It was over a year ago that Batman: Arkham Asylum unforgettably graced the PlayStation platform, leaving behind a large group of happy consumers. It was the first time in a while, if not ever, that a Batman game had actually delivered instead of just showing potential. Rocksteady Studios is hard at work getting Batman: Arkham City ready for Q3 2011, but will the addition of multiplayer hinder what could have been an epic superhero experience?
During an in-depth discussion with Batman: Arkham City Game Director Sefton Hill, questions regarding the inclusion of multiplayer were finally shot down with the batarang. Hill stated:
“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”
He then elaborated with the following:
“With the game now coming to the final stages, I can honestly say it would not have been possible to deliver Arkham City the way we wanted to if we’d have added multiplayer”
So now comes the million dollar question: does adding a multiplayer component to a single-player franchise really take away from the experience? Rocksteady Studios seems to think so, but that didn’t stop Visceral Games from pushing out the subpar multiplayer experience found in Dead Space 2. Thankfully, Dead Space 2 was able to deliver a nail-biting and exciting story experience. The decision to keep Batman in the singleplayer realm is one that might stir a few pots, but will allow the developer to devote more time to ensuring that the story experience is proper like it was in Batman: Arkham Asylum.
Would you have preferred to see multiplayer added to Batman: Arkham City? Also, how do you feel about adding multiplayer to singleplayer franchises (i.e. BioShock, Dead Space, etc.)Share your thoughts in the comments below.
[Source]
