I don’t think so. The game depicts an insane asylum and Batman is inside of it, this is the irony. Batman exists because of evil, because of crime. He fights a battle against an evil that will never end, and thus he continues to fight his inner demons since Gotham will always need Batman.

I apologize for looking into the game too deeply, though. I hope you’re still able to enjoy future games without thought!

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.

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.

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!