Batman: Arkham Origins - Part 1

[Wolvieboy17]

But if they're designed for multiplayer, you might. Have you ever played Splintercell Conviction co-op? That is a hell of a lot of fun. Sure you can do all that in singleplayer but synchronising takedowns, maximising stealth efficiency?

Hell, I'd love MP even if it was just 2 players teaming up in a fight scenario. Feeling like I was fighting back to back with another hero would be damn cool and if you get double combo scores etc for pulling off complicated two player finishing moves then what's wrong with that? If it's designed to be challenging for two players then it would end up being more rewarding, right?

I mean, your argument could be extended to 'why co op?' in any game. Why did Gears of War need to be co-op when you could have already killed locusts on your own?

 

[DrCosmic]

well to explain it. it's about where the majority of the resource's and money is spent. And it's that to some people they think there is always more room for character there and the more that happens the better it is and to use each of the villains to the fullest is always cool. But the truth is only so few series manage pull that off in any medium.

Also when you think about it only so much can be done. If say they made up their minds on how long the game will be from the jump and how much spot light each character will have. And seeing not all the villains will have equal enough spot light that's not really fair to say from us fans all the time. yet it seem not to stop some people who don't bother to think about certain aspects like that happening .

The game director Tell's the writer(that would be Dini's boss in that case for the game's here) how much should be done and how much spot light each character receives.

Especially with how you've all seen and how much of a hog they always make joker out to be. But that boss of his(Dini or any writer for a game) has final say there. to some people it's about where all the resource's / money is spent though.

So Dr cosmic I agree with ya. But some people are hug up on certain thing's. It's rare that all elements come together over all for certain games. It's wonderful when it happens But we can't always expect it all the time in all it's sections.



here's the latest




Batman: Arkham Origins And The Lessons From Asylum And City

video feature
on Apr 24, 2013 at 02:00 PM
5,563 Views

13
In this video feature, the developers of the new game reflect on the highlights of Rocksteady's legacy and how it has informed the next Arkham entry.
... More



source:GI

Thanks man, I'll take a look at the link when I can.

Really? Co-op challenge maps? The challenge maps are pretty much designed for one player. How much would it suck to build up a huge combo only for your co-op partner try and get in on the action and break it, combat challenge require those huge combos. Or in a predator challenge for someone to alert the guards and screw both of you. I'd really wish the Arkham series would stay single player, there's plenty of multiplayer games out there and if someone needs their DC fix of it, there's always Injustice.

No one wants a "DC multiplayer Fix" People want to be Batman and Robin (or Batman and Nightwing or Robin and Batgirl or, or, or) fighting back to back taking down thugs, a pretty big fixture of the Batman mythos comics since 1940. There's no other game to 'fix' that. It's something only potentially available in the Arkham series. The suggestion is just as silly as: If you want single player Batman, just go play Injustice by yourself. Problem solved!

Why would a partner hitting someone break your multiplier? Wouldn't it only increase it? It's obviously cooler to have two people breaking down a crowd than one. Why would the game designers penalize that? Should they also penalize you for using gadgets and have gadgets break your multiplier? Yes, it would be bad if the game designers made the game suck and made cool things break your combat multiplier, but what does that have to do with a game made by people who don't suck and try to ruin your fun?

So these weird excuses really don't make any sense to me. Here's the actual issue: Balance. Multiplayer, as far as recorded history goes, ONLY causes a problem for balance. If a game can be played as a group, even of 2, then the game has to be harder to be a challenge for them, but is that too hard for SP, or too easy for MP?

The answer is usually scaling. If there's two players, more enemies, or less resources or whatever. If not, the normal SP amount. Fortunately, that's pretty easy in the Arkham series, and you can kinda tell that AC was made with that in mind. In fact, it almost balances itself, as while two people can pull enemies off of each other in Predator situations, they also can get in each other's way. The only issue is adding more thugs in combat situations, or perhaps more simply, making more thugs attack at once/more frequently against two players... which makes sense both story and mechanics wise.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

I mean, your argument could be extended to 'why co op?' in any game. Why did Gears of War need to be co-op when you could have already killed locusts on your own?

Because the game started out with that in mind, it wasnt being force fed down the games throat like so many titles now. We've had two highly successful gams that had no mp whatsoever, its just not needed.

I mean its entirely possible the mp here could be a lot of fun, you made a good point about Splinter Cell. Im not writing anything off, but at this point, i dont see it. I dont see the fun in going "back to back" fighting thugs with a partner.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Why would a partner hitting someone break your multiplier? Wouldn't it only increase it? It's obviously cooler to have two people breaking down a crowd than one. Why would the game designers penalize that? Should they also penalize you for using gadgets and have gadgets break your multiplier? Yes, it would be bad if the game designers made the game suck and made cool things break your combat multiplier, but what does that have to do with a game made by people who don't suck and try to ruin your fun?

Why would a partner hitting someone break you mutliplier because it would break your freeflow, the combat in Batman is designed to be totally fluid. Each move flows into the next, I really don't see how "back to back" fighting would work in that context. Say you hit a thug with a move and just as that animation is finishing your teammate grapples the final two or three thugs, you've got no one to hit no where for your next move to flow into, combo gone. I just see mulitplayer in the Arkham series as a great way for players to be running into each other and getting in each others way. I mean, I'll buy the game regardless of multiplayer or not, I just wish developers didn't feel it's needed in every game these days. I really respect the Bioshock team for realizing they didn't need a multiplayer component for Infinite.

 

[Jick]

One of the reasons I feel so badass with Batman is because I can take 100 thugs down in a closed room all by myself. No help needed. I feel powerful. Unstoppable. Even if it is optional to have a partner, I see no way how co-op combat can be done without the freeflow being interrupted by your partner. I've discussed about it many times before and I still see no good ideas around on how to prevent that.

 

[zenith16]

ohhh the Free flow arguement . which kinda reminds me of something, Remember when alot of people were Sooooo overly thrilled with the Rumore of a TMNT game done by Rock steady ? No one was worried about that then,

But TMNT always had two - three modes to play select from with single player and two player, 3 player 4 player drop in and out co-op with your friends only too, from back in the day. The way it was done was the right way for it too.

Before POP and the Res series Ruined it for people, and mostly for those that have a ps3.


But seeing how people were so thrilled, with that Rumor for that title, if it had happened, how would they have gotten around the "free flow issue?"

I'm sure there is a way it can be done, just have be multiplied and never be dropped down so your point stay high move higher with your partner. Especially if you have a special move with your partner/ paterners like crack the whip (all four0 or something like using one another as a spring board(just two) to smack down thugs . Thing's like that. if they did that from back in the day with older games, there's way for it to be done here as well and not interrupt the semi new thing(now that we've had that with the Arkham games) of "free flow" for a while now.

 

[Nathan]

If the biggest worry is having your precious multiplier interrupted, then I don't see an issue anymore with incorporating co-op. Just don't make stringing long combos the focus. There. Done.

Co-op works perfectly fine if you make the challenge maps objective based. Or force situations where you get separated or simply create scenarios where you need a partner to succeed. Simple things like disarming a bomb, as hordes of thugs come after you. One player gets to the bomb, while the other one tries to keep his back clear. Or maybe one player gets trapped in a room, fighting for his life, while the other player needs to reach a control panel to open the doors. Of course there are countless thugs in his way as well. You say you can clear 100 guys by yourself? Fine, lets throw in 200 thugs and a couple of special enemies that require tag-team takedowns to finish off.

 

[zenith16]

yeah it can be isolated to the single player mode only. I think I suggested that in an older thread of Arkham city when Sefton Hill admitted they were trying to find a way to implement it during that time.


If there's multiplayer it shouldn't affect the free flow cause the points for that will only locked into that selected mode of single player . And only for what you have done in your single player experience. A programmer should be able to do this, if he/ she just can't do what I formerly just said up top just now and is just having issue's getting around it. Just isolate it to the single player mode and the points you have for "free flow" won't be affected and you keep your high score in that. problem solved

 

[jonathancrane]

To correct the above post: Injustice was designed as a multiplayer game. Saying it is a game designed for single player is akin to saying that people play Black Ops for the single player.

With that said, shoehorning multiplayer into the game will result in a decline in the narrative richness. I enjoy the games because of the detective work, Easter Eggs, multiple subplots, and of course, intricate narrative. If multiplayer is introduced, the richness will slowly dissipate over time.

 

[TX85]

Nobody can't be so 100% sure it would affect the single player modes in such ways

 

[Jick]

If there's multiplayer it shouldn't affect the free flow cause the points for that will only locked into that selected mode of single player . And only for what you have done in your single player experience. A programmer should be able to do this, if he/ she just can't do what I formerly just said up top just now and is just having issue's getting around it. Just isolate it to the single player mode and the points you have for "free flow" won't be affected and you keep your high score in that. problem solved

Forget the points. If my partner knocks a thug that I was about to knock, my character will jump into the middle of nothing. Or maybe just punch or kick the air.
The freeflow is so good because it goes from one thug to the other. It is one big combo and the fun is to keep this up for as long as you can. At least it is like that for me. Unless you guys aren't playing it this way.
Throw as many enemies at me as I can endure. Doesn't matter the number.

 

[Nathan]

Then you stick with playing by yourself in the single player challenge maps. I honestly never understand what issue people have with optional co-op.

 

[zenith16]

yeah it was made very clear you "select single player mode "since your not likely to touch the mp. you should be fine that way not sure what's hard to understand about that.


It's why the words select and option has been mentioned how many times now? I remember asking why are those particular words so hard to grasp? For certain people( ok maybe saying people is the problem, I should say members of forum) here.

 

[jonathancrane]

If we cannot argue about multiplayer, what else are we going to argue about?

 

[TX85]

Some people want everything tailor mailed for them alone it seems,Optional means everybody wins as you get to stick to everything single player and others get to play all different modes.

No need to be selfish and you can't be so sure it'll ruin everything!

 

[zenith16]

If we cannot argue about multiplayer, what else are we going to argue about?

so we're not arguing for normal reasons ? Is that what your saying? are we just doing this to past time ? lol

 

[Nathan]

But there still might be a chance that you can't get an achievement/trophy, because you don't play co-op. The game is ruined! Ruined I tell you!

 

[TX85]

Trophies&Achievements are so underrated IMO,I mean I understand why people like going for them and all But for me personally I don't care and just play for fun,IF I get some then cool But IF not then eh whatever

 

[Nathan]

I just don't get gamer priorities nowadays. "Oh, I can't get all achievement/trophies? No thank you.".

 

[Jick]

Then you stick with playing by yourself in the single player challenge maps. I honestly never understand what issue people have with optional co-op.

yeah it was made very clear you "select single player mode "since your not likely to touch the mp. you should be fine that way not sure what's hard to understand about that.

It's why the words select and option has been mentioned how many times now? I remember asking why are those particular words so hard to grasp? For certain people( ok maybe saying people is the problem, I should say members of forum) here.

Grasp this first:

Even if it is optional to have a partner, I see no way how co-op combat can be done without the freeflow being interrupted by your partner. I've discussed about it many times before and I still see no good ideas around on how to prevent that.

Am I saying optional co-op shouldn't be there?
No. I saying just how hard it seems to be to have co-op working as perfectly as single.

 

[zenith16]

Grasp this first:
Am I saying optional co-op shouldn't be there?
No. I saying just how hard it seems to be to have co-op working as perfectly as single.

and that was all answer'd with

yeah it can be isolated to the single player mode only. I think I suggested that in an older thread of Arkham city when Sefton Hill admitted they were trying to find a way to implement it during that time.


If there's multiplayer it shouldn't affect the free flow cause the points for that will only locked into that selected mode of single player . And only for what you have done in your single player experience. A programmer should be able to do this, if he/ she just can't do what I formerly just said up top just now and is just having issue's getting around it. Just isolate it to the single player mode and the points you have for "free flow" won't be affected and you keep your high score in that. problem solved

LusiTx is right I didn't want to say it . but this is indeed about being selfish. And what some of us think is being catered to our selves.

selection of modes means you don't have to "F"ing touch Mp, if you don't wish too touch it . Not hard to understand or to grasp you just choose not to listen to every one and every thing counter to what you want to hear. well at least the part of choosing is under stood.

 

[Jick]

and that was all answer'd with

There is no answer there on how to prevent your partner interrupting your combos.

selection of modes means you don't have to "F"ing touch Mp, if you don't wish too touch it . Not hard to understand or to grasp you just choose not to listen to every one and every thing counter to what you want to hear. well at least the part of choosing is under stood.

This is how much you're not paying attention to what I just said. And it's damn hard to understand your english.

 

[zenith16]

it was answered have it isolated to single player . 1) the feature won't be there in the MP it's for the former alone and you keep you high combo of free flow. That's Ohhh so needed

2) It won't matter any way cause you in particularly Jick won't be playing that feature of MP. Since your only doing the single player campaign and can't be bothered with it. they're two different separate campaigns. since the word "mode" isn't working for ya


anyway I have to go MH beta is about to start up again and others can deal with this.

 

[Nathan]

A group of 12 thugs could split into two groups when seeing the players, so each player is occupied with his own thugs. Or, you know, actually communicate with your partner and tell him you can handle it. The Arkham series might have the unique free flow combat, but it wouldn't be the first game where you occasionally hit air, because your partner took your opponent.

 

[Jick]

it was answered have isolated to single player . 1) the feature won't be there in the MP it's for the former alone and you keep you hih combo of free flow.

So make the freeflow combat just for the SP? Should they build another kind of mechanics to combat in MP?
It still doesn't tell me how to prevent the problems of the co-op freeflow combat, just to ignore it and make something else just for MP.