The Batman: Arkham City hardback, published in the UK by Titan Books, collects the five issue DC ‘Arkham City’ comic series, and the five “Digital Chapters” of the separate online series. The whole collection works as a prequel to the game; but who is it aimed at, and is it any good?

The two names on the cover are Paul Dini and Carlos D’anda. Dini has plenty of experience in the Batman universe, best known to many for writing Batman: The Animated Series; and he scripted the Arkham Asylum and, of course, Arkham City games. D’anda, with a wealth of comic book illustrating experience behind him (including Thundercats) also worked on the games, drafted in for character design. Dini here however shares writing duties with Derek Fridolfs, and D’anda is in fact at the top of a list of no less than seven artists. One of the colourists carries the hilarious name Randy Mayor, but perhaps it’s best you make your own jokes for that one.

Let’s look at the printed series first. With seven artists credited, you might expect the art to be inconsistent and conflicted. It is in fact consistent and, more to the point, brilliantly done. The quality of artwork in today’s comics is more scattered than ever, with pages full of cover-quality art sitting alongside comics illustrated by people who seem to be swinging their pencils along the paper while half asleep. Arkham City is full of fine detail, deep shadows, and a fantastic job done by just two colourists. Aesthetically, it can sit proudly amongst some of the best Batman strips out there; though surprisingly, Joker and Harley Quinn don’t quite look like they do in the games.

The story begins right at the end of the Arkham Asylum game, and finishes shortly after Arkham City is created. Those who have finished the Arkham City game will probably realise that several blanks remain in the story when the credits finally roll; this comic fills in (almost) all of them. It’s not necessary to have played Arkham Asylum to understand this comic – potential confusions are quickly and smartly eliminated – though you’ll certainly have maximum appreciation of events if you have. But what of the Arkham City game this story immediately precedes?

Creating a coherent prequel is a tricky business so far as spoilers are concerned. By mostly filling out background details hinted at in the game, there are no big spoilers here. If you have no idea which characters come up during the course of the story and want to keep it that way, however, finish the game before reading this. If you want to avoid all spoilers, do not take a look at the concept art at the back of the book, which contains two characters you may not know you’ll come up against.

It’s clear that Dini and Fridolfs have stuck firmly to the simple plan of bridging the gap between the two videogames, with the result that the story arc – and even the finer details of the plot – are pretty straightforward. This is disappointing to a degree, given the complexity the very best Batman stories revel in. There is no moral conflict here; no blurring of the line between Batman and his enemies; no mistakes with far-reaching consequences from the dark knight here. No introspection, no horror.

There’s still plenty of skill to be seen in the writing. The most prominent villain is Hugo Strange, whose picture is painted to perfection. His maniacal self belief pervades every one of his actions and every line of his dialogue. The impossible is achieved; we easily accept Batman as the stalked rather than the stalker. Batman himself is, thankfully, every inch the moody avenger he should be. Brooding detective one minute, wielder of just-brutal-enough violence the next.

Joker crops up little and often, but with mixed results. As ever he is a slave to his dark sense of humour; some times you’ll laugh along with him, others you may be supposed to but you don’t. The biggest mistake was to allow the reader occasional insights into his internal monologue, the worst offender being his second appearance. Joker should never, ever be straight faced unless he’s dangerous, and he should sure as heck never be clearly all-out terrified.

Two Face, Penguin and Catwoman are relegated to cameos, with one more villain in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-him appearance. What is there holds together so well, however, that this is an observation rather than a complaint.

Each of the five Digital Chapters is a fairly brief, self contained story. The art (one artist per story here) isn’t quite up to the quality of the paper series, but still very good indeed across the board. It seems that they were created primarily to tidy up minor details not tackled in the comics, such as how and why Riddler came to be in his Arkham City den; fleshing out the details of why Strange’s soldiers are so steadfastly loyal; and more. They’re nicely done, but feel shallower than the main series. It’s nice to have the luxury of reading them in a book, however.

If you want to delve deep into the story of the Arkham games and find every last detail there is to be had, this collection is wonderfully done and will not disappoint (even if it does leave a last few questions unanswered). If you’re a Batman fan and you’re curious about the games then, even though the events here sit between the two, it’s worth picking up and may push you toward a purchase. For the record, the writing in Arkham City the game is actually just a little tighter, just a little sharper.

So: this rises far above what people generally expect of licensed videogame literature, and easily does the Batman name justice. It trades the philosophy and depth of the most famous stories for a spoiler-free and game faithful script; but they’ve done the maths here. Batman comics fan + Batman videogame fan = happy customer.

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.