BioShock 2 Multiplayer Extends The Fiction

Everyone who is saying another studio is developing the MP so it will have no effect on the SP are flat out wrong. No matter who is doing it all the assets used to build the MP are coming from the SP devs. Intergrating said assets will take time and tweaking constantly on both sides. This isn't a "hey, you make your game and we'll make our game and then drop them on the same disc and be done with it" type of thing. It's tacked on uselessness, that won't get played, on a game that should stay a SP experience and time will be taken from the SP game or time will have to be added to development. If extra time is going to be taken for anything on this type of game it should be on making the SP better and longer. This is as stupid as Uncharted's MP.

@SketchyIndividual: Yah stop :[

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@D3m0n1k_Ang3l: ahem... except Left 4 Dead is a multiplayer game with a tacked on single player game

bad example

Kiri Komori

The beauty of Bioshock was the in depth experience, the immersion in the city itself. The actual gameplay was nothing all that amazing in and of itself.

But meh, as long as the development of the multiplayer doesn't detract at all from the single player then its okay. But seriously, multiplayer should be handled in games by companies that are really dedicated to multiplayer and never just tacked on. Despite what they say, I have a feeling this multiplayer will feel tacked on.

@cheezitman2001: but if it were co-op it would make a little sense. system shock 2 had online co-op.

abort_user

@cheezitman2001: no.

abort_user

@heybtbm: Jesus people...

Okay, here, let me clear this up for you. They hired out the making of multiplayer to a separate studio specifically so the singleplayer wouldn't have any effort of resources taken away from it. If there was no multiplayer, then you'd be getting the exact same singleplayer!

Why do you people have an allergy to logic?

@Mr.SithNinja: Maybe, but the MP in GTA4 is a hell of a lot of fun and is a huge reason why I still own the game after beating it.

Gray665

If you don't like the idea of multi-player, then buy the game when it is released and don't play the multi-player. If you want to bitch, it's better to wait till the game comes out and see if adding on multi-player came at the expense of a short or gimped single-player. That way at least it won't be baseless bitching.

@frenchdestroyer:

Nor did I.

culic

@starmor: You... do understand that they hired an entirely different studio to work on the multiplayer, and as such there wouldn't have been any extra effort on the singleplayer regardless, right?

@thatoneguy42: Then they'll have lost a shitload of money. They learn a lesson, everyone can pretend it never happened. Everyone wins.

@cheezitman2001: No, I'm reminded of System Shock 2s multiplayer.

Of course, you probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

@TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer: Why do you hate fun so much?

@Gyaruson: Stop using logic on my internets!

You might give TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer a freaking seizure!

@TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer: Logical fallacies are amazing sometimes.

@frenchdestroyer:

Exactly. Why waste resources and dilute the fantastic single-player experience? If I want to play an FPS online multiplayer game...I'm sure as hell not going to pop in Bioshock. Either will anyone else. I predict empty servers after a month or two.

@Karoshi: Thank you.

People, get off your game-elitist pedestals and remember where Bioshock comes from. It was not as original and unique a game as you all want to believe, and multiplayer has been included long before now.

Stop thinking you and only you knows what's good for a game you have absolutely nothing to do with and get a better internet connection.

Either that, or you can stay firmly shoved into that little corner cesspool of the internet where you can believe your opinion matters(AKA 4chan).

I never asked for the multiplayer, but it sounds interesting.

HALO-32

@cliffjumper78: Edit: MADE millions of dollars... not sold for millions of dollars. LOL Makes it sound like the game was a bit on the expensive side. haha

@D3m0n1k_Ang3l: So don't play the multiplayer then. Who cares -- and who says it is tainted by multiplayer? You?

Why do we waste time on this; if you like multiplayer, PLAY IT... if you don't, then DON'T.

For people who think multiplayer leeches from the single player development... why would you think that 2K is SO STUPID they wouldn't expand their development team for a game that sold for millions of dollars. Why wouldn't they? And why would't they want to add multiplayer so they might attract a new audience and sell mack packs so they can make more money and then make more BioShock games. Isn't that what you want??!! More BioShock games. I do! I do! I do!

Geez, give 2K a chance guys.

@undefined:

All you guys who are having periods over this most likely never played System Shock.

System Shock 2 had a great multiplayer that didn't detract from the campaign's narrative at all.

So seriously, shut the hell up.
You don't HAVE to click the "multiplayer" option at the start screen if you don't want to.

As long as there are no stupid games like capture the flag and fort type.

Deathmatch, Team deathmatch, maybe something like a bomb mode.... Or a capture the plasmid.....

Crypysmoker

@curly haired boy: same here, multiplayer is so damn overrated, its all freaking boring as hell!! there has only been 1, maybe 2 games with multiplayer that ive liked (Left 4 Dead is the only one that comes to mind...) other then that, its completely stupid and should be left out of most games. *sigh* ill never understand gamers these days.

@UberScytheLord: A-fucking-MEN! It has gotten to the point where if you don't want to get owned online you have to get the game day one and go straight to MP. If you take the time to play the SP storyline first, by the time you are done, you get those no-life, wanna be pro gamers that team up and have every spawn point on every map memorized and their stats maxed out. Not much fun to be had there.

@frenchdestroyer: same here man, Bioshock is one of those games that they just need to leave as a single player game instead of tainting it with all this stupid multiplayer non sense. I really hate it when devs add multiplayer to a superb single player only game -_- really pisses me off. then again its this new age of gamers who whouldnt know a good single player experience if it bit them in the ass because all they play is repetitive multiplayer BS

@thatoneguy42: As it should. I have RE5. Won't pay for the mplayer

CMcCon342

@Kermad: This. Why? So they can sell you map packs.

That's all.

"It really sounds like 2K and Digital Extremes are working hard to ensure that the multiplayer in BioShock 2 is every bit as deep and enjoyable as the single player will be."

If this is true then they should put it on a separate disc. Considering that the 360 is much more "limited" in regards to disc space, they should be looking to use as much of it as possible on the single player experience.

I can't tell you how tired I am of outstanding single-player games jumping on the MP bandwagon despite their success without it. Was anybody really "demanding" MP in GTA4?? Try to tell me that time and disc space couldn't have been better spent on, oh I don't know.. reducing pop in while driving perhaps?

@frenchdestroyer: Guys in suits, who hsve never even seen or played the game, asked for multiplayer.

@Automageddon!:

At this point, why not?

@riceKRISPYninja: You play a big Daddy not a big sister.

@frenchdestroyer: I didn't ask for MP, because, well, i know I won't play it.

But if I were to ask for anything, it'd be Co-op play.

I think by adding mulitplayer (which I do hope Co-Op would be integrated in MP) you give both sides of the fence what they want...no? I mean what would be smart for you if this was your company? Only give what Single Player fans wanted and miss out on the Multiplayer fans piece of the pie...yeah, I didn't think so either. Besides, if done corretly, this is what's going to keep the gamers playing over and over...

riceKRISPYninja

Bitch about the game having multiplayer all you want, but that actually sounds kind of cool. Its not going to take away from the SP game as they are outsourcing it to Digital Extremes and it sounds like MUCH more than just a tacked on afterthought to increase sales. Sounds like it could be like Shadowrun in Rapture, which is fine by me.

Gray665

"Speaking of experience, players will gain experience as they play through the multiplayer portions of the game, earning them access to new plasmids and tonics."

HATE this about online shooters. Make the more experienced powergamers have even more powerful tools against people who only play casually and/or are new to the game. So dumb. Bring back the days when people actually played shooters for the fun and thrill on an even playing ground (i.e. Unreal, Quake, etc). No unlockables and all this achievement-whoring nonsense.

@Gyaruson: yeah, I hear ya about the Game of the Year award. Kudos to that. Point 2 taken well into account about the master who started it all, Ken Levine... but I don't know...playing as Big Sister, is WIN WIN situation, that I'm willing to overlook all (and any for that matter) those points!

riceKRISPYninja

@Gyaruson:

+1

Purguy

@TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer:

As other said, is a nice to have, but not the reason why I am buying the game. I want the story!!!

Purguy

@frenchdestroyer: really? because 2k thinks it was you who asked for multi player. now i don't know who to believe...

As a late adopter of bioshock (ignored the hype, got it on ps3 for 30 bucks a month ago) i can say multiplayer was not an issue for me. the single player was great. but i think the multiplayer sounds kind of cool, especially if they separate the experiences into two time lines and make the multiplayer its own beast

thatoneguy42

@Boneyard: agreed. though not as bad as the press releases for Prototype, talking about it like it already has a long established fanbase

thatoneguy42

@legendofmike: Actually they kinda do force you to play it by having trophies/achievements associated with it. As much as I <3 me some Platinum trophies I really don't want to spend days and days "leveling up" playing a bunch of retarded death matches and what not.

@CMcCon342: i'm gonna laugh my ass off if multiplayer comes later as dlc, ala RE5. that'll piss a BUNCH of people off

thatoneguy42

@starmor:

Only problem is, the way this multiplayer is set up it sounds like single player gamers will be missing out on some interesting stuff pertaining to the BioShock world.

As a gamer who despises multiplayer, this leaves me at a disadvantage. I won't be enjoying any of this simply because I don't like multiplayer.

Woulda rather seen your average multiplayer so I know I wasn't missing much.

Paradox me

Anyone who can't see how much potential this has to be awesome fun really needs to pull that rotting husk of rage and entitlement out their arses, it's not doing anyone any good.

woons

@McDollar: gotta love sequels

thatoneguy42

@Gyaruson: I didn't necessarily have a problem with Bioshock's length (the predictably overrated story on the other hand...) but it just bugs the shit out of me that games think multiplayer is mandatory. I become equally enraged at the constant demand for co-op. I absolutely loved Uncharted and would rather there be 2 extra levels, than co-op and multiplayer. All of these dev. teams must not realize how many online multiplayer games there are already. SIGH, rant over.

grantanamo

@bobtheduck: i had a dream like that once...once

thatoneguy42

This is ridiculous. Are you serious generalizing it by saying "no BioShock fan" would have asked for amultiplayer??? Do you speak for everyone that loved BioShock...no, you don't so stuff it inside. I will agree that if they were to take even one iota of precious development time away from the single-player campaign to work on multi-player that would be unforgivable. But suppose for just a minute now that they get the solo experience completely perfect. And then just to try and please ALL of their fans (because once again you jackasses claiming so above do not speak for the entire BioShock fanbase) and possibly add new aspects to the story and/or history of Rapture, they include a multi-player experience. Where the hell is the harm in that. Believe me when I say I'll eat my words if the campaign is lacking when this game comes out, but I truely and honestly believe that won't be the case. Let's just all wait and find out together instead of half-cocked specualtion from people that don't know what they're talking about.

@lonecow12:

This and this.

I don't know. I'm interested. I'm not making a judgment yet, because I liked the single player experience of BioShock, but I think if they could come up with a creative way to include a story that is separate from the main game, that just makes the game more playable.

But I'm also expecting this to be paper thin. I mean, how much plot can you have when people are busy throwing plasmids at you? Or will it be co-op?

Well, if they do it well, this will be awesome. I sure hope they do it well...

@doubtful: aaand my theory returns! :D

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@legendofmike: I can't wait for plasmid enhanced MP myself.

dsi1

@CoatedTrout:

Yeah, but did you ask for it? Or are you just passively pleased that it's in there?

i don't know why people complain about multiplayer being added, it's not like they're forcing you to play it.

during the first one, my friends and i agreed it would be fun to run around complex/tight corner levels firing plasmids at each other. :P

legendofmike

I agree. I didn't want multiplayer. For most games, it just ruins the experience. There are exceptions (Halo, for instance), but for the most part, I'd just prefer a singleplayer experience. Add more to that as opposed to taking away from it to tack on a multiplayer component. Not to mention, I hate multiplayer achievements/trophies, and I have no doubt that there will be a number of them now.

they have it all wrong.

The people whining about multi-player were NOT the fans

Michael Robinson

@Automageddon!: "Set during the fall of Rapture"

CMcCon342

@CMcCon342: I think their reasoning is that the effort spent on making multiplayer would be 'better used' on the single player.

but a part of me just believes they want to cry over something.

Isn't it a little too early in the franchise to call any level environment from Bioshock "iconic"?

I'm just saying...

Boneyard

@BONERJAM: This would assume that the people making the game are complete idiots...that they would release the game and then suddenly it would dawn on them that "Oh, oh my God, the guys with all the high end weapons will just slaughter the beginners, why didn't we think of that?"

Unlikely.

CoD4 did it and every game since has been copying that formula.

I'm sure the game will be balanced.

CMcCon342

@CoatedTrout: First off, I can't calm down. I'm in full internet nerd rage mode.

Second, the single player can in no way live up to expectations. You are a fucking BIG DADDY. You know what was cool about Bioshock? It was a creepy, scary place. How the fuck are you suppose to be scared of anything when you're king of the fucking ocean!? Also with all these litter sisters, I'm beginning to think this is already one long escort mission.

Ken Levine is no longer on board. That's a bad sign, seeing as he created Bioshock's gameplay and story.

This is just a money spinner sequel and it's a shame to see a truly good title get raped and ravaged.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

I never wanted multiplayer, But this sounds really good to me. I just hope that it will not turn out to be a the guy with the fire plasmid is the over powered winner every match. Hopefully it will nicely balanced.

Illist

@undefined:

The people who want Bioshock Multi player are the same idiots who wanted Metroid Prime to have multiplayer.

i.e. people who completely miss the point about BEING IN AN ISOLATED WORLD.

lonecow12

Seems to me like they didn't want the multiplayer to take away from the single player during development, which was probably what a lot of Bioshock fans were fearing. I guess that's why they hired another developer to work on the multiplayer.

Am I the only one immediately reminded of the atrocity that was Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer?

cheezitman2001

@bobtheduck: Dare to dream, my friend. Dare to dream

@TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer: I'm a fan of bioshock.

Multiplayer would be nice.

Your theory dies there.

@doubtful: Doubtful.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@McDollar:
It's not like they're taking manpower away from the single player experience, they just hired a separate company to handle to multiplayer side of things. If they have to include it at all, I'm glad they did it this way. I'd much rather have an excellent single player experience and be surprised when the multiplayer has legs of its own.

@Paper_Luffy: It's not something EXTRA as much as it is something that's going to TAKE AWAY from the single player experience. Resources going in to making this multiplayer could be used to make the single player even stronger.

If this addition doesn't take anything away from the SP experience, then fine. But I've come to find that when devs become so focused on multiplayer, the SP experience suffers for it.

@TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer: Wow calm down.

I'm sure the Single player will still live up to expectations.

I doubt the devs would sacrifice anything to keep the release date.

Let people enjoy the multi.

and yet i come across people who won't consider buying a single-player game because 'there's no replay value without online'.

i don't understand them.

curly haired boy

@starmor: lol yeh guise jus dijn olay ifj

Of course that's not the issue.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

Most gamers are assholes (read comments above). Who cares if they include multiplayer? It will either be good and improve the product, or it will be bad (or average), but won't detract from the single player experience (since a different studio is working on it).

All I have is one big eye roll for all the whiny gamers out there. Just shut up. The game isn't going to be more than $60 because they added multiplayer. You are getting more for the same price. Man, gamers will complain about anything.

CMcCon342

@bladeofchaos27:
Bioshock came out before CoD:4, so perks can really be compared to the tonic and plasmid system, only taken into multiplayer.

@McDollar:

BUT THE FANS! They ASKED for it! Won't somebody think of the fans?

Wait: if you are a test subject for new plasmids before the fall of Rapture, why would you be fighting in Kashmir Restaurant and Mercusy Suites?

@grantanamo:
It took me longer than 8-10 hours to beat, although I was a little scavenger finding everything I could. I thought it was the perfect length for that game.

For the people whining about the multiplayer, don't play it? lol

@TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer: Pot, kettle, black, etc.

wtf_G

@Paper_Luffy: Because it's a leech, a leech that sucks away at the time they could be using to perfect Single Player or add a new gameplay mechanic or another level. They're all worked up on balancing issues, servers, blah.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@riceKRISPYninja:
Okay, Game of the Year is a relative term. There are so many different sites and publications giving away their own version of the title that five games in one year can go GotY. It makes no sense. Not to say that video games need an Academy style presence to fuck the little guy - I mean, represent the players in the industry, but the term Game of the Year loses its value when Half-Life 2's box has the phrase "Winner of over 35 Game of the Year awards!". WTF!

Now, with that out of my system, I'd love to see Bioshock 2 blow me away like the first one did, but I just don't see it happening. Will I buy it: absolutely, but most of what made the game so amazing was feeling apart of this whole discovery process. Like we were learning something new as the character was. The world was so unique and vibrant that it was hard not to become enamored with the title. Since it's going back to Rapture, it may lose some of it's allure.

Also, no Ken Levine is a bad thing, too. He was the genius behind the story, concept, and production so without his influence it may kind of lose focus. Ken Levine is arrogant like Will Wright, but I haven't been disappointed with any of his games yet.

@frenchdestroyer:

I would rather him be honest and say, "We're copying the shit out of COD4. Look at how popular that is!"

Otherwise, I just imagine a fan saying to him, "Hey, you know what would make the sequel more fun? Less fun."

@Matt0505: Sarcasm... SO original.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@frenchdestroyer: Generalizations on any level provide examples and counter-examples:

Congratulations! You're a counter-example.

@frenchdestroyer: Seriously, why do you care if they put multiplayer? It'll only make the game even more replayable. I honestly do not see a reason to get mad over EXTRA stuff they're putting into the game.

Paper_Luffy

People on the internet presuming their opinion = majority opinion?

SHOCKING

Matt0505

@frenchdestroyer:

Neither did I. I don't know where he's getting this information from.

As for how 'deep' the multiplayer is... I can't see it. Its just going to be a bunch of knuckleheads charging at each other throwing plasmids and shooting guns.

@bladeofchaos27: Martyrdom, Last Stand and Juggernaught confirmed?

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@McDollar:

agreed

@Shirleycakes: Thing is, the idea of a multiplayer shooter based on Objectivism is kind of fascinating. I suppose every multiplayer shooter is about 'Rational Self Interest' and if they created a game around this theme it could be really interesting.

I doubt Bioshock 2 will be that game though.

frenchdestroyer

@Neonox: New weapon pack for 800 microsoft points confirmed, comes out a day after release. Escort missions as far as the eye can see, Boss fights where glowing body parts indicate where you should shoot..

shall I go on? This is the future of Bioshock... and it's all because of you. An Hero is the only option, there is no redemption.

@OW-Holmes:R.O.A.C.H reject:
You're my hero.

@grantanamo: It's absurd isn't it? There must be something I'm missing, because nobody plays the MP in these kinds of SP-centric games (and it's not like the shooting in BioShock was that exciting). Maybe one or two matches for novelty.

Take that time and effort to make the SP game bigger instead.

Bioshock 2 Plasmids and Tonics = Call of Duty Perks

@Xucuroz: I did! I also asked for a game entirely made of escort missions and dozens of sequels that will be released only on the Wii!

I also screwed up the Fallout DLC and recommended against Marvel vs Capcom 3!

Bwahaha!

sounds horrible. all this effort going into multiplayer that no one wanted. yay.

Well, least this means the people doing the multiplayer and the people doing the singleplayer are seperate teams. Means one won't step on the toes of another. Perfectly happy if it just means I get more for the money.

Also, DE had BETTER include Darkmatch.

@Xucuroz: He could be deluding himself into thinking fans want Multiplayer. He would kill himself if he did it just for the money, all that guilt and shame eating away at his soul; he found a way to make the pain go away...

@Xucuroz: I asked for it...

I can see players with more xp destroying newer players because they have more and stronger tonics and plasids. Maybe they will balance everything well but imo it sounds like it wouldn't be balanced at all.

BONERJAM

@frenchdestroyer: No fan of Bioshock did. Bioshock was the game it was because of the awesome single player. Multiplayer is just something they are tacking on to try and increase sales. Saying the fans asked for it is total BS.

Here's a great idea: Instead of adding multi-player to a story driven, single player game, how about you make the game longer! OMG you mean you can actually make a game longer then 8-10 hours!? I thought the only way to extend a games length is DEATHMATCH!!!!

grantanamo

@bobtheduck: ;__; don't tease us like that.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@Shirleycakes: Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong

wrong WROOOONGGGG

Lex Luther up in that mother fucker, Shirleycakes.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

@frenchdestroyer: Then you are very much alone, mon frére.

@frenchdestroyer: Me neither. Who the fuck asked?

Great news IMO!

Digital Extremes was also the dev. that helped 2K Marin with the PS3 version.

Great to see them collaborate once again.

"The fans asked for a multiplayer experience and we answered"

WHAT!?!? I'm calling you out, Christoph Hartmann, any fan of Bioshock would NOT want multiplayer.

TaylorEatWorld says, no Bioshock 2 multiplayer

I really DO hope that everything turns out smoothly. This might actually WIN Game of the Year!

riceKRISPYninja

I think a headline should read: "Game decides not to have multiplayer and focus on a single player experience. Interenets asplode"

"The fans asked for a multiplayer experience and we answered,"

I never asked for a multiplayer experience

frenchdestroyer

I was just about to tip this!
I can't wait for this game!!!

@Gyaruson: who said "perks" that's totally a Fallout rip-off!! D:<

@Boneyard: Nope, just like it's not too early to say that a Big Daddy is iconic.

@frenchdestroyer: ok i didn't but if it will be good i'll play the shit out of it

@Kiri Komori: Developer commentary says otherwise. They were originally making it just multiplayer versus, and then added the co-op.

@Paradox me:... "Woulda rather seen your average multiplayer so I know I wasn't missing much" ... @(O_o)@

I highly doubt that I'll regret this.

I really don't want a bioshock multiplayer mode.

@Gyaruson: At least a few people here get it.

If it wasn't already annoying that they're making a sequel, they've tacked on multiplayer. Fantastic.

For once, just once, I was hoping the gaming industry could make a classic game and not make two-three more sequels. There's no "Shawshank Redemption 2", there's no "Casablanca 2" or "Forrest Gump 2" (movie). Leave it as it was. It was perfectly tied up with a world that was unique, fresh and intriguing. You had characters that had my interest to the end, great dialogue, an incredible world and for the sequel you just send me back there. You add multiplayer, you add the same things.

I won't be buying this. I'm not supporting gaming studio's need to crank out sequels for every title ever made. If games want be taken more seriously they'll have to know when to stop producing sequel after sequel when they've made a classic. Just like "Bambi II" I'll pretend this doesn't exist.

@AngerII: you took the words straight out of my mouth.....separate studios for multiplayer and campaign has subsided my fears for the moment. I dare not hold my breath though

Crux117

@Illist:
Oh come on, you guys have seen this all before with the tack-on MP components. Nobody will be playing it a month later after release, instead they'll be back to their CoD's and Halo's, even if BS2's MP component is decent enough.

Its just wasted development time that should have gone into extending the SP. Basically unless developers intend to compete with MP focussed games like CoD and Halo, then they shouldnt bother.

Karma

@Thomas Henry Ward: Sorry, I meant first BioShock GAME.

Thomas Henry Ward

I've heard people complaining about how it's going to be "ONE LONG ESCORT MISSION" when in the first BioShock games, they had those little holes a sister can climb into and, oh I don't know, STAY THERE? I'm pretty sure when you adopt a little sister, there will be one of them holes nearby.

Thomas Henry Ward

You know what, it actually sounds like they are ruining the franchise before it even got started.

Ive loved everyone of the shock games up until this point. I think BS2 will be the first shock game I cant f'ing stand.

Karma

@Shirleycakes:

Nope. I never asked for it either.

Now what I did ask for is a more in-depth game more like its precursor System Shock 2.

Had the extra dev effort gone into making the SP better and longer as I asked for, then I would be buying this game come release day. But not now…not now its going down the path of every other shooter.

Forget it, I'll spend my money on Borderlands instead.

Karma

@flukielukie: There are no unlockables/power ups in halo. Hence why it is balanced.

@CMcCon342: Lol, this is exactly what I was thinking.

@UberScytheLord: Halos still balanced, Oh wait thats a overrated piece of shit according to most people on the internet -.-

@Komrade Kayce: Okay, see, I get where you're coming from, but in the same respect you have to understand that there are plenty of people who loved the first one (which I did. I may pick on it for being a copy of System Shock, but it was a really good copy in steampunk fashion, which I approve of) who would still be more then pleased with an entertaining multiplayer to go along with a (hopefully) meaty singleplayer. The only problem is that they aren't part of the vocal majority that you're talking about, so you have to search for them a little harder.

Maybe I'm just unique in my way of thinking, but I don't really care what becomes of the fanbase. Even if it does become the mongoloid horde that you're worried about, that doesn't effect how I feel about the game. If I loved it, then no amount of mouthbreathing morons are going to change that, they'll just change how often I'll talk about the game.

So, I understand your concerns but I just think you're looking at it in the wrong light.

@Ganon255: You're right, they shouldn't have made a sequel (I was vocal about that when it was first announced) but at this point there's nothing we can do about it, so we might as well at least take a real look at things and form as unbiased of an opinion as possible.

@Komrade Kayce: I didn't ask or want multiplayer either, in fact I don't think they should even being making a sequel.

Part of the charm of the first one was that it was an origianl game among a sea of sequels.

@jargy1: I assume that when you write "games" you mean first/third person shooters, because many if not most other genres have great single and multiplayer experiences. Stretegy games for example: Civ 4, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, the Total War games.

In terms of shooters, Halo 3, Any game in the Rainbow Six series or Half-Life 2 will fit into the the great single and multi-player group.

There is also precedence for games that shouldn't really have had multiplayer but did and it turned out well: GTA IV, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory and Deus Ex, (although unfortunately no one played Deux Ex multi).

Digital Extremes? awesome!! :D
Unreal on xbl was great.
And I don't see how this is gonna screw things up in the single player mode, when they got a whole 'nother company working on that.

senorbruno

@KaneRobot:

I am against multi-player because of the player base the game will form if said Multiplayer turns out to be better than the single player.

Stay with me here for a moment.

Try to imagine people who buy Bioshock today. They either go 'THIS IS AN AVERAGE SHOOTER WITH NO MULTIPLAYER I THINK ITS STUPID' or go 'Damn, that was one helluva story and fun ride, I'm blown away!'. I like those latter people. Those people you can discuss Ayn Rand with who would have no idea how to approach the topic before, because of Andrew Ryan and his philosophies.

Now imagine Bioshock 2 throwing all that out the window to create an undersea shooter. I highly doubt we're gonna get another Andrew Ryan character.

So already, we're on the edge of 'Can this game really be as good as the first?".

Then add to it multiplayer. I've got people on my friends list who didn't even bother trying to finish CoD4/Bad Company/etc singleplayer because all they wanted to do was play multiplayer.

Which means I'm going to end up with people who have Bioshock 2 who say things like 'Oh... I barely touched the single player/I sped through it for the Achievements' just so they could play the Multiplayer aspect. You wind up with a completely different fanbase.

Or, if the multiplayer is TERRIBLE, suddenly the game is being slammed around because the Multiplayer sucks. Imagine the reviews. 'Single player is good, -2 points for crappy multiplayer'. And then you get people going 'well, half this game stinks, I wont bother buying it'.

I guess this all sounds elitist. I just think adding multiplayer is either going to hurt the games sales (by being lousy) or hurt the fanbase (by being the reason for sales). I mean heck... I finally had some common ground with those 14 year olds who loved the first Bioshock and were in my store actually wanting to discuss what it was about in-depth.

oh wow, its cool how you get to play as a plasmid test subject during the downfall of rapture, if they do a prequel of sorts i hope they follow a path similar to this where they put the player smack in the middle of the splicer war that Fontane and that other guy were having.

@frenchdestroyer: Please read the comment above you.

If they were actually taking manpower away from the singleplayer (which was good, even if it was far too similar to System Shock) to build the multiplayer aspect then yes, people would be like you and cry foul.

But, you see, some people actually read the articles before crying about something. Not many, mind you, but some.

@reality.exe -console: Pfff, get out of here with your "reading the whole article".

AngerII

@frenchdestroyer: I never realised so many people violently wanted a multiplayer in Bioshock 2.

I assumed I'd be in the majority in thinking that people played Bioshock for the story, the setting and the exploration... and that multiplayer couldn't deliver an experience that would add anything truly worthwhile to the package. I was mistaken and I hope I didn't sound too glib.

But in all the reviews and essays and blogs I had just never heard anyone crying out for multiplayer.

frenchdestroyer

@grantanamo: They have a separate studio doing the multiplayer, so unless they were going to bring in another studio to do a second portion of the single player game then it isn't such a great idea. Fans would be just as upset that some other studio was doing part of the single player as they are that there's going to be multiplayer.

Which is ridiculous considering hiring a separate studio SHOULD alleviate the fears that it's going to detract from the singleplayer.

AngerII

I really don't understand how anyone could think that Bioshock needs multiplayer... I can't even begin to fathom how the original Bioshock would work with multiplayer. Things would feel so weird. Bioshock is a single player game, don't fuck up like bungie did and mess up a great single player orientated game.

aaj111

@B33:

Logic? On the internet? Pffff

Sequels to good games are never as good or better than the original. Also, multiplayer sucks because theres absolutely no way for a game to have good single and multiplayer aspects.

/sarcasm

AngerII

@SketchyIndividual:

they're just scared of human contact

SaanZ

@Erode:

That's untrue, generally there are different teams working on different parts of the game.

And its not like Bioshock is COD in any form.

SaanZ

@riceKRISPYninja:
fELIXADER is right, you play as a Big Daddy who is following the Big Sister as she tries to destroy you, or something. Either way I'm stoked as well, but still slightly apprehensive.

I'm with all of the fans. We didn't ask for multiplayer. It was the asshole detractors that bitched and DIDN'T BUY BIOSHOCK that were wanting MP. The fans were thrilled. I was actually excited when I found out there wouldn't be MP in the first game. Why? Because games to me are either SP or MP. If it has a strong SP, the MP always sucks and vice versa. Gears of War? Strong MP, but the SP story is ham-fisted at best. Call of Duty? Great MP, but the SP is about 5 minutes long and basically a Michael Bay movie with less explosions.

Bioshock needs to stay SP only. If they toss this in all it's going to do is give MP fans a reason to complain even more. They'll get more sales but the quality of the overall product will drag down I guarantee it, different companies or not.

jargy1

@SketchyIndividual: Either they have a severely allergic reaction to logic or they simply lack the patience and ability to read the entire article before throwing a fit and whining about an aspect to a game they've only seen a handful of screenshots and a short video segment to.

B33

@Xucuroz:

Im a fan that asked for it

saying that fans didnt is total BS

SaanZ

@frenchdestroyer: Then you are stupid.

KaneRobot

@CMcCon342: True dat.

I didn't ask for it, but I think it'll be fine as long as they really pay the attention to it that they allude to.

@adumbguy:

yeah but if that happened everyone would have to stop liking it and hop aboard the cool train, cos selling out isnt cool.

@lonecow12: I agree, MP2 echoes was one of the worst multiplayer experiences, ever.

Just a way to boost sales, I doubt it'll add much replayability. Maybe give us a New game + option and some challenge rooms instead, to add replayability.

IRHari

@Matt0505: In all fairness, where else will the developers get feedback on their game? In this context, I'd say the internet IS the majority opinion. Not saying I agree or disagree, but from what I saw and heard, a lot more people didn't want multiplayer than did =/

Y'know what I want waaaaaay more than Bioshock multiplayer? Bioshock novels, graphic novels, cartoons, animated shorts. I want fiction in the Bioshock universe.

@SketchyIndividual: Yeah, read the article, thanks - and at no point did I cry about anything - nor was I concerned by multiplayer taking any manpower away from singleplayer.

I've only tried to talk about whether a multiplayer component is worthwhile in a game that's so focussed on story/backstory and environment.

But you see, some people read comments before accusing people of being stupid... See, I read yours.

frenchdestroyer

@CMcCon342: I have to agree. IF they were working on this multiplayer in-house I'd be a little concerned about effort being pulled from the single-player experience, but with it being subsidized to a separate company, we'll be getting the exact same game, just with additional multiplayer.

For that matter if it does ship as DLC after the fact, then all those people whining about how they dont want/need multiplayer won't have to buy it. Or they'll buy it and never admit that they did.

@Automageddon!:

Whiskey + Ability to Shoot Fire From Hand = Nightly Mayhem

I think Einstein came up with that equation.

Actually this could be good. Heres hoping it isn't just deathmatch like every other game has.

@Etheris:

A few people think they get it, but those people lack the business sense it takes to balance a checkbook.

Taking money away from a project is no different than splitting time when you have a finite amount of resources.

Also, it is completely unrealistic to think that just because an outside team is taking the lead role developing multi player that the in-house team is uninvolved.

@SketchyIndividual:

Why do you people have an allergy to logic? -SketchyIndividual

Funny you should ask that since you don't seem to realize that time equals money. It all comes from the same resource pool.

It doesn't matter if they split the dev team's time or farm it out; if doing something costs money, then, logically that money cannot be spent on something else.

Want it written in plain logic?

If A then not B.
A.
Therefore, not B.

As long as something is taking resources, something else has to give them. It just doesn't get anymore basic than that.

Sorry to hear about your allergy.

@Etheris:

Future profit is irrelevant when discussing current resources. No matter how exasperated you are with those who disagree with you, you cannot simply will away simple economic principles.

They have a limited budget (time and money) and they are choosing to spend some of that adding multi player features. It's well within the realm of logical thinking to assume the single player game could have been better than what it will be.

Who knows? It may be great, it may be awful. No matter what, it could have been better.

Let me remind everyone that the original Bioshock, which focused from day one on single player only, and yet the endgame was rushed, felt disconnected, and generally not as robust as the rest of the game.

So if they failed to do it then (despite Bioshock overall being a great game), what gives you so much unfounded confidence that they can deliver this time?

The original development team had the courage to eschew the run-of-the-mill. It's too bad the suits, ahem, I mean fans have made them into cowards.

all I think I can say is... it's really good and you'll enjoy. Seriously, it's really good!

@Etheris: I read your comment incorrectly, forget I said anything...

@doubtful: Obviously members of the team that made the first game will observe and guide the multiplayer experience, but that still does not mean the single-player will suffer. Adding multiplayer will likely bolster sales and return a far greater amount of cash than what it took to hire the developer that is in charge of the multiplayer. I grow tired of those who are doubtful of the ability 2K Games has, think they are far more intelligent and savvy than great game developers at making games, and act like they know how a game will turn out far before it is even released.

Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

I'm still waiting on my system shock remake!!!

@doubtful: Profit is irrelevant when discussing current resources? I would think that one would use their current resources to maximize profit, and that both resources and profit are related closely. Aside from that, I agree that 2K games has a schedule and budget, however how do you know how much money has been assigned to the single-player team and multiplayer team? How do you know that the single-player team would not have received the same budget and time to work on the game if money was not also spent on multiplayer? I'm open to possibilities, but stating that you know Bioshock 2 could be better is awfully arrogant.

@Matt0505: Exactly. It's really mostly opinions flying around like a classroom filled with 5th graders, hence the metaphor of 'throwing around opinions' like them throwing around paper airplanes.
Funny, how it is really, opinions sometimes go to the point where it's like as apes at the zoo, which they may fling poo, with disregard to how the passerbys may be affected.

Commenters are funny creatures, my friend. :D

@riceKRISPYninja: No sorry MoW2 already won that before it was released and before the award has been awarded.

omgCRAZY

@TaylorEatWorld:
I thought they weren't doing the multiplayer afterall? I could've sworn they were taking it out. I don't want multi-player in this game, it won't be the same. I hate how almost EVERY SINGLE GAME that's coming has multi-player. Not every game has to have the feature. I don't know how well multi-player will work for a game like this. I really wish they wouldn't keep it in.

Tom-Servo

So all of that bitching about taking away resources is now moot because they contracted it out. Got it?

SirFragsAIot

@Xucuroz: Except it's single player wasn't "awesome." It was simple and not all that great. The story was good, but for the most part the gameplay was ridiculously simple and a lot of the ideas (like the wind plasmid and trap crossbow bolts) were nigh useless in the game since they served virtually no purpose.

Rajolae

@Madeira: Me. Well, I didn't ask them, but BioShock 1 sure as shit needed it. Unlike idiot console gamers, I wasn't pleased with BioShock since I played it on the PC and it felt dumbed down as all hell. That, along with no multiplayer or user made content and thus absolutely no replay value, really killed the game for me and made me wish I had just pirated it and saved the money.

Rajolae

@Komrade Kayce: No,seriously.
Shut the hell up.

@Karoshi:

I'm sorry, is that someone who disagrees with my opinion talking? Because all I can see is *HURR HURRR HURRRRRR*. I don't care that you played System Shock 2 and you somehow think in candyland, that provides a solid example of why we should accept multiplayer in Bioshock as well.

And its ALMOST like my opinion on multiplayer for Bioshock, a console game, is completely different than that of my opinion for System Shock, a PC game. Nobody bought SS2 for the multiplayer. It was just a happy bonus thrown in.

Plenty of tards by console games and skip the single player, however, just because its what their friends are playing.

@SketchyIndividual:

But then I equate it all back to magic cards. I love the things. The idea, the strategy.

The players? Cant. fucking. stand them. For the most part. Its why I pretended like I had never heard of magic cards during highs school so I wouldnt have to sit at that smelly table with those smelly kids.

Its why I like Dead Rising so much. Its got a clear cut line on 'either deal with these issues (the time limit, the difficulty) or gtfo. No prisoners. And people who go 'I hated it', well, thats too bad, but no sweat off my back.

Sometimes, the more appealing you make something to a wider audience, the more magic it loses.

@thatoneguy42: I was a late adopter also. I got it back in February for the PS3 and beat it a few days later.

One of the best games of all time, IMHO.

@Etheris: Let me rephrase that last sentence. I'm open to possibilities, but stating that you know that the single-player in Bioshock 2 would be better without multiplayer is awfully arrogant.

players will gain experience eh? to unlock such goodies as red dot scopes and blue tiger camo me hopes.

@frenchdestroyer:

How does this thread get that many replies? I've said far more interesting things than this guy, yet he has almost 60 replies? IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

@adumbguy: Screw that, I want Bioshock non fiction.

mmmmhm.

@frenchdestroyer: If by "fans" they mean marketing department, than OK. I surely didn't ask for multiplayer and also loathed media previews asking for one.

@doubtful:
E=McAWESOME

@Erode: It's outsourced, dude. Fun Fact: Reading the article always helps.

Jibberwockee

@Paper_Luffy: Exactly. I'm not at all interested in multiplayer, but it wont hurt the game. It's not like the devs are wasting time on it since it's outsourced.

Jibberwockee

Did anyone even read the article? Digital Extremes will be working closely with 2K Marin to create the multiplayer component. If this multiplayer experience is going to kill Bioshock for you, don't play it. Wow, was that hard?

It's amazing how many people are complaining about more content.

For the record I am very excited about multiplayer being incorporated; Bioshock was an amazing experience, and I'm sure Bioshock 2 will be spectacular as well.

randomspirits