We all need a yard stick with which to measure things against and be able to better understand where it lies in terms of quality; nowhere is this need more prevalent than in this medium. However, sometimes such comparisons can be detrimental to the game in question. Not necessarily because the game can’t hold its own in terms of quality but, rather, because it creates an image in your mind so staggeringly at odds with the final product that it can taint your initial play through. I recently had this happen to me as I read the reviews of the new Batman game due to the, near constant, comparisons drawn to Bioshock and, while I consider both to be some of my favourite games of this generation, they both set out to do things in very different ways.

What made each of the environments in Bioshock so memorable was the fact that, in essence, they were extensions of the characters who controlled them. From Dr. Steinman in Medical to Sander Cohen in Fort Frolic, each area basically became an anthropomorphised version of these men; twisted and infused with their beliefs, goals and desires. In doing so, 2K games made it so that by discovering more about either the characters or locations, whether through audio logs or visual exploration, you became more aware of the world as a whole. The personality of these men and that of the areas they inhabited became intrinsically linked and inseparable from one another.

The problem with drawing such parallels with Arkham is that, while each location was filled with detail and smothered in atmosphere, none had a character whose existence felt essential in regard to its overall nature. Whether it was Harley Quinn in the Penitentiary, Poison Ivy in the Gardens or Scarecrow in Medical, none of them had more than a tenuous link at best to the location that housed them (Harley is crazy so in with the lunatics, Poison Ivy likes plants so in with the plants and Scarecrow likes to experiment so he’s in Medical). The fact that these characters were only temporarily housed in these areas meant that there was no way in which they could have infused their personality into the very brick and mortar of Arkham, as was done in Bioshock.



In fact, even if this had been the case, it would likely have been an unsuccessful mimicry as none of the characters in Arkham are drawn with the same level of naturalism. The thing with each of the main characters in Bioshock is that, while the means they use are proven to be self defeating, we can sympathise with the ends that they aim for. Their goals are understandable; whether this is Ryan’s vision for an intellectual utopia or Steinman’s vision of beauty not as a privilege but as easily attainable to each and every person, these men are shown to have been driven mad not because it was already prewritten into their nature, but, rather, by the excessive means they undertook to reach their dreams.

The best villains are not the ones who are purely evil but, as Anthony Burch said in one of his recent rants, the ones believing themselves to be right. And none of the characters in Arkham, with the possible exception of Zsaz, are drawn with that in mind. Through the audio tapes scattered around the island, we come to see that the vast majority of characters are either pure evil (Joker, Scarecrow) or, rather worryingly from a ethical standpoint, monsters purely because of their physical appearance (Killer Croc and to a lesser extent, Bane). Only Zsaz managed to overcome such simplistic character traits through the discovery that he believes his actions to be helping those he chooses to become victims. That, as they go about their dreary daily routines, we are all waiting for ‘something’ to happen and that he, through his actions, can make it so. This isn’t necessarily a criticism against the game but rather a reminder that Arkham Asylum doesn’t set out to have us question its central themes on such a level as they are not intrinsic to the story and plot, ala Bioshock. Rather, it sets out to create a comic book world in video game form and does so with aplomb.

The problem I have with the complaints regarding the final boss flight is that, along with those reviewers who compared the game to Bioshock, Anthony is giving the game a lot of credit for things that it just didn’t do. In fact, what he seems to be doing, and I’m not condemning this completely, is to apply to Joker certain personality aspects that, quite frankly, were never shown in this game. The whole description of Joker as an agent of chaos, as an embodiment of anarchy, is not something that was brought up in this game but, rather, has been a part of the character in other mediums and was specifically brought to a head in The Dark Knight by Christopher Nolan. Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with this kind of intertextuality as, for people familiar with other sources, it can help round out characters further than the game creators had time to do so. Yet it can also cloud judgement. Other than in his reluctance to warn his henchmen of your presence, Joker is just shown to be evil, crazy and to derive some twisted pleasure in toying with Batman. But one of the main differences that he displays with the Joker as played by the recently departed Heath Ledger is that he has a plan. His is one of the ‘schemers’ that Ledger rose up against in the film. In the end, it is his plan that matters most to him and, for me at least, it made sense for him to do all he could to protect it.



Such comparisons to, what have essentially become iconic pieces of work, whether they are to a game like Bioshock or Nolan’s Dark Knight do the game no favours at all. Not because it can’t be held up to the same level of quality but, rather, for they very opposite reason; Arkham Asylum can stand on its own and needs no crutches to support it. It doesn’t need to be given greatness via association but should be judged on its own merits because it has more than enough with which to hold its own.