{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/28/2013 3:45:07 AM
13
Besides MP should not exist in Arkham Origins?
Prediction: MP will suck
English
-
Why not? They could do something creative, especially with some co-op.
-
Co op fine but full blown competitive MO? No
-
-
You really want 12-64 batman running around and fighting? Bad idea.
-
Listen to crazy llama. Do you not understand that multiplayer isn't just 12-64 matches of people running and gunning? There can be co-op, small team play with objectives or maya be just 1v1 gameplay. The developers can experiment and see what works with the game. And no it won't "ruin" the game like many people tend to say with situations like this.
-
I don't think it will ruin the game. I'm just saying... I do not think any sort of generic multiplayer is a good idea. I don't care if they put co-op or mini games in. I just do not want some stupid multiplayer that will attract a bunch of cod fanboys who think it's suddenly Bat of Duty.
-
Alright I get what you're saying. Multiplayer wouldn't fit the game anyways. Co-op is what I want though.
-
I think co-op would be amazing. Just not sold on multiplayer yet.
-
Yeah I would know whether or not I would like it if I could find anything decent on it yet. But bring back the Iceberg lounge with maybe 2-3 player coop and just beating the hell out of endless waves of enemies would be sick
-
...Do you not know how the multiplayer works? There's two teams of 3, one on each plays as either Joker or Bane. Then you have a Batman and Robin team. The Bane and Joker teams war it out and the Heroes use stealth to take down the other two teams.
-
Sounds interesting. I just don't think it would be worth it. Investing that much money into setting that will plummet in comparison to Cod: Ghosts and Battlefield 4's multiplayer. Not fanboying, just stating a fact. There are three multiplayer Titans. Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Halo. All that the company would do is lose money.
-
I think they simply put it in as a test. They want to see if it would be worth pursuing later on, plus it's a way of giving people something to do after they 100% the game. I don't think they should give up simply because they can't beat one of the three pillars of the multiplayer world.
-
I'm not saying to give up. All I'm saying is that, I don't know if you know this, but you have to sink in a LOT of money to implement a multiplayer. So I don't know if this company would invest a lot of money to "test" a multiplayer. And also, I haven't even 100%'d Arkham City. All the side missions and things make it difficult to 100%.
