Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor Is Single Player Only.

[daimashin]

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor is a single-player only experience, and so won't feature any form of co-op or multiplayer.

The news comes courtesy of developer Monolith's Twitter account, which also confirmed the game is currently not in development for Wii U.

Source:IGN

This is good news. No multiplayer means they can focus their efforts on the story, and gameplay elements. This is one those games that I think will benefit the most without a tact on multiplayer to steal development time. Also, no love for Wii U it seems but that's another story.

 

[azer1990]

Looks good and i like they idea they have behind it, i am glad there is no multiplayer as with some games where multiplayer is bolted on (arkham city) sometime just does not work, with regards to the wii u although their 1st part game look ok (never been a huge zelda or mario fan) it just comes across that one day all 3rd party devs will make nothing for it.

 

[wonderings]

Looks like it will be the first good Lord of the Rings game. I just watched a gameplay video on youtube, looks pretty much like Assassins creed but with orcs.

 

[Montagh]

I agree. I'm not a big fan of multiplayer games anyways. I really hope this game can offer the best single player experience possible. I know a lot of people have drawn comparisons to Assassin's Creed. But by focusing on on single player the devs can hopefully manage to make the game their own and squash all those comparisons. I have high hopes for this game!

 

[The Unlosing Ranger]

I'm OK with this. Wouldn't have even bothered with the multiplayer personally

 

[SeanM]

but then again, no multiplayer means you have to retire the game after you've beaten it, not much value for money, but you can't have your cake and eat it too I suppose.

 

[mightymites]

Games like this don't need multiplayer. Assassin's Creed had a decent multiplayer, but it's really about the single player experience. This game is supposed to have enemies that evolve and grow stronger during the game, so there should be a lot of replay value.

 

[Haze]

Really looking foward to this. Sure, it seems like it's a LOTR version of Assassin's Creed - but that ain't a bad thing. Every game borrows from another game.

 

[daimashin]

but then again, no multiplayer means you have to retire the game after you've beaten it, not much value for money, but you can't have your cake and eat it too I suppose.

If they include a new game plus that means the game will have replay value. I don't mind playing through the campaign multiple times if the game's really good and has new game plus. I think LoTR is turning out like Star Wars. There are the great original, then there are the rubbish prequels, and The Force Unleashed games that connect the story of the movies.

 

[bizkitdan]

Dont think its a bad thing some games dont need multiplayer

 

[wonderings]

but then again, no multiplayer means you have to retire the game after you've beaten it, not much value for money, but you can't have your cake and eat it too I suppose.

Depends on the game, some open world single player games have so much side quests and things to find and do that it goes beyond the story. Plus any DLC that comes after. I am on my second go around for Black Flag and really enjoying it again, partially because I did things a bit differently, ship upgrades mayan bullet deflecting outfit, etc.

 

[azer1990]

i hope there is plenty of side quests, i am intrigued by this game, could be a surprise hit.

 

[KN1GHTMARE]

Great, last thing I want to see is more tacked on multiplayer. I appreciate when developers try to focus on a single aspect in order to release the best possible product.

 

[Ghost_of_Crash]

I agree with most, some games don't need multiplayer and without it there's more of a focus on the single player element and storyline. There could be a New Game+, continue playing afterwards, plenty of side missions or all three.

 

[Lodismel]

I'm pretty happy with it being Single Player. Multiplayer is tacked on for so many games that it really doesn't need to be. If it doesn't make sense then don't do it. With this particular game I don't really think it makes sense. Then again there have been a few games which I didn't think would work multiplayer and did.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I'm digging that it's single player only. Some games do extremely well with multiplayer and are even made for online multiplayer while others works as purely single player, but get online multiplayer tacked on just because.

 

[Stuck_X_Button]

I play online multiplayer every so often so this isn't a huge thing to me. I'm just glad this is coming out since I do like what is basically a mashup of AC and LOTR.

 

[SpaceTiger]

A mashup is a good way of putting it. Sometimes another game's mechanics or setup would just fit the idea you're going with for your game and sometimes your company might deliver a better game with another franchise's mechanics than that franchise. Hell, God of War delivered harder than Rygar.

...yes, I want everyone to remember Rygar from PS2. Loved that game.

 

[NuclearDragon]

I would've liked some sort of local multiplayer so that two or four players would work together on an assassination. It would work better as a LAN party I'm guessing. If not that then a limited, Monster Hunter-like online multiplayer could've worked.

 

[Stuck_X_Button]

While I'm good with single player, a limited multiplayer would work.