Batman: Arkham City - - - - - - - Part 16

[jonathancrane]

Neither is shoehorned, forced multi-player.

Agreed.

 

[Nathan]

Neither is shoehorned, forced multi-player.

Then don't make it shoehorned or forced. Ideally, make it optional. I'm sure there are more than enough people who'd enjoy to take on a rooftop of thugs as Batman and Robin. I'd absolutely love it, if they had moments like this in the game.

 

[Fans of Reilly]

Neither is shoehorned, forced multi-player.

how multi-player in a Game about batman a character that get batfamily of former allies and former sidekicks forced

 

[Nathan]

Heh, co-op in a Batman game, so utterly inconceivable.

 

[Jick]

Batman Arkham 3: 10 Things It Needs

I think there is so much wrong with this.
It doesn't NEED many of the things it mentions.

 

[GamerSlyRatchet]

Rocksteady has been shown in the past that they don't care about it. They are not interested in it. That they prefer to focus on making the single-player as good as possible.

THAT is what I mean by "forced". If they had shown interest in doing it before, then fine, but really, not every game needs it.

 

[JaD]

I think there is so much wrong with this.
It doesn't NEED many of the things it mentions.

That site seems pretty lame anyways, don't let it get to ya.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Rocksteady has been shown in the past that they don't care about it. They are not interested in it. That they prefer to focus on making the single-player as good as possible.

THAT is what I mean by "forced". If they had shown interest in doing it before, then fine, but really, not every game needs it.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with a great single player game. The Arkham games don't need MP.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

there's also of plenty of great games that are fun when being both co-op and single player... it's a different experience for both

 

[JaD]

You know it kind of sucks to see that not too many people are fond of or entertaining the idea of a co-op experience with these games. For me personally, yes I would definitely love to at least try co-op in challenge mode or something. If they felt they had a good story to tell in campaign with a sidekick then I’m even more excited. It’s not like people think the stories of these games are superb anyways, there’s always complaints of it being too short or characters coming in and out etc. It's always been the gameplay and experience.

If Rocksteady feels they could do it then they should definitely go for it, I can’t think of any superhero game as good as the Arkham games that has a co-op experience. It could be the first and an even more amazing & geektastic achievement.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Co-op challenges would be rad, but I have no problem with the Single Player staying Single Player.

 

[Nathan]

I'm always amused when people are vehemently against certain gameplay additions, even when it's optional. If it's optional, it doesn't take anything away from your SP experience.

 

[Iceman]

There are two things that may improve without Rocksteady though: the story, and the characterization. Both Arkham Games have pretty generic stories, if not totally average stories. and the characterization is more often than not really bad. Be it Bane, Hush (they totally wasted his potential storywise) or even Alfred and Batman. I don't think Dini is the one who decided that Batman would say "Gordon is smarter than I thought" for instance.

Agreed on story in particular. There really wasn't much to it & I think the excellence in most other areas of the games masked this to an extent.

I'd love to see co-op challenges, but that's just me. I don't think it needs to be integrated into the story but the thought of Batman and Robin working a group of thugs together just seems so awesome and only something Rocksteady could pull off, considering the combat system is simply beautiful.

I generally hate the Batman challenges but they would probably be a lot more fun with a friend.

Rocksteady has been shown in the past that they don't care about it. They are not interested in it. That they prefer to focus on making the single-player as good as possible.

THAT is what I mean by "forced". If they had shown interest in doing it before, then fine, but really, not every game needs it.

I don't think any game needs it. It's a bonus as the single player should stand alone & achieve everything it needs to by itself. That doesn't mean that an optional co-op mode can't turn out to be great if executed well. It's not as if Bats doesn't have natural co-op allies (that are themselves heavily featured in Arkham City). I remember how everyone heaped abuse on the prospect of Mass Effect co-op & I know quite a few of those people who only play ME co-op now. t:

 

[JaD]

Co-op challenges would be rad, but I have no problem with the Single Player staying Single Player.

Same here as well, I just love the potential there. If there was any developer I wanted to make a co-op superhero game, it would be Rocksteady. Those Marvel Alliance games just don't compare.

If not an Arkham game, then maybe a Justice League, I dunno. One can dream.

I'm always amused when people are vehemently against certain gameplay additions, even when it's optional. If it's optional, it doesn't take anything away from your SP experience.

I guess that one can argue, that in some cases, focus on mp/co-op does sometimes take away from the sp because of their focus split on 2 areas of the game instead of one.

I do think that some people get a little carried away though in that they think it's going to completely f*** up the entire game. I thought WTF? when they added MP to Dead Space 2, but the single player was still amazing. I'm currently finishing up my first playthrough (co-op) with my friend of Dead Space 3 and completely enjoying it. The game isn't above the previous one, I think it suffers from lack of new ideas, etc. but it's been a great ride.

 

[jonathancrane]

If we have the amount of single player gameplay as we did in AC, I would have no problem with it. I just do not want the first player experience diminished by a co-op feature.

 

[Jick]

And I think that's what would happen. Focus on MP and less focus on SP. God of War, for example, has always been about the SP campaign, but they brought MP to the new installment and already admitted that the story is a little shorter than the others.
So color me skeptic.

 

[Iceman]

And I think that's what would happen. Focus on MP and less focus on SP. God of War, for example, has always been about the SP campaign, but they brought MP to the new installment and already admitted that the story is a little shorter than the others.
So color me skeptic.

It's also not a full-on core title though, more of a stop gap to tie up the current gen. I doubt the next gen God of War will have this problem.

 

[Nathan]

Might as well complain that the two PSP games were too short.

 

[Jick]

It's also not a full-on core title though, more of a stop gap to tie up the current gen. I doubt the next gen God of War will have this problem.

I don't buy that. For making it a prequel, then maybe. But they focused less on the story because they were working on the MP. They stated that.
GOW2 also came with the end of the PS2 and they worked as hard on that one as they could, specially since they knew how to push the limits of the system. Same here.

Might as well complain that the two PSP games were too short.

I don't. I get that the PSP is much more limited than the console version. And it didn't have multiplayer.

 

[JaD]

I think if the game were called God of War IV then I'd agree that they dropped the ball with the MP focus/addition, since it's not I find it to be a whole new gameplay experience they're rolling with that I have no problem with, but it's not the story or game I necessarily care about since the story is pretty much over.

 

[Nathan]

I don't buy that. For making it a prequel, then maybe. But they focused less on the story because they were working on the MP. They stated that.

They are also working on a really extensive Multiplayer. I'm sure all people want from MP in an Arkham game, is to tag along during the campaign and maybe some challenge maps.

GOW2 also came with the end of the PS2 and they worked as hard on that one as they could, specially since they knew how to push the limits of the system. Same here.

And it was supposed to be a main entry. Not just a side adventure.

 

[Jick]

They are also working on a really extensive Multiplayer.

Yeah, I pointed that. Hence why the single player will be smaller.

I'm sure all people want from MP in an Arkham game, is to tag along during the campaign and maybe some challenge maps.

And what I'm affraid is that the SP experience might suffer from that. They'll have to rework how the freeflow combat is done if two characters can hit the same guy without breaking the flow.

And it was supposed to be a main entry. Not just a side adventure.

And it didn't have MP.

 

[Nathan]

And it didn't have MP.

And Dead Space 3 has co-op and it's supposed to be twice as long as the last games. And it's entirely optional. So there.

 

[TX85]

There doesn't NEED to be MP But I wouldn't complain about it,Could have potential

 

[Jick]

And Dead Space 3 has co-op and it supposed to be twice as long as the last games. And it's entirely optional. So there.

Not there. What works for one doesn't necessarily works for the other. Dead Space's gameplay is of a shooter. Batman has freeflow combat, which seems much more complicated to do.

GoW not having a campaign bigger than others like DS3 shows that not every developer does it.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't do it by any means, just that I'm skeptical about it. I worry.