Arkham City not Getting Multiplayer

News circulating the internet this afternoon is that the follow up to Rocksteady’s wonderful Batman game of 2009 will remain a solitary experience. Thanks to an interview given to IGN by Sefton Hill of Rocksteady we can now close the lid on those rumours of Robin making a playable cooperative appearance.

Mr Hill says, in no uncertain terms, that the studio felt that they could make a better game if they weren’t diverting focus towards multiplayer modes.

– ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW –

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?”

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.

In the same interview he also talks about Catwoman’s general role (hint: it’s very similar to every Catwoman appearance in every Batman story ever) and a little bit about a character who might not be so familiar to casual Batman fans: Hugo Strange.

We are very pleased to hear that Rocksteady are determined to make the best single player experience possible and don’t feel pressured to add multiplayer simply because it would be the fashionable choice. It’s good to know that plenty of thought has gone in to ensuring that the follow up to one of 2009’s best games will be just as good.

Source: IGN

– PAGE CONTINUES BELOW –

34 Comments

  1. Awesome I don’t think it needs a multiplayer.

    • Fine let it have no multiplayer but then don’t charge £40 for it. How come games like KZ3, UC3, COD and AC:B have singleplayer and great multiplayer which doesn’t affect the quality of singleplayer. How can you justify charging £40 for a game with only 7-8 hours of gameplay compared to KZ3 with singleplayer and a huge multiplayer component?

      • You make a good point there!

      • Uncharted and Assassins Creed both were single player only games originally, and while they haven’t suffered for the addition, they were amazing games anyway and noone used to complain about paying full price for them. I really don’t think a game has to have a multiplayer component to be good value for money. I respect their decision to focus on providing a strong single player without caving into the pressure all games seem to feel now around shoe-horning a multiplayer into a game unsuited to it.

      • I’m sure Batman:AA had more than 7-8 hours of gameplay? plus it has another layer of depth that only (mostly) single player games have.

  2. Thank goodness there are teams out there still dedicated to the single player experience.

  3. Best news today.

  4. Yep – Last thing this needed was a tacked on mp mode. Well done Rocksteady.

  5. That means no time taken away from the single player, which is good as the quality is top notch :)

  6. I’ve lost count how many games have been ruined because an online multiplayer has been added that no one plays.

  7. Fantastic news! I wish more games went this route.

  8. So basically Catwoman will steal stuff, be sexy, flirt with Batman and be indecisive about whether or not she’s a villain?

  9. Best news ever, well done Rocksteady. This proves multiplayer is not everything.

  10. Good. The game was great as sp only last time and I’m sure it will be this time too. Good justification from them as to why they’re not including it too!

Comments are now closed for this post.