Today’s game industry is a tough market. So much as a few bad scores can make years of development time a waste. Games almost always come packed with new features or promises of future downloadable content, and it’s becoming hard to find a game without multiplayer. Now, in no way am I saying that a multiplayer component is at all a bad thing. But every now and then a game strolls along that gives off a strong singleplayer vibe, not only overshadowing the multiplayer content, but ultimately makes you wonder why they bothered to implement it in the first place. BioShock is one of those games.
It goes without saying that BioShock was an absolute hit, and BioShock 2 is looking to be the next 2K juggernaut. With all the hype and mixed controversy already forming over this anticipated sequel, multiplayer hasn’t received the same press that was garnered from the shocking “you are a big daddy” announcement. People aren’t as interested in playing through Rapture with friends as much as they simply want to experience the continuation of BioShock’s epic narrative. The only thing that has actually caught my attention about the proposed multiplayer is that we’ll get to see Rapture before or during its downfall.
Digital Extremes is going to take the reins in the development of multiplayer. Certainly they’ve proven themselves worthy for such a task, despite their blunders with Dark Sector, their success with the Unreal series validates their ability. However, it worries me that 2K is pawning off the multiplayer to a different developer. It brings into question if they’ll really be able to capture the feel of Rapture, especially before the civil war. On the bright side, the fact that we’ll play human splicers during multiplay all but confirms the return of our most beloved weapons from the original. So we just might get another chance to spray a few machine gun rounds into our fellow plasmid test subjects.
The principal question to be asked here is “What gameplay can we expect from BioShock multiplayer?” This is a worrying inquiry and the best we can hope for is gameplay similar to that of the first game. Again, while this would be rather easy for BioShock veterans to adapt to, it would be more of the same, and we want something new and exciting. Also, with the rather recent announcement of a reward system being the focus it’ll take some clever thinking on their part to really differentiate it from the stock of generic unlocks from games like Call of Duty or Killzone 2.
The execution of BioShock 2’s multiplayer is the least of my concerns however. The real concern is how well it will fit in with the corresponding story. What’s even worse than a game without a respectable multiplayer component is one that’s more or less an afterthought, and from the looks of it, that seems to be all it is. It’s really just a commercial stunt, and makes the 2K developers look like they’re just following the crowd. The truth is, multiplayer just isn’t a good idea for BioShock, and it’s certainly not a good way of conveying the story of Rapture before it all went to hell.
With respect, I would like to address this to the fine developers of BioShock: don’t bother creating a multiplayer component, it’s simply not needed. Focus all your energy on the story and gameplay. This is why I fell in love with Rapture during my premiere journey through it. By all means, I admire your thoughts and ideas regarding a multiplayer element, but BioShock needs to stay exclusively singleplayer. We need that claustrophobic feel, the feeling of being alone, with nobody else to protect us from the deadly things that lurk in Rapture’s ruins. BioShock is meant for one person, so don’t risk shedding points off scores if the multiplayer doesn’t happen to be up to scratch.
37 comments ↓
SiNTAX
May 28th, 2009
“With respect, I would like to address this to the fine developers of BioShock: don’t bother creating a multiplayer component, it’s simply not needed. Focus all your energy on the story and gameplay.”
I second that!!!!
Also, MP Trophies/Achievements SUCK DONKEY BALLS!!!!
Steve
May 28th, 2009
Im not worried, my issue with multi is it can reduce the hours and effort on the single player, with a different development crew that won’t be happening.
You can still have atmosphere in a multiplayer game look at Lost Planet or GOW.
Still I doubt i’ll be spending much time on multi
lawrence
May 28th, 2009
I am getting sick and tired of people like you talking crap about a game that has yet to be released . Who the hell are you to tell 2K not to make a multiplayer component just because you dont want one . Do you even know who is in charge of make Bioshock 2 , If you did you would not jump the gun and trash it . Why dont you put a little more thought into you articles before you post then. I personally welcome the multiplayer component and have all the faith in the world in 2K . They made one the best games of all time and IMO was beat by only one game Fallout 3, so when you ask them not to make it you are only speaking for yourself and not all of the people that are looking forward to the game and everything it comes with . So please when you write an article , make sure you mention that this is only an opinion of yours
Ian S.
May 28th, 2009
@ Lawrence
Calm down mate, show some maturity
Seth
May 28th, 2009
Lawrence, don’t be silly. This article was not ‘trashing’ Bioshock 2. It was simply stating the fact that an unnecessary multiplayer component will take time, money, focus and resources from the singleplayer component. That’s a fact.
Ian saying that he wishes that 2K forgoe the multiplayer altogether is an opinion, and one that I share. It’s obvious that this is an opinion, so there is no need to state it.
Would Fallout 3 have benefitted from multiplayer, in your mind? Would Bioshock 1?
Ian S.
May 28th, 2009
@ Lawrence… agaian
Sorry, forgot to mention, It is an opinion of my own, that is why it is catagorized in the Blog section, if you want something considered as the collective opinion of all DarkZero Staff, head over to the articles page (http://darkzero.co.uk/game-articles/)
You might find some interesting reads over there…
Dirk
May 28th, 2009
If you don’t want to play whatever multiplayer Bioshock 2 has to offer then don’t play it. While I agree the game doesn’t need it I find it might be interesting to see what the developers come up with. Kind of like Star Wars before the fall of The Republic.
Steve
May 28th, 2009
Dont pander to these people Ian, it’s obvious enough its your opinion and you’ve clearly considered what your saying and made a good case for the game not having multi.
Fact is, a different developer is doing the multi so it should by no way impact on the single player.
Seth
May 28th, 2009
It’s still going to cost money that could have been spent on the singleplayer.
Capital Dream
May 28th, 2009
Yes, I Care. Why would make a story about multiplayer. Why not have it?
Seth
May 28th, 2009
Dream Capital, sentence your sense does make not.
Mike
May 28th, 2009
I lol at you DreamCapital, I lol long and hard at your sentence of infinite failure.
On a serious note, I feel that they are wasting their time including multiplayer as I can only imagine it will be as God awful as the Call of Duty 2 and The Darkness’ attempts. This is time money and resources better spent on polishing and improving the main attraction (like helping you to walk faster in the case of The Darkness…)
lolgasm
May 29th, 2009
I think that the multiplayer should’ve been co-op. That seems more useful. They could’ve made the co-op feature a prequel, but idk how that would turn out.
lawrence
May 29th, 2009
I may have overreacted a bit but this was not directed only to you but too all of the bioshock multiplayer haters out there so I may have taken my frustration out on you and I apologize. AND TO SETH Fallout 3 was an open world RPG game with tons to do I have 300+ hours on that game so theres no need for a multiplayer when you have a game that can last that long
lawrence
May 29th, 2009
Mike what are you talking about Call of Duty 2 was epic and so was the multiplayer I think you ment Call of Duty 3 now that was God awful
Steve
May 29th, 2009
Good point Lawrence, I mean Bioshock was what? 10 hours?
I think shorter campaign games can benifit from multiplayer, especially when they are as linear as Bioshock. (I know the levels were open to a degree but Timesplitters 3, Halo, Killzone were all a similar length to Bioshock yet balanced multiplayer).
I think the argument that Bioshocks single player was about as long as a game like those above rather than say Half Life 2 justifies the arguement multi would improve it, if only in life span.
Infact don’t you remember the ranting people did after Bioshock hype died down? too short, too linear, the choices were just illusions ectra.
Mike
May 29th, 2009
I tried COD2’s multiplayer many a time with friends and it would have been good if not for the horrible, horrible lag
Seth
May 29th, 2009
Eurogamers preview actually makes the multiplayer sound moderately interesting. If it’s not tacked on, and the development and budget are seperate, then I don’t really have an issue with it.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bioshock-2-multiplayer-preview
henrikoel
June 15th, 2009
I have to disagree. Remember when bio 1 was released and people was all like: Great game, but why the heck is there no multyplayer?
I even remember screwattack mention it. I for one Cant wait for the multyplayer, But just one complain, why would you put a big daddy suit in it? It doesnt make any sense.
Those of you who are bioshock fanboys understand this
Vael Victus
June 19th, 2009
A seperate team is developing it. It SHOULD be taking very little away from the single player if there are two teams.
Does anyone care? Yeah, try every major bioshock forum there is out there.
And Ian – do you enjoy irony? Because you’re basking in it. Telling Lawrence to act mature was one of the least mature things you could respond to him with. Instead of defending yourself, you merely tell him to be mature and then a post later happily claim it’s “just your opinion” so hey – back it up? Nonsense! Who backs up opinions, when they’re OPINIONS? Right?
No.
Seth
June 19th, 2009
Vael, to be fair to Ian he’s made it fairly clear why he isnt interested in Bioshock 2 multiplayer. All someone can do with an opinion is provide reasons for why they feel that way, and examples that support it. Which he’s done.
If you’re looking for an opinion to be backed up by cold, hard facts then you’re gonna be disappointed.
Vael Victus
June 19th, 2009
Seth, have you heard of a “doctor’s opinion”? They’ll typically base it on numerous medical findings they’re aware of. I would respect Ian if he would instead of this:
The truth is, multiplayer just isn’t a good idea for BioShock,
Say,
“I’d like to see if they could pull it off, but I have a feeling they can’t.”
But no! Ian? Why, he speaks the truth!
Ian S.
June 20th, 2009
Your welcome to your own opinion Vael, but arrogance is frowned upon in the DarkZero community…
Please, if you want to express yourself, do so respectfully and in a mature way, that’s the only way you’ll earn status in anyone’s eyes.
Vael Victus
June 20th, 2009
Wow, didn’t see that coming. You use opinion as a copout, are you aware of that? Nothing short of poor parenting. I’ll bet you say music “sucks” or movies “suck” or games “suck” instead of saying you don’t like them. You have not defended yourself in any way because you know you’re wrong. Dark Zero is a joke: between this article and the review for The Path, I’m wondering where exactly Dark Zero finds its writers, because I’m going to bet it’s the owner’s MSN buddy list. The worst part about this article is it’s actually featured, as if it’s like this golden, shining example of just how good Dark Zero is.
Oh but you can feel a lot better about it, in fact, don’t even respond: it’s just my opinion, so you can hide in your conceit while I bask in my superiority. (arrogance, you call it)
also lol respected by darkzero
Mike
June 20th, 2009
Vael, don’t be bitter. If you don’t like the site don’t read it. While you might disagree with the points made it only takes one post to make the point, whereas making personal attacks on the site and the article because differing views does look a little pathetic.
Mike
June 20th, 2009
@ Vael
Given that a seperate team is developing you have a fair point. As long as it does not detract from the single player I’ll welcome it, but given that its coming out around the same time as MP games such as COD: MW2 I doubt i’ll be giving it any play time.
Vael Victus
June 20th, 2009
Bitter? I have nothing to be bitter over. I just want to make sure if there’s anyone who reads this article and the comments, they know to not take the article or author seriously; I would expect to see an article of this caliber posted on a forum, maybe, but some upset gamer, but to have its own featured article is quite embarassing to Dark Zero.
Also, I’m having fun. It’s interesting and fun to see if I’m wrong, and even more fun if they’re easy targets… good news, though, I checked out the other articles on this site and they seem very fair. In fact, Zeno Clash’s article had a great span of on-point vocabulary and was very fair… oddly, done by the guy who wrote The Path’s review!
Sean
June 20th, 2009
So basically, if this blog post didn’t have an image linking to it on the page, you wouldn’t be kicking off about it?
Seth
June 20th, 2009
1. Its a blog post, not an article.
2. Its an opinion that is based on personal preference. Which isn’t something that can be backed up with facts.
3. Whether you agree with it or not, I’m certain that you have the intelligence to understand the reasons why someone might adopt such a viewpoint.
4. Can you give me some free stuff on Monster Breeder please?
Ian S.
June 20th, 2009
Ok, I’m quite annoyed right now Vael…
I really try to be kind and calm with you, but flaming is yet another thing I sincerely frown upon. Your every bit entitled to your opinion, but how you express it is unacceptable, your only making yourself look pathetic.
Vael Victus
June 21st, 2009
“So basically, if this blog post didn’t have an image linking to it on the page, you wouldn’t be kicking off about it?”
In fact, I wouldn’t have even found it!
Seth: 2. you mean, subjectivity. If he was being subjective, he wouldn’t use objective statements. 4. yes
Ian: please go away, you obviously have nothing to say to defend yourself and also, learn the difference between your and you’re.
It would be best for everyone if you all would stop replying and just let it go.
Sean
June 21st, 2009
Oh, shit! Guys, we’d better stop replying – Vael Victus told us we should, and since he’s been so courteous so far we should probably do exactly as he says!
Vael Victus
June 21st, 2009
This has stopped being fun and it’s flooding my email so I’m unsubscribing. There is nothing more I can teach any of you that has not been said already. As said somewhere else on this site, I came here because a forum link called bullshit on this site and after looking through briefly, I can see why. It just sucks that you folks are counted in the meta critic ranking because you obviously have some serious personal issues you need to take care of. You could learn from the Vulcans to not let your emotions and bad feelings get in the way of articles. (in this case, an angry nerd forum post in the form of a blog post)
Live long and prosper.
Also I just watched Star Trek.
Sean
June 21st, 2009
OH GOD NO. PLEASE COME BACK. WE NEED YOU TO TEACH US MORE SO FACELESS, SPINELESS NERDS WON’T CALL US NAMES.
VAAAAAAAAEL!!!
Seth
June 21st, 2009
Damn.. I really wanted free Monster Breeder stuff
Jared
August 24th, 2009
I completely disagree with this article. For me, and I am sure many others, the multiplayer component (aka replayablity) is a huge selling point.
Colton
February 10th, 2010
Uh oh we got some 2k fanboys