The Stigma of Mental Illness in Batman: Arkham Asylum
Arkham Asylum is a hellish place–a collection of every stereotype that exists about treating the mentally ill. Electricity used as punishment, violent, inhuman patients, and a focus on captivity vs. treatment. Batman’s job is to make sure all of the villains contained in the Gothic structure stay there, where they can’t hurt anyone, even themselves. For a game released in 2009, it contains ideas that seem archaic, but no one seems to be bothered by them.
I made some statements on Twitter the other night about feeling uncomfortable while playing Arkham Asylum because of its depiction of mental illness. My friend Justin Keverne and I debated for a while, and then he suggested we write about it in a longer form. He wrote a post about the issue at his blog, Groping the Elephant, which I’ll be referencing. I’m not interested in comparing Arkham Asylum’s treatment of the mentally ill to Resident Evil 5. That doesn’t seem very productive, and my previous comment about Batman being “worse” than RE5 was based entirely on the fact that the enemies in that game are zombies, while Arkham Asylum doesn’t have that excuse. The only thing that makes Batman’s enemies inhuman is their mental illness.
Justin says that “the history of the treatment of the mentally ill has not been consistently just or humane, [but] it does not carry the same associated cultural cachet so played upon in those initial trailers for Resident Evil 5.” While I don’t want to make any comparisons between racism and how people with mental illness are treated, I think there is a significant “cultural cachet” associated with mental illness that is tragic because it isn’t recognized and brought up for discussion nearly as often as race, probably because those suffering from severe mental illness are in no position to defend themselves, and people with less severe forms of mental illness are ashamed of it and don’t want to talk about their experiences. There’s a tendency to associate mental illness with only its severe forms, while illnesses like depression and anxiety, which almost everyone deals with at one time or another, are ignored. Arkham Asylum does a very poor job of addressing the stigma of mental illness by contributing to the myth that people experiencing it are “other.”
Batman doesn’t kill, but he beats the patients of Arkham Asylum into submission so they can be returned to their cells. He’s a hero because he keeps the streets of Gotham City clear of “normal” criminals (though many of them are possibly suffering from mental illness) like the enemy types imported from Blackgate, Gotham City’s correctional facility, as well as those admitted to the asylum. The illnesses the villains have in the game are never identified, they’re just “crazy,” a term that stigmatizes mental illness. One of the enemy types is simply called, “lunatic.” Why doesn’t the game identify what these people are suffering from? Probably because it wouldn’t be nearly as satisfying to repeatedly punch and kick an enemy type called, “John, a person suffering from bipolar disorder,” or “Jeff, a person suffering from schizophrenia.” This may seem ridiculous to bring up, after all, it’s “just a Batman game,” but the same kind of stigma is attached to people in the real world, and isolates people with these diseases.
My discomfort with the game would not be alleviated by giving Batman a stun dart to eliminate these enemies. The entire environment the game takes place in contributes to the stigma of mental illness, and lacks any sort of depth or commentary that the comics may or may not supply (I haven’t read them). I’m also not satisfied with the argument that Batman’s violence is simply self-defense. His attacks are not intended for self-defense, they’re intended to harm, whether the victim is listed as “unconscious” when he’s disabled or not. The action sequences would be much less entertaining if Batman only used approved methods of self-defense to subdue his opponents. I rarely let the enemy approach me and attack first, to make sure that he didn’t just want a hug. Instead, I threw a razor sharp Batarang at the patient to knock him to the floor, and then pounced on his back and slammed his head against the concrete floor. The distinction between patients from Arkham and the criminals brought in from Blackgate is meaningless because the player’s approach to neutralizing them is the same.
Batman: Arkham Asylum is not alone in its disturbing depiction of mental illness. In Condemned, Ethan Thomas brutually dispatches violent homeless people, many of them may have a mental illness. Even Psychonauts, one of my favorite games, has an area where Raz “cures” various characters of their mental illnesses by solving puzzles in their minds, a hopelessly naive method of treatment for someone suffering from a severe mental illness. The paranoia exhibited by Boyd, the security guard at the asylum, is logical and easily fixed. Other characters simply need help overcoming an issue in their past, and magically their problems disappear. But at least Psychonauts attempts to de-stigmatize the characters suffering from mental illness, and Raz is trying to help them instead of keep them within the asylum.
I’m not interested in making people feel guilty for playing Batman: Arkham Asylum, or stirring up some controversy to make people avoid playing it. The game simply presents an opportunity to bring up an issue that doesn’t get enough attention. I plan to continue enjoying the fantasy of inhabiting the character of Batman, and would recommend the game to others. I would suggest, however, that anyone interested in finding out more about the stigma of mental illness visit NAMI’s website for more information.
Good compliment to Justin’s post. Only caveat: in Condemned, we are told there is a specific reason for the psychotic actions of the homeless–there is an evil force driving them to do this. While it doesn’t let the game off the hook for making homeless people the primary enemy, it does at least contextualize their mental illness with a clear, stated, and plausible (within the supernatural world of the game) cause.
Reply to Simon FerrariCondemned does give a reason, but it also uses the stigma associated with the homeless, and by extension, those suffering from mental illness, by choosing them as the player’s primary enemy. There’s a reason Ethan Thomas is beating up homeless people instead of anyone else in the city, they’re already viewed as dangerous and unpredictable. You’re right, though, I shouldn’t directly compare the game to Arkham Asylum, because at least there’s an explanation given for their behavior.
Reply to Travis MegillNo I totally agree with you, that’s why I put in the “while it doesn’t let the game off the hook…” thing. Also, I’m fairly certain Ethan doesn’t use Batman’s nonviolent technique. So even though Ethan knows these people are simply being compelled to violent action, he kills them because they are in his way. Not enough people wrote about Condemned, methinks.
Reply to Simon FerrariAs I was approaching the subject from a slightly different angle it was difficult to bring this up in my own article however there are elements of the narrative of Batman: Arkham Asylum that do actively deal with the manner in which the patients are treated when admitted to the facility.
Quincy Sharp, the Warden of Arkham Asylum, is described as being more concerned with fixing the patients rather than actually caring for and treating them, and sees his stewardship of Arkham as a means to a political end. It’s heavily implied that he supported the work of Dr Young who actively performed experiments on the patients under her care. The problem is that although the game narrative does touch of the troubling manner in which Arkham was run it is only ever treated as a secondary story to that of Batman and the Joker.
There is a further sub plot surrounding the history or Arkham and its founder Amadeus Arkham which also deals with the perception of the patients both by those running the Asylum and the larger population of Gotham City, however this is by its nature a hidden subplot and one that will not be fully explored by the majority of players.
The sense I get is that Paul Dinni and others involved in the game did want to explore the troubling practices that went on at Arkham, and the attitude of Gotham towards the mentally ill, however these elements were pushed to the background to ensure that the narrative beats vital to the gameplay took precedence.
Reply to Justin KeverneThat’s interesting, Justin, I just found one of the hidden messages from Amadeus, but didn’t bother to listen to it. Since I’m renting the game, I usually just push through the main narrative. It makes sense that the developers wouldn’t want to dilute the game’s narrative, and it’s nice to know that background material was included that explores those relationships a bit further.
Reply to Travis MegillI’ve got about 3 more Amadeus pylons to find, and I’m not going to spoil anything in particular, but they seem to be presenting an alternate version of how Batman could have used his traumatic life experiences to become a very different person. Kind of like the villain Prometheus, who I found out by unlocking his character profile (I’ve only read a very few iconic Batman comics myself). I agree that much of the narrative goes toward establishing that everyone is disturbed, bruised, and imperfect in some way and that to some degree everyone participates in an institutionalization of everyone else… but it definitely seems to run against Hocking’s problem of conflicting narrative and ludic contracts.
Reply to Simon FerrariGreat counterpoint to Justin’s article. I have to marvel at the last paragraph in particular… it’s very rare that you see a level headed statement like that on this wonderful internet of ours.
I feel that this whole thing is the result of laziness… rather than come up with a dynamic new enemy and accompanying moveset, Rocksteady simple said “let’s just throw the generic asylum patient in there.” The DC Universe has been *very* thorough in it’s exploration of Arkham Asylum’s evils, and Paul Dini has written quite a few stories that convey that, but the presentation in this game seems lackluster in this regard. “Throw Lunatic” in particular made me uncomfortable.
The point of the game could have been that Amadeus Arkham was an asshole who built such a hellhole as a way to deal with his own instabilities, but instead that’s an optional subplot that most viewers will not experience. I can’t place fault in anyone but the developers for that. Wonderful, complete explorations of this story are available to anyone with a library card, but the narrative suffers immensely when trimmed down to “stop the bad guys.”
Who are bad because… they are bad? And that’s it?
If you’d like to see how comics treat the same ideas, check out:
Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth by Grant Morrison
Reply to thesimplicityArkham Asylum: Living Hell by Dan Slott
Animal Man TPB Vols 1, 2 & 3 by Grant Morrison (only a subplot, but still and interesting Realist portrayal)
Battle for the Cowl: Arkham Asylum by David Hine
Batman RIP by Grant Morrison
Thanks for the recommendations, thesimplicity. Arkham Asylum’s story has definitely made me interested in exploring the comics, so they’ve gotten a lot right. Especially considering the other recent game with an accompanying text, Shadow Complex, which barely bothers with a story at all.
Reply to Travis MegillI have to disagree that it’s a result of laziness. Rather, it’s a result of physical limitations and prioritization. It’s also a result of complying with the conventions of the genre. Adding more kinds of AI and more character models creates a greater complexity in an area of the game that simply is not that important or may actually draw away from the goals they are striving to achieve.
So we have these generalized “lunatics” that most players won’t think twice about dispatching. Perhaps, that is bad in terms of propagating and continuing an ignorant way of thinking, which I believe is at least part of what Travis is saying. The tragic part is this game is largely going to be played by children, even though it has an M rating, I believe.
But ask yourself whether you would have preferred the game without the “lunatics.” Where did all the inmates go? Now we have a plot hole. Personally, I have to applaud Rocksteady for having the balls to include these characters, as misrepresented and misunderstood as they are.
I agree that the depth of the game would benefit to address these inmates at a greater level, but it simply is not within the scope of the game or the game’s storyline. In this vein, what if they’d taken more care to delve deeper into the “lunatics” as characters? Speaking to the story, this takes focus off of the things that really matter, such as the Joker and Batman. In terms of game development, this means you have to take people off other projects to develop these characters. So now, let’s say, the game doesn’t include Killer Croc because they wanted to hash out the “lunatics” a bit more.
This is a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. In my opinion, they made the right choice. I think the treatment of the inmates and presentation therein can be offensive and disturbing. However, I believe the degree to which they integrated the element is enough to minimize this offensive impact while still showing the player that, yes, indeed, here are the “regular” inmates. It’s a minor blot on what is overall a very impressive game. I chalk it up there with poor dialogue, and this game features a bit of that, too.
Reply to Tim JohnsonI’m also curious if anyone has similar opinions about Assassin’s Creed’s treatment of the mentally ill. They are a much larger part of that game, and they’re a very large annoyance for the player. In that game, the player can choose to kill these people, simply because they are annoyed, and I would bet a large portion of those players have killed mentally ill people in that game.
Reply to Tim JohnsonI don’t think there’s an easy fix to this issue, so whether the developers were “lazy” or not, it still doesn’t make the problem a whole lot better. Personally, I found the “lunatics” annoying and didn’t enjoy fighting them. I much preferred the large groups of thugs that allowed me to chain combos and see all the fluid animation.
A potential solution for that particular issue would be to simply have the patients who aren’t arch-villains locked in their cells, and when the player looks inside, use their confined environment to give them definition, like the subtle visual markers in Left 4 Dead or Fallout 3 that allow players to find story just by looking around. Maybe those patients are suffering while Joker and Batman have their extended face-off. Are they hungry or thirsty? Are they calling out to loved ones? Maybe the treatment they’ve received at Arkham has deprived them of all hope, and they just sit in their “cells” repeating the same gesture over and over. Rubbing a photograph of a favorite pet. Humming a song that comforted them as a child. You get the idea. The art department could have handled that and cut out an entire enemy type for the programmers!
I definitely don’t think it took any “balls” for Rocksteady to include the enemy type. Since they have no depth, and apparently aren’t meant to mean anything, it took no courage to put them in the game.
The argument that developing the “lunatics” would have taken people off of developing other parts of the game is a poor one. I’m sure the game was planned out and not slapped together as Rocksteady went along, so presumably everything they intended to put in the game is there, as long as it worked properly and benefited the game. The point is, Rocksteady didn’t consider it important enough to flesh out those characters because most people think a “lunatic” or a “crazy person” are meaningless enemies like “Nazi’s,” “thugs,” and “monsters.”
Reply to Travis MegillI posted this on Travis’ Facebook, but I thought I’d add it here:
Interesting points. I would point out addressing the complex plights of the mentally ill is probably very far outside of the scope of the game. I’d also point out that fighting the “lunatics” are very minor and semi-geographically isolated events. Most of the game, you’re beating up the also generalized “thugs.”
And for the record, I do handle them in a self-defense way. I wait for them to run up to me, and then I hit Y to flip them on the ground. Sure, then I punch them in the face, but since these events are so isolated and such a minor part of the game, I can understand why they didn’t program a more socially acceptable way of taking them out.
I think you have a valid perspective, and if I understand you correctly, you’re not faulting Rocksteady for the way they handle it. I can’t fault them either…. Read More
If you’re not already aware, you should check out The Escapist: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/
Reply to Tim JohnsonI don’t think the game needs to point out the complex plight of the mentally ill. I’d rather say that it enforces commonly held stereotypes about the mentally ill and how they’re treated, and that if no one talks about it, presenting those stereotypes without explanation is harmful.
I still enjoyed playing the game, but most people will never think twice about the depiction of the patients in Arkham Asylum, and that’s sad, because there would definitely be a reaction if the game took place in a cancer ward where the Joker was recovering from chemotherapy.
There are plenty of excuses for the setting of the game, and the characters within it, but when everything is said and done, it depicts people with mental illness as violent and inhuman, which is wrong. Luckily, it’s still a hell of a lot of fun to play, so it presents a great opportunity to talk about how the mentally ill are portrayed in entertainment and discriminated against in the real world.
(also posted on Facebook, but trying to avoid splintered conversation.)
Reply to Travis Megill100% agree, but I think what I’m trying to say is it enforces those stereotypes to an acceptable degree when you consider what the game is trying to accomplish.
I also will be honest and say I didn’t think twice about taking down a “lunatic.” Perhaps because I didn’t recognize a better alternative, or the game doesn’t present me with one.
An interesting thought by extension: if we look at the “lunatics” as people who have simply gone insane, what do these characters say about people, not just mentally ill people? What does it say about the human tendency to attack things
I think we can agree the “lunatics” are people in their most animalistic state. Perhaps Rocksteady should have shown some more docile or timid mentally ill characters. But by extension, I think we can perhaps say it’s realistic that humans attack the things they deem a threat. It makes sense, then, these people attack the man who would put them back in their cell. I have a friend who works for an asylum who comes home nightly with scratches, bite marks, and bruises who can attest to this. She routinely gets attacked by the people she cares for, and she often has no logical explanation why.
I think the point of the game, though, is to present us with this dark and frightening world, and I think they certainly achieve that. Perhaps you’re right that Rocksteady could have presented us with a deeper characterization of the inmates. Perhaps the solution would have been as simple as showing a few docile and timid inmates that were afraid to leave their cells. Then again, that’s creating a whole new class of AI and animations.
Reply to Tim JohnsonTo me “lunatic” is just another stigmatized word that dehumanizes a person with mental illness. The enemies in the Batman game exist only to kill the player, but your friend probably recognizes the people who bite and scratch her are more than “lunatics.”
When one of my grandmothers was dying, she said hurtful things sometimes because she was in pain. I understood that she was going through something I couldn’t understand, so her words had context. Without context, she would have seemed hateful.
I’m not sure if arguing how the game was developed is helpful, because we really don’t know anything about the decisions made or the reasons for them. Maybe the development team had so much extra time they spent 7 months throwing random collectibles around and creating challenge rooms. Probably not, but who knows, it could happen.
The bigger question is, if your game’s scope isn’t wide enough to present your story without offending the audience, and harmfully stereotypes a group of people, are you making the right game? Is it excusable for a video game to do and say things that are offensive and hurtful, simply because it’s “just a game,” and the developers didn’t have enough time to make it meaningful?
Reply to Travis MegillAbsolutely not. Is it socially acceptable? Absolutely yes.
My discussion about the game’s scope and the developer’s limitations was spurred by thesimplicity’s claim that it was laziness. I believe that’s jumping to conclusions.
I believe this conversation eventually goes into the ethics of storytelling. No matter how many hookers you shoot with rocket launchers in GTA or how many alien creatures you destroy in a Halo game, real beings are being made superficial due to lack of depth (yes, I believe aliens are real). I don’t believe that means they’re being generalized. It’s just a lack of presentation and information. So I don’t think anyone should be upset or offended.
In a game where the style dictates you’re going to beat up piles of bad guys, those bad guys HAVE to be faceless. Simply because they happen to be insane doesn’t say to me those people should be insulted. If that’s the case, I think we should appeal for the thugs around the world as well. They’re people, too, albeit a bit misguided, and I would argue that, no, they do not have the intellectual capacity to argue for themselves in an effective manner. And the thugs play a MUCH grander role in this game.
Another interesting side note: Since I speak Halo almost as a second language at this point, I find it very interesting how different the first game feels after you’ve experienced the second and third games. In the first game, the alien creatures are one-dimensional beings you really know nothing about outside of the obvious. The second game puts you into the shoes of one of these beings and details their existence in great depth. Going back to the first game after understanding these characters really changes things.
Other forms of media do this sort of thing, and I think there are two reasons: there always are physical limitations, and one’s audience also is governed by limitations. In regards to the former, there’re only so many pages a publisher will print, or there are only so many minutes a distributor will give you to showcase your film. In regards to the latter, what happens if you begin to flesh out the “lunatics?” You draw focus away from the story you’re trying to tell. At some point, it’s a self-defeating effort. Certainly, this game has another aspect where it tells backstories through the items you pick up, but I don’t see talking about random patients as being feasible, simply because nobody cares. People want to play a Batman game and read about the Riddler, not Curly Moe who sits in a wheelchair with acute schizophrenia.
So, if they can’t leave these people out and they can’t fully flesh them out, what’s the alternative? Maybe they missed the mark or didn’t quite get the formula here right.
I think what I’m getting at is, despite the fact that these characters are generalized, I’m not convinced Rocksteady actually would have fleshed them out. Some generalization will occur in any story you’re going to tell. Unless you lock a limited number of characters in a room (and some stories do this), you’re going to have extras and faceless characters. Writers, filmmakers, game developers, anyone who is telling a story does this. You write a character walking down the street, and he’s going to see faces. You can’t lock every story in a contained room. More to the point, Batman can’t walk in a room full of rioting patients and know the identity of each person in that room. They’re faces to him, and in this game, we take his POV.
Personally, I think it’s just a tragic drawback of having to tell a story on such a scale and the limitations of storytelling techniques they chose to use. Like I said, rock and a hard place. You take the patients out, and your players wonder where they are. You give them more depth, and you’re taking attention away from the things you’re trying to focus on. Add too much salt, and it repulses your customers. Too little, and, well, dammit, so you put a salt shaker on their table. So the analogy doesn’t quite work, but you get my point.
And dammit, Travis, we need to be drunker when we have these conversations!
Reply to Tim JohnsonHaha, I’m often in favor of being drunker, but don’t worry, I’m not raging away at my keyboard or anything.
I think focusing on the “lunatic” enemy type ignores the bigger issues in the game, that its setting, villains, and even its hero add to the stigma associated with mental illness. That those people are dangerous and they need to be locked up in a dark place so they can’t hurt the good, normal people. I’m told the comics explore the issue in more depth, and that the game mentions things that exist in the comics regarding that depth, but if we take the game on its own merits, I don’t think there’s a good defense for the way the issues are presented.
If someone made a game about slavery and depicted slaves in this fashion, people would be justifiably upset, even if the game was based on a slave uprising where violence occurred. It’s not right to pick and choose what you want to include about a sensitive issue just because it’s entertainment. The only reason Arkham Asylum gets away with it is because the issue of stigma associated with mental illness doesn’t affect most people. The people it does affect are often isolated, and are dealing with plenty already. It’s ironic that the game picks on people who can’t fight back by depicting them as violent and nothing else. And when I say that, I’m not just referring to the “lunatics,” I’m referring to the entire narrative for the game.
Reply to Travis MegillAs a person with Bipolar I, I can appreciate where you’re coming from. However, unless I missed something, you’re talking about the Elizabeth Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane. Suggesting that the residents of the asylum for the criminally insane be labeled as bipolar or schizophrenic seems counterproductive. A lot of the stigma stems from the mistaken belief that all people with such illnesses are violent, dangerous, ticking time-bombs. Perhaps “sociopath” or “antisocial personality disorder” would be better labels within the context of the game. But then, I haven’t played the game. I just know that I personally do not want my particular illness associated with violent criminal behavior any more so than it already is by the general public.
Reply to D.That’s a good point, D. I didn’t mean to suggest that they should have been labeled with specific diseases, just that using “lunatic” is non-specific, which makes the violence in the game “easier” than actually developing them as characters.
Reply to Travis MegillI think the game shows great compassion and sympathy for mental illness in at least one character. I’m refering, of course, to the Batman himself. Here is a man who witnessed the brutal murder of his parents when he was only a child (as shown during the Scarecrow hallucinations) and was consumed with a burning hatred for crime and a desire to bring to justice all those who would see the innocent suffer, an obsession that could hardly be called a normal state of mind as he has dedicated his life to this goal with no concern for the rest of his life. In the game Batman suffers from the symptoms of schizophrenia due to Scarecrows fear toxin and sees the undead corpses of his parents lying in the morgue begging him to save them from being killed. This shows that Batman has been tormented by guilt since childhood because he was unable to save his parents. In a later hallucination Batman actually becomes 8 year old Bruce Wayne staring at the bodies of his parents lying in the rain showing that he has never gotten over his trauma and deep down he’ll always be that poor little boy crying for his parents. In Scarecrows world Batman sees visions of himself as a stereotypical mental patient, wandering around a cell while muttering aimlessly to himself and squatting in the corner gnawing on a dead rat. Since this is Batmans subconcious, this represents his fear that his trauma will eventually drive him out of his mind and he will end up just like the Joker and other extremely mentally ill people. The Scarecrow sequences are an exellent simulation of extreme schizophrenia and perfectly convey the nightmare that these poor people have to live with.
Reply to PaulmilThanks for commenting, Paulmil. I really enjoyed the Scarecrow hallucinations as well, but I’m not sure within the context of the game if the possibility of Batman’s mental illness is really explored.
Sure, he has hallucinations, which can be a symptom of many brain diseases, not just schizophrenia, and are also a side-effect of many substances, like Scarecrow’s drug. Batman’s obviously experienced trauma, but I don’t think his actions necessarily reflect mental illness.
I agree that the disorientation in the Scarecrow sequences could convey some aspects of mental illness, but I don’t think the sequences are a simulation of extreme schizophrenia. Hallucinations are just one possible symptom of schizophrenia, and it’s possible to have “extreme” schizophrenia without hallucinations if one or more of the other symptoms is pronounced.
Those sequences are hallucinations created by a drug, and the game doesn’t suggest anything more. The sequences could just as easily be conveying the nightmare of a bad trip, especially since the hallucinations aren’t something Batman deals with unexpectedly throughout the game.
Reply to Travis MegillSorry for generalising, I don’t know much about schizophrenia. But I’m pretty sure the average person wouldn’t really treat someone suffering the effects of Scarecrows fear toxin any different from a mentally ill person, and would probably refer to them as “loonies” etc. so the social stigma is still there. I think Batman doesn’t come across as mentally ill is because we know his history, which is interesting. Imagine if the game had followed the story of one of the “lunatic” enemies. (not sure how that would effect gameplay, but stay with me) Your character is commited to Arkham Asylum and treated horribly(the place is portrayed as a hellhole after all) but the Joker sets you free and you decide to take revenge on the world that has treated you so badly. But in the middle of your mission you’re taken down by some lunatic dressed as a bat. No doubt this would have critics praising the sensitive portrayal of mental illness in the main character, but up in arms over the horribly stereotypical Batman. A loony dressed up like a bat? How much of a cliche is that? Its like something out of Gary Larson! I should also add that I suffer from mental illness, I have been diagnosed with clinical depression. Y,know, if Batman didn’t convey mental illness to you, I don’t think I would. I’m a pretty average person, I just suffered some trauma in the past. I don’t dress up like a flying mammal and fight crime, in case you were wondering.
Reply to Paulmilid just like to say that aside frm the ghuys in straight jackets, none of the people in arkham are techniquely suffering from mental health issues. the common shirtless joker guys ar actualy all from a normal prison,and the bosses (while still insane0 are actualy only in an asylum because of its security system.otherwise theyd be ina normal prison.in fairness to batman while these people mite no be able to help sum of their actions, they are threatening the lives of innocent people . ifeel this makes it excusable for bntaman to use the excessive force he does to get the asylum back. and it is a game, i hadnt even considered that aspect until i read ur post, maybe we can luk into thesse thngs too much
Reply to chris cSo the bosses are “insane,” but not suffering from mental health issues? I realize the Batman universe is fictional and not realistic, but the issue is whether it’s okay to depict a serious real life issue in a stereotypical and damaging way just because it’s fiction, or “just a game.” I’d prefer if the game used its fictional world to say something interesting about mental illness from a new perspective instead of reusing a common stereotype about people with mental illness (that they’re violent and lack humanity).
I apologize for looking into the game too deeply, though. I hope you’re still able to enjoy future games without thought!
Reply to Travis Megill