Rumor: Batman: Arkham Origins Will Add Multiplayer

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Rumor: Batman: Arkham Origins Will Add Multiplayer

image

Anonymous sources have said that the third entry in the Arkham series will introduce new multiplayer modes.

Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham City are arguably the definitive Batman games, elevating the character to heights never before reached in the realm of gaming. The Arkham games have also been renowned as some of the best single player titles in years, creating experiences that were accessible, deep, and immersive. Now, if rumors can be believed, the next game in the franchise, Batman: Arkham Origins, will be introducing multiplayer to the previously solo-centric series.

Speaking to Kotaku, an anonymous source indicated the new game would be adding multiplayer components. Though offering scant details on what and how many modes would be added, they described one scenario putting players in the role of famous villains trying to bring down Batman and Robin. The baddies involved could apparently include the likes Killer Croc, Deadshot, Firefly, Black Mask, Deathstroke and "some kind of Electroman character," said the source. Though Kotaku has expressed trust in its sources, Warner Bros. Games Montreal, the studio behind Arkham Origins, declined to comment when contacted, leaving the information unconfirmed.

Some were disappointed to learn that Arkham Origins wasn't being developed by Rocksteady, the studio behind the first two Arkham titles. The addition of multiplayer, in turn, is likely to be taken by detractors as a poor sign of things to come. That said, it might be best for gamers to avoid knee jerk reactions. There are examples, for certain, of single player games that had pointless multiplayer modes forced on them, but there's no reason that Arkham Origins' multiplayer can't be a fun and valuable experience. Considering the size of Batman's retinue and rogue's gallery, it's not hard to envision a few fun ways a solid multiplayer mode could take shape.

Source: Kotaku

Permalink

image
Camping, it's a legitimate strategy.

Everything old is new again. Haven't we been here before? Games with excellent single player experiences having multiplayer shoehorned onto them. And by a new developer, to boot?

Not the best tidings.

We had the same rumours with Arkham City, I'll wait for official confirmation before I say anything.

This is why superman works alone.

And now if everyone on the tour bus will turn to the left you can see a publisher making the same mistake everyone else has made again. Now continuining on up ahead you can see what is left of the occupy mass effect movement outside of biowares headquarters...

Devil is in the details, but I could see enjoying a Co-op or even vs Arkham Game.

No thanks. It adds nothing.

nnnnnno, no, stop it, bad publisher, bad.

Go sit in the corner and think about what you have done, you are in time out mister.

While it's true that we don't know that such an addition would be bad, name me one single-player series that was improved in anyway by adding multiplayer. You know, let's make it easier, name which ones were not lessened with the addition of multiplayer.

Because, frankly, the only one that come to mind is Splinter Cell. And how many have been worse off for tacked on multiplayer? Loads. Loads and loads.

To quote Archer: "WHYYYYYYYYYYY........do people do this?"

This is an insanely bad idea, and devs and publishers need to realize that strictly single-player games are not a bad thing. My evidence? The first two Arkham games!

Why would people even buy it if Rocksteady aren't developing it? They seem to be using the "Arkham" name just to exploit the people that liked AA and AC.

Well if that's true I guess I wont be buying it.

Rocksteady is rumoured to be making another Batman game as well, so I guess I'll just wait for that instead.

Normally I'd be all "HELL NAW!!!"...but it worked for Mass Effect 3.

It doesn't have to be bad at all.
I've envisioned a multiplayer mode where the player playing Batman plays as normal, while the one playing one of the villains play it as a strategy game, hiring goons to send to do jobs to make money to hire more/better goons and build the super weapon that will win the game. Batmanhas to go to where these crimes are taking place, stop the bad guys and interrogate one. Each time he manages to do that, he narrows down the area of the city that he has to search to find the villains secret hide-out, leading eventually to the final battle where the villain gets to try to fight Batman in person.

More than two people? More than one villain, and villains can send their goons to interrupt the other villains crimes if they want to keep them from getting the money/parts they need to finish their super-weapon and win.

'course, there's no couch co-op for this, except maybe on the Wii-U.

Another reason for me not to be interested in it.

If this is true it tells me that they have run out of ideas for Batman Arkham series and it is time to milk it while the game still has good graces.

This is of course a big IF.

Even though it's one of the things on the list of "signs the IP is going stale/they don't know what to do with it/WE WANT EVEN MORE MONEY", I don't entirely think this needs to be a bad thing as long as it doesn't take away from the single player.

In saying all that, ever since the co-op rumours for AC started going around I've been thinking, how would a multiplayer even work? Especially given the way the counters work, the way most enemies can't always attack once you're doing a finishing move and the way time actually slows down when performing certain actions. They'd need to do some serious tweaking to get the combat system to work in multiplayer, especially any kind of versus mode. At least if it was Rocksteady they might be able to do that seeing as they designed the system but new guys? I sense it'll be broken.

But meh, haven't bought a gold sub in about 2 years and don't plan starting again anytime soon so I won't be playing it anyway.

Oh for fuck's sake... I was worried about this game as soon as I found out Rocksteady wasn't developing it. This just adds to my apprehension.

Seriously, stop fucking adding tacked on multiplayer modes that add nothing to the game, simply take dev time away from the main campaign and probably won't be played in two months anyway!

Have games like Skyrim, Bioshock Infinite and the absolute wealth of awesome indie content taught publishers NOTHING?!

After Mass Effect 3, I try not to pre-judge added on multiplayer, but I can't help but worry about this.

The only way I could possibly see this working is maybe a Batman and Robin co-op campaign or something.

How exactly? How would that even work? Co-op would either make things far too easy, or ramp up the difficulty enough that you need to play in groups to beat it.

It worked for Mass Effect 3 and the Assassin's Creed games, when both had large groups of fanboys saying that they would be crappy afterthought multiplayer modes.

If its done well, multiplayer can add to the game. I'm decidedly neutral about this until I hear and see more about it.

Yeah, give the games, that are solid example of commercial hits which are solo experiences, multiplayer. Everyone was asking for that.

Honestly, there's one way to do this. Everyone is Batman. No, seriously. One player is Arkham Batman with all his powers, one character is TAS Batman with all of his stuff, one is Batman Beyond, one is Adam West Batman, one is Nolan Batman, etc. And they all fight all over Gotham city, because Batman. You'd level your Batman up, and Kevin Conroy could yell at whoever they'd get to pretend to be Christian Bale for that god awful voice he uses for Batman.

C'mon guys, Multiplayer is always good. I mean, look at Tomb Raider, that multiplayer... is.. still...

oh.

Well, to be fair, I lost a lot of hype for this sequel/prequel when I heard "Oh we're totally gonna put the Justice League in it!". Almost as if they were trying to cash in on some sort of movie...

I want to see what happens after Arkham City with the whole prophecy/Hush/Scarecrow/creepy Joker-baby thing.
Oh and like everyone else I certainly couldn't give a rat's ass about multiplayer.

On the one hand,*adopts gravelly voice* I never asked for this...

On the other hand, this could be done really well. I'm thinking predator mode, one player as Batman, the other players as thugs with some or other objective, armed with guns.
No wait, better still: The other player as a super villain directing those thugs, so that you've got a strategy mode over-view of the map along with a 'most recent sighting of Batman' marker, 'Current Guard Patrol Routes' and 'These Guards are too terrified to obey your orders'. It would be especially fun if you can go in there as the super-villain from time-to-time to get your guards to obey you again, kick Batman's ass, and set traps. Of course, if Batman takes you out when you're in Villain-mode, it's Game Over, making this a high-risk, high reward strategy.

But if there is multiplayer, it almost certainly won't be that, and it'll feel like a cheap addition designed to draw in some extra market. *sigh* I wish I was less cynical...

Meh to be honest my interest dropped when i heard rocksteady weren't on the case this just adds to my apathy for the game.

Article: "Let's try to avoid knee-jerk reactions."

Everyone: "KNEE-JERK REACTION!"

Seriously, how do you know this doesn't just mean a Batman and Robin/Nightwing/Batgirl/Catwoman co-op mode. Sheesh, are people these days are just panicky, paranoid lunatics or what...

In Short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
In Long
Seriously though depending on what type of multiplayer they have.

bigfatcarp93:
Article: "Let's try to avoid knee-jerk reactions."

Everyone: "KNEE-JERK REACTION!"

Seriously, how do you know this doesn't just mean a Batman and Robin/Nightwing/Batgirl/Catwoman co-op mode. Sheesh, are people these days are just panicky, paranoid lunatics or what...

This I could get behind. Some kind of co-op missions that involve strategy and using each character's unique abilities to try and get some villain in his hideout or etc. Sadly though the pessimist in me sees some tacked on Gotham City Imposters ripoff.

I love Batman, I love Rocksteady and what they did with their games. I'm a fan of both and I'm sure RS will be developing another Batman game. Otherwise it would be a stupid move of WB to take the IP away from the studio that made Batman a big deal in games again. Maybe while WB Montreal works on the prequel and spinoffs, RS is already developing the real deal - a sequel to AC. I don't think people care as much about a prequel as a sequel, because of the loose ends and hints we got in AC.

That being said...
Please stop bitching about a different developer and MP until we get more information like gameplay videos and so on - thank you. It's childish, give them a chance. RS was a no-name dev too, before they created the Arkham games. Also, as far as I can tell, on the official Arkhamverse forums and fansites, people do appreciate some kind of multiplayer. They are basically talking about it since AC. And tbh, there is no reason against it as long as they handle their ressources well. But since the previous games did pretty well and there are other Batman/DC-related multiplayer games out there (Gotham City Impostors, Infinite Crisis), I'm sure WB knows what the main selling point of those games is.

Edit:

Caffeine_Bombed:

I want to see what happens after Arkham City with the whole prophecy/Hush/Scarecrow/creepy Joker-baby thing.

About the last aspect you mentioned: Play the story dlc for AC (Harley Quinns Revenge).

Ukomba:
Devil is in the details, but I could see enjoying a Co-op or even vs Arkham Game.

I actually wrote up a blog post ages ago about how they could make multiplayer work in Arkham games. If they made it a co-op style dungeon crawler/horde mode experience, it would be very enjoyable, maybe even with a villains verses police mode. But instead... they're just making what sounds a bit like darkSector's multiplayer.

Some were disappointed to learn that Arkham Origins wasn't being developed by Rocksteady, the studio behind the first two Arkham titles. The addition of multiplayer, in turn, is likely to be taken by detractors as a poor sign of things to come.

Yeah...that about sums it up for me.

Even if it's completely optional it still reeks of an EA-like style of handling from management. I dunno, I like my traditionally single-player-only games to remain single-player-only. That said, I still say that, with a good team, the multiplayer in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is still one of my favorite multiplayer experiences. So maybe it'll be decent...I just don't see how they'd balance it.

Think of the boss fights in the games...yeah some of them were tough but, true to Batman's nature, he always spotted an easily exploitable weakness to make every boss fight pretty easy if you knew what you were doing. They'd have to give the villian's a way of countering Batman's Anti-Thing Spray so they could have a chance.

I dunno, I just feel that they'd have to change a lot of core mechanics to do it, but who really knows.

Remember when Harmonix gave Guitar Hero to Activision so they could run it into the ground while they made the indisputably superior Rock Band.

Here's hoping that while this game is tinkered into oblivion Rocksteady surprises us all shortly afterward with a Justice League game.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here