Google+

Batman: Arkham City is a 'single-player only' experience

Rocksteady Studios has confirmed that it will not be exploring multiplayer functionality in its forthcoming Batman sequel, Batman: Arkham City. None. Zip. Zero. According to the Game Director, Sefton Hill, the studio is more concerned with polishing its single-player experience than abiding by current multiplayer trends.


Above: We want you... just you

"There have been a number of rumors circulating about a multiplayer mode in Batman: Arkham City so let me start by saying, once and for all, that Batman: Arkham City is a "single-player only" experience," said Hill in a chat with IGN UK. "Our thought process behind this was fairly simple: when we investigated adding multiplayer we asked, 'If we use all of the energy that is required to create multiplayer and instead focus this on the single player, would that deliver a better overall game?'"

"It might not be the fashionable choice, it might not get us an extra tick on the box, but we are convinced, and we hope that gamers will agree when they get to play the finished game, that we have made the right decision."

Omitting multiplayer in such a high profile franchise is more and more difficult for developers to get away with, but Rocksteady's insistence on perfecting its solo game is encouraging for those who still prefer a blockbuster single-player outing over a 5-hour campaign tacked on to an online fragfest.

Then again, titles like Uncharted 2 and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood proved that some games can have the best of both worlds, so the case could be made that Rocksteady is missing an opportunity. But multiplayer Batman? We just don't see it.

[Source: IGN UK]

Feb 15, 2011 



Batman: Arkham City – what we want to see
Nine ways to make the best superhero game of all time even better




Which villains will appear in Batman: Arkham Asylum 2?
It’s never too early to predict a sequel, especially when there are this many clues

29 comments

  • bloodyshadow - February 16, 2011 11:20 p.m.

    THANK GOD! I'm SICK of this mutliplayer crap! Nevermind that it's usually tacked on and shitty, but I'm the type of player who has an offline gamerscore profile and an online for DLC because of Microsoft's stupid setup. I hate not being able to "finish" a game because five or ten of the achievements are online. This will be a GREAT single player game JUST like the first was. Good call.
  • reaperman22 - February 16, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    i like multiplayer in games but when i saw this i just breathed a sigh of relief, i didn't even want coop
  • grayguwapo - February 16, 2011 3:54 a.m.

    I agree... I can't really see Batman AC in a multiplayer... It would be odd to see 2, 3, or more batmans roaming around kicking each others butts... good move on Rocksteady to really focus on the games solo gameplay... It's looking awesome already... UAT2 kinda got away with it because of the levels that allowed it and different characters that can hack it... but this one is best left solo...
  • chomedeluxe - February 16, 2011 2:06 a.m.

    thank god, who gives a shit about multi player? play COD if you do. Not every game needs a multi player option.
  • ichigofluff66 - February 16, 2011 1:20 a.m.

    I'm ok with this :D
  • FreedomPhantom - February 16, 2011 12:34 a.m.

    That's Freaking fine by me! I think developers should like Rocksteady know what they're doing when they say it's not needed. Games like Batman need not worry about all that multiplayer mumbo-jumbo. If we were BOTH Batman then who's neck would I twist from the shadows?? Unless I could get about fifty n00bs to play as guards while I play the all-powerful Dark Knight then I see no need to replace AI players. Being social sucks.
  • Yeager1122 - February 15, 2011 11:13 p.m.

    Good focuusing on single player and make it the absolute best it can be is way better than spending some time tacking on mulitplayer that will die quickly anyway.
  • Risonhighmer - February 15, 2011 10:56 p.m.

    Good. All of my favourite games don't have multiplayer, Just a really strong and memorable single player component. That's all I crave in a game these days. We don't need another 20 variants on deathmatch where it doesn't at all belong.
  • Crofto - February 15, 2011 10:54 p.m.

    "Then again, titles like Uncharted 2 and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood proved that some games can have the best of both worlds..." Can't speak for ACB since I haven't nor intend to play it, but sure Uncharted 2 had multiplayer and managed to have a single-player on-par with, or perhaps better than, Drake's Fortune. That said, I would have happily ditched multiplayer if it meant more content for single-player, be it in the way of an extra chapter, a challenge mode, or more unlockables. Also, even though Uncharted 2 might be a decent example of multiplayer working in an otherwise single-player only game, there are countless examples of games adding multi-player and turning out significantly less good than their predecessors. Resident Evil 5, for example, is one of the biggest disappointments of a game ever, and BioShock 2 - while the original is overrated anyway - wasn't anything to write home about. Interestingly, I notice less and less people ever actually say "I wish this game had multiplayer" in the comments section, so I honestly don't know why reporters constantly spam companies like Rocksteady to ask them. If IGN and the likes stopped highlighting it, maybe it wouldn't ever cross the developer's mind the first place; that would be for the best. Anyway, kudos to Rocksteady; Arkham Asylum was one of the most polished, content heavy games I've played, and it was all achieved without unnecessary multiplayer. That they refuse to add it for the sequel is evidence of their obvious wisdom. Finally, just want to point out that the fantastic Arkham Asylum is currently on sale on Steam - over here in the UK I got it for £3.75, which is absolutely ridiculous, but also very very glorious for me.
  • JohnnyMaverik - February 15, 2011 10:36 p.m.

    I think if you're excited for Arkham City, it's never been for the prospect of a multiplayer mode.
  • abedanzen - February 15, 2011 10:03 p.m.

    Glad to hear that they're focusing all their attention on making the best single player experience possible. While multiplayer would be intersting (co-opt specifically), to make it on par with the single player, it would basically mean making a whole second game. Get your Portable ID!
  • Crypto140 - February 15, 2011 9:29 p.m.

    If there was multipalyer, imagin the Batman fans on it. "Issue #37 page 12 pannel 8 states that Batman uses the word 'the'. That totaly proves he is a better than Captain Kirk."
  • batmanboy11 - February 15, 2011 9:21 p.m.

    I'm fine with this.
  • Clovin64 - February 15, 2011 9:19 p.m.

    As a fan of strong single player-only games, I have to say this is definetely a good thing.
  • humpiedumpie - February 15, 2011 9:10 p.m.

    Good news indeed! No multiplayer = more time to polish the game. Can't wait!
  • EnragedTortoise1 - February 15, 2011 9:10 p.m.

    That's good, I guess.
  • Bawheidbob - February 15, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    This is good news i must admit i am no fan of all this social interaction :) Honestly though good news.
  • EdDeRs1 - February 15, 2011 8:55 p.m.

    the only multiplayer I can see working would be a co-op mini campaign, or dead rising 2 style multiplayer (the 2 chuck stuff) and I still say this game needs to follow the comics and have Judge Dredd cross over from his universe
  • skyler88 - February 15, 2011 8:52 p.m.

    Glad to hear it really. I am very into multiplayer games, but AC doesn't need it at all. Can't wait to get my hands on this piece of gaming art.
  • KuwaSanjuro - February 15, 2011 8:39 p.m.

    Good news, it means Rocksteady can focus 100% on the single player and not make a half-hearted attempt at multiplayer.

Showing 1-20 of 29 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000