One more post about Arkham City: DLC Roundup

Even though the Internet at large is pretty much finished talking about 'Batman: Arkham City' and have moved on to other gaming pastures (Skyrim, Mass Effect 3 pre-release discussion, playing outside, etc) it should come as no surprise to anyone that it still plays an important role in my day-to-day life and that I still spend a lot of time thinking about it (particularly in light of my previous review, which perhaps had too much of an unintentionally negative slant to it).

It's certainly the best Batman game ever made, and honestly while there were some awesome elements in 'Arkham Asylum' that were sadly omitted in its sequel (most notably the 'cinematic' look of the original, the camera was in a lot closer for the fights), I think 'City' comes closer to what I've always wanted from a Batman game. Mostly because of the player's ability to freakin' roam around an open-world Gotham (sort of) and has tons of familiar locations from the mythology.

But aside from that, there's the plethora of downloadable extra-content available for the game.

Frankly, DLC is a very new thing to me. As a tightly-budgeted student, it always took an extra effort to buy games at all, let alone shelling out more money for additional features. And honestly, outside of content for games like GTA (which became available on a separate disc later on, anyway) most DLC seemed incredibly hokey and over-priced. Not to mention that seeing as I didn't have my own credit card, it was just too much effort to go through the hassle of borrowing the money from my father and paying him back.

Well, needless to say I have my own credit card now (to be more specific, it's one of those "Why haven't these always been available?" Visa debit-card dohickey gadgets) and I've been purchasing just a LITTLE bit more DLC for my games. First and foremost though, has been for Arkham City.

Wisely taking note of the massively-positive fan reaction to 'Arkham Asylum', WB Interactive made the wise economic decision to stretch out the extras for their next Batman hit, by making players pay for almost half a dozen challenge maps (mostly in separate packages) as well as two additional playable characters. In fact, if you bought the game second-hand, you even had to pay to download Catwoman (who forms a significant, but not entirely compulsory portion of the game's story). Some people saw this as a bit of an excessively shrewd dick-move on the part of WB. Certainly, it wasn't very convenient for people who bought the game second-hand, but I just see it as a clever marketing technique.

Anyway, let's take a look at the different downloadable content available for the game. First and foremost, there's the "Iceberg Lounge VIP Room".

Like the free "Totally Insane" map for 'Arkham Asylum', this map is basically a non-stop combat-survival environment, where endless waves of enemies attack Batman, until the player is defeated. While the concept sounds monotonous (and probably looks it, to people who aren't actually playing), it's hopelessly addictive and it's not until you really start racking up a high score that you begin to realise just how innovative, amazing and utterly Batman-like the combat system really is. There's really nothing quite like racking up an x400 combo while you play Hans Zimmer's 'The Dark Knight' soundtrack in the background.

"The Joker's Carnival" is a similar map, but it develops and expands on the original idea of unlimited waves of enemies attacking you. In this map, there's a time-limit and a level-up system. When you defeat a set number of enemies without being hit, you level up and a new, more advanced wave of enemies attack you (basic thugs, followed by armoured thugs, followed by mystical ninjas, followed by one-armed scythe-wielding behemoths, followed by Titan monsters). Every time you level up, there's a set of bonus points that you can 'bank' (think "The Weakest Link"). When you 'bank' points, they're added to your overall score and you go back to Level 0. If you don't bank the points and you get hit, then you go back to 0 and the points are wasted. It's a lot less complicated than it sounds and it really adds to the enjoyment of a 'survival' mode when you can get more points in less time and the enemies get more advanced. The best part is that if you rack up an x100 combo (which is easy enough if you've played the combat challenges for a decent amount of time), the Joker himself jumps into the ring.

Other downloadable combat challenges include "Wayne Manor Armory" and "Freight Train Chase" that come exclusively with the Nightwing and Robin bundle packs, respectively. Wayne Manor is just another basic three-round combat set-up and while the environment is really nice and the enemies are decently realised, it's not really any more impressive than any of the combat challenges that come with the game. "Freight Train" is one of the most peculiar and interesting maps available for the game. Instead of the basic 360" third-person view, it takes the form of a side-scroller, with 3-D characters. It involves your character running from left to right to get to the end of the train and disable a bomb, all the while dealing with waves of enemies. It's an interesting idea, but it ultimately fails, as you have to contend with a camera that isn't fast enough to keep up with you, making it extremely difficult to get a Perfect score.

Among the downloadable Stealth Predator maps, there's "Wayne Manor Main Hall", "Black Mask" and "The Batcave". Of these three, Wayne Manor is my favourite, as it's full of interesting little hidden entrances and destructible walls and all kinds of funny little things Bruce Wayne's house would have in case of emergency. "Black Mask" is fun, but no different from any of the other Predator Maps. "The Batcave" was always going to be a disappointment, as it didn't include as many familiar elements as people hoped (where's the giant penny?) and it would have been more fun to roam through the cave at your leisure, rather than have to deal with irritating villains. It's a bit of fun though and it's nice that it's considered to be a training exercise and not a real mission.

As far as the downloadable characters go, they're all a lot of fun and they're a great inclusion to the game. It's a pity that you can't play as Robin or Nightwing in the main city section of the game and not simply the challenge maps, but that's always a possibility for a future update to the game. And at least you can play as Catwoman. As far as combat goes, Nightwing is probably the most effective of the new characters as he's incredibly fast and really easy to get to grips with. Personally, I've really gotten used to Robin though and I feel his smooth-handling is most similar to Batman's (who remains my favourite combatist in the game). Catwoman is fun to play as and her combat is probably the most unique of all the characters. She's definitely the weakest character of the lot though and sometimes it's harder to string combos together with her as she can be a bit more unresponsive than the other, more agile characters. It's fun playing as a woman for a change though.

The other most significant downloadable contents is the assortment of alternate skins available for the characters. Robin and Catwoman both get two skins, Nightwing gets one. Batman gets a whopping eight, including one that was released entirely free, as a thank you to all of the fan support.

Additional skins have ALWAYS been the cherry on top as far as superhero games go, particularly for long-time fans like myself. When you follow these characters for years, you tend to see them incorporate different visual motifs that end up tugging different heart-strings. So it's a delight to be able to celebrate as many of them as possible when you're embarking on simulations such as these. Most fans will agree that even the worst superhero games have been slightly bettered by the simple inclusion of a few extra outfits ("It's just like getting new clothes!" as my girlfriend so wonderfully put it) and when they're added to exemplary games like the Arkham series, it just makes a perfect thing even better.

I won't go into detail regarding all of the skins, but I will say that I think it's just terrific that the developers went to the trouble of putting skins in the game that resemble the Animated Series counterparts of all the characters. Admittedly, Robin's is a bit jarring-looking (his head is HUGE), it's a shame Nightwing's mullet was omitted and I don't think it was a good idea to cel-shade the outline around the Animated skins; but I think they're a great addition and it really feels like you're playing through an episode of the Animated Series, when you're using one of these skins; especially as Batman with Animated veteran Kevin Conroy's voice!

Other skins I really like include the excellent Batman Beyond skin (with pop-out wings instead of a cape, just like on the show!), both Frank Miller skins (Year One and Dark Knight Returns) and the aforementioned Free Batman Inc. skin. The Batman Inc. skin fits the look of the game the best and it's a much better use of Batman's alternate logo (with the yellow disc encompassing the bat emblem) than any of the other skins that feature it.

As for the other characters, I think the Red Robin skin is outstanding as is the Long Halloween Catwoman. Nightwing only gets an Animated skin, but I love his default skin so much that I don't really mind that there are no decent extra skins.

The only glaring omission where all of these extra skins are concerned is the oft-mentioned, conspicuous lack of any costumes from the Batman movies. It seems odd that there should be issues concerning rights to different 'looks' of Batman, when Warner Bros. own everything to do with Batman lock, stock and barrel. Personally, I'd go as far as to say that I'd be willing to pay €50 (the price of the actual game itself), if it meant we could get movie-skins for all of the characters. There's just so much potential there, between the various 'looks' Batman has had in the movies (Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney and Bale have all had two Batsuits each and you're going to have to FIND me a Batfan who does not want to play as a pot-bellied Adam West), not to mention Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer, Julie Newmar, even Halle Berry), Robin (Burt Ward, Chris O'Donnell) and even, technically Nightwing (Robin's costume in "Batman & Robin" was basically a Nightwing costume and it was also the best thing about that stupid movie). While I'm happy enough with all of the costumes as is, a "Movie Pack" would bring the game to dizzying new heights of awesome and I for one would be more than willing to pay top dollar for it. Hopefully WB have something like this planned in time for the release of "The Dark Knight Rises" (particularly as there does not appear to be any tie-in game planned).

So once again, in case you didn't already know, "Batman: Arkham City" is compulsory for any fans who have ever wondered what it would be like to BE Batman. It's one of the most gripping and satisfying experiences I have ever had in nearly a decade of gaming and a lifetime of following the daring exploits of the Dark Knight. While it stumbles a bit where the story is concerned, it never ceases to amaze with its innovative, intuitive gameplay style and systems. I've never played a superhero game as thorough as it and I just hope the best is still yet to come.

P.S.: As far as the DLC goes, if you haven't downloaded any of it since you bought the game and you want to get it all in one go, you can download the DLC Mega Pack (it's called something along those lines) for the very reasonable 1,500 points on Xbox Live, which in real-life terms, comes to about a tenner. Given the hours of enjoyment you'll get out of "Iceberg Lounge" and "Joker's Carnival" alone, let alone the awesomeness of two additional characters (three if you don't already have Catwoman) AND the spectacle of the extra skins, it's well worth the money.

Bootleg Blogging: "Figures Warrior" is the Greatest Superhero Crossover Movie I've Never Seen

While perusing through our fair city today, I happened across this astonishing gem of the action figure world for a meagre €2.

I'm utterly stunned by how completely epic in scope this figure-set is. Based on the image-saturated blister-pack, it seems to tie-in to a movie experience that  not only teams up Batman, Spider-Man and Superman (played by Christopher Reeve, as seen next to Spider-Man's left arm) but also a whopping FIVE teams of Power Rangers (meaning that on at least two occasions, a Ranger is teaming up with himself). I find it odd that as such a rabid fan of all of these characters, that I've never heard of this epic movie. To think I was looking forward to something as mundane as "The Avengers" this Summer, not knowing that there had already been a gigantic inter-company crossover movie like "FIGURES WARRIOR: SUPER HERO"! 

First off, let's take a look at the two heroes that come as part of this mighty set. First off, there's Batman, who's wearing some sort of 'West Coast Customs Batsuit' (with stylish, albeit utterly pointless decals), who does not appear to be in possession of a cape (perhaps the perilous plot that forced the hand of so many heroes led to the destruction of the Batcave...and all of his capes). Batman has a bizarre three-pronged design on his head, that almost looks like the head-ridges seen on the Klingon race. Perhaps this movie is so epic that it even ties into Star Trek, making this incarnation of the Dark Knight one of Bruce Wayne's half-human, half-Klingon descendants? It would certainly explain his unusually brownish skin-tone. This Batman is cross-eyed and seems to have extremely swollen lips; perhaps a result of the vicious battle which has just taken place?

Next, we have Spider-Man, but just like the not-so-caped crusader, all is not as it seems with our Webbed Wonder. Spider-Man has not one, but two Spider-Insignias on his chest (one for each pec). Perhaps again that this is some sort of descendant of Peter Parker's? Or maybe Peter himself was bitten by a SECOND radioactive spider, enabling him to do whatever two spiders can?! Just like Batman, Spider-Man seems to be appropriately battle-scarred, as the web-decals on his costume are faded and only cover the front part of his body. The blues are tinged with dollops of red throughout, possibly the blood of our relentless hero's enemies.

Both heroes are equipped with self-styled Justice-Bikes with extra stabilisation (they have stabilisers), with their names conveniently scrawled on them numerous different times. Batman even saw fit to draw a picture of the Animated Series version of himself on the side of his bike. Alas, there must have been so many units of this particular set shipped that on occasion the makers forgot to give the heroes their corresponding bikes, for the shop in which I bought this had multiple packs that featured two spider-bikes. The humiliation!

Between the two heroes and their mighty rides are a miniature army of Spider-Men; two black, three red. Perhaps one of this enhanced Spider-Man 2.0's powers include the mystical ability to duplicate himself into minimen?

Both heroes feature Crime-Stopping Chestlights to light the darkest corners of this Hellish new world wherein the Figures Warrior fight their epic battles.

The bottom of the pack promises that there are indeed "More items available" and that they have "Superior Performance". This has left me scratching my head. Does this mean there's a TWENTY-FOUR-FIGURES WARRIOR SET comprising the entire collection of Power Rangers and Christopher Reeve Superman? And that they have even more mystical, exclusive powers and costumes? If so, point me in the right direction to where I can buy this essential collection! I won't rest until my FIGURES WARRIOR: SUPER-HERO collection is complete!

A movie-screencap from "Figures Warrior: Super Hero"

I also really want to see the film that this action figure line seems to be based on. I'm stunned that they somehow managed to get Christopher Reeve to return for a fifth outing as Superman. I'm even a bit confused, as Reeve had long since broken his back and become paralysed from the neck down by the time the first Spider-Man movie came out, not to mention by the time most of the series of Power Rangers on display came on air. Perhaps they just stock footage from the many deleted scenes from "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace"? Also, why did the producers choose to go with George Clooney as Batman when "Batman & Robin" polarised audiences so completely? Perhaps the unusual blend of Power Rangers and Superman, coupled with Clooney's ill-advised return was what led to this movie tanking at the box-office and never being mentioned ever again? Either way, I really want to see it and will pay top-dollar for the DVD.

Seen above are Batman and Spider-Man, riding their mighty Justice-Bikes (as best they can) enroute to the next perilous Figures Warrior mission. 

Why everyone who owns a television should watch "Sherlock"

Yes, I know, I haven't been around in a while. Between work, my birthday, Christmas as well as all of the wealth of interesting bits and bobs that I acquired for my birthday and for Christmas, not to mention my weekly writing duties for the Superman Homepage, I've let "Feeling the Fury" slip out from under me. I never even got around to fixing the new logo. I'm going to try and focus on posting something every Wednesday, as I had originally planned to do.

Anyway, let's get to the reason we're all here.

"Sherlock" is one of the best products of television entertainment I've ever seen.

To give you a bit of background, I wouldn't consider myself much of a "Sherlockian". I've read exactly one of the novels, none of the short stories (even though I have a complete collection up in my room) and with the exception of bits and pieces of the older Basil Rathbone films, the only Sherlock Holmes films I've seen are the only-okay Robert Downey Jr. films and the hilarious Asylum Films mockbuster rip-off where Holmes fights a robotic dinosaur (I have also seen "Basil: The Great Mouse Detective", like a million times; does that count?). At the same time though, as Holmes has held an unusually comfortable spot in the public domain (and has thus been referenced and included in countless types of other stories across multiple generations of popular culture) for the past hundred years or so, I'm fairly up to speed on the various trappings of his stories: private/consulting detective, deerstalker, magnifying glass, Watson, Baker Street, Victorian London, Moriarty.

This is all anyone needs to enjoy "Sherlock", BBC's fabulous reinvention of The World's Greatest Detective (sorry Bruce).

The intention of the show was to resurrect the original intention of the stories: to tell great detective mysteries starring an intriguing anti-hero. Most of us know that while Sherlock Holmes is certainly still joined at the hip with the term "detective story" it's also fair to say that at the sound of his name, we immediately conjure up images of a foggy London lit only by the murky glow of gaslight; the sounds of the clip-clop of horses pulling carriages on the cobblestone roads. The legend of Holmes has been unintentionally bogged down by the bygone era in which his adventures take place. And that's where "Sherlock" comes in. Where Conan Doyle's original stories were set in the troubled, cynical time of the 19th century, BBC's "Sherlock" is situated in the identically troubled, cynical era of the 21st century, gloriously fetishising all that makes modern life so much fun (smartphones, the Internet, shiny buildings, mp3 players, the insanity of the media, etc).

But simply pointing out the environment of the series doesn't really do it justice. It adds to the atmosphere that "Sherlock" lives somewhere we can actually believe in, but what of the man himself? The delightfully-named Benedict Cumberbatch (the fact that he has such an elegant name actually gives plausibility to the concept of someone being named 'Sherlock Holmes' in the 21st century) breathes new life into the sleuth, resurrecting all of his classic mannerisms, with a more appropriately relevant manner of speech. Cumberbatch's Sherlock is an incredibly difficult individual to put up with, as he (quite correctly) believes himself to be above and beyond all of the 'idiots' with whom he associates (even his closest friends and allies). One of the show's trademarks is how it presents us with Sherlock's unique brand of "Detective Vision" by stylishly popping text up on the screen so that we the viewers have some understanding of the web-like spasms of deduction that are bouncing around Holmes' mind. Cumberbatch is second-to-none and delivering lengthy conclusions and deductions at lightning-fast speed to the other characters; for a lesser-actor it would mean death-on-arrival for their career, as the speeches could potentially come across as boring exposition. In the hands of Cumberbatch, nothing isn't interesting; nothing isn't relevant to the case.

Possibly my favourite element of Cumberbatch's Holmes are his scolding remarks. In the first episode "A Study in Pink" (a loose update of the very first Holmes story; the one I actually did read the whole way through, "A Study in Scarlet"), while trying to deduce a killer's location, Sherlock shouts at everyone to stop moving and stop thinking, so that he can think. What really gets me though, is when he sick-burns forensic scientist Anderson (who hates Sherlock), asking him to turn around and face the wall.

While Cumberbatch is a grand, delightful, sexy star, beautifully English and thoroughly credible; the show needs a stronger foundation than just its title character. In this regard, Martin Freeman's John Watson is the secret weapon of "Sherlock". As the original comedy sidekick, Watson (like Robin, the Boy Wonder) has always been a bit problematic to portray in any interesting way. He's really only there as a talking-board, off whom Holmes can bounce ideas out loud. Traditionally, he's allowed us the viewers to have someone we can relate to, someone who's mostly clueless to the art of detection and criminology (in the original stories, most of them were actually written as if they were being told by Watson himself). He's the likable everyman, helping the dashing hero. He's Jimmy Olson, he's Rick Jones, he's you or me. At the same time though, Conan Doyle did envision him as something of a romanticised version of you or me. In order to make it remotely credible that Watson would accompany Holmes, he was given a past as an army doctor from Afghanistan.

The "Sherlock" series has expanded upon this idea by making him removed and isolated from everyday life upon his return from the war. Accompanying Sherlock has given him a new lease on life and has returned him to the adventures of war he sorely craves, despite himself. While John (as he is more commonly referred to, in this less-formal incarnation) does certainly provide comic relief, more often than not it's actually at the eccentric Sherlock's expense, rather than the other way around. John is the one who has to key Sherlock in on tact and decency; how to act around people without repelling them completely. A lot of the time, he also has to fill him in on elements of popular culture (Sherlock's never seen a James Bond film, according to John's wonderful meta-fictional blog; Sherlock and Molly have similar sites) and even basic common knowledge like the fact that Earth revolves around the Sun (borrowed from the original stories). John's real, human strength is his total devotion and faith in Sherlock against all odds, even in the face of death.

Just like the viewers, John never stops believing that Sherlock's going to save the day; but thanks to Martin Freeman's excellent, understated performance, we never have any trouble accepting John's alliance with him. If anyone deserves an acting award for "Sherlock", it's Martin Freeman. While Cumberbatch is tremendous at long, complicated, lightning-fast dialogue and wiry, electrified movement; he is still basically chewing big lumps of London scenery in every act. Freeman's performance has to remain quiet and utterly realistic at all times, while the viewers can never forget his military background. Everything in Freeman's performance is beautiful in its subtlety, from the way he moves and holds himself, to the way he restrains his speech at times.

Martin Freeman's earlier role as Tim Canterbury in the original version of "The Office" probably shouldn't go unmentioned, as John and Tim share many common traits. Just like Tim, John is the only recognisably 'normal' person in the crazy world of "Sherlock". Indeed, John Watson almost seems like the kind of man Tim Canterbury always dreamed of being, if he could ever get his act together and escape the dreadful Slough branch of Wernham & Hogg Paper Company. One last thing about Freeman's Watson is that unlike the devilishly sexy Jude Law or the cartoonish Nigel Bruce, Martin Freeman actually looks like the deceptively tough everymen you see on Sky News on the frontlines of Iraq or Afghanistan.



**MINOR SPOILERS (for people who haven't seen the First Series)**





The supporting cast of "Sherlock" are also great; all of them being memorable in their own way. Rupert Graves adds a little bit more competence to Detective Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard, who always came across as a complete buffoon in other incarnations. Una Stubbs is Mrs. Hudson, landlady and reluctant housekeeper of the dynamic duo of Sherlock and John, and effortlessly comes across as the kind of progressive, modern-thinking Nana everyone has. "Sherlock" executive producer Mark Gatiss actually plays Sherlock's shady brother Mycroft, leaning from comedic to very serious styles of characterisation. Mycroft's involvement with various branches of the Government both on British shores and abroad is what drives much of the over-arching story of the series (at least in the first two series, anyway). Finally there's Molly Hooper, an original character created for the series, played by Loo Brealey. Molly is the long-suffering, dreadfully sweet young girl who works at the morgue at St. Barts' Hospital and whose schoolgirl weakness for Baker St. detectives allows Sherlock to use her place of work as he sees fit. In a lesser programme, a character such as this would be used and abused as a throwaway plot device; however Molly is developed beautifully throughout the two sets of three stories.

Finally, there's Andrew Scott as Moriarty, the one point of contention for viewers, where the cast is concerned. Truthfully, I can see why people aren't enamoured with him, but I view him as an acquired taste. I might be wrong, but I believe Scott is the only actor to have played Moriarty who has actually been Irish. Not only this, but in "Sherlock" he is given the manner of a cocky, pompous young brat who stinks of money, privilege and excessive intelligence, the likes of which I encountered so many times as I grew up. For some people, he comes across as hammy, but for me, he never ceases to be sinister and always gives off creepy vibes of total insanity.



**END OF SPOILERS**

If there is anything I could possibly criticise where the show is concerned, it would only be regarding the actual plots of the 90-minute episodes. The first episode "A Study in Pink" had a wonderfully exciting, pulpy plot to it that was plausible, easy enough to follow and connected well with the other episodes. "The Blind Banker" however, was a lot weaker, much more convoluted and had a rushed feeling about it. The first series finished off with "The Great Game" which brought back the first episode's excellence and reminded us why this was such a high-quality series.

The second series has been a triumph from beginning to end. I liken the step-up in scope between the first and second series as similar to "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight". Like "Begins", the first series of "Sherlock" was a fun, character-driven adventure story that had us cheering the whole way through, certain that the heroes would emerge victorious. Series 2 of "Sherlock" was more epic in scope, with far grander villainous plots, greater stakes and a far lesser certainty that everything was going to turn out okay for Sherlock and John. I don't want to give too much away, but the finale "The Reichenbach Fall" was very similar both in story and tone to "The Dark Knight". Like "The Blind Banker" the only episode of the second series that could be regarded as 'filler' was once again the second episode, but luckily enough, it was an excellent filler episode at that, and a tremendous update of the most well-known Holmes story "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (renamed here as "The Hounds of Baskerville").

For me, the most frustrating aspect of "Sherlock" has got nothing to do with the actual series or its level of quality. It's got more to do with the fact that it exists at a time when another, very different version of Sherlock Holmes is conquering the silver screen.

Don't get me wrong, Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" films are a fun waste of two-and-half hours and there certainly are worse superhero films (I consider Holmes a superhero, the same way I consider James Bond a superhero, by the way). There's some spectacular action and combat in them and as much as I'd love to at times, it's impossible to dislike Robert Downey Jr. when he's onscreen. Unfortunately, unlike "Sherlock" and other versions of Holmes, Ritchie's movies aren't really detective stories. They're much more based in an adventure format, with fisticuffs and derring-do the main centrepieces; the focus on detective-work is usually only used to advance Holmes and Watson from one explosive setpiece to another, with no real mystery to solve. In a lot of ways, this reminded me of the kind of detective-work that takes place in a Batman story, where the question is rarely "whodunnit" but more "we know the Joker/Riddler/Two-Face/Whoever did it and we have to find them using DETECTIVE WORK". In fact, in the wonderful side-missions of "Arkham City" where Batman is trying to track down the mercenary Deadshot, there's a scene where he finds the remains of a sniper rifle Deadshot used and it's almost identical to a scene in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" where Holmes tries to track the movements of one of Moriarty's cronies the same way. Again though, they're enjoyable films. It's just very frustrating that millions of people are watching them, and may not even be aware of the vastly superior BBC series. Indeed, I was having a conversation with someone at work recently about how much I enjoyed "Sherlock" for about five minutes and he agreed with me wholeheartedly, adding that it was a wonderful time in the cinema and he couldn't wait to see Robert Downey Jr's next film!

Returning to the topic of "Sherlock" itself, the creators have already announced that the third series is definitely happening, as soon as Cumberbatch and Freeman (who are deservedly on their way to Hollywood fame and fortune as the villain of the new "Star Trek" and the star of "The Hobbit" respectively) are available. Both stars have expressed an eagerness to return for more Baker St. hijinks. I'll be waiting with my hilariously-out-of-place deerstalker and my stylish £1,500 Belstaff coat at the ready.

By the way: Have I mentioned how awesome the music in the show is? It's awesome. Thanks to David "James Bond movies" Arnold for the epic opening theme and the awesome action theme that I have as my ringtone.

Becoming Batman: My Initial thoughts on 'Arkham City'

So it's now a week and a half since Arkham City was released here in Ireland.

It's safe to say that my anticipation for this game was probably almost as intense as the kind of anticipation I've had for actual Batman movies; such was the extraordinary power of what this game promised. The overwhelmingly positive reviews only served to pump me up even more, as it became abundantly clear that not only was this going to be the greatest superhero game ever, but one of the greatest videogames ever.

So what do I think?

Frankly, the game and the overall experience is outstanding. But the story is completely retarded.

Let's look at what I really, really liked about the game. First and foremost, the combat is back with a vengeance. The last game's combat was incredible and possibly the best combat system I've ever experienced in a videogame. I never felt more like Batman than when I was battering hordes of henchmen with crippling slow-motion moves. This game has a similar policy of not just throwing endless waves of the same kind of enemies at you. Many enemies wear body armour, carry shields or brandish knives or broken bottles at Bamtna, meaning that the player has to think on the move about what the best move is, in order to defeat the enemy, just like Batman does. I do have a few minor complaints in so far as the camera has been pulled back in this outing, so it's arguably not as spectacular. Also, when Batman ranks up enough of a combo, he goes into 'Critical Strike' mode, much like the last game. However, in this game, the screen goes all weird and shimmery when this happens, seemingly to add to the pulse-pounding experience which is severely distracting. In addition to this, streaks of red fly in Batman's wake for some reason; compared to the streaks of black which existed in the previous game.



Ultimately though, the combat is just even better than in the last game. While some of the visceral larger-than-lifeness of the experience might be a little bit dissipated, the actual system itself is greatly improved. Batman can use all of his gadgets in fights now, leading to some really badass moments. It certainly takes a bit of practice, but when you pull it off, it's awesome. The best thing I can possibly say about the combat is that if you were really awesome at fighting in the last game, you will effortlessly carry over and expand your skills even more. It's a perfect 'sequelisation' of the system.

Another awesome aspect of the game is how Batman moves around Arkham City. It was also going to be a problem having the non-superpowered Dark Knight climbing around a free-roaming city where Superman can fly and Spider-Man can swing on webs. This game has come up with a really clever and exciting method, where Batman can combine his grappling gun and his glider-cape to maximise his momentum and soar through the skies, like...well...a bat. If you remember the scene in The Dark Knight set in Hong Kong where Batman infiltrates a heavily-secure building, you'll know what this kind of thing is like. And you use this for the whole game. It's really, really awesome and it's a huge step up from the last game.



Honestly, the gliding alone is almost a reason to buy the game. It's that much fun.

The side-missions are pretty terrific too, and make a lot more use of Batman's detective skills. The Riddler is back and you have to find his Riddler trophies all over the city, as well as solve his sight-gag riddles. Finding Riddler trophies isn't as simple as just going to random spots in the city and picking up a small icon. Often you have to figure out puzzles or use your gadgets to get at the trophy. This can get really frustrating, but it's a good kind of frustration. The fact that I was sitting on the bus yesterday trying to figure out some of his riddles when I wasn't even playing the game speaks volumes about how much this game really makes you feel like you are Batman. I'd go as far as to say that the way these games use the Riddler is possibly the definitive depiction of the character.

One of the main criticisms of the last Arkham game was that in spite of the efforts of Animated Series scribe Paul Dini, the story was really a bit of a let-down. After promising something that seemed like it was going to be something larger-than-life and intensely creepy, the plot basically amounted to Joker turning himself into a monster and threatening to break a few helicopters.

This new game is probably worse in that regard. The story starts off strongly enough, but takes a huge dive in the final few acts, where the final reveal was aggressively predictable, shallow and just lazy. I don't want to completely give anything away, but needless to say, much of of the eerie warnings from Hugo Strange in the trailers leading up to the game ("Tonight...it will end, where it began!") don't even really make any sense. I honestly think that these games would be better off without Paul Dini, after the embarrassing plot of this game. For the first time playing a Batman game, I really wanted to take all of the missions and characters and settings and just structure a different, more imaginative plot than the one used. Luckily, the voice-acting is tremendous, possibly better than the last game and Kevin Conroy is gloriously back on top-form as Batman himself, forever cementing himself as the definitive Dark Knight for all-time. I still can't believe how lucky Batman fans are to have the greatest Batman actor appear in the definitive Batman simulation.

If you can ignore the lazy plot of the game however, I simply can't recommend this game enough. It's a sublime videogame in its own right, but it's just the definitive Batman experience. The game rises above its insistence not to use any of Batman's vehicles and the gliding is so exciting that you end up being grateful that you don't have to drive some car around, when you can do this instead. The combat is elevated to the point of dizzy, dumbfounding brilliance and all of the wonderful stealth and detective elements from the last game are expanded and developed excellently.

Please buy this game.

Guerilla Warfare: Why George Lucas is a sad, spoiled little child

Pretty much anyone who's ever bothered to come here knows who these guys are.

What a lot of people from my generation don't know is that everytime those guys show up in a new home video release, something is different about them. Since computer-generated imagery began to get more advanced and realistic from the early 1990s onwards, George Lucas has merrily added in dollops of the stuff to the Star Wars films, withholding the original, much-loved theatrical versions from being remastered in any way.

The very first time I saw Star Wars was in the Summer 1997. It was a relatively recent VHS copy (see above) we had rented not knowing that it was any different from the one that had recently been re-released to the cinema. We watched it so much that it we ended up being far overdue in bringing it back and had to pay a whopping late fee, as was often the case with films we really liked.

Admittedly, the first time I saw 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi', I did in fact see the newer, CGI-ridden versions of them (I didn't see the theatrical versions until years later, when it was finally, shabbily released to DVD).



What comes to my attention now, as an adult is that not only are a lot of these changes kind of awful in how they end up effecting the characters in the movies, the original Star Wars trilogy remains one of the only extremely popular film franchises I can think of that specifically don't have their absolutely-original versions available with remastered video and sound. The only way you can watch and enjoy the same films that were released in 1977, 1981 and 1983 is if you buy either the original videos or the recent DVDs, that came with completely-untouched versions of the films (which unfortunately meant that they look like they were taped off a video and not remastered at all).

And this is kind of ridiculous.

First and foremost, let's dispel a few myths. George Lucas didn't direct every Star Wars film. He didn't direct Empire Strikes Back (which most people regard as the best in the franchise) or Return of the Jedi. He didn't design many of the characters (including Yoda) and he didn't even write the screenplays for the aforementioned films. He played a very important part in the production of all three in the original trilogy, but the fact remains that he left enough of the work to other people that the films cannot entirely be seen as 'his' to change. Not to mention the fact that hundreds of millions of people loved the versions they went to see in the cinema and were suitably outraged when those versions stopped being readily available to buy on newer home video formats.

As a child of the 90s, I'm inclined to say that the versions with which I most identify are indeed the initial 1997 digitally remastered versions, with the newly inputted extra scenes. There's enough of the original theatrical versions intact and I've become so familiar with some of the changes (like the song in Jabba's palace and the Ewok celebration - both of which are completely different from the original). But at the same time, as a fan of filmmaking in general, reading up on the original versions of the films and how innovative and imaginative they were at the time in terms of special effects; it greatly disturbs me that the originals aren't being preserved and saved for future generations - even if only for future generations of filmmakers.

This image explains it better than I ever could. It's far more interesting to watch the original movies in awe of what Lucas and Industrial Light and Magic were able to create with actual miniature models, make-up designs, camera trickery and the general principle of 'smoke and mirrors' rather than the idea that they just created everything on a computer. Ideas and imagination went into the creation of those special effects, rather than boring old zeroes and ones.

On the subject of that image, its creator was probably referencing the prequels as much as the 'redone' versions of the original trilogy. On the subject of the prequels, all I have to say is that they were what they were: out-of-touch and silly, focused more on selling action figures to younger fans than telling a compelling story. I have no real issue with the excessive CGI in those films, because it doubtless made more sense at that time to make the movies that way, rather than create elaborate soundstages and models. I generally just enjoy the prequels for what they are - inferior but fun additions to the story. Plus, George Lucas and wrote each and every one of them so he has much more right to change things around than before.

It's still annoying that the original version of The Phantom Menace won't be around for future generations, but at the same time, the changes aren't as drastic as in the other films, some of them are even welcome (Jar Jar has a newer, less annoying voice and Yoda's ridiculous model has been replaced with a CGI one) and it's also a pretty awful film so really, who cares?

Ultimately, it's just really sad and unfortunate that Lucas seems to be so ashamed of what were some of the most important fantasy adventure movies ever made. Warts n' all, the original ORIGINAL versions of Star Wars are fascinating pieces of pop art that really draw you into the zeitgeist, as well as transporting you into an alternate universe. With the newer, excessively changed versions of the films, they just become more and more like one of those drawings you started drawing as a kid, only to go back and rub it all out again and again trying to make it even better, only to end up with a mess of scribbles and worn-out paper.

The Dark Knight Lives: A Review of Batman LIVE

It's only a couple of hours since I left the 02 Stadium where 'Batman LIVE' was showing its penultimate performance. And boy, was it something.

It doesn't take a genius to guess that DC Comics probably came up with the show in response to the troubled Marvel broadway show 'Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark'. But while that trippy, artsy, excessively expensive mess has done nothing but polarise fans of both comics and theater alike, 'Batman LIVE' is a sensibly well-rounded, fun-for-the-whole-family affair that will certainly please lifelong die-hards (like myself) and a brand new generation of young fans (of which the 02 stadium was teeming).

The plot is essentially a broader, more epic version of Dick Grayson's origin as Robin, with Batman's own history briefly explored as well. In the course of the 120-minute (ish) runtime, we see almost every notable Bat-villain brought to life wonderfully, including the Penguin, Catwoman (who looked as though she'd walked off the pages of Darwyn Cooke's 'Selina's Big Score'), Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, Two-Face, the Riddler and of course the Joker himself. Impressively, there were times when practically all of the villains were onstage at once, with dozens of henchmen surrounding them.

The primary strength of the show was the high production values. The set ingeniously incorporated a massive screen for comic book backdrops, while the actual stage would change to suit the scene. The highlight of the whole show was the Batcave itself, which was absolutely breath-taking. Other notable 'locations' included the Iceberg Lounge and Haley's Circus.

The general tone of the show is geared towards a fairly all-ages audience and while it's no 'Disney on Ice', it's certainly not as dark or sinister as the Burton or Nolan Batman movies. The acting is fairly exaggerated and sometimes a little bit corny. In saying that though, I was surprised by how earnest and straight-faced it was. There was no breaking the fourth wall or winking at the audience. Even the characterisation of Batman was fairly spot-on as he was a serious no-nonsense character for most of the show and on the few occasions where he did crack jokes, they were genuinely cool and appropriate to the atmosphere. Being that it is an all-ages deal though, do expect a few moments that border on cringe, though, particularly involving the "Gosh n' Golly!" version of Dick Grayson they chose to use. The actor was good, though as were most of the actors. Batman himself was quite good, but predictably, the villains were the standout performers. The aforementioned Catwoman was pretty much perfect in every way, to the point where I wonder if Anne Hathawaye will do as good a job in The Dark Knight Rises (Spoiler Warning: She probably won't). The guy who played the Penguin was basically doing an impression of Burgess Meredith, but admittedly he was really good and his makeup was particularly impressive. The Riddler was only given a short amount of stage time, but in that short time he was pretty much everything Edward Nygma needs to be (and once again, he looked the part). The Joker had the most stage-time and the guy playing him was pretty much awesome, even if he did look weirdly like a bizarre hybrid of John Lithgow and Jay Leno. His voice was sort of a deep, raspy, demonic version of Mark Hamill's, with similar mannerisms to the famous animated series version. He occasionally dropped in a few of Heath Ledger's iconic tics as well. Of the villains, the only one who was done in a really dumb and disappointing way was Two-Face who did not have the benefit of a decent design, nor the assistance of a memorable acting performance. Other characters included Alfred (who was great) and Jim Gordon (who was not).Of all the actors on stage though, I really have to give top marks to the guy who played the Joker, who really just gave it socks.

The show wasn't perfect and it must be said that the first half, before the intermission, was quite slow to start. Batman didn't even show up for about twenty minutes in (although it was awesome when he did). Another weakness the show had was that the actors were so completely protected by safety harnesses and wires that when the extremely talented trapeze artists and acrobats were sailing across the very top of the stage - part of the intensity was lost because you knew that they would be completely fine if anything went wrong.

On the topic of the wire-work, at times the show occasionally really failed in that regard in terms of placing the audience in another world, rather than forcing them to use their imagination to piece together what's going on. One scene in particular, in the aforementioned first half; saw Catwoman and Batman battling against one another atop the skyscrapers of Gotham. Their fight sees them plummeting from multiple buildings - translated into the actors onstage being hauled around in a set pattern, while the screen-backdrop shows the buildings swooping by. It was an interesting idea, but the execution just didn't really allow for it to be anything other than confusing and fake-looking.

Some other reviewers have pointed out that the fights were a bit disappointing. I'd say that perhaps 30% of the fight scenes weren't really up to much, but the rest really were. Oddly enough, the Dick Grayson fight scenes were the strongest, perhaps because they had such a David-v-Goliath feel to them, as well as the fact that the actor playing Grayson was such a talented stage combatist. The best fight scenes saw multiple fights going onstage at once, just like in the old 60s TV show.

In conclusion, I'd have to say that I enjoyed Batman LIVE immensely. I went into it knowing that it wasn't going to be an extremely dark version of Batman and that I should enjoy it for what it was. That was a wise choice, although I was surprised by the level of writing and acting seen throughout the show and the story certainly took some surprisingly dark routes at times. The real value for money came in the extraordinary production values, the amazing sets and costumes, seeing a brand new Batmobile onstage and just the general awesomeness of seeing Batman kicking ass in real life. Really, I can't express how much Batman fans should just leave their snobbery at the door and just go along to this enormously fun, lovingly created experience. It's a version of Batman I won't soon forget.

Why Rocksteady Studios should make a Superman game

Yes, indeed, it will be one of those posts, where I yammer on about Superman. DEAL WITH IT.

Most people know that the release of 'Batman: Arkham City' is kind of shaping up to be a focal point of 2011, for me. From what I've seen of the extraordinarily extensive promotional videos and behind-the-scenes interviews, the game will be tantalisingly close to being the definitive simulated experience of being Batman. While most of Gotham City is locked off in the game and you still don't have access to any of the Dark Knight's vehicles, pretty much everything else I could have ever want in a Batman game (including the bizarre, highly unlikely request of being able to play as the Animated Series version of Batman) has been plucked from my mind and placed into a vast, gothic playground with truckloads of classic villains and nods to the character's 72-year legacy in comics, movies and television. I cannot express just how much I am anticipating this game. Honestly, if I didn't have a girlfriend and a job (and Batman LIVE to look forward to), I'd probably have found a way to cryogenically freeze myself in suspended animation, until it was released.

I hate to say it, but the last time I was this excited for a licensed game, was in the run-up to Superman Returns.



Much like what Arkham City is promising, Superman Returns promised fans an open-world experience similar to the sublime Spider-Man 2 (which was also a tie-in to a movie), whereby you could fly around to anywhere in Metropolis, saving people and stopping crimes. This premise alone was enough to light a fire of insatiable excitement within me, as that's exactly the kind of Superman game I'd always wanted to play. Ever since playing Spider-Man 2, I'd desperately wanted a similar experience as the Man of Steel, soaring through the skies of Metropolis. I even remember having dreams about playing such a game, only to wake up and be pissed off that it wasn't real.



So naturally, when I started seeing videos like the one above, I got extremely pumped.

In the run-up to the game, the developers were promising everything. They claimed you'd have access to 'all' of Superman's powers, that there would be missions where you would play as Clark Kent, that there'd be dozens of villains from the comics who hadn't appeared in the movie and (most importantly) that you could go anywhere in Metropolis and use parts of the city as weapons against villains (like in the also-excellent 'Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction'). I even saw some videos online taken from e3 2006 showing other skins you'd be able to unlock in the game (such as a 'Red Son' skin from the comic of the same name). Unfortunately, large chunks of these elements were abandoned in the ultimately rushed game.




Sometime in the Summer of 2006, it was announced that the game wouldn't be released until November of that year, to coincide with the DVD release of the movie. This was strange news, as we'd been hearing about the game and its (supposedly complex and thorough) development for nearly a year prior to this. Nevertheless, in spite of my disappointment, this just instilled me with confidence that we were in for a real gem of a Superman experience. In this time, I actually saved up and bought an Xbox 360 entirely because of how excited I was for this very game. Another setback occurred when the developers revealed that [Actually no!] you wouldn't be able to use all of Superman's powers as the game wasn't going to feature x-ray vision in any way.

Well, when the reviews arrived, my heart sank. According to dozens of reviewers online and in print (and even on TV), the game was extremely mediocre and only worth a rental, if even. While Metropolis was large and intriguing and really cool to fly around in, there was just about nothing else to do in the entire game except fight hordes and hordes of stupid-looking robots and angry dragon-like beings. It was ironic really, because everyone complained that in the movie, Superman didn't throw a single punch, whereas in this game, there was practically nothing else to do except punch things.

The game did require you to rescue people now and again, but this was entirely optional and rarely (if ever) made any difference to the 'missions' (note the inverted commas).



Ultimately, more than anything else, the game just seemed bizarrely rushed. I have no idea how that could happen, given that the developers had almost two years to develop the game and were yammering on for months about how spectacular it was. It is loads of fun flying around as Superman in the game, breaking the sound barrier, etc. It's just a pity that the developers couldn't find anything else for the player to do.



Skip forward two years. Images started to pop up online of a new Batman game that would be available the following year. The game was going to be set entirely in Arkham Asylum and aimed to make the player 'feel' like Batman, using stealth and detection techniques. Honestly, I wasn't too excited, as I'd heard all of this before for the Batman Begins game. The more information that was released about the game, the more I suspected that it would be just another run-of-the-mill stealth/action game of which Batman had starred in many.

However, in the closing months before the game's release, it became more and more apparent that this might be the holy grail of licensed comic book games.



Sure enough, the game was a godsend. I don't think I need to go into any great detail as to what I liked about the game as I've done that before, but needless to say, I liked it a whole bunch. Aside from the already-excellent story mode, the replay value offered by the additional combat and stealth challenges is basically unlimited as the combat system is easy to learn, but nigh-impossible to master and two years later, I'M STILL TRYING. That's right folks; I still play Batman: Arkham Asylum quite regularly, over two years after its release. I may not be the world's most broadly horizoned gamer, but that's still something.

So that brings us to the title of this post. What has a great Batman game got to do with Superman?

To answer that question, let's take a look at Arkham Asylum's upcoming sequel, the reality-alteringly awesome-looking Batman: Arkham City.



In this game, Batman's not just confined to the walls of the Asylum anymore. Finally, seven years after Spidey introduced the concept, we have a Batman game that's set in an open-world city. Now, admittedly it's not quite Gotham City in its entirety, but 'Arkham City' (think of 'Escape from New York' in a game about Bamtan) does seem to contain most of the iconic elements we've grown accustomed to in 75 years of Batman comics (Penguin's Iceberg Lounge, Dick Grayson's former home, Haley's Circus, the Joker's birthplace Ace Chemicals and most importantly, Park Row or 'Crime Alley' where Bruce Wayne watched his parents get shot), so it doesn't really matter if we're missing some suburbs or a City Hall.



More importantly though are the abilities of Batman in the game. Taking a cue from his film incarnations, Batman's high-tech cape allows him to glide for extended periods, between the buildings of Arkham City. But unlike the last game, this ability is much more expanded upon. By combining potential energy, wind-power and the grapple-gun, Batman can almost fly in the game.



As in the previous game, Batman can see through walls using the special lenses in his mask and root out items or irregularities that warrant attention. Using his explosive gel he can blow up weakened walls. Even with the freeze-stunner, he can temporarily incarcerate foes so that he can deal with them in time.
That's flight, x-ray vision, heat vision (sort of) and freeze breath covered. It's almost like they're hinting that they're going to make a Superman game!

There's obviously a lot more to the equation than the aesthetic similarities I've listed, however curious they are. One of the most oft-mentioned differences between Batman and Superman is that Batman is 'just a man', whereas Superman is the most powerful man on the planet. When you play as Superman in a simulated experience, there is always (or at least for the next ten years or so) going to have to be some kind of restriction on what you can actually do, in the game. You can't fly to any other country in the world as Superman can easily do. You can't destroy every building in Metropolis as Superman could easily (but wouldn't ever) do. You can't use your x-ray vision to see Lois' bazoombas, because it's always going to have to be an all-ages game. The difference with Batman is that, as a simple human with all of the weaknesses that that implies, the sky is the limit. Batman can be bestowed with any fantastic ability throughout the game, because no matter how powerful his gadgets and weapons make him, he will always just be a regular human underneath it all. Superman will always need to be stripped of something in a videogame, and therein lies the challenge for the developers.



More importantly than the game elements themselves though, I think the key feature of the two Arkham games is the level of care and attention paid to the source material that I don't think any game based on a DC Comics franchise has done in the past. The number one problem that has plagued Superman's videogame history is that the developers have just never seemed to care all that much about the Man of Steel's literary heritage. I honestly didn't think we'd ever see a game as rich in the history and continuity of the Batman mythology as the Arkham games are. It should come as no surprise that I want to see the people responsible tackle the other great DC Comics hero. Personally, I think Rocksteady have proven that they have the ability to do the necessary research, invest the necessary manpower and game development technology and root out the best way to bring the Last Son of Krypton into the world of gaming in as effective a way as possible.



If you agree with me, join the Facebook page I set up and let's try and show them how much we want this to happen.