What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/TwoPartTrilogy

Larkmarn
topic
01:54:32 PM Jul 25th 2014
Pulled this to discuss:
  • Rocksteady's main trilogy of games in the Batman Arkham Series has generally been good about balancing self-contained stories with plot points introduced in each previous game. Batman: Arkham Asylum tells a self-contained story about the Joker's plot to unleash the Titan serum on Gotham, but it also sets up a sequel with its hints about Quincy Sharp's political aspirations; Batman: Arkham City continues the Titan storyline with the Joker seeking a cure for his mutation, but balances it with a self-contained story about Hugo Strange building a fortified prison colony in Gotham. Pre-release info indicates that Batman: Arkham Knight will tell a self-contained story about the Scarecrow's attack on Gotham and the emergence of the mysterious Arkham Knight, while also exploring the aftermath of the Joker's death.

While I agree that it's safe to consider Asylum, City, and Knight are a trilogy and Origins is basically a Gaiden Game, my issue is that I'd say Asylum and City are more closely tied than City and Knight are. Asylum and City are both largely about Titan, the Joker, and taking place in a "prison" of sorts, and City is directly wrapping up loose threads from Asylum (Joker's OD specifically). It's possible that Knight'll be even more closely tied to City, but as-is it doesn't seem to fit.
MyFinalEdits
02:05:37 PM Jul 25th 2014
edited by 186.93.18.142
The fact that the status of these games as a "trilogy" has to be pointed out before debating the two-part thing (which this trope page is more interested in) is why I don't think it qualifies, to be honest. How "safe" is it to consider the games a trilogy? Are they conceived as such by the creators? Have they been jointly released through some special edition pack?
TheMightyHeptagon
05:41:44 PM Jul 25th 2014
edited by 99.0.114.74
Larkmarn:
  • I can see why you'd think that, but I'd personally disagree. I think the prison setting is really more of a recurring motif and a gameplay convention than a continuing plot arc, and Titan's role in the plot of City is basically nil (it's only Joker's illness from OD'ing on it that affects the plot). It's also worth noting that the Bigger Bad of City, Ra's al-Ghul, isn't even alive when Asylum takes place; other than Batman, Oracle and the Joker, there are very few major characters that cross over into both plots.

My Final Edits:
  • As I said before, the creators of Asylum and City had nothing to do with Origins; that's why I think it's safe to consider Knight the third part of a trilogy rather than the fourth part of an ongoing series. The writer of both games, Paul Dini, had nothing to do with it, and neither did anyone at Rocksteady Studios. By contrast, Sefton Hill and Paul Crocker (writers involved in the production of City) both did work on Knight; Hill, in fact, directed both City and Knight. I consider them a trilogy because they're three installments made by the same creative team. The fact that they haven't been jointly released yet doesn't preclude them from being a trilogy, especially since they're so recent. Personally, I have no doubts that they should be considered a trilogy; I was just acknowledging that some other people might not see them that way.
MyFinalEdits
05:58:39 PM Jul 25th 2014
edited by 186.93.18.142
" that's why I think it's safe to consider Knight the third part of a trilogy rather than the fourth part of an ongoing series."

The flaw of this logic is, if there's a fourth game that follows them up, there will no longer be a trilogy. Not even a Trilogy Creep if the first three games weren't acknowledged as a trilogy. A few seconds ago I made a research and I haven't seen anything from sources (hell, not even fan sites or forums) that viewed them as a trilogy. Just because you consider them a trilogy means nothing if nobody else does. You really have to understand that, because that's the reason why you've been pulling Square Peg Round Trope here.

By your logic, the first three Harry Potter books and films would be a trilogy just because they're linked in storyline, despite the whole saga being conceived as a heptalogy since its inception. Or the three Pikmin games just because there are three of them right now.
TheMightyHeptagon
08:19:03 PM Jul 25th 2014
edited by 99.0.114.74
As of now, they are a trilogy. If there's ever a fourth game, then you can dispute that point. Unless you've personally interviewed the developers about their future plans for the series, "There could be more games in the future" is really no reason to call this a case of Square Peg Round Trope.

The simple fact is, they're three chronological installments in the same series, made by the same creative team, with the same cast. That, by definition, is a trilogy. As you can see, the troper who pulled this to discussion in the first place agrees with me on that. I'm not the only person who considers them a trilogy.

(And yes, the Pikmin games are currently a trilogy; if you do a simple Google search, you'll find plenty of people referring to them as "The Pikmin Trilogy".)
MyFinalEdits
08:43:38 PM Jul 25th 2014
"As of now, they can be seen as a trilogy. If there's ever a fourth game, then you can dispute that point."

See what I mean? "Can be seen as a trilogy" is the very root of the problem. For one, because Examples Are Not Arguable; a trope, by definition, is not something whose existence has to be negotiated, it's just there. And second, because the very fact that there "might be a fourth game" means that the status as a trilogy is only provisional. So, yes, it IS Square Peg Round Trope (now mixed with a violation of Examples Are Not Arguable).

"The simple fact is, they're three chronological installments in the same series, made by the same creative team, with the same cast"

This holds true for the first three Harry Potter books/films. This holds true for the first three Narnia books/films. This holds true for the first three House, 24, Buffy, Adventure Time, etc. seasons. And neither of those are trilogies because they were never conceived as such when they were around, ''let alone after the subsequent books/films/seasons arrived.

"(And yes, the Pikmin games are currently a trilogy; if you do a simple Google search, you'll find plenty of people referring to them as "The Pikmin Trilogy".)"

Let me guess, you did that GS just to try to prove me wrong, right? Have you at least played the games? You'd realize that Pikmin 3 is not even in the same time frame as the other two. The main characters are others. The setting is another. And it ends with a Sequel Hook, meaning that a fourth game will come in the future and form a duology with the third, like the first two games were a duology.
TheMightyHeptagon
09:06:51 PM Jul 25th 2014
edited by 99.0.114.74
I don't think they're arguable, I was being conciliatory. Saying "They can be seen that way" is more polite than saying "Shut up, you're wrong". Nowhere on the actual example does it ever say that it's an arguable case of this trope.

The first three Harry Potter books are not a trilogy because the third book ends with a clear sequel hook, and left several plot points unresolved for later installments to tie up. The first two Arkham games did not—they were written to stand on their own, while leaving room for future games. Television seasons work completely differently than that; a television episode is a single installment, not a television season.

The Pikmin games have nothing to do with this discussion. The point is, you're currently outvoted by one. Unless there's someone else out there who's willing to argue in favor of keeping this example off, I really don't see a compelling reason why it should be.

Please, don't take this so personally. I'm just earnestly saying what I believe.

There's a reason why I didn't fight you the last time that you removed one of my examples. That time, I think you were right; this time, I'm not so convinced.
SeptimusHeap
02:47:50 AM Jul 26th 2014
Two-Part Trilogy is "an almost self-contained work with two heavily intertwined sequels". The work as-is is a trilogy with a prequel, but without evidence of a 4th sequel in the works we can safely call it a trilogy. We can still fix when it changes

Now, since Knight isn't released yet we don't know if it will be closer to City than City is to Asylum or not (in the latter case, the trope is not in play). So, I would say that discussing this trope in relation to Batman: Arkham is too early.

Also, let's not make assumptions about what other tropers know. It invariably becomes discourteous.
TheMightyHeptagon
07:27:28 AM Jul 26th 2014
I can agree with that.

I'll keep it off the page until Knight comes out, at least.
back to Main/TwoPartTrilogy

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy