Bioshock 2 Multiplayer Impressions: That Sinking Feeling

@nukee: Yes but that's ALL the story is. Nothing more.

@Hendrixx:
You don't like the words tits? It's the tits!

@NoBullet: Why wouldn't they cry if they got a tacked on multiplayer? :S

@grantanamo: what i want to know is how the game was predictable. and i don't mean that the good guy triumphs over evil sort of thing, i mean the story itself and what happens throughout it.

triforcer

@Guy Whitey Corngood:
Straying off topic and making a big deal out of my post sure is constructive!

Guess what? How about you reread my post? Hint: it actually makes sense!

Later

Kaineko

@TheOddOneDies:

Metacritic scores often dictate the bonus given to the developers and whether the project leads stay put or swallowed back to the coding salt mines.

So yeah, the metacritic does matter, just a shame 90% of reviews are a bit dodgy.

PcGamer covered this also and revealed the story behind it is the civil war of the splicers whacked out testing plasmids and tonics

WayByWind

I'm not a mp man, so I have no idea why having a mp mode is such a big deal,and why it's absence in the first one was mostly seen as a negative.

having said that, the setting (which as I understand a plasmid testing during the atlas-ryan civil war) makes sense story-wise, and I believe the plasmid-weapon combinations can hold up as a mp mechanic.

my only beef so far with the game is the absence of jack ryan. I get attached to my protagonists.

I dont get why a complaint, its probable that bioware made the single player game mode first and then added a simple multiplayer, that way they give something new and also they dont ruin the single player.

I have to agree with the author. Bioshock was known for the one player experience; if adding networking features does nothing to enrich the experience, then why bother? It's just going to end up with loads of network feature bugs for nothing, I fear...

B_Selekta

I have no problem with games being exclusive single player and exclusive multiplayer. (As long as exclusive multiplayer give me a decent option to play with friends in the same room.)

Bioshock 2 needs to stay single player, if I want multi-player shooting I'll play CoD4. I don't need Bioshock multi-player, they need to spend development time on making the single player experience high quality.

Toribor

@reality.exe -console: The shooting had a great feel to it, especially the revolver and crossbow. It was very well done, I thought.

@Guy Whitey Corngood: theres no possible way he didnt meant to make it as he is first, like yeah its a possible context, but i can say man im going to kill you, in several contexts as well, it probably IS meant to make himself look first, just because thats what the internet has become, BUT there is the chance he was being a normal person and not being a retarded fool at all.

@Hendrixx: I saw the expression "tits on a bull" and assumed Owen wrote the article, then I remembered its not even the weekend... lol.

One of the devs was on G4 (E3 is the only time I'll turn that awful station on) and describing it a bit.

It sounded like Shadowrun-lite.

I love Shadowrun and the first Bioshock, but it was interesting to hear them describe something that seems less impressive than an existing product.

GorbyGipper

This game isn't in competition with the other multiplayer focused titles. Having multiplayer and being able to either kill friends or be killed by friends with plasmids or as a Big Daddy is shear fan service. As long it works, it will appeal to those it's meant to: those who love Bioshock.

Please have split-screen by the way.

Ryodestined

@Slatz_Grobnik: absolutely. Unbalanced gameplay in MP can make or break a game.

its already an established well selling franchise. why do they feel this is neccesary

hokagespit

@Karma: exactly why the hell are they wasting resources.

im getting doubts

hokagespit

When I thought "multiplayer" in Bioshock, "fragfest in Rapture" wasn't what I had in mind.

It should have been implemented as massively multiplayer. "World of Rapture," anyone?

boopadoo

I think an almost vanilla-deathmatch scenario would actually be good. I miss the days of QWDM and Q3A.

If they can get speed and weapon balance right, I'd gladly switch to this over Team Fortress 2. I think the game's environment is perfect for a DM shooter.

I read the first article that said multiplayer was coming to Bioshock and I've given it scarcely a thought since. I just...don't care, I guess. I just accept it as a result of the general public's apparent belief that all games must have multiplayer, even when it makes no sense for them to have it. As you say though, at least it doesn't hurt the single-player experience.

jcb231

@Purguy: what if they ah da deep class based objective based Mp where you could build turrets and floating sentries alarms? Splicer skills? etc.. and also
etc...

@Crypysmoker: There is still a lot more to come, it will be a lot more customizable than you think Luke.

@DocSeuss: I thought UT3 worked just a swell on ps3 as it did on pc (i have had and have played both)... the story and voice acting were so insultingly juvenile (ut2k4 was bad too but I forgot about ti as the gameplay was sooo good) and there were other better more mature mp games out there... I ahven't really bothered with it much.. sad as the mod support and mouse keybard was really really something i support.
Bioshock is fine, but I suspect the MP won't be as compelling as other dedicated games. Bt game modes like capture/harvest the little sisters or BD's defend against waves of splicers might be fun for a little while...

"Bioshock didn't excel as a shooter." I completely disagree. Using plasmids in combination with weapons added a new experience that no other game has. For example, shoot a bunch of proximity mines onto a trash can, then use telekinesis to throw it at an enemy, awesome.

@bakagaijin: What makes a good single player experience - in terms of the rules of the game - and what makes a good multiplayer experience are not the same. This is highly true in an FPS, where there's no "cheat" like in, say, a Strategy title. Anytime there's a mutliplayer aspect, one of the questions as to any power/ability/weapon/MacGuffin is "how's this affect game balance?"

That question, and the need to always provide an answer to it, can hurt a game.

@ikiddo: No depth? I thought the storyline was incredibly intriguing. Hell, the thought alone of a game set in a city underwater during the 1950s/60s made it a day 1 purchase for me. But to each his own I guess.

nukee

I'm the only one that wants co-op "single player" Bioshock? just like Quake 1 or the mod Sinergy for Half-Life 2.. Two or three bigdaddies walking around rapture experiencing the "single player" story...

@MrBionic: Yes I see your point. And I could and will improve on my point more.

Things like Bioshock for me are dull and boring. I mean I picked it up cheap so it was not like I made a big loss or anything and by far would I say that I would not recommend it to people. But I felt so strongly about how bad I thought it was simply because I was so nagged to play this game that is this "holy grail of gaming".

Also @Arch_27 .. I am not a system shock 2 fanboy .. If anything I played it because of Bioshock and yes I did enjoy it a heck of a lot more.

@Chaosrayne: It sure does matter for many people so it is definately important for future of the franchise.

TheOddOneDies

Can't be worst than the "I freeze so I can shoot" RE5 multi-player mode, right ?

jellyfish

Please take the online multiplayer out and add online co-op

I share your concerns, Luke. This has worried me from day 1... where's the heart? I view a game as a complete artistic and narrative experience. It's like inserting fan fiction chapters at the end of your favorite classic novel.

And anyway, the point isn't really that the multiplayer game "hurts" the single player game, which certainly can exist on its own, but that development resources were spenbt in creating it - resources that would have been better served polishing the main narrative, which was always the strength of the first game.

Sustenance

@grantanamo: What, predictable? I for sure did not expect the turn the story took about halfway through (the incident with the golfclub...) when the irish guy turned out to... er... be not so irish.

But maybe I'm just gullible. Also I loved every inch of Bioshock 1.

@VergessenHeld: You haven't seen the new gameplay footage have you? In Bioshock 2, you play as a kind of Big Daddy that can use plasmids.

@Hendrixx: you can never have too many tits.

I loved Bioshock but I'm not in love with selling the game based solely on "OOH LOOK! YOU CAN PLAY AS A BIG DADDY! WOO~!"

Really that seems like pointless fanservice. I don't WANT to be a Big Daddy. And I hate how they keep saying "Well you were a stranger coming into Rapture the first time, now you're something FROM Rapture." BULLSHIT! The ridiculous plot-twist in the first game completely destroyed the "stranger in a mysterious and alien environment" feeling. I want that back. I want it for the whole game. Why can't we be the increasingly crazy detective from the website trying to track down the missing little girls? He sounds much more interesting than a prototype Big Daddy.

@Silent Predator fell on bad days: well, nobody's forcing anybody to play them.

@Karma:
Does a game's Metacritic score denote whether you're buying it or not?

Geezus.

@Silent Predator fell on bad days: Except the Big Daddies NEVER set any traps. They walked around in plain view and they did nothing until you pissed them off. That's their style. Letting a player set traps would be dumb in the context of being a Big Daddy.

VergessenHeld

Although I'm sure this MP will suck horrendously, I can't blame 2K...

I've heard so many (younger, foul mouthed) gamers (particularly on Live than anywhere else) who won't buy games without multiplayer...

I don't understand it

Aurongel

@Crypysmoker: I don't like the idea of multiplayer in Bioshock and to be honest, I haven't liked much of what I've heard about this game. That said I think a good multiplayer opportunity would be to have one player as the big daddy protecting a little sister harvesting adam. You could then have other players as the splicers trying to get at the Big Daddy.

The Big Daddy would be given some time at the start to set up traps and whatnot. Each player could take a turn as the Big Daddy and points are awarded based on if you protected the littler sister or if you killed her (for splicers).

@abcFRAG: "But, it's true it's the first time that Bioshock has MP"

System Shock 2.

I rest my case.

@ikiddo: There are a lot of people that found the story in Bioshock to be a little lacking. However, things like this are more subjective than not, and whether or not one person likes it doesn't make a game 'not worth it' to another one.

This is a growing attitude that is getting a little concerning. Too many out-of-hand dismissals or glowing praise for games that are entirely based on the experience of the person making the claims instead of based on anything objective at all.

What I'd like to see more of is, "I didn't find this game worth purchasing/I found this game to be a fantastic purchase BECAUSE: blah blah blah.

Not only will it help us all, but it'll help the commenter work on their language and typing skills.

It's win/win!

@TheOddOneDies:

Personally I do think bolt-on MP has a bearing on SP focussed games. I think it weakens the game overall.

A shoddy MP component can bring the score down for starters. An otherwise solid SP focussed game can loose a few percent due to a shoddy quick outsourced MP adversarial component. I am sure this is exactly what we are going to see with BS2. The MP will effect the released games final score.

Even when outsourced devs are used, that money they're paying the outsourced developers could have been used to improve the tech or hire more employees for the SP. Heck the outsourced devs could have built SP bonus missions to add extra replay value. Simply put, that money could have gone to much better use within the games main focus.

IMO, no matter how you look at it, bolt-on MP modes ALWAYS worsens the SP in one way or another.

Karma

like most other games, I likely won't touch the multiplayer componant at all.

@TheOddOneDies:

Well the Multi-player is being developed by a different team. So it's not distracting the core single player team which is all I'm concerned about

If it doesn't take away anything from the single player and seems good on it's on merit, why complain?

Daveed

@TRT-X: What about those of us that love SP games (I own Fallout 3 and Oblivion and enjoy them both immensely), but also love running around for hours shooting people up? (Currently addicted to CoD4).

Don't make us feel guilty! ;)

@abcFRAG: On Kotaku, there is no such thing as 'no banhammer possible to apply', I think :)

Oh wait, yes there is, apparently it's impossible to ban someone for disagreeing with Fahey and not liking Sushi.

At least, I think it was Fahey. Maybe it was McWhertor.

@ikiddo: Bioshock was a good story. The tale was solid with some decent Hitchcock-inspired twist near the end... Hmm, much like inFAMOUS now that I think about it.

More to the point - Yes, System Shock 2 was ahead of its time and a major influence on Bioshock, but fanboys need to just simmer down. I'm not sure what everyone expects with depth on these games. I'd much rather have a straight forward story driven shooter than run about blabbing with 600 NPCs to accomplish a simple task.

ARCH_27

I remember when the first one came out and a lot of ppl, including reviewers, complained about the lack of multiplayer, since multiplayer is pretty much mandatory this generation, etc etc...now those same ppl will complain that the multiplayer is unecessary and doesn't fit well with the nature of the game.

I dont know why everybody thinks every game need multiplayer nowadays. Bioshock is all about the single-player, narrative-drive experience and that's why it's so great.

vnunes

So, it's like FEAR 2? Because I mean, I'll be the first to admit FEAR 2 has a passable multiplayer but there's none of the uber spookyness that you expect from it otherwise.

@Sir-Lucius is sappin' your sentry: They had better do a better job then if they would want to compete with MW2. Get to it!!

@Hendrixx: I blame the Booth Babes.

ARCH_27

@The Forgetful Brain: Porting PC titles like UT to a console never work. Then again, UT3 seemed like it was put together in a matter of hours; like everyone said "fuckit, we're makin' Gears of War instead! It's better!"

DocSeuss

I think multiplayer whores are ruining games. One of them is my roommate. He won't play a game unless it has multiplayer. If a game does have multiplayer, he never touches the singleplayer.

I just hope the sequel restores some of the System Shock depth to the gameplay and removes the endlessly respawning enemies. I just couldn't force myself to finish the first because of those.

@ikiddo: I, and most reviewers, tend to disagree with that assessment. It's no GOTY, but it's a very solid title.

@walkyourpath: Ha! I laughed :)

I still think Bioshock multi-player is seriously unnecessary.

Bioshock should be a single-player experience.

Maybe they should have thought more about Co-Op in the Single Player mode more than Multiplayer Mode?

riceKRISPYninja

@Ackers: But, it's true it's the first time that Bioshock has MP, and OP is clever, he posted his/her comment first. No banhammer posible to apply, OP is a clever OP.

abcFRAG

@-MasterDex-: This.

I think one of the most important elements for success for the online MP, is a good matchmaking system. Games with poor matchmaking turn off a heck of a lot of the community, and the online portion ends up dying out pretty fast.

Unreal Tournament III on the 360? I haven't found a match once since the first weeks of that game's launch.

Still, if they're taking hints from COD, hopefully they'll take hints for the match making as well.

@Nubius does it for the Prinnies:
Is that mother f*cking Smartball?!
Hearted.

@Sir-Lucius is sappin' your sentry: I disagree. Much like answering exam questions, the closer you get to the top, the harder it is to score points. It is far harder to improve on a single player experience that is 9/10 than it is to leave it as is and focus on making an enjoyable multi player experience as well (moving on to the next question, if you will).

Ladi

To think that adding a multiplayer component will not have any effect on the singleplayer component is a little bit naive, dont you think? The fact is that devs will have to spend time coding it, and test will have to spend time testing it. Bug fixes to one component will likely affect the other. One of Bioshock's most notable features was the extreme level of polish. Including something like this in a world of must-hit ship dates is reckless.

joeymojo

@Guy Whitey Corngood: thanks for pointing that out - i honestly didnt notice

BAN HAMMER

@nukee: It's really NOT worth $60/£40. I paid bloody £20 and that was still too bloody much. No depth. Easy to run through. Nothing special. Heck its system shock 2 minus the depth.

@Guy Whitey Corngood: I agree. I didn't quite understand the comment at first (as to how it pertained to the article) then when I read your reply it all made sense. Pretty lame stuff.

amazinglarry

@Sir-Lucius is sappin' your sentry: I just don't buy it, sorry. And honestly, I think talking about developers budgets is something very few of us here actually know anything about, including me. But I would think that companies are smart enough in their budgeting decisions. I remember Capcom talking about this very concept. RE5's DL was a completely separate budget, and they said it wouldn't have effected their main budget regardless of whether or not it was there or not. Like I said, I just don't have enough facts to firmly agree or disagree.

I do like your point about the abilities of the programmers and designers. I think that makes a huge impact and shouldn't be ignored. All the money in the world can't make a good game if you don't have the talent.

Why are people complaining about this!? Did they NOT use a separate fucking group of people to make the multiplayer in the first place so everybody else could finish the primary part of the game in piece?

Stop bitching, you don't NEED to play the multiplayer.

@polezo:

It would be interesting to see if they do anything new with them. Like being able to create a frozen wall and have to use a fire plasmid or weapon to get through.

The_M

Nice writeup Luke. Joystiq had very similar impressions in that "It just didn't feel right for this world."

This is a singleplayer game. I never even got into multiplayer until Xbox but still prefer one player games with great narratives. This is pushing it.

hmm.. a big goon in a smelly tight suit with a penchant for underage kids......
Glory-Hole Theme Park any one??

It wont have a bearing on the single player, but will likely have a bearing on the trophies/achievements. Can't wait for the mandatory "Kill 10,000 Big Daddies in Deathmatch" award.

(That's sarcasm, by the way.)

CowLion

@walkyourpath: that was a pretty smart joke... i'm going to add you now....

@Agumen: Tacking on a lackluster multiplayer won't really solve that problem though. And from the Luke's tone it sounds like that's what Bioshock 2's multiplayer will amount to.

@walkyourpath:

I see what you did there.

@bakagaijin: It does though. Take whatever your multiplayer budget is, nix it, and put it to single player. Time devoted to multiplayer is time taken away from single player, no matter what way you cut it. Improvements can always be made given enough time and money, and focusing development time on multiplayer takes away from both of those. Even when put into separate teams, the money spent getting a good team of multiplayer designers the resources they need could be spent on resources for the single player.

Much of this is dependent on the abilities of the programmers and designers, hence why games like Call of Duty and Street Fighter are much better than games like Lair. But if we're talking about raw potential, developing two game modes at once definitely takes away from time, money, and resources that could go into improving one.

@Crypysmoker: There are two other modes that they haven't announced yet.

MixMaster81

@Kaineko: Ughh, the stealth firsties are invading Kotaku now?? Drop the banhammer on this fool.

Guy Whitey Corngood

Honestly the shooting component of Bioshock wasn't very tight. The game just doesn't lend itself to a fast paced multiplayer experience.

bkchurch

Eh, its not taking away from the SP so I don't mind there being MP. Maybe the other 2 modes will be somewhat more interesting?

Gray665

Totally unnecessary. I'm in it for the experience and the story, not YET ANOTHER deathmatch game. There are enough of those already.

@-MasterDex-: Agreed. I don't think this is about getting more people to buy it - the COD4 and Halo3 crowd aren't going to see this as an upgrade. What this is about is preventing quick trade-ins which then canabilize new games sales.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Good single player games get ragged on for not having a multiplayer option, so they add multi, then get ragged on for "tacking on" multi. Conversely, Games with good multiplayer get ragged on because the single player and story is weak. This stuff gets "tacked on" because fans and media demand it, then turn around and shit on it. Tits on a bull? Maybe. But if it wasn't there you can be guaran-goddamn-teed that someone would be bitching about there being NO tits.

It was best left singleplayer, now it's the run of the mill shooter.

i'm not complaining, i just think they did an amazing job the way they did it already. why not continue?

J.D.

One of the reasons Bioshock was/is a well-liked game is that the dev team used all it's resources on the campaign, and it showed. Even tho #2 is done with a few people from 2K Boston, the majority is 2K Marin, (who did the PS3 port I believe), and I always worry when the sequel is not made by the same original team. And I also heard that Digital Extremes was contracted out for the multiplayer portion of Bioshock 2. Another sign of greedy publisher pushing for a sequel so they can cash in; and we all know that the publishers view release dates as golden regardless if the game is actually finished.

I hope Bioshock 2 can good a good job of recreating the wonderful aspects of the original, but the more I hear the less confidence I have.

coalhalo

@NoBullet: It happens every game. A few vocal people on the PS boards were bitching about inFamous not having multiplayer, so they weren't going to buy it. Then there are the constant threads of adding it via DLC. People need to learn that there are certain types of games where the single-player narrative is alone worth the $60 paid, BioShock being one of them.

nukee

Incinerate is so OP. This game is broken. 2K just sit on their asses all day.

--

^ It saddens me to know that there will soon be forum threads like that.

QualityJeverage

@pd771: As long as they deliver another solid, enjoyable single player experience then I'm OK. Will wait for the first few reviews, though, and if multiplayer gets more praise than single player, Rapture is free to turn into yet another deathmatch arena.

It's fun to exchange thoughts with fellow gamers like this but after a brief venture into the world of online gaming, I think I prefer to enjoy my gaming alone.

Nevertheless, a Bioshock sequel still sounds mighty promising - here's hoping it'll cater for both audiences.

Why do devs feel compelled to jam multiplayer modes into nearly every game? Oh, wait, it's because gamers scream and cry whenever a game doesn't include multiplayer modes.

@TRT-X: It's also an issue of keeping the game alive. With a game that relies solely on singleplayer, once that's over(and in Bioshock, it's over pretty quickly), many people just trade it in.

With multiplayer, there's less likelyhood that the game will be traded in which means that the game can keep it's premium price (.e.g. RB2, COD4).

Also, having a multiplayer helps to create a community that will be sure to pre-order their next title.

I am of the same opinion as the both of you though. If the multiplaer means the single player suffers as a result, then it's a bad thing, the same goes for adding co-op, if it retracts from the overall experience or becomes a different game as a result, then there's no need for it.

-MasterDex-

@pd771: A-fucking-men. I say fuck 'em to the people that whined about no multiplayer in the original. Bioshock was as story driven as they come, and just because it decided to approach this in the first person doesn't mean it needs to try to compete with COD, Halo, Gears, TF, etc. If you're looking for multiplayer in Bioshock, you're barking up the wrong tree.

@TRT-X: But...but everything is better with friends right!?

@bakagaijin: It won't hurt proven franchises, but what if a company is only willing to stake a little money on a new IP, but force multiplayer on it? That can easily hurt the overall game.

@walkyourpath: how many vases were broken with the rise of these ideals?

@pd771: Kotaku: NEED AN EDIT BUTTON!

Anyways, I don't think it's the hardcore fans. I'm not really sure who it is though. Though that idea seems more apparent in teens.

@Hendrixx:
Are you complaining that you are seeing too many tits?

@TRT-X:

@pd771: I don't buy the whole idea of multiplayer hurting the single player experience. These companies budget their costs accordingly.

Still, this mode is "tits on a bull", especially in a game like this. Every game doesn't need multiplayer. I wish companies would realize this notion that every gamer wants MP, or every game needs MP is false.

At best, it'll provide a few hours diversion from the single player experience, and then a very small percentage of the hardcore will play anything beyond that.

It still baffles my mind that everyone thought this game was such a great narrative. It was amazingly predictable and coupled with the intensely repetitive gameplay it felt like a chore to get through. But in it's defense I will say this... MGS was known for being a single player experience and I have to say that MGO was a success IMO. It will be interesting to see if they can take the universe of rapture and make a multiplayer experience as unique as MGO or if it will be another forgotten, derivative multiplayer.

grantanamo

This is why not every game needs multiplayer, if when people think they do. Everyone who cried for their Bioshock MP modes will now only play them for a couple hours, go "meh", and return to Halo 3 or CoD4 - what's the point?

Er. Didn't excel as a shooter? I had way more fun with it's gameplay than any of the other FPS-type games to come out this entire generation.

I could never get into the first Bioshock. I found the gameplay a bore...which stopped from getting in the story which I've heard great things about. I might just have to try it again.

Though I'm keeping an eye out for this one, hopefully it'll change my mind about the series.

@pd771: Exactly. The days of enjoying a game for the single player experience are quickly dying.

Nowadays, you can't get the self-appointed "hardcore" to really apprecite a game unless you let them compare e-peens by shooting at each other for hours on end.

Feel the same way. Mp is a nice to have, but this game did not need this. As you said, it will not take my time of TF2

Purguy

What is it with Kotaku and the word 'tits' today?!

Why is there MP in my Bioshock?!

><

I'll hold judgement till I play it. Although I agree with what you're saying (that you play Bioshock for the story rather than the actual shooting), I'm open to the possiblity of multiplayer Bioshock, the plasmids could make for some very fun gameplay.

-MasterDex-

Its a shame the kiddies cried over no multiplayer in the first game. Now theyre getting some tacked on modes and those same kids will most likely complain about it.

They are doing this because of all the idiots who say "I won't buy a game if it doesn't have multiplayer."

What they don't realize is that some games are not conducive to multiplayer, and adding it may hurt the quality of the single-player experience. That may not happen here, but we may lose some great ideas because they put money into useless multiplayer.

"On the bright side, this has no bearing whatsoever on the game's singleplayer component..."

We can only hope so. I find it hard to believe though, since developing MP-content still costs a lot of money.

TheOddOneDies

Plasmids don't add enough to the gameplay i take it? Maybe once you get enough upgrades you'll have cooler plasmids than shown here at E3.

The multi-player is based on the objectivist sequel novel -- Atlas Respawned.

Out of all the things they could have done with a multiplayer.....

HAcking mini games lol, Maybe a capture the lil sisters game.... Protect the sisters hideouts from splicers... there are so many things they could have done

Crypysmoker

Well there's a first for everything

Kaineko

@Mutton-Chops: Agreed.

lolomfgisuck

@Sir-Lucius is sappin' your sentry: First off let me say that I could care less if Bioshock 2 had multiplayer or not, but I feel like playing the devil's advocate. Yes Bioshock was story driven game, and yes a lot of people wanted multiplayer. There are other ways that you can add multiplayer to a game without adding a death match mode. Such as a Co-op play, that way you can satisfy the people that want a story driven game and the people that wanted multiplayer. Unfortunatly you can never please everyone.

Dismembered

"Bioshock didn't excel as a shooter"???? Are you kidding? As a shooter this game was fantastic it brings me back to how amazing Clive Barker's game Undying was utlizing magic and weapons in a 1st person shooter and doing it well. All the while with a great story and an environment that was immersive and scary...what more can you ask for?

as long as it doesn't hurt the single player component.... throw whatever in it you like.

ill still buy it.