So when rockstady says MP would ruin the experience in Batman and thats why we didnt do it everyone praise them but when platinum games say they didnt add MP to Vanquish because it would ruin the exprience they get showered by complaints and the reviewers give them low scores talk about double standards.
I love the fact that they said this. I wish more developers had this mentality.
I remember reading reviews for Vanquish, and some reviewers had the audacity to downplay the game because of the fact that it didn't include a multiplayer. I did the biggest /facepalm known to man.
I wish more developers would go in with this kind of mindset and completely disregard multiplayer. Devote 100% of their resources to singleplayer and just forget about multiplayer. Everyone is just going to play CoD and Battlefield anyways, so why bother?
These clowns need to step into the 21st century... It is ridiculous not to have some form of multiplayer. If GTA can have multiplayer and this can not than they are **** coders.Dy_WarriorsXoXo
How is it ridiculous? I can think of a bunch of great games that don't have multiplayer.
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
Short campaign? Arkham City was longer than 99% of games this gen, how can you call a 15 hour campaign with tons of sidequests short? I've been playing Arkham City for the past 3 months and still not bored of it. I'm still playing it.
On a side note, Kevin Conroy kind of confirmed story DLC by going in and doing more voice over work and saying that Batman fans should keep on the lookout for more Arkham City content.
It's their game, not yours. If they think co-op's gonna be detrimental to development and won't be a worthwhile investment then they're probably right, because they're the ones with experience and who are making the game, not the consumer.
McStrongfast
So profound! :lol: Of course they can do whatever they want with their game, I'm just not going to buy it until it's on Steam for $10.
[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]These clowns need to step into the 21st century... It is ridiculous not to have some form of multiplayer. If GTA can have multiplayer and this can not than they are **** coders. Multiplayer is a natural fit for GTA, but it isn't for the Arkham games. Some games are well-suited for multiplayer while others aren't. I'd love to see your ideas for multiplayer in the Arkham games that fits and isn't clunky as hell.
[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]These clowns need to step into the 21st century... It is ridiculous not to have some form of multiplayer. If GTA can have multiplayer and this can not than they are **** coders.Dy_WarriorsXoXo
How is it ridiculous? I can think of a bunch of great games that don't have multiplayer.
I do not pay $60 for a 10 hour tops product
Arkham City doesn't last for just ten hours, you clearly haven't played it. People like you are killing gaming. You're like a cancer.
[QUOTE="jack00"]Yeah the singleplayer campaign was 5 hours long. If they also had to work on multiplayer we would of been lucky to have a 2 hours campaign.Jebus213
It was not 5 hours. The main story is 10 hours.
And Bloody Awesome. Once I finished it, I did it again in New Game+ which is more fun then the first go round. Loved this game, no multiplayer and all.
I do not pay $60 for a 10 hour tops productDy_WarriorsXoXo
I put about 35 hours into AC even before the challenge rooms... which took up another good 30 hours, and for some, last way longer with the leaderboards.
It only diminished the experience if your studio doesn't have the means of hiring a separate team to develop the multiplayer aspects and has to use existing human resource, thus affecting the single player development growth.
[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]It's their game, not yours. If they think co-op's gonna be detrimental to development and won't be a worthwhile investment then they're probably right, because they're the ones with experience and who are making the game, not the consumer.
MyopicCanadian
So profound! :lol: Of course they can do whatever they want with their game, I'm just not going to buy it until it's on Steam for $10.
You seemed confused about it. And why they cut the multiplayer. If you want to spite them for doing that then that's your incomprehensible prerogative.
[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]These clowns need to step into the 21st century... It is ridiculous not to have some form of multiplayer. If GTA can have multiplayer and this can not than they are **** coders.Dy_WarriorsXoXo
How is it ridiculous? I can think of a bunch of great games that don't have multiplayer.
I do not pay $60 for a 10 hour tops product
Lolthe campaign in Arkham City has like around 40 hours of content, and then you got the challenge maps.
These clowns need to step into the 21st century... It is ridiculous not to have some form of multiplayer. If GTA can have multiplayer and this can not than they are **** coders.Dy_WarriorsXoXo
gta was a good fit for multiplayer and had it last gen with the 2 player (despite being limited in scope).
GTA3,VC and SA have a strong multiplayer scene on the PC though the likes of MTA and SA:MP.Also theres basic netcode in GTA 3 despite not being implemented by rockstar themselves.
It wasnt til this gen they did it either because of the lack of power on previous gen consoles and probably more than likely the fact there was no infrastructure on the biggest platform last gen either if we think bout online stuff SOny was hellish last gen.
I couldn't have agreed more. I was so thankful that they decide not to add MP but rather work more of the SP. It made an avid Batman fan as happy as I could be :D
Log in to comment