Multiplayer?

[somecut8]

Irrational has announced that Bioshock will not have a multiplayer component. What do you guys think about this decision?

[One0Shot]

No because I want them concentrating on single player plus the multiplayer would probably be a generic thing.

[Rapture_Tourist]

I voted for No.

Questions everyone should ask himself:

Why multiplayer? If you add multiplayer to a game, it should increase the game experience/fun or its just a little extra if you have time left in the development process. Usually, you have rarely time left and why should you put extra energy in a MP?

So if multiplayer - What kind of? Deathmatch, Capture the Flag? In Bioshock it would feel artifical.

Cooperative elements on the other hand can be nice. But then you often have to create a game for cooperative functions right from the beginning and it should be tightened into the story and gameplay. "Oh, I am alone on my own in Rapture....hey, I am not? I have got a lucky friend with me, getting me out here maybe!" - That would destroy the game's mood, I think

[Corgano]

Right now I would say, let them focus on the experience of single player and the world as a whole. I could see them possibly trying to get something going at a later date. I twould have to be, different though. Because this is already such an interactive world and the story is so involved.

[Xerxes]

Bah... i dont really see how they could include the type of multiplayer we usually see in shooters. Deathmatch, Capture the flag, etc... these things dont really fit in the setting of Rapture/Bioshock.

But i guess, eventually, coop would be great...

[One0Shot]

Even coop would not go with the story and would make the game to easy I think.

[Xerxes]

Even coop would not go with the story and would make the game to easy I think.

Well, i dont think there would be a too big difference if there were 2 survivors of the plane crash. Maybe enemies could be harder to kill and you would have to share your ammo/plasmids/items with you partner.

Correct me if im wrong but i think there were a MOD for SS2 that let you play COOP with a friend back in the days... I never tried it so i dont really know if it was cool.

But hell what do I know im not into game programming or designing!:o

[Newbeing]

I think with MP you could do some interesting things with the Rapture Universe.
A game of protect/destroy the little sister anyone? And Coop would be fun too,
but if it were to take away from the singleplayer experience in any way, which I think has sort of happened with recent FPS games, then I would vote no.

[bulldogsfan]

not for the first bioshock no but if there were a sequel then yes

co-op could be implemented like Gears of War or Crackdown whereby the players split up and take on other sides of the map and only joining for the difficult enemies

vs mode could be achieved like splinter cell's spies v mercs where i need to reach a particular area or plasmid with the opposition attempting to stop me in time

or like rainbow 6 vegas' new mode where you have to escort another player (in bioshocks case a good mutant) to a location without that player dying

[Avatar]

Correct me if im wrong but i think there were a MOD for SS2 that let you play COOP with a friend back in the days... I never tried it so i dont really know if it was cool.
My memory is also vague, but I believe the co-op multiplayer support was added in the official patch.
And likewise, I never played the multiplayer either.

I don't mind the absence of multiplayer in BioShock at all. It's the kind of game that's designed for singleplayer. Multiplayer fans can stick with their Battlefield games and such. I'll take a good singleplayer game any day.

[v.dog]

I'd settle for the game being moddable. Set it up so that if people want to add multiplayer, extra missions, or rebuild SS1 in the new engine they can.

[RuneMaster70]

As long as it has excessive replay value (which I hear will be explained in a forthcoming update concerning AI and approches) and possibly multiple endings, I'm cool with no multiplayer. Besides, at least on Xbox Live, it would never get played. IMO, there are already plenty of quality multiplayer shooters on the market (e.g. Gears, Halo, CounterStrike, UT, etc.)

[v.dog]

No multiple endings, I'm afraid. Ken has already stated that it's hard enough writing one good ending, let alone several.

Replay value will still be high tho', you could play weapons only, plasmids only, etc.

[Freddo]

A "quick" co-op like in System Shock 2 would be nice. But really, it's really not important at all. In games like these, it's the single player experience that matters.

[Komistis]

As has been mentioned: yes, a patch was later released for SS2 which came with a co-op component. I greatly enjoyed playing co-op with my older brother, so I would love to see something similar appear after BioShock's release. Plus, even though SS2 was essentially a single player game with the same "you are alone with no one to help you" scenario, I think it still worked as a co-op game. It was fun to split up goals and tasks between the co-op players and generally experience the world with the skills of another player. It was even possible to divide said skills amongst the players, ie. one player is skilled in weapons whilst the other is skilled in psionics, etc.

[jackinthebox]

i don't understand why every game should have a multiplayer... some games (like BioShock) would just loose their great atmosphere and the feeling that you are completely alone in an unterwater city full of mutated people... would you play a point&klick adventure in a coop-mode :confused:

[FrenchTart]

Coop was fun in SS2 but I can understand why they've not gone that route in BioShock.

I can't see it being quite so likely to happen in this day and age, but the ss2 patch for multiplayer was very much a 'tacked on' feature. It'd be nice if BioShock went the same route later on. I don't demand perfect, bug-free coop, but being able to play around with a housemate/friend would be great :)

I guess I just have to hope that BioShock is a massive success and someone mods it in (staff or otherwise).

...which reminds me - I hope that the community mod support is as good as I'm..er...hoping :)

[Bartekk]

Why would I ever want Multiplayer in a game like BioShock?

[Maniac]

I'm a pro multiplayer person (in that I play multiplayer games) but there are certain games where multiplayer just wouldn't work. This is one of those cases. The entire game play style just isn't fit for competative multiplayer. Plus we want this game out quickly.

-Maniac

[witch]

Yes, only as a future component long after they've finished their plans with the original game or as a mod. Co-op would be amazing and I would love a original multiplayer with you being the big daddy, etc.

Single player is the only thing needed but it would be fun to have some sort of multiplayer because you know Irrational would give it the same quality.

[Necros]

i don't understand why every game should have a multiplayer... some games (like BioShock) would just loose their great atmosphere and the feeling that you are completely alone in an unterwater city full of mutated people...
Exactly what I wanted to say. http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif I'm a single player fan but I like playing against others too. But this is just not that kind of game and it would indeed feel forced. If I want to play with others, there are tons of games made for that.

But for those who can't live without a multiplayer part of the game, IG could release a patch after they've finished the game. Or as someone else said, with a good modding kit, fans can create anything they want to, including MP, co-op, whatever. :)

[Rapture_Tourist]

I still don't get it why everyone goes crazy for multiplayer. Someone screams multiplayer and all scream "here!" ;).

You cant generally demand a MP, whithout having any idea or concept what should be in to make it fun.

You want Deathmatch etc. with Avatars like the big daddy and little sister? Ok, then you have a deathmatch between players in the enviroment of Rapture (mapsize is another question). Where is the fun? You simply run around and fight each other, there is nothing special left from the original game (apart from weapons). And that would not be worth the work.

Cooperative mode: If you have a single player game with just an extra cooperative mode on top of it, its boring quite early, I think. The problems you had to solve remain the same, you simply have another player with you all the time. Maybe you have more enemies to fight, but simply playing the single player mode without tasks that need teamwork - its dull. So no cooperative gameplay, if not right from the start.

Contra-Mode: This could be more interesting maybe. You are somehow still in the single player mode, but this time the other player takes the role of a bad guy and tries to hunt you down. But, of course: Even the bad guy has to watch out for other monsters. The bad guy does not know where the hero-player is and has to make his way through the game world. He plays one of the enemies and if he gets killed, he replaces another enemy. That sounds more interesting to me, but I doubt the game engine will allow two players inside the whole city of Rapture and calculating what both of them do.

[Timmy_Magic]

Adding multiplayer to the game will increase pressure on Irrational to knock out updates for it every month. I'm sure it's not what they want to be doing.

I have to say though, playing System Shock 2 in 'deathmatch mode' was some of the best times I've had on a LAN. Maybe some talented individuals can make a mod to allow this after the game is released.

[Gabby_Hayes]

Yeah it would be an awesome fan-mod for PC. If it could somehow have the samesort of quality handcrafted areas but this time two people need to cooperate or hunt each other with strange beings between them. THat could be amost another game.

As far as the actual team cranking out multi-player I have to hope and pray that's a no-no. Single player immersion/psychosis is a must. :cool:

[Shake Appeal]

System Shock 2's cooperative multiplayer was an enjoyable afterthought to the singleplayer game, but it ultimately felt tacked on and diluted the game's atmosphere and intent. I am actually quite pleased Bioshock is singleplayer only.

[IMBender]

I voted Yes to multiplayer, but I was actually thinking of co-operative play. Yes, the game would be much better suited for single player and yes, there wouldn't be too many people playing it to warrant spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on it, but still, I would really, really like to be able to play the game with a friend on co-op.

A lot of good ideas have been put forth in the previous posts here, and the more I think about it, the more sense it actually makes for the team to actually add it in as DLC on Live or as micro-transacted software on the PC. Or, the best thing to do would be (as a lot of people have pointed out) open the game up so that people can design co-op, multiplayer and whatever else they want. Let's face it, HL2 wasn't a co-op game at all, (I am not confusing games here, so please, don't flame my sorry ass yet. I was just talking about the player being the character) yet I've had SO much fun playing it on co-op through GMod! A good community can literally transform a game. SS2 Co-op, Deus Ex multiplayer, etc. were all fun in their own stead, even though the games did not really lend themselves to a multi-user experience at all.

Like someone pointed out earlier, I'd really love to see a couple of co-op missions designed around other survivors from the plane crash!

[LowEnergyCycle]

One of the defining themes of the System Shock games was isolation. Call me what you like, but that's a significant part of why I enjoyed them so much.

So screw Co-Op for obvious reasons.

And as for some silly tacked-on deathmatch shenanigans... well... really, what's the point? There are already hundreds of dedicated multi-player games that do it better than any half-arsed botch job Bioshock would have, just to fill a gap on the Marketing Department's bullet-pointed features list.

Anyway... No no no no no. I'd vote again if I could.

[FrenchTart]

Most of the people who're saying no to co-op seem to have never played it in SS2...

...Whilst that by itself is a good reason why BioShock doesn't need co-op, I urge you to at least TRY SS2's co-op mode and you'll soon realise just how much fun it is.

DM mode....completely agree that it'd be a rather pointless addition aside from a novelty.

[pn18]

Voted for "No".

Well, a multiplayer mode for a singleplayer-oriented game is mostly weak. Look at Doom3, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, HL2MP(?). So why should a Bioshock MP break this clichè? If there would be a such innovative MP, they would have already announced it.

[Veritas]

Half Life 2 actually has a decent mp.....


Besides the point. I voted No because this game is just too cinematic. You can ruin any games single player by adding multiplayer. Beautiful Rapture, you voyage across the area and you hear the echo of your buddy from across the hall... "WTF Hom13? Look a thsi d34d bodi h3r3!!!! Howd he die?!?!?"

Not going to appreciate it. This game is also too strategic and and some points (don't shoot me) very (almost) slow moving. It seems like you have to think in this game. I compare many games with this aspect to friends saying, imagine a multiplayer Myst.

~~~~~~~~I'm not comparing BioShock directly to Myst, but just saying games that are so oriented towards choices and thinking deeper into things should not contain MP.

[pn18]

Half Life 2 actually has a decent mp.....

compared to it's SP it's just - face it - a standard MP. When I played it a year or so ago, it was hard to find a decent server.

[Veritas]

Gp, it's mainly weapons that make the MP, HL2 didn't have a huge innovativeness to it.

[Necros]

Well, a multiplayer mode for a singleplayer-oriented game is mostly weak. Look at Doom3, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, HL2MP(?). So why should a Bioshock MP break this clichè? If there would be a such innovative MP, they would have already announced it.
STALKER's MP is very good IMHO. :cool: Based on the beta. :)

[pn18]

STALKER's MP is very good IMHO. :cool: Based on the beta. :)
jackinthebox and I spended a lot of time playing the beta and it's cool, no doubt. but compared to the SP, you know...


...it suck ballz :D

[Necros]

I haven't seen the SP part of the game, yet. :) And the full game's MP can be much better too. ;)
But let's not spam the topic further. :D

[LowEnergyCycle]

Most of the people who're saying no to co-op seem to have never played it in SS2...

...Whilst that by itself is a good reason why BioShock doesn't need co-op, I urge you to at least TRY SS2's co-op mode and you'll soon realise just how much fun it is.

DM mode....completely agree that it'd be a rather pointless addition aside from a novelty.
I see where you're coming from, and I can certainly see the appeal of co-op after a hilarious Gears of War session the other week with some mates and several cans of Kronenbourg1664 :D

But that's exactly it for me - I only ever play multi-player games for a laugh with a few beers, and even then the fun is only fleeting (unless it's Soul Caliber 3 - thats freakin' religious).

I think there's a definite line between those kind of games and something like Bioshock, which demands you sit down and absorb it on your own, without any outside distraction, much like a good book.

I mean, it's a bad analogy I know, but I wouldn't exactly relish reading a book with somebody else.

[FrenchTart]

I can certainly see your point :)

I loved the single player game of System Shock 2 (and I fervently hope that BioShock is just as great to play) and I guess I see co-op as 'icing on the cake'. I can completely understand why it's not included in the game when the time/money spent on it could be used elsewhere.

However, the main disgruntlement I have with the general theme of this thread is that there seems to be a perception that having co-op included would somehow make it mandatory to play in that mode. Co-op in SS2 was definitely a bolted-on (and buggy!) extra, but it was great fun none the less and extended the life of the game for an extra couple of play-throughs (and has even inspired a few mods).

To build on your analogy - though I like to read books by myself, I later enjoy discussing my experiences with someone else that has also read the book and to take that further, would enjoy 'reliving' parts of the book with them. That's kind of how I would envisage BioShock multiplayer.

Probably badly worded, so please forgive me if it sounded somewhat rambling.

[Necros]

I see what you mean. But I just don't want to ruin my experience by teaming up with someone. That should be a different game. I mean, if someone will create a co-op mod, then it should alter the game itself too. Because Bioshock was created for one player only. And changing some stats won't make it right. So the modder should play through the game a couple of times, so he/she knows it inside-out and then start altering the whole thing. And after that it could be good for a co-op game. IMHO.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of co-op gaming, so this may be just some stupid idea. :D

[Nik]

i really only want the game for the single player but multi player could work.

i mean u can like choose to be big daddy, little sister, slicer, ect. like big daddys and little sisters team would have to go get some adam and the other team would have to stop them.

[Necros]

That would ruin the athmospere and IG wants to avoid that. And balance wouldn't be good either, as a Big Daddy you'd be too powerul.

[Glottis]

My memory is also vague, but I believe the co-op multiplayer support was added in the official patch.
And likewise, I never played the multiplayer either.

I don't mind the absence of multiplayer in BioShock at all. It's the kind of game that's designed for singleplayer. Multiplayer fans can stick with their Battlefield games and such. I'll take a good singleplayer game any day.


I very much agree with above :) Screw multiplayer,I am sick of ww2 themed games and multiplayer games as well....

[FrenchTart]

Well, I'll just repeat that it's worth trying out SS2 and it's co-op mode.

I really can't belive that someone would say "screw this because I'm bored of multiplayer games". Seriously, it's not like we're suggesting that the game be turned into a glorified Quake/Counter Strike (at least, not most of us..).

[LowEnergyCycle]

Ok ok, you kinda changed my mind (damn that stupid book analogy!). It's fair to say that I've enjoyed regaling friends (when the spiteful pricks will listen...) with lengthy stories of in-game adventurising, and that the story-telling is always much richer (and funnier) when there's two of you telling it.

That's not to say we play a lot of Co-Op mind, and I'd be damn lucky to get them to play a PC game at all - System Shock 2 notwithstanding. It's just that we tend to share games and thus their component experiences.

I suppose if, when Irrational release the finished Single Player game, they then focus on a Co-Op mode, perhaps it could work out - your cake will be iced. But as I think Necros says, they'd really need start from the ground up to make it work properly rather than just tack it on the side of the existing experience.

So in short (and look who's rambling now ;) ), if Irrational bow to pressure and release a Co-Op mod later, they'd do well to think long and hard at how a Co-Op game works properly (heck, they made SWAT4 didn't they?) and perhaps redesign a few elements of Bioshock to make it work. Otherwise I feel it would just be a waste of time in an industry where better Co-Op games already exist.

Hang on! That wasn't 'in short' at all...

[Giftmacher]

I'd like to see a co-op bolt on like the one SS2 got after it was released, I play that game with my GF still; it's great fun to have someone guarding your back while you hack a terminal etc. :)

Gift.

[DSroyU DOW]

sadly i had to choose no. it would have taken away time for the solo portion and imo the game probubly wwouldnt look as good as we are all hoping it will

[Corgano]

Well, I'll just repeat that it's worth trying out SS2 and it's co-op mode.

I really can't belive that someone would say "screw this because I'm bored of multiplayer games". Seriously, it's not like we're suggesting that the game be turned into a glorified Quake/Counter Strike (at least, not most of us..).
Aye, After the release of the game, if they would go back and add in a Co-Op/Multiplayer element to it, that would be good. And she's right, we're not talking about making this into a glorified Quake/Counter Strike.

[FrenchTart]

she? 0.o

...........some more

[MacarenaRowBot]

I know one thing for sure: Competive multiplayer would totally suck in Bioshock. It just doesnt suit the game.
Co-op: It worked for Shock 2, but mostly because of its linear corridor environments. How would you progress through the story if one of you is on one side of rapture, and your buddy is on the other? It would be a bloody mess, not to mention the stir it would cause to the A.I. , and the whole balance of the game systems. Some games are just better as a complete single player experience.

[Glottis]

Well, I'll just repeat that it's worth trying out SS2 and it's co-op mode.

I really can't belive that someone would say "screw this because I'm bored of multiplayer games". Seriously, it's not like we're suggesting that the game be turned into a glorified Quake/Counter Strike (at least, not most of us..).

Let me start off by saying I spent over 1000 hours on each of the following games... Unreal Tournament 99,Quake 3,Sacrafice,and oh maybe 250 to 300 on line hours with Red Orchestra.I also played the Co-Op mode in SS2,on more then a few occasions,and at least a good 50 to 60 hours logged into BG2.I am now sick of multiplayer.I have spent a allot of time playing online over the years,going all the way back to Quake,and being a member of two clans back in 98-2001. :)

I do not want it in Bioshock,I agree whole heartedly with Ken,that it cannot be done really well in a game like this,unless a dramatic amount of extra cash and other resources are thrown its way.I want 2K to really concentrate all its efforts on SP.

[Corgano]

she? 0.o

...........some more Er, not a she? My bad. I looked at your name and I didn't think 'Tart' was the pastry kind... :confused: I just figured it was a nick-name or something. Sorry man...

Peace,
Cor

[FrenchTart]

No prob...it's happened before :)

[v.dog]

The long hair doesn't help either.

I work retail, and have made that mistake quite a few times: "How you going there today Ma'am- Sir?"
Even worse is the other way around. Boy, if looks could kill-

[Big_Daddy]

No way...Multiplayer would just totally Spoil the game, Bioshock is all about the Singleplayer Experience.

[Hatesink]

I voted 'no', since I don't really ever play on-line, and adding a multi-player component to BioShock would just take attention away from the single player game.

[Fyazquo]

Most pplz that agains MP in this type of game starts comparing it towards games like HalfLife or Doom3, even when it comes to Co-op.. and tbh.. in those game Co-op would suck really bad, but it cant be compared to SS2 or prolly Bioshock either. i greatly enjoyed Co-Op in SS2, and before u judge it in Bioshock i urge u to try it out.

Multiplayer in bioshock for me would be Co-op. if u want DM, CTF or other things like that, go back to HalfLife.

[Samsonator]

I just registered on the Forums just to reply "YES" to COOP Mode.

The System Shock 2 single player experience was fun. But the 4-player coop experience was EVEN BETTER! Trying to survive in a hostile enivornment is just made more exciting by being able to share the experience with friends. Working together with other people (in System Shock 2 coop mode) created a feeling of teamwork, cooperation, and fun for everyone.

I don't like playing spooky games, but when playing together with friends, it's much more manageable. So there's the single player game experience which ends when you quit the game. And there's the coop experience...and the experience continues with your friends even after your turn off the computer.

Personally I think a Cooperative Mode in BioShock would be a WONDERFUL feature in the game either on or after it's official release.

Samsonator

[witch]

I just registered on the Forums just to reply "YES" to COOP Mode.

The System Shock 2 single player experience was fun. But the 4-player coop experience was EVEN BETTER! Trying to survive in a hostile enivornment is just made more exciting by being able to share the experience with friends. Working together with other people (in System Shock 2 coop mode) created a feeling of teamwork, cooperation, and fun for everyone.

I don't like playing spooky games, but when playing together with friends, it's much more manageable. So there's the single player game experience which ends when you quit the game. And there's the coop experience...and the experience continues with your friends even after your turn off the computer.

Personally I think a Cooperative Mode in BioShock would be a WONDERFUL feature in the game either on or after it's official release.

Samsonator

That would be great, but a stand alone mutli would be hot too. I don't care at all if it never gets it, but I can dream of playing game modes with other players called "Hunt the Big Daddy.", lol, :D

[somecut8]

I just registered on the Forums just to reply "YES" to COOP Mode.

The System Shock 2 single player experience was fun. But the 4-player coop experience was EVEN BETTER! Trying to survive in a hostile enivornment is just made more exciting by being able to share the experience with friends. Working together with other people (in System Shock 2 coop mode) created a feeling of teamwork, cooperation, and fun for everyone.

I don't like playing spooky games, but when playing together with friends, it's much more manageable. So there's the single player game experience which ends when you quit the game. And there's the coop experience...and the experience continues with your friends even after your turn off the computer.

Personally I think a Cooperative Mode in BioShock would be a WONDERFUL feature in the game either on or after it's official release.

Samsonator

Agreed.

I personally am a fan of not being in a room only with your old tube but rather having the option of playing games with others. I like the interactions between other gamers, even though sometimes there are really irritating players online. However, what makes up for it is the option to play with your friends and to share the gaming experience with your buddies.

[Necros]

I don't like playing spooky games, but when playing together with friends, it's much more manageable. So there's the single player game experience which ends when you quit the game. And there's the coop experience...and the experience continues with your friends even after your turn off the computer.

Personally I think a Cooperative Mode in BioShock would be a WONDERFUL feature in the game either on or after it's official release.

Samsonator
Then I'm sorry to inform you, this game is designed to be a single player game. The whole experience the team have benn working on would be ruined with a co-op or MP mode. And I welcome the courage that they are standing by the single player experience! :cool: To make the game work well in either of the mentioned modes, it would have to be changed in a lot of ways, and that would take many time and I don't want to wait any longer for the game then I have to. :) But if after finishing the game (and the demo :D) they jump on creating these, I don't care, go ahead, just don't take any precious time or money from creating the best single player experience possible.

[Giftmacher]

Could I ask people why or how the SS2 MP patch ruined the single player experience? I really don't think it did... Support was tacked on to what was developed as a single player game with surprisingly effective results. Hell I'd even argue that having to share out resources designed for a single player between two people enhanced the fear and loathing in that game.

If an MP patch came out for Bioshock I'd probably do the exact same thing I did for SS2, play through as single player, then enjoy the second lease of life tackling the game in MP. I think arguing against any kind of MP option being added because it'll ruin the SP experience is a bit of a strawman argument, SS2 was developed as a single player game and didn't suffer for the added MP option.

Gift.

[Necros]

You didn't catch what I was trying to say. I'm not referring to only the single player experience. I'm rűtalking about the whole atmosphere, the mood of the game. It is designed for one player, all the levels are designed for one player, and I'm pretty sure it would be a major problem for the AI too, having more people in the game.

But if after finishing the game the devs or some modders will create a MP/Co-op mode for the game, I won't mind (I just don't see this game as MP material, it just doesn't fit, and it's the same case with Jericho or Assassin's Creed too for example). But now I want them to concentrate on the SP mode. :cool:

[karmeck]

some one will probely mod it, jsut liek tehy did with oblivion.

[Raveness]

You didn't catch what I was trying to say. I'm not referring to only the single player experience. I'm rűtalking about the whole atmosphere, the mood of the game. It is designed for one player, all the levels are designed for one player, and I'm pretty sure it would be a major problem for the AI too, having more people in the game.

But if after finishing the game the devs or some modders will create a MP/Co-op mode for the game, I won't mind (I just don't see this game as MP material, it just doesn't fit, and it's the same case with Jericho or Assassin's Creed too for example). But now I want them to concentrate on the SP mode. :cool:

Somehow I don't think you know enough about this game's level structure and cohesion to make such a blanket statement that Rapture and its decks are solely designed for a single player experience with no room for Coop or the like, and any attempt to make it would result in major problems that cannot be resolved.

A talented group of developers such as Irrational, who have in the past taken a stellar deck-level based game and turned out a quality Coop addition for it, can given time and wherewithal can produce similar results for Bioshock

[Necros]

Based on what I know now, I think that is the situation. But we'll see who's right in a couple of months. :)

[Giftmacher]

Ah Fair enough Necros, I don't think my view is a million miles away from yours. I want this game to have a good single player experience, I'm just not adverse to a mod being bolted on top of that ;)

Gift.

[CanisL]

I thorougly enjoyed playing System Shock 2, Coop with my girlfriend I had for a few years ago.
And I also think Gears of War had the best Coop-experience yet.
And I imagine it would've been even cooler to play Bioshock in Cooperative.

It's especially fun when you in System Shock 2 evolved in two different directions. Hacker vs Psi-op or Marine vs Navy etc. The game was still frightful and a challange.

Memories like the time when I was hunted by a big Rumbler, jumping a gap in a broken bridge and now realizing she was left behind without any ammo at all, with a pissed of Rumbler. Oh haha the screams.

But other game-modes I don't even think could suit a game like this, never.

Ohh well, you can't have everything.

[BioShockWins]

It would be pretty confusing... I mean you would either have to chose plasmid things at the beggining of the round (or something) or have those plasmi-quik things around

that would be inconvienient... you would die whenever going to use that for two reasons
One: you wouldn't be aware of you're surroundings
Two: there is bound to be a lot of people there... and I don't think they are going to patiently wait in line...

Compare this to something like Halo
Multiplayer would just get BioShock bad reviews

Besides, an inadvertant plus to no multiplayer is that more work is spent on souly the single player (which from what I imagine would be amazing, everything will be different everytime)

[Ni7r0g3n0c1d3]

Firstly I'd like to say this is the 1st games forum I have ever posted on, because this is the only game I'm bothered about (from now till Bioshock 2??)! Being the spiritual sucessor of SS2 ( which was the 1st "FPS" and the greatest game I have ever played since) which is responsible for getting me into gaming as a whole, so I really want this game to reach it's full potential.

Which moves me onto the topic, putting a mulitplayer component in this game would IMO spoil its very essence, and I can't believe people in other forums acted suprised when they heard the news!:confused: ( I never even considered there being a MP in this game)

I thought the whole idea behind Bioshock is to isolate the player and use this to alter/influence descisions, and MP would just spoil this illusion. Besides most of the mechanics that will make this game great will be missing (or completely useless in a MP setting) like modding your weapons, using your surroundings to your advantage and increasing abilities ect.. so what's the point??

Finally I'd just like to introduce myself, seems like everyone on here seem to know what there on about, and all seem as enthusiastic about this game as me! :D......and has an average mental age above that of a 12 year old! :eek:

So Hi to everyone!

[Giftmacher]

Just FYI the SS2 patch for multiplayer didn't cause game issues when it came to modding weapons or using that game's equivalent of the plasmiquick. Play it and you'll see what I mean (assuming you can find someone to play it with you). I notice one or two people seem to be thinking of a counter strike type scenario, that really isn't the feel of the SS2 MP experience at all.

For my part I'm really hoping to see an MP mod/patch, it worked well for SS2 and I'm sure it'd work well for Bioshock.

Gift.

[Jeff]

Rapture is supposed to give you that feeling of being trapped alone in a hostile world, I don't think that feeling will translate very well when you're trapped in a hostile world... with a friend.

[Hatesink]

Finally I'd just like to introduce myself, seems like everyone on here seem to know what there on about, and all seem as enthusiastic about this game as me! :D......and has an average mental age above that of a 12 year old! :eek:

So Hi to everyone!Nitrogenoxide, hi, and welcome to the forum. We're pretty much expecting an influx of '12 year olds' when the marketing machine gets rolling ;)

I'm totally stoked that BioShock is going to be a single player experience (since as rule I only ever play single player games (and I don't game online)), but it might be interesting to see a co-op mode released some time in the future, even if just to extend the life of the game (although for a lot of people it might not be necessary).

To be honest, it would surprise me if the modding community didn't eventually figure out how to get a multiplayer component running, but who knows.

[Big_Daddy]

Multiplayer would just totally ruin the Singleplayer experience.

Multiplayer just doesn't work in games like Bioshock.

[Raveness]

Multiplayer would just totally ruin the Singleplayer experience.

Multiplayer just doesn't work in games like Bioshock.

And this belief is based on??? Wait, it's based on how Irrational ruined their previous cyberpunk game when they tacked on Multiplayer COOP, and it totally ruined the single player experience. Damn you COOP developers and your stupid ideas of extending the longevity of your titles via a poorly though out module :mad: Don't you realize that you can only do one, and not the other without taking away from the first, and no sane gamer will accept post-release work these days. Don't even bother laying the foundation for multiplayer within the singleplayer environment. I mean you'd have to be better than Bungie to think you can do that, and no developer studio is better than Bungie :rolleyes:

[grimg4]

Bioshock wouldve been fun with Co-op, i mean whats funner than seeing a friend getting mauled by mutants or doing random fun with the big daddy's. i was actually disapointed that they didnt put multiplayer in this game, i was so looking forward to playing the story with a friend.

[emerio]

There is going to be TDM, DM, etc.. Correct?

[Jeff]

ahahahahahahaha


god no.

[emerio]

ahahahahahahaha


god no.

Glad you find this to be funny... Because i don't. However. This game would be great with a multi-player scenario.

[Big_Daddy]

Glad you find this to be funny... Because i don't. However. This game would be great with a multi-player scenario.

No it wouldn't...its not the right type of game, this is all about the Singleplayer experience!

[emerio]

I know all about this game. Belive me. I was a fan when the first trailer of e3 2006 hit G4 TV. Im saying. That some game's have the multi-player experience. This one would be cool if it had it. Esecially since most game's have map pack downloads. That's all im saying. It's already been made clear it wont. But it would be nice.

[Raveness]

There won't be any TDM or DM or CTF, but I would like to see a future downloadable content release of COOP, which benefitted the extended life of SS2. With Bioshock being a non-linear but enclosed experience, COOP fits it best :)

[Soulsphere]

There won't be any TDM or DM or CTF, but I would like to see a future downloadable content release of COOP, which benefitted the extended life of SS2. With Bioshock being a non-linear but enclosed experience, COOP fits it best :)

I second that.

[Giftmacher]

There won't be any TDM or DM or CTF, but I would like to see a future downloadable content release of COOP, which benefitted the extended life of SS2. With Bioshock being a non-linear but enclosed experience, COOP fits it best :)

I'll third it...

Seriously though TDM/DM and CTF? Not right for this game at all. When the AI is such a major selling point why on earth would any one want to strip it out for a simplistic shoot'em up? HL2 etc. fill that niche much better than this game would.

Gift.

[Big Daddy]

is der gonna be a bioshock online mode???:confused:

[jackinthebox]

is der gonna be a bioshock online mode???:confused:

no... anyway check out this thread (http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35).

[Jeff]

co-op might be fun eventually, I still maintain that it would hinder the general "trapped alone in a hostile environment" feeling, as being "trapped alone in a hostile environment.... with a friend" doesn't seem all that terrifying, but hey, chacon son gout.

I say they should implement TDM first and foremost though, I really want to play online as a little sister, crawl through a bunch of pipes and sneak out every half hour or so to gather some eve from a corpse. Man, that would be the best online game ever. (<--------- this paragraph is utter and complete sarcasm, in case you missed it)

[Raveness]

The game is non-linear, driven by a deck design similar to SS2. If the objectives are complex and challenging enough, and resources & enemies are properly scaled to match 2 - 3 players, COOP can be done no problem. Besides, I don't think the game will be that buggy, so post-release support can't just twiddle their thumbs doing nothing but prepping an SDK *wink wink*. Giving more to the community is worth the brownie points.

I can't see any benefit or believability in other modes, or playing as a Little Sister in some quasi perversion of the game's enemies. That ruins the hostile environment a lot more than banding together with a small team of goodwill splicers.

I'm still waiting on a good counterpoint to forgoing COOP that isn't based around strawman arguments like "it will hurt the singleplayer experience" remarks, or such statements based around Irrational's lack of resources. Of course no one can disagree that the developers should spend all their time now creating the best singleplayer experience, but hearing negative & unelaborated opinions towards COOP in general, even going so far as to shirk it off if it could be done as post-release downloadable content make my ears bleed. None of us fans work at Irrational, so none of us have enough insight to make blanket determinations about how flexible the narrative in Bioshock is to extra play modes.

[Number 01]

Ok since you guys closed down my thread I still need to respond to each respondant

Ok first Pinky_Powers, every game will be in the future Online-Coop or MMO, I completely disagree with the idea that singleplayer is somehow better and refer to point 4 that probably defines your fanbase. I think a good game has both a solid singleplayer and a solid multiplayer that doesn't force you to play it online (ahem Gears of War).

The reason online multiplayer makes or breaks a title is the following:

1.When you play online co-op with a guy who's spent hours in the game or bought the strategy guide he points out stuff to you that you might have missed, you get more out of the game.

2.When you play online other players give you tips that took one person or a community to find out and good tips are spread online. Sure you might see them posted here, but online you can see people doing them, you can do them yourself and also get help doing the move right.

3.A game gets boring when you've beaten it on the hardest difficulty and unlocked all the 360 achievements. But when you add online it is never boring becuase people come up with new ways to play the game (oh no! people that commented the game might run differently).

4.Graphics and Storyline aren't everything. It seems like all the fanboys in here are completely ignoring what a good game is. A good game plain and simple PLAIN AND SIMPLE is a game which you still play after 6 months or a year. A game which you love to play and which others love to play, replay value is the highest value of every value of a console game, without online it cuts replay down 50% becuase once you beat it, get all the achievements and unlock everything that's it, game over. Any game I pay 60 bucks for and play for 10 hours (ahem Gears of War) feels like it was a rip off, the only thing that saved Gears IMO was that I could play online and having different people who played the game differently made it so fun I played the same level 20x. I don't see that happening with this title as I can already see myself getting stuck in an area, having nobody able to join me and having nobody online to get me out of the stuck spot (right here perfect example of why online is critical make or break), I get very frustrated in offline games when I can't beat a boss or an area and the glory of the online is a gamer that has beaten the boss joins and tells me how to beat him, perfect example how can you disagree with this sure... fork over 10/15 for the strategy guide.

5.Games with online multiplayer are the best games, in this generation I have something against games that have no online multiplayer. First, they shouldn't be called Xbox Live games becuase they have Live Aware or Content Download, Xbox Live should apply to online co-op or other multiperson online elements, Xbox 1 exploited this a ton and 2K makes way too many Live Aware games. Amped 2 was a good game becuase of online and had awesome replay value, Amped 3 had no online it suffered immensely and was a poor game, the competition put online into their titles and got higher scores (SSX Series). A perfect example of a company that does it right is Ubisoft, they have brilliant games both online and offline, I can't even compare 2k to Ubi because Ubi does it right, think of how much value online added to Rainbow Six Vegas where the game feels the same with real people or the bots offline, that is what should be done in this game.

This game reminds me alot of Oblivion and games where they say there or so many different ways to do it and it's open ended. But when you see the same bad guys over and over the game gets boring. This game has alot of hype behind it, I am very skeptical of hype I could start naming off overhyped 360 titles that were bad. Anyways, if you guys just promise to add online multiplayer later then I will buy this but if you guys don't I will probably just rent it and beat it.

See you fanboys keep saying "why don't they quit *****ing about not having online" becuase us complainers are right, and we are probably 90% of the general 360 community. The more games 2K puts online into the more of them I will buy.

[Soulsphere]

Number 01, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. You're right, games with the ability to play with other human players tend to add replayability, but only if you enjoy playing games in such a manner. I admit that Bioshock should have a co-op mode in the future, but any other type of multiplay would be pointless, since there are enough games with multiplayer components out there for people to play.

I agree that playing with others can give you a broader perspective of a game and allow you to enjoy it more fully, since the magic is still there when you can play a game several times and still find something new. However, this is something you don't usually find much in first-person shooters anyway.

I tend not to enjoy massively multiplayer online games, unless they're first-person shooters, because they tend to be a little too static for my tastes. What I mean is, they tend to have little interactivity with the environment and the plot and story are never, or rarely, updated.

Specifically targeting point four, I agree that story isn't everything and I generally don't care too much about graphics. However, online games tend to lack plot, story, interactivity, decent AI, and memorable NPCs. All of which I personally think makes a game worth playing. Mind you, World of Warcraft seems to be doing an okay job. Still, MMO games tend to bore me when I have to train up skills for hours in the RPGs and when you can't access an unexplored area because you need to level up for days on end to get tough enough to survive in it.

I may not have been fair with my last paragraph, since I haven't actually played many online games. Like I said, they tend to bore me. I personally don't believe that a game requires online-play capability to be one of the better games available. I will play games online if they have the ability, but I'm not really impressed with what I've seen so-far.

Of course, these are all my own personal opinions. You have your own opinions and I respect that, but everyone in the world doesn't necessarily agree with your opinion, or mine for that matter. The point is, everyone has their own tastes. You do have some interesting points, but I can't agree with all of them, at least not with regards to my own tastes.

[borgdrone89]

no... anyway check out this thread (http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35).

nice... linking to the same thread ;) ur so cool.

[borgdrone89]

4.Graphics and Storyline aren't everything. It seems like all the fanboys in here are completely ignoring what a good game is. A good game plain and simple PLAIN AND SIMPLE is a game which you still play after 6 months or a year. A game which you love to play and which others love to play, replay value is the highest value of every value of a console game, without online it cuts replay down 50% becuase once you beat it, get all the achievements and unlock everything that's it, game over. Any game I pay 60 bucks for and play for 10 hours (ahem Gears of War) feels like it was a rip off, the only thing that saved Gears IMO was that I could play online and having different people who played the game differently made it so fun I played the same level 20x. I don't see that happening with this title as I can already see myself getting stuck in an area, having nobody able to join me and having nobody online to get me out of the stuck spot (right here perfect example of why online is critical make or break), I get very frustrated in offline games when I can't beat a boss or an area and the glory of the online is a gamer that has beaten the boss joins and tells me how to beat him, perfect example how can you disagree with this sure... fork over 10/15 for the strategy guide.


ok, firstly, we are only fanboys of this game because from what we've seen, this game deserves our fanboyism.

secondly, don't you think WE KNOW that graphics and storyline aren't everything? Gameplay is! but graphics and storyline certainly help, and in the case of bioshock, storyline plays an imperative role in the game. not just the main storyline, but also the secondary stories you find around the place; such as diaries and recordings..
gameplay.. gameplay.. how do you make a game such as bioshock multiplayer? you code it in if you have TIME, and if it won't be a confusing addition! wouldn't you think it strange to play a deathmatch game where there are big daddies and little sisters wielding weapons, slaughtering everyone? that's been done. (not the BD and LS models though) just go onto steam and buy HL2:DM.

The co-op may be interesting, but ONLY if they HAVE TIME. i personally (and others have already said this too (you haven't been a member long enough to know this)), want a SOLID single player FINISHED before they decide whether they want to do a multiplayer addon.

the singleplayer component of bioshock won't get boring anytime soon, as there will be a massive pile of replayability. part of games that has been lost in quite a few is the ability to explore possibilities of doing things (HL2 has quite open-ended gameplay).

that's all.
IMO, they should only do it if time permits, or perhaps realease it as a patch at a later stage.

[jackinthebox]

nice... linking to the same thread ;) ur so cool.

yeah... first it was another thread, then i merged it with this one :rolleyes: people keep opening multiplayer-threads every day... everything concerning the mp should be discussed here.

[Newbeing]

It also seems rather futile to talk about MP at this point in the games development, unless your aiming to make a difference in the sequel. To produce a MP component now would probably be disastrous.

[borgdrone89]

well, we're just defending how great bioshock would be if they spent all their time on single player first.

i like your hair. its pretty cool ;)

[Raveness]

Yes, finish the Single Player first, then worry about COOP after release. Irrational is dedicated to their games enough to give worthy post-release attention. I highly doubt Bioshock will be a play-and-forget type game, but rather leave an impression in the minds of its fans similar to how SS2 did. Unless it is a major bomb I know I'll be sticking around a fair time after August 21st.

What I think is even more important than COOP or any other MP mode is an SDK. I'm looking forward to what the community full of intrepid mapmakers and compelling storytellers can conjure up in regards to single-player FM's that maintain the lonely forboding aspect of Rapture.

[Corgano]

I'm looking forward to what the community full of intrepid mapmakers and compelling storytellers can conjure up in regards to single-player FM's that maintain the lonely forboding aspect of Rapture. YES! I can't wait to put you rats... er, intelligent sentient beings... through some maps.

Wait to you see my BD's walking on the ceiling! In stealth mode... With guns that shoot pototoes! "Spud" Guns... Ah, that brings back memories of High School.

Seriously though, Mod making could be quite a selling point for them. My 2 cents.

Peace,
Cor

[Kelan]

Co-operative multiplayer just doesn't seem to exist anymore, and it bothers the hell out of me. Ever since MMOs became popular, the practice of allowing the single-player game to be played co-operatively in a multiplayer component almost completely died.

[Morovir]

Co-operative multiplayer just doesn't seem to exist anymore, and it bothers the hell out of me. Ever since MMOs became popular, the practice of allowing the single-player game to be played co-operatively in a multiplayer component almost completely died.

There are some games that implement it. Squad based combat games are essentially co-op games.

That said, i agree. Some of the best experiences I had playing games was with a team in co-op mode. Duke Nukem 3D was WAY more fun in co-op mode.

Instead, we got more and more advanced death-match modes.

I'm sure part of the reason is that it's simpler to do a death-match map than a co-op map. A co-op map means that you have players working together to do all the things that were originally intended to be done by a single player. So, you have to work harder to make sure it's still a challenge.

I'm not sure how many people remember Hexen, but that game had an incredible co-op mode. The maps were so large that you could send guys to either end at the same time, and then meet in the middle. That way, when you replayed the level, it was like playing a whole new game.

[lockload]

I really wouldnt think have competitive multiplayer in bioshock as a big seller but coop would of been good..

[Oceansama]

The only multiplayer I'd like to see is Co-op. I have played System Shock 2 with two of my friends at the same time. True, the atmosphere of Shock 2 isn't as scary when you have a party of 3 as opposed to one, but I had a lot of fun with co-op and I hope Irrational released it later on for Bioshock in the form of a patch.

[DarthMario7]

the multi-player would probably not be as good because if they had done that it would brob be a generic deathmatch or sumthin like that and since it is geared twords being a singleplay game the online would be to generic

[CodeMonkey]

The kind of multi-player I would love to see is the kind where humans take over the rolls of the Big Daddies and monsters...

[501105]

SP all the way so tired of all the mp before sp lately.

[Maelthorn]

This is crazy! Crazy I say!

I played System Shock 2 Co-Op with my brother and I have to say that it was the most fun I've ever had with a game. The only reason I signed up for the forum is to see if there would be multiplayer or not; and I'm horribly disappointed at the polls.

Death-match, CTF?

That -would- probably be fun. Though I think it would be amazing if there was Co-op integrated into the game, because the Dev's could mold the game's story around the two people and tweak the difficulty.


Another thing I came here to say, is; I see nothing wrong with delaying a game's release if you're going to make it better. A bad game lasts forever.
(Even though I think the game will be amazing anyways)

All of the talk against multiplayer brings a metaphorical tear to my eye.

[Sandstorm]

I say no. I want a fully realized single player game which is what's happening. True, some multiplayer modes sound extremely fun for the game, but I wouldn't want the game to turn into some manic multiplayer kill-fest type of game. Let the concentration rest on a fully immersive, single player heaven.

[Maelthorn]

KJASFKJDGSRH

Please explain to me how it wouldn't be awesome to try to go through Rapture with a friend on Co-op?

[BioShockWins]

KJASFKJDGSRH

Please explain to me how it wouldn't be awesome to try to go through Rapture with a friend on Co-op?

bleh...

the current explenation for such is because it ruins an eerie feeling of being alone...
besides. If you play on hte PC you're by yourself anyway

[Kookee Bird]

personally, i think multiplayer would ruin the experience. single player is going to be awesome and thats what 2k needs to focus on and i'm glad that they decided to not have multiplayer

[punkedfloyd]

I'd rather have unbelievable replayability instead of play the campaign once and play multi for a while like gears.

[punkedfloyd]

Plus the whole point of the game is a feeling of isolation, how would you get that in co-op mode, it would ruin the game.

[GoofyAce]

I personally think that (however much it would piss off the community) now that they have built the best single player they could, they should just make a cheap little multiplayer deathmatch CTF thing, even if it's horrible it's certainly better than nothing. Just the atmosphere would make the game fun no matter how generic and cheesy it might be.

[Maelthorn]

Once again, wow.

How would it ruin the single player experience if you can play single player anyways?!

It's your choice! It's not like they'd force you to play MP or something.

[Donelop]

why do people keep open Multiplayer threads. In the next bioshock ther may be one, Wait.

[Maelthorn]

...
This is the main multiplayer thread given in one of the stickies.

[Raveness]

Once again, wow.

How would it ruin the single player experience if you can play single player anyways?!

It's your choice! It's not like they'd force you to play MP or something.

I agree with you man. To date I have never heard a quality argument beyond the oft repeated "it will ruin the atmosphere of Rapture" said by those sounding as if they've played the game.

Yet it is said in the presence of a developer who successfully turned out a great COOP mod for the spiritual successor AFTER the single-player version of the game was long released.

[Maelthorn]

Yeah. =/

I'm not expecting multiplayer to come with the games initial release or anything like that now, since, it's kinda late for that; but I am definitely hoping for an update. Heck, I'd get an expansion pack if the only thing included would be multiplayer.

Like I said before, I played SS2 coop with my older brother and it was one of the most entertaining gaming experiences I've ever had. The teamwork and communication was amazing... I was upstairs and he was downstairs and we both had walkie-talkies. The one thing I was disappointed with, was when we got to the weird "living" place. I'm not sure why, but, that just destroyed the experience and it was too confusing for us I guess. My brother couldn't get passed the part with the giant white things that moved up and down that we called teeth.[/rant]

[punkedfloyd]

Once again, wow.

How would it ruin the single player experience if you can play single player anyways?!

It's your choice! It's not like they'd force you to play MP or something.

Because the single player campaign needs the atmosphere of isolation and lonliness for it to work, and if they worked on a multiplayer part for the game then their attention would not just be focused on making a great single player game. Not every game nowadays needs a multiplayer component!

[punkedfloyd]

I agree with you man. To date I have never heard a quality argument beyond the oft repeated "it will ruin the atmosphere of Rapture" said by those sounding as if they've played the game.

Yet it is said in the presence of a developer who successfully turned out a great COOP mod for the spiritual successor AFTER the single-player version of the game was long released.

Just because we haven't played the game doesn't mean that we don't understand what Irrational is trying to make with Bioshock. It might be fun with a co-op mode, but chances are you probably won't get the intended emotional respone when you're laughing or talking with your friend(s).

[lmhotep]

BioShock is definitely all about the amazing single player experience

[mechanus]

I know I'm new here, but I've read this entire thread and the thought that keeps coming back to me is: why would a post-release mod/patch/whatever ruin single player experience?

i'll put it this way: my entire circle of friends are mac users, almost all of us either have a bootcamp partition with windows for two games: Bioshock (when i comes out) and Dawn of War. we play multiplayers for kicks, to give us an excuse to get together and kick back, but our major complaint, for example on Dawn of War or Call of Duty 2, for example, is the multiplayer is, erm, stale. it's the same thing over and over: TDM, DM, CtF, etc. there's no co-op mode for the single player campaign - even if it was a completely different save state than the single player itself (meaning: single player campaign, played as single player is a separate process from the single player campaign in co-op mode, as in so not to "cheat").

What's selling us on Bioshock is the environment - the fact that we all are anxiously waiting to install, turn down the lights, crank up the volume, and dive right in (no pun intended).

however, from what i've seen, there isn't much of a difference in isolation (you're still trapped in an underwater city full of demented, mutated citizens with no way to go home easily - you're still going to lose part of your humanity as you play) if it's just a player to a few players. you're all still starving for resources, which now are even more scarce because there's more survivors, you're all still looking for a way out and you're all still faced with the same moral decisions: save or exploit. you also have MANY more strategies open up to you with more members in the team - how are you going to divide the resources, who's going to hack (is there a guy on your team that solves logic puzzles quicker), how the hell do you hide 3 guys when a big daddy and a little sister are there lurking about, do you divide up tasks and run the risk of losing a team member, etc., etc., etc. But this is all co-op - not your traditional multiplayer scenario. I totally agree that a TDM, DM, CtF, (insert-traditional-multiplayer-mode-here) would be forced and artificial, but a co-op might not necessarily be.

obviously, i wouldn't want to mix my own single player experience with a co-op. similar to how i used to play Diablo II - i had a character (or several) for single player and whole other set for multiplayer.

anyways, enough rambling.

[punkedfloyd]

I know I'm new here, but I've read this entire thread and the thought that keeps coming back to me is: why would a post-release mod/patch/whatever ruin single player experience?

i'll put it this way: my entire circle of friends are mac users, almost all of us either have a bootcamp partition with windows for two games: Bioshock (when i comes out) and Dawn of War. we play multiplayers for kicks, to give us an excuse to get together and kick back, but our major complaint, for example on Dawn of War or Call of Duty 2, for example, is the multiplayer is, erm, stale. it's the same thing over and over: TDM, DM, CtF, etc. there's no co-op mode for the single player campaign - even if it was a completely different save state than the single player itself (meaning: single player campaign, played as single player is a separate process from the single player campaign in co-op mode, as in so not to "cheat").

What's selling us on Bioshock is the environment - the fact that we all are anxiously waiting to install, turn down the lights, crank up the volume, and dive right in (no pun intended).

however, from what i've seen, there isn't much of a difference in isolation (you're still trapped in an underwater city full of demented, mutated citizens with no way to go home easily - you're still going to lose part of your humanity as you play) if it's just a player to a few players. you're all still starving for resources, which now are even more scarce because there's more survivors, you're all still looking for a way out and you're all still faced with the same moral decisions: save or exploit. you also have MANY more strategies open up to you with more members in the team - how are you going to divide the resources, who's going to hack (is there a guy on your team that solves logic puzzles quicker), how the hell do you hide 3 guys when a big daddy and a little sister are there lurking about, do you divide up tasks and run the risk of losing a team member, etc., etc., etc. But this is all co-op - not your traditional multiplayer scenario. I totally agree that a TDM, DM, CtF, (insert-traditional-multiplayer-mode-here) would be forced and artificial, but a co-op might not necessarily be.

obviously, i wouldn't want to mix my own single player experience with a co-op. similar to how i used to play Diablo II - i had a character (or several) for single player and whole other set for multiplayer.

anyways, enough rambling.

So what you're saying is that having friends with you in a city full of crazed, murderous citizens wouldn't be different from being in it all by yourself? I'm telling you that it would not be the same.

[Raveness]

Just because we haven't played the game doesn't mean that we don't understand what Irrational is trying to make with Bioshock. It might be fun with a co-op mode, but chances are you probably won't get the intended emotional respone when you're laughing or talking with your friend(s).

You don't understand atmosphere because you'd actually have to be within the atmosphere to understand it, and to make such spurious claims as fact.

COOP can elicit a different emotional response from single-player. Stop trying to apply single-player rules and feelings onto multiplayer. They are different, one not necessarily worse than the other, and neither should be held back by some screwed up ideas that experiencing one will adversely affect the other. You'd still have the option to not play the COOP portion if you are not capable of seperating the experiences.

[mechanus]

So what you're saying is that having friends with you in a city full of crazed, murderous citizens wouldn't be different from being in it all by yourself? I'm telling you that it would not be the same.

it's not THAT different. the twisted nature of the environment is still the same, and if there's no difference in the amount of resources available, i don't believe it will be EASIER than playing alone - actually, with the same amount of resources available in both modes of play, should actually make it harder - there's even less to go around. And yes, we play with friendly fire, so there's no reason to trust the guy you "brought along."

From a psychological point of view: would you actually feel safer because you brought a "friend" along? I'm not sure. Less resources for me? the guy can turn on me on any moment? yeah... i think that would go along with the idea perfectly.

[punkedfloyd]

it's not THAT different. the twisted nature of the environment is still the same, and if there's no difference in the amount of resources available, i don't believe it will be EASIER than playing alone - actually, with the same amount of resources available in both modes of play, should actually make it harder - there's even less to go around. And yes, we play with friendly fire, so there's no reason to trust the guy you "brought along."

From a psychological point of view: would you actually feel safer because you brought a "friend" along? I'm not sure. Less resources for me? the guy can turn on me on any moment? yeah... i think that would go along with the idea perfectly.

Actually I understand your point of view now, but that is under only one circumstance: yuou have a traitorous, dirt bag friend.

[mechanus]

Actually I understand your point of view now, but that is under only one circumstance: yuou have a traitorous, dirt bag friend.

isn't that the point of playing multiplayers? i mean, we'd not play nice in Diablo, why would we play nice elsewhere?

In the end, as a co-op, it's still similar enough where you don't have a major change the game environment. don't get me wrong, I'm all for the immerse single player environment that irrational is going for - that's the key seller, IMHO. the idea of a co-op as a tag on wouldn't require a rewrite - and would offer some interesting opportunities. doesn't mean me and my friends won't buy it just because it doesn't happen to have a multiplayer mode, just that we're going to have to play in the same room and hope that we can freak each other out (a la prey - we did that for a bit with Prey and it was quite fun; all of us playing in the same room, and when we saw that someone else was getting to an "interesting" part (like the little girls by the bus), we'd make him jump).

anyway, whatever irrational puts out is fine by me.

[master_Weesel]

It dosent bother me but it would be cool to have online multiplayer

[Mr. Bubbles loves his LS]

I'd rather Irrational focus on creating an amazing single-player experience than have them put out a game with a half-assed multi-player element.

[superguy]

In a interview i heard they figured out a way to put multiplayer in bioshock but it would take away from the singleplayer experiance and make a mediocre(i spelled it wrong) game so if they have a idea maybe we will see it in the future =)

[kaMMakaZZi9]

Countless times I've seen people on other forums saying they wont buy a game because there is no Multiplayer. I mean seriously, is this what gaming is coming to? Nothing is worth our money unless we can play online?

I applaud Irrational for not tacking on multiplayer to this game. It will be a fantastic single player experience and what seems to be a very long game. Ive already found myself trying to convince people to just buy this game. Apparantly multiplayer is all that matters these days. Why do kids freak out over this?

BioShock will be a welcomed change from the screaming kids on Gears of War or Shadowrun and I cannot wait to submersed (no pun intended!) into the world of Rapture.

Woo!

[revengematron3]

True, although I hope a Co-op patch comes around so that I can screw around with a friend like in SS2. Ahh... good times...

But yeah, no more whining about the lack of multiplayer people. :p

[That_dude]

*Claps slowly, like a villain*

Congrats, you are now a member of Rapture.
You have figured out the meaning of all of this.
No, buit seriously, I agree. MP was never much of a deal for me, seeing as I didn't have XB:, but now that I do, I still make exceptions to all games, as long as they have a wonderful SP.
But, I guess people like the abuse by a 12 year old.
MP is fun, but to me, is just there for a bonus, with the intention to keep one on the game for as long as possible, not to draw them into the game. MP is no deciding factor for me to buy a game.

[kaMMakaZZi9]

Prey and The Darkness, two great one player games published by 2K with really bad multiplayer experiences. I'm glad BioShock won't suffer in the reviews because of that.

[chirs3]

Multiplayer = replayability.

Now granted, that only actually works if the multiplayer is good, which is why the Project: Snowblind's and Pariah's of the world have all died off pretty quick, but even with a game as deep as Bioshock is, there will be a point at which you have seen and done everything you can.

Let me put it another way... you can pay $60 for quality single player that... let's say three plays through Bioshock, taking your time each time, nets you around 60 hours. Or you can pay $60 for quality multiplayer, which lasts as long as it's the biggest pup on the block (potentially years), which accounts for hundreds - if not thousands - of hours of gameplay.

Now I think it's kind of dumb to boycott a game just because it has no multiplayer, but I'm guessing the argument is the same some people make about buying movies. "Why would I buy a movie? Once I've seen it, I've seen it, no need to watch it again." For them, a single player game isn't something they can play over and over and over and get a lot of use out of. Multiplayer is.

[kaMMakaZZi9]

I own Shadowrun and I've been playing it since Day 1. Now they went the other way, no Single player, only multi.

I feel that if I play the game long enough, it's been worth my money. Regardless of what is there. Too many times to games get overlooked because there wasnt a multiplayer or whatever. I understand it's more for your $$$, but how good could a BioShock MP really have been? (Just think of The Darkness and Prey).

[Da Bubs]

We spent 30 or 40% of our effort developing multiplayer elements for some of our other games and nobody played them. So we wanted to focus on a single player experience.

some guy at Irrational or 2k said that in a interview, I dont remember who it was.

[chirs3]

I feel that if I play the game long enough, it's been worth my money. Regardless of what is there. Too many times to games get overlooked because there wasnt a multiplayer or whatever. I understand it's more for your $$$, but how good could a BioShock MP really have been? (Just think of The Darkness and Prey).

God, don't remind me of Prey online. What a nightmare. :p

And honestly, I'm not entirely certain Bioshock multiplayer would do much for me anyway. I don't doubt Irrational's talent, but the only multiplayer games that get my attention these days are team based - Halo 2, GRAW 2, CoD3 - teams working together to complete an objective. Bioshock... just doesn't really seem like it would lend itself well to that, so even if there was a multiplayer component, I doubt I'd give it much attention anyway. As long as the single player gets the polish it deserves, it'll be worth the cash. :)

[revengematron3]

Multiplayer = replayability.

Now granted, that only actually works if the multiplayer is good, which is why the Project: Snowblind's and Pariah's of the world have all died off pretty quick, but even with a game as deep as Bioshock is, there will be a point at which you have seen and done everything you can.

Let me put it another way... you can pay $60 for quality single player that... let's say three plays through Bioshock, taking your time each time, nets you around 60 hours. Or you can pay $60 for quality multiplayer, which lasts as long as it's the biggest pup on the block (potentially years), which accounts for hundreds - if not thousands - of hours of gameplay.

Now I think it's kind of dumb to boycott a game just because it has no multiplayer, but I'm guessing the argument is the same some people make about buying movies. "Why would I buy a movie? Once I've seen it, I've seen it, no need to watch it again." For them, a single player game isn't something they can play over and over and over and get a lot of use out of. Multiplayer is.

RPG's are single player, but can have much more replayability than a multiplayer game if done right. BioShock is the kinda game where, it'll be like BioShock, even after all these years, I'll still play it. Multiplayer can extend a game's replayability, yes, but some games make up for it and don't need it. You have to realize that, in the end, you'll have to take a deep breath and take BioShock and any other great single player experience for what it is: A GREAT single player game. Stuff like Bomberman is great, but no one ignored Mario due to lack of multiplayer.

With that said, I still think a multiplayer patch, in some form, is very possible, but we'll see.

[kaMMakaZZi9]

And for us 360 players, no multiplayer = more single player achievements that would have otherwise been lost to an unplayable multiplayer. But I'm not assuming BioShock would have had an unplayable one like Prey's.

[Da Bubs]

And for us 360 players, no multiplayer = more single player achievements that would have otherwise been lost to an unplayable multiplayer. But I'm not assuming BioShock would have had an unplayable one like Prey's.

It wont have one at all

[revengematron3]

God, don't remind me of Prey online. What a nightmare. :p

And honestly, I'm not entirely certain Bioshock multiplayer would do much for me anyway. I don't doubt Irrational's talent, but the only multiplayer games that get my attention these days are team based - Halo 2, GRAW 2, CoD3 - teams working together to complete an objective. Bioshock... just doesn't really seem like it would lend itself well to that, so even if there was a multiplayer component, I doubt I'd give it much attention anyway. As long as the single player gets the polish it deserves, it'll be worth the cash. :)

Well, if SS2's Co-op was any indication, BioShock's could potentially be awesome. I remember someone saying that in SS2 Co-op, One guy would be the combat dude, with the other guy doing technical stuff, which he said was very exciting and great, and that's only two people, while SS2 can support up to 4. All that Irrational has to do is add one more player, make sure it runs lag-free, and you. Are. Set. You suddenly have to rethink things like, not only what do you get, but what do the OTHER(S) get? You have to balance things out and strategize, ESPECIALLY since you have to share the same amount of stuff that was in the Single Player.

I find myself going from, "Hey, multiplayer would be good" to "Multiplaer is AWESOME!". Argh.

[chirs3]

And for us 360 players, no multiplayer = more single player achievements that would have otherwise been lost to an unplayable multiplayer. But I'm not assuming BioShock would have had an unplayable one like Prey's.

That's one of the most annoying things about some 360 games. Tossing in achievements for multiplayer is fine, but if your multiplayer sucks, and you've got "Score 50 flag captures, 100 flag captures, 250 flag captures", it's just meh. Those achievements test your patience more than your skill.

Really, I'd like to see games get more creative with their achievements. I'm sick of "10 kills, 100 kills, 500 kills" stuff. Make me do something unexpected, something weird, something really impressive for an achievement. I'm hoping Bioshock's SECRET achievements fall along those lines, but from the point values I'm guessing at least some of them are "Get Ending X, Get Ending Y, Get Ending Z", etc. :(

[Da Bubs]

Well, if SS2's Co-op was any indication, BioShock's could potentially be awesome. I remember someone saying that in SS2 Co-op, One guy would be the combat dude, with the other guy doing technical stuff, which he said was very exciting and great, and that's only two people, while SS2 can support up to 4. All that Irrational has to do is add one more player, make sure it runs lag-free, and you. Are. Set. You suddenly have to rethink things like, not only what do you get, but what do the OTHER(S) get? You have to balance things out and strategize, ESPECIALLY since you have to share the same amount of stuff that was in the Single Player.


again, Bioshock isnt shipping with Multiplayer and I doubt there will be a patch to add coop like SS2

[revengematron3]

That's one of the most annoying things about some 360 games. Tossing in achievements for multiplayer is fine, but if your multiplayer sucks, and you've got "Score 50 flag captures, 100 flag captures, 250 flag captures", it's just meh. Those achievements test your patience more than your skill.

Really, I'd like to see games get more creative with their achievements. I'm sick of "10 kills, 100 kills, 500 kills" stuff. Make me do something unexpected, something weird, something really impressive for an achievement. I'm hoping Bioshock's SECRET achievements fall along those lines, but from the point values I'm guessing at least some of them are "Get Ending X, Get Ending Y, Get Ending Z", etc. :(

Dead Rising definitely had the most innovative achievements to date. They were all fun, and not impossible, except Zombie Genocider, which even using the fastest way possible took FOREVER! Sigh.

I HATE most multiplayer achievements. They're mostly "Make/Do X amount of (Whatever)". It's so stupid...

I love it when Achievements make me do something interesting and fun and/or, when I've done it, I feel like I've actually Achieved something.

[revengematron3]

again, Bioshock isnt shipping with Multiplayer and I doubt there will be a patch to add coop like SS2

We know. x.x

[kaMMakaZZi9]

again, Bioshock isnt shipping with Multiplayer and I doubt there will be a patch to add coop like SS2

The point of this thread was basically to let people know that and also let them know that MP doesn't make a game. He knew that already.

[Da Bubs]

We know. x.x

good, sorry about that, its important that that is clear, I misread "would have" as "will have" a few posts ago and got all afraid that this was going to turn into one of those threads were people whine alot.

[Amazing Larry]

Well these days anyone who makes an Xbox game usually wants to slap a multiplayer mode on just because they can then write "Play online via Xbox Live!" on the box. It's deceiving though because I've played alot of games that had really good single player campaigns but then the multiplayer was so awful I stopped playing it after half an hour and never picked it up again. Most times it's because the mulyi was half assed but alot of the time it's simply because certain games don't transfer well into a multiplayer mode.

A Bioshock multiplayer mode would make as much sense as an Elder Scrolls multiplayer mode, not at all.Some games are all about being complicated and complicated doesn't carry over that well to online death matches.

[kaMMakaZZi9]

Well these days anyone who makes an Xbox game usually wants to slap a multiplayer mode on just because they can then write "Play online via Xbox Live!" on the box. It's deceiving though because I've played alot of games that had really good single player campaigns but then the multiplayer was so awful I stopped playing it after half an hour and never picked it up again. Most times it's because the mulyi was half assed but alot of the time it's simply because certain games don't transfer well into a multiplayer mode.

A Bioshock multiplayer mode would make as much sense as an Elder Scrolls multiplayer mode, not at all.Some games are all about being complicated and complicated doesn't carry over that well to online death matches.

Exactly Prey's problem I believe. The game had unique elements and a good story that did no translate well online. The ability to walk upside down on ceilings while also going into spirit mode coupled with the intense amounts of lag was just crazy. No fun at all.

[revengematron3]

Well these days anyone who makes an Xbox game usually wants to slap a multiplayer mode on just because they can then write "Play online via Xbox Live!" on the box. It's deceiving though because I've played alot of games that had really good single player campaigns but then the multiplayer was so awful I stopped playing it after half an hour and never picked it up again. Most times it's because the mulyi was half assed but alot of the time it's simply because certain games don't transfer well into a multiplayer mode.

A Bioshock multiplayer mode would make as much sense as an Elder Scrolls multiplayer mode, not at all.Some games are all about being complicated and complicated doesn't carry over that well to online death matches.

Actually, Elder Scrolls could translate well into an MMORPG, but that'd be another game entirely. BioShock multiplayer would have to be co-op, or that competitive variant that Ken mentioned. It would work well, as it did in SS2.

[Da Bubs]

Actually, Elder Scrolls could translate well into an MMORPG, but that'd be another game entirely. BioShock multiplayer would have to be co-op, or that competitive variant that Ken mentioned. It would work well, as it did in SS2.

well, I dont think that Bioshock Co-op would be as great as SS2's was, part of the reason SS2 was great in that regard is that you had to specialize and differnt people could do so in differnt directions, one of the bioshock reviews mentioned that you had to make hard desicions at first but closer to the end you could do almost anything and there wasnt any specialization

[revengematron3]

well, I dont think that Bioshock Co-op would be as great as SS2's was, part of the reason SS2 was great in that regard is that you had to specialize and differnt people could do so in differnt directions, one of the bioshock reviews mentioned that you had to make hard desicions at first but closer to the end you could do almost anything and there wasnt any specialization

Hmm, true. I didn't know about that. One of the things that I like about BioShock is that you CAN do everything, while in SS2 you had to specialize. Hmm..

[v.dog]

Multiplayer = replayability.

Now granted, that only actually works if the multiplayer is good, which is why the Project: Snowblind's and Pariah's of the world have all died off pretty quick, but even with a game as deep as Bioshock is, there will be a point at which you have seen and done everything you can.

Let me put it another way... you can pay $60 for quality single player that... let's say three plays through Bioshock, taking your time each time, nets you around 60 hours. Or you can pay $60 for quality multiplayer, which lasts as long as it's the biggest pup on the block (potentially years), which accounts for hundreds - if not thousands - of hours of gameplay.

Now I think it's kind of dumb to boycott a game just because it has no multiplayer, but I'm guessing the argument is the same some people make about buying movies. "Why would I buy a movie? Once I've seen it, I've seen it, no need to watch it again." For them, a single player game isn't something they can play over and over and over and get a lot of use out of. Multiplayer is.Yes and no. If the game gives you a lot of options the way Deus Ex, Thief, and SS2 did, there's a lot of replayability. The same goes for multiplayer. If you've got a lot of options to achieve your goals, it more fun than if there's only one. Humans are way more interesting to play with or against that an AI, but that's not the be-all and end-all of a great game.Exactly Prey's problem I believe. The game had unique elements and a good story that did no translate well online. The ability to walk upside down on ceilings while also going into spirit mode coupled with the intense amounts of lag was just crazy. No fun at all.That sounds more like a techincal issue than an actual gameplay one. Do you think it would have been fun without the lag?

[Kulin]

here are games like battlefield or enemy territory that are specialized multiplayer games. No one needs another boring ctf or deathmatch variant.

But Coop would be really, really nice. I haven't played any coop shooter in the last years.

[revengematron3]

here are games like battlefield or enemy territory that are specialized multiplayer games. No one needs another boring ctf or deathmatch variant.

But Coop would be really, really nice. I haven't played any coop shooter in the last years.

Play Rainbow Six Vegas or Gears of War. Very good co-op.

[darthkiwi]

Multiplayer = replayability.

Now granted, that only actually works if the multiplayer is good, which is why the Project: Snowblind's and Pariah's of the world have all died off pretty quick, but even with a game as deep as Bioshock is, there will be a point at which you have seen and done everything you can.

Let me put it another way... you can pay $60 for quality single player that... let's say three plays through Bioshock, taking your time each time, nets you around 60 hours. Or you can pay $60 for quality multiplayer, which lasts as long as it's the biggest pup on the block (potentially years), which accounts for hundreds - if not thousands - of hours of gameplay.

Now I think it's kind of dumb to boycott a game just because it has no multiplayer, but I'm guessing the argument is the same some people make about buying movies. "Why would I buy a movie? Once I've seen it, I've seen it, no need to watch it again." For them, a single player game isn't something they can play over and over and over and get a lot of use out of. Multiplayer is.

Now, your way of thinking is perfectly logical and works for the kind of gamer who's a real "play the game" gamer, one who can play the same map again and again for the fun of playing it and getting those headshots. (I'm talking Counterstrike here.) I have a friend who games like that, and I can certainly see his point. The thrill of playing against actual people rather than AIs makes up for a lack of originality.

But I'm very much a story-gamer. I can beat most of my friends split-screen on most FPSs, but what I think is important in a game is a good story, and interesting, intricate planning on the part of the developer. Like Thief. Any lack of multiplayer was more than made up for in the well designed maps, the thrill of pinching as much loot as you could under everyone's noses, and the fact that there were multiple ways to complete objectives, along with more objectives at higher difficulties, allowing you to replay up to 3 times with more objectives each time.

Now, you can say that multiplayer gives you 1000+ hours of replayability, and that's true if you're like my friend I mentioned, and you like playing like that. But, for me, I'd spend less time online playing an online shooter than staying offline, playing a SP game that I like, because the online would bore me eventually. So, in actual fact, for me to get my money's worth, I need to get a good, involving SP game like Thief or Bx.

[Derftron]

I agree, though also hope that they release a CoOp patch.

[louishewitt]

But how would multiplayer work because there are plasmids that make everyone think people are you

[revengematron3]

But how would multiplayer work because there are plasmids that make everyone think people are you

Huh? I don't understand the question? You'd just have different plasmids, although it may be possible to share. You do buy and store them after all...

[CodeMonkey]

This has been covered ad nauseum.

*threads have been merged...*

[SN1PER UK]

I said no simply because The Darkness (Probably one of the best FPS / Scare me ups i have EVER played) featured a very poor one imo.

More time would have been better spent making the game longer rather than wasting it on MP. Don't get me wrong.. I played MP on The Darkness but i was left wanting more single player action.

Please do not shorten Bioshock single player for MP :)

[revengematron3]

I said no simply because The Darkness (Probably one of the best FPS / Scare me ups i have EVER played) featured a very poor one imo.

More time would have been better spent making the game longer rather than wasting it on MP. Don't get me wrong.. I played MP on The Darkness but i was left wanting more single player action.

Please do not shorten Bioshock single player for MP :)

They can't. They're pretty much done with the game. They'd have to add multiplayer in a patch.

[kaMMakaZZi9]

It should have multiplayer only if it didnt lag like The Darkness or Prey. Otherwise the game is better off without it. And I wouldnt want a tacked on MP. The Darkness looks like itd be boring online even if it didnt lag.

[SN1PER UK]

:) thats good news

[SN1PER UK]

@revengematron3 & kaMMakaZZi9

where did you get your avatars from? They are Bioshock right?

[revengematron3]

@revengematron3 & kaMMakaZZi9

where did you get your avatars from? They are Bioshock right?

http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html

Go to the downloads section.

[SN1PER UK]

Thank you :)

[Camp1nCarl]

No, MP would take out of the SP exprience

[NinetiesKid]

I am glad as it allows them to fully focus on the SP and make one hell of a game. Multiplayer could have been fun though, with all those plasmids :p

[louishewitt]

If there was a multiplayer it will be longer before it comes out so i'm glad

[BalekFekete]

If there is one thing that playing The Darkness has made abundantly clear to me, it is that a tacked-on multiplayer mode to an increadible game will still blow. I loved the singleplayer of The Darkness, however that game should have never had a multiplayer mode, period.

Leave Bioshock as an extraordinary singleplayer game, and I will be more than content to hand over my $60. I can wait until TF2 for multiplayer goodness.

B.

[Ruster]

Well, I realize they wanted to really concentrate on the single player, but a multiplayer option would be really easy to implement and add on via download. Imagine the sheer plasmid chaos that would unfold over the creepy landscape of rapture.

[HomicidalBaby]

I remember reading somewhere... don't know where though... that when asked about things like multiplayer Kevin Levine said "Bioshock 2" or something like that, which i'm glad of because I'd rather they get a feel for what gamers like first

[k1bbl3]

Ye i Vote for no because it would take so much longer and delay the game at least till late 2008 and all the time and effort has gone into the single player mode, Although i would like a leaderboard of some sort

[JoeAverage]

Co-Op would have been nice, like in System Shock 2, but no worries.

[v.dog]

No, MP would take out of the SP exprienceI said no simply because The Darkness (Probably one of the best FPS / Scare me ups i have EVER played) featured a very poor one imo.

More time would have been better spent making the game longer rather than wasting it on MP. Don't get me wrong.. I played MP on The Darkness but i was left wanting more single player action.

Please do not shorten Bioshock single player for MP :)If there is one thing that playing The Darkness has made abundantly clear to me, it is that a tacked-on multiplayer mode to an increadible game will still blow. I loved the singleplayer of The Darkness, however that game should have never had a multiplayer mode, period.

Leave Bioshock as an extraordinary singleplayer game, and I will be more than content to hand over my $60. I can wait until TF2 for multiplayer goodness.

B.As revengematron3 pointed out, they're pretty much done with the game. The Bx single player game is complete and has in no way been compromised by the addition of a multiplayer component.

Now that it's finished, The could do a multiplayer add-on for it and devote the time and energy to see it done, and done well.

For those of you who don't want it, don't get it. For those of us who do, it would be most welcome.They can't. They're pretty much done with the game. They'd have to add multiplayer in a patch.It wouldn't be the spiritual successor to SS2 with out it. *hint hint*

[CJ Mcnasty]

I like that it doesn't have multiplayer. It has been a while since I have played a game with a very good single player. Although, I would like Co-op. I think that could be fun.

[Lockgar]

"Oh, I am alone on my own in Rapture....hey, I am not? I have got a lucky friend with me, getting me out here maybe!" - That would destroy the game's mood, I think.

I skimmed the first few pages worth of this post, and then just skipped to the end so someone might have said something similar to this.

I for one never really question or cared about the second person in co-op. I don't know why people get so mad at the fact there is another guy following you around. That is being controlled by your friend. Story line wise, you get there by a passenger plane crash, so it wouldn't be hard to fit another guy in there. Even so, when I played games that where made as single player games, but had multi player co-op, the second guy just disappears anyway during story telling. Unless you want an entire back story, for example, i never cared there was a second spartan, another duke, another doom marine, another guy also frozen in a frozen chamber. If you really think that would destroy the story, don't play co-op. Personally, I think they game would be great co-op, just like system shock 2. Hey, you might accidentally shoot your own friend at the sight if his shadow because you thought he was something else.

From what I understand from some of these post, people here are saying it would destroy the entire game. Now unless there is a bug that deletes all your save files, I don't see how, since you can choose not to play the multiplayer side. For example Dues-Ex, it's death match wasn't really that fun, maybe because not enough people played it, but that didn't take away from the main game. I would love to burn or freeze people online, but that would be a different type of game entirely. It would not be bioshock, it would be like "ArenaShock", but the thing is, Bioshock is still there.

Now, I'm not saying to add it in now. It is far too late now. However, in future patch, or xbox live, download would be great. In truth, anything extra would be nice.:D

[BIG DADDY HUNTER]

If a game is short and doesn't offer much of a reason to play through the game multiple times then it should have a good multiplayer. But BioShock sounds like it will last 15-20 hours and gives you reasons to play through it a couple of times so I don't think it's a big deal.

[Killerbunnys]

Im glad it doesnt have a multiplayer because imo it doesnt really need it at all the games story mode is just so good that mulitplayer wouldnt really do anything for the game.

[GoofyAce]

Who ressurected this thread again? Please let this die.

[Thief259]

I am glad that Irrational worked hard on a single player game, without tacking on a multiplayer mode and blah blah, you've heard this before. But I wouldn't mind if after I beat the game, if I could play along with my friends on co-op or maybe an online mode later on, I don't see how that could hurt this SP game if it's already been released.;)

[Thief259]

Who ressurected this thread again? Please let this die.

No death, let it live, let people have thier opinons. Acey :D .

[SolidBladeSnake]

If a game is short and doesn't offer much of a reason to play through the game multiple times then it should have a good multiplayer. But BioShock sounds like it will last 15-20 hours and gives you reasons to play through it a couple of times so I don't think it's a big deal.

HOLY THREAD NECRO!

Geeze man!

[bluechaos1]

I think it would be cool to see Multiplayer like Co-Op in this, it would add even more replay value but there reall is nothing we can do to get that.

[conantheking]

Well I have nothing against a multiplayer option. It is not such a bad thing to have it. But I prefer single player over multiplayer on most cases. And the fact that this game will focus on one and not try and do both is good news to me because it means more focus and time is put onto that great single player experience that everyone wants to play.

[markymark]

I think if they included a multiplayer component into the game and it was released on the same date we would have a mediocre single and multi player experience. Now if they took their time about it and really fleshed out a great multiplayer to go along with the great single player that would be superb but it would mean waiting longer which i absolutely cannot do! An amazing single player experience is enough for me.

[Shadow625]

i do kinda feel that it would be very unlike the real game (like Prey sorta), i mean sure Halo's multiplayer kinda doesn't make sense because Master Chief is the last spartan but in halo you're not one lone person trying to survive in an in-escapable underwater wasteland

[revengematron3]

i do kinda feel that it would be very unlike the real game (like Prey sorta), i mean sure Halo's multiplayer kinda doesn't make sense because Master Chief is the last spartan but in halo you're not one lone person trying to survive in an in-escapable underwater wasteland

Multiplayer doesn't have to make sense, though in co-op it's realistic (Master Chief, Arbiter, and two Elites). Honestly, who the hell cares if there's another person next to you? You aren't play co-op for the story! You're playing to have fun with a friend! :D

[Shadow625]

true i love playing co-op i halo for all of the craziness :D

[Dehumanization]

I was thinking about this last night. Tell me what you think? Its basicly bioshock team fortress but with plasmids and modifiable weapons. Heres the classes that would be used.

Mary Jane Model- Instead of a spy that you'd normally see in TF games i want her to be more like the Alien from AvP games where you can climb walls and ceilings. Her weapons would only consists of the hooks and shes made for only pouncing and hit and run attacks. Ranged would consist of throwing blades.

Little Sister- Little sisters would be the support class of this game. She has no weapons but her needle and after harvesting a dead player she can boost abilities of her fellow team mates for a time. The boosts can increase firing rate, increase health points and eve recharge. If the little sister is killed while this ability is on the players that were benefiting would have that ability decrease until that time period is over. Ex. Increased firering rate would turn into slower firing rate. Thus it is important for players to protect little sisters. Little sisters offensive ability would be the plasmids aggro,security becon and teleconesis. Aggro confuses the player while security becon causes turrents and hack bots to attack them be it friend or foe.

Big Daddy- Basicly the heavy weapons guy from TF. Weapons are rivit gun and drill bit.

Engineer (model of guy with rubber overalls) Makes turrents, vending machines and hack bots. Weapons are pistol, shotgun, wrentch. Plasmids are eletrobolt

Soldier (model of the guy with the messed up face with bandaged eye) Can be equiped with any weapon besides the grenade launcher, and throwing grenades and for melee would be a pipe. Plasmids would be spring trap (to make up for rocket jumping ).

Medic (model of the doctor) Heal team mates, poison enemies, can make medical stations and hack into enemy stations to use for team or to make it despense poison. Plasmids would be to teleport

Demoman (model of the guy in the poncho and navy hat?) Carries a pistol, pipe and grenade launcher. Plasimids ?


Players gain adam from killing other players that can be used to increase plasmids, abilities and can be used to add mods to your weapons.

This would be an easy mod to make because everything is already in the game!

[Dehumanization]

Since there is some confusion. This is a mod idea, not something 2K needs to do...though it would be a nice bonus pack for PC Gamers for the holidays or something. :D

[Captain Buffalo]

Irrational has announced that Bioshock will not have a multiplayer component. What do you guys think about this decision?

I can live with it, easily. I just hope there's enough content for my tastes, and an addon or two in the wings. :cool:

[EatinMcRib]

I wouldn't mind at all if they added in vanilla deathmatch as a patch.

[Captain Buffalo]

I'd rather Irrational focus on creating an amazing single-player experience than have them put out a game with a half-assed multi-player element.

Okay, but why can't both aspects be equally stunning? Besides, if the AI isn't as least as good as UT, bagging NPC's will get increasingly easy as the game plays out.

[AngelsDontBurn]

You know, as cool as multiplayer sounds it just wouldn't fit the game.

[Fatal1ty_Reaper]

I say yes, but not any kind of deathmatch or capture the flag modes or anything of that nature. That would make the game feel less immersive. But why not a coop mode? You and a friend could explore rapture together, both charecters would have their own background stories, and reason for being in Rapture (or they could just both be from the plane) However I do agree that focusing more on improving SP and less on MP is good for the sake of quality, however in a day and age where multiplayer gaming is more popular than ever it just seems too bad we wont see any here, not even if the setting behind it made perfect sense and flowed perfectly with the feel of the game.

[Lord Rylius]

I believe that there shouldn't be an online component for BioShock. It would take away the atmosphere of the game, that the developers have put so much effort into perfecting.

This is a great single player game. What would you rather a brilliant single player game, or an average game with both single and multiplayer components?

[Charmers]

it's funny how PC gamers see multiplayer games these days. It is as if every single player game MUST have a multiplayer option. However the reverse isn't true, I mean how many people here are expecting a deeply engrossing story line with Unreal Tournement 3 ? and that will be no one.

Bioshock does not need a multiplayer option or addon. It was designed as a single player game and kudos to irrational for that. I can tell you now if bioshock had a multiplayer option it would easily get lost in the hundreds of other multiplayer fps games. If you want a multiplayer game there are hundreds of options open to you. However if you want a deeply engrossing story based game well your options are getting more and more limited by the day. So please do not try and take this 1 truly magnificent sp game off those that really cannot be bothered with MP.

[ToastedSoul]

I voted no.

BioShock is and should be all about atmosphere!
... and multiplayer would ruin that - even if it was just coop: imagine running and gunning around with someone called "MastaKilla" or some other stupid name, always pushing forward, collecting all the plasmids...

[xXBiG DaddYXx]

because it wud ruin the whole game of bioshock and it cant get any better at the mo it rawkz:D

[dyslixec]

One simple way to have multiplayer in this game... sorta like a coop/rpg. The entire world of rapture is there, and you have up to 4 players maybe more join the server. They all live in the world of rapture, now, you can either team up and survive in rapture with someone you know. Or you can be a greedy soul and take all the adam for yourself and survive on your own. All the creatures will be in the world, and these players have to survive either with each other or against it all ;).

[markymark]

I'd rather have an amazing single player experience than a mediore version of both which would've happened if the release date was still aug 21. A great MP and SP would be nice but Bioshock was made to be a deeply engrossing SP experience.

[Kastor]

I would like to see a multiplayer co-op patch in the future as was the case with SystemShock 2, i play that with a friend of mine still, we both play different roles so we work more in a team making the game more enjoyable for both of us... im positive BioShock would be just as good... if not better

besides, its your choice wether or not you play co-op with your friends (or even tell them that it has the co-op capability :p)

[Lazarus]

I think they could pull it off with enough time spent on it, but you have to be very careful about what you're going to do in multiplayer. Too many games try and focus too heavily on multiplayer and end up with a single player campaign that is too short or too weak. Others just try and tack it on the end as an afterthought so the single player is good but the multiplayer is awful. I agree with what many people have said though, it would feel quite artificial in BioShock to implement a multiplayer system, at least competitively speaking; things like CTF or deathmatch would seem very strange and artificial in the world, since it is such a huge area. Co-op would be a possibility, though that could very easily detract from the immersion and the whole 'survival horror' aspect of the game. If anyone remembers playing through the Co-op campaign of Doom 3, you'll remember how un-scary it became when you were just running around and joking and bursting into rooms with a friend. Plus on a random aside, I hate when games cop out and make too many of their 360 achievements based on multiplayer, because I don't play that much online. :p

I think overall I can let multiplayer slide so that the single player ends up as a longer and more fulfilling campaign. :)

[Vesperance]

I would have liked a multiplayer but in review i think that it would not have fit in with the whole feeling os isolation/theme of the game

[Nebetsu]

I would seriously pay another 60 dollars (I don't know where you live, but I live in Canada. That's how much it is here.) for this a multiplayer version of this game. Think about how awesome it would be. Have some semi-big maps, 16 people with their preferred plasmid abilities, a couple big daddys wandering the maps. You would never know what to expect, because your enemies would be able to do so much and be human.

There would have to be a couple tweaks though. Enrage obviously wouldn't work and neither would Target Dummy. Enrage would have to be removed entirely. Target Dummy could be upgraded to produce "clones" of yourself that think and have an AI and shoot people (but do no damage) at a high EVE cost. Preferably, more than one would be awesome (if you have the EVE requirements).

You could have rounds. You get ADAM and money for killing people. At the start of each round, you could buy your plasmid upgrades (abilities, tonics, HP and EVE ups, whatever) and your weapons.

I think large maps with all sorts of things to hack, water to shock, oil to ignite, and random explosive things to throw at people would be pretty awesome.

Anyone want to add to this?

And 2K are you listening? It would be in your best interests to do this. You have all the models, code, etc. You'd just have to tweak it a bit for multiplayer and release. Either on disk with a 40-60 dollar price tag or on XBox Live as a really big content download. Kind of like Shivering Isles for Oblivion.

[Smart Patrol]

perhaps some DLC for 360?

[Mr. P]

*signed*

Yes please 2k! Bioshock is an awesome game, but give us more; give us multiplayer!

[Carrick]

Ive sat here for a good while and listened to people shout and scream for a multiplayer for this game and I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

Let me paralell this to another game, "Dark Messiah of Might and Magic". It had an utterly amazing singleplayer. After playing the demo for that I couldn't help but think that multiplayer would be totally sick.

But unforunately due to the technology and the power to get the physics/graphics/motions ect all to work over the internet it was not possible to do so.


I believe that this is one reason they havent. If people are hoping for the quality of gameplay in singleplayer in a multiplayer of this, you would be VERY dissappointed. I think 2K and Irrational have done an amazing job on this but even they can't live up to getting this kind of quality to work online.

And besides, I think part of what makes Bioshock Bioshock, is the way that the characters and NPC's react to your presence, the things they yell. It all adds to the atmosphere. In multiplayer you wouldn't have that. Enemies wouldn't jump back startled or any of that. You have to remember that it wouldn't be anywhere near as smooth a game if it was MP.

[Mr. P]

I am aware of that Carrick, but I still want it.

[Carrick]

I am aware of that Carrick, but I still want it.

I'm just saying, I'm not sure it's physically possible to do half the things the OP has suggested in an online play. People need to realise that you'd be asking A LOT of an engine to make it do those things online. The internet is only so good.

[Nebetsu]

I am aware of that Carrick, but I still want it.

Agreed. Even if the quality had to compromised a bit (or even more than that) it would still be awesome as a multiplayer game for using skill and the environment against the enemy instead of plain "run'ngun". It would be an awesome refreshing multiplayer game that would be played for many years to come. I'm sure it would beat Shadowrun.

[shodanjr_gr]

Yup. I would like to see a DLC multiplayer mode as well.

I just finished Medical and got access to some more plasmids including Frost Attack and also got to kill my first couple of big daddies.

Seriously a MP version of bioshock, would grind games like shadowrun to the ground.

[Krackcode]

Back in the days of the famous C-64/128, if I remember right, there was a game called Spy VS. Spy, based on the MAD magazine cartoon. At any rate, you would set traps, and you could reset you opponents traps to backfire on them.

When I saw the demo of how you could manipulate traps and machines and etc., I immediately thought of Spy Vs. Spy.

I agree with the devs that multi player would indeed mess with the story line and experience for the single player. But this game has extreme potential for Multi player mayhem!

But i don't recommend just releasing a patch for MP content. There absolutely has to be an SDK for player developed content for this to work right.

This game is such a UNIQUE GEM. It would a shame to have the full potential of it ruined or hindered by the single player experience. I sincerely believe this game can have both.

Deathmatch, Squad Based Play, Co-Op, there's really nothing standing in the way of going forward. And besides, how does it ruin the single player experience? Nobody's forcing or going to force anyone to download a MP patch and/or SDK. So really, what harm would it do?

If you ask me, and you didn't, I honestly think the lack of a Multi player type of addendum and SDK to the game will only hurt game sales in the future. Especially with Halo 3 right around the corner, it should be obvious what most the FPS audience want:

They want to be able to have fun with friends, frag them, snipe them, snare them....etc.

Just look at the sheer success of FEAR. You have almost the exact same circumstances as this game. Forcing MP into the retail version would certainly effect the SP experience. But they played it smart. They later released what people were screaming for...and it was a MASSIVE success. They gave it away, and then, as expected, game sales of the next chapter SOARED.

Devs, don't let this Diamond you have so uniquely created revert back into coal. You've got every element an excellent shooter is supposed to have and then surpassed that and surprised us all with things we as an FPS audience have never even dreamed of.

Develop an SDK and enable lan or MP maps and sales will soar even higher.

[Mr. P]

Also there is nothing that says it has to mimic single player gameplay that much. Compare Quake 4 single player to multiplayer. Their physics are off the same physics engine but tweaked to feel very different for example.

[Aedus]

Hopefully people from the mod community will mod a multiplayer element into the game

Maybe make a huge oversized big daddie, and people have to co-op to take it down, and loads of splicers etc. spawn. Would be funny =oP

Or good old fashioned deathmatch

I like the fact that the team stuck to just the single player for the game, but it doesn't stop the mod community making a multiplayer mod for it, which i'd enjoy alot :]

[Marix]

System Shock 2 Cooperative Multiplayer was the best thing ever. I don't see why it shouldn't be for Bioshock.

[RandomDude342]

System Shock 2 Cooperative Multiplayer was the best thing ever. I don't see why it shouldn't be for Bioshock.

Yer...Co-op would be sweet

[Argail]

I still remember coop from System Shock 2. Thers no thing as triggering an alarm, then hiding in a toilet and see your buddies (we played with 3-4 ppl) running past you on the minimap just to hear your hacker without weapons scream, turn around and go like MIDWIFE MIDWIFE MIDWIFE AND I ONLY HAVE A SCREWDRIVER !!!! MARINES TO MY AID HEEEEEEEEELP.

:D

[Sephlock]

Ahh I remember playing that without teamspeak or ventrilo... you always knew your teammate was in trouble when you got a message like:

TTTTTTssd

(think about it).

[leadhead]

Unreal Tournament 3 is coming out soon. :D

[top]

Having every single aspect of the game may be too much for multiplayer, but then there's games where 100 people can join one server. Then there is WoW where you have all these characteristics and abilities that you can do in the game. And then there's Starcraft II where their are new, complex units and cool things and I'm pretty sure more outrageous battles scenes. THEN there's Unreal Tournament 3.

All the things in Bioshock are not all that complicated. I was under the impression that BioShock was a game that would never end, but instead the game is more like any other first person shooter game.

Adding Multiplayer for Bioshock will definitely add several more years to the game's lifespan.

[Blastorama]

My enjoyment of multiplayer FPS games has always come from the weapons in the game, the maps you can play on, the volume of strategies you can use, and the realism of the character interaction and combat. I just completed Bioshock and noticed this game would make an excellent multiplayer game because of the vast amount of resources you have to tear your friend’s heads off.

It would be great to be able to go into a server with my friends and have us spliced up each with different abilities and systematically destroy someone else’s group. Are there no gangs in Rapture? I thought there were, so why not have team based multiplayer, a gang is a team in my opinion. I also noticed when playing the game there are a lot of psychos running around, so wouldn’t a nice chaotic deathmatch be perfect for those psychos.

My favorite type of multiplayer is one where I can systematically tear my friends apart and watch them come back with a new strategy and do the same to me. Bioshock has so much going on as far as combat and weapons if it were turned into a multiplayer game it would be amazing and it saddens me to hear that it may never happen.

[KelsieKatt]

Only thing I can think of aside from coop that could be fun is some kind of Hunter mode. One player is randomly chosen to be the Big Daddy for the round and hunts the other players, and they of course have to defend themselves.

[KelsieKatt]

Only thing I can think of aside from coop that could be fun is some kind of Hunter mode. One player is randomly chosen to be the Big Daddy for the round and hunts the other players, and they of course have to defend themselves.

Sorry if someone already posted something similar. I didn't bother to check the other posts.

[iain555]

multiplayer would be awesome.

imagine co-op, running around rapture with your friends.
or battle, kicking 7 shades out of your friends.

:D

[VaRIABLE SoUL]

i think online co-op would be cool. :)

fragging other people with plasmids tho? i dunno..

[B-Cool***]

I vote yes cause i am an online guy lol. I mostley buy games for the online mode. I made a mistake here by not checking it out properly but friends said it were online so... But however after i tryed it out its a really nice game with nice graphics and all so this time im not dissapointed at all. But again it would be nice to play it online. Even if its just DM or TDM or whatever its always fun playing with friends and meet other gaming ppl and kcik there asses lol.

Cheers :D

[TheAlmightyTallest]

I'd love multipayer, but to a certain extent, i agree it wouldn't work

[Anthelios]

Having just finished the game, I think you could add in multiplayer and have it fit into the game. It would just need to have some aspects changed.

One, rewind the setting to the 1959 New Years Eve. Set the multiplayer mode there, where each player gets to play a splicer. Games could be set up with a set amount of ADAM to use to buy your powers for that round. They could be like the Olympic games of Rapture. Or other random tasks.

Gang War: Two teams battle it out in a level, fighting over objectives or just killing each other. Fontaine versus the Cops/Ryan's Splicers.

Spider Hunt: Everyone players a spider splicer, with the ability to climb up walls and ceilings. The objective is to hunt down a target, maybe a randomly chosen player to be a Big Daddy guarding a little sister.

Infiltration: The Government has sent the Parasite into Rapture. Teams of splicers are dispatched to wipe out this menace before they steal rapture's secrets. Two teams or co-op elimination style.

Houdini Ball: Teleporting splicers that have to carry an object across a field and score in the opponents goal. Goalies that get heavy weapons and eletrobolt plasmids to defend.

Bloodbath: Splicers go crazy in an area. Kill everyone around you.

Some options could include little sisters and big daddies walking into the areas of a game. People who harvest can spend the Adam during the match for a boost. Allowing weapon upgrade stations, limiting ammo, limiting plasmids (Telekinesis only round? hehe)

They'd have to add in a couple power alterations. It would be nice if the Ice powers put out fire, or make it so telekinesis did less damage to players.

[Tan]

I used to think that multiplayer would ruin it. But I think now how awsome it would be with all the plasmids. Especially since I'm bored with the singleplayer now after completing it a few times.

[conantheking]

Games don't need multiplayer to be fun. I got plenty of enjoyment from the games single player campaign.

[Israfel856]

I think a multiplayer mode would help the game. I think Bioshock would lend itself well different types of multiplayer modes. You could have all the usual modes (Capture the flag etc.), but you could do a lot of things with characters like the Little Sisters and Big Daddys. I would buy an multiplayer expansion if I could play as a Big Daddy.

[Krackcode]

This will probably come to fruition via third party, if 2k doesn't pursue it.

[MarcoKiller]

No, coz Bioshock have a beautiful story and I fear that the only way to play in multiplayer is a clone of Unreal Tournament...
I play UT, but I don't need another UT...:)

[Newbiezilla]

I personally wouldn't be bothered with a multiplayer component. I'd just keep playing it on single player.

I'd rather the time that would be spent on developing such a thing be put to better use, too. I think if they were to create such a feature, they would have to put a charge on it. It'd be a lot of work for them to make a co-op/competive feature, and so they'd have to offset their losses with a high fee... And considering how much competition they have from games that come with these features inbuilt, not many would pay that fee.

So, wasted exercise, I would say.

[matches81]

Voted no. Just because the story doesn't support coop at all. And everything else would just be a generic Deathmatch / CTF whatever with no connection to the single-player campaign at all. I would play coop is it was doable without killing the story, I wouldn't bother with every other multiplayer. So, no.

[bioshock_fan]

IMO, there are already enough enjoyable online games for me to play. If Bioshock was meant to be a single player experience, I do not think that the developers should focus on an online counterpart. If they do not make a sequel or prequel to the original Bioshock, I wouldn't mind an online component. This is because I think the whole concept of Rapture (building an underwater metropolis), is a very interesting idea and I would like the developers to add to this idea, instead of moving on to a different franchise.

[Ric]

Yeah, another BioShock Multi-Player thread... Wooot! I get to do this again:

http://www.forumspile.com/No-Puppy.jpg (http://www.forumspile.com/)


One question: what can a BioShock Multi-Player add that has not already been done by all those other FP shooters?

[biohazzard]

not for the first bioshock no but if there were a sequel then yes

co-op could be implemented like Gears of War or Crackdown whereby the players split up and take on other sides of the map and only joining for the difficult enemies

vs mode could be achieved like splinter cell's spies v mercs where i need to reach a particular area or plasmid with the opposition attempting to stop me in time

or like rainbow 6 vegas' new mode where you have to escort another player (in bioshocks case a good mutant) to a location without that player dying

HOW DID YOU EDIT YOUR POST!:eek:

[Harrison]

HOW DID YOU EDIT YOUR POST!:eek:

Look at the date.

[Big Daddy01]

WTF??? Bioshock needs multiplayer,and people vote NO????:mad:

[Big Daddy01]

Even coop would not go with the story and would make the game to easy I think.

.......Make.......Jack.......and.......a......Big. .....Daddy....!!!!!!!! WEEEE!!!

[Newbiezilla]

WTF??? Bioshock needs multiplayer,and people vote NO????:mad:
Why? How so?

So how would they explain a second person surviving? Fontaine had used the mental control plasmid on two people?

After all, we know that Jack kills the pilot at the start of the game, so some random survivor wouldn't exactly be too eager to follow you around in the game.
In short, co-op would be stupid.

[Skalui]

Perhaps Johnny would live?

[FomarThain]

Voted no.

Hard enough to make a great single player experience, adding half ass MP just takes time away from that.

Plus there are plenty of MP only games or close enough to it if one needs their MP fix.

[Joeyd999]

to all the people who say it wouldn't fit with the theme of rapture...

I think a splicer battle where you customize your character (only get 2 plasmids, so choose wisely) would be sick. Imagine one guy who wants to be a shock-thuggish splicer and another nitro guy duking it out. The customization would keep things fresh and the vita chambers will explain the inevitable respawning.

Ifnothing else, release the SDK so WE can do it!! PLEASE!!

[Joeyd999]

ALSO, no other game offers this kind of multiplayer (with plasmids and such i mean). I really would be unique.

[AlwAYsInthErOOm]

ALSO, no other game offers this kind of multiplayer (with plasmids and such i mean). It really would be unique.

Shadowrun has similar gameplay mechanics, minus the kick ass story.

What bioshock needs is a bioshock themed MP. Controling the big daddy to protect the little sister from splicers would be a great MP game. It might get old at first but I'm sure there are other ways to make MP using the ecology of bioshock. Competing with real people to get adam would be pretty interesting if done the right way.

I know I kinda ripped the idea straight from the Proving Grounds level but oh well. Just sharing my insight on the MP fiasco.

[Newbiezilla]

Shadowrun has similar gameplay mechanics, minus the kick ass story.

What bioshock needs is a bioshock themed MP. Controling the big daddy to protect the little sister from splicers would be a great MP game. It might get old at first but I'm sure there are other ways to make MP using the ecology of bioshock. Competing with real people to get adam would be pretty interesting if done the right way.

I know I kinda ripped the idea straight from the Proving Grounds level but oh well. Just sharing my insight on the MP fiasco.
First and foremost, welcome to Rapture.

Secondly, as for the idea, that could actually be great fun. Something to bring new life to the game when having played through the campaign for the ___th time.

[Big Daddy01]

WTF??? Bioshock needs multiplayer,and people vote NO????:mad:

whoops! I mean't Bioshock multiplayer would SUCK OUT LOUD. How would it even work? Who knows,I just play too much halo 3.