rocksteady burns the fat off batman arkham city.. no more multiplayer

rocksteady has burned the fat from batman arkham city.. the multiplayer has officially been canned.

they felt that what thy had wasnt enough to make it meaningful so they felt it was best to jsut leave it a singleplayer only experience

http://www.vg247.com/2011/02/14/no-multiplayer-for-arkham-city-confirms-rocksteady/

If they can't do it right I would agree to leave it out and concentrate on the SP experience fully instead.Dracula68

This. And more developers should do the same.

Are you saying they were once thinking of actually inputting multiplayer in the first place? Strange.

Thank you Rocksteady! This game didn't need multiplayer.

Are you saying they were once thinking of actually inputting multiplayer in the first place? Strange.

thattotally

yeah co-op and 2nd player was catwoman.

And this just further proves just how good a developer rocksteady is. If they can admit that something they make "isn't good enough" and take it out of the final product, you know they want to produce a quality experience, and not just somethng to make money. I can't wait for AC. I just got finished with AA not too long ago.

Good for them I understand the new Bioshock is doing the same... I hope more developers follow this trend, JK

Are you saying they were once thinking of actually inputting multiplayer in the first place? Strange.

thattotally

I'm glad to hear it. Arkham Asylum was a great single player experience from head to foot. Arkham City should work towards being the best single player experience it can be. Multiplayer is an entirely different kettle of fish.

thank god someone knows what there doing only if the makers of deadspace would have done the same with there multiplayerfl4tlined

I don't think Dead Space needed it either, but fortunately it didn't detract from the single-player game.

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"]thank god someone knows what there doing only if the makers of deadspace would have done the same with there multiplayerFoolio1

I don't think Dead Space needed it either, but fortunately it didn't detract from the single-player game.

I was actually not aware that they were even planning multiplayer for this title until now. I suppose it is a good thing they canned it then. If you cannot make it worthwhile, don't even bother.

[QUOTE="Foolio1"]

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"]thank god someone knows what there doing only if the makers of deadspace would have done the same with there multiplayerfl4tlined

I don't think Dead Space needed it either, but fortunately it didn't detract from the single-player game.

Well then I don't know if I could handle it because I thought the game was fantastic. Better than the first, and the original I consider to be my personal GOTY for 2008 :P

good idea i say. It's better to have some games sp focused, and others mp focused. Was anyone seriously looking forward to playing this game multiplayer?

I'm happy I could care less about multiplayer because unless its good I don't wste my time on the multiplayer of games. Everyone knows how ridiculous it's getting. Dead Space 2, BioShock 2, The Darkness, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption to a certain extent etc.I mean if these games were done right then fine butI don't like having to pay for DLC that should have been in the main experience in the first place. Plus all these games have great SP experiences anyway for me not to care about the multiplayer part. My only problem is if they focused more on the SP and left these pointless multiplayer experiences out then we would have better SP experiences. I'm all about CO-OP but PVP needs to go in certain games and shouldn't even be considered when making new IP's including this game. This "IS" a SP game after all. To anyone who wanted a multiplayer experience please go away.

Though I never knew about this, I'm glad they decided to take it out.

It feels weird to be praising developers for telling us that we are getting less. But I just gotta say awesome.

It just seems so stupid to waste resources on mp that most people don't want and most people won't bother playing. Just look at how fast the mp dies in most games. Please be a sign that publishers are finally getting the message that single player games are good by themselves and they don't need to tack mp onto everything. I mean just today I finished the Dead Space 2 campaign and I have no desire to play the mp. But I am definitely thinking of doing either a zealot or a hard core run.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]If they can't do it right I would agree to leave it out and concentrate on the SP experience fully instead.LikeHaterade

This. And more developers should do the same.

Agree with you both.

Hope they use the saved time to make the SP experience extra special.

Judging from all the responses, I wish devs actually read forum boards like this and listened to people who keep them going. More often than not, if it's not a fighting, racing, sports game, or FPS, a game doesn't need online multi-player.

Truthfully, I believe this was a good idea. Now people can't trash on the game just because it might or might not have had a multiplayer that was less than perfect. Now people can just concentrate on the game. I would bet my life though that Xplay will review this game and say they give it a 4/5 for no multiplayer.

If it wasn't going to be good, then I'm glad they focus on what they have going for them. At the same time, it isn't unheard of for a single-player only game to come out with some awesome multiplayer offerings later on. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was tight, and a big reason for that was how good the single-player AND multiplayer were. Maybe nest time Rocksteady will have some great ideas for what to do. If they don't, hopefully they are still humble enough to admit it.

You make it sound as if some embryonic form of multiplayer existed at some point. This is not the case.

Some single player games have the structure to add a decent multiplayer componet like Uncharted or Bioshock, the online to number 2 was fantastic imo, but forcing it unnecessarily just for the sake of it? Not worth it, and I think Batman is one of those cases where less is more.

I didn't even know they ever planned a co-op mode. Good call. That sounds like it'd be horrible with that games formula.

can't wait for it

good.

So nice to see a developer realize that the singe-player experience is still the way most people enjoy their games and that having resources devoted to a tacked-on, throwaway online mode that has already appreared in the last fifty games released is far from being a necessity.

They just earned my money.

Judging from all the responses, I wish devs actually read forum boards like this and listened to people who keep them going. More often than not, if it's not a fighting, racing, sports game, or FPS, a game doesn't need online multi-player.

Bigboi500

Developers probably do, but the idiot suits running the companies don't. They live in a vacuum, and that's why they still think it's 2001 and the multiplayer market hasn't been run into the ground.

This just goes to show how competent they are. I am now looking forward to AC with even higher expectations than i already was. AA was supremely fun to play.

Great! More time to make the game more awesome.

Awwww Yeeeaaaah!

Thats too bad. I was wondering what it was gonna be like.

Thats too bad. I was wondering what it was gonna be like.

Morphic

Sorry, but it isn't bad at all. Rocksteady made the right call if you ask me.

The single-player campaign for Arkham Asylum is worth the price of admission alone and if they truly care about the sequel, they will do what it takes to make the single-player campaign in Arkham City ten times better than its predeccesor.

Having the multiplayer option in there will ruin the experience, IMO.

....and Rocksteady climbs one notch higher on my favorite developer list. Hopefully this will translate to a more polished SP experience.

I wouldnt mind. This game doesnt need MP.