09Feb 2012

Batman: Arkham City's shocking ending dissected

Rocksteady explains why it broke Batman taboos

If you've yet to complete Batman: Arkham City, switch off your monitor, take exactly 10 steps back from your computer and put a towel over your head. Do it. Your children will thank you. Speaking to Xbox World 360 (via CVG) game director Sefton Hill has detailed the thought process behind the game's memorable, controversial ending.

We'll give you a few seconds to clear out, noobs. Still here? Finished Arkham City, have you? Absolutely sure about that? Entirely positively completely confident you've gobbled up every last crumb of storyline? Right.

Click to view larger image
As you'll know (last warning), the game concludes with both Joker's death and the death of Clayface, who's been impersonating Joker in order to trick Batman. This was something Rocksteady "decided fairly early on".

"Batman is very much about the story, so we discuss the story early," Hill explained. "Right at the start we sat down and thought what story we wanted to tell. We knew we had Joker starting off sick from the previous game and we wanted to play on that idea.

"Pretty early on we hit on this idea of Joker poisoning Batman and the two of them having this kind of shared goal, but with diametrically opposed world views. We felt that gave a lot of opportunity to interact in interesting ways, and I guess then we sort of knew that we wanted that story to have resonance in the universe."

Sparing Batman's painted arch-nemesis after leading him to the noose would have been cheap, Hill went on.

"You invest time in a game and this story, and you want to feel like the universe is affected by the events you play. We didn't want it to feel hollow - Joker starts off poisoned, Batman gets poisoned, where does that story go?

"We knew people would be thinking: 'obviously they're not going to kill Batman or Joker, right?' We felt killing Joker was a really striking end. It was almost taboo, like it was something we could never do. That would be interesting."

And Clayface? "The idea of the two Jokers was something we hit upon early. If you play through the game again, you can see a ton of hints that the end is going to happen. Lots of people talking in the street talking about that as you play through. At some point we'll release a video of all the hints, or something."

What's your take on Arkham City's ending? We scored the game a 9/10, commenting that it lacks the tightness of Arkham Asylum's story but compensates through sheer quantities of things to do.

Rocksteady writer Paul Dini wouldn't mind doing a Superman, Captain Marvel or Green Lantern game next.

Do give the full Xbox World 360 interview a whirl. They have their moments, those chaps.

Comments

8 comments so far...

  1. I thought that the death of joker in the ending of batman was relating to Mark Hamill's final voicing of The joker

  2. Mark Hamill has said he wanted to bow out on a high note rather than keep doing it, but he said that before.

    Of course the Joker has been killed off so many times in the comics I've lost count, starting with his first appearance in 1940. He always comes back; first rule of comics is No One Stays Dead But Bucky (who came back) as any good comic geek will tell you :lol:

  3. Did everyone just forget about Talia? Not sure what she'd think of Bat's carrying out Joker's corpse over her's. If she wasn't dead that is :p

  4. Er, why so shocking? Joker died at the end of the Tim Burton Batman movie. It's just a different take on established canon.

  5. Er, why so shocking? Joker died at the end of the Tim Burton Batman movie. It's just a different take on established canon.

    The movies aren't canon.

  6. Oh

  7. Oh

    Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't mean that as harsh as it probably read so please don't take offense. I've been a comic fan and general geek for thirty years and the issue of canon is one I've seen people genuinely come to blows over, so it's a bit of a sore point.

    The Batman canon is sort of split up, with the comics following the larger DC canon (rebooted recently so that's completely up in the air) the three Chris Nolan films creating their own universe and the older films being pretty much stand alone. At a guess I'd say that the Arkham games are following suit and creating their own little universe, although heavily influenced by the comics looking at the way Hush has developed and the Azrael appearances. Personally I think that is great as it allows them to do what ever they feel like without worrying about conflicting with anything else, and also means they can adapt characters to make them more 'gamey' if the comics version doesn't look right.

  8. No offence taken. Its always confused me a bit, what is canon and what isn't, so thanks for clearing that up :)