291 réponses à ce sujet

[horacethegrey]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

termokanden wrote...

It's pretty unbelievable that Batman hasn't managed to kill anyone with those brutal moves.

He actually realizes at one point in Arkham City that it's pretty much pointless if he doesn't kill the supercriminals. They just keep coming back.

Thats who Batman is though.  His refusal to kill or even turn a blind eye to a dying criminal is his biggest moral that he refuses to ever break no matter whoe he's facing.  He's a vigalente not an excecutioner.  Its what sets him apart from the Punisher.

The old batman used guns.
Also, batman killed. No way no one died from all the brutal beatdowns. Brain hemmoraging?
In the movies, he definately kills a few.

Batmans insistance that he must save everyone is what irks me. Jokers escapades kill hunderds..everytime he escapes.
That's partially why I liked Batman Begins (it's a better movie than TDK) - "I won't kill you...But  I don't have to save you either!"

Ok then in that case nothing seperates him from The Punisher.

And Punisher is the only hero who kills, and is therefore a psychopath? Captain America has killed bad guys before yet people still call him a hero.

I also agree that Batman's insistance on saving the bad guy despite his crimes annoys me. The writers of Batman should realize that no killing rule is kind of outdated nowadays. 

[LPPrince]

To be honest, I feel like the deaths of all of the victims of Batman's Rogues Gallery is on his hands, too.

Kill the bad guys, and innocents get to live. Don't kill the bad guys, and innocents continuously die.

But hey, let the writers do what they do.

[Rockworm503]

horacethegrey wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

termokanden wrote...

It's pretty unbelievable that Batman hasn't managed to kill anyone with those brutal moves.

He actually realizes at one point in Arkham City that it's pretty much pointless if he doesn't kill the supercriminals. They just keep coming back.

Thats who Batman is though.  His refusal to kill or even turn a blind eye to a dying criminal is his biggest moral that he refuses to ever break no matter whoe he's facing.  He's a vigalente not an excecutioner.  Its what sets him apart from the Punisher.

The old batman used guns.
Also, batman killed. No way no one died from all the brutal beatdowns. Brain hemmoraging?
In the movies, he definately kills a few.

Batmans insistance that he must save everyone is what irks me. Jokers escapades kill hunderds..everytime he escapes.
That's partially why I liked Batman Begins (it's a better movie than TDK) - "I won't kill you...But  I don't have to save you either!"

Ok then in that case nothing seperates him from The Punisher.

And Punisher is the only hero who kills, and is therefore a psychopath? Captain America has killed bad guys before yet people still call him a hero.

I also agree that Batman's insistance on saving the bad guy despite his crimes annoys me. The writers of Batman should realize that no killing rule is kind of outdated nowadays. 

Not a psychopath but Judge Jury and Excecutioner.  Its not outdated to hold yourself to a higher standard then the criminals you fight.  What does Joker want above all else?  He wants to bring Batman down to his level.  Whats the best way to do that?  Drive him to finally kill him.  In Batman's mind killing Joker would be the ultimate win for him.  Why else does Joker stand in the middle of the road saying "hit me hit me?"  Or he gives batman a chance to knock him off a cliff in Asylum?  If Cpt America has killed than fine.  He isn't Batman and I know better than to compare him to Punisher.  But theirs a thin line Bats walks every time he puts on that costume.  I refuse to think that a hero who follows a moral guidline for himself is "outdated"

[Rockworm503]

LPPrince wrote...

To be honest, I feel like the deaths of all of the victims of Batman's Rogues Gallery is on his hands, too.

Kill the bad guys, and innocents get to live. Don't kill the bad guys, and innocents continuously die.

But hey, let the writers do what they do.

So Batman should be responsible for what these freaks do just because he has the chance to kill them?

Ok so lets say Batman gives in and decides to take the law into his own hands.  Suddenly Ra's Al Ghul's offer to take over the League of Assassin's sounds pretty compellling now doesn't it?  Oh whats their main goal again?  Perfect harmony on earth by eradicating most of humanity.  But hey at least Joker's dead right?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The old batman used guns.
Also, batman killed. No way no one died from all the brutal beatdowns. Brain hemmoraging?
In the movies, he definately kills a few.

Batmans insistance that he must save everyone is what irks me. Jokers escapades kill hunderds..everytime he escapes.
That's partially why I liked Batman Begins (it's a better movie than TDK) - "I won't kill you...But  I don't have to save you either!"

Ok then in that case nothing seperates him from The Punisher.

Nothing? Are you serious? IS this s binary thing for you? Killing in self-defense or killing to protect someone is waaaayy differnt than killing for vengance. Adn that itself is waaaaaay different than killing for kicks or sadistic pleasure.

Should Batman be a vegetarian then? Should he not be allowed to kill in self-defnese?

Frankly, Batman doesn't come offf as "morally superior" because of his code. He doesn't hold the high ground. He hold the stupid ground.

Just Joker alone left a trail of dead bodies the greatst serial killers in the real world would be in awe of.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:55 .

[Rockworm503]

Ok then its every policemans fault for not killing a mass murderer before he went on trial Its totally their fault if he breaks out and kills again.
I wish you people could hear what your saying.  We should just kill every criminal or its our fault they kill again?

Angry Joe's review is out
If anyone still doesn't think this game deserves the high praise its been getting shut up cause Angry Joe is always honest in his reviews.  

Modifié par Rockworm503, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:56 .

[Had-to-say]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Ok then its every policemans fault for not killing a mass murderer before he went on trial Its totally their fault if he breaks out and kills again.
I wish you people could hear what your saying.  We should just kill every criminal or its our fault they kill again?

Angry Joe's review is out
If anyone still doesn't think this game deserves the high praise its been getting shut up cause Angry Joe is always honest in his reviews.  

Thanks I enjoyed the **** out of that review!:happy:

[BatmanPWNS]

The old Batman did kill but that Batman has been wiped from history and the movie aren't canon history for Batman either. Only the comic books counts as canon.

That being said I was crushed with the ending. It was so emotional. Plus I loved the moral dilemma Batman had around the end. Also the voice acting was top-notch.

Edit- Plus the game sold 5 million already! So I am kinda happy for the developers.

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:20 .

[LPPrince]

Rockworm503 wrote...

So Batman should be responsible for what these freaks do just because he has the chance to kill them?

Yes. I eliminated the rest of the quote because that is taking things too far. Eradicating most of the human race is WAAAY beyond what Bats could do.

But this is the thing-

He captures these people. These people being mass murderers and psychos who always kill mass amounts of people. He knows that even though he captures them, they always escape, and they'll kill mass amounts of people again.

Yet he never kills them. Should Batman kill Joker, the amount of people dying from him immediately drops down to zero.

Same if he killed the others in his Rogues Gallery. Not all of them, mind you. But the insane mass murderers? He'd save A LOT of people's lives if he just offed them.

Now if he killed all of the bad guys, that'd be going too far. For example, Arkham City's Mr. Freeze. That wouldn't really save anyone.

I can understand his moral standing on killing the bad guys, and its perfectly justifiable. All I'm saying is that yes, he can be blamed for the deaths of the people victimized by those he's chosen to capture and not kill, even when presented with the perfect opportunity.

Kinda jumping on Jason Todd's reasoning for becoming The Red Hood, but not exactly. He got all pissed at Batman because he didn't kill Joker even after Joker killed Robin. It was selfish, but it made some bit of sense. Instead of saying, "Why didn't you kill Joker after he killed ME" it should be, "Why didn't you kill Joker after he killed THOUSANDS".

And thousands more, every single time Batman decides to cling to his moral values.

Modifié par LPPrince, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:26 .

[LPPrince]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Ok then its every policemans fault for not killing a mass murderer before he went on trial Its totally their fault if he breaks out and kills again.
I wish you people could hear what your saying.  We should just kill every criminal or its our fault they kill again?

Ahem. We're speaking fiction here. Batman. Lets not bring real life topics into this.

The fact of the matter is simple. Batman's enemies are repeat offenders. Whatever they've done, they do over and over again. They want to, and they do it. They are enabled, indirectly thanks to Batman's moral standing of being above killing them. So yes, much of their victim's lives could've been saved if he was willing to kill these psychos and murderers before they got to more people.

That's a fact. An opinion would be whether we think he should kill them or not. What can't be denied is the direct result should he do in fact eliminate them.

[Rockworm503]

Don't want me to use the real life topics then don't apply this to real life. The fact of the matter is we love Batman's villains and his world would be empty without them. In the real world Batman isn't needed. Batman needs his Joker to exist. These storys would be pretty boring if all he was doing was taking out random thugs all the time.
Your very reasoning is the exact same as blaming the cop for what a killer does if he breaks out. Why shouldn't i use that? Its the exact same thing.

[LPPrince]

Durr. No one actually wants Batman to kill everyone in his Rogues Gallery, otherwise we wouldn't have Batman itself.

All we're saying is that Batman is partially to blame for the deaths of the victims of his Rogues Gallery.

Batman's inaction(action being killing them) in-story is a bad thing.

As far as our entertainment is concerned, he better not be killing them. Unless somehow the writers can create a whole new cast of amazing antagonists, which is so highly unlikely.

[horacethegrey]

LPPrince wrote...

Durr. No one actually wants Batman to kill everyone in his Rogues Gallery, otherwise we wouldn't have Batman itself.

All we're saying is that Batman is partially to blame for the deaths of the victims of his Rogues Gallery.

Batman's inaction(action being killing them) in-story is a bad thing.

As far as our entertainment is concerned, he better not be killing them. Unless somehow the writers can create a whole new cast of amazing antagonists, which is so highly unlikely.

That's something DC should have done a long time ago. Having a new set of bad guys for Batman to fight would have kept the concept fresh. Hell, having Bruce Wayne retire for good and letting someone else take the cowl would have been a welcome change as well. 

Truth be told, there were a lot of new villains that writers created for Batman. But none of them ever stuck, instead DC stuck with old mainstays like Joker, Two Face, Penguin, etc.

[LPPrince]

Yeah, it would've been good if some actually died for good, but since they keep bringing them back, at this point it kinda seems pointless unless they add more.

[Homebound]

spoiler alert:

harlequinn is pregnant

[termokanden]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Ok then its every policemans fault for not killing a mass murderer before he went on trial Its totally their fault if he breaks out and kills again.
I wish you people could hear what your saying.  We should just kill every criminal or its our fault they kill again?

Batman's no killing rule is indeed admirable. For me it just gets a little tiresome that I have to beat the same supervillains as in the first game. What is the point of locking them up in the first place? They ALWAYS get out.

[Rockworm503]

Hellbound555 wrote...

spoiler alert:

harlequinn is pregnant

AND A MAN!! DUN DUN DUN

[Had-to-say]

***Mild Spoiler***
I was hoping that there would be more interaction between Batman and Vicky Vale. Overall I was impressed with the number of awesome cameos. Did anyone else not really feel anything for Al Ghul's daughter? I could care less. This should have been an emotional moment. It kinda fell flat for me.

[termokanden]

Same here Had-to-say. But I never read the comics so perhaps that's why.

[LPPrince]

I cared a lot for Talia. But that's because she's one of my favorite characters in the DC Universe.

Hence me hoping that Batman looks for another Lazarus Pit so that she can be revived.

I mean damn. Her voice actress was amazing. Did a hell of a job. I wouldn't limit that to one game.

[Il Divo]

LPPrince wrote...

Yeah, it would've been good if some actually died for good, but since they keep bringing them back, at this point it kinda seems pointless unless they add more.

This pretty much hits all my problems with the concepts of comic books in general; no one can stay dead, which typically removes my interest in the events happening on screen. I much prefer one shot stories like Watchmen, where I can actually trust the characters to stay dead, giving it a certain level of value.  

[Il Divo]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Ok then its every policemans fault for not killing a mass murderer before he went on trial Its totally their fault if he breaks out and kills again.
I wish you people could hear what your saying.  We should just kill every criminal or its our fault they kill again?

Empirically speaking if we had criminals breaking out as often and causing as much destruction as the Joker and company, then yes, we find ourselves in a position where it would be necessary to execute every criminal.

[Nameless one7]

Just beat arkham city, I really like it but there's just to many riddler trophies, I'd say it's kind of a hassle if your going for completion.

Modifié par Nameless one7, 31 octobre 2011 - 06:45 .