| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (47)

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Despite the fact that little has changed, I'd still get this just to advance the story.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 4:57PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Hey look, I didn't say first! I'm such a good listener.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
MRLN - View my avatar at your leisure.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 6:48PM TomCo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Heh - View my avatar at your leisure.

(Its a kitty)
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 11:54PM Van Redd said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Awww look at the kitty!

Seriously though this seems like great stuff. I have cautious but high hopes.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 4:56PM Dragod said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Anyone else feel like it would have been better to lengthen the story rather than throw in a multiplayer? Sure, it may be fun for a while, but in the end, I think I'd rather have another few hours in the awesome world of Rapture.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:07PM meledeo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Different development teams. So yes, it probably would have been better to have more single player, but adding the multiplayer isn't afffecting development time of the single player.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:15PM Dragod said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Yes, but it's affecting the usable space on the disc. We already are limited to 4.7GBs on the 360 and these block buster titles are sure to use every available byte, and if several hundred megabytes are going to the multiplayer, that's being taken away from the singleplayer.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Actually, the games are on DVD9 discs which are somewhere around 9 GB i believe.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
RPG's and story-based games are NOT supposed to have multiplayer... sigh.

This is an insult, multiplayer ruins EVERYTHING, it allows the Xbox Live community to get its hands all over things, and it also breeds idiocy and immaturity.

I am insulted by this.

Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well it isn't like they had much of a choice. Fans and (potential) customers alike all cried-out for a multiplayer mode, calling the game a "shortcoming" without it. And now look what it's got us. I don't know about you but I NEVER want to see a big daddy teabag someone...ever.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:04PM Danjer047 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Everyone that I talked to about the game never mentioned that the lack of a multiplayer mode made it a "shortcoming". I only heard people talk about how the single player story was so great that it didn't need a multiplayer mode. I loved the first game but this one is shaping up to be a disappointment that doesn't stay true to the original...
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The first time I saw a Spartan "Tea-Bag" was just stupid, it bespoke of pure idiocy.

IN any case, I NEVER ASKED for multiplayer... and I know no one who did aside from some idiots that were ignored... sigh.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

I don't accept that as an excuse.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:54PM Asok said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Hey, if you don't like it, you don't have to play it. Nobody's forcing you to.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:55PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
They're forcing it into my game, instead of putting MORE content for story in it...
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 6:16PM wicko said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The development is by 2 seperate companies, 2K doing the campaign, DE doing the MP. It has no effect whatsoever on the campaign content.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 6:59PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
But it takes up space, space that COULD BE USED for more content.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 7:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You could always just...you know, ignore the multiplayer part of the game. It doesn't affect singleplayer, but everybody seems to think it does.

As has been mentioned before, it's a separate development studio that is working inline with 2K, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

That being said, Bioshock 1 was an incredible game, but after beating it, there was little incentive to go back and play it save to experience the story on another difficulty level. No challenges, unlockables, or anything really worth your while except for achievements. Multiplayer isn't a bad thing, people, where the hell did this idea come from? I understand that there's anxiety over whether or not it'll live up to its predecessor, but let's be honest here, no sequel ever really captures the same magic that the original delivers. It may expand, improve, and even surpass the original in terms of gameplay elements and playability, but can you tell me with a straight face that when you first played Gears of War, or Halo, or Rock Band, you felt the same exact way upon playing a sequel to any of those franchises? I'm guessing probably not. Sure, you're having fun, maybe more fun than the original, but that innovative spark of a new IP experience just doesn't hit as hard.

So if you're seriously worried about multiplayer "ruining" the singleplayer aspect of the game, perhaps you should consider that you're simply getting more bang for your buck, and maybe (if Digital Extremes gets it right) that old tingly feeling again when you experience something radically different in the Bioshock world.

And that's my 2 cents. :)
Reply

Posted: Jun 6th 2009 8:47PM Dowse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You'd assume after one downvoting Velsar would stop talking crap.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
is innervate the right word?
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 10:45PM Bannock said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It's spelt 'innovate', actually. But I wouldn't worry about it. Not too many grammar nazis around here. They'd never survive.
Reply

Posted: Jun 4th 2009 5:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Innervate - To stimulate to action. So, yes they used the correct word in the article.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:02PM Danjer047 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Oh man... I don't think I'm going to buy this game... Instead of the way it should work, as it has with the other games at E3, the more I hear about this game, the more I don't want to play it and want to just remember the original Bioshock while not acknowledging this game...
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I don't get how adding multiplayer to a game ruins it. You can easily avoid it by not playing multiplayer. I think it will be fun but if it isn't, I'll stick to the single player campaign.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:06PM Danjer047 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
It's not the multiplayer that has the potential ruin it because, yes, that can be avoided. But, the gameplay that I have seen so far doesn't look innovative like the first game was. It is merely updating some of the plasmids and letting you play as a big daddy which comes off as a gimmick to me... I just don't think that the world of Rapture needs to revisited unless there is a prequel novel or something like that.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yah... I don't get that logic either. Okay...you don't like multiplayer. Okay, you wish they would have extended the game instead. I understand that complaint (even though I personally am excited for multiplayer) but to say that you won't get the game because of it, that's just weird.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:26PM Danjer047 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm actually a huge fan of multiplayer. I play Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War 2 (sparingly) and a few others that aren't in the shooter genre but Bioshock just doesn't strike me as a game that lends itself to multiplayer. I could be wrong and maybe I will be. I'm not basing my "probably not going to purchase" based on the fact that this game has a multiplayer mode and I never said that.

I'm just saying that from reading about the multiplayer and what the modes are going to be like, it only adds to the pile of detractions that I'm seeing about this game. Ken Levine isn't involved, it's going back to Rapture with little changes, you play as a Big Daddy with constant "protect" or "escort" missions if you want to save the Little Sisters and multiple other problems that take the exploration fun out of Bioshock.

I'm not faulting the new team that's working on it and the point I was making is that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to revisit Rapture in the first place. The first game did everything you could ever want and I just don't see how Bioshock 2 can expand upon it and be equal or better than the original which is what I thought sequels were all about...
Reply

Posted: Jun 4th 2009 11:29AM hobbykitjr said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I for one hate it cause of trophies.

I like getting platinum, but i've never gotten a multiplayer trophy. So i can't get platinum in games that have multi. trophies. So i also dont bother getting all the story trophies.
its not that i couldn't get any, but theres no way im getting all multi trophies.

I REALLLY HOPE Uncharted 2 and Bioshock (my top 2 this fall) dont do this but i know they will. (itsn't the reward/level system enough? why have Multiplayer trophies)
Uncharted 1 w/ rewards/trophies/medals was a perfect system.

But i hate multiplayer and thats my opinion, if i like it maybe i would want/understand the trophy part. (you can get #1 in match but just playing when no one else is or whatever, story trophies are the same for everyone)

That said, Uncharted 2 Co-Op was quite fun (the 1 of 10 times i got matched w/ competent People and we finally beat it)
Competitive looks fun, but just isn't to me, not yet at least, but i'll keep trying cause i love uncharted that much. TF2 on the Orange box was the only one i played here and there.

thanks for letting me say my peace and since it is an unpopular opinion please vote down immediately....
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:07PM bioadam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I gotta' say I was not a fan of COD4's perks system for multiplayer. Gameplay over Xbox-Live is hard enough for n00bs who don't know the maps, guns, and tricks as well as the seasoned vets. Throw in the perk system and you have multiplayer that really is not all that fun for new players. It's like posting a sign that says "new players need not apply" or "play Halo 3 instead".
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:36PM chex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i totally agree with you. the way cod4's multiplayer was structured was the main reason i never really got into it like everyone in the world did.......
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:17PM stoneNboneCDXX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hope this turns out good.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:42PM Jacksy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
inFamous went well without . Just sayin'
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:23PM 343 Guilty Fart said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So do we get to flash the bios in BiosShock?
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:25PM Axcalibur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"We're sure the lot of you would rather hear about the intricacies of the single player campaign of BioShock 2 that we divined from our time with the game at E3 "

Really? I personally don't want to hear a thing about the single player campaign. I played the first game and it was amazing, and I have little doubt that this title will follow in it's footsteps in terms of graphics, gameplay and story.

Why do people insist on learning every detail about a game before they get a chance to play through it themselves? Oh well, really, it's their loss in the end.

I guess in a way, people are looking more for reassuances that the game is up to par with the first one, so in that respect, I can understand; but vague statements will work here, i.e. "It's as (good, better or worse) than the first game".

Just some rambling thoughts.

---

excited for multiplayer though :)
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:30PM dECUnutt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dogs sing opera OR if Assasin's Creed tried to do multiplayer...

Maybe if we give them a biscuit or get Pavlov in here it'll round out nicely...
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The closest parallel is Uncharted (as a story driven single-player only title). Uncharted has done a pretty good job on its coop and multiplayer by all accounts - but seems like Bioshock has not done the move to multiplayer as well.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:41PM galfridus73 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Considering the multiplayer is supposed to take place before BioShock, I think this makes the most sense with the world as it stands.

Now, whether this Sinclair Solutions thing makes the most sense is another question. I would think that the multiplayer could easily start with a cinematic or recording recounting the New Year's Eve attack and how things began to dissolve in the city. Then, in team-based multiplayer, you have Ryan's team versus Atlas's (otherwise it would just be every man/woman for themselves) in a less-destroyed version of Rapture.

I would especially like it if the players get to experience being a Splicer of their choosing...
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:55PM Snake Robot Podium said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bioshock was my first 360 game, so maybe that adds to me wanting multi-player in the first one. Mostly, i just wanted to use the plasmids on my friends.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 5:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
seriously. As a splicer, you could jump really high, climb things and do other cool stuff that Jack never got around to doing. Wouldn't it make sense to have splicer deathmatch?
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 6:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm excited! :D

nothing bad was said about it so this is good news. If it blows, oh well, there's a campaign to play.Everyone wins.
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 6:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyone else feel that a multiplayer 'dressing room' is focusing in the wrong direction?
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 7:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wouldn't mind some horde mode...
Reply

Posted: Jun 3rd 2009 9:07PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
CAN'T WAIT FOR NEW HALO GAMES COMING UP !!!!!
Reply

Posted: Jun 4th 2009 6:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dunno, Im not a huge multiplayer fan myself, never really got addicted to multiplayer experience (except MGS3 multiplayer and WoW but thats not the point) I think I'll most likely skip the multiplayer aspect. Still going to get this game though bioshock is one of my favourite games and I have faith that this will be a damn good game!
Reply

Posted: Jun 4th 2009 8:28AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Jun 12th 2009 8:28AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think multiplayer is not important as i will get the ps3 after the ps4 comes out because the games will be cheap by then, just like the ps2 is now. And by then it will be a short time before multiplayer is dropped on many ps3 titles. Only then will the most popular multiplayer games be supported still.
Reply

Posted: Aug 26th 2009 6:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
fearing MP is ruining the potential of SP because 'it takes up space on the disc that could otherwise be devoted to make SP more awesome' is silly. The only way to fill up a 9gb disc without expanding the production time is by using larger textures, 4096's for everything, etc. And the downside of that is memory usage and loadtimes go through the roof, and the consoles/pc performance will suffer astronomically. So yeah, you can fill the disc either thru oversized textures, or uncompressed videos... sure you can fill up the disc with bloated SP assets... but the overall experience improvement will be marginal at best. Filling up the space with an entirely new MP mode and all its trimmings is smart and efficient.

Once and for all guys, seriously... MP is NOT in any way detracting from the production or quality level of SP. 2k is doing its own thing with SP, half a continent away.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW