Talk:Batman: Arkham City/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2nd paragraph

The 2nd paragraph in this article doesn't make any sense at all... a bit of a re-write is perhaps needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LloydyJr (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect?

Why, if I put "Arkham Asylum 2" into the search bar (it actually comes up as an option by the time I've finished typing Arkham), does it redirect to the page for the first game... I then have to scroll down to "sequal" to get here.214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Steve

Mark Hamill is NOT retiring

He is also playing Joker in the upcoming DC Universe Online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.224.219 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? Can you prove this? --- SiameseHare • Ventriloquist: My lips didn't move! Scarface: So what?! You're a ventriloquist! 07:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Source -- You have to remember that DC Universe was announced long before Arkham Asylum 2. Even though they just revealed Hamill for DC Universe doesn't mean they didn't hire him long ago. --Teancum (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This source only confirms that this is the last time he'll voice the Joker. It says Mark Hamill recently stated that the sequel to Batman: Arkham Asylum would be his "last hurrah" as the voice of Batman's insane nemesis, which still remains true, as the voice recording for DC Universe Online has already happened. --- SiameseHare • Ventriloquist: My lips didn't move! Scarface: So what?! You're a ventriloquist! 05:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

can we use this information?

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-5979-Batman--Arkham-City-Gameplay-and-Plot-Deets-Drop.html .--Lbrun12415 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I get my copy of GI, I will be adding the information (as all these are coming from that article). --MASEM (t) 17:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok no problem I would do it myself, but I don't want to mess anything up. thanks again.--Lbrun12415 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also found this. its the same thing, but from a website http://arkhamcity.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16&p=40#p40 .--Lbrun12415 17:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is all likely legit information. But I've found that when people are re-repeating what one person has posted from a print magazine, errors can be introduced, which is why I'd like to see what GI has to say exactly to add. (Case in point, when Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock news first leaked from a printed source, it mentioned just the name "Lars" (one of the characters) but somehow that morphed into online sources (including reliable ones!) saying Lars Ulrich (Metallica's drummer) was in the game, which just wasn't true. I don't think there's any stretches here of info like that, but we should be cautious. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's kind of why I don't want to add anything myself. I kind of believe them, but sometimes people read or misunderstand things.--Lbrun12415 17:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

can we use these pictures?

http://twitpic.com/2dhyzh

http://twitpic.com/2dhxzd

http://twitpic.com/2dhwqf

http://twitpic.com/2dhvd4 .--Lbrun12415 00:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we can wait until there's digital versions on the web somewhere (likely on GI's website first). --MASEM (t) 01:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Penguin

Does anybody know if the penguin is going to appear in the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.154.19 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiplayer Possibly Confirmed

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-6215-Multiplayer-Coming-to-Batman--Arkham-City.html

http://arkhamcity.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=262

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/09/01/batman-arkham-city-screens-leaked-multiplayer-possibly-confirmed.aspx --Lbrun12415 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New Screens

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/batman-arkham-city/screenshots/ --Lbrun12415 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing previously beyond B:AA's picture to require a need yet (per WP:NFC). --MASEM (t) 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't AA screens there AC screens notice Quinns new look.--Lbrun12415 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't aid in understanding the article. We want something like the new detective view or the like. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don;t think you viewed my link. http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/batman-arkham-city/showimg-3/ ( Notice that one of the henchmen is orange. http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/batman-arkham-city/showimg-8/ (This looks like a new gadget)

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/batman-arkham-city/showimg-9/ (Quinns new look) --Lbrun12415 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

new News

http://arkhamcity.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=290 --Lbrun12415 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Release Date

I'd just to like to point out that Amazon.co.uk is claiming to receive stock on the 26th of March 2011, so someone may want to change the release date on the page if the source can be considered reliable. --Fishsticks64 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com is not a reliable source.-5- (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Trailer

I added a paragraph to the article explaining the 2010 trailer and also explained that it is belived The Riddler will ring pay phones around the city with the player being able to answer them to begin side-quests. Why did they keep getting deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.15.146 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't need details of individual trailers, and beyond what the trailer shows, the rest is speculation and original research, not allowed on WP. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Robin to be an exclusive character.

Recently on the Best buy website, xboxachievements.org and Gameinformer.com it was stated that if you pre-order Batman: Arkham City from best buy you will get Robin as an exclusive playable character, but only for two challenge maps.--Lbrun12415 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's already in the article there, but there's no citation for it. If you have one, you can add it and remove the {{Citation Needed}} template. GRAPPLE X 14:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The forums have also indicated that it would be a "temporary exclusive", that Robin would be available later in those challenge maps to all customers, not just Best Buys. But really, this article only needs the note that Robin is in the game, not the Best Buy promotional info. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hamill Clarifies Misunderstanding, NOT retiring.

From the man himself:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wao4LC2Dnsk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnr105 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

skins

should we mentions things about the skins? like how BTAS skin will be used?--Lbrun12415 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nolan North as Penguin

Nolan North has been rumored for a while to be the voice of Penguin. There is a very fake dubbed video on the internet that claims he is the voice but the studio has not announced the voice actor for that character as of now and have stated that they will not be releasing that information until later. In addition, the reference cited in the article makes no reference to North or any other voice actor. I am removing mention of Nolan North in relation to this project; feel free to revert or change the article but please provide a valid reference when doing so. Fan speculation and internet rumors (especially those based on forgeries) is not a valid citation.97.97.196.118 (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nolan North has been confirmed as Penguin in official press releases. Outside of that, the Penguin trailer also included an appearance by Solomon Grundy. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:03, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Can we cite that? I see no reference to this press release in the article or resources pointing to Nolan North.97.97.196.118 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Console(?)

Does anyone have any more information on this supposed SpEd 360 console or this marketing campaign in general? The citation leads to a 404 page on IGN, and IGN doesn't have any kind of information about this, period. The only console I've seen is the contest prize from this years PAX. Hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr3yfxx (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DLC

Can we get it a list of known DLC up ?

It's pretty complicated at the moment, I know of at least 3 sets (Catwoman, Robin and Joker's Challenge room) TheBigJagielka (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New DLC News

It was confirmed just a few weeks away from the release of the game, that Robin will officially be a DLC character or pre-order character in Arkham City. He incorporates the same gliding mechanic as Batman, and will use his signature retractable bow-staff. Among other things, new Batman suit will be available through Games for Windows Live, XBOX Live Marketplace, or Sony Online. The suits include the Batman Beyond suit, the Earth One Batman, The Dark Knight Returns suit, the 1970's suited Batman, or the fan-dubbed "70's Suit", and the Animated Batman. The Animated Batman suit, uses a different game rendering and uses a more pixelated look so it bears greater resemblance to the cartoon. There is, however, controversy over the main suit. Fans have said that it looks like the Shunmacher suit because a set of bolts on the suit are placed near his nipples. No answer has been given officially to this quarrel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TankTeen96 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hush has been confirmed to appear in Arkham City

From NYCC http://cdn.toyark.com/news/attach/1/DC-Direct-049_1318555666.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.211.235 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Trailer

I just saw the recent trailer on "The World's Finest." Although it sounds like Corey Burton has been casted as Hugo Strange, I claimed to have heard Ron Perlman as Two-Face and Grey DeLisle as Catwoman. Any objections? Rtkat3 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Did the trailer specifically say it, or are you inferring from how the voices sound? If its the former, that's probably ok, but we'd want a reference source; if its the latter, that's pure speculation. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been official. Troy Baker is actually doing the voice of Two-Face. Of course in the Catwoman trailer for the video game, I heard Steven Blum's voice in one of Two-Face's henchmen. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:02, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the Official 2011 trailer here if anyone's interested - http://www.1000games.co/batman-arkham-city-launch-trailer 81.153.15.132 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} the new Zealand herald gave it a review of 5/5 122.62.119.180 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link or other citation, please? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll cancel out the {{edit semi-protected}} for now, because I can't do anything without an appropriate reference to a reliable source. Please add a new {{edit semi-protected}} and give a reference. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nightwing is voiced by who?

This article states Quinton Flynn is Nightwing's voice actor but Flynn's own Wikipedia article does not have this listed as one of his works. Meanwhile, the article for Yuri Lowenthal and Nightwing lists Lowenthal as the VO for Nightwing. None of the articles have sources to support one over the other, this article's Nightwing source from PC Gamer is merely to serve as confirmation that Nightwing is in the game. --FLStyle (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo...

In the second paragraph, first sentence there is a misspelling of "also", The sentence itself is: "Arkham City was scripted by veteran comic book author Paul Dini, alsp the writer of Arkham Asylum." Could someone with editing privileges please edit this? Thanks.

 Fixed -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

catwoman dlc wording error

The wording concerning the catwoman dlc under the "downloadable content" is worded in a way that can be confusing to people. Instead of saying "The second pack is set to support the Catwoman story campaign by adding four new story-missions." that sentence should just be taken out. The article already mentions the Catwoman story dlc in the paragraph above and it doesn't need to be mentioned again. There is not a second Catwoman dlc planned. The source for that sentence refers to the above Catwoman dlc.--Man of power05 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clayface as the Joker = 11/04/11

Lord knows why I care, but the current plot synopsis describes Clayface as having imitated the Joker "all along." Dialogue, however, makes clear that it was only "sometimes," ie when Joker appeared well vs. sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.228.158 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

69.198.84.146 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Catwoman info in cast belongs in plot section.

"Catwoman takes advantage of the chaos in Arkham City to steal valuable items hoarded by the inmates.[28]" This is plot information, nothing to do with casting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.216.60 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot

I can't get into anything to do with the plot for the immediate future but I don't think it needs to be that short. Plots should generally be 700 words unless 700 words cannot sufficiently describe the events without them becoming illogical. That said, Deus Ex has a plot of just over 700 words and that is a complex plot of betrayal and conspiracy. Whatever happens in the plot section should be boiled down to the core plot and any notable events, if necessary perhaps the PLOT could just be the CORE plot with a small subsection that covers any notable sideplots that have a significant impact that may impact any future games (i.e. the permanent death of a character or an allegiance change). But over 1000 words is just too long. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything else in the blow-by-blow that actually resembled a plotting element, as opposed to a list of scenes. I believe there is more to the big-picture plot that could be added, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, like I said, I can't read it at the moment so I can't see what is notable and what isn't so it'd be up to someone who has either played it or doesn't care about beign spoiled Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be like movie plots of Wikipedia. People shouldn't read the plot if they don't want to be spoiled. The fact that Al Ghul is behind Protocol 10 and the ending where the Joker and Talia die should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.167.25 (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the whole plot to this game should be included, regardless of how spoilish it is. Some of the plot detail in Batman: Arkham Asylum is on it and the ending is included of it. So my advice to you is to expand the plot synosis of the game. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not object to spoilers. The concern is over presenting the plot vs. presenting a detailed description of every scene. The plot can (and should) be adequately conveyed without the prose storyboarding. So my advice to you is to figure out how to expand it while still keeping it appropriate for an encyclopedia (as opposed to a game guide). See WP:PLOTSUM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say about what you said. What we need is try to figure out how are we fill in the plot of this game while keeping it appropriate for encyelopedia reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if there's multiple different endings, it needs to be summarized, not described in detail. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what people may think of how a plot section should be written, either way the current state is just the set up and so does need to be expanded. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the plot, and it's under 700 words. Feel free to make changes, but I think it's at least a good basis for summarizing the important points of the story. A person reading it's going to know what happens without reading every minute detail that happens. Anonymous Anteater (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While the plot in general is fine now it seems like an incredible oversight to entirely leave out any mention of Talia al Ghul considering how prominent she is in the story and ending. 174.109.216.197 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should probably include the storyline on the side missions on a seperate section on the plot of the game. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How can the plot, that is shorter than the current plot Katanagis, be too long? It is closer to the 700 word limit than the current one, it covers more of hte plot and corrects details and it is written perfectly fine. I've written 4 articles to Good Article status, I think I can manage to write a decent plot, one that doesn't setup background information in it or use information not presented in the plot like Two-Face being a "rising warlord". It ignores Talia completely despite her being the reason the cure is even available for Batman and squeezes the final three quarters of the plot into two paragraphs due to over emphasis on the opening act and setting up background info which I more than adequately covered in the Setting. This message is a courtesy because I won't get into an edit war, but the plot as it stands is not suitable, is lacking in pertinent information and should not be blanket restored as you have done now twice, restoring the background information BACK into the plot, removing the aforementioned corrections and reducing the detail WHILE restoring a LONGER plot. Because the shorter plot I added was "too long" somehow. Unless you can explain these egregious errors in reverting my additions, I will be restoring the plot in the imminent future and expect you not to yet again undo it claiming it is too long. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

New Plot Summary

Darkwarriorblade, I have completed a revised summary for the plot section. However, instead of posting it here immediately, I will store it for further edits and only implement it once you have been given a chance to see the index of changes. Here is the complete list:

• 1. Decided to move most of my previous backstory to the settings section, which will conclude by detailing Bruce Wayne’s imprisonment in Arkham City. Therefore, the first sentence has been removed.
• 2. Added the word “Hugo” to answer the question “Which Strange?”
• 3. Revised the beginning now that the Settings section will cover most of it.
• 4. Answered the question “What is Protocol 10” for the reader.
• 5. Removed unnecessary sentence “Allowing Wayne to become Batman”—It is absurd that by this point anyone else will think otherwise. Why does he even need the equipment in the first place?
• 6. Because of backstory which will be covered in the “Setting” section, we no longer need the additional information that Two-Face wants to kill Catwoman for respect.
• 7. You assume the reader knows what a “Sionis Steelworks” is. I will make it short and simple: a steelworks mill. Why do we need to elaborate any further?
• 8. He doesn’t entirely believe that Joker knows the truth behind Protocol 10; he has reason to suspect that Joker may know something. After all, the rumor that Catwoman gave him is just that: A rumor, and this is very explicitly stated in the game.
• 9. I removed a nonexistent word: ‘strickening’, as well as the unnecessary sentence about the disease eating away at his body. If this were literally the case, the Joker would be dead in minutes.
• 10. Where did Batman learn that the Joker is stricken with a fatal disease? It makes no sense to any unfamiliar person reading this section of the story. Very specific information that is kept under wraps from most of Arkham City’s denizen population.
• 11. Elaborated on an important plot point: How does Batman get infected by the Joker’s blood? Human beings simply do not spread non-contagious diseases by standing next to each other.
• 12. Removed nonexistent phrase “leverages this information”—incorrect grammar.
• 13. Removed the use of the word ‘kidnapping’. One kidnapping is good enough for this section, wouldn’t you agree?
• 14. What museum? You assume that people reading this article actually know what you mean when you say “Batman tracks Penguin to the museum”. Major gripe here. I’ve elaborated.
• 15. The word “tracking” is replaced; it’s already been utilized too much for the first part of the plot.
• 16. You used the word “Penguin” too many times. I’ve made do with some substitutions and replaced the word “himself”.
• 17. Corrected grammar. “Its” and It’s”. Added the word ‘explained’ and cleaned up the following sentences.
• 18. We don’t need the bit about “tracking” (!) and “Wonder City”. If I were a new person reading this article, I would be asking about now, “Did I miss something? What on the earth is a ‘wonder city’?”
• 19. Corrected grammar. ‘Can’, instead of ‘Could’.
• 20. Revised the section about Batman returning to the Joker and ‘finding him fully healed’. Why is this important? It can be explained at the same time that Clayface is introduced formally. Elaborated some and removed unneeded information.
• 21. Added a reason for Harley Quinn to steal the cure from Batman, simultaneously confirming her role.
• 22. Reworded your brief section about Protocol 10. You used the words “city” too often.
• 23. Hugo Strange had a reason for doing what he did. I’ve elaborated.
• 24. Added my links about “brainwashing”. Optional, I suppose, but I do wish for this link to another Wikipedia article to stay if it’s all the same to you.
• 25. Mentioned briefly that Batman is running out of time to save his life. This was a consistent factor during gameplay and I feel it should get a reference.
• 26. Again, you assume everyone reading this article knows what a “Wonder Tower” is. Fixed.
• 27. Again, we don’t need to know that the Joker was fully healed. This will be explained in the section where Clayface is revealed to have been impersonating him for the past few hours.
• 28. The whole “offering Joker immortality” factor is as unimportant to the overall plot as some of the other details here which I’ve taken the liberty of removing. It is imperative that we avoid mentioning this specifically so as to avoid confusion and having to make this section even longer. In addition, it is the subject of several possible plot holes which may only be filled by fan speculation (Examples include why did Joker even kidnap Talia, did Talia go with the Joker of her own free will, was she planning to double-cross him all along and if so does she really love Batman after their spat earlier, etc) What we need to stress is that a main incentive Batman even went after Talia in the first place was to save his own life and get the antidote. (Even if his dialogue indicates otherwise in the game, it is unthinkable that he would believe otherwise)
• 29. The reader doesn’t need to know that Batman was buried under rubble because of a missile strike. Of what importance is that to the overall story? We don't even need to know that Joker had him at his mercy. This will take up too much space attempting to explain.
• 30. Removed unimportant statement that Batman infiltrated Wonder Tower to end Protocol 10. Readers will be able to deduce this if we simply note the deactivation of the process. In addition, Ra’s and his reasons behind Protocol 10 are very major plot points, those that you apparently had no problem ignoring.
• 31. Why is Protocol 11 so important? All we need to know is that it was a self-destruct sequence for the Wonder Tower.
• 32. Inaccurate statement. The Joker never once demands that Batman bring the cure to the Monarch Theater (I have just verified this myself). He simply demands that Batman go there at once or he will execute Talia (The reasons for this are still extremely unclear, given that they had “sided” with each other, at least to the extent of Joker’s knowledge).
• 33. Changed “Monarch Theater” to just “abandoned theater”. We don’t have the space to go into the specifics, and about ninety seven percent of people who read this article, even Batman fans, have no clue what the significance of this location is.
• 34. We don’t really need to know that the Joker used explosives to destroy the Theater floor. The basic fact is that during a final showdown between Joker, Batman, and Clayface this floor happened to be destroyed. Fixed.
• 35. It’s not an essential plot point that the Joker tried to throw himself into the Lazarus Pit. This is another plot hole that can only be filled with speculation (How did Joker know that this was even THE pit, even if Talia has told him about its regenerative properties? How did he even know it was underneath Monarch Theater? How could Talia have known?) Removed.
• 36. We don’t need to know that Batman drinks a portion of the antidote to cure himself. We just need to know he got the cure and cured himself. Minor nitpick.
• 37. Inaccurate statement removed. In his dying moments, oddly enough, the Joker never directly, verbally, demands the cure, although this is implied through the duo’s dialogue as Batman considers whether or not to dispense it.
• 38. Removed unnecessary statement: “with no cure”.
• 39. Added the word “winter dawn”, just to clarify the setting. This is optional, but preferential on my part.
• 40. What ‘vial’? You need to be more specific. In the current summary, you have assumed everyone knows what vial you are speaking of when you refer to the glass container holding the antidote.
• 41. Shortened the final sentence by careful rewording; no real text removed.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please just post it on the talk page so people can actually read the summary as a whole instead of trying to guess what you came up with by reading a description of your changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If Darkwarriorblade thinks that these changes are worth implementing, then I will post the summary here. I'm not about to take up any more of my time editing and tweaking until I get his opinion on the initial stage.--Katangais (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1. : The backstory coverd as it is, is enough, nothing is required about that speech nor is it important that Two-Face and Catwoman were just incarcerated.
2. : Hugo Strange has been mentioned by name multiple times by the first sentence of the plot but is still mentioned by full name in th first sentence so where do you think people will be confused about which Strange we are talking about?
3. : Cannot comment as I cannot see it.
4. : Protocol 10 is answered in the plot section, near the end, when we actually find out what it is. It is not left a mystery.
5. : This is how it happens in the plot and just adds some flair to the sentence. I am confused here as you are telling me you think readers will not understand what Batman is about yet are telling me I am giving too much information to help them understand.
6. : Again, that is not something that should be covered in the background, its a brief sentence and is more than explanatory of what actually happens in the plot.
7. : Because by calling it the Sionis Steelworks mill, we can refer to it as Sionis Steelworks, which we have already established is a place, and do not need to reestablish that it is the same steelworks or that it is Joker's base, the same goes for other locations. The use of fictional locations is not a problem. Why are we referring it to Arkham CIty? Might as well call it walled in prison.
8. : The sentence doesn't say he knows that Joker knows the truth, it says "believing he may know the truth behind Protocol 10."
9. : I;m happy to replace strickening. The other point, again are you actually reading the plot as it is? It says it is gradually eating away at his body. Gradually. As in he is withering away, which he is.
10. : He learnt it from a doctor. I followed BigNole's advice that this detailing how he finds the doctor and learns from her this information isn't important and I agree, all that is important is he learns it after going after the Joker.
11. : Again, I had to chew out this part because you were complaining about word limits, an editor has since put back in transfusing, so this is a non-issue.
12. : If that is the case I'm happy to change it.
13. : I can only find one use of kidnapping in the plot.
14. : ANother user has added in the specific name of the museum.
15. : I'm happy to replace tracking.
16. : Simple enough
17. : Minor nitpicking you could have easily fixed in the current plot
18. : Same as 7. It's a location and it is easier to have by name for referencing.
19. : Same as 17.
20. : So in the finale of the game we should explain that he was Clayface and that earlier in the game he appeared healed? Or no. Because that is not how it happens in the plot. That he is healed and has seemingly taken the cure and is keeping it from Batman is a notable part of the plot.
21. : Have no idea what this means as again, I cannot read what you have written. That said, Harley's role is explained in the cast and thus her reasoning. It's not in a different section, it's in a different subsection of the same section. You coddle the readers to a point only. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
22. : It's used once in that sentence.
23. : No use since I can't read what you have written.
24. : There is nothing about brainwashing in the plot, it is covered in the comic, it is covered in trailers, it might be covered in character profiles but it is not in the plot and is not a notable part of it, it can go in setting.
25. : Isn't this covered when it says he is infected with a fatal disease?
26. : And you assume people know what a Batman is.
27. : Have no idea again what you are talking about, the only other place it is mentioned is during that reveal and it is pertinent info.
28. : That something creates plot holes, which I don't think this does, does not preclude it from being in the plot. It is a part of the plot, it is what happens. Out of universe, original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia and it is not acceptable as an excuse for removing information.
29. : It is what happens in the plot. ANd it takes barely any room to explain. Takes like 7 words.
30. : So people are too dumb to understand what Wonder Tower is but they will understand if we just say that Protocol 10 was randomly deactivated? As for their motivations, maybe I played a different game but their motivation seemed to be "kill all criminals and wipe the Earth clean". Now I admit I missed the "wipe the Earth clean" part and am happy to throw that in.
31. : It's four words and it feeds in from Protocol 10. The other option is to remove mention of Protocol 11, which makes sense, with "Strange orderes his computer to blow up the tower" which is pointless.
32. : Fair enough, this is correct, he does draw him there for the cure but it is not what is stated in the plot.
33. : Monarch Theater or abandoned theater? Same as previous mentions about building names. It takes up the same amount of space, makes the same statement, and to anyone aware of what it is, good for them, that isn't why I used it by name though.
34. : Again, you're wanting to say the floor is destroyed instead of what actually happens. Why? What is the word count saving on this change that involves the floor just up and shifting out from below them?
35. : You're using Original Research again to justify changes because you feel they are plot holes. We can easily say that Talia knew exactly where it was, and why wouldn't she? Joker obviously knows what it is and the point is he is about to make himself immortal, and Batman thinks, all powerful (though I don't get how that happens).
36. : This can be changed to him just drinking the antidote rather than explaining he does so to cure himself.
37. : He says "The cure, quickly!" but I'm happy to change demands to something else.
38. : K
39. : K
40. : k
41. : Not sure why it needed shortening.

In summary, none of the changes I actually agree with would require a full rewrite as you've apparently already done, which is why I said to post these points before doing a rewrite. The summary is well under the word count, if you want extra detail there is room to add it, but it is not where background information or things not explained in the core story are meant to go. A lot of your quibbles are about location names and minor grammar which is pretty nitpicky and things you could have done with the current plot but were unhappy to for some reason.

And if you want more space to add detail, I'd recommend dropping the Catwoman subplot. It is optional content and it could be explained in probably 1 sentence.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this comes down to the fact that the "new" plot needs to be posted here for people to see. This idea that you're "keeping it a secret" or something unless Darkwarrior agrees with all your changes is completely obsurd. If you noticed, I brought a plot to the talk page for discussion because that is how Wikipedia works. We don't do things in secrecy and then force people to agree to vague notions of change just to reveal what we would like something to say. Bring to the talk page or just drop the subject entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that the summary in question is not completely finished. About halfway through it, I decided that I will put it on hold until Darkwarriorblade has at least said he will accept changes. Up until this point, I was still unaware what response he would come up with, so I simply placed the agenda here. Do not feel that this is unreasonable, because it is not. It is only intended to give someone in particular an idea of what this will look like in the future. For example, if he had simply told me, "I don't think any of these changes are important and the plot is absolutely fine the way it is" the unfinished draft would have been promptly discarded. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But that is pretty much what I'm saying. Your complaints are largely minor and I've taken care of them in 5 minutes today. No edit you come up with is going to justify changing the entire plot instead of just editing what is htere. It's coming across like you wrote the last one (I don't know if you did) and are upset it has been replaced, because you could have made these changes you want to the last one, where it was needed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So first you insist that I cannot change any major plot points without prior discussion, then you claim that I may edit whatever I wish in the current summary--this hopelessly snarled, contradictory, viewpoint that is currently coming across in my vision can only point to one thing: A simple misunderstanding. If you truly have fixed the minor things I have mentioned, then my work is done and there is no further need for another revised plot summary. Addressing your latest comment, the original section which you removed was not originally mine but I was the one who edited it the most, rewrote a great deal of the major plot points, and slimmed it down to the point when it could be deemed acceptable by the Wikipedia community. One might say I 'adopted' it.--Katangais (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that it does not need a third, full rewrite. Maybe some things need more detail, if that is the case the plot is well below the word count and there is room for it and I honestly thing the Catwoman subplot can go, so that frees up three lines of plot right there. I have tried to incorporate your issues where I believed they were applicable including removing usage of words where possible. I cannot add the stuff about Ra's further goals because I don't recall that actually coming up in the plot. I know it is said somewhere but certainly not in the part where his involvement is revealed and I don't think it is said in the actual plot, but one of the many side things you unlock. Now that stuff is an actual plot hole, no one is going to look at Arkham City after Protocol 10 and say "Hey, let's open one of these in Metropolis and Keystone city."Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ra's does say it in the game. Your memory is failing you. He looks out over the destruction in Arkham City from the Wonder Tower and says that while Strange may have been defeated, this [Protocol 10] is "just the beginning". Ra's then continues by asking Batman to join his quest, adding that together they will finish "wiping this earth clean". Apparently, the inspiration to kill Arkham's "scumbag" (here I quote Strange) population came originally from him. "the beginning" and "finish wiping this earth clean" indicates that he was out to murder Earth's undesirable inhabitants, and is further backed up by the extra optional content (Not using that a source, merely a confirmation).--Katangais (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Gameplay section (possibly others) needs updating

There are certain sentences and references in the Gameplay section that read as if the game is yet to be released. One example is 'Four additional gadgets have been revealed'. I think this implies that the game is yet to be released and the gadgets revealed are anticipated, which would imply that they are subject to change or whatnot. Anyway, I think that some of the Gameplay section needs to be worked on so as to keep it up to date. (This may extend to the rest of the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.7.228 (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your point is noted, I and possibly others will make an attempt to address the issues of tense in the article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Catwoman plot section

This is DLC like a side mission and we don't mention the plot of other side missions like Mad Hatter or Hush for good reason. The Catwoman plot is intentionally kept separate from the main plot and has no significant impact for those who don't end up able to access the DLC and the only notable act is covered in the main plot; her being captured by Two-Face then saved by Batman. The section's existence is difficult to justify and I believe it should be removed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. There's not a lot of story to it anyway, not really enough to justify spelling it all out. GRAPPLE X 15:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Imagenation Abu Dhabi

The back of the case shows the logo for Imagenation Abu Dhabi. Anyone know what their role was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.76.248 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Harley Quinn's Revenge Plot Section

I was just wondering if this DLC can/should get it's own subsection in the plot heading. There was an IGN Article that gave some plot going in, that I thought could be added and felt it would be good in it's own subsection. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The extent of the plot in that source is covered in the DLC section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sexism

Should there be any references to the controversy caused by the supposed sexism in the game? More details here. Wiz-Pro3 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's something weightier than one article that's unhappy with the language, then I'm not sure it's meaty enough to add. If there is more out there then sure, go for it; but one opinion piece does not a controversy make. GRAPPLE X 02:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Grapple, seems to be one person trying to get page hits by finding offense where there is none. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth splitting the music section?

This section is quite big and the soundtrack itself has several reviews which could be expanded upon and actually discussed in a separate article. Normally it's not too big a deal if its one album in a film article with 12 songs and some information but its two albums plus a deluxe version, two infoboxes and a review template. Quite overwhelming for an article where the focus is on a separate piece of media. Something like Batman: Arkham City (Soundtrack), Batman: Arkham City (Music) or Music of Batman: Arkham City perhaps but I'm open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're spinning it out (haven't looked yet to see if it's worth it), go with Music of Batman: Arkham City. I believe there's a solid number of similarly-titled articles (Final Fantasy have a GT of them) that could be used as guides. GRAPPLE X 00:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with that name. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So anyone have any opinions yet? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of moving the info to a new article(s). As you said, there is more that can be added to what is there, and we can take some info away from an already large article with a lot of information. As to the suggestion of either doing Batman: Arkham City (Soundtrack), Batman: Arkham City (Music) or Music of Batman: Arkham City, personally I think Music of Batman: Arkham City is good, but it does not matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good Article

This article I think is close to being a GA article but it needs a few fixes, one of them is it needs the Critical reception section expanding. The other is refs need completing and/or archiving. Anyone willing to do one of htese? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Batman: Arkham City/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JDC808 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm JDC808 and I will be reviewing this article. I would like to make note that this is my first time reviewing an article for GA, but I have made several articles GA and one FA. I will begin the review within the next 24 hours. --JDC808 ♫ 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Lead Everything, for the most part, is pretty good, but there are some things. 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City is a 2011 action-adventure video game..." Is it necessary to say it's a 2011 game when this paragraph later states it was released in 2011? "released by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360." How about "..for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Microsoft Windows." (It was released first for the consoles, so it makes more since to order it that way. This will also help with the 4th point below). "Based on the DC Comics superhero Batman, it is a sequel to the 2009 video game Batman: Arkham Asylum." How about "it is the sequel." "It was released worldwide for consoles,.." Doing the second point will make this make more sense. I mean, I know what it's saying, but for a casual reader with little to no knowledge on video games, they may not understand what "consoles" means. 2nd Paragraph. "The game is a third-person perspective action-adventure game with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,..." Remove "action-adventure game," that's already been stated in the articles opening sentence. Maybe try rewording it to "The game is presented from the third-person perspective with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,.." 3rd paragraph Remove citations. Unless it's controversial, citations are not needed in the lead as the info is later cited in the article. "It was the recipient of several awards including awards for Game of the Year,.." Remove the bolded portion as it's repetition. "The game is being adapted for other consoles post release including a Wii U version scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, and an OS X version for late 2012." OS X isn't a console per se, so I'd suggest rewording. Something like "The game is being adapted for the Wii U video game console and is scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, with an OS X version scheduled for late 2012." --JDC808 ♫ 07:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Working. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City is a 2011 action-adventure video game..." Is it necessary to say it's a 2011 game when this paragraph later states it was released in 2011? I can see what you are saying but I based it off of Portal (video game) which is a FA, though maybe it is oudated. Okay, no problem. What I can suggest to make the first 2011 not seem repetitive is that when the Wii U and OS X versions release, put those in the first paragraph. So it could be like "...Microsoft Windows version following on November 22, 2011. The game was later released for the Wii U on November 18, 2012, and for OS X on (month/day), 2012." Those should also be added to the listing of the platforms after their release "...released by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for the PlayStation 3, Wii U, and Xbox 360 video game consoles, and Microsoft Windows and OS X.". In doing that, you would need to change "It was released worldwide for consoles," to "It was released worldwide for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360," These are just suggestions of course that you can choose to implement as this review will be done before the Wii U and OS X releases. --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) "released by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360." How about "..for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles and Microsoft Windows." (It was released first for the consoles, so it makes more since to order it that way. This will also help with the 4th point below). Done "Based on the DC Comics superhero Batman, it is a sequel to the 2009 video game Batman: Arkham Asylum." How about "it is the sequel." Done 2nd Paragraph. "The game is a third-person perspective action-adventure game with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,..." Remove "action-adventure game," that's already been stated in the articles opening sentence. Maybe try rewording it to "The game is presented from the third-person perspective with a primary focus on Batman's combat abilities,.." Done 3rd paragraph Remove citations. Unless it's controversial, citations are not needed in the lead as the info is later cited in the article. Done "It was the recipient of several awards including awards for Game of the Year,.." Remove the bolded portion as it's repetition. Done "The game is being adapted for other consoles post release including a Wii U version scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, and an OS X version for late 2012." OS X isn't a console per se, so I'd suggest rewording. Something like "The game is being adapted for the Wii U video game console and is scheduled for release on November 18, 2012, with an OS X version scheduled for late 2012." DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Gameplay 1st paragraph. Unsourced. The easiest source for video game article's gameplay sections is the game's instruction manual, which you would source as: <ref>{{cite book|year=2011|editor=[[Rocksteady Studios]]|title=''Batman: Arkham City''|type=[[Instruction manual]]|page=|publisher=[[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment}}</ref> 2nd paragraph. Good. 3rd paragraph. "After a select number of challenges are so bested," I understand what it's saying, it just seems odd to read. How about "After the completion of a select number of challenges," 4th paragraph Good. 5th pagagraph. Catwoman is only playable via the DLC pack correct? You should try to reword it to mention that she's only playable via the download of the DLC pack, at least on consoles, as I read later on in the article that the PC version already includes her. Maybe something like "Catwoman is another playable character accessed via the Catwoman DLC pack (included in initial install on PC). The character features her own heist-focused storyline..." 6th paragraph. "Rather than rely on maps, the player can mark Riddler puzzles as they are found, if the player does not have the necessary equipment to complete them." How about "Rather than rely on maps, the player can mark Riddler puzzles as they are found and return to them later, if they do not initially have the necessary equipment to complete the puzzle." 7th paragraph. Good. --JDC808 ♫ 00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Done all but the first, working on finding a source, I didn't write that section and I'm a bit Po'd that there is no source for it, but i'll try to find a source, shouldn't be too hard.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, if you have the game's instruction manual on hand, you can check to see if it covers it, and if so, you can use that as the source. Also, nice rewording for Catwoman. --JDC808 ♫ 03:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC) It's 3:45 am at the moment so I will do that first thing tomorrow. Incredibly irritating I thought finding such info online would be simple but nope, single items spread across multiple sites. Thanks on the Catwoman thing, I'm quickly learning multi-platform games with staggered release dates make for awful article building. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Okay and you're welcome. It is a bit annoying as I've experienced a somewhat similar situation on a couple of articles. --JDC808 ♫ 04:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Synopsis Characters: 1st paragraph. Bane is missing voice actor. Last sentence, all DLC characters (albeit Catwoman on PC version). Make note of that. Maybe "Playable characters introduced via DLC for Arkham City include..." Did Nightwing have a voice actor? I'm unsure as I didn't get to play any of the DLC. 2nd paragraph I made minor comma insertions. Who was Killer Croc's voice actor? Can you find sources for the last two sentences? Setting: "The events of Arkham City are set a single year after Batman: Arkham Asylum." Seems simpler to just say "set one year after" Plot 1st paragraph. "Newly disguised, he first saves Catwoman..." How about "Now disguised..." Maybe I'm not reading it right, but newly sounds...kinda weird. The rest of section is good. Development This was all very minor stuff, so I took care of it as most was just tense issues ("was" to "were"). Marketing 1st paragraph. "A limited series six-issue monthly comic series," -> "A six-issue, limited monthly comic series," "It is written" -> "It was written" "A special Xbox 360 console was eventually revealed." If it were me, I would change this to "On (month/day/year), a special Xbox 360 console was revealed." 2nd paragraph. Since the pre-order info is covered in the release section, I would just say remove the pre-order information from this section. If each of those retailers offered something different as pre-order bonuses, I would add that to the pre-order section. The other products such as NOS can remain and be merged into the first paragraph. 3rd paragraph It starts with "Toys "R" Us in Times Square New York City, released 500 copies..." then the next sentence starts with "Only 500 copies of the game were available at the event..." The beginning of the second sentence is pretty much repeating the first sentence, so I'd suggest removing "Only 500 copies of the game were available at the event" and have the sentence start as "The first 100 customers...." "The latter remaining 400 copies..." Remove latter. Release 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City was first officially released" Remove "first officially" "followed on October 19 by Australia" -> "in Australia", and then the next one should be "in Europe." "except for the United Kingdom where post the scheduled release date, it was announced that the release would be pushed back to November 2, 2012." -> "except the United Kingdom, where its scheduled release was pushed back to November 2, 2012." 2nd paragraph "A spin-off game titled Batman: Arkham City Lockdown was developed by NetherRealm Studios for iOS. The game was released on December 7, 2011." Merge sentences -> "A spin-off game titled Batman: Arkham City Lockdown was developed by NetherRealm Studios for iOS and was released on December 7, 2011." 3rd paragraph "A Wii U version is scheduled to be released in 2012." I would say go ahead and put the date in place of 2012. "Named Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition" Changed "Named" to "Titled". Pre-order bonuses: 1st paragraph. "A PS3-exclusive Sinestro Corps outfit was revealed in August 2011 that can initially only be unlocked" -> "could initially be unlocked" 2nd paragraph. "The pre-order content was considered an "early access opportunity" for purchasers," Change "purchasers" to "customers" Retail Editions: 1st paragraph. "In the United Kingdom, the Robin Edition was announced for sale exclusively through retailers Game and Gamestation" -> "was announced, available exclusively" Last paragraph I would either move this paragraph to before the "Game of the Year" paragraph (sine this is 2011 and GotY is 2012), or move this paragraph into Marketing. Downloadable content: 3rd paragraph Merge into the 2nd paragraph and italicize Arkham city. Now thinking about it, is this really DLC for the game? If not, I would suggest moving this into Marketing. --JDC808 ♫ 23:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Done all of this except looking for a source for Vicki Vale (Honestly I can't understand how it is this hard to find a single game site saying such a simple piece of information) and the gameplay part, the instruction manual has next to 0 content in it and nothing to do with the game content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, and I understand. I had an article where I needed the credits for the game and I couldn't find them posted (or at least fully posted) anywhere, so I ended up having to cite the game itself (there is a format to cite games). I won't fail the article because of that because I've played the game and know that stuff is there, but when/if you take this to FA, you'll need those sourced. That also sucks about the instruction manual. Since it didn't cover that stuff, I doubt it would have the credits (one of the articles I work on actually had the credits in the instruction manual). --JDC808 ♫ 01:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC) No credits were in the book either, dunno how that's ever going to be solvable short of the WiiU release sparking a press release. Dunno why they chose to list only the actors in hte credits without the people they played but it was a stupid thing to do. Anyway, I think I have sourced the gameplay section and Vicki Vale's appearance but not her voice actress. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Reception Critical reception: 2nd paragraph "Game Informer's Andrew Reiner awarded a perfect 10 score, and labeled it..." -> "Game Informer's Andrew Reiner awarded the game a perfect 10, labeling it ..." "McElroy was also critical of the Riddler challenges as frustrating" -> McElroy was also critical of the Riddler challenges, stating that they're "frustrating"... Also, the citation says Mike Schramm is the author but the in the text and the review website, it says Griffin McElroy is the author. The date is also wrong, should be October 14. Sales: Good. Accolades: 1st paragraph "Batman: Arkham City was nominated for multiple awards at the 2011 Spike Video Game Awards including nominations for: Best Original Score,.." Remove bold. Throughout the section, the nominations are listed first, then the awards it actually won. I would rearrange these so that what was won is first, and then what it was also nominated for. Technical issues: Good Music "The game's release was accompanied by two albums of music: Batman: Arkham City – Original Video Game Score which featured songs of original score by Nick Arundel and Ron Fish," -> "The game's release was accompanied by two albums of music: Batman: Arkham City – Original Video Game Score, composed by Nick Arundel and Ron Fish," Sequel Good --JDC808 ♫ 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC) DoneDarkwarriorblake (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) References Though it's not necessarily required of a GA review, I'm going to point out issues of the ref section so that it'll easily pass FA (at least this section). Ref #5 and #8 are both from Eurogamer but #5 just has "Eurogamer" where #8 has "Eurogamer (Eurogamer Network)". Later on, there's some that are "Eurogamer. Eurogamer Network". These all need to be consistent. I'm not sure if you (or whoever originally sourced it) purposely put the parenthesis around Eurogamer Network. Is that from the ref format? When I cite sources, it doesn't put the parenthesis around the publisher. Some sources are missing info. For example, ref #1 is missing its author, date, publisher, and work (if it's not the same as publisher). <ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |date= |author= (I always use |last= |first= )|publisher= |work= |accessdate= }}</ref> All web sources are going to have url, title, publisher, and accessdate. Work may sometimes be the same as the publisher (and if that's the case, you don't have to put publisher and work, just publisher). But take IGN, for example, IGN is the work and News Corporation is the publisher (I always wikilink publisher and work). If the website you're sourcing doesn't have a Wikipedia page that tells you who owns it, just look at the bottom of the website for the copyright info, which will be the publisher. If it's not there, see if the website has an "About" section and it should tell you the owner, if it's not themselves. Of course when you do the web archive, it's gonna look a little different in the references. Good job on archiving the ones you have archived. I actually need to get on that with the articles I'm working on. All dates and accessdates appear to be consistent with each other, so good. Make sure all the source formats are consistent and have all the information you can provide (as shown above in ref format) and when you're done with the ones that need fixed, I'll pass the article. --JDC808 ♫ 21:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Working, FYI the parentheses is what happens if you use Cite News instead of Cite Web. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Oh okay. I didn't realize that as I almost always use Cite Web for online sources. There's was only one I didn't, and it was Cite Press Release (and already cited that way when I came to the article). --JDC808 ♫ 22:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Almost all done, just 4-5 refs I want to replace as they are from the official forum by site staff who were quoted in game news, but I'd like to replace the forum with a site, the forums don't seem to archive and so one day they will be useless. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I know you're not finished, but here's what I see without info. Ref #1 has BAFTA but 139 spells it out. If you choose to use BAFTA, wikilink both, otherwise spell it out on both. Ref #'s 2, 25, 38, 45, 70, 72, 74, 81, 91, 97, 116, 134, 136, 143, 157, and 178 are missing Joystiq's publisher, which is AOL. Ref #27, IGN missing publisher. Ref #39 missing publisher and work. Ref #41 and 107 publisher is EGM Media, LLC. Ref #46 missing info, unless that's one you're replacing. Ref #48 and 49 Game Informer missing publisher (GameStop). Ref #146 GameTrailers missing publisher (Viacom). Ref #154 missing publisher (UBM plc). Ref #164 missing publisher. Ref #177 missing publisher and work. There were some that I wasn't sure about their publisher, but they may have been one's you're replacing. --JDC808 ♫ 06:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) K, I think thats done and I replaced what I wanted to replace. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Outside comment

As the Wii U version of the game has yet to be released and it will have additional features, will receive reviews and coverage, I may be leaning to say that this nomination would not meet the criterion 3a and 3b. But that is just an outside comment. — ṞṈ™ 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you've seen the trailer for the WiiU version of the game, you will see that existing features with tacked on multi-screen, is not going to tax the article. And review wise, it's already been released on multiple formats, the WiiU does not require substantial specialist coverage. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh well thanks for clarifying this for me. Although it was just a comment :P — ṞṈ™ 19:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe the little extra info is gonna cause the article to fail. It's not really new info, albeit the couple of small tack ons (which the article may already cover - I haven't gotten through the article all the way yet). Though I willl say a couple or so reviews should be added for the Wii U version as well as their Metacritic and GameRankings scores. --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at GA comprehensiveness needs to be broad but not necessarily exhaustive, but at FA, the Wii U stuff would be necessary. As is, the coverage is nice and wide but there is an identifiable gap to be plugged if this wants a bronze star. GRAPPLE X 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll include the stuff as it comes but I don't see it requiring more than a subsection at the bottom of the gameplay section and no more than a paragraph in the critcal reception unless for some reason there is a drastically different reaction, it's little more than a DLC download beyond appearing on another console. So it shouldn't hamper a move to GA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Great work. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Woop Woop. Thanks for the time and attention you've put in to this JDC808. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. You've put great time into making this a good article. --JDC808 ♫ 23:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Plot

Apparently, there is disagreement over the plot. I don't see a big difference between the original and updated version. I read the concerns that the updated version was too detailed and poorly written. I've read over it and I didn't see any real reason to call it "poorly written". I've seen far worse. Either way, here is what I've come up with. It contains the main story and nothing else. It cuts some pejoratives and some minute details of events without losing the overall story (IMO). I didn't put it in the page. You all here are free to edit, tweak, or not use it as you see fit. I just think that something needs to be done otherwise you'll be having an edit war for some time.

Bruce Wayne is arrested by Hugo Strange's TYGER mercenaries at a press conference where he declares his opposition to Arkham City. Strange discloses his knowledge of Wayne's dual identity as Batman before releasing him into the Arkham City criminal populace. While Strange prepares for the commencement of "Protocol 10", Wayne obtains his crime-fighting equipment via airdrop by Alfred Pennyworth, allowing Wayne to become Batman. As Batman, he is first forced to save Catwoman from being executed by Two-Face. After an assassination attempt on Catwoman by the Joker, Batman tracks the Joker to his hideout in the Sionis Steelworks, believing he may know the truth behind Protocol 10.

Batman eventually learns the Titan formula has mutated Joker's blood, and is gradually eating away at his body and killing him. The Joker manages to capture Batman and use his infected blood to poison Batman, thus forcing Batman to find a cure for both of them. Batman learns that Mr. Freeze had been developing a cure but has since been kidnapped by the Penguin. Tracking Penguin to the museum, Batman defeats the Penguin's forces, his imprisoned monster Solomon Grundy, and ultimately the Penguin himself, before liberating Freeze. Mr. Freeze informs Batman that he has already developed the cure but that it's instability makes it useless. Batman deduces that the restorative properties within the blood of Ra's al Ghul could complete the cure. Batman finds and tracks one of Ra's assassins to Wonder City, leading him into a confrontation with Ra's and his daughter Talia—Batman's former lover. With Ra's blood, Freeze is able to develop a working cure, but it is stolen by Harley Quinn before Batman can use it.

Batman returns to the Joker and finds him fully healed. While the Joker and Batman fight, Protocol 10 is activated—a scheme to wipe out the entire population of Arkham City, destroying the criminal element of Gotham City—and the TYGER troops begin mass executions of prisoners while Strange launches missile strikes from his base in Wonder Tower. A missile hits the steelworks, burying Batman under rubble. Before Joker can take advantage of the situation, Talia arrives and offers him immortality in exchange for sparing Batman's life. After Batman escapes the rubble, he is convinced by Alfred and Oracle to end Protocol 10 before pursuing Talia and Joker.

Batman infiltrates Wonder Tower and disables Protocol 10. Ra's is revealed to be the mastermind behind Protocol 10, and mortally wounds Strange for failing to defeat Batman. With his dying breath, Strange activates Protocol 11—Wonder Tower's self destruction. Batman and Ra's escape and Ra's commits suicide rather than risk capture. Joker contacts Batman, threatening to kill Talia unless Batman brings the cure to the Monarch Theater. Batman arrives as Talia escapes and kills the Joker. Talia offers Batman the cure, having intercepted it from Quinn. Talia is killed by the real Joker, who is still dying. Joker reveals that Clayface has been impersonating him the entire time. Batman defeats Clayface, but Joker uses explosives to destroy the floor of the theater, sending Batman plummeting into Ra's underground hideout, containing his rejuvenating Lazarus Pit. Batman destroys the pit before Joker can use it, and drinks a portion of the antidote to cure himself. The Joker demands the remaining antidote and attacks Batman, which causes the vial to smash. The Joker, with no cure, succumbs to his illness and dies.

Have at it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem I see here is that the current summary is focused on explaining the plot as a gamer or someone who is already familiar with the Batman Universe is reading it. I want to present my version of the plot as much more neutral, less in-universe, focusing only on drastically important points of the story. For example, the fact that Batman found Ra's al Ghul and got a blood sample is not important from an overall perspective. The fact that Hugo Strange succeeded in killing twenty two percent of the people in Arkham City, as a major plot point, is. We want to tell things as a person completely new to Batman or Arkham City will need to read them. And may we please drop this "TYGER" business? Talking in all caps is screaming, which isn't exactly polite, is it? The game only capitalizes the word "Tyger" to indicate that it is used to refer to the name of the company for which the Tyger guards work for. It makes the page look unprofessional, almost as much as quoting the game during a factual article does. Thanks, --Katangais —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

As Tyger does not appear to be an initialism, then it is correct to use the CamelCase spelling.

As for plot points, we have to balance between non-Batman ethusiasts and the gamer and comic lover. Both points: the wiping out of 22% of the population and the recovery of Ra's al Ghul's blood - are both critical to the plot (particularly the latter, given that this is how Talia comes into play).

What to consider is that Arkham City (the city itself, not game) is a setting, much like Aperture Science (Portal) or Rapture (BioShock). Can it have its own article? Dunno. But it certainly can be expands to set up its backstory before getting into the plot (Which should begin right when Bruce Wayne is incarcerated, as the player experiences it). --MASEM (t) 20:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are gone, Strange killing 22 percent of the inmates is not important information, it impacts nothing and is not required to understand anything else that happens in the story. Him getting Ra's blood is, it not only is an important component to the thing that stops Batman dying, it introduces two characters who play a role in the events. Otherwise Ra's just appears in the plot then dies and Batman just has the cure and is cured. In addition, every plot is written to describe what happens. Every single film plot will be read by someone who has no knowledge of the universe. Indeed, such a universe may not have existed before. That said, there is nothing in this plot that requires external knowledge and if it does, it is explained in the plot. Considering Two-Face is in all of 3 minutes - if that- of the game, we don't need to know about him being a "rising warlord". The plot as it is now, describes things as they happen and most importantly, describes them accurately. The plot as it is, is perfectly fine for the article and noone reading it is going to be confused, any more than if I went over to one of the Twilight films and tried to understand what is going on there. There is a very helpfully titled section called setting where background information can go; not that there is anything missing that will improve a reader's understanding of what is going on. This is very much in line with Deus Ex and Portal articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. That's your opinion, not fact, and we can explain things better if we leave off some of your unnecessary details (And yes, I admit there are some in both summaries). The very statement that you made about Protocol 10 shows you obviously know very little about Batman: Arkham City overall, as does the statement that all of your data is completely, infallibly, accurate. And just because a few other articles look the way you fancy doesn't give you any right to impose that here. Therefore, your "Twilight" reasoning is void. I am not concerned about films, I happen to be concerned with how best a skimmed-down, basic, yet completely understandable-to-the-new-reader package can be delivered for Batman: Arkham City. --Katangais (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement I made about Protocol 10 is completely accurate. 22% is an arbitrary figure, feel free to explain to me why it matters at all to the story? The plot says that the mercenaries are performing mass executions and firing missiles. Between 22% being stated, it could rise to 40%, 50% by the time Batman disables it. The figure is completely inconsequential to the current or following events, it is made clear that people are being executed nad that Batman goes to stop that. 22% of what? 100? 5000? 1,000,000? Exactly. People are dying is the important information. If you want to explain the backstory, that is what the setting is for, the plot is for what actually happens in the game, and none of that almost none of the first 2 paragraphs of the last plot were actually in the game. Not only that, they were explained already in the setting. I'm also not imposing anything, you have that reversed. I wrote a plot, you reverted the whole thing. SO I went away, rewrote it again to meet the things you said it failed, even though I didn't have to. You reverted it again. So I went away and did it again. I have been more than generous about the whole thing but the previous plot was unacceptable: it covered things outside of the plot, had incorrect information and was lacking other important notes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well. It was merely a misunderstanding. I was simply referring to Protocol 10 in general, citing the twenty two percent of deaths as a valid reason for why it should be covered. I did not intend to imply that this piece of trivia should be included in the plot. Your summary, however, should still be revised a little more. Do you wish for me to point out, in great detail, every disagreeable aspect of the plot section as it stands now? You use the same words far too often, and there are indeed certain parts which need to be removed due to unnecessary information and inaccuracies. However, your "more than generous" comment indicates that you are unwilling to compromise. I need a solid response: Are you prepared to consider some valid concerns and edit further?--Katangais (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's well below the word limit, nothing requires removing or it will become incomprehensible, and there should be nothing inaccurate in this plot, if that was your concern you would have removed the part from the previous plot about Batman deducing Freeze's involvement instead of being told about it, instead of restoring that when Rtkat corrected it. I purposely went out to look up alternative words for "learn" and "discover", I cannot see any overuse of words but that would not be detrimental to the plot. Using "learns" twice does not a lesser plot make. But if you want to throw at me the words which are causing you issue I will endeavor to eliminate them. You will have to please enlighten me to the inaccuracies as my memory must be failing me. As for the generous comment, fully reverting the amount of changes I made is unacceptable considering the imperfections in the previous plot. An effort should have been made to integrate them or discuss it instead of just removing it. It created an impression of ownership yet I still spent much of my time reworking that plot to avoid a conflict, but further reverting to the previous plot is no longer an acceptable situation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Katangais, please feel free to list all of your issues with the current plot that is on the page. That is the only way we're going to fully understand what people's problems are, if they are specifically stated instead of vaguely noted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a better idea: I will draft a revision of the current summary, with all the grammar mistakes and personal nitpicks removed, as well as some more necessary plot points added. It will be posted here once I am finished and will include a detailed list of every single change made to the present version. I do hope this is acceptable to everyone. Katangais (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are not a large amount of grammar mistakes or missing necessary plot points. It contains more plot points now than it did. To rewrite the whole thing again would be a huge waste of effort on your part instead of just listing your perceived problems.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The plot was discussed thoroughly previously and "Better via DK" is not a reason to change it, especially in the poorly written way it was. Don't edit war over it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but also happen to disagree. In my opinion, it was not discussed thoroughly on the previous occasion - note that one of my last messages left on this talk page was a promise to rewrite a much better summary when that time came - even if it does happen to be a few months after the fact. The new summary is not poorly written at all, at least in terms of grammatical flow; I challenge you to come up with a second opinion that charges as such. As an added bonus, it also excludes some of the repetitive mechanics of the previous one and is much shorter. Did we not agree that shorter is better at one point? --Katangais (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Below the word limit was the call, it is below the word limit handily-limit is 700, this is 640 and covers every major plot point. Shortness is not a necessity in the current plot. It was discussed thoroughly, look below, each and every change discussed, that you left the final comment does not mean the discussion had not run it's course. Waiting an extended period of time to modify the same things discussed last time doesn't mean the opinion has changed. I will take a random segment, the first that caught my eye:

Talia al Ghul then arrives somewhat unexpectedly, (what? Somewhat unexpectedly?) prompting the Joker to spare his (whose? We haven't referred to any threat to Batman's life) life in exchange for immortality. Batman is rescued by Catwoman and assaults Strange's command tower, cancelling Protocol 10. (lots of skipped logic here) Ra's reveals himself as Strange's partner in creating Arkham City, but eliminates the madman for his failure. (what failure?) A self-destruct sequence for the tower is triggered, and although Batman escapes unharmed Ra's commits suicide rather than risk capture. (Why was he at risk of capture? Is he even in the same room?)

The current plot covers all the major points clearly, there is no confusion and Y2CrazyJoker will probably back that up because I see him making edits to the plot frequently. You've made lots of changes to the article, and as far as I can see they were improvements, but this was not one of them. And for future reference WP:BRD. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I insist that a third opinion be introduced, and one who has a long record of distinguished work, not just second-rate user who happens to be interested in the topic (no particular insult intended). Allow me to explain some flaws with the existing plot with the following questions: why is the word "Wayne" overused? Why does it appear that Alfred is piloting an aircraft? Why is there unnecessary information about Two-Face? Why are the words "Joker" and "Batman" overused? Why is Wonder City, a unique game concept, introduced without any prior explanation whatsoever? Why is "fully healed" somehow superior to "seemingly cured"? Why are there two run-on sentences? Why is Wonder Tower introduced with no prior explanation whatsoever in the entire article? Did Catwoman convince Batman to put a stop to Protocol 10? Why is the name "Strange" overused? Why is the name "Ra's" overused? Why is the final showdown in the Monarch Theater described in a manner disproportionate to the rest of the plot? Our readers will now be asking, "wait, Joker wanted to use the Lazarus Pit? Where did that come from?" Why do we need to know that Batman placed the body on the hood of a police car? What difference does it make? Is Commissioner Gordon, who is barely referenced beforehand in the article, the county commissioner? The commissioner of public works? What is he doing at the scene? The new summary shall resolve all of these unanswered questions.

Thank you at least for being civil, instead of "kicking my ass". --Katangais (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1. "why is the word "Wayne" overused?...Why are the words "Joker" and "Batman" overused?" because those are their names.
2. " Why is there unnecessary information about Two-Face? " you' have to be clearer here because he is mentioned once in one brief sentence and he is a part of the plot.
3. "Why is Wonder City, a unique game concept, introduced without any prior explanation whatsoever?" because what it is isn't important, that it is Ra's underground lair is conveyed. If it was his underground lair in the museum of history would it not still be his underground lair? There is 60 words of space, so if needs a brief explanation it can be given.
4. "Why is 'fully healed' somehow superior to 'seemingly cured'?" One is the case, the other is not. They are not interchangeable, one says he is healed which he is, the other says he appears to be cured, but he is cured so how is it seemingly?
5. Why is Wonder Tower introduced with no prior explanation whatsoever in the entire article?" Same as Wonder City, except it doesn't explanation in the plot.
6. "Did Catwoman convince Batman to put a stop to Protocol 10?", ok so you want to introduce Batgirl but you want to take out Alfred Pennyworth? I don't mind saying Batgirl convinces Batman go to stop Protocol 10, or Alfred and Batgirl I think it was. But you can't complain about one character and not another.
7. "Why is the name "Strange" overused?" see point 1.
8. "Why is the name "Ra's" overused?" see previous points explanation.
9. "Why is the final showdown in the Monarch Theater described in a manner disproportionate to the rest of the plot?" I have no idea what this means. Do you mean in more detail? Because thats where all the plot threads come together and the game ends so there is a lot going on. In fact I'm not sure what you are complaining about here, the bulk of the events are explaining where the cure was, what is really going on with the Joker, explains the twist. The fight is very, very briefly mentioned.
10. " Our readers will now be asking, "wait, Joker wanted to use the Lazarus Pit? Where did that come from?" The plot says 'rejuvenating Lazarus Pit' and he's been taken by Talia for immortality, Talia who is the daughter of Ra's. It's plenty clear what is going on.
11. "Why do we need to know that Batman placed the body on the hood of a police car?" because that's how the game ends? What else do you want to say? I can tell you right now that a battered hero departs Arkham City with the corpse as police and inmates alike look on. is not an apt solution, it makes him sound crazy. Did he take it home and put it in a trophy case?
12. "Is Commissioner Gordon, who is barely referenced beforehand in the article, the county commissioner?" it's explained in the character section, thats its purpose so we don't have to explain each character in the plot.

The problem with a lot of your complaints is that you're not actually specifying what you are complaining about. Two run on sentences? Where? I can't reply if you don't give me information. That said, none of these complaints explain why the plot needed gutting and rewriting like a short story with dramatisation and a less clear view of events as I already explained.

Katanaigis modified his response while I was replying so I'm responding to a previous line in questioning.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talia al Ghul then arrives somewhat unexpectedly, (what? Somewhat unexpectedly?) prompting the Joker to spare his (whose? We haven't referred to any threat to Batman's life) life in exchange for immortality. Batman is rescued by Catwoman and assaults Strange's command tower, cancelling Protocol 10. (lots of skipped logic here) Ra's reveals himself as Strange's partner in creating Arkham City, but eliminates the madman for his failure. (what failure?) A self-destruct sequence for the tower is triggered, and although Batman escapes unharmed Ra's commits suicide rather than risk capture. (Why was he at risk of capture? Is he even in the same room?)

1. Pleased to address your points. Yes, Talia arrived unexpectedly. Did the Joker send her an invitation? How did she turn up inside the Steel Mill?

2. Ah, but Batman is the last male character referenced in the last sentence. So yes, the Joker is obviously not sparing his own life - we must be referring to Batman, who was buried underneath the rubble. A logical conclusion to come to.

3. If there is lots of skipped logic, then perhaps the current plot is an even worse offender. We are simply told that Batman infiltrates Wonder Tower. Same deal here.

4. Ra's reveals himself as Strange's partner in creating Arkham City, but indeed eliminates the madman for his failure. If Batman cancelled Protocol 10, that makes Strange a failure. Does it make him a success?

5. Ra's was at risk of capture; what do you expect Batman was intending to do with him once they escaped? Kill him? Since Ra's dies either way, it really doesn't make a difference whether he fell on his sword or died in the explosion. Merely a matter of seconds. In the comic books I've witnessed him surviving both.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

1. She arrived. That's all that needs to be said. Whether she arrived by bus, plane, teleportation, by invitation is not relevant.
2. He is the last male referenced, he's also not referenced to be in any danger from the Joker because it says he was buried under rubble so under what circumstance is Joker sparing his life?
3. That's all that needs saying. All your change says is he assaults the tower, so what is the skipped logic in the current plot?
4. Hmm...at this point I'm starting to think a third party is the only solution because the complaints here seem to be getting kind of petty to promote your change rather than justify it. And as far as I recall, his failure was to defeat the Batman, not to successfully complete Protocol 10.
5. He was at risk of capture, problem is your changes don't explain why. Ra's isn't clearly defined to even be in the same location in your changes.

Nothing you are saying he is justifying changes and your plot makes the points you complain about less clear. I'm very much not interested in discussing this to death again with you over the same points as last time, the current plot is substantially superior to the proposed one and is not in need of such a significant change. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are not interested in "discussing this to death", as you put it, I will not waste my time addressing any more of your concerns. But likewise I will not retreat on this issue as long as confronted with such pointless intransigence. For all your opinions that "the current plot is substantially superior to the proposed one", I could simply argue that they are just that: your opinions. Find other people who will address the concerns I took the time to list above, and who will judge both plot summaries impartially - or else you have not justified the removal of a superior plot for an inferior one of poor showing. --Katangais (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I've dealt with a user very similar to this recently. Intransigence? I've addressed each and every one of your complaints in full and explained why the existing plot is a better version. They're not opinions, they're facts. When I've responded to your increasingly petty complaints about the existing plot, the same petty complaints as last time, you've failed to give any reason for why your version actually improves over the existing one that I haven't been able to easily disassemble. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult people comes with the watchlist. You ought to be used to it by now - but I for one have never been given such a proper stonewalling by any individual on Wikipedia. Have an impartial third party address all the questions that I listed in one of my earlier posts, to my satisfaction - and I will concede the point to you. We don't have to be both entirely unreasonable with each other. --Katangais (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I had third parties address your issues last time. I'm not sure why I should be fulfilling demands. You made a substantial change to the plot, I reverted it. I guess the argument is that if your plot was such an improvement, why aren't others restoring it over me? Tehre is no stonewalling, you complained that it is not specified who convinces Batman to go stop Protocol 10. I said its fine to add Batgirl but then your earlier complaint about Alfred in the plot cannot stand, and its a fair and logical point. I've answered all your points which is a lot more than I had to considering what some of them were. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You charge that my complaints are petty, but the devil's in the details. My main gripe is with the grammar flow. Why should be using the same names or words in the same sentence, for example? Why can't we substitute "Dark Knight" or "hero" for Batman occasionally, or "villain" for the Joker? Why can't we come up with another word for "infected" instead of using it twice almost consecutively, etc? --Katangais (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Having read through the summary, and given it a minor copy-editing, I see no issue with it. Names are repeated when necessary, as the large cast of characters makes pronoun use difficult and ambiguous. I did however remove reference to "Wonder City", as it was the only location which didn't offer a brief explanation of itself (it's evident that, for example, Sionis Steelworks is a refinery, Monarch Theatre is a theatre, etc). Using descriptive names like "Dark Knight" would be a bad idea, as the summary should convey things with a minimum of flourish—it's an encyclopaedic summary, not a plot in and of itself. Inventive names which fans will understand, but not casual readers, will limit the use of a summary as a piece of information. As the summary stands now is a good balance between depth and accessibility. GRAPPLE X 00:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well. --Katangais (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Mac OSx and other versions

Per Infobox Video Game, the release date should represent the earliest non festival english release in the home country and english territories. The Infobox features the initial developer and publisher, as it should, and the release dates. A user is adding Game of the Year release dates, and Mac OS release dates, neither are notable dates and are unnecessary, and both are covered in the article, given prominence in the Lede and in the release section, at logical junctions, with a mention of the developer, and the format is is in the infobox, so the complaint that "Mac OS X version is out officially, so there is no rule to not mention it" is invalid.

The user, User:Horseman16, was given guidelines, given pages to check, warned about BRD, issued a warning, but considers these insufficient to his righteousness and refuses to discuss so I am opening the discussion for him to justify why these changes are necessary or why a port company needs to be mentioned as developer in the infobox, giving the misleading impression it had anything to do with the core game rather than the port. The Wii Developer is not there either, and the concept of limiting to initial release is so that it does not turn into a hefty list of information for each release when that is not the purpose of the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong as well. We would include the MacOS X and the GotY versions as separate release dates within the infobox, though obviously the first release on any platform should lead the list. On the other hand the inclusion of the Japanese release is not appropriate, as we do not include the release dates of Westerns titles when they are out in Japan (being en.wiki), unless there is something critical to know about them. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why to either? Eventually it will be released on PS4 and Xbox 873 and whatever else and you end up with. There's no notability in noting a GOTY which is a re-release of an existing game, or a port of the game to a different format. 50 years from now it will have been ported to a dozen other things, and all of those will be covered in the prose under release and the lede if its a major format, but there is no gain to flooding the infobox with them. It'd be like listing every country where a film is released or every time an Album is reissued. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We include dates that HD ports of other older games are released for other systems. This is standard practice. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not arguing against omitting them altogether (the info being disputed already exists in the article), just in the infobox, which is meant to give a brief infodump about the item; a historical list of worldwide release dates aren't useful. If that is standard practice it seems like it something that needs to be reviewed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a way to use a collapsable list to highlight the first release and then collapse the details, that can be seen at Myst. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to you over at the Infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mixed?

Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition for Wii U received a mixed reception: GameRankings provided a score of 85%, and Metacritic provided a score of 84/100

Uh, 85% is merely six percentage units under the lowest of the other version averages (PC version, namely). Mixed would indicate somewhere between 60-79%. Maybe "slightly less positive reception" would be more appropiate. --200.8.219.105 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We analyse the content of the reviews, not the numerical representation of two sites. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Overall, No More Heroes has received positive reviews". The average is 83%.

"Wii Sports Resort has received generally favorable reviews, with an average score on Metacritic of 80%".

"The Last Story has received critical acclaim from reviewers." An 80% is not exactly "acclaim".

The content of the reviews and the scores are (usually) related, as both reflect the critics' sentiment towards the games. If the three examples I mentioned got an overall "positive"-to-"critical acclaim" reception despite having scored lower numbers, then how is that BAC: Armored Edition gets "mixed" reception despite having scored higher numbers? Mixed means that some reviews were good and others were bad, but in Metacritic there are 31 recorded positive reviews and only 4 recorded mixed reviews, which logically gives a lean towards a "generally positive" reception. Lower than that of the earlier versions of the game, but definitely not "mixed" as a whole. --200.8.219.105 (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Because those articles aren't doing their job right, especially the Last Story, fans are always changing things to read acclaim for the games they like. As I said in the previous response, it isn't based off the number its based off the actual content of the reviews. Metacritic and GameRankings develop a score based on their own formula based on how THEY read the review unless a score is available and sometimes they adapt the score to fit their out of 100 or percentage methodology. They are a body we report on, they do not decide the content here. When the content of the reviews is "It's like Arkham City but here are a list of things that are bad about it and make it worse than the original version, that is a mixed review, it isn't about the number, its about the content. The section about the original version says acclaim, the reviews were all glowing and that version won a big long list of awards. We should not be deciding the opinion of a game/film/comic based on Metacritic or Gamerankings or Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes for example will give a film positive reviews even when the reviews are all backhanded compliments like "its great if you shut your brain off and enjoy it for a mindless action film".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, Metacritic provides a consensus of "generally positive reviews", meaning that the reviews were favorable. The mixed opinions are mostly whether the port is better or not than the earlier versions, but the game itself was praised. The "Metacritic and GameRankings develop a score based on their own formula based on how THEY read the review unless a score is available and sometimes they adapt the score to fit their out of 100 or percentage methodology" part is the whole point of citing them, since it's them who provide a model, and that model is referenced here as-is. Interpreting the Wii U reviews as "mixed" are, because of this, original research, since we're replacing their model with our own. "We should not be deciding the opinion of a game/film/comic based on Metacritic or Gamerankings or Rotten Tomatoes", then what's the point of citing them in the first place? Again, if their criteria indicate that the games get a generally positive review, then we should cite that result as such. --200.8.219.105 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If Metacritic is so important then we don't need to bother with the reviews, the review section can just be "Metacritic gave it this score", the end. You are applying WP:UNDUE weight to a single sites that I've explained twice now, does not dictate the language used in the article. The "mixed" is not based on Metacritic or Game Rankings, we report them to give a viewpoint, like hte reviews are there to give a viewpoint, those sites give no critical assessment, just an arbitrary score of scores based on an unknown system. We're not replacing their model with anything, we're reading. That isn't a bias system, it's what we do on here when we're not being lazy, some people are content to just slap RT scores on a movie article or GameRanking scores on a game article and call it a day, others will say a game was critically acclaimed when its scores were all in the low 80s, that is people doing it wrong. There's nothing Originally Researched about reading the reviews, seeing that they complain about things that weren't in the orioginal release, and saying that they are mixed, it's stating the fact, the original's reviews were gushing, the WiiU's were not, citing the earlier positives but criticizing a slew of negatives which are identified, it doesn't just say that they were mixed and not explain why they were mixed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay section still needs a few other topics

I think a few things are missing from the Gameplay section:

• The RPG-like qualities of the game, whereby the player accumulates XP and then can add new moves and gadgets/upgrades to their arsenal after leveling up
• A brief discussion on the updated enemies and their attack styles (e.g. knife, taser, body armor, guns) and how it forces the player to tailor their attacks
• Story Mode plus, which increases the difficulty of the game, removes the block/reversal indicator, and allows the player to start the story with all unlocked gadgets/moves from their first playthrough Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Think that's done, the enemy stuff is hard to find. I don't get why these simple things aren't covered by anything other than forums. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Things are much improved now. It might be worth glossing over the Arkham Asylum article for ideas on gameplay elements that could use further refinement or description. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Technical issues

Just a query, some articles seem to place the Technical Issues section in the Reception area. What do people think of it being moved there? Or is it better suited under the Release section? #Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Better fit in reception imo, but im easy either way. I did that recent revert on technical issues as it was largely unsourced opinion Adycarter (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed, that's what brought it to mind :D. I will have a look at how it appears in the reception section and see if it will fit nicely and aesthetically. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out. There's a glitch in the dlc of the armored edition. I've read that WB is working on fixing this error for future copies of the game.Leons555 (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sequel section

Why not use the more precise term, prequel, for the section title? --Mika1h (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The game is a sequel, it is sequentially the next installment of the series, its architecture, design, all of these things are sequel in nature, it contains within this framework a narrative set prior to two games not one. This is made entirely clear in the section. When the narrative sequel of Arkham City is announced, a section titled Prequel would be incorrect, where the section titled sequel encompasses both. The chronological positioning of a narrative is not an essential component of defining a sequel. Sequel - "Something that follows; a continuation." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you proof of what you said above? BattleshipMan (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You just described what a prequel is in that first sentence. A hypothethical Arkham game should not be a factor in this discussion. If one is ever released and it's a narrative sequel to Arkham City, the section can be simply renamed again. But currently prequel is the correct term for it. --Mika1h (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing hypothetical about it, but when said sequel comes out, and the section is renamed sequel (again) do you think confusion will be sewn since it talkes about a sequel with a narrative prequel and a sequel with a narrative sequel, or do you think it will make as much sense and just be wasting everyones time, both having this discussion and renaming and renaming a section back to what it is unnecessarily? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's confusing now because the section only talks about a prequel but is named sequel. If you have reliable sources talking about this narrative sequel, add them to the section and then the current title would be appropriate. Otherwise the current title is unverifiable speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). --Mika1h (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the game is a sequel, it is the next in sequence, a prequel IS a sequel to an existing narrative set before the events of the established work, and a sequel can but does not have to take place after the previous material, just expand upon the existing stuff. Sequel encompasses the situation, the content of the section mentions it's narrative chronology. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes yes, but why do you want to still use the more imprecise term? That's the same as saying "Arkham City is a game" when you could say "Arkham City is a video game". --Mika1h (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see why this one's a tough call: Arkham Asylum is also a prequel in that sense that has been released beforehand, whereas Arkham Origins is being released afterward. However, I'd like to present this as a case in point. Here's a usage note from one of our sister projects, Wiktionary, from [1]: "Most often used, not as a direct antonym of sequel, to refer to earlier works in a series, but to refer to works that are chronologically before but are created and released after; an archetypal example is the Star Wars prequel trilogy." That being said, I think "Prequel" is the correct term, but in the prose it should be made clear that Arkham Origins was announced after Arkham City was released. You know, state the obvious, per the manual of style. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 23:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not familiar with this game, but it would make sense to say 'prequel' if the story takes place earlier. Since by my understanding:

Prequel: A story intentionally written/released after a story that takes place in the future from the main characters perspective.

To give a more technical approach "-quel" refers to the story being released in the future with regards to the original.

Pre- means before and refers to the storyline.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed it. I hope you don't mind, but by definition its a prequel. Sequel doesn't even apply. If you decide to change it you have put something like: "other games in series".

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A) I forgot that was how discussions worked; B) sequel doesn't apply? Ignoring the multiple definitions outlined above are we? Whatever, this whole discussion was a waste of everyone's time over a pointless fucking thing that will only be put back (with an appended 's') the second the sequel Conroy accidentally announced he was working on is officially announced, and we can all feel good that Mika1h felt this was important enough to take minutes we can never get back because one acceptable definition wasn't good enough. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What a waste of time talking to someone so dense. --Mika1h (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, hey, guys, no reason for the hate here. We're Wikipedians, can't we all just assume good faith and not resort to personal attacks? I'd say the consensus is pretty clearly established here; no reason for the bitterness. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 00:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why are you putting this whole concersation on me. All I did was give a solution to an argument that was dragging out. I know how the terms officially apply, although I was wrong with the roots. A sequel /always/ takes place in the future of the storyline. It is a fact. I know this, because I have talked with amatuer game makers and that is the always the terminology they have used.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I've missed something in this whole discussion. How can it not be a prequel? Either way, are we decided on prequel, or do we need to dig out the bazillion sources that call it a prequel..? Яehevkor ✉ 20:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is prequel, and if anyone continues to drag this out and say its a sequel (in an argument towards me), then I will rename it "other games in series". Then nobody can argue about it.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My guess would be that the crux of the argument here is that though the game is a prequel in the storyline, it is sequentially the next game to be released, whereas Arkham Asylum is a prequel that was released before. Consensus has indicated that "prequel" is actually the preferred term, and I would say the Wiktionary definition I provided backs this choice up. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 00:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

well, I did motivate them......

TheUnknownNinja — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Playing as Catwoman IS required

The article states that "A Warner Bros. rep confirmed that playing as Catwoman would not be required to complete the game", which is only partially true. Playing as Catwoman actually IS required in the PC version and all Game of the Year editions, as the DLC is included in those editions and cannot be removed. 88.195.12.107 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That section is discussing games without the content included, for which the statement is true. I moved the PC line after it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

If there is any established user, I would like a request for a category to be added to Batman: Arkham City. The category that I want to add is this: Category:Video games featuring female protagonists. This is because the game features a character who is female and is a playable protagonist. A reliable source can be the Catwoman Pack that is available and present in this game. Thank you.Editor35109 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Editor35109 Editor35109 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:DENY. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)