Thank you Rocksteady! At least some devs out there know how to do it right. :)

Batman: Arkham City dev tried adding multiplayer

Batman: Arkham Cityis a great game, earning the3rd spoton our Game of the Year list. But would it have been a better game had it featured a multiplayer component?

Game director Sefton Hill argued that it would have seriously diminished the game. "If we did multiplayer then we wouldn't have been able to deliver the quality of game that people wanted--that we wanted," he said. "We would end up delivering two watered down products."

Apparently, the team at Rocksteady did attempt building multiplayer in the game. However, Hill and co. weren't pleased with the results. "We did look at multiplayer early on and we looked at what it could actually bring to the table," he toldCVG. "We tried some ideas out but it always felt like it was just there as a requirement."

Although the game ended up shipping with anonline pass, the publisher didn't try to sway the team's decision on multiplayer. "We're really thankful to Warner on that. At a time when a lot of publishers said you have to have multiplayer, they backed our ideas for single player."

"You see games where you feel like they bolted the multiplayer on," Hill added. "But if they had taken that effort and put it into the single player, they would have had a better game instead of having a multiplayer that people don't play."

http://www.shacknews.com/article/72394/batman-arkham-city-dev-tried-adding-multiplayer

EA is now targeting them for hostile take over. :twisted: :P

your just reading about this? they said this as soon as they announce the sequel

Good stuff rocksteady.

It's very true.

Good to hear. Take notes EA.

God bless Rocksteady.

God bless Rocksteady.

zeldisco2009

Of course it would. It would destroy the uniqueness of the game.

I hear GOW IV is to implement an MP element too and it will be an example why you shouldn't add it to these kind of games that rely on their SP. Unless it's just a Co-op thing, then it might be alright

Why is it that anything that involves more then one player IN ANY WAY devastating to you people?Jebus213

Read the op?

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

rasengan2552

It has nothing to do with being incompetent. They're owned by EA. They do what EA says.

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

waltefmoney

It has nothing to do with being incompetent. They're owned by EA. They do what EA says.

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

waltefmoney

It has nothing to do with being incompetent. They're owned by EA. They do what EA says.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

CanYouDiglt

It has nothing to do with being incompetent. They're owned by EA. They do what EA says.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

It has nothing to do with being incompetent. They're owned by EA. They do what EA says.

CanYouDiglt

Yeah. EA is like cancer.

I really don't like it when developers say things like this. I believe a lot of single player games could easily benefit from a good co-op experience. Lots of people just like playing co-op campaigns with their friends.

It's like the developer is trying to TELL me what I want. I'll decide for myself, thanks. If co-op and people chatting is ruining the experience, I'll finish it on my own. If it's fun as hell, I'll continue playing multiplayer. It's usually way more fun.

I agree that a separate tacked on multiplayer mode just for the sake of having it is usually not worth it, though.

I really don't like it when developers say things like this. I believe a lot of single player games could easily benefit from a good co-op experience. Lots of people just like playing co-op campaigns with their friends.

It's like the developer is trying to TELL me what I want. I'll decide for myself, thanks. If co-op and people chatting is ruining the experience, I'll finish it on my own. If it's fun as hell, I'll continue playing multiplayer. It's usually way more fun.

I agree that a separate tacked on multiplayer mode just for the sake of having it is usually not worth it, though.

MyopicCanadian

I really don't like it when developers say things like this. I believe a lot of single player games could easily benefit from a good co-op experience. Lots of people just like playing co-op campaigns with their friends.

It's like the developer is trying to TELL me what I want. I'll decide for myself, thanks. If co-op and people chatting is ruining the experience, I'll finish it on my own. If it's fun as hell, I'll continue playing multiplayer. It's usually way more fun.

I agree that a separate tacked on multiplayer mode just for the sake of having it is usually not worth it, though.

How about multiplayer, coop style, like Double Dragon? In fact, isn't it time for a new Double Dragon?

Good I glad they didn't want to work on what could have been a meh MP and focus on making sure the SP was a amazing experience which it did.:)

The challenge rooms would have far greater replay value if they had an option for co-op though.

But any sort of traditional MP component would be horrible.

Thank God EA doesn't have control of the Batman franchise, or they would ruin the sh** out of it this way.

It would be nice to see if they could possibly allow for two players in the challenge rooms in the next installments. It would be nice to have Batman and Robin, or like Catwoman and Nightwing fighting off or stealthily taking out a bunch of dudes together.

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

rasengan2552

Actually I don't blame Visceral, I blame EA.

EA has that new "online in everything" policy, so you get games like Crysis and Dead Space having terrible multiplayer tacked on just so EA can justify online passes. Syndicate barely got away from it because their co-op counted as online (which was good enough for EA), but it was multiplayery enough to justify an online pass.

I wish more devs would see it that way.

They tried to put multiplayer, then? That means, if they actually managed to find a cool way to implement it they would have done that.
.
This all seems very logical to me.

I agree that Batman should just be SP.:D

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]Why is it that anything that involves more then one player IN ANY WAY devastating to you people?topgunmv

Read the op?

you know what also diminishes the experience? having a short ass campaign but like 100 challenge rooms. how about some missions instead. hell, start doing 5 hour dlc every few months and introduce new stories and characters like a comic book if you're gonna have a big empty open world. arkham city was great, one of my 10 favorite games last year. it could have been longer or had more content. co-op could work though if the world was bigger. man batman/robbin running around gotham would be awesome mems_1224

Yeah, the Main and side missions were a lot shorter than I expected. I was thinking I was going to be kept busy for weeks but I finished everything in a matter of days.

You've got like a million challenge rooms but I'm a little timid for them. The ever increasing difficulty scares me :P

God bless Rocksteady.

zeldisco2009

The game would have been more fun if they would have included coop multiplayer in some of the challenge rooms.PurpleMan5000

[QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"]The game would have been more fun if they would have included coop multiplayer in some of the challenge rooms.DragonfireXZ95

What ever do you mean? The Dead Space 2 community is thriving. Although to be fair, I hear the SP in that game managed to come out alright despite of unnecessary MP being a thing.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]Why is it that anything that involves more then one player IN ANY WAY devastating to you people?speedfreak48t5p

Read the op?

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

With this quote, Rocksteady has just secured a spot in my top 3 developers this gen.

why couldn't the Dead Space devs be this competent ?

CanYouDiglt

It has nothing to do with being incompetent. They're owned by EA. They do what EA says.

I really don't like it when developers say things like this. I believe a lot of single player games could easily benefit from a good co-op experience. Lots of people just like playing co-op campaigns with their friends.

It's like the developer is trying to TELL me what I want. I'll decide for myself, thanks. If co-op and people chatting is ruining the experience, I'll finish it on my own. If it's fun as hell, I'll continue playing multiplayer. It's usually way more fun.

I agree that a separate tacked on multiplayer mode just for the sake of having it is usually not worth it, though.

MyopicCanadian

But then you say if it's not of a high enough quality it's not worth it?

I've just woken up so maybe I've misinterpreted something. But you're not making much sense to me right now.

Multiplayer would be terrible. Keep up with the brilliant single-player and leave multiplayer to other kind of games.

I don't care about MP in the campaign, but like others have already said, co-op could have been awesome at least for the challenge maps.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="PurpleMan5000"]The game would have been more fun if they would have included coop multiplayer in some of the challenge rooms.GiantAssPanda

Nah, it would have been cool. :cool:

[QUOTE="speedfreak48t5p"] What ever do you mean? The Dead Space 2 community is thriving. Although to be fair, I hear the SP in that game managed to come out alright despite of unnecessary MP being a thing.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Read the op?

McStrongfast

Arkham City was perfectly fine without multiplayer (and by that I mean GOTY 2011). I don't know how they could possibly design the combat and stealth systems while accounting for 2+ players.

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]

I really don't like it when developers say things like this. I believe a lot of single player games could easily benefit from a good co-op experience. Lots of people just like playing co-op campaigns with their friends.

It's like the developer is trying to TELL me what I want. I'll decide for myself, thanks. If co-op and people chatting is ruining the experience, I'll finish it on my own. If it's fun as hell, I'll continue playing multiplayer. It's usually way more fun.

I agree that a separate tacked on multiplayer mode just for the sake of having it is usually not worth it, though.

McStrongfast

But then you say if it's not of a high enough quality it's not worth it?

I've just woken up so maybe I've misinterpreted something. But you're not making much sense to me right now.

What I'm saying is pretty much every game is better with co-op, and it should be up to the consumer to decide this, not the developer. Treyarch and IW also use this same line when they talk about the CoD campaigns.

If, however, they were working on a multiplayer system that feels tacked on.. see The Darkness, Bioshock 2, the new Wolfenstein, whatever other examples you can think of... then I have no problem with that being avoided. Especially the way consumers blast through games these days... if the MP isn't excellent, the MP component will be dead not long after the game's launch anyway. Hell, even if the MP *IS* good, it might die anyway due to competition from MP-centric games.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]

I really don't like it when developers say things like this. I believe a lot of single player games could easily benefit from a good co-op experience. Lots of people just like playing co-op campaigns with their friends.

It's like the developer is trying to TELL me what I want. I'll decide for myself, thanks. If co-op and people chatting is ruining the experience, I'll finish it on my own. If it's fun as hell, I'll continue playing multiplayer. It's usually way more fun.

I agree that a separate tacked on multiplayer mode just for the sake of having it is usually not worth it, though.

MyopicCanadian

But then you say if it's not of a high enough quality it's not worth it?

I've just woken up so maybe I've misinterpreted something. But you're not making much sense to me right now.

What I'm saying is pretty much every game is better with co-op, and it should be up to the consumer to decide this, not the developer. Treyarch and IW also use this same line when they talk about the CoD campaigns.

If, however, they were working on a multiplayer system that feels tacked on.. see The Darkness, Bioshock 2, the new Wolfenstein, whatever other examples you can think of... then I have no problem with that being avoided. Especially the way consumers blast through games these days... if the MP isn't excellent, the MP component will be dead not long after the game's launch anyway. Hell, even if the MP *IS* good, it might die anyway due to competition from MP-centric games.