I'm with you both on that they should aim to implement civilians in some way, I'm just curious as to how they can accomplish that without it becoming a annoyance in the gameplay. Sure it can be fun to save civilians, but it can be just as frustrating having to restart a mission for the nth time because you kill a civilian.
I think they should focus on trying to let the amount of civilians fit the story, so in the beginning there is still civilians around, but as the game progress, the thugs becomes more armed, the Arkham Knight forces are moving out etc. the amount of civilians dwindle to a near zero.
I also don't like that our idea about the Arkham Knight was shot down before it even began
Unless ofcause it's all a hallucination induced by Scarecrow... that would be quite the twist ...
__________________
Last edited by Utrigita on Jun 18th, 2014 at 11:11 AM
I agree that it would be neat that civilians slowly move indoors once it gets tough...but they still need something.
I'm playing Max Payne 3 and the level in the slums is a good example. They don't have civilians running beside you while your shooting but you see glimpses of them in their shacks and etc. Feels like the area is lived in.
Screw that. Everyone and their mother enjoys running down civilians in an open world game with driving, and watching said civilians fly about.
Seriously though, watching every single civilian evade a speeding car is ridiculous.
But even then, if they want to make civilians unkillable, I wonder how they'll account for the Batmobile's weapons in assault mode, without resorting to the usual NPC invincibility.
__________________
"To all visitors from Transylvania looking for the head of Voivode Dracula: Yes, we have it. Yes, he's dead. No, you cannot see it. No, he will not return and invade you again. It has been over thirty years, please stop pestering us."
That'd be a really weird move to put an established character into a different persona. And if I recall, they said in the GameInformer interview that AK is an entirely new character created for the game.
Well either folks are stupid, or Rocksteady has a damn good poker face and are willing to drastically change a character for some reason I can't fathom. I think I'm gonna go with the former.
Arkham Knight is a new villain. Bruce is still the Dark Knight. He's him about to whoop Bruce. He does have a Red Hood feel going on, and Jason Todd has to be the only villain we haven't encountered in these games.
Bruce is Batman. Arkham Knight is the name of the game, but it's not him. Arkham Knight is a villain who takes over the city and takes it to Batman worse than anyone has in the entire Arkham series.
Gender: Male Location: Stuck In the future where Akus evil
It might even turn out that in the Arkham universe there is no red hood. This could actually be their interpretation of Jason Todd after he comes back from the dead. Or it wont be Jason Todd at all lol
I would be very surprised if it turned out to be Jason Todd. They haven't focused on the Robins very much (closer to not at all) so suddenly introducing a fallen Robin that was beaten to death with a crowbar by the Joker, would just seem off atleast from my perspective.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 18th, 2014 11:05 AM
Thx guys. Got things mixed up lol.
