Batman: Arkham City and the multiplayer question

With the superficially devastating news that Arkham City will not feature a multiplayer element, Kapow Games discusses the options Rocksteady had and whether the sequel will benefit from such an omission.

[plb]

Devastating news? Why does every game need to have multiplayer these days?

[GrieverSoul]

My thoughts exactly! As soon as I saw the "devastating" news part I almost broke my monitor out of rage.

I honestly think a good single player game trumps a average single player game with tackled on multiplayer.

[UltimateIdiot911]

I found it to be great news for the lack of multiplayer. It's so rare for games these days just to focus on story without tacking on some cheap multiplayer.

[Downtown boogey]

The concept of the rumored MP component seemed almost revolutionary. That's why it's such bad news.
It sounded awesome.

[andron]

It's not a problem. how would Batman mp really work? Batman is a solitary figure anyway.

Just look at games like the Bond games. They put mp in, but how many are playing that?

[Eternus]

I think this is amazing news. Finally a developer who recognizes not every game needs MP.

[a08andan]

Well multiplayer could be great if it was local, like playing with a friend or two, but no more than that. Glad they decided to not include it though since it often feel tackled on like many others said before me :)

[Dsnyder]

Mp ruined assassins creed. dont let it ruin this as well.

[fredfenster]

Didn't ruin it for me, but it was totally unnecessary. Tried it out once, then went back to sp and kept it that way. Apparently there's a lot of young gamers that can be convinced by worthless mp's. A drag isn't it.

[Deanways]

Do you think we'll ever see a game that has an equally high quality MP as it does campaign? I was foolishly hoping Dead Space 2 might be that game. Now holding out for Uncharted 3.

[Lamarthedancer]

Why...people would get bored with it and go back to COD/Halo after about 2 weeks leaving the people who like solo play with a crappy Single player experience.

[Deanways]

Longevity is definitely an issue with all games lacking MP. I guess the combat and stealth maps on disc and as DLC help Arkham Asylum helped in that department.

[bronxsta]

I'm not against multiplayer but I've been more of a solo player. I've been playing games since I was 8 and I got my PS1. And the last ten years have seen a decline in both single-player only games and my old favorite modes: splitscreen and bots.

So I'm very happy AC is SP only. I think it was Activison that said games need online multiplayer to be well received...um no! Give us a lengthy camapaign with awesome moments, fun gameplay, and an intriuguing story and we'll love it. It doesn't even have to be original or reinvent the wheel. As long it's fun and satisfying...I'll happily pay $60 for that game.

Anyway can't wait for Arkham City. Now we just need gameplay

[ddurand1]

MP is required for me to make a 60$ purchase.

if I can get 200+ hours out a game like killzone 3, and only 20-25 (and thast being generous) out of a SP only game, my money is better spent on the game that will provide me with teh most time played per dollar.

If a game like this was cheaper, it would be easier to buy it. thats why i save my SP only games for the summertime months when theyre in the bargain bin.

its just simple college student economics, man.

[Deanways]

The value for money argument is a strong one. I already invest more money in games than other activities like going to the football or cinema because I see it as a superior cash-sink. And if a game lasts longer than another, all the better.

The only exception is that it must be quality. I'm not going to get mugged off.

[ddurand1]

yeah thats a given.

buying a game for 30$ instead of 60$ leaves me 30$ extra to go to teh bar with, or go out with my gf.

[gamefan73]

Well there goes my buy gonna borrow it of my friend instead :)