by Scott Clarke
IGN AU

With the release of Arkham City slowly approaching (is it October yet?) I am growing steadily excited about once again donning Batman's cowl, and prowling about the Gotham nightscape. I have just one concern about this bat-sequel; its ending better not suck batarangs like the first games'. In fact, Arkham Asylums' ending left me with such a bitter taste in my mouth that it made me realise something about gaming: stories in games suck, and no one seems to care. But fear not fellow Gothamites, if Rocksteady Studios, developer of the Arkham games is smart we may be saved by another dark, raspy-voiced hero: Kratos from God of War. And while we are at it, Kratos might want to get a few pointers from Batman too.

Let's take a look back, then, at Arkham Asylum and God of War III. With Metacritic scores of 91 and 92 respectively and combined sales ensuring their publishers can indulge in Scrooge McDuck-style swimming habits, the two games are almost universally praised. This in spite of their fundamental, game destroying narrative flaws. When compared, these two efforts are similarly ambitious on a technical level, but in terms of story each fails where the other succeeds. When two of gaming's biggest titles have only enough compelling story for one game, you know you've found a weak spot that needs to be addressed.

You complete me.

Kratos and Batman have a fair few things in common. Both are brooding beasts born of family tragedy, harbouring serious daddy issues. Both are hell (or Hades) bent on avenging their pasts through brutal force and narrow-minded determination at great personal cost. As gaming experiences, both merge beautiful, larger than life aesthetics with fluid, combo-based combat and platforming puzzles.

Let's look at God of War III first. Not only is it a technical marvel, but the controls are finely tuned and the battles evolve beautifully throughout its run-time. From a gameplay point of view God of War III ticks every box. It's just a pity that Kratos is a horrible, one-dimensional character with paradoxically convoluted yet simple motivations and no inside voice.

The story is little more than an endless testosterone-fuelled tantrum. Kratos' journey is simply him shortening his 'to kill' list in increasingly overblown and gory ways. And let's not forget the groan-inducing (and not in a good way) sex scene. From a story point of view, can anyone say there weren't frantically skipping through each repetitive cut scene of Kratos calling for blood?
The ending of God of War III was a big risk and for me it paid off.

There is one seriously redeeming moment in God of War III, however. (And by the way – SPOILER ALERT.) After three long games of increasingly inane and escalating violence, Kratos defeats Zeus in an epically mindless battle. What follows defies all that came before it. Kratos is cast into the shadows of his mind, forced to relive his past deeds and face up to the monster he has become. This scene is simplistically genius and surreal in its design. It reduces the game to shades of grey and the glowing red of Kratos' tattoo.

Kratos then escapes his mind and confronts a dying Zeus, grabbing him. The game prompts the player to strike the final blows by repeatedly pressing the same button. It's a technique used throughout the trilogy when finishing several enemies but used here to chilling effect. As the player dutifully follows orders blood fills the screen. The prompts continue…endlessly. A sea of blood and gruesome sound effects flood the player. Respite comes only when the player chooses to ignore the prompts. What's left are a long-dead old man and a weird feeling in the player's stomach.

It's a powerful, striking and subversive scene that left me feeling cold. It also left me with one important question, a question that the gaming industry is often asked, but never asks of itself: What does gaming's obsession with violence say about those who play, and the industry at large? The ending of God of War III was a big risk and for me it paid off. Was it enough to negate the preceding 10 hours of wretched dialogue delivered (read yelled) by a cardboard cut out? Not even close.

In contrast, Arkham Asylum presented a breathing, complex place filled with interesting characters in a detailed imagining of the comic book world of Gotham City. The game is a potent balance of stealth, free-flowing brawling, Metroid-inspired exploration, and varied encounters with Batman's rogues gallery. It is unmatched in its ability to visually and narratively remain true to the universe and characters of its source material while adapting them to gaming.

The story is not afraid to delve into Batman's psyche during a number of key sequences. It does not shy away from dark and complicated subject matter. Over the course of the game the Joker toys with and punishes Batman over one hellish night. Batman is slowly and methodically brought to the brink. Fighting his inner demons, Batman at last confronts the Joker and then… all character work and tension is rubbished. In its place is a lame 'video game style boss fight' between Batman and a monstrous, inflated Joker.

I hope he doesn't memorise my attack pattern...

Had Arkham Asylum pushed the envelope and taken risks the way God of War III's conclusion did (instead of falling prey to gaming clichés), the game would have been an instant classic. All the developers of Arkham Asylum had to do to put the icing on the cake was the only thing that God of War III did right.

Imagine a tortured and emotionally broken Batman being goaded by the Joker into violently beating him into a laughing, blood-soaked mess as the police came to the Joker's rescue. The player goaded by the game to deliver an endless tirade of 'justice'. A grim and emotional experience for both characters and players alike. In short, an ending that would have given an emotional close to an already weighty game.

God of War is a moronic, 13-year-old's wet dream for the duration of its play time.

God of War is a moronic, 13-year-old's wet dream for the duration of its play time. It only rises to true character development and meta-analysis of violence in gaming well beyond the point when anyone would reasonably care. Arkham Asylum ultimately didn't know what it wanted to do with the world and story it had created, leaving itself saying nothing. Yet in spite of each of their flaws, both games were praised. Any story shortcomings generally dismissed as 'good enough for a game'.

Titles such as Shadow of the Colossus and BioShock - and even Uncharted 2 - exhibit what separates the good games from the classics: rich narratives, compelling characters and fully realised worlds that hook us from beginning to end. Sure, sometimes story is hardly relevant in gaming - lack of story didn't prevent Super Mario Galaxy 2 from being a work of genius - but in these games story is treated as such. Too many games force us to sit through long winded scenes populated with boring characters and plots designed to get to the next set piece. You might ask why developers don't create games that can balance story and gameplay. I think the real question should be, as consumers and lovers of all things gaming, why don't we demand it?

Arkham Asylum came perilously close to delivering a game with the kind of intelligence and weight that I'd like to see. With only months left until Arkham City's launch, let's hope that the team has thought through how to deliver a game that's complete, and that doesn't stumble at the last gate. In other words, here's hoping Batman brings his A game – from beginning to knightfall.

Scott Clarke is a freelance writer based in Victoria, Australia. He wears a white lab coat a lot of the time. It's a good look.

Share This Article