We've been saying it for a very long time: not every game in existence needs multiplayer.
Take the stellar Batman: Arkham City , for instance. What could be gained from having a multiplayer element? Perhaps even a higher level of greatness, if you choose to be an optimist, but Rocksteady game director Sefton Hill told CVG such an option would've "diminished" the experience.
" If we did multiplayer then we wouldn't have been able to deliver the quality of game that people wanted–that we wanted. We would end up delivering two watered down products. "
It turns out that Rocksteady did try to add multiplayer, but the team simply wasn't satisfied with the result. "We tried some ideas out but it always felt like it was just there as a requirement," said Hill. And how many times have we at PSXE said that ? That developers essentially add multiplayer because it does indeed feel like a requirement in this generation? Added Hill:
"You see games where you feel like they bolted the multiplayer on. 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."
Yeah, that right there. This is exactly the mentality we wish more designers had; the multiplayer explosion this generation is great, especially in terms of industry visibility and popularity, but studios only have so much in the way of time and resources. Focusing entirely on an unbelievable single-player experience gets you…
Well, it gets you awesome games like Batman: Arkham City .
Related Game(s): Batman: Arkham City
My personal "thanks a million" to Rocksteady for not gimping up our SP mode.
same here, i thanked them by buying both batman games new.
Co-op would have been cool.
Hi:
I haven't played the game yet but Co Op only with Robin or Azrael.. don't you think?
Red 5.
Two player storyline co-op would have been *really* cool. But that's not really what they mean by multiplayer, I think. At least that's not what I associate with the word.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/10/2012 8:58:39 AM
thats one thing we agree on sefton.
im still chewing you up inside for that ending though!
My regard for Rocksteady has improved (not that it was really poor to begin with).
Hi:
Thanks a LOT to Rocksteady. I agree about the Single Player Campaign must be the Priority on this type of Games (Uncharted included).
Red 5.
This is a good call. Not every action game needs multiplayer. BioShock 2 & Dead Space multiplayer was horrid. Sometimes it's best just to leave it out & concentrate on the meat of the single player mode.
Well done Rocksteady for resisting the urge. It seems hard to do these days for alot of developers.
If they had added multiplayer…
"No, *I* want to be Batman!!!!!!!!"
Standing ovation for Rocksteady. I really wish more developers had this mentality. I'd much rather have a higher quality single player experience than a "bolted on" multiplayer option that I won't even play.
I raise my glass to you Rocksteady. Cheers!
I'm very, very pleased that Rocksteady didn't add in a tacked-on multiplayer *looks at Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2*
If it weren't for Rayman Origins pulling the rug from underneath Rocksteady's feet, Arkham City would've been my GOTY hands down.
Still, if they ever can, I think co-op in the challenge rooms could work. If it doesn't work, don't bother. But that would be interesting to play as Robin or Nightwing side-by-side with someone else online playing as Batman. Just a thought.
Coop play is really good in Rayman too. I enjoy that game these days – it's great indeed.
I hope the GOW peeps take note of this and leave it out on their next installment.
Not ALL of us are about multiplayer. I don't even play multiplayer on Madden. 🙂