Batman: Arkham Origins has multiplayer?

@benelori@stev69 

But there are those out there (such as @stev69 ) who say that Hamill "must" play Joker, and refuse to accept anyone else, regardless of how good they are, simply because they are not Mark Hamill.

I can understand nostalgia. I often look back on my childhood and think of all the good times, wishing there were more days like those around in the 21st century. But I can understand that having nostalgia for nostalgia's sake would just do more harm to the product than good.

I can't imagine the Joker's voice being an easy task for an actor to keep up all the time. Maybe Hamill's voice is starting to go in his old age, and finds it harder to give the performances he thinks the character deserves. This would be an example of the product suffering - but not only that, it would also destroy peoples nostalgia as he would be remembered for his struggling and weakening performances towards the end, rather than the greatness at the beginning.

Basically, you've got to know when to let go of the past and move on to see what the future brings

@Scorpion1813@benelori

"Like I said, would you rather never see Joker again, or have someone else play him?And considering the guy in Injustice did a good job, I don't see a problem with someone else taking over."

I don't really care....Hamill would be best though IMO....it's not just the nostalgia(even though for me there's none because of dubbing), but he is brilliant in capturing Joker, and the best in doing so.

But they can bring whomever they want...voice-acting isn't among the top things I'm looking to criticize or praise in a game...

@Scorpion1813 We oldies need love too mate ;) But for me Hamill brought a huge amount of personality to the joker, and that's one of the big reasons Arkham so far has been so memorable.

 Hamill captures the insanity of the character spot on.

@benelori

But if you rely on nostalgia, your only really catering to an older audience. You may end up with a bad product that only gets sold on the premise of nostalgia.

It's like parodies - they only work it the audience has seen the original material in which it is based off.

As far as Hamill is concerned, he doesn't want to do it anymore - you can't force him just because of nostalgia. Also, he's getting on a bit - he won't be around forever, and he will have to be replaced at somepoint in the near future anyway. Heath Ledger is already dead, so he will HAVE to be replaced if they ever want to do a Batman movie featuring the Joker ever again.

Like I said, would you rather never see Joker again, or have someone else play him?And considering the guy in Injustice did a good job, I don't see a problem with someone else taking over.

@benelori @Scorpion1813 @asifah30 @stev69 @warhawk-geeby 

I totaly agree with Bnelori.

Actualy you guys got me wrong. Yeah I play pirated games but the reason for it is not the price but the game itself. 

The city where I live doesn't have any single LEGAL game shop/store. Amazon and other e-commerce webseites don't offer the shipping services. And for Steam, I've ATM,Debit cards but they are not accepted for Steam. Literally, I really want to buy games like GTA, AC series and Batman series. I can buy 3 +AAA game in a month.

Now, for Batman:AO I am planning to get (by paying) a Legal copy from my friend who live in USA.

@benelori

As far as money is concerned, the industry is doing terrible. Why do you think there are companies shutting down left, right, and center, despise the success of the games those companies release?! Most of the companies in the gaming industry have failed to bounce back after the recession. The only ones that have are ones that do business in other industries (Microsoft, Sony, etc).

I agree that piracy has always been around -- I never stated otherwise -- and as you pointed out: the industry is growing. The effect of this is that games become increasing more expensive to develop and publish. This mean fewer risks are taken in an attempt to maximise profit and minimise expenditure.

Now, let us look at the effect piracy (and to an arguably lesser extent - used games) has on the industy. Conpanies are investing a LOT of money in finding ways to combat piracy. Most of these strategies tend to harn legitimate buyers, while pirated copies come free of these DRMs. This essentially means legitimate buyers are getting screwed over with a broken product, and the pirate has none of these problems.

This actually leads to more people being likely to pirate the non-DRM version of the game, and therefore companies lose out on yet more sales. So what do they do? They invest even more money and time into developing new ways of combatting piracy, and who has to pay for all this? The legitimate gamers who are more than willing to fork out that extra bit of cash to support their favourite pasttime.

Here are a couple of videos I would HIGHLY recommend watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfZv_lPwBFI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxXEidtxHk

@resident_jisen 

Here is a video that mostly talks about Spec Ops: The Line, but also touches on tacked-on multiplayers. Extra Credits is made by veterans of the games and animation industry (if you don't believe these guys, you have issues that I'm not qualified to deal with). I highly recommend watching the whole series for anyone who is interested in games in any way.

Key quotes seen around the 3:34 mark:
"Any additional resources they might have poured into that multiplayer mode would have been diverted from the solo campaign. And the game would have absolutely suffered as a result."

"Multiplayer modes are a major investment of development resources."

"Other aspects of the game are guaranteed to suffer. Take this as a personal plea from a developer who has seen this happen too many times."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaBsuXWJJ8

@resident_jisen

I'm not claiming the game will be good or not due to developers abilities. That is a separate discussion. The discussion about whether WB can make the game as good as, or better than, Rocksteady.

You could have the best developer in the word, but if their time and/or budget is divided between 2 games - that have to be developed and released at the same time, and on the same disc. Both of those games will suffer.

@Scorpion1813 @resident_jisen your trying to prove that if the game has mp the game will be not as good if it didn`t have mp.and i`m trying to tell you having or not having mp doesn`t effect this since it all boils down how good the the people are who make the game. is that simple enough for you. even this is not enough to determain if sp will be good with or without mp. nothing is that simple. there a lot of factors that effect how good or bad a game can be with various of results.peoples perceptions,how much money that goes into it the developers skills and what put into not into the game.etc..... so just saying having mp means this game will suck and shouldn`t have it makes no sense at all.

@resident_jisen

But what you are saying doesn't relate to this situation at all. What we are discussing here is whether or not including MP will have ANY impact on the SP - be that in both quality (how good something is), and quantity (how much content there is, and how long the game/story will be).

The same team will be working on the SP portion of the game, regardless of whether or not MP is included. So this whole argument about it depending on "who" is making the game is invalid pertaining to this discussion.

I've given several valid arguments for the various ways in which the MP could effect the SP. You claimed that it won't effect anything, and are yet to give a single explanation to back up that claim. But, apparently, I'm the one who doesn't understand "anything at all".

@Scorpion1813 @resident_jisen  i`ll say this one last time and only this time even with what you said it not the money or the resources that determain the game quality it the person or persons that make it.you ccan give 6 people a the money to make it and give 20 the same amount to make it both groups spilt up the money to make a sp and mp mode.but the group of 20 decide to not make the mp. the 6 people put everything into both modes while the 20 only into sp.they game is released. and the game with mp and sp does better than the one with just sp. why cause the 6 people were the best in there field while the the 20 are not the best in there field. are catching onto what i`m saying if not i`m not going to explain this again since if you don`t you don`t sound like you have any understanding of anything at all.

@resident_jisen  

Lets give a team a set amount of money and time to make a game, and then give the same team the same amount of money and time to make two games simultaneously.

Do you really expect the second project (2 games) to have the exact same quality and quantity as the first project (1 game).

NO! It won't.

Even if a second team is brought in to make the second game (MP), that will have one of two concenquences. Either the budget will be split between the 2 games and each will only be working with a half of what they should have. Or the budget will be doubled so that both games are getting the budget they NEED.

Half the budget, means half the game. Double the budget means they will have to sell double the amount of copies to make their money back. They think that adding in MP will attract more buyers, but I highly doubt the MP community will bother with this game, and a lot of the SP community will probably pass it up due to lesser quality. There are people who have already decided not to buy it just because Rocksteady aren't involved.

Knowing how games are made is very different to knowing how the industry works. Like I said in my original comment, it would be very naive to think that this won't have any effect on the quality and quantity of the game.

@Scorpion1813 @resident_jisen  STOP TYPING TAKE A F*ING BREAK 

@resident_jisen What was so bad about Arkham City? The story? I thought it was pretty good.

i`m fully aware of how games are made.but you haven`t proven your point about why sp is bad because of mp is added.a games quality all boils down to those that make the game not the resources put into it. you can give someone little money and they can mke a great and amazing game. the same is true if you give out a lot of money to a lot of peopleand get a bad game. if the people making the game suck at it then the games they make will be bad plain and simple.

@resident_jisen 

And as far as Rocksteady go, they've proven to make great Batman games, and a lot of fans are hurt over the fact the franchise has been taken away from the developer, and given to another.

This is going to put a lot of preasure on the new dev to make a BETTER game than the previous titles. They already have bias against them, so making the game equally as good won't cut it. They need to go above and beyond what Rocksteady have delivered, and dividing their resources between SP and MP could prove to be the very thing that golds them back.

@resident_jisen 

So, you don't know anything about game development? Because if you did, you would already know the answer to at least most of what you're asking.

Simply put, games cost a fortune to develop, and they take a lot of time to create. There are specific jobs that work on specific areas. These areas are usually divided into 3 main catergories: Art, Design, and Programming.

Artists make ALL the assets from character and scenery models, to animations, concept art, etc etc.

Designers design the gameplay, how the game functions and how all the gameplay features fit together. As well as how the player interacts with the game.

Programmers make those gameplay features work in game, using the assets that the artists created. This is usually done by using a game engine to create a specific experience as designed by the game designers.

Now, look at the gameplay of a Batman game. You have the ability to climb and reach areas using a grappling hook. There is stealth gameplay involved and unique takedowns from specific areas in the game. He uses a combination of that stealth, as well as hand-to-hand combat and various gadgets to take down opponents. He doesn't use guns, and he is certainly not limited to walking around on the ground. In fact, the majority of the game will be played from a higher point of view: On rooftops, or in the rafters of a building. Swinging from cover to cover.

So lets look at what we know about the multiplayer: "gamers will play as a member of Joker or Bane's gang and attempt to take down Batman and Robin".

Basically, players will take control of a generic henchman with a gun. Essentially, this is will be standard third-person shooter gameplay. But they would clearly need to add something unique to make the MP interesting.

So right here, the designers will have to design all new gameplay features and even a different HUD (heads up display - clearly they won't have access to the same kind of feedback Batman would have). And the programmers will have to create this whole new play style too.

So you have the games designers, and programmers dividing their time between two practically different projects. But they have the same amount of time and budget to complete it as they would if they were only working on one (Single player only). Most artistic assets from the SP can be used in the MP, but there still may need to be new things created (even if that is just animations).

As for Tomb Raide: they still used the same kind of gameplay for the SP as the MP. You run around shooting guns in a third-person free-running kind of way. Yes, game modes will need to be implemented, but that is no way near as much work as practically making a different game.

If you don't believe me, maybe do some research into the industry, and learn a bit about games in general: both in how they play, and how they are made.