21 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 21. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 7, 2010, 00:21 |
Prez |
|
|
| I didn't get the impression that the pointless multiplayer in Bioshock 2 took away anything from the singleplayer portion, so I'm hoping that this will be at worst a completely unnecessary and easy-to-ignore addition to what I am hoping and expecting to be a fantastic game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 23:02 |
Ant |
|
|
Decoy wrote on Sep 6, 2010, 14:57:
How about a 7on1 mode with players having to attempt to hunt down the Batman? If anyone's able to "bag the bat", it's their turn to be him in the next round? That would be awesome. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 22:38 |
rist3903 |
|
|
I had not taken that into account. Good AI would solve this nicely, but I am not holding my breath.
Unfortunately tacked on multiplayer is done at the expense of the single player as well, budgets and deadlines being what they are. Granted, co-op is worse from the single player enthusiasts' perspective for all the reasons you have previously mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 20:45 |
Jerykk |
|
|
If said developers thought that co-op or multiplayer did not work for their game and did not want to include them I would be perfectly fine with it. If there is a compulsion however, I would rather it be towards co-op.
Fair enough. That said, if a developer is compelled to add multiplayer or co-op to their game, I'd much rather it be multiplayer if only for the fact that it would be kept completely separate from single-player. When you throw in co-op, it is often done at the expense of single-player. Refer to Resident Evil 5, Red Alert 3, Hunted, etc. It's simply easier to design a game for co-op and just throw in (stupid) AI teammates for single-player rather than develop unique campaigns for both single-player and co-op. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 20:12 |
rist3903 |
|
|
QFT. It would be amazing if developers stopped feeling compelled to shoehorn multiplayer into games that don't fit well conceptually with it and instead tried to put in co-op.
Wait, you complain about shoehorning multiplayer into games that don't need it, then say that they should shoehorn co-op instead? Batman doesn't need co-op, neither do most of the games that have it these days.
In short, yes. I feel that co-op has untapped potential and I am using the definition of compel that follows:
to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>
I am saying that developers may rather not put multiplayer or co-op in their game, but either because the people that sign their checks demand it or because everyone else is doing it they feel they must.
I am biased in thinking that co-op offers much more and would like more games to have it, so that once in a great while one comes out with some truly interesting gameplay.
If said developers thought that co-op or multiplayer did not work for their game and did not want to include them I would be perfectly fine with it. If there is a compulsion however, I would rather it be towards co-op. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 20:02 |
Suddenly_Dead |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Sep 6, 2010, 17:40:
That's really the only thing I can see working. There's no point in having a bunch of not-Batmans running around, and it would be just as silly if everyone were Batman.
Except I don't think most players would want to play as generic thugs. Of course, the game could let you play as the supervillains, each with their own powers/abilities. That might be cool but it's still more of a gimmick than anything else and wouldn't really keep people playing for years.
Hidden:Source is like that, and it's definitely fun. I can see it not going over well with many people, though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 19:35 |
Flipper405 |
|
|
| Personally, I'm willing to give Rocksteady the benefit of the doubt and see what they can come up with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 19:30 |
Jerykk |
|
|
QFT. It would be amazing if developers stopped feeling compelled to shoehorn multiplayer into games that don't fit well conceptually with it and instead tried to put in co-op.
Wait, you complain about shoehorning multiplayer into games that don't need it, then say that they should shoehorn co-op instead? Batman doesn't need co-op, neither do most of the games that have it these days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 18:58 |
bigspender |
|
|
i'm guessing there will be a batman & catwoman co-op vs ai challange type thing.
whats the point? because kicking ass with two superheroes is double the fun thats the point 
if they do it right, e.g. baiting enemies, takeing out guards at the same time so they either one doesn't spot the other one getting taken down. or one peron fighting off a large amount of enemies as a distraction, while another sneaks past, or shooting them from range etc etc there are endless combinations that could work really well here - especially in the more open environment of this new game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________
Adults are just children that are allowed to make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 18:52 |
rist3903 |
|
|
If it's multiplayer as in Co-Op, then I am all for it. Otherwise I just don't see them pulling off multiplayer, UNLESS it's like the Splinter Cell series where you have 2 heroes, vs 2 villians with henchmen. THAT I would like to see.
QFT. It would be amazing if developers stopped feeling compelled to shoehorn multiplayer into games that don't fit well conceptually with it and instead tried to put in co-op.
I suppose it would usually result in the quality of most forced multiplayer games released though, sadly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 18:17 |
Tomas |
|
|
| Interest in multiplayer at this point is about zero, but maybe they have some fancy ideas on what would make it compelling. Frankly I agree with the masses here. What's the point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 18:05 |
Slashman |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Sep 6, 2010, 17:40:
That's really the only thing I can see working. There's no point in having a bunch of not-Batmans running around, and it would be just as silly if everyone were Batman.
Except I don't think most players would want to play as generic thugs. Of course, the game could let you play as the supervillains, each with their own powers/abilities. That might be cool but it's still more of a gimmick than anything else and wouldn't really keep people playing for years.
How about playing as Robin or Nightwing???? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 17:40 |
Jerykk |
|
|
That's really the only thing I can see working. There's no point in having a bunch of not-Batmans running around, and it would be just as silly if everyone were Batman.
Except I don't think most players would want to play as generic thugs. Of course, the game could let you play as the supervillains, each with their own powers/abilities. That might be cool but it's still more of a gimmick than anything else and wouldn't really keep people playing for years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 16:23 |
Suddenly_Dead |
|
|
Decoy wrote on Sep 6, 2010, 14:57:
How about a 7on1 mode with players having to attempt to hunt down the Batman? If anyone's able to "bag the bat", it's their turn to be him in the next round?
That's really the only thing I can see working. There's no point in having a bunch of not-Batmans running around, and it would be just as silly if everyone were Batman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 16:15 |
StingingVelvet |
|
|
Cutter wrote on Sep 6, 2010, 13:18:
Yet another game that doesn't need MP wasting it's time and money with it, sigh. Just focus on giving us more SP content and getting it out the door already.
Agreed.
Their reasoning is simple to understand though: it supposedly curbs piracy and makes people keep the game for longer, lowering resale purchases.
Not sure it works, but that's the theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 15:12 |
The Half Elf |
|
|
| I disagree. If it's multiplayer as in Co-Op, then I am all for it. Otherwise I just don't see them pulling off multiplayer, UNLESS it's like the Splinter Cell series where you have 2 heroes, vs 2 villians with henchmen. THAT I would like to see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 14:57 |
Decoy |
|
|
| How about a 7on1 mode with players having to attempt to hunt down the Batman? If anyone's able to "bag the bat", it's their turn to be him in the next round? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 14:57 |
Rattlehead |
|
|
| Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 13:42 |
tony |
|
|
| Hopefully it'll just be stupid worthless stuff like time trials, leaderboards, etc. I don't want this game built around co-op. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Arkham City Multiplayer? |
Sep 6, 2010, 13:21 |
Verno |
|
|
Cutter wrote on Sep 6, 2010, 13:18:
Yet another game that doesn't need MP wasting it's time and money with it, sigh. Just focus on giving us more SP content and getting it out the door already.
Agreed, it seems bizarre, I don't know how MP would even fit with the structure of gameplay. Bullet point on a box I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Faster Than Light, Tales of Graces F, Fire Emblem 3DS
Watching: Ghost in the Shell, Hannibal, Oblivion |
|
|
|
|
| |
21 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
