The Library: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

 Welcome to The Library. An area of the asylum devoted to reading. Our first story is the famous novel by Philip K. Dick.
 Easily one of the most well known science fiction stories of all time, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' is the novel the 1982 film Blade Runner was based on.
 Yet the novel and the book have very little in common. While both film and novel focus heavily on a character called Rick Deckard, they are vastly different characters. The most notable difference being that in the novel, Deckard is married. The novel also has a strong focus on the philosophical differences between androids and humans, primarily the ability to experience empathy.
 At times it is difficult to tell if Dick is spoon-feeding us the empathy element too much. Creating the Voigt-Kampff test with questions nearly entirely based on reactions to animal based malice. Of course I am not up for torturing animals, but I feel like I would easily fail such a test, as just simply being told "an animal out there might be getting hurt" does not make me feel empathetic.
 So perhaps the true message behind the story, is that empathy is broken. Something humans tell themselves they have, even though they don't really seem to use it. This is what the androids seem to believe, for the most part.
 Another difference between the film, Blade Runner, and the novel would be the portrayal of the androids themselves. They are made into much more sympathetic creatures than in the novel. In the novel there is always a level of false emotion, the intellectual response versus the instinctual or emotional. Where as in the film, they are clearly emotional creatures, whether insidious in motive or not. One great example would be the android Pris, who in the film is played my Daryl Hannah. In the novel when she is first introduced, she meets the "special" J.R. Isidore. Upon opening her door, she quickly covers her naked chest. Yet this appears to be a false response, as after a while she forgets to leave herself covered. Another example of the distinct lack of emotion, again focusing on Pris, is a scene in which the androids systematically cut the legs off of a spider just to see if it will walk.
 Strangely in that sequence, I do feel the empathic response, maybe I would fail after all? The character of Rachel is also in both novel and film, and there is a romantic element in both. Unlike the film however, the character of Rachel is representative of Deckard's doubts. His burgeoning feelings of empathy for the androids. It is after sleeping with Rachel however, that he discovers that his feelings of empathy for them are totally misplaced. That she has slept with many bounty hunters to make it impossible for them to continue their profession. She, like the rest of the androids, are not likeable characters in the novel.
 There is an overall sense of dread, entropy and depression to the novel. It toys with spiritualism, religion, faith and questions what it truly is to be alive. The novel is an excellent read, and I do highly recommend it, but I do not suggest reading it if you read to cheer yourself up. The novel is incredibly depressing and bleak. An excellent read for anyone who likes science fiction, just be prepared to feel like crap afterwards.

Survival Horror and Co-Op. (Why It Could Work and "The Forest.")

  If there is one thing that seems to becoming more and more common place in gaming, that's indie survival horror games. Games like Slender, Amnesia and Penumbra. Games which essentially try to demonstrate that no matter what Capcom does with it's Resident Evil series, gaming can still be a scary thing.

  Now I am definitely a fan of well done horror. I enjoy suspense, weird fiction, etc. I am not a fan of what many horror film makers and game developers believe is horror nowadays. Which is jump scares and gore. Which is why I am a fan of Marble Hornets (for example) and the Slender Man mythos. 

  This is probably why I am a fan of games like Slender and (especially) Amnesia. Games with objectives, where you are faced with near impossible odds, against an near unseen horrific foe. A foe that if you see them you will die. Where there is nothing you can do but run for your life.

  With these games you really get what you are paying for. Horror, where your heart is pounding and my seven foot tall goliathian friend even screams like a girl. There is no denying there are at least a handful of games like this now coming out, or are already out and many of them I'd highly recommend. Yet strolling through Steam Greenlight recently, realising there are more and more games in this vein coming out I discovered this gem; The Forest. With this trailer;

  Now I'm not going to talk too much about the game as it is here. It does look quite awesome, taking the concept of survival a little bit more literally and including things like shelter, food and warmth and then throwing in terrifying mutant troglodytes. Sounds like a mixture perfect for horror. What I want to talk about however is the potential for co-op in survival horror games. Especially because I saw this thread on Steam Greenlight.

  First off, I'm sure developers love it when you go around telling people that their game isn't meant for certain people. Of course I'm not suggesting this game is for everyone, but you don't have to tell them it's not! Also, I think the original poster might be confusing Dark Souls for a survival horror game suddenly, which it's not. Horrifically hard does not mean Horror. Regardless I couldn't disagree more about co-op mode. Especially in a game that takes the survival element the way this game seems to. 

  One person in the thread suggests an in-game voice chat system that gets louder or quieter depending on your distance from your team mate. Which should be easy enough to do. I would take that one step further myself, make the enemies be able to hear you talking. Searching through a cave, and you're chatting away about what stuff you hope to find down here, and boom you're jumped by terrifying creatures. Suddenly co-op just become a lot harder, and a lot more terrifying. 

  The difficulty of the game does not have to change just because you have an extra person. The most obvious way to effect this would be increasing the number of baddies, or making them stronger. Yet to me it seems obvious. If in the single player game, you're only going to find enough material to fashion one decent weapon then when you can only fashion one decent weapon in co-op you actually add a level of difficulty to the game. Who gets the weapon? What do you do about the person who doesn't have one? Should they stay at camp or stick close to the guy who has the club?

  Co-op simply adds a new layer to the survival horror element, and doesn't detract from it at all. The Forest gives players the option of fashioning weapons and fighting head on, or (the probably more sensible route) of hiding. What happens if your friend doesn't hide well enough. Do you rush out to try save your friend, or do you stay safely hidden and watch them get over-run? What if it's the other way around, do you lead the creatures to you hidden friend, or do you lead them away to keep them safe? When you add another human to the mix, you don't make the game any less scary, you make it even scarier.

  You can't be certain that your best friend won't get you killed in a game like this, and if you execute it properly co-op could be even more terrifying then going it alone with the added elements of being able to talk (and make noise that gets you into trouble), working together only getting you so far and the ever present possibility that you're going to get each other killed. 

  I think it's clear that a decent survival horror game could only be complimented by a co-op experience, especially if that co-op experience is fully fledged and well executed. I also think The Forest is the perfect game to give it a go. What do all you guys think? Feel free to leave comments below or on my twitter @david_haddon.

7 Franchises That Could Be Fun MMOs. (If Done Right.)

  It is difficult to deny that some of the best MMOs out there were made based on pre-existing franchises. Star Trek Online, Star Wars Galaxies and The Old Republic, Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Neverwinter Online, DC Universe Online. Even the ever popular World of Warcraft was a pre-existing franchise before it became a MMO.

  There is no denying that many of these games take off and are popular purely because they have a pre-existing fanbase before launch. All of the games have some pretty big faults (yes even Warcraft), and as with all gaming it is purely subjective. Yet arguably many of the fans are fans not because of the game mechanics but because of the setting.

  I know that I am one of the few among my friends who truly enjoys DC Universe Online, and yes I know that in part that is because I am a DC fan. I turn a slightly blind eye to many of the faults because the good parts for me are great. I have a friend who still enjoys Warhammer Online despite that game having not really improved or progressed much since release (a usually expected facet of the MMO genre). Franchises usually draw in their fans, and that's because (usually) the one thing that franchise MMOs do well is get their setting down.

  So what other franchises are out there that would make for fairly decent MMOs? Well I have a few in mind (in no order).

1. Pokemon.

  Pokemon is one of the most ridiculously popular and long lasting franchises of all time. Having first became popular when I was in Primary School there are now kids who as old as I was then getting a new Pokemon game with ones I haven't even heard of yet! It is not hard to see how these games could become a MMORPG however. 

  All you really need to do is translate the current games into a permanently online world. They don't need to be big and flashy like World of Warcraft. Give players what they are used to (see above). Of course then you can expand on the original concept. Make every games land available. Perhaps make the home towns from each game the starting locations. Or maybe make the major/large cities the starting locations? An apartment building could become "player housing." Every single Pokemon would need to be available of course. Make all the Gyms available, player only leagues, quests, and other features could be added. It could become one of the largest and most popular MMOs of all time.

  It wouldn't mean the end (or wouldn't have to) of the single player games either. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo released paid for expansions (instead of free content) every time a new game came out. For example Pokemon Italiano Rose and Pokemon Tender Twilight might come out, so naturally there would be an expansion that adds the land from those games to the MMO as well as any new Pokemon, gym badges etc. You could argue why release the single player games if they were going to make them into expansions for the MMO? Well, we don't want to upset anyone, after all, we're talking about Nintendo.

2. A Song of Ice and Fire (A Game of Thrones)

  I have used to book title of the series here for a a couple of reasons. First and foremost to specify that I am talking about the books not the show. Secondly because there is a (pretty bad looking) browser based MMO coming out, based on the HBO show. The thing is, as good as the show is, it is almost empty compared to the world laid out in the books. Which is why when we are talking about MMOs the books would be the best way to go.

  A great example of why would be Lord of the Rings Online. Based on the book, not the films, Lord of the Rings Online becomes a full and interesting game world, with a great deal to do and see. The same would happen with A Song of Ice and Fire. There is so much of the world of Westeros that just isn't being seen in the show that could be done in a MMO  that it would be impossible to list it all here.

  The scale of the books and the setting lend itself to a large scale fantasy MMO in the vein of World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings Online, yet with that dark and adult edge, similar to Age of Conan. Knights, Squires, Rebels, Politicians, Septons, Spies, Warriors, Slavers, Merchants, Pirates, and more all could be classes with in the game. Houses could take on the role of guilds/kinships and they could compete for more power with in the world. Perhaps gaining discounts, experience boosts or maybe even PvE bonuses through this system. The scale of the books is such that there would be no shortage of lore to build from. The game could be truly massive and if executed well, one of the best MMO settings in a long while.

3. Dune.

  There is nothing in this world quite like Frank Herbert's Dune. Quite possibly the largest and best conceived science fiction universe ever printed, it has one of the larger followings in literature and film (thanks to David Lynch). Unfortunately I also realise this would be a difficult one to really translate well to a game without reducing some of the stories greater meaning. It is also filled with difficult design questions. Should the game be theme park or sandbox (pun intended)? Should it be set only on Arakkis or should it feature all of the worlds from the books? These are questions that even with me wishing this world had an MMO, I am not prepared to answer. 

  That is because Dune is so massive, so incredible, that it would take someone far greater than me to really put down a game plan. Like A Song of Ice and Fire there are the Family Houses, which could be translated into a guild analog perhaps. One thing I am pretty sure of is I think Dune would have to be a classless game. Similar to EVE or Secret World.

  The funny thing is, that Dune is such a great and special thing to so many people, that the true true fans, would even argue against it becoming a MMO or probably any game. Not because they wouldn't want to play, they would probably love to, but because it would just be so difficult to imagine it being done right. Not that it would be impossible, it would just take the right guys to do it.

  Let's be honest though, I just want to be able to play as a member of the Spacing Guild don't I...

4. Stargate.

  This entry will be the shortest. Stargate was such an obvious choice for an MMO that it nearly got made. Stargate Worlds was cancelled when the company making it filed for bankruptcy. I feel the only reason the game was never picked up by anyone else was simply how poorly received Stargate Universe (the latest series) was. Ironic that the beta of the game featured in the pilot episode.

  The game could feature many worlds, thanks to the Stargates, and would be easily expandable at a later date too. There are several race choices, class options with enough variety that there would be probably something for everyone. Stargate is such a good franchise, it really is a shame that Stargate Worlds was never completed.

5. Harry Potter.

  Harry Potter is one of the most popular fantasy franchises to come out in recent generations. Rightfully so, it is an interesting and fun universe filled with both hope and darkness. A Harry Potter MMO would have the potential to be a great sandbox-theme park hybrid game. 

  The game should be classless, as players learn individual spells of their choice. The more a spell is used, the more that spell 'levels up' and improves. Meaning that a player who uses Expelliarmus near constantly in battle is going to be very good at that spell, compared to a person who uses Expulso. Other skills would enter into character development as well, such as potions and herbology. Skills and spells could be grouped into "classes" in the schooling sense. Defence Against the Dark Arts, Charms, Transfiguration, etc.

  The theme park elements would be in the form of quests and lessons. Learning new skills and putting them to good use. Though the sandbox should extent beyond just character development, and there should be a lot of room to play around and form your own stories.

6. Doctor Who.

  These last two would be the most difficult to translate, but if done right could be excellent MMO games. The first would be Doctor Who, the popular British sci-fi show.

  At first thought this one should be easy. You have multiple race options which creates a nice "RvR" style pvp setting like Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online. Playable Daleks, Cybermen, Time-lords, etc. Though that just winds up raising questions. Would Humans not be playable? Are we setting the game before Nu Who killed off all the other Time-lords? Would the game be incredibly theme parked, going from area to area in a linear way? How would we handle the time travel element? These are all pretty tough questions with so many plausible answers. The big issue would be making them work all together and form a singular experience.

  A couple of things I am sure of though is the game world would have the potential for constant expansion, whilst already starting off huge. There is a great potential here for a great PvP sci-fi MMO in a franchise that people appreciate already and it could be interesting to see if a game like this could work in tandem with a show that is still running that wasn't created for that purpose.

7. Discworld.

  This one is the hardest to figure out. It makes sense though, the scale of Discworld is magnificent, and could easily make a great MMO setting. The thing is though, it would be unlike any other Fantasy MMO ever. There could be classes, though that one is difficult to really argue. One one side, Discworld always did parody the concept, by having Wizards, Thieves, Barbarians et all, but they were always parodies of them. One thing is for certain, this world would work best as a sandbox as long as the options were broad and massive. 

  See, a key element to the Discworld books, or at least most of them, is having no interest in doing jobs for anyone. To suddenly introduce hundreds of thousands of characters (players) who are running around doing jobs for everyone through quests would not be in fitting with the universe. So making it a sandbox where characters can forge their own story would be best. On the flip side of that though, a great deal of the humour could be lost. So maybe quests would be a requirement for that?

  The setting is perfect though. To walk the streets of Anhk-Morpork or explore the halls of Unseen University? That would be truly awesome. It would just take a great deal of time and thought on how to execute this one properly.

  So those are the seven franchises I think could make for pretty awesome MMOs, if they are done right. What do you guys think? Are there any franchises I missed that you think could be better? Is there anything about these ones you disagree with? Or maybe you think they'd make good games but for different reasons? Be sure to let me know in the comments!

The Last of Us. Why Platform Exclusives Are A Bad Thing.

  I will try to avoid spoilers. Very recently "Naughty Dog" of Uncharted fame released a new game, "The Last of Us." The game is very popular among fans and critics, getting very good reviews all round. It's also getting a vast amount of press whether it be because Ellen Page thinks they stole her likeness (I don't see it) or because of a dramatic ending. Don't worry I won't tell you what the ending is, though I will say that having only seen the ending it isn't much of a twist. It's a good closing for the game, but don't expect too many surprises really.

  The game centers around Joel, a middle aged man, escorting the young girl Ellie through a post-apocalyptic world. The world has been ravaged by a virus, that naturally makes humans rabid. Of course, Ellie is immune to the virus and Joel's mission is to escort her to a group of people that hope to find a cure through her.

  The gameplay takes a "realistic" approach, favouring stealth, bullets putting enemies down quickly and including scavenging for items. There is even a crafting system in place, where the player can decide between making (for example) a molotov cocktail or a first aid kit, when finding rags and alcohol. The crafting is done in real time, with no pausing which means that it can be a bad idea to do so in the middle of danger. The player has to pre-plan their actions carefully.

  Just like the Uncharted games, the graphics are incredibly good. The game presents a very cinematic experience, which is probably why it is as popular as it is. I am not sure why gamers still enjoy playing movies so much, but there is no denying that it is a lot of fun to do so.

  The big problem is that it is a Playstation 3 exclusive, just like the Uncharted games. Naughty Dog really seem to enjoy making their games exclusives. Now I am sure there are people out there who went out and bought a console just because of these games. The thing is, I know there are even more people who did not. I am one of them.

  Exclusives are one of the most bizarre and harmful things in my opinion. Not including the handheld markets there are four platforms out there. Playstation, Xbox, Wii and PC. (I feel the need to put emphasis on PC because that above all others is most commonly ignored by developers now.) How is refusing to sell your game to any of those other demographics a wise business move? You can't even use the graphic and hardware excuse anymore. Just look at Witcher 2.

  Witcher 2 is one of the most graphic intensive games available on PC. By August 2011 it had sold 940,000 copies, across digital and physical media. Then they released the 360 version, granted not as graphically intensive but still a great looking game. They have now sold over 5 million copies! That's a big difference. Just imagine if they released a PS3 or even Wii U version? Look at the Arkham games, (yes I know I can't shut up about Arkham), they are multi-platform entirely. Not a single demographic is being left out. Everyone can play the games.

  Developers need to stop making these deals that prevent so much of the gamer market from playing their games. As I said, I am sure there are people out there willing to drop hundreds of dollars on a console just because a new exclusive that looks good came out. I am positive that they are greatly out numbered by the people who only want to stick with their chosen platform. In my case the PC. It is just a shame that I will never get to own a copy of The Last of Us or even the Uncharted franchise simply because Naughty Dog opts for being Playstation exclusive. The Last of Us I am sure is a great fun and enjoyable, but I believe no game is going to be worth around $300. Perhaps one day, they will expanding into a multi-platform philosophy. Until then, so many of us will not be playing their games.

  Now arguably, platform exclusives push up sales of those systems. I am not sure if that is entirely true, and is one of these areas which could forever personify the correlation vs causation argument. Just because a system sells, around the time a game comes out, is it really the game? If I am honest however, I believe that there are too many factors in console sales to claim exclusives really push them, I will however defer that they probably do help.

  My ultimate issue is, I don't see the need for consoles anymore. Not really, and I am prepared for the hail of gunfire that statement is sure to bring. Considering I can use the controllers from all three of the major consoles right now, on my PC, I can have 3D gaming, online play, achievements, a friends list, etc, etc. I struggle to see what the real need for a console is anymore. Consoles are becoming more and more like PCs as it is, granted all the systems are diverging in different directions for now, but inevitably those directions converge in the PC. I can have my PC in the living room, with a large TV, using a controller. Steam has recently released "Big Picture" just for that!

  In addition to this, if having no more platform exclusives really would be the end of the consoles, does that not mean there was no draw to the consoles in the first place? That they are only being bought because certain developers are solely developing for them? I don't want to say that Naughty Dog suddenly developing for X-Box, PC and Wii would mean the end of the PS3, but if that were the case would it be a bad thing?

  For the hardware companies, very probably, unless they start entering the PC hardware race against NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, etc. Perhaps Microsoft and Sony would start developing motherboards and graphics cards that really could contend with the market. It also means that developers wouldn't need too worry about porting to other platforms, if everything was simply a PC their major concern would be simply optimising it for a variety of hardware (just like any good PC title does anyway.) It also means we'll see a new race in video game development. Developers would suddenly be in more direct competition, Naughty Dog wouldn't simply own the market on their platform anymore. Major developers who currently simply do platform exclusives would be forced to compete more drastically. It would mean an increase in the quality of the games themselves.

  So overall, no I don't believe in platform exclusives, and although many of my friends find joy in the consoles, I do not see them as a decent argument for creating platform exclusives. Hopefully one day my utopia of games development will exist, but it is not this day. We can only see what the future holds.

   n.b. I can't seem to find a PS3/The Last of Us bundle anywhere. As that was the price I wanted to quote in the last paragraph. I can't see one, am I just missing things? Or are they aware that the exclusives probably won't sell consoles anymore?

Steam Powered Diamonds

  So I thought I would try something different. At least, different for me. Today I'm going to talk about music! Specifically the cover of Rihanna's "Diamonds" by Steam Powered Giraffe.

  At first glance, Steam Powered Giraffe is probably one of the most niche market bands ever conceived. If you are a fan of Steampunk, then you are quintessentially covered for your music when listening to this band. Very much a visual feast as well as an aural one, watching the band preform in their videos alone is a great deal of fun.

  If you are not a fan of Steampunk however, this band is still well worth the listen. With decent songs, that transcend the steampunk theme, my personal favourite is "Automatic Electronic Harmonics." The band really is worth the look regardless of your level of interest in Steampunk.

  The primary members of the band are the three robots, Hatchworth (played by Sam Luke), The Spine (played by David Michael Bennett) and Rabbit (played by Christopher "Bunny" Bennett). The cover of Diamonds which we are focusing on today is sung primarily by The Spine.

  I both love and hate this song. The Spine (David) definitely can sing, and he makes the song incredibly catchy. What I hate about it, is it means I officially am enjoying a Rihanna song! So that's a first. The video adds another layer of what makes the song almost addictive. The way The Spine moves and acts, the special effects and the animatronics all add to what makes this cover a memorable one.

  On the bizarre flip-side of this, the original Rihanna video is surprisingly boring. Her video is filled with peculiar imagery and monochrome blandness which really just isn't memorable. Even her singing is boring when compared to the vocal power The Spine demonstrates in the video. It's peculiar that a man singing as a robot uses a wider vocal range than a popular singer and media sensation.

  This just goes to show that a good band, with talent, can make a generally bad song, enjoyable. Granted there are plenty of people out there that enjoy the Rihanna song, but for those of us who don't I think Steam Powered Giraffe hold the answer. It would be interesting to see if they cover any more songs in the future. I personally would be interested in seeing them cover Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite by the Beatles, not because it's a bad song but because I'm curious to see how The Spine would sing it.

  Regardless I honestly believe that this band deserves more attention and you should go check out their site here. A genuinely interesting band, with a cool sound and some very catchy songs. Now I just have to hope they come to Upstate New York some time soon so I can see them live!

My Arkham Origins Wishlist

  Arkham Origins is nearly upon us and there still are a lot of details being left out. Which is great, I really do enjoy surprises. I do have a lot of hopes for this upcoming title however, and a lot of these hopes go beyond a wish-list of villains (even if that is part of it.) There are a lot of rumours from a lot of sites discussing the possible villains. I'm going to try and avoid speaking specifically about that. Or at least try to avoid talking about who I think the other assassin's will be. Any villains here would be more of a side-mission/cameo style desire. Regardless my wishlist for Arkham Orgins begins with;

1. The Riddler - More Riddles, Less Platforming.

  Now to be fair. I instantly mentioned a villain, yet this one is less about the villain and more about the set up. The Riddler gameplay is probably my favourite in both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Yet I must admit that replaying Arkham City there was one thing that did bother me (just a little) and that was how many of the Riddler trophies were actually physical puzzles. Now I know you could argue that we as the player were only using our minds, but in the context of the story it feels a little strange that so many of the Riddler Trophies became skill based. That's why I would like it if the majority of the Riddler gameplay in Arkham Origins were actually the riddles. Solving those and tracking down the right answer was a lot of fun. I'm not suggesting we scrap the skillful gliding puzzles completely. I would just like more riddles comparatively. Of course The Riddler hasn't even been announced for Origins yet. There is the possibility that we won't see him at all. I will be a little sad if we don't but I'm sure there will be a something to keep us occupied none the less.

2. Arkham Asylum and Blackgate.

  This one might seem a little confusing at first. I would love. Absolutely love. Being able to go to Arkham Asylum or Blackgate at any point during the game. Then as and when you defeat the villains, they fill up the cells in the appropriate facility. Giving us the opportunity to still see the villains after they have been defeated in the same way we still get to see Bane, Freeze, Penguin and Riddler in Arkham City.

  Of course this could be a tricky one as in Origins it's been revealed that Batman is not a friend to the GCPD yet. So if this were to be implemented, perhaps it would be a stealth section? A difficult one to set up for sure, but something I think would be appreciated. 

3. Foreshadowing.

  I feel like this one is already a near-certainty. I mean having seen the designs on Joker and Penguin, I personally can see them growing older into the versions from Asylum/City. 

  I don't think we need to necessarily have all the villains or characters that have been in the Arkham games already. Not in actual roles anyway. Perhaps we can have some pre-origin villains. Jervis Tetch before his trip into Wonderland, or Dr. Thomas Elliot before he goes all Wayne. This foreshadowing doesn't just have to be cameo roles of course. It could be anything. Perhaps name dropping Quincy Sharp before Arkham Asylum. This could tie into the Riddler point, but essentially there is a lot of room here to set things up and reference the other games, even if chronologically they haven't happened yet. In Arkham City, the thugs regularly refer to the areas past. Why not make use of that?

4. Randomly Generated Crime.

  I think I may of heard Eric Holmes (@ericholmeslive on Twitter) reference this in the E3 Gameplay Footage. I still want to expand on my own thoughts for this though. In Arkham City, the "random" Political Prisoners being attacked, were really just another side mission. Which was still fun. The thing is once you complete everything there, there isn't much more to do in the City. Just beating on thugs really doesn't mean much after a while.

  I think that Origins, especially with it's large Gotham map, could seriously benefit from having some randomly generated crime. Have lot's of different options like car chases, robberies, muggings, etc. Lot's of things going on and that means even when the main story line is over and all the side missions are done. Players will still feel like they are doing something rather than just beating on people pointlessly.

5. Intimidation.

  In the previous titles, there was an intimidation bonus after you completed a room. To this day I'm not entirely sure how it was measured, but it definitely makes sense. One of Batman's greatest tools is how scary he is. Yet a big part of that is going to be that the criminal community know him, he has a reputation. A reputation that he would not have yet completely earned in Origins yet.

  So let him earn it in this game. There as nothing quite as satisfying as completing a room without being spotted and then interrogating one of Riddler's undercover guys. So why not tie something similar into Batman's overall intimidation levels. Why not make that part of his levelling, or perhaps a completely separate progression? You could be a level 20 Batman who runs around in broad day light and not all too scary, or you could play for keeps and level that intimidation well. 

  The main reason I think this could be fun though, is giving us the option to randomly interrogate anyone can lead to two things. The first being just having fun with random thugs, holding them upside down over the edge of buildings after silently taking down their gang. The second being that we can have some easter egg dialog recorded that theres a chance we'll get to hear when we interrogate them randomly. Either way I feel like it could be one of the most fun things.

6. Costumes and Characters.

  One of my favourite part of superhero games in general are the various costumes. The Arkham games are no different, and the variety given to us in City was awesome. Eric Holmes has already mentioned two (although one was a PS3 exclusive, let's hope he means a timed one) Azrael Batman and 1960s Batman. I would like to see even more. Granted I would also like to see the Arkham City costumes be ported over, but new ones would be even better. Let us see the New 52 suit, let's see the Thermal Suit from the City of Owls. There are several variants we could use just from the Return of Bruce Wayne alone!

  Another factor I would like to see though is, if characters are released as DLC (like Robin and Nightwing) I would like to see us be allowed to use them in the main game as well. They don't need their own story lines and missions. Although some minor side missions would be appreciated, running around as Robin, Nightwing or another character for a bit in Gotham would just increase the games longevity in the end.

  So that's my short wishlist for Arkham Origins, which I am pretty sure will be a great game. Essentially I just want it bigger than the previous titles as it's going to be very hard to make them any better! What do you guys thinks? Is there anything glaringly obvious you think should be in the game that I have missed? Feel free to comment here or sent me a message on Twitter @david_haddon!

Why Arkham Origins Will Be My Only Pre-order This Year.

  There are not many people I know who can honestly say they dislike Batman. Whether they are comic fans or not, it's safe to say the majority of people like Batman for one reason or another. It could be from films like The Dark Knight, it could be from television shows like the Animated Series or even Batman starring Adam West. Some people may simply like the branding. Regardless of why, Batman is ridiculously popular.

  Although I am a comic fan in general, with a reasonably good background across the companies, I will always be more of a DC fan than any others. Pretty much all of my favourite characters are DC characters or from their imprints. Even with parts of the New 52 seriously disappointing me I find myself coming back. Especially to Batman.

  Batman has been on a pretty steep rise the last couple of years, which is definitely saying something as I don't think he has ever truly been unpopular. I would say that 2011 is when he has truly started to shine once again, a new renaissance of Batman.

  2011 was a big year for Batman. We saw the re-release of Arkham Asylum for Mac OS X. The game nearly everyone claims is the first super-hero/comic book game to actually be good. I'm one of those people making that claim. It saw the release of Arkham City, the sequel, which was even better. Then there's the New 52 Batman, written by Scott Snyder and drawn by Greg Capullo.

  Snyder and Capullo made Batman truly compelling once again, if you haven't read Court of Owls yet then I highly recommend that you do. I will be reviewing the title in full at a later date. I will try to avoid spoilers though. Snyder and Capullo together have created truly amazing in their version of Batman. Forgetting no element of the character. We have a Batman who is the detective, the martial artist and brooding. Yet he is also sincere and it's clear that he is truly white knight hiding in the shadow. Unlike Frank "God Damn Batman" Miller who writes him as a violent psychopath, Snyder has created what is probably the quintessential Batman.

  2012 had Batman still battling with the Court of Owls and their Talons. It gave us the Dark Knight Rises, the third highest grossing film that year, and one of the highest grossing films of all time. Towards the end of 2012 and into 2013 we had the return of the Joker in "Death of the Family." One of the scariest and darkest Batman stories in quite some time. And this year Snyder has starting his Zero Year story, which gives us the origins of Batman for the New 52. Batman is still on a meteoric rise right now, and all of this is why I am going to be pre-ordering Arkham Origins, and it is the only game I will be this year.

  To be fair I do not pre-order games often. I am a PC gamer only, and rely heavily on Steam. I don't even often buy games on their release unless they are budget titles. There is no fear about stock shortages via Steam and the pre-order incentives are rarely that interesting to me.

  Arkham Origins however, has me genuinely excited. For starters it will be on PC straight away, I am not sure if it will be on Steam straight away yet (I can find no confirmation yet). I am definitely going to pre-order but I am going to hold off until I am sure about it's Steam release.

  Of course Deathstroke is a pretty awesome incentive, and despite what Amazon says, PC and Wii U players do get him. Which Eric Holmes (Creative Director) does confirm for us;

  Now there is no denying I was cynical when I first heard that Rocksteady were not at the helm. In fact the cynic in me was kicking and screaming when I heard that it was WB Games, that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill aren't in it (ok so Hamill "quit" but he has been the Joker since Arkham City), and even more concerned when I found out that Roger Craig Smith and Troy Baker had been cast.

  The cynic in me has been completely trampled to death at this point though. The E3 footage alone was enough to make me consider pre-ordering the game. Roger Craig Smith (of Resident Evil fame) does a pretty good job of a "Conroy Batman" yet sounds younger. Troy Baker flat out astounds me. Although he played Robin in Arkham City, he is probably best known for playing Booker DeWitt in Bioshock Infinite. Yet here he sounds amazingly like Mark Hamill.

  No, we are not talking a John "I Am Going To Butcher This Voice" DiMaggio impression of Hamill. We're talking an impression that in the initial teaser trailer had so many people convinced that Hamill was reprising his role! Although neither voice is exactly like the original cast member, they are both accurate for the context. The game is a prequel, and both of these actors sound younger. Even the physical appearance of Baker's Joker could believable grow up into the Hamill Joker of Arkham Asylum.

  The confirmed characters have me excited as well. Besides the Joker, we know we are getting the likes of Black Mask, Deathstroke, Deadshot and Bane. Even Anarky is in there some where. Yet the one thing we know for sure is that's not the entire cast list. The more Bat-History the better in my honest opinion.

  The footage from E3 simply looked near perfect. Many people have complained that it looks very similar to Arkham City. Yet I feel that WB have taken the clever "if it isn't broken" approach. The gameplay worked amazingly well for Arkham Asylum and City, so why try changing that. It is like Eric Holmes has said in interviews, they aren't looking to tear down what already works so well. They are simply trying to add even more to it. The gameplay footage seems to be doing just that. A larger map to play with, both in square kilometres and height, more gadgets, a more extensive detective mode. It is not the gameplay footage that put me over the edge though and has convinced me to pre-order.

  It is the people involved. Sega proved not so long ago that what a developer shows you isn't always what you are going to get. People have been cynics because it is not Rocksteady making the game this time around. Yet when you see people like Eric talking about the game, you see the genuine amount of care they have for the game. How interested they are in the mythos surrounding it, and how determined they are not to disappoint themselves or their audience. The fact that Eric was willing to look into my queries surrounding the PC release and the pre-order incentives, and other questions. The fact that they are clearly aware of what it is they have to live up to. That is what pushed me over the edge for the pre-order.

  It has been a long time since I have been truly excited for a new game release and that is why it is the only game I will be pre-ordering this year. That's remarkably rare, and I hope the death of my cynicism is well rewarded and that Batman's current phoenix style rise has not already peaked.

  I'm excited to return to the Arkhamverse. Are you?