It is commonly accepted in geek circles that Matrix Reloaded ruined the Matrix franchise.
People feel it’s too ponderous for it’s own good, that it’s tacked on and dismantles many of the plot points that made the first movie great. While I disagree with this and find Reloaded be the highpoint of the series, I can see why people would feel this way Matrix sequels. After all, the Matrix series would not be nearly as well regarded if we were forced to judge the franchise based entirely upon Reloaded and Revolutions.
We all share the fear that something we enjoyed years ago will be retroactively ruined by it’s sequel, and for good reason. Usually when a movie is successful enough to warrant a sequel it’s because it was tightly focused, its storyline neatly wrapped together, and never felt like something something that needed a followup to begin with.
With games or movies, a sequel cannot help but harm the original product. If it’s mishandled as badly as The Lost World or Bioshock 2 we would rather the sequel never have happened at all; our memories of the original are somehow diminished by the clumsily-handled and unnecessary cash-grab. If it the sequel does as well as it possibly could , for instance The Dark Knight or Resident Evil 4, you don’t really want to experience the original again because the sequel outclasses it in every way.
This brings me to Rocksteady’s outstanding Arkham Asylum. Arkham Asylum was a revelation, of the finest action games of its generation and perhaps the single best 3d Metroidvania game that neither Nintendo nor Konami could ever be bothered to make. Not only was it an amazing videogame, it was proof that when freed from the restrictions of a movie tie-in that we could expect good superhero videogames. This was all the more remarkable considering that Rocksteady Studio’s previous experience at producing videogames consisted of Urban Chaos: Riot Response and... well, Urban Chaos: Riot Response.
Arkham Asylum wasn’t simply the finest superhero game ever produced; it was one of the best stealth games made since Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. It was easily the equal of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time in the realm of 3d platformers. In addition Arkham City provided a satisfying (and some would say, superior) take on 3d action brawlers. You can’t name a game that managed to bring so many disparate gameplay elements together into one package in such a seamless, organic way. In the same 30 second window Batman could shimmy from a ledge to inside an air vent, grapple onto a gargoyle unseen above a room of hapless thug, swoop down to leave a single henchman hanging midair and seamlessly flit unnoticed behind his buddies when they came to investigate, dispatching the lot with immediate and brutal violence.
We had never seen a videogame like it before or since. Arkham Asylum was, of course, enormously successful.
A sequel would, of course, be necessary.
It was with no small amount of dread that I received news of Arkham City. Was it too soon? Rocksteady had less than 18 months to produce a sequel to one of the greatest games of this generation, and their plans to expand the sequel into Gotham City itself were undeniably ambitious. Would Rocksteady screw this up? Would Arkham City be Dead Man’s Chest to Asylum’s Curse of the Black Pearl? Or could Rocksteady defy convention and produce a triumph in the vein of Assassin’s Creed II?
]]>
