed person in ZSJL.
why didnt he kill the joker? why didnt he burst in the asylum and shoot all the criminals? , Thats literally the first place he should go first if he wants to kill.
I wish there was a Batman that kills at the start of his career but learns not to. Sorta like a reference and transition form his first appearance where he did kill, to later on where he stopped.
I can't believe you even mentioned the original infamous games it's like no one even acknowledges them anymore, infamous is based off batman with the exact twist your referencing the batman could have, good vid
in red dead redemption 2 i was a merciless killer first half of the game, i soon started slowly doing good actions and makeing arthur a decent person, it made the journey so impactful because i wasnt forced to do this, i wish more games did these things
Would you consider the deaths of Ras & Harvey Dent in ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’ Batman killing? (He also technically killed anyone who died when he set the League’s monastery on fire.)
What's interesting about Infamous is that of those evil choices. As the original plan for Infamous 2 was that the evil ending was going to be the cannon outcome only changed due to PS3 trophies revealing that most players achieved the good ending instead. Making the developers change their minds or so I have heard on the development of the infamous second son.
would love to see a batman story explore the accidental deaths that happen in a street fight, you hit a guy the wrong way and he hits his head on the pavement and its over, there's nothing you can do, i think that'd be a really interesting thing to see batman cope with, people still need him, is he gonna let this risk of murder stop him, is there an acceptable amount of accidents, ok maybe once, but what happens if it happens again? and again? even seeing bruce get in a car crash due to how hard he's pushing himself and killing someone then, he's delving into a world where death simply isn't something you can enjoy, what about when he knocks out a goon and the joker kills him as punishment is that blood on his hands?
Dishonored is a game that also sort of does this, where the amount of people you kill or choose not to directly affects how chaotic the city becomes and the morals of some of the characters and citizens as stories about and consequences of your deeds become more prevalent across the city. The only choices are to kill or not kill, but the deeper you get into the game the more of an impact these choices have.
I think the game that perfectly has the “you have the option to kill but you don’t have to” is the dishonored series. The first game is a masterpiece in my eyes. The fact that in the game you have the choice to either kill, knockout or sneak by every enemy made being non-lethal so rewarding if that’s how you wanted to play.
Honestly splinter cell blacklist is a great example for that because you can play the game guns blazing but you can also just stealth it and do non lethal take downs, its way harder but it feels so much more rewarding if you can pull it off
weird, a video essay about morality and immersion through the choice of killing and saving enemies in video games and yet not one mention of Undertale or Deltarune. I guess InFamous is already enough of a relevant tangent for a Batman focused video essay.
Dishonored has a great morality system and I love it a lot. One of the things that really stuck out to me when playing that game is the feeling of doing good for *their* sake. I was so utterly powerful and could easily kill all of them and let loose and pull my punches if I wanted to, but it would make the world a worse place, and my empathy for the NPC's and guards, despite being my enemies, just took precedence over anything else.
I totally agree. The only problem is if I, personally, get the option to kill in a Batman game playing as Batman, my first play through is gonna be a Thomas Wayne simulator. That’s actually what I did in Second Son. Once I realized killing vs subduing changes things I took the Villain route my first playthrough
I think this morality choice mechanic in Gotham would be perfect for a Red Hood game. As a character who has seen much change from his first appearance to now this mechanic would be a wonderful marriage of this evolution. - you could be the new kingpin of crime, controlling the underbelly of the crime world to create a safer place - or you could be a more rageful man who mearly wants to kill crime and those who enact it - or you could be allied with Batman, acting non lethal and forwarding his mission. aiming to redeem crime. This type of interactive choice is not new for the character, and to be able to experience the world through Jason Todd and forming his path through your choices would be amazing
Great video. One small observation: In Infamous 2, the bad ending was supposed to be the canon one. They decided to make the good ending canon just because the majority of players chose that route.
TWAU kinda has this feeling when dealing with the main big bad as well as several choices throughout. You CAN let the Big Bad Wolf come out to aide in your investigation. Its completely valid as circumstances are not in your favour. But what makes it so rewarding is when you DON'T succumb. You reject the notion and let Bigby Wolf take control.
I would be totally onboard with a batman experience of some kind where Gotham just unravels because Batman kills people so people weren't willing to risk the other boat also not hitting the button, people getting more violent because batman's running around "heroically" killing people. The idea of throwing of that balance of Batman being feared by criminals but is a symbol of good and hope for the people Gotham proceeding to destroy Gotham is interesting. They already like to treat Gotham as a hellscape that physically wants to destroy you, having the no-kill rule be some kind of balancer is neat.
The InFAMOUS series could have some more challenge on the good path. Not necessarily make it weaker, but forcing the hero to pull their punches. In InFAMOUS 2, I could chuck grenades all around New Marais without worrying, since enemies were usually far from the pedestrians and you had a passive skill that reduced damage dealt to innocents. What you said about not running people over with the Batmobile perfectly exemplifies that. Pulling your punches could have just as much impact as story decisions. Another game to consider is Dishonored, with the chaos system and the "Clean Hands" trophy. As much as I wanted to cleave some particular NPCs in half during the playthrough, getting that good ending and being respected by the buddies, even instilling some shame into some bad guys, despite having a choice and a full arsenal of stabby, explodey toys, was truly satisfying. One game that absolutely wasted this opportunity was Metal Gear Solid V. Fun game, but most objectives were "Go here, kill this guy, but kidnapping and brainwashing him is better". The only difference between killing or extracting was that you got more soldiers, despite the game exploring the concept of morality and revenge. Also Snake gets hornier. That gets a single line of dialogue, but is otherwise a purely cosmetic big horn and permanent blood.
I think this sounds like an amazing red hood game akin to the animated death in the family animated movie. Do you fight like Batman and take on Gotham’s criminals as a member of the bat-family or do you embrace Jason’s rage and go on a killing spree where the more you kill, the more the bat family hunts you down, leading to a boss fight against Batman. I just don’t see a Batman game doing that with Bruce. But Jason is, imo, the perfect vessel for this kind of game
While I agree with the underlying premise, I feel that the really important detail isn't just the mere inclusion of such a feature, but rather how it's implemented. Having the choice to follow Batman's moral code or not but it's implemented poorly could detract substantially from the overall enjoyment value of the game. Ironically however, when implemented well this is also probably the best way to make a Superman game. Sure, you'll be invincible as far as most potential enemies in the game are concerned, but that's because the core mechanic wouldn't be about finding difficulty in overcoming threats but in making the choice not to eliminate them the easy way and then figuring out how to spare them while not allowing anyone else to get killed either.
I also think when you have branching paths like infamous it creates so much more replay value, same for the Witcher. I would do at LEAST one wholly good playthrough, one evil playthrough and one ‘true’ playthrough where I take each choice one at a time
I’m very on board with this idea. The start of the game should have you instantly thrown into a boss fight with one of Batman’s rogues and then by the end of it give you choice of killing him or not. The whole game would play out differently depending on a crucial decision you make from the first 10 minutes.
Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡Here:
go.babbel.com/t?bsc=1200m60-youtube-fullfatvideos-mar-2023&btp=default&RUclips&Influencer..fullfatvideos..USA..RUclips
yeah... the one time.. his dying parents in that dark ally way
Don't tell Batman What to do you Jabroni.
ok Full Flat...
i dont think you know enough of Cole as a character and inFAMOUS in general.... cole in the 1st games box art has white lightning and looks pretty scary if you look at his face... there are 2 art styles of coles box art and it is his 'good' aka white lighting and his evi one looking pale and black stuff on his skin and outfit especially cole having red lightning this time...
now a lot of ppl don't know this but canonicaly cole does more bad stuff than good stuff in the novelizations or comics of the game....
coles character just suits and is more natural in his evil path because not only bad karma cole tried to do good in the beginning, ppl still view him as a terrorist... evil timeline coles switch into killing or injuring innocents is at the train where he says that 'risked my life to save their families and they want to stone me in return' - cole still did good things even if you're going with the evil timeline because the truth is that the evil path is more nuanced than the good karma where it feels forced and so your argument with inFAMOUS doesn't work especially since that Sucker Punch originally was going to make inFAMOUS 2s evil ending canon but Sucker Punch stupidly decided to make the good ending canon which breaks the lore for their next planned game they were going to make aka 'inFAMOUS Second Son'
I don't understand why ppl say that in all inFAMOUS games (especially with you saying that one of inFAMOUS 1s criticisms was its evil path not feeling nuanced) the evil path doesn't feel 'right' evil karma just doesn't feel 'right' and isn't as thought out than the Good karma...
inFamous 1s evil path is grey as shit which you can be both good and evil elsewell - what I like to do for evil karma run is to do the 1st good choice of the game but then do the 2nd evil choice in the game or reverse those decisions with the 1st being evil and the 2nd being good which helps the grey aspects of the evil timeline and it's canonical counterpart more satisfying...
this is the same thing for inFamous 2 elsewell... both inFamous games dont have black and white morality systems if you actually explore its meaning in those games except for a whole Good karma path since it is basically like a generic goodie 2 shoe/superman which feels unnatural... the only inFAMOUS game that has a black and white morality system is 'inFamous second son' - now I can explain all day why Delsin being evil is actually canon since Sucker Punch haven't confirmed what Delsins karma is canon but im done for now
bruh Web of Shadow's spiderman is dark without the symbiote on him... there are 4 endings depending on how much you're willing to use the symbiote or not... the symbiote just amplifies peters intentions... WoS spiderman already looks like he kills ppl... again it makes sense to use the symbiote in the first place because thats how it'd be with the way WoS was going for
What do you think about a Batman story where he’s in some kind of war? Should he kill then? Like Apokalypse invades all the time, should he kill parademons?
If Batman gets forced into some larger conflict where he is one of many against hordes, should his morality continue to apply?
Imagine a superman boss fight where you have the option to kill him between each phase getting progressively difficult and each failure wearing you down
That would be fucking awesome
You just described how Batman feels whenever he has to fight Superman in the comics
Metal gear solid
I want a Superman boss fight where you get to shout Martha
It could also have a good ending or bad ending path depending on if you kill superman or not
Batman in LEGO games is absolutely brutal, people literally get shattered to bits.
I cant even imagine what that is like, so brutal.
@@Batman-ps4om imagine your arms, legs and head fly off, then you instantly revive and see your dismembered corpse lie in front of you as it flickers out of existence
@@soltandvinegar won't show someone getting shot but will show tonnes of people get brutally murdered
@@maxvolume72 some Lego games do have it where you can use a gun like Lego DC super villain's I enjoy playing Lego games
😂😂😂😂😂😂
One thing I'd like to add is that if a Batman game did allow the player to kill, it should also show Batman trying to rationalise why he did afterwards. Maybe a corruption arc could play out the more the player kills to solve problems, as Batman keeps making exceptions to the no killing rule, becoming increasingly hypocritical and lazy in his justifications. Back up the "what if" scenario with "how".
To go along with that, I would also add certain kill options that only appear if you've taken early ones. Enemies that you definitely don't have to kill and wouldn't even get the option to if you hadn't already started down the path
I'd add an ending where Batman kills the Joker only which means he's pretty much still batman just crossed the line and an ending where he kills the whole rogues gallery and is hunted by the police
The Batman in Titans in a nutshell
Kinda like the Karma system in the InFamous franchise.
I also think it would be interesting to have consequences if you chose to have Batman kill such as the citizens of Gotham turning against him, the GCPD now reconsidering their deal and the Bat Family confronting him on it maybe with a Nightwing fight if you choose to have Batman Kill!
The only time a Batman game has had a morality like this was The Telltale series, I hope if they ever make part 3 they take this into consideration, it would definitely add more impact to *your* batman
Chances are very very small, because studio was shut down and dissolved
@@mihailos8701 they’ve come back since and are making Wolf Among Us 2
@@MichelangeloVA Hopefully not, since season 2 ended in a bit of a cliffhanger
Telltale should have given the option to kill instead of just "brutalizing" what if we kill Falcone to send a message instead of just slamming him on a piece of broken rebar and just hurting him real bad
@@MichelangeloVA Really hoping they do because the Batman Telltale, next to Game of Thrones and Walking Dead, was the best one. There's so much they can do with the concept and it'll definitely earn good money from the fans if they do it. Also slim chance I know, but they really need to finish the Game of Thrones story. It left everything so open and I for one need to see the story end.
One of my favorite things about Arkham Knight is playing as Red Hood, watching him snap a person's neck, then seeing him labeled "unconscious" in Detective Mode.
Sure buddy, sure.
I just find it funny that the game's internal systems (technically not allowing Batman to kill) cause something like that to happen, thus breaking the experience for the characters that can and will kill.
It says neutralized as Red Hood and they don't have a heartbeat.
@@joshheralal8758 Interesting. I never got that when I played
Technically dead people are not conscious, so....
@@AgtShadowWalker During his own story he gets custom detective vision, but for ease of it it's the basic detective vision during challenge maps
@@theonetruefusion8533 I assumed that's what was happening. Thanks for clarifying!
I recall reading a batman story where he killed a criminal to save someone and turned himself in to serve the consequences, putting aside the batman mantle, as he think he no longer deserves that mantle. I think that was pretty neat, to basically say that the day batman kills, should also be the final day of batman being batman.
A few momentary exceptions aside, this is what convinces Batman to retire in the DCAU as well. He gets too old and his body too broken down for his beyond suit to compensate, and he's forced into a situation where he had to shoot and kill his opponent in order to survive, which is the day that Batman formally retires from duty.
Pretty close to what he did in Batman Beyond
Sounds like the good ending to injustice where he kills the joker and turns himself in
@@Tyler_W he just pointed the gun
@@Tyler_W Actually, in batman beyond, he literally just holds a gun. He gets a heart attack, and has to aim it at a criminal. That’s when he decides he doesn’t deserve the mantle anymore
An interesting alternate version of Batman with no "no killing" rule is the Grim Knight: a Bruce Wayne that picks up the gun after Joe Chill killed his parents and immediately get revenge.
So he learns a very different lesson, that lethal force is the best way to keep the criminals down. The guy does become a sort of despot, monitoring all of Gotham and shooting with drones anyone that try to commit a crime
Thomas Wayne Batman basicly.
@@samfire3067 no, they’re both brutal killers but still very distinct major differences
I came expecting a video about the one time he used a gun to kill Darkseid, but this is a lot better.
Ayee glad you enjoyed
Batman killed in 66 (the Movie) and in 89 the movie infact Keaton Batman killed more than Batfleck...he killed Joker and Penguin (and countless henchmen) the no killing was a stigma created by the Warner Brothers deal with McDonald's (to sell toys) he even packed heat in his original Detective Comics debut
@@hasanwallah7015 think you might've answered the wrong comment.
Also, the no killing rule appeared in the comics about a year after his first appearance
Leaving Batman’s morality in video games up to the player to decide is certainly interesting for future games to explore. So far the closest thing to that type of game at least narratively is telltale batman. However, that’s more focused on Batman’s dual identity and what the player considers more important, the vigilante or the billionaire.
lol imagine if he defeated Solomon Grundy and he didn't come back to life like he always dose
Born on a Monday, dead by Tuesday...
@@FullFatVideos lolz
@@FullFatVideos don't you mean "Chewsday" 😭
@@FullFatVideos I feel Like Grundy and Parademons are the only exception since I don’t really consider either of them living so I don’t have a problem with the League members even Batman using more force that he wouldn’t with his other rogues!
To be fair, he's technically already dead.
4:48, Regarding the morality of the Arkham games, the stories actually do a great deal in delving into the cyclical nature of Batman’s war on crime, a cycle that may very well be partly enabled by Batman’s insistence on being non-lethal. Asylum first explores this cycle by portraying Batman’s enemies as deeming him just as insane as them for failing to see his part in perpetually keeping their war going by getting them locked up, only for them to escape and cause havok all over again. Hugo and Ra’s plan to bomb Arkham City is directly in support of breaking this cycle at the cost of the lives of Gotham’s criminals, a price Batman opposes. Batman’s ultimate solution to breaking the cycle before his allies are lost or corrupted by his war is to return to being a mythical figure, meta-narratively and literally taking himself out of the game. The death of the Batman and Joker, either Joker’s physical death or Batman’s metaphorical death, is a break in the cycle that marks a new era for Gotham that, while not erasing all its ills, opens the door for the next generation to hopefully do a better job in changing the city for the better.
Now that we live in a post-Snyder Cut world, I actually really appreciate how Batfleck’s character arc parallels the character’s publication history since Bill Finger’s Batman was originally comfortable with murder and even holstered a gun.
I wish we got to see more of that arc, since it isn't shown as much. Like, just like Full Fat Videos said, he straight up murders a bunch of thugs after "realizing" that one of the most dangerous man (in his opinion) still is just a man and shouldn't be killed because he's a threat.
Batman Christian Bale burned down the League of Assassins monastery with everyone still in him.
He attacked Two-Facede a building.
He left Ra's Al Ghul to death on a condemned train.
Batman Christian Bale said he would not kill and then killed several people.
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"
"But you created the circumstances in which i died!"
"Lalalalalalalalaa i can't hear you"
"We both know your ethical loophole is bullshit!!"
I feel like Christian Bale’s Batman more so had a “I try my best to avoid killing, but don’t always succeed” mantra more than he had a no kill rule. Like he definitely has a strong moral compass and tries to protect human life as much as possible, but there are definitely situations he’s put in where it’s not possible to save everyone. On one hand I think it’s an interesting take on the character and it works especially well for the more realistic approach Nolan took with his trilogy, but on the other hand it’s execution stops me from considering the Nolan trilogy as the definitive Batman iteration.
@@Shittyrapper using the bat to machine gun bane and Talia's men definitely wasn't trying to avoid killing
He didn't really have a choice in the monastery, it was either kill a thief or the highly trained assassins that posed a threat to society. I think I'd know what I would pick
The first two infamous games were my all time favorites growing up. I think the dimension of choice, as often cartoonish as the evil choices could be, really gave you a since of accomplishment and purpose in helping people. Civilians dying by your own hand on accident really made it feel impactful as you got better at helping people and continually made the choice to do so. I also really thought the user-generated content in Infamous 2 was genius and had tons of hidden gems, it really is a shame no other games like the recent Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order / Survivor series have tried that. It really adds tons of content to extend the lifespan of a single player game.
Yea I've always saddened that the first two Infamous games have not gotten any direct PS4/5 ports. All I want is 60FPS, I don't even care if the resolution/graphics remain the same otherwise
@@kicapanmanis1060 honestly I agree but sp I'd love a remaster hold the made for modern audiences crap
The inFamous series are some of my favorite games of all time, i wish they were remade so more people could experience the masterpieces
This is why I love Star Wars Knights of The Old Republic 2 despite it being unfinished, the game world is in such dark disrepair, but you can follow the light and make a difference
Interesting video! I feel like Telltale tried to do something similar in their Batman game, allowing you play either a righteous or a brutal Batman. However, the game was very selective about the choices you could make and how much those would influence the story. It would be cool - as you say in the video - to have a system where you could make the choice to kill organically instead of at set points in the game. I don't know if I would ever kill as Batman in a playthrough, though.
I've only played the first episode, but I believe The Telltale Batman game does something similar to this. Not sure if killing's on the table, but you can definitely choose to be more brutal if you want. Also, this reminds me of a moment implemented into Batman Arkham City, where you play as Catwoman and can choose whether to save Batman or let him die and if you choose the wrong option you get end credits, plus audio from Oracle saying how everyone is doomed! OH, and you can also choose whether to kill Azrael in Arkham Knight AND with Batman in the Ras al Ghul Arkham Knight side mission. This a small addition, but it's pretty cool Rocksteady did stuff like this. Don't really have a point here, I just wanted to spotlight the Telltale game, and praise Rocksteady some more, cause they aren't getting too much of that these days.
🤞 for Suicide Squad KIll The Justice League
I think the best way to modify the Arkham Combat in a small way to allow for an option to kill in basic combat against henchmen is to change the “instant knockout smash” option that is given to Batman on “down-but-not-out” henchmen into a sort of fatal kill move.
I think this option maintains the fun in the free flow combat while emphasising the “easiness” of just killing the criminals as opposed to having to fight them until they are knocked out in a traditional sense
It's kinda weird that you used The Dark Knight as a good example of Batman's one rule, since he tackles Harvey off of a building and kills him at the end.
It's probably my biggest gripe with the movie that this moment isn't really acknowledged
Yeah I agree. I always assumed that it was in a sense a small victory for the Joker as the Joker really did push him to break his rule... but I wish it had gotten just a little more attention that Batman had to concede.
Even Ra's death with the whole "I don't have to save you" bit. Like no? Batman would save him. Harvey's death is even worse. How is Batman breaking his one rule not given any gravity in the TDR? The entire trilogy plays so fast and loose with such a fundamental tenant of Batman's character. People shit on Snyder's Batman but at least he acknowledged that he killed instead of sweeping it under the rug like Nolan
I was wondering if someone else would acknowledge this. Interestingly, Nolan’s Bruce has caused someone else’s death in each of his films, from members of the League of Shadows when he ignited their base with explosive powder, Ra’s Al
Ghul when he left on board a train that was about to crash, Harvey by tackling him away from Gordon’s family and off a ledge, and Thalia and some of her men when he caused her car to crash while chasing her to disarm the nuke in her possession. Going further than that, even Kilmer’s Batman contributed to some of his enemies deaths, notably when he distracted his version of Harvey with a scattering of coins in the air to cause him to lose balance and all to his death. Nearly every cinematic Batman has done something like this, but usually in situations where they had little control of the outcome and no way to safely and cleanly resolve a volatile situation and simultaneously consider and maintain the safety of everyone involved, but was nonetheless required to act quickly, efficiently and without hesitation in defense of themselves or others instead of as an indulgence like Snyder’s Batman was shown to do.
Nolan’s Batman even comments on this distinction by Bruce specifically refusing to be an “executioner” but still being willing to do “what is necessary”, even if that means endangering his enemies’ lives. His choice to abandon Ra’s on that crashing train is born from two factors, first knowing Ra’s would simply hatch a new plot to destroy him, his allies and Gotham should he survive and secondly Ra’s and his League being directly responsible for Gotham’s economic struggles and indirectly responsible for the Wayne’s being murdered by an impoverished and desperate Joe Chill. Instead of only focusing his wrath on petty criminals, Bruce instead ends up eliminating one of its major sources in his city, another theme of Batman Begins being that of systemic corruption being ignored over its symptoms.
Comic-book and animated versions Batman comment further on this distinction with Bruce’s fear that he will lose any sense of mercy, empathy, compassion or restraint if he allows himself to be an execute his enemies, becoming just like the League, Ra’s or comics characters like Red Hood who only care about punishing the guilty rather than protecting the innocent. But Nolan’s Batman demonstrating this balanced view on killing and interrogating the validity of Bruce’s aversion to being an executioner despite how many laws he breaks being a vigilante while also showing an external reason for Batman’s mercy being his belief in the honor and moral integrity of even the most unlikely people helped cement that iteration as one of the more interesting cinematic takes on the character.
@@neareed9241 The whole "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" thing is BS anyway.
Batman DID kill him, Batman crashed the train. His whole plan was to crash the train. If I cut the brakes on someone's car, I've killed them.
I remember someone said that Clooney is the only batman that hasn’t killed now thinking about it I don’t think he did which is very bizarre.
...So...the Dishonored games lol
They pretty much implemented those ideas. That incentivises going no-kill narratively with how the world and characters react to your actions. The no-kill route is also quite often more difficult so there is that bit of extra challenge making it that much more satisfying.
And to a similar extent, the Metal Gear games, where non-lethal options are available and at times encouraged for score purposes. While their are unavoidable sections where killing is the only option or part of the narrative, the protagonists themselves are often shown ruefully resigned to the fact that they’ve killed others (at times even ashamed when they find themselves enjoying battle as they deem themselves contributing to systems of violence) but are nonetheless willing to do so again in order to defend themselves or others as well as if their isn’t another way to complete their objective.
Within the context of the narrative, the character’s are also meant to be legendary stealth operatives that could infiltrate fortresses and not only survive, but also avoid combat no matter the number of guards. However, both combat and lethal options still exist and aren’t penalized in any way other than score purposes, as it would be in character for these individuals to be willing to use lethal force to survive just as much as they use stealth. It’s ultimately left up to the player wether or not they feel merciful or wish to challenge themselves by completing an objective without violence or bloodshed.
Pretty much.
Superhuman Simulator that gives some options.
Infamous could've been left alone as a superhero game without the "choice" system.
Either commit to being a SUPER-HERO game or just do what Dishonored did instead.
@@lucascoval828 Dishonored is literally the same way though "killing bad"
and then the pacifist option for the targets is usually worse than actually killing them. Like selling a girl to her obsessed stalker, but if you do that you get the stereotypical "and everyone lived happily ever after" like....?
@@citizenvulpes4562 you can still get the good ending in that game if you only kill the assassination targets. You have to kill about a quarter of the guards or more in each level to get the bad ending. It’s not about whether you kill a single person it’s about who you kill, how many, under what circumstances did they die (loudly or quietly) and how there death impacts the spread of a plague. Claiming the morality system in dishonored had no nuance is basically a self report that you don’t know as much about it as you think you do.
@@callmev3531 excluding boss battles and the quarantine platform mission in V only mgs1 forces you to kill, but otherwise everything else you said was accurate and I agree.
I know it's often viewed as a memed-to-death example, but I do think Undertale (and to an extent Deltarune) is another example of a franchise that offers these kinds of moral options like what Batman games need. I will say though that the incentivization is a bit weird with them though...the games being as meta as they are, their moral choices they present tend to be more concerned with awareness that some people are trying to meet certain completions goals rather than making the choices for the sake of the choices, but nonetheless the ramifications of those choices are still fully on display. For a batman game, there would definitely need to be a similar depth to the branching paths, which is probably too daunting a task for most developers. Would still be very interesting to see.
In Arkham knight in the most wanted missions, you can choose to not save ra's Al ghul, like instead of giving him the Lazarus pit serum you can destroy it and the tubes connected to him, and allow Nyssa to be come the demon head or you can save him and he kills Nyssa, it's a pretty cool choice
This idea reminds me of the Dishonored games, where you have the choice to kill or pacify every enemy you come across. In literally every situation, it's easier to just kill your enemies recklessly, sparing their lives isn't easy, but it almost universally creates a better world. In the first game, if you kill all your enemies, the young empress you protect becomes a tyrant over a plague ridden, dying kingdom, but if you don't kill, the kingdom thrives. A Batman game very much like that would be absolutely perfect
The kotor games had a similar system to the infamous games, the good choices were canon and a lot more fleshed out than the darkside options, but the option still remained and truly made you feel as although you were in an ongoing struggle against dark temptation, with any perceivably evil dialogue option setting you down such a path.
One Batman game I can think of that sort of does this is The Telltale series. Batman's choices determine if the people hate or accept him. You can let Catwoman die, be as cruel to the joker as possibly, you can impale Falcone on a medal rodd. Telltale series Batman games are definitely the most like what you were saying about choices defining the game.
No mention of the Batman Telltale series? Odd. But wonderful video regardless
I think Arkane Studios would be perfect for this kind of Batman game. Dishonored 1+2 and Prey have a lot to do with your own code as a person. Prey 2017's entire theme is empathy towards people and one's personal reason for choosing to end or not save those deemed worth dying. Would be awesome to see them tackle Batman with this approach
*looks at Redfall*
This comment aged badly.
I've never really heard of this criticism that the Infamous game's evil routes were not as fleshed out as the good ones until now. You earn different powers, the city interacts with you in different ways depending on your karma, the choices on why Cole would choose evil actions made sense, and you would get different cutscenes and ending depending on which route you take. The fact that the good ending becomes canon anyway shouldn't matter. Sure, the overall story remains fundamentally the same, but how you engage with it and how the game reacts to your action are what really matters.
A batman game could implement a mechanic where if you kill, a (heavily nerfed version of the) Failsafe robot activates, maybe just a drone of a big bad one, and it chases you so that if you stay somewhere for too long or spend too long on a mission it catches you and you have to kill it. Probably not one drone per person you kill but like maximum of one every so long in the game, and then if you dont kill someone in x time span one doesnt come after you (probably based on like story missions not actual time)
Then, later in the game, there can be a boss fight/arc against the main Failsafe, maybe there's a pivotal game moment where the player can choose to kill the penguin or not, and if they don't, he does what he did in the comic arc and frames batman for his death. Then Failsafe Proper activates and there's like either a big storyline where it's hunting you and you have to find some macguffin to stop it or team up with one of the technological villains (braniac??) or batgirl/oracle.
I think that kind of plotline would be really interesting in a game that plays with the idea that you can kill if you want, in an even better way than it worked in the comics. Showing that at some point in the past, the character you're playing as realized he might someday do this, realized that someone like you might be in control, made a failsafe. It's almost a meta rebellion against the player, while also being really effective in-story
The telltale games do something like this with batman. And I have to say that through Telltale I fell in love with BATMAN. The morality that he has, the choices he has to make and live with the consequenses. That's the special thing about this superhero. It isn't that he's rich, or that he has cool gadgets. The awesome thing to me about Batman is that despite him being fear itself, he struggles so much to do the right thing sometimes and it affects him a lot
So you'd want a game that lets you either be Nolan Batman or Snyder Batman! 😂
Dustin Dziembala Why ? Both straight up killed. The only difference is body count
Personally I really like the choice you get in Knight, on whether to save Ra's al Ghul, or finally let him die
I feel like that villain is the only one that I’d be ok with Batman killing tbh
A really great example of what You said is Evan Wright from Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number, He's just a journalist, not a blood-lusted maniac like the rest, His only kill is during a cutscene, and it wasn't even intentional of His part, You can play Him without killing or go nuts for the hell of it, although it doesn't matter much to the overall plot, You have the choice, which makes His ending and Your choice for it a lot more impactful because YOU WERE Evan Wright, a blood-fueled maniac, someone who only killed when nescessary, or a loving father who was surrounded by violence and had the balls to not embrace it like the rest, Your choice, Your character, this is what Web of Shadows tried to do, and what I want to see in a future Batman game.
Well, in infamous 2 originally the evil ending was supposed to be canon, but the devs changed it because more people had the achievement for the good one, so they didn't want you to be the hero in that one. Also, the fact that they changed it just because more people did the good route still bugs me.
I think this would be a brilliant choice for a theoretical game where you play either a reformed Red Hood or Damian Wayne, both potential inheritors to the cowl who have their own takes on the One Rule and struggles with it.
I think an under the red hood game would work really good with this idea with Red Hood telling you to kill Joker but Batman's moral code telling you not to and the player having the choice wether or not to kill Joker
Thought it was gonna have something to do with Ra's and the Lazarus pits lol. This is far far far better! Nice video!
Great Video with an interesting premise! I’d be curious to see A Batman game which operates with Infamous logic, I’d stay true to Batman with how I’d play it but I think an interesting idea(although I could see it being very difficult to pull off) is that if the darker choice is taken that there are consequence for instance choosing to put civillians in harm or being ignorant to their harm causes strain with your relationship to the GCPD or if you kill the Joker, then Harley Quinn will come after you as a horrifying monster who becomes more violent and uses People close to Batman as hostages(with the choice to spare Harley leading to her being locked up in Arkham whilst killing her turns the Batfamily against you with a possible final fight against Nightwing after facing Scarecrow), That idea would be tricky but I think it could be interesting!
I actually really like this idea, and Batman's definitely one of the superheroes most deserving of a take like this - it feels more appropriate to need to think about those things for Bats than it does for Supes or Spidey (though I could get behind it for them, too). Actually makes me hope that the devs would also implement some of the "Dishonored"-style effects of taking the bad/chaotic options, and make that have an effect on the Gotham you deal with, potentially closing or opening options for stuff because of your actions and maybe even having the citizens (or villains) act in different ways at the climax. Per your Dark Knight example, it could be something like brutal treatment of criminals means they'd trigger the explosion, lack of regard for civilians would lead them to trigger it, or a rather moral Bats who tries to save people would lead neither to trigger it. Maybe I'm just missing the Telltale games, which were admittedly a little too basic for some of those and often had to re-route later so they didn't have too many factors, but I found them fun. Same with Mass Effect and even Dragon Age, they had some decent moments that at least lead to different outcomes.
I'm sorry but I'm a little lost - would trigger what, exactly?
@@hcxpl1 Since the original video discussed the climax of The Dark Knight, where the boat of prisoners and the boat of other citizens each have a bomb trigger and are coaxed to "blow up the other" (even though it secretly would've blown up themselves) - in my suggestion, how you treat people in the world of the BatGame would effect what choice those people make.
I wasn't sure where you were going with this, but yeah, I 100% agree. As someone who loves the branching morality plot lines, this would be brillian to see implimented.
6:40 actually i believe that sucker punch said that the evil ending was the cannon one, which most people didn't really like. Well rather it was supposed to be the cannon ending, but they looked at which ending got played more and decided on that to being the cannon ending, in this case the sacrifice cole ending.
You've made a good pitch for a Batman game, *but* a splendid one for a Red Hood game.
Now in a pitch meeting this would definitely pass, summed up in short: "A Batman game with a honor system like red dead, where your actions have real consequences." This is a feature we need to see if Rocksteady ever wants to make another Batman game
Batman having an Evil Easy Mode and a Good Normal Mode should be interesting. Choosing what Lucius develops between Batarangs better at stunning people for quick non-lethal finishers or weapons that can wound (or kill if you throw enough) at range would be an interesting first choice for Year One Research. Even stuff like the Batmobile slowing down and becoming electrical around criminals in Arkham Knight could be interesting. Either Batman doesn't bother to slow down, or he makes sure there's no way he can accidentally kill people. The Grapple Gun also being an actual Gun could be a good endgame choice. Either it's a better Grapple with more flexibility, or another way to kill bad guys. One method of combat is like the current Arkham games while other is closer to Devil May Cry.
Batman Christian Bale killed.
He crushed a bandit driving to Joker with Batmobile.
He shot the driver of the Talia truck, killing him and Talia as well.
Not to mention that he left Ra's al Ghul to die, something Batman would never do in the comics.
And tackled two face off a ledge
He shit more than the driver, he liked at least 2 men in the camo tumbler when he used the mini gun and that's not counting how many people might have been killed chasing the joker though the parked cars. We saw kids were in one , seeing it. We don't know if other people were in the ones destroyed ( it seemed to a place for homeless)
If they're undead, the no killing rule goes out the window
Hell yeah, love seeing inFamous get recognition. Such a great series
I could imagine a "year one" type story where Batman pre cape and cowl (think balaclava and a motorcycle overall) kills the first petty criminal he stops, causing an almost fear gas-like panic attack where he sees himself as his parents killer and breaks down crying on a rooftop.
After that we can have a PTSD fuled Bruce in the batcave feel sorry for himself and repeatedly tell himself that his plan didn't work and that he's a failure. Then Alfred comes along and gives him an inspirational speech, leading to him deciding on the Batman persona
Agreed completely, although ideally the game you're describing would take yearsssss to develop because it would need to have an alternative story beat for every main bad guy you chose to kill. For example, if there are ten bad guys and you kill the first one but no one else, it could be like a "I killed someone once and vowed never to again," type of story, but if you kill the first nine and spare the last one, it could be a story about how you realized that killing the bad guys didn't really accomplish anything and how if anything you've just made things worse because more, worse bad guys have risen up to take their place. As lame as it sounds, the concept would actually be better in the form of a Choose Your Own Adventure book first lol and then adapted into a game. But overall I agree with the concept.
A Batman game set in the Arkhamverse where you play as Jason pist-Knightfall. You 100% CAN kill everyone. It ends with Jason as the Prince of Gotham essentially, having more or less taken iver crime in the city per Under the Red Hood. Or, you can choose to follow Batman's example and actively avoid killing, replacing your bullets with slam rounds or dropping the guns entirely. Game ends with Jason donning the cowl of his own personalized black and red Batsuit
Micheal Keaton: I missed the part were that’s my problem
I really liked how detailed this video is about Batman's one rule, but recently been playing Arkham Knight after playing Asylum, City and Origins and completed a Most Wanted mission about Ra's Al Ghul. In this mission you actually have a choice to kill him for good or let him live after the excess use of the Lazarus Pit and between these choices you have 2 very different outcomes from the decision. I would recommend looking into it. Great video :D
Not to mention killing Solomon Grundy in Arkham City
I think the rethoric of true and false batman is bad, rather it should be; which batman do you want to be? Do you want to be a classic super friend batman, the symbol of hope, or maybe the gritty dark batman who drives fear into criminals? You can be like the redhood, killing the worst of criminals, or an Azreal going even further in cleaning the streets of gotham. You might even choose to go full owl man.
I like the idea of a game asking you which batman you want to be, which one do you have more fun playing as, and which one do you think gotham needs.
I don’t have fancy tastes.
I just want to fly the batwing freely in the open world.
Basically what we need for the perfect Batman game is a mix of the Arkham Games combat and Telltale Batman's Story and choices.
This video also made me REALLY want to play the Arkham games again, so I think I know what I'm doing tonight then...
How often we forget Nolan's Batman burning down a house of Ninjas in BB and then using his jet to gun down trucks of henchmen in TDKR
In the Mercenaries games, there is no strict rule against collateral damage, but collateral damage hits you the one place a mercenary cares about: your wallet. Thus, you still played careful to try to minimize the damage you did and brought the major targets in alive if you could.
Someone mentioned Infamous! Lol the series is so underrated I wish they’d bring it back.
Affleck’s Batman is one of my favorites. I prefer a Batman who doesn’t which is why I love pattinsons Batman, but affleck is my second favorite. BVS never glorifies Bruce’s actions and Alfred lectures him multiple times. Affleck plays the part perfectly and he is arguably the scariest Batman just because his lines are blurred. His character arc in the DCEU was to return to his former glory and learn to be a good man. He doesn’t stay the same. He changes for the better.
Exactly, all of the characters in Snyder's films were meant to go on journeys to become the characters we've always known. So many people want every DC superhero to start as the perfect version of themselves instead of growing into it.
@@ethancoppel agreed 100% man that’s why I loved Snyder’s vision. They actually have character arcs and ZSJL was amazing. They were all essential to winning and it felt triumphant.
Literally it does work in the movie. Now BvS was supposed to come out as BvS Ultimate Edition but the studio kept bitching movies & they shoehorned in 3 new characters & the Death of Superman. It was supposed to be MoS 2 then a solo Batman movie.
This Batman was jaded, tired of fighting only for criminals to walk out the next week. I get it. Then Sups death changed him to the Bat he was before.
I think something like the Dishonored Chaos system would be great, letting you see the rippling effects of your choices as you progress
A Batman RPG with similar themes to Spec Ops: The Line (Except you can still be the hero) would be a gift from the gods
Well ... imagine a Azrael-Batman game. You either follow the rules and be the hero or you go rogue and in the end you get taken down by the Original. I think this would feel awesome.
Games late 2000s-early 2010s: We’re going to provide some agency to players to make their decisions which affects the world around them in a reasonably positive or negative way (Fallout NV, Infamous, etc)
Games nowadays: It costs too much to make multiple outcomes that are different and not superficially affecting the world, also if they kill this one person it will break the storytree so we will make them invincible
I don't know what's wrong with people.
Bro wants an owl man simulator
I feel Batman can kill as much as he wants. So long as there isn't a Robin present.
The point of Robin is for Batman to be a better person.
1:25 The point of the Martha scene is that it changes his view on killing Superman, not on killing in general.
He stops killing at the end of the movie because of Superman’s sacrifice. That's what changes him. It's why he is a changed person in ZSJL.
why didnt he kill the joker? why didnt he burst in the asylum and shoot all the criminals? , Thats literally the first place he should go first if he wants to kill.
@@vengeance4566 if anyone can survive what Batman throws at him, it's Joker.
And how would the GCPD and all of Gotham react to that?
I wish there was a Batman that kills at the start of his career but learns not to. Sorta like a reference and transition form his first appearance where he did kill, to later on where he stopped.
If Batfleck wasn't killing everyone in BvS the Martha moment would've been amazing...
I can't believe you even mentioned the original infamous games it's like no one even acknowledges them anymore, infamous is based off batman with the exact twist your referencing the batman could have, good vid
in red dead redemption 2 i was a merciless killer first half of the game, i soon started slowly doing good actions and makeing arthur a decent person, it made the journey so impactful because i wasnt forced to do this, i wish more games did these things
Would you consider the deaths of Ras & Harvey Dent in ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’ Batman killing?
(He also technically killed anyone who died when he set the League’s monastery on fire.)
And everyone he machine gunned with the bat , unless people think those were rubber bullets
Thay sounds like a good concept for a game. Especially if doing evil actions would turn your fellow superheros against you.
alright can we just take a second to appreciate that joke about picking your favorite child at 4:34? Real undervalued joke there that was great LMAO
Hahaha
What's interesting about Infamous is that of those evil choices. As the original plan for Infamous 2 was that the evil ending was going to be the cannon outcome only changed due to PS3 trophies revealing that most players achieved the good ending instead. Making the developers change their minds or so I have heard on the development of the infamous second son.
would love to see a batman story explore the accidental deaths that happen in a street fight, you hit a guy the wrong way and he hits his head on the pavement and its over, there's nothing you can do, i think that'd be a really interesting thing to see batman cope with, people still need him, is he gonna let this risk of murder stop him, is there an acceptable amount of accidents, ok maybe once, but what happens if it happens again? and again? even seeing bruce get in a car crash due to how hard he's pushing himself and killing someone then, he's delving into a world where death simply isn't something you can enjoy, what about when he knocks out a goon and the joker kills him as punishment is that blood on his hands?
Dishonored is a game that also sort of does this, where the amount of people you kill or choose not to directly affects how chaotic the city becomes and the morals of some of the characters and citizens as stories about and consequences of your deeds become more prevalent across the city. The only choices are to kill or not kill, but the deeper you get into the game the more of an impact these choices have.
I think the game that perfectly has the “you have the option to kill but you don’t have to” is the dishonored series. The first game is a masterpiece in my eyes. The fact that in the game you have the choice to either kill, knockout or sneak by every enemy made being non-lethal so rewarding if that’s how you wanted to play.
Honestly splinter cell blacklist is a great example for that because you can play the game guns blazing but you can also just stealth it and do non lethal take downs, its way harder but it feels so much more rewarding if you can pull it off
weird, a video essay about morality and immersion through the choice of killing and saving enemies in video games and yet not one mention of Undertale or Deltarune. I guess InFamous is already enough of a relevant tangent for a Batman focused video essay.
one thing that is critical to point out as well is within infamous they chose the canon story endings by gauging trophy completion of each side
Dishonored has a great morality system and I love it a lot. One of the things that really stuck out to me when playing that game is the feeling of doing good for *their* sake. I was so utterly powerful and could easily kill all of them and let loose and pull my punches if I wanted to, but it would make the world a worse place, and my empathy for the NPC's and guards, despite being my enemies, just took precedence over anything else.
What you're describing sounds more like it could be a Red Hood game which, at this point, would be 1000 times more interesting
I totally agree. The only problem is if I, personally, get the option to kill in a Batman game playing as Batman, my first play through is gonna be a Thomas Wayne simulator.
That’s actually what I did in Second Son. Once I realized killing vs subduing changes things I took the Villain route my first playthrough
I think this morality choice mechanic in Gotham would be perfect for a Red Hood game. As a character who has seen much change from his first appearance to now this mechanic would be a wonderful marriage of this evolution.
- you could be the new kingpin of crime, controlling the underbelly of the crime world to create a safer place
- or you could be a more rageful man who mearly wants to kill crime and those who enact it
- or you could be allied with Batman, acting non lethal and forwarding his mission. aiming to redeem crime.
This type of interactive choice is not new for the character, and to be able to experience the world through Jason Todd and forming his path through your choices would be amazing
SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN GAME THO GUYS!!!!
Great video. One small observation: In Infamous 2, the bad ending was supposed to be the canon one. They decided to make the good ending canon just because the majority of players chose that route.
TWAU kinda has this feeling when dealing with the main big bad as well as several choices throughout.
You CAN let the Big Bad Wolf come out to aide in your investigation. Its completely valid as circumstances are not in your favour. But what makes it so rewarding is when you DON'T succumb. You reject the notion and let Bigby Wolf take control.
Honestly they should make more games with this style in mind
Kevin Conroy, Pattinson, and bale are my favorite batmen plus they follow the code which is nice
7:10 Except in Web of Shadows, that had the good and evil paths
I would be totally onboard with a batman experience of some kind where Gotham just unravels because Batman kills people so people weren't willing to risk the other boat also not hitting the button, people getting more violent because batman's running around "heroically" killing people. The idea of throwing of that balance of Batman being feared by criminals but is a symbol of good and hope for the people Gotham proceeding to destroy Gotham is interesting. They already like to treat Gotham as a hellscape that physically wants to destroy you, having the no-kill rule be some kind of balancer is neat.
A Batman game with authenticity in mind only needs two things:
Moral Sanctimony
Plot Armor
The InFAMOUS series could have some more challenge on the good path.
Not necessarily make it weaker, but forcing the hero to pull their punches.
In InFAMOUS 2, I could chuck grenades all around New Marais without worrying, since enemies were usually far from the pedestrians and you had a passive skill that reduced damage dealt to innocents.
What you said about not running people over with the Batmobile perfectly exemplifies that. Pulling your punches could have just as much impact as story decisions.
Another game to consider is Dishonored, with the chaos system and the "Clean Hands" trophy. As much as I wanted to cleave some particular NPCs in half during the playthrough, getting that good ending and being respected by the buddies, even instilling some shame into some bad guys, despite having a choice and a full arsenal of stabby, explodey toys, was truly satisfying.
One game that absolutely wasted this opportunity was Metal Gear Solid V.
Fun game, but most objectives were "Go here, kill this guy, but kidnapping and brainwashing him is better". The only difference between killing or extracting was that you got more soldiers, despite the game exploring the concept of morality and revenge.
Also Snake gets hornier. That gets a single line of dialogue, but is otherwise a purely cosmetic big horn and permanent blood.
In a similar vein, Doc Savage had a no kill rule. However, he didn’t start out like that, killing criminal easily, it developed later.
I think this sounds like an amazing red hood game akin to the animated death in the family animated movie. Do you fight like Batman and take on Gotham’s criminals as a member of the bat-family or do you embrace Jason’s rage and go on a killing spree where the more you kill, the more the bat family hunts you down, leading to a boss fight against Batman. I just don’t see a Batman game doing that with Bruce. But Jason is, imo, the perfect vessel for this kind of game
While I agree with the underlying premise, I feel that the really important detail isn't just the mere inclusion of such a feature, but rather how it's implemented. Having the choice to follow Batman's moral code or not but it's implemented poorly could detract substantially from the overall enjoyment value of the game.
Ironically however, when implemented well this is also probably the best way to make a Superman game. Sure, you'll be invincible as far as most potential enemies in the game are concerned, but that's because the core mechanic wouldn't be about finding difficulty in overcoming threats but in making the choice not to eliminate them the easy way and then figuring out how to spare them while not allowing anyone else to get killed either.
I also think when you have branching paths like infamous it creates so much more replay value, same for the Witcher. I would do at LEAST one wholly good playthrough, one evil playthrough and one ‘true’ playthrough where I take each choice one at a time
I’m very on board with this idea. The start of the game should have you instantly thrown into a boss fight with one of Batman’s rogues and then by the end of it give you choice of killing him or not. The whole game would play out differently depending on a crucial decision you make from the first 10 minutes.