bluejacket said:much like portal 2, i did dig the co op, but singleplayer was so much better
^ I agree, I prefer a good singleplayer experience over a multiplayer game any day.
bluejacket said:much like portal 2, i did dig the co op, but singleplayer was so much better
^ I agree, I prefer a good singleplayer experience over a multiplayer game any day.
Deathmatch or any typical multiplayer would be senseless and would ruin the aesthetics of the environments for me. If they were to do co-op, I'd want it to be with separate characters in a story-driven mode that requires strong cooperation.
think it would be any good for an elizabeth / booker co op? if elizabeth's powers were limited and all.
I've never really been a fan of MP but I'm sure alot of people would complain if it wasn't in it so i'm guessing yes?
I think it would be a mistake to include co-op with E and B. How would it place in the single-player timeline? Won't it risk denigrating the carefully crafted experience? You could easily have Vox or some faction have co-op and tell a wonderful little side story. But I'd rather they focus on the most important part first.
durandan said:I think it would be a mistake to include co-op with E and B. How would it place in the single-player timeline? Won't it risk denigrating the carefully crafted experience? You could easily have Vox or some faction have co-op and tell a wonderful little side story. But I'd rather they focus on the most important part first.
Nicely put.
I think that should be in co-op and multipleyer.
durandan said:I think it would be a mistake to include co-op with E and B. How would it place in the single-player timeline? Won't it risk denigrating the carefully crafted experience? You could easily have Vox or some faction have co-op and tell a wonderful little side story. But I'd rather they focus on the most important part first.
^ I agree, I'd prefer if Elizabeth and Booker stayed singleplayer exclusive characters.
bluejacket said:think it would be any good for an elizabeth / booker co op? if elizabeth's powers were limited and all.
It wouldn't be good. One player would be doing most of the work, while the other just does something very occasionally. Plus, we're not counting on the fact that Elizabeth could be kidnapped by either faction of the civil war.
Since this is about Infinite I'm gonna just move this on into the BioShock Infinite General discussion
I would be more then happy to have a multiplayer in Bio Infinite SO LONG as it is DONE WELL. I was a big Bio2 fanboy when it came to the online play, but in all reality the multiplayer could have been much better.... It can't have lag and needs to be fresh and at least semi- interesting as far as multiplayer goes.
mrcolumbia said:I would be more then happy to have a multiplayer in Bio Infinite SO LONG as it is DONE WELL. I was a big Bio2 fanboy when it came to the online play, but in all reality the multiplayer could have been much better.... It can't have lag and needs to be fresh and at least semi- interesting as far as multiplayer goes.
What would make it fresh and interesting to you?
I think it's really easy to want it to be done well and not have lag - those are just standard wishes of a functioning product - but it's interesting to see what people would want.
Bioshock 2 was a relative success on paper and a really good example of what happens to a good premise when it doesn't have long enough to get worked out, or the proper support following release. I've gotta blame 2K for that.
Think about it: Set during the fall of Rapture, all the characters had stories and even audio diaries. That's a unique approach you don't get with a lot of online. It helped bridge the gap of Bio1 & 2 with locations from the first game, manipulated to be played and seen a different way. And it implemented many of the great powers and features that, to this point, have made a Bioshock game.
But the execution lacked finesse. Too many exploits and perceived imbalances ruined the experience because they were never tended to. I've also argued that limiting people to 5-7 guns in a game like Bioshock 2 really hurt it. Even if it had just been different models of certain weapons it would have created more parity among players. But Digital Extremes didn't, wouldn't, or couldn't step outside of the outline already set up. But there were bigger problems that needed attention and still, haven't gotten it.
Bioshock Infinite, from what we've seen, has a way way better landscape for multiplayer action and some of the more savvy designers at Irrational would be able to come up with some incredible level designs that really utilize the vertical combat the rails afford and the wide open space (the challenge would be to avoid sniper fests). Location is often a massive hurdle online and everything about Infinite's environment shows that wouldn't be an interesting.
The you move down the line: We've already seen awesome guns, space-time rifts, and vigors....all things that would inherently make multiplayer interesting, in my opinion. Then you add in some Songbird and some Alpha Handy-mans and you're good to go.
Heck - Just give me a level where we jump between the turn of the century and 1980 - and I'm sold.
systemaddict said:
mrcolumbia said:I would be more then happy to have a multiplayer in Bio Infinite SO LONG as it is DONE WELL. I was a big Bio2 fanboy when it came to the online play, but in all reality the multiplayer could have been much better.... It can't have lag and needs to be fresh and at least semi- interesting as far as multiplayer goes.
What would make it fresh and interesting to you?
I think it's really easy to want it to be done well and not have lag - those are just standard wishes of a functioning product - but it's interesting to see what people would want.
Bioshock 2 was a relative success on paper and a really good example of what happens to a good premise when it doesn't have long enough to get worked out, or the proper support following release. I've gotta blame 2K for that.
Think about it: Set during the fall of Rapture, all the characters had stories and even audio diaries. That's a unique approach you don't get with a lot of online. It helped bridge the gap of Bio1 & 2 with locations from the first game, manipulated to be played and seen a different way. And it implemented many of the great powers and features that, to this point, have made a Bioshock game.
But the execution lacked finesse. Too many exploits and perceived imbalances ruined the experience because they were never tended to. I've also argued that limiting people to 5-7 guns in a game like Bioshock 2 really hurt it. Even if it had just been different models of certain weapons it would have created more parity among players. But Digital Extremes didn't, wouldn't, or couldn't step outside of the outline already set up. But there were bigger problems that needed attention and still, haven't gotten it.
Bioshock Infinite, from what we've seen, has a way way better landscape for multiplayer action and some of the more savvy designers at Irrational would be able to come up with some incredible level designs that really utilize the vertical combat the rails afford and the wide open space (the challenge would be to avoid sniper fests). Location is often a massive hurdle online and everything about Infinite's environment shows that wouldn't be an interesting.
The you move down the line: We've already seen awesome guns, space-time rifts, and vigors....all things that would inherently make multiplayer interesting, in my opinion. Then you add in some Songbird and some Alpha Handy-mans and you're good to go.
Heck - Just give me a level where we jump between the turn of the century and 1980 - and I'm sold.
I think your spot on with your assessment about Bioshock 2's multiplayer. I enjoyed the story aspect when leveling up and it did have things in it other games couldn't touch. It's lack of polish/imbalances/support/and freezing my xbox led to it being a mediocre experience. It has been looking like there would be no multiplayer but the same could have been said for Move support and that changed in 2 minutes at E3!
@felonious it was nice that they added game lore into the mp with the audio diaries. forgot about those
nooooo lol just longer campain mode i mean i liked bioshock 2s multiplayer but if they would have put the work they put into the multiplayer into the main game itself i could have been soo much better
To MP or not to MP?
I say the latter, if Irrational can dedicate the time of the possible MP into a longer, better SP, then I'm all for it for a SP-only experience.
juan29zapata said:To MP or not to MP?
I say the latter, if Irrational can dedicate the time of the possible MP into a longer, better SP, then I'm all for it for a SP-only experience.
They may very well be deciding on that still, I think they do have something with the skylines for the potential to be very different and good. It could also be why they have given no firm release window other then 2012. They have changed their minds on implementing Move support could very well be deciding on having multiplayer.
Here's how multiplayer should roll. A few points of my views.
1. Multiplayer should be a mix of the customization of COD (With Custom Classes, Perks, multiple selectable weapons etc) with a bioshock twist (storyline, maps. powers, etc).. Now I know some will say "NOOOOOOOOO CALL OF DUTY IS FOR SUXXORZ" but you cannot deny that COD has they most in-depth multiplayer experience on the market. Hell most of us buy the game for the multiplayer and we switch to single when were bored. Irrational could do more than that though. They could make a dynamic single player that could flawlessly flow into the multiplayer.
2. Let the entire cast be playable in Multiplayer. Gears and Red Dead Redemption basically did this and everyone loved it. Give the player a choice of whether they want to kick ass with Elizabeth, DeWitt, or Some cool NPC that they met in Single Player.
3. Multiplayer bonuses are unlocked by both completeing goals and sidequests in Single Player and also by completeing challenges in Multiplayer . This extends the single player story and gives us more than just worthless achievements to look forward to for doing extra stuff.
4. Power weapons such as the Crossbow or Elephant Gun should require a semi-long reload after each shot.
5. Have the COD host-exchange feature so that rage-quitters won't end the entire game.
6. There should be a mode similar to Horde or Zombies where you can choose a character and team up with friends to stop endless waves of baddies. The default maps are included from the start, but by completing the Single Player on Different difficulties, different maps are unlocked. For example if you beat the game on Very Hard you can unlock a map where only people who have completed Very Hard can play on.
i think that if they dont make one for infinate they should make some sort of extra content map pack thing for the current one.
redstopsign said:Here's how multiplayer should roll. A few points of my views.
1. Multiplayer should be a mix of the customization of COD (With Custom Classes, Perks, multiple selectable weapons etc) with a bioshock twist (storyline, maps. powers, etc).. Now I know some will say "NOOOOOOOOO CALL OF DUTY IS FOR SUXXORZ" but you cannot deny that COD has they most in-depth multiplayer experience on the market. Hell most of us buy the game for the multiplayer and we switch to single when were bored. Irrational could do more than that though. They could make a dynamic single player that could flawlessly flow into the multiplayer.
2. Let the entire cast be playable in Multiplayer. Gears and Red Dead Redemption basically did this and everyone loved it. Give the player a choice of whether they want to kick ass with Elizabeth, DeWitt, or Some cool NPC that they met in Single Player.
3. Multiplayer bonuses are unlocked by both completeing goals and sidequests in Single Player and also by completeing challenges in Multiplayer . This extends the single player story and gives us more than just worthless achievements to look forward to for doing extra stuff.
4. Power weapons such as the Crossbow or Elephant Gun should require a semi-long reload after each shot.
5. Have the COD host-exchange feature so that rage-quitters won't end the entire game.
6. There should be a mode similar to Horde or Zombies where you can choose a character and team up with friends to stop endless waves of baddies. The default maps are included from the start, but by completing the Single Player on Different difficulties, different maps are unlocked. For example if you beat the game on Very Hard you can unlock a map where only people who have completed Very Hard can play on.
Much of that sounds like a terrible idea, and I don't mean that to be rude. That would require tremendous time and dedication that would be better spent polishing the main content. I know that it sounds great to have access to all the characters, but imagine if the first Bioshock had multiplayer and you could be Andrew Ryan. Wouldn't that soil the image you have of him? Wouldn't that lessen the impact of the character? I may be the first human being to say this, but I don't want Elizabeth or Booker tea-bagging me. Infinite is hoping to expand even further on creating a variety of ways to dispatch your enemies, and I can't help but think that having that as multiplayer would either involve weakening the mechanics or have a ridiculously unbalanced system. I enjoy things that increase the replay-value of a game, but this isn't the way. When I ride the Sky-Line I want to ponder the philosophical happenings or enjoy the scenery. I don't want to be chasing down an especially racist teenager who is constantly questioning my sexual orientation. I have other games for that sort of thing.
What durandan said. I prefer the singleplayer experience to be the main focus, and to be GREAT.
I personally avoid COD and their ilk like the plague - not because I'm not competitive, but for the reasons he mentioned. Same with MMO's. Companies won't police their multiplayer - it's a losing proposition - and until they do, it remains the core problem with virtual worlds.
They could spin the MP off to another company, but that's funds out of pocket, and more limited quality control. They could develop it themselves, but that's resources diverted away from the singleplayer, or more money out of pocket (hiring/assigning more staff).
So, OP, my vote would be a solid No.
Now, a Co-op/LAN version might be cool - but that's another game . . . .
durandan said:
redstopsign said:Here's how multiplayer should roll. A few points of my views.
1. Multiplayer should be a mix of the customization of COD (With Custom Classes, Perks, multiple selectable weapons etc) with a bioshock twist (storyline, maps. powers, etc).. Now I know some will say "NOOOOOOOOO CALL OF DUTY IS FOR SUXXORZ" but you cannot deny that COD has they most in-depth multiplayer experience on the market. Hell most of us buy the game for the multiplayer and we switch to single when were bored. Irrational could do more than that though. They could make a dynamic single player that could flawlessly flow into the multiplayer.
2. Let the entire cast be playable in Multiplayer. Gears and Red Dead Redemption basically did this and everyone loved it. Give the player a choice of whether they want to kick ass with Elizabeth, DeWitt, or Some cool NPC that they met in Single Player.
3. Multiplayer bonuses are unlocked by both completeing goals and sidequests in Single Player and also by completeing challenges in Multiplayer . This extends the single player story and gives us more than just worthless achievements to look forward to for doing extra stuff.
4. Power weapons such as the Crossbow or Elephant Gun should require a semi-long reload after each shot.
5. Have the COD host-exchange feature so that rage-quitters won't end the entire game.
6. There should be a mode similar to Horde or Zombies where you can choose a character and team up with friends to stop endless waves of baddies. The default maps are included from the start, but by completing the Single Player on Different difficulties, different maps are unlocked. For example if you beat the game on Very Hard you can unlock a map where only people who have completed Very Hard can play on.
Much of that sounds like a terrible idea, and I don't mean that to be rude. That would require tremendous time and dedication that would be better spent polishing the main content. I know that it sounds great to have access to all the characters, but imagine if the first Bioshock had multiplayer and you could be Andrew Ryan. Wouldn't that soil the image you have of him? Wouldn't that lessen the impact of the character? I may be the first human being to say this, but I don't want Elizabeth or Booker tea-bagging me. Infinite is hoping to expand even further on creating a variety of ways to dispatch your enemies, and I can't help but think that having that as multiplayer would either involve weakening the mechanics or have a ridiculously unbalanced system. I enjoy things that increase the replay-value of a game, but this isn't the way. When I ride the Sky-Line I want to ponder the philosophical happenings or enjoy the scenery. I don't want to be chasing down an especially racist teenager who is constantly questioning my sexual orientation. I have other games for that sort of thing.
Hey good points!, I hope you don't mind my counter-argument.
1. Sorry if I was vague, I meant the entire cast of Bioshock Infinite characters lol. None from the other games.
2. Remember Multiplayer is mostly just reused textures thrown into a new environment. The only thing that would really have to be worked on/ tweaked are the maps which could be passed to a different team. And also the core functions from Single would mostly be intact. Yes, a few vigors would have to be edited for balance but all in all mostly the same.
3. The Bioshock Infinite story wouldn't be ruined with Multiplayer. Remember aren't these guys fighting a civil war right now? The Multiplayer storyline could focus on that. And Booker/Elizabeth's involvement would be cannon because I believe at some point in the story they are going to have to help out one of the two sides.
4. Multiplayer keeps a community alive longer. This is just a simple fact of the market. Wonder why you see so many Fallouts on the rental shelf despite it being a great series? People just get bored of wandering around by themselves in a scripted world. No matter how life-like or in-depth you make the characters in the game they will always be simply CPU's. You just cannot replace human to human interaction.
5. Great games give an awesome single player experience. Astounding games deliver on both ends. Look at GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo, MGS4. These games deliver on both ends of the scale. Even Portal has joined that roster, The guys at valve put just as much effort into their single player and multiplayer in order to create a legendary game. So it can be done.
6. The skyline feature wouldn't be as robust as it was in SP but if you want to ride the rails then play single haha. If you want to be a little more competitive then you could go MP
redstopsign said:
Hey good points!, I hope you don't mind my counter-argument.
1. Sorry if I was vague, I meant the entire cast of Bioshock Infinite characters lol. None from the other games.
2. Remember Multiplayer is mostly just reused textures thrown into a new environment. The only thing that would really have to be worked on/ tweaked are the maps which could be passed to a different team. And also the core functions from Single would mostly be intact. Yes, a few vigors would have to be edited for balance but all in all mostly the same.
3. The Bioshock Infinite story wouldn't be ruined with Multiplayer. Remember aren't these guys fighting a civil war right now? The Multiplayer storyline could focus on that. And Booker/Elizabeth's involvement would be cannon because I believe at some point in the story they are going to have to help out one of the two sides.
4. Multiplayer keeps a community alive longer. This is just a simple fact of the market. Wonder why you see so many Fallouts on the rental shelf despite it being a great series? People just get bored of wandering around by themselves in a scripted world. No matter how life-like or in-depth you make the characters in the game they will always be simply CPU's. You just cannot replace human to human interaction.
5. Great games give an awesome single player experience. Astounding games deliver on both ends. Look at GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo, MGS4. These games deliver on both ends of the scale. Even Portal has joined that roster, The guys at valve put just as much effort into their single player and multiplayer in order to create a legendary game. So it can be done.
6. The skyline feature wouldn't be as robust as it was in SP but if you want to ride the rails then play single haha. If you want to be a little more competitive then you could go MP
I still own my first copy of Bioshock. It is too special for me to get rid of. I don't dislike multi. I love it, almost as much as I enjoy co-op. I value the experience and the thrill of competing. But I think it would be erroneous to say that multi would keep a community like this one alive longer. It is a completely different beast. And I bet you won't find any developer who will say that creating a good multiplayer experience is easy or cheap even getting to use existing resources. There is so much testing and tweaking. That time could easily be spent on engaging DLC or future projects. Also, you said you could play as B or E and have it be canon but I'm pretty sure they don't die eleven times a match or have two or three copies of themselves running around Columbia. The odds of you getting any kind of good story out of it seem slim. In order for Irrational to do it, they'd have to start that pretty much Day One. We probably won't be able to convince one another and I'm happy to agree to disagree, but sometimes a proper narrative in a game requires limited interaction with others.
durandan said:
redstopsign said:
Hey good points!, I hope you don't mind my counter-argument.
1. Sorry if I was vague, I meant the entire cast of Bioshock Infinite characters lol. None from the other games.
2. Remember Multiplayer is mostly just reused textures thrown into a new environment. The only thing that would really have to be worked on/ tweaked are the maps which could be passed to a different team. And also the core functions from Single would mostly be intact. Yes, a few vigors would have to be edited for balance but all in all mostly the same.
3. The Bioshock Infinite story wouldn't be ruined with Multiplayer. Remember aren't these guys fighting a civil war right now? The Multiplayer storyline could focus on that. And Booker/Elizabeth's involvement would be cannon because I believe at some point in the story they are going to have to help out one of the two sides.
4. Multiplayer keeps a community alive longer. This is just a simple fact of the market. Wonder why you see so many Fallouts on the rental shelf despite it being a great series? People just get bored of wandering around by themselves in a scripted world. No matter how life-like or in-depth you make the characters in the game they will always be simply CPU's. You just cannot replace human to human interaction.
5. Great games give an awesome single player experience. Astounding games deliver on both ends. Look at GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo, MGS4. These games deliver on both ends of the scale. Even Portal has joined that roster, The guys at valve put just as much effort into their single player and multiplayer in order to create a legendary game. So it can be done.
6. The skyline feature wouldn't be as robust as it was in SP but if you want to ride the rails then play single haha. If you want to be a little more competitive then you could go MP
I still own my first copy of Bioshock. It is too special for me to get rid of. I don't dislike multi. I love it, almost as much as I enjoy co-op. I value the experience and the thrill of competing. But I think it would be erroneous to say that multi would keep a community like this one alive longer. It is a completely different beast. And I bet you won't find any developer who will say that creating a good multiplayer experience is easy or cheap even getting to use existing resources. There is so much testing and tweaking. That time could easily be spent on engaging DLC or future projects. Also, you said you could play as B or E and have it be canon but I'm pretty sure they don't die eleven times a match or have two or three copies of themselves running around Columbia. The odds of you getting any kind of good story out of it seem slim. In order for Irrational to do it, they'd have to start that pretty much Day One. We probably won't be able to convince one another and I'm happy to agree to disagree, but sometimes a proper narrative in a game requires limited interaction with others.
Hey good points, good points. Hope you dont mind if I add another piece to my argument.
I just believe Multiplayer is kind of like the everlasting DLC. I would rather have a multiplayer experience than DLC because multi will keep me coming back to a game. Long after the single player has ended. But I see where you're coming from dude, youre more of the storyline driven person who wants most of the resources spent on the "meat" of the game so to speak.
I'm more of a person who wants the resources to be split somewhat to incorporate a multiplayer since I enjoy competition and interaction alot more than completing single player missions most of the time. I know there are lots of people out there like me and there are many people out there like you. Hopefully irrational can appease both of us.
Well all in all there are multiple ways to playthrough bioshock so I dont really need DLC. But I would much rather have a robust multi
I'd rather they just focus on single player, but if they think of something incredibly awesome for multiplayer, then sure.
felonious said:
juan29zapata said:To MP or not to MP?
I say the latter, if Irrational can dedicate the time of the possible MP into a longer, better SP, then I'm all for it for a SP-only experience.
They may very well be deciding on that still, I think they do have something with the skylines for the potential to be very different and good. It could also be why they have given no firm release window other then 2012. They have changed their minds on implementing Move support could very well be deciding on having multiplayer.
Maybe. The sky rails system would be very interesting in MP.
Then again, maybe they're too focused on the SP. Or heck, maybe the Move implementation will take such time that they won't implement MP. Yeah, that's impossible, it's not like if it were an entire new game.
Step 1: Hire Dice to work on Multiplayer
Step 2: Have Irrational work entirely on the single player
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit! (and both side of the coin get what they want)
(Too bad this would never happen)
thecanadian said:Step 1: Hire Dice to work on Multiplayer
Step 2: Have Irrational work entirely on the single player
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit! (and both side of the coin get what they want)
(Too bad this would never happen <img /> )
>> My face when he suggests hiring Dice and using the Profit Meme in the same post.
boltonhawser said:
thecanadian said:Step 1: Hire Dice to work on Multiplayer
Step 2: Have Irrational work entirely on the single player
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit! (and both side of the coin get what they want)
(Too bad this would never happen <img /> )
<img />
>> My face when he suggests hiring Dice and using the Profit Meme in the same post.
Okay now i know you post on 4chan.
You just "mfw"ed...
and you put greentext markers in your post...
On topic:
The most important thing that could be said about Multiplayer in Bioshock Infinite is that it HAS to have a unique experience. When Ken Levine said they wouldn't do it unless they could think of something fresh, he meant it had to stand out based upon what's already given to us in the dominated multiplayer FPS market.
That means: NO "Call of Duty" PERKS.
NO "Co-op". (sorry folks, but as fun as it sounds, co-op is just as popularly tacked on to games as much as Team Deathmatch).
and NO level/customization system.
In order to compete in such a saturated market, you HAVE to stand out and come up with fresh, original ideas... ESPECIALLY in the multiplayer department.
This is incredibly hard to do, considering how bloated the multiplayer market has become.
Irrational must not only come up with unique ideas, but ideas that are full of "re playability", and even competitive strings that will keep home to large community of players.
This does not seem like a feat easily grasped, especially when they are so hard and focused on the singleplayer aspect.
The POSITIVE things I see as tools they already have that can add uniqueness to a multiplayer position:
-The Sky-lines. Whether in a generic tacked-on Deathmatch mode or in an Objective gamestyle, The Sky-lines add a beautiful momentum to any map, as well as provide, in my mind, some of the funnest and interesting ways of travel to any multiplayer map.
-The Vigors. In Bioshock 2, plasmids played a strong role in making unique situations and combinations for combat in an unstable, buggy game. While i was frustrated in what seemed like a tacked-on experience, the ability to combine different powers (Shadowrun had a go at this as well) for different play styles excited me in every play through. The different Vigors we have already seen, such as the "horse-kicking" and "crow-slining" abilities, display some interesting combinations in combat.
-lastly, the destructable terrain. I feel if this was in any competitive situation, it would provide an everchanging and unique playthough and add new challenges to the standard FPS multiplayer map ( Of course it has been done before, but not to the extent that I have seen in their go at the "Infinite" UE3 engine).
My final thoughts and suggestions, I highly suggest Irrational turn to older, more "classic" multiplayer FPS's to find inspiration, to a time when the market wasn't so bloated and saturated. (I.E counter-strike, the quake series, doom II, wolfenstein, team fortress classic, ect.)
^^^^
Hey no offense bro, but it sounds like youre saying the things you listed above aren't fun. I mean Perks, Classes, and Custom weapons and attachments allow you to play how you want to play. Also the Bioshock 2 Multiplayer Tonics are essentially the COD Perks . And actually I thoroughly enjoyed the multiplayer experience in BS2, it was very fun even though it was basically a COD/Halo hybrid with plasmids and increased health! Truthfully, as much as everyone hates to admit it, 2K Marin actually made a great Multiplayer add-on for Bioshock. In fact, the only reason I play Bioshock nowadays is for BS2's multiplayer since I already beat the games and dlc add ons multiple times.
No
redstopsign said:^^^^
Hey no offense bro, but it sounds like youre saying the things you listed above aren't fun. I mean Perks, Classes, and Custom weapons and attachments allow you to play how you want to play. Also the Bioshock 2 Multiplayer Tonics are essentially the COD Perks . And actually I thoroughly enjoyed the multiplayer experience in BS2, it was very fun even though it was basically a COD/Halo hybrid with plasmids and increased health! Truthfully, as much as everyone hates to admit it, 2K Marin actually made a great Multiplayer add-on for Bioshock. In fact, the only reason I play Bioshock nowadays is for BS2's multiplayer since I already beat the games and dlc add ons multiple times.
I never once in my post criticized the structure and playstyle of Bioshock 2. I merely said it was kind of buggy and felt unfinished. The animations and models lacked and the physics were broken. Player models clipped through walls and such.
And sorry to tell you, but everything i mentioned, while you may find fun in those games, is becoming stale. Regardless if it worked before, every game seems to be trying their hand at it, and consistently come short to the overwhelming popularity of "Call of Duty", "Halo", and the Gears series. Basically, if you aren't one of those games, your player base runs short and dry much faster, UNLESS you stand your ground with something unique.
And how are skylines in multiplayer not fun?
Bioshock Infinite seems to be Ken Levine's wet dream. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a quality multiplayer in time. Probably not upon release, but it is possible.
buddygz said:
redstopsign said:^^^^
Hey no offense bro, but it sounds like youre saying the things you listed above aren't fun. I mean Perks, Classes, and Custom weapons and attachments allow you to play how you want to play. Also the Bioshock 2 Multiplayer Tonics are essentially the COD Perks . And actually I thoroughly enjoyed the multiplayer experience in BS2, it was very fun even though it was basically a COD/Halo hybrid with plasmids and increased health! Truthfully, as much as everyone hates to admit it, 2K Marin actually made a great Multiplayer add-on for Bioshock. In fact, the only reason I play Bioshock nowadays is for BS2's multiplayer since I already beat the games and dlc add ons multiple times.
I never once in my post criticized the structure and playstyle of Bioshock 2. I merely said it was kind of buggy and felt unfinished. The animations and models lacked and the physics were broken. Player models clipped through walls and such.
And sorry to tell you, but everything i mentioned, while you may find fun in those games, is becoming stale. Regardless if it worked before, every game seems to be trying their hand at it, and consistently come short to the overwhelming popularity of "Call of Duty", "Halo", and the Gears series. Basically, if you aren't one of those games, your player base runs short and dry much faster, UNLESS you stand your ground with something unique.
And how are skylines in multiplayer not fun?
Bro! ya dont need a million players to have a tight-knit community. Also have you played BS2's multi recently? lots of people are playing it even though 2k dropped support for it. Because its actually really fun once you get some skill. So its way far from stale man! Oh and Skylines are pretty cool.
Personally speaking, I don't care much for a multiplayer mode, but that is only because a) most MPs don't really bring any depth to a game and b) it is too time-consuming for very little gain.
That being said, I think BI could have a pretty awesome MP. I mean, even the traditional Deathmatch with vigours and skylines would already be somewhat innovative. Now imagine they could make Skyline Race Mode, where players would have to reach certain points in the map before others to win (using the Skylines and trying to stop each other's progress).
So I'll be happy not to have a MP mode, but if they decide to do one anyway I put my trust in IG to make it worth our while.
redstopsign said:
buddygz said:
redstopsign said:^^^^
Hey no offense bro, but it sounds like youre saying the things you listed above aren't fun. I mean Perks, Classes, and Custom weapons and attachments allow you to play how you want to play. Also the Bioshock 2 Multiplayer Tonics are essentially the COD Perks . And actually I thoroughly enjoyed the multiplayer experience in BS2, it was very fun even though it was basically a COD/Halo hybrid with plasmids and increased health! Truthfully, as much as everyone hates to admit it, 2K Marin actually made a great Multiplayer add-on for Bioshock. In fact, the only reason I play Bioshock nowadays is for BS2's multiplayer since I already beat the games and dlc add ons multiple times.
I never once in my post criticized the structure and playstyle of Bioshock 2. I merely said it was kind of buggy and felt unfinished. The animations and models lacked and the physics were broken. Player models clipped through walls and such.
And sorry to tell you, but everything i mentioned, while you may find fun in those games, is becoming stale. Regardless if it worked before, every game seems to be trying their hand at it, and consistently come short to the overwhelming popularity of "Call of Duty", "Halo", and the Gears series. Basically, if you aren't one of those games, your player base runs short and dry much faster, UNLESS you stand your ground with something unique.
And how are skylines in multiplayer not fun?
Bro! ya dont need a million players to have a tight-knit community. Also have you played BS2's multi recently? lots of people are playing it even though 2k dropped support for it. Because its actually really fun once you get some skill. So its way far from stale man! Oh and Skylines are pretty cool.
While that may be true, Irrational has made it clear that they don't want to sacrifice more money and quality from the single player aspect than they have to just to have a small community of people support their online game. They are striving for something much more unique with Bioshock Infinite, and if there is an idea that adds to their uniqueness, than multiplayer would be an option.
And I think Bioshock 2's multiplayer is a blast. I still play it from time to time.
Hard to find a match though.
A Complete and utter free roam mode of columbia that allows us to explore the lore without the hassle of enemies along with fun Competetive side missions to do with friends, y'know something casual nothing extreme
I'm still undecided..i'm not normally much for mp, but I loved it in bio2. I thought the little additions of being able to unlock audio messages, etc was fantastic and kept me very interested. I thought it was also well designed in terms of how it fit in the story lines, so if mp in Infinite works to the same plan, I'd be up for it.
fullyspliced said:A Complete and utter free roam mode of columbia that allows us to explore the lore without the hassle of enemies along with fun Competetive side missions to do with friends, y'know something casual nothing extreme
as argumentative and and stubborn on the issue as i seem, this isn't a bad idea.
Make it 100% free roam with district based servers similar to RDR or GTA, and let the players create the unique experiences.
It could either be REALLY bad, or develop some great situations...
buddygz said:
fullyspliced said:A Complete and utter free roam mode of columbia that allows us to explore the lore without the hassle of enemies along with fun Competetive side missions to do with friends, y'know something casual nothing extreme
as argumentative and and stubborn on the issue as i seem, this isn't a bad idea.
Make it 100% free roam with district based servers similar to RDR or GTA, and let the players create the unique experiences.
It could either be REALLY bad, or develop some great situations...
Dude, that gets pretty boring though. I mean unless there are like "faction hideouts" where you can go and kickass with buddies (and then those places respawn)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote