EA job listing hints at online multiplayer for Dead Space 2
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Nov 14th 2009 at 1:30PM }
We'd call this move surprising based on the fact that we have no idea how it would work out. Given the first game's heavy focus on "strategic dismemberment," we can only imagine that multiplayer matches will quickly devolve into hilarious, appendage-removing duels. Kind of like Bushido Blade meets the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (Actually, that sounds pretty awesome!)
[Thanks, Andrew!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Coldplay619 @ Nov 14th 2009 1:33PM
Can't wait! I bought the game two weeks ago, my first playthrough lasted 10 minutes, I didn't want to turn the corner ;_;
Special Agent Steve @ Nov 14th 2009 1:34PM
Where'd you buy Dead Space 2?
I would really like to know.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:04PM
Hes talking about the original game, does he have to specifically say the exact title, number and date it was released to become obvious O_o
Anti-Villian @ Nov 14th 2009 2:12PM
way to pick up on the sarcasm man
Special Agent Steve @ Nov 14th 2009 1:33PM
Please allow us to play as aliens.
Markez @ Nov 14th 2009 1:52PM
Wouldn't you want to play as a necromorph instead? That'd be a swell idea for a new movie though, ALIEN VS PREDATOR VS NECROS
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:05PM
Predators would still pwn all :P
Nothing beats kick ass technology
Anti-Villian @ Nov 14th 2009 2:12PM
thats the same reason why preds are pussies
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:18PM
Yeah, but they can kick ass in a fist fight aswell, you saw em in AVP :D They don't need acid or blades on thier arms, extra limbs or sharp teeth, just straight brute strength, but if you've got aliens spitting acid at you, pussy or not, I'm getting my guns, you go get yourself melted.
Anti-Villian @ Nov 14th 2009 4:15PM
okay mayyybe your onto something but I think aliens look cooler
Special Agent Steve @ Nov 14th 2009 9:10PM
I'd play as a human. Then I could do humanish things- like wet myself when an alien decapitates me. Oh wait.
Akio Morita ... Deader than you @ Nov 14th 2009 1:33PM
It's just a flesh wound!
borntokill @ Nov 14th 2009 1:36PM
Dammit. Does EVERY game need multiplayer now? Can they just focus on making a lengthy, fleshed out, atmospheric, claustrophobic single player? Stupid multplayer fad is worse than waggling. Next up: Silent Hill with 8 player Co-op and voice chat.
Fuck multiplayer
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Nov 14th 2009 1:37PM
Actually that would be kinda nice.
Akio Morita ... Deader than you @ Nov 14th 2009 1:38PM
I completely agree but am curious...are you a Playstation player? It seems those of us from the PS side of the tracks rail against this multiplayer trend more than the MS side of things.
KylHu @ Nov 14th 2009 1:40PM
I do like multiplayer, but yeah there's some games that just shouldn't bother wasting resources tacking it on (BioShock 2, The Darkness, Riddick, etc.). I hate to be negative, but I don't see this working very well.
Though a horror-themed multiplayer game that played out similar to mercs vs. spies in Splinter Cell would be neat -- that shit was intense.
Solace @ Nov 14th 2009 1:40PM
go cry somewhere else, multiplayer is awesome to play with your friends and randoms. Fun way to tell the world to fuck off while your mowing them down with your AC-130.
borntokill @ Nov 14th 2009 1:50PM
@akio morita
Yeah i am primarily a Playstation gamer. And grew up with the original Resident Evils, Tomb Raiders, etc. all those adventure/horror games. And back in my days, when friends came over we would pass the controller; when we die or need a break. No big deal.
For sports games & fighting games I can understand having that feature. Its not about the story, its all about competition. But I dont understand multiplayer in story driven games. It dilutes the atmosphere, and its just a waste of time of the developers part. Make the single player better, or put the game out sooner. Thats how i see it.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 1:57PM
It's especially annoying when in multiplayer you all have the same character but in different colours, or other characters are introduced for the sake of multiplayer, if thats the case, just let us play as the enemies in the campaign mode.
sonicspike41 @ Nov 14th 2009 2:02PM
Well, I think it depends on the level of quality and polish they give it. Any multiplayer can be good or bad, depending on how well they make it.
Look bad on Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer. It didn't seem to catch on very well, and I know some people who would blame the game for that, saying that the source material wasn't designed with multiplayer in mind. That didn't stop them from adding it in though, and I've even seen some people who wanted more multiplayer from Metroid games because they thought MP2's multiplayer had potential.
I'd just give them the benefit of the doubt. Until we've played it, we don't know whether it'll simultaneously suck and blow, or whether it will be like caffeine infused crack.
Collymilad @ Nov 14th 2009 2:11PM
"Fuck multiplayer"
For many games, I totally agree.
Nothing whatsoever wrong with a game that focuses on giving a high quality SP experience.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:11PM
But you can already guess what will be done with multiplayer, unless they can pull something else out of the box of originality.
First off, it seems to be a multiplayer MUST to have a deathmatch of some kind, even in games that don't involve death, next, is a capture the flag, though some creators like to fool people into thinking they were original by changing what you are capturing, like capture the bag, or briefcase, or dinosaur, or anything else they can conjure up (in Bioshock's case, capture the little sisters). Third is usually a timed killing spree of some kind or team deathmatch.
Thats not to say they aren't fun sometimes, but they aren't exactly what you call 'added fun' like Halo or MW or Gears, they are just time killers to keep people playing the game longer then they otherwise would. I agree, if they were made to be original , then yeah, they stand out, but how often are they that original.
Durden @ Nov 14th 2009 2:16PM
I thought Uncharted 2's multiplayer would suck it up but it is amazing like the rest of the game. I agree there is too much multiplayer being tact on to single player focused games but I won't whine too loud until I read reviews or try it.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:22PM
I suppose that was because Uncharted had a Gears thing going on, it was fun because it felt free to move, shoot etc, but it's just one of many, for every 1 game that pulls it off, 8 others are complete shambles.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:23PM
See if Tomb Raider had done that, I can bet it would have been shit ¬_¬
sonicspike41 @ Nov 14th 2009 2:24PM
I think you're right Maverick, and there is a high chance of it being done terribly. Still though, since I already plan on buying the game, I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt rather than already have visions of a bad game in my mind (or, really, as tmac put it, not a bad game but a game with bad features that take away time/resources from what could've been an even better game).
bumblo @ Nov 14th 2009 2:25PM
You're getting more replay value from a game that you would otherwise pay $60 for anyway. What's there to complain? Odds are they're gonna have a separate team for the multiplayer (Almost every good game company does this). I remember people like you saying the same damn thing when Uncharted 2 was to come with multiplayer too, look how that turned out? Fantastic single player and addictive as hell COOP and competitive modes.
Seriously, it's not like they're taking away content (Unless proven otherwise) and charging an extra 10 bucks for multiplayer.You're getting MORE for what you paid for and people STILL find a reason to bitch? Wow.
Durden @ Nov 14th 2009 2:32PM
@ Maverick. Very true.
If Dead Space 2 tried to do a co-op or some kind of separate co-op mini missions (like U2 and MW2 do) I would totally be on board. There's a special kind of fun to be had when you try to save the world with your buddy.
@ Bumblo. I think sometimes multiplayer focus may take away from the single player experience. Look at Resistance 2.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:35PM
bumblo, I think it's possible to see the potential in certain games, I didnt come done on the concept of an uncharted single player, I think the reason for that is because I tried to put it in line with the likes of Gears of war, and I love multiplayer gears, crouching, jumping, rolling, running up to a wall and sliding into crouched position behind it, yeah, thats fun in multiplayer, Dead space doesnt have that, neither does tomb raider, neither does god of war, I can only imagine an all out shoot out in tomb raider, people just shooting each other or battering each other in dead space and people slamming each other with chain blades in god of war, I don't see skill in that, I can't imagine doing anything I can say "Omg, best head shot evaaaa, the skillllsss" to.
Its kind of a no brainer, could you imagine multiplayer added to final fantasy? This is why they had to make an entirely new game for it in 11 and 14, adding it to 13 for the sake of it would be retarded, it would be like an animated version of chess just more annoying with your opponent reviving all the time or using summons on you. Even in 11 you couldnt face off, which sucked, why? Because the game wasn't designed to be able to do that while WoW was. I'm not saying I don't like multiplayer added to games, but only if I can see logic in it, for Metal Gear Solid? Yes. For Dead space?.....no
bumblo @ Nov 14th 2009 2:47PM
Yeah, I get what you're saying Maverick. I never dreamed of playing Uncharted with my buddies when I first played Drake's Fortune, I thought the idea was stupid. The same way,I can't really imagine playing Team Deathmatch with Isaac either, the controls are way too slow for the kind of split second reactions you need for competitive multiplayer.
But who knows what they changed in the sequel? It might not even be comp, but CO-OP or even something we haven't even thought about yet. As long as it's innovative and fun, and actually adds value I'll be playing it after beating the single player.I dont' know about you, but I don't trade in my games because I'm a hoarder like that. So the longer I get to play my games, the better.
Dreaded Fear @ Nov 14th 2009 3:18PM
Multiplayer is awesome and you can "blame" the developers for putting the game mode in their games. No longer do people want 10 hour long games that are rentals anyway. People want value for their games, so either make a long ass campaign like Fallout 3, or put in a multiplayer.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 3:34PM
@ Bumblo:
You have a point, however, the first game of drake was only made better with drake 2, but I could still see the gameplay being used in the first for multiplayer, maybe not as great, but still possible, I doubt they will make Dead Space 2 much different to gameplay style, why change something that already works, besides, like RE, it is a survival horror, not an action shooter, survival horrors are made for coop or single player scare or survival experiences, not action and chaos, which is why the concepts dont go together hand in hand, its like adding a survival horror section to a fast paced game like God of war. Saying that, God of war isn't equipped for the kind of multiplayer I have in mind either and that's an action title, so I guess it all depends on what 'multiplayer' entails, common deathmatches seem pointless in Dead Space, while coop gameplay with hordes of powerful enemies sounds exciting, if Left 4 Dead can do it, so can other games.
@ Dreaded Fear:
Multiplayer doesnt add value or replayablity to a game unless it is good, Haze had multiplayer, it was shit, the multiplayer didnt make the experience any less traumatizing and it certainly wasnt good value by any means ¬_¬ Had lair been given multiplayer, it still would have been annoying to play, first of all the game itsef has to be good, then the multiplayer game has to be worth playing, otherwise, there is STILL no reason to keep the game, why stick playing shitty Haze multiplayer when I could be playing MW2 multiplayer? TR underwould was an 'okay' game, multiplayer would have been a nice change and a bit of fun for aproximatly a few hours, a day at the most, after that, it was still getting traded.
Liquid man @ Nov 14th 2009 4:57PM
As long as they can do both I won't mind
sam @ Nov 14th 2009 7:13PM
@bumblo: who's this 'you' getting more value? If you either don't like multiplayer at all, or else not in that type of game, you're not getting more value.
As for whether you get less single-player because you got multi-player (ie would the game be 15 hours of quality single-player gameplay instead of 10 if they didn't do multiplayer), that's certainly possible but I agree it's not necessarily the case - it depends whether they increased the budget based on anticipated increased (new) game sales due to multiplayer, or, er, not.
In the case of a sequel, presumably the development cost is lower due to the reuse of game engine and assets, so maybe there's room in the budget to do multiplayer the second time around.
superklye @ Nov 15th 2009 3:03PM
I don't know about competitive multiplayer, but a Horde-like mode for up to, say, 4 or 5 friends? SHIT YEAH.
Wave after wave of Necromorphs coming at you with increasing damage potential as well as HP while you're struggling to get enough kills to afford an upgrade to your weapon (similar to the upgrade stations in W@W's zombie mode) so you can keep up with how devastating the enemies are becoming...maybe have a few boss rounds with multiple arms coming out of walls to drag you away, etc.
Dude, that would be AWESOME.
Solace @ Nov 14th 2009 1:37PM
co-op yes but multiplayer why?
Coldplay619 @ Nov 14th 2009 1:58PM
I'd love to play as the aliens. Aliens vs Isaac's =O
Aliens get to crawl in the air ducts and vents, looking down on their victims. Making noise to creep them out, cutting the power supplies =O
You could do 1 vs 5+, the one being a player controlling Isaac while the others roam the air ducts and such..
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:02PM
Lol, they could do that in campaign as a challenge mode, though I wouldn't understand the exact purpose of killing the patoganist :D
Solace @ Nov 14th 2009 2:04PM
that would be a fun idea,to scare the shit out of your friends when they least expect it. They would have to add proximity chat for issac so the other team can hear him the when player talks and vice versa after you kill him.
necrothug @ Nov 14th 2009 2:28PM
Co-Op is multiplayer.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 14th 2009 1:41PM
Great, another single player game with tacked on multiplayer to appease the ADD children. You just got MW2 which is more than enough for years, stop ruining good games >:(
Solace @ Nov 14th 2009 1:49PM
Most of the time it's people hired specifically to work on multilpayer separate from the single player. So quit your bitching, about how multiplayer ruins single player without ever thinking to yourself how it's done.
Zing @ Nov 14th 2009 1:51PM
Hey, y'know in the menu for these games there's an OPTION to play multiplayer right?
Markez @ Nov 14th 2009 1:54PM
Have you been playing it much? Thought you mentioned you were playing it on easy so maybe you're breezing through it. I'm right at the end finally. I haven't been able to really play much more than one level at a time when I sit down with it. I think it's an awesome game but it just seems to be a bit repetitive.
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 14th 2009 1:54PM
It's taking resources away from single player, no matter how you look at it. They hire people specifically for multiplayer? They could use those funds to improve single player or hire more people to work on the single player, making it that much better.
But the core point is, how many goddamn games do people need to play deathmatch in? Isn't MW2 or Halo enough? It's the same damn thing all the time, so why does it need to be in every game?
tmacairjordan87 @ Nov 14th 2009 1:56PM
Yeah I beat it a while ago, and it was great. I only put it on easy because I can't stand horror games, no enjoyment out of getting scared....and playing on easy wasn't scary because I knew nothing would kill me.
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Nov 14th 2009 2:00PM
The concept of a Left 4 deadish stylye gameplay in survival horrors is what makes coop appealling, tacked on multiplayer has no appeal to me :( Another game is God of war, why? Why put several Kratos' into a deathmatch, what joy does that provide over GTA multiplayer?
bumblo @ Nov 14th 2009 2:31PM
How much time do you actually spend playing single player? You cruise through the story mode, and probably play through it again in hard mode and get all the collectibles. That's about 20 hours tops, counting both playthroughs. I don't get why people complain about Multiplayer in previously single player games, I find that it adds value to a game, regardless of whether it sucks or not. Now you couldn't possibly know if the multiplayer sucks before it even comes out so I would suggest you reserve your judgment until it does. I have good hopes for this, it's the same guys that gave us the terrific original last year, no reason to be so pessimistic.
fohf @ Nov 16th 2009 1:37PM
you know what's worse than tacking on MP to a single player game? Making stupid F**king achievements in said tacked on MP mode.
Nothing like playing a game and seeing 40% of the achievements involve some DOA online multiplayer mode.
So two suggestions I would make to developers: Don't add MP to games just because and Don't make any achievements involve online multiplayer.
No Kill Tayler @ Nov 14th 2009 1:45PM
Please, no.
We don't need another RE5.