Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

Am I the only one who differentiates between co-op and multiplayer?

Co-op is multiplayer. You're not the only person who differentiates between cooperative and competitive multiplayer though.

 

[Eccocid]

It's a wonderful jar of potpourri, all wrapped up in a Metroidvania box. Even if I didn't like the characters or the universe, it'd still be a fantastic game.

Oh i thought it was a very linear game. I am gonna get it then. I am in for games with immersive gameplay lately. Got bored of just shooting stuff.

 

[Drunkenthumbmaster]

How do you know that? Because it was good? That's not evidence the MP didn't hurt the SP at all. You don't have a bizarro world version of DS2 that is SP only for comparison.

If this isn't the biggest strawman I've ever read on Gaf I don't know what is. The single player in Dead Space 2 was Great. It remained great even though EA tacked on a half ass multiplayer mode. Arguing on what it could have been is pointless since the game was already great in Single player.

A full featured well thought out Co-op mode wouldn't hurt but just add to game. And if it sucks so what just play the campaign.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

HEy ..I still haven't played the first Batman game yet. Found it very cheap in here. Is it really that good? Usually i am not into super hero stuff. But if you have to name a similar game like that what would it be? It is not just a brawler and an action game right? More like a Splinter Cell ?

Splinter Cell is the closest thing it comes to, yet it's far different and unique than anything in it's genre.

It has a very fluid combat system, fun stealth modes, engaging side-quests, great fan service, awesome story and at times a massive massive mindfuck and scary title.

 

[Kurtofan]

Seems logical to me.
Where did this multiplayer rumor come from the first place?

 

[Manmademan]

Am I the only one who differentiates between co-op and multiplayer?

since co-op involves more than one person, it's by definition multiplayer- just one of several KINDS of multiplayer.

might be local, might be online, but still multiplayer.

 

[Xater]

Fixed.

Fuck Azrael! Why not Batgirl (The Cassandra Cain one) or Batwoman?

 

[Weenerz]

Only thing left is to confirm that it won't be a GFWL title and I will be a happy boy.

Either way, glad they aren't going to cram co-op in.

 

[StuBurns]

If this isn't the biggest strawman I've ever read on Gaf I don't know what is. The single player in Dead Space 2 was Great. It remained great even though EA tacked on a half ass multiplayer mode. Arguing on what it could have been is pointless since the game was already great in Single player.

A full featured well thought out Co-op mode wouldn't hurt but just add to game. And if it sucks so what just play the campaign.

The point was you can't say it wouldn't have been greater had there not been a multiplayer, or at least you can't say it and not be making blind assumptions.

The people who are happy to see this not having multiplayer know for a fact that multiplayer can't compromise the single player experience for this game. There is no reason for what if's in this instance.

 

[badcrumble]

Right, I would've been fine with multiplayer challenge rooms, but multiplayer for the SP portion of the game (i.e. a constantly present co-op partner wherever you go) would've hurt this even worse than it hurt RE5. It pretty much automatically cripples what you can and can't do, design-wise.

 

[Sectus]

Well, I guess I'll be the only one to go... boo! I like coop games!

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Fuck Azrael! Why not Batgirl (The Cassandra Cain one) or Batwoman?

Cause Batgirl would be the same as Robin while Azrael will bring in something new?

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

Awesome.

 

[ultron87]

Cause Batgirl would be the same as Robin while Azrael will bring in something new?

Needs an adversarial mode where it's Batman and Robin vs Red Hood. B&R have to both stop the criminals and stop Red Hood from just killing them all.

 

[rollingstart]

I imagine people who're happy about this have never played Splinter Cell Chaos Theory co-op. Stealth co-op is an absolute gas.

I guess it's good though. We all know that the only way you can implement multiplayer in a normally single player game is to cram it in and it has a negative effect on single player and couldn't possibly be entertaining. It's in the history books; look it up.

 

[Drunkenthumbmaster]

The point was you can't say it wouldn't have been greater had there not been a multiplayer, or at least you can't say it and not be making blind assumptions.

The people who are happy to see this not having multiplayer know for a fact that multiplayer can't compromise the single player experience for this game. There is no reason for what if's in this instance.

Your whole argument is a what if scenario. The only fact is that Rocksteady decided to not add a feature.

The assumption that a great game would have been a little better is ridiculous. In essence what you are saying is you can't enjoy a great singe player game because if there is a multiplayer mode it could have been better???

I just find that argument nonsense. There are a litany of games that had great campaigns and added multiplayer modes without the single-player mode suffering. In fact I really can't think of many games where I feel the single player suffered because of the multiplayer in a game where the single player was the primary focus.

 

[subversus]

3 pages of jubilation about removed feature. Wow.

I don't mind though, was equally excited before this announcement.

 

[badcrumble]

3 pages of jubilation about removed feature. Wow.

What feature was removed, exactly?

 

[ultron87]

Can someone provide just one example where the following happened:

1) Great game with fantastic single player comes out.
2) Sequel is developed by the same team.
3) Sequel contains multiplayer mode.
4) Single player in sequel is noticeably worse than the previous game.

I'm sure there is one, but I just can't think of one at the moment despite the fact that from this thread it sounds like it happens all the time.

 

[REV 09]

hmm, i kind of wanted some type of multi. hopefully it has replay value with the challenge rooms or something. game looks awesome though.

 

[Stallion Free]

3 pages of jubilation about removed feature. Wow.

I don't mind though, was equally excited before this announcement.

Nothing was removed. Nothing was added. The perfect balance remains.

 

[Drunkenthumbmaster]

Nothing was removed. Nothing was added. Nothing improved.

This is better

 

[Xater]

Cause Batgirl would be the same as Robin while Azrael will bring in something new?

Azrael still sucks.

 

[badcrumble]

Can someone provide just one example where the following happened:

1) Great game with fantastic single player comes out.
2) Sequel is developed by the same team.
3) Sequel contains multiplayer mode.
4) Single player in sequel is noticeably worse than the previous game.

I'm sure there is one, but I just can't think of one at the moment despite the fact that from this thread it sounds like it happens all the time.

Resident Evil 5.

 

[Pengew]

Instant -10 on Metacritic.

"No Online Co-Op" and " Too linear " are counted as negatives these days for some damn reason. These are two things I actually look for in games.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Can someone provide just one example where the following happened:

1) Great game with fantastic single player comes out.
2) Sequel is developed by the same team.
3) Sequel contains multiplayer mode.
4) Single player in sequel is noticeably worse than the previous game.

I'm sure there is one, but I just can't think of one at the moment despite the fact that from this thread it sounds like it happens all the time.

Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena.

 

[Drunkenthumbmaster]

Resident Evil 5.

You actually have a point. But the co-op was great in RE:5 the problem was that was the whole game. Even in singple player the game was co-op. That's why it should be a seperate mode. You want find a example when the multiplayer is seperate from the single player that it hurts the campaign.

 

[An-Det]

I'm glad to hear that, but at the same time intrigued. Maintaining their full resources on it as a single-player experience is wonderful and after the first game I'm sure it'll be awesome, but the game seems like a potentially good fit for some optional co-op. I'm curious to see if they did try for some variation of it but ultimately scrapped it, that'd make for some good unlockable extras to watch.

 

[abstract alien]

I support developers like this with a first day sale.

 

[Lakitu]

You actually have a point. But the co-op was great in RE:5 the problem was that was the whole game. Even in singple player the game was co-op. That's why it should be a seperate mode. You want find a example when the multiplayer is seperate from the single player that it hurts the campaign.

Bioshock 2?

 

[Gravijah]

This is better

When it comes to game modes, maybe. Doesn't mean the actual game isn't improved.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Azrael still sucks.

Yet he is the only one who can kick Bane's ass without running, rolling and dodging, and tossing batarangs.

 

[Princess Skittles]

Good on them, multi-player being forced into single-player games is one of the biggest drawbacks in a generation full of drawbacks.

 

[Stallion Free]

This is better

Meh.

 

[Xater]

Yet he is the only one who can kick Bane's ass without running, rolling and dodging, and tossing batarangs.

You are not going to convince me! AAAAAH! *nerdrage*

 

[DanDeschain]

Thank god!!!

 

[ultron87]

Bioshock 2?

Made by a different team than the original game.

And I'd argue that the issues with that game's single player weren't really caused by lack of people working on it. It was mostly some bad design choices and a less interesting plot than the original.

The actual moment to moment gameplay and shooting were actually pretty good and polished.

And to the other examples, RE:5 definitely counts and goes to show why forced co-op with an AI partner is one of the worst decisions a developer can do with a game.

Sounds like Riddick is a decent example as well.

 

[Princess Skittles]

"No Online Co-Op" and " Too linear " are counted as negatives these days for some damn reason. These are two things I actually look for in games.

The funny thing about gamers today whining and complaining (on the internet? shocking!) about linearity, is that they only desire the ILLUSION of non-linearity. The moment a game places a player with a real, actual choice.. they panic in a fit of confusion and jump to forums or FAQs for help. Even if it's something as simple as picking a character or a class to play as.. these people are incapable of making these choices themselves even though they clamor for them as they've been programmed to look for "bullet points" in a game's design.

 

[DMczaf]

Batman is a Single Player Only experience.

 

[JoeBoy101]

From the way people are talking here having an option on the main menu marked "Multiplayer" will automatically make the game worse in their eyes. That just doesn't make sense to me. I think Rocksteady has shown that they can make a great game, and if they had decided that they could keep up the quality while adding a multiplayer mode I'd totally trust them.

Having no multiplayer doesn't automatically make the single player mode ten points better.

And there have been plenty of games this generation that had what a lot of people considered unnecessary multiplayer modes that were still fantastic and complete single player experiences. Just look at Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and Red Dead Redemption for just a few examples.

If the game has a fresh good approach to MP that makes sense, then yes, by all means, let's have it. But considering that resources and time has to be put towards a multiplayer feature, getting one that is lackluster has, by definition, harmed the game by either delaying it from coming out sooner with the same SP gameplay, or those same resources were taking from doing the SP gameplay, weakening it from what it could have been.

Its funny you bring up Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood because compared to the second one, its gameplay and plot was a bit weaker. Now RDR had an unnecessary MP mode, but it was also quite fun and better for it.

Multiplayer for Batman can make sense, and Co-OP certainly seems like the avenue to explore there. I would be excited to see what can be done, but I applaud Rocksteady in recognizing that the SP game is the core of what they are doing and that they have the guts to recognize that they can't bring a robust MP option into Arkham City in time for its release and, should they decide to go down that road, will do it in a later game.

 

[Ridley327]

Can someone provide just one example where the following happened:

1) Great game with fantastic single player comes out.
2) Sequel is developed by the same team.
3) Sequel contains multiplayer mode.
4) Single player in sequel is noticeably worse than the previous game.

I'm sure there is one, but I just can't think of one at the moment despite the fact that from this thread it sounds like it happens all the time.

I already mentioned Condemned 2, which ought to be a poster child for this type of phenomena.

 

[Stallion Free]

If it adds to the dev time or requires that they hire new employees to finish it in time, by all means leave multiplayer/co-op out of Batman 3.

I like that I only had to wait 2 years for Arkham City.

 

[dankir]

Good. More time to focus on the fantastical "I'M THE GODDAMN BATMAN" experience.

This is the correct answer.

 

[KAL2006]

Can someone provide just one example where the following happened:

1) Great game with fantastic single player comes out.
2) Sequel is developed by the same team.
3) Sequel contains multiplayer mode.
4) Single player in sequel is noticeably worse than the previous game.

I'm sure there is one, but I just can't think of one at the moment despite the fact that from this thread it sounds like it happens all the time.

Uncharted 2 was the opposite, they made an awesome multiplayer modes, and the singleplayer was even better

 

[Apoc29]

People have a problem with RE5 because of the forced co-op in single-player. I would have liked to see a separate co-op campaign for Batman like they did for Splinter Cell: Conviction (which was very good), leaving the single-player intact.

 

[Drunkenthumbmaster]

I already mentioned Condemned 2, which ought to be a poster child for this type of phenomena.

I thought Condemend 2 was better than the first. I don't understand what you think made it worse.

 

[Haunted]

+100 respect points for Rocksteady.


You're doing good work, people. Will buy just to support the "not every game needs MP" movement.

 

[Drunkenthumbmaster]

+100 respect points for Rocksteady.


You're doing good work, people. They know how to make GAFers happy. Will buy just to support the "not every game needs MP" movement.

Couldn't think of a more stupid reason to buy a game.

 

[Steroyd]

A full featured well thought out Co-op mode wouldn't hurt but just add to game. And if it sucks so what just play the campaign.

Tell that to Resident Evil 5.

A seperate Co-op campaign ala Uncharted 2 is good, but if it invades the single player than I'd rather it not be there.

 

[Gravijah]

I thought Condemend 2 was better than the first. I don't understand what you think made it worse.

What the fuuuuuuuuck. Condemned 2 is horrible, putrid shit.