PDA

View Full Version : No MP! Glad or sad?



BigBoss
17th Feb 2011, 00:06
Just wondering. I personally am really happy they aren't doing it.

Joseph Kerstein
17th Feb 2011, 00:37
Either. As I said before, I'm glad more so because they want to take this seriously and make the game as a whole much better. With that in mind, then more power to them for nixing the MP idea. If they merely added or did not add MP merely for money reasons, then that's sad and/or depressing.

So I guess I'm more in the "don't care" category.

jerren
17th Feb 2011, 01:06
I am So SO SO SO SO happy!! I mean i am like super duper happy about this! I wouldn't have played the multiplayer anyways.. and more focus on single player is NICE! I love rocksteady and want to give them a big hug with pink strawberrys and rainbows.

AngelsDontKill6
17th Feb 2011, 05:46
so stoked on no multiplayer!
all the focus on single player!
great news.

Hatman
17th Feb 2011, 05:57
Personally, I got a little sick of everyone clamoring to play as Batman, Catwoman, Robin, Commissioner Gordan, Oracle, Detective Bullock, Batmite, Batzarro, etc...

These new fangled games and their multiplayer!! What's the world coming to when people aren't satisfied with a good story, gameplay mechanics and a living breathing world that makes everything come alive?

I've always said, give me a good campaign, and I'll shock and amaze everyone with the vast number of times I can play through from beginning to end without getting bored.

I recently started on my 972nd playthrough of AA...

puppet627
17th Feb 2011, 06:37
I'm okay with Single Player only, co-op would've been nice though.

Old_BenKenobi
17th Feb 2011, 08:04
I've always been apathetic towards multiplayer.

The New Blueguy
17th Feb 2011, 13:27
I'm glad they're focusing on singleplayer. Although I would've liked co-op challenges at least, I'm ultimately glad they decided less is more, here. I mean I don't think anyone here can honestly say that the Batman/Joker co-op video didn't get them excited for a possible multiplayer element. Though I guess we now know why they didn't want that video getting out because they obviously felt that they couldn't get it up to par with the rest of the game.

I still believe that we'll see multiplayer in Arkham 3 as they're obviously looking into it as long as they can do right by the fans. What excites me most though is that they thought enough of the fans to take their time with multiplayer and leave it for something potentially down the line rather than shoehorning in a multiplayer experience that would end up being the antithesis of everything they've worked so hard to achieve with the first two games.

Batman The Trailer Hunter
17th Feb 2011, 15:48
I'm okay with Single Player only, co-op would've been nice though.

This. No Mp just co-op

DarkKnightDanny
17th Feb 2011, 19:29
Can i be both? Slad maybe?

BigBoss
17th Feb 2011, 19:44
I like the results! I'd have been pretty sad, if it was overwhelming towards mp, and they actually changed it....

HellfireBat
17th Feb 2011, 21:36
Both because ,first, no MP means better story mode (hopefully) but no MP also means when I play with my friends this ain't the game I will be playing >.>

teh hammy
17th Feb 2011, 22:07
Can i be both? Slad maybe?

this.co op would have been nice. Competeive (sp?) MP would have sucked though. (In teh hammy's opinion)

airblitz7
18th Feb 2011, 11:43
this.co op would have been nice. Competeive (sp?) MP would have sucked though. (In teh hammy's opinion)

People said that about AC:B. Rocksteady wouldn't do multi player if they didn't have a decent idea. In my opinion, I think Rocksteady were pondering Multi player, but they couldn't find a decent idea that would complement the single player nicely. So they stuck to a single player only experience.

Zur-en-ah
18th Feb 2011, 13:25
I wouldn't want anything to detract them from doing a 100% job on the single-player ... considering the stakes are so high not to mention all the controversy / debate over Robin etc ... then surely no MP can only be a good thing?!

look at other top games with incredibly atnmospheric, story-driven single-player gameplay ... sequels that have tried to shoe-horn MP have always come up short -- either having lame MP or having detracted from the main game ... Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 are good examples of this, I think?

DarkVictory
19th Feb 2011, 03:59
Fairly indifferent, because as long as the single player rocks, nothing else really matters.

However, after seeing how much the multiplayer on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood has really extended my enjoyment of the game, I think Rocksteady may be missing a fairly decent sized boat on this one.

JD_Method
19th Feb 2011, 14:25
Indifferent also.

Some co-op would have been cool, but I'm not too bothered it's not included. No multiplayer didn't hinder my enjoyment of Arkham Asylum so I'm sure I won't enjoy this one any less because of it.

But not including multiplayer doesn't mean that the single-player gained another 6 hours and suddenly became 10x more epic. I doubt much would have changed if they did choose to include multiplayer.

So I don't care really. It's still the game I'm most looking forward to this year.

jerren
19th Feb 2011, 18:40
I think the decision to have no multiplayer was a good one!

Billy Mays
19th Feb 2011, 18:46
dont underestimate what rocksteady could have done. they gave us the greatest superhero game, why cant they pull of multiplayer? the greatest example of this working is assassins creed brotherhood. as soon as i got it i hopped onto multiplayer out of curiosity. i heard bad reviews and even before it came out everyone was criticizing it. when it came out, everyone was glad it was incorporated in it. and guess what? the story was amazing. best assassins creed. it was at least a 15-20 hour game too. and everything was great from single to multiplayer. and they can only get better with sequels.

DarkKnightDanny
19th Feb 2011, 19:01
dont underestimate what rocksteady could have done. they gave us the greatest superhero game, why cant they pull of multiplayer? the greatest example of this working is assassins creed brotherhood. as soon as i got it i hopped onto multiplayer out of curiosity. i heard bad reviews and even before it came out everyone was criticizing it. when it came out, everyone was glad it was incorporated in it. and guess what? the story was amazing. best assassins creed. it was at least a 15-20 hour game too. and everything was great from single to multiplayer. and they can only get better with sequels.

I dont think people are underestimating anything, Sefton has quoted why he decided to leave out MP

"With the game now coming to the final stages, I can honestly say it would not have been possible to deliver Arkham City the way we wanted to if we'd have added multiplayer.

"So it might not be the fashionable choice, it might not get us an extra tick on the box, but we are convinced, and we hope that gamers will agree when they get to play the finished game, that we have made the right decision."

Seftons words mate

BigBoss
20th Feb 2011, 00:45
But not including multiplayer doesn't mean that the single-player gained another 6 hours and suddenly became 10x more epic. I doubt much would have changed if they did choose to include multiplayer.

Time taken away from single player = worse single player

Also: Ign is doing a poll like this as well the q was should it have mp?
76%no
24%yes

jerren
20th Feb 2011, 00:58
Well I for one am glad that multiplayer wont be included in the game.

Billy Mays
20th Feb 2011, 01:54
I dont think people are underestimating anything, Sefton has quoted why he decided to leave out MP

"With the game now coming to the final stages, I can honestly say it would not have been possible to deliver Arkham City the way we wanted to if we'd have added multiplayer.

"So it might not be the fashionable choice, it might not get us an extra tick on the box, but we are convinced, and we hope that gamers will agree when they get to play the finished game, that we have made the right decision."

Seftons words mate

yes but everyone is saying that it'll be horrible and that it'll take away from the singleplayer. with time and enough effort it could have been amazing.

JD_Method
20th Feb 2011, 16:55
Time taken away from single player = worse single player

Also: Ign is doing a poll like this as well the q was should it have mp?
76%no
24%yes

Multiplayer wouldn't have suddenly made the game horrible. The only thing that probably would have happened would be the single player having a few more bugs.

Don't get me wrong, I love my single-player and I'm not wishing multiplayer was in Arkham City, but I'm sure if Rocksteady did decide to include it it would have been fun and the single-player wouldn't have been significantly altered.

Billy Mays
20th Feb 2011, 20:03
Multiplayer wouldn't have suddenly made the game horrible. The only thing that probably would have happened would be the single player having a few more bugs.

Don't get me wrong, I love my single-player and I'm not wishing multiplayer was in Arkham City, but I'm sure if Rocksteady did decide to include it it would have been fun and the single-player wouldn't have been significantly altered.

and theres always the sequel.

BigBoss
20th Feb 2011, 22:28
If the word "franchise" starts to slip through the cracks, i'm so ******* done with it. This game, like any other game, only has me for 3 entries. After that 99% of the time they get REALLY stale. Exceptions are like gta, elder scrolls, ect because the story isn't linked with any characters or plot of the previous ones

Batmanhill6157
21st Feb 2011, 03:33
The only reason I kinda was excited about multiplayer was because it would add on to the over all replay value. Eventually single player runs out. Hope we have a bunch more challenge maps to play around in

DarkVictory
22nd Feb 2011, 06:00
The only reason I kinda was excited about multiplayer was because it would add on to the over all replay value. Eventually single player runs out. Hope we have a bunch more challenge maps to play around in Yeah, I think if they keep us updated with more DLC challenge maps, that will definitely help give the game some of the replay value that will be missing with no multiplayer.

The goal of trying to receive a high ranking in all of the challenge maps kept me going at the game forever (and I still load up AA once a month or so to make sure I haven't slipped too far), and it kept me going well after I had already beaten the story 3 different times and got all the achievements.

It's not quite multiplayer, but it does pit you against other players.