Bioshock 2 Multiplayer. Why back in time?

[butterkniferampage]

When you played through Rapture the first time through, you couldn't help but wonder what the mighty city looked like before the brutal fall of society. This gave the developers a very big opportunity to release a prequel depicting Rapture in its glory. So why, in gods name, are they ruining this opportunity by having multiplayer set back during the fall of rapture?

I feel that they should just have a bunch of splicers in the wrecked Rapture we all know. A sequel depicting the rise and fall of Rapture is almost definitely going to come out sooner or later. The sight of fully functional Rapture should be held off until they can spend time making an entire campaign of story around it. As a twist they could even make it that the splicer you control in this game gets turned in to a big daddy (maybe even the first one that you are to control in the second game, but I assume they have a back story for him/her already).

All I'm saying is that there is a lot of potential for a prequel of Bioshock. Feel encouraged to put in your two cents about the direction Bioshock 2 is going in with its multiplayer and/or story. Also, if you think my argument is flawed and whiny, feel free to talk about that as well.

 

[TheLastCylon]

I don't care if it's bad. I want preware Rapture NOW.


[small]or at least in a few months...[/small]

 

[DeadlyYellow]

All I'm saying is that there is a lot of potential for a prequel of Bioshock. Feel encouraged to put in your two cents about the direction Bioshock 2 is going in with its multiplayer and/or story. Also, if you think my argument is flawed and whiny, feel free to talk about that as well.

Heck, they could make things really twisted. Maybe the first Big Daddy is Andrew Ryan, and the one met in BioShock was just another clone.

 

[scnj]

They're unlikely to make a prequel, since they're using the BioShock 2 multiplayer to tell that story.

 

[butterkniferampage]

They're unlikely to make a prequel, since they're using the BioShock 2 multiplayer to tell that story.

Really? Then my whining is purposeful. YAY

 

[Toastngravy]

Yes but if there was a prequel then I'd have to buy another game...

But any who why not. The Multiplayer is a rather clever concept. It's not some random death match it actually has a bit of a story revolving around why you are fighting with other players. We are usually just dropped into an area and told "Hey. See those guys over there. They aren't on your team. Go kill them". Then we mindlessly kill each other until we win. Then we do it again.

At least this way we have a reason for multiplayer to exist and a reason we are fighting each other.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Am I the only one who finds the words 'Bioshock' and 'multiplayer' being used in the same sentence a little troubling?

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Am I the only one who finds the words 'Bioshock' and 'multiplayer' being used in the same sentence a little troubling?

No, your not alone here, this is indeed a troubling phenomenom.

 

[SquirrelPants]

Am I the only one who finds the words 'Bioshock' and 'multiplayer' being used in the same sentence a little troubling?

No, your not alone here, this is indeed a troubling phenomenom.

I find it most troubling that people are happy about it. Even in a multiplayer with snippets of story thrown in, that game is VERY story intensive and wouldn't work well in a deathmatch scenario, even with the whole civil war going on.

 

[Sketchy]

I am entirely uninterested in BioShock 2. A sequel was not needed, and I didn't want one. The fact that they made a sequel is bad enough, but everytime I hear something new about it, it makes me hate it just that much more.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Am I the only one who finds the words 'Bioshock' and 'multiplayer' being used in the same sentence a little troubling?

No, your not alone here, this is indeed a troubling phenomenom.

For me the beauty of BS was the narrative, the way the STORY was told through the environment.

That total immersion into another time and place would be somewhat damaged by 12 year old American kids sreaming ino microphones about eachother's mothers.

 

[lostclause]

I am entirely uninterested in BioShock 2. A sequel was not needed, and I didn't want one. The fact that they made a sequel is bad enough, but everytime I hear something new about it, it makes me hate it just that much more.

I agree with this. Whilst a prequel has potential to add to biocshock's story it should not be made a tacked on multiplayer.

 

[Neosage]

Am I the only one who finds the words 'Bioshock' and 'multiplayer' being used in the same sentence a little troubling?

No, your not alone here, this is indeed a troubling phenomenom.

For me the beauty of BS was the narrative, the way the STORY was told through the environment.

That total immersion into another time and place would be somewhat damaged by 12 year old American kids sreaming ino microphones about eachother's mothers.

I don't think Bioshock is really aimed at 12 year old kids, and anyway who the hell says you have to play the multiplayer? I really don't see how adding a multiplayer feature to a game makes it worse.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

I don't think Bioshock is really aimed at 12 year old kids, and anyway who the hell says you have to play the multiplayer? I really don't see how adding a multiplayer feature to a game makes it worse.

Well usually games with multiplayer tend to have very lacklustre single player due to the focus the multiplayer aspect receives, which for a game like Bioshock 2 would be a crippling blow.
They can of course have executed it properly, which would be awesome, but in a way the inclusion of multiplayer means a deviation from the focus on single player story telling.

 

[seamusotorain]

Because if it wasn't back in time it would be Splicers against Splicers, and no-one would know who they were with? Though a Big Daddy trying to protect a Little Sister against 4 Splicers would be entertaining, methinks. I forsee a "Haze" style thing, with both sides having different abilities and weapons.

I like the idea of fighting the civil war in multiplayer, it's a really good idea. You get snippets of story as you fight, and I'd love fighting for the forces of Ryan.

I hope they have a cooler name than "The Forces of Ryan".

I don't think Bioshock is really aimed at 12 year old kids, and anyway who the hell says you have to play the multiplayer? I really don't see how adding a multiplayer feature to a game makes it worse.

Call of Duty 4 and 5 were both at least 15-rated, as was Halo 3. The age of 12 is a time for crippling stupidity combined with a desire to do "cool" things. "Cool" is defined as "inappropriate for my age group" at that age, so they will seek it out, regardless of whether it's aimed at them or not.

The Halo series' story mode suffered from having a multiplayer mode expanded and focused on more than the story. And the best multiplayer games, like Quake, had absolutely cack storylines. I think, anyway. And that is why adding a multiplayer feature can make it worse.

 

[Neosage]

I don't think Bioshock is really aimed at 12 year old kids, and anyway who the hell says you have to play the multiplayer? I really don't see how adding a multiplayer feature to a game makes it worse.

Well usually games with multiplayer tend to have very lacklustre single player due to the focus the multiplayer aspect receives, which for a game like Bioshock 2 would be a crippling blow.
They can of course have executed it properly, which would be awesome, but in a way the inclusion of multiplayer means a deviation from the focus on single player story telling.

I would be very surprised indeed if this was the case. Which games were you thinking of that had 'lucklustre' single-player due to the multiplayer?

 

[Kiutu]

Oh yes, this multiplayer is sooooooooo going to ruin a prequal, totally. Im totally not being sarcastic either, and I also love Halo 3 and hate Morrowind. Ok, even lying that last bit hurt me.
I dont think you really need to worry, and besides, its multiplayer. If they must, they can just say "meh" and ignore it. Not like that would ruin the story.

I would be very surprised indeed if this was the case. Which games were you thinking of that had 'lucklustre' single-player due to the multiplayer?

Halo 2 + 3 come up as not being as great due to multiplayer, but reverse-fangirlism aside, multiplayer does detract from single player, as does anything that pulls away attention to it. Though Bioshock has a seperate DEVELOPER working on multiplayer so it shouldnt be an issue for it.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

I would be very surprised indeed if this was the case. Which games were you thinking of that had 'lucklustre' single-player due to the multiplayer?

Unreal Series: more focus on multiplayer = shittier single player. To the point where it's literally just a tacked on vestigial limb in UT2 & 3.

C&C Tiberium Wars: heavy focus on multiplayer and ladder systems, end result, single player isn't really good. Although that could be because it's EA, so incompetence is standard.

Anno 1404: The single player game basically = multiplayer game with AIs instead of people.

Supreme Commander: Campaign feels very tacked on, and if it wasn't for the unit restrictions you'd essentially have a skirmish map set linked together.

Dawn of War Soulstorm: no campaign to speak of, basically just a series of linked Skirmish maps.

 

[Neosage]

Oh yes, this multiplayer is sooooooooo going to ruin a prequal, totally. Im totally not being sarcastic either, and I also love Halo 3 and hate Morrowind. Ok, even lying that last bit hurt me.
I dont think you really need to worry, and besides, its multiplayer. If they must, they can just say "meh" and ignore it. Not like that would ruin the story.

I would be very surprised indeed if this was the case. Which games were you thinking of that had 'lucklustre' single-player due to the multiplayer?

Halo 2 + 3 come up as not being as great due to multiplayer, but reverse-fangirlism aside, multiplayer does detract from single player, as does anything that pulls away attention to it. Though Bioshock has a seperate DEVELOPER working on multiplayer so it shouldnt be an issue for it.

Multiplayer doesn't detract from the single-player at all. Unless of course the game is primarily multiplayer which, unless I am very much mistaken, isn't the case with the sequel to Bioshock.

I would be very surprised indeed if this was the case. Which games were you thinking of that had 'lucklustre' single-player due to the multiplayer?

Unreal Series: more focus on multiplayer = shittier single player. To the point where it's literally just a tacked on vestigial limb in UT2 & 3.

C&C Tiberium Wars: heavy focus on multiplayer and ladder systems, end result, single player isn't really good. Although that could be because it's EA, so incompetence is standard.

Anno 1404: The single player game basically = multiplayer game with AIs instead of people.

Supreme Commander: Campaign feels very tacked on, and if it wasn't for the unit restrictions you'd essentially have a skirmish map set linked together.

Dawn of War Soulstorm: no campaign to speak of, basically just a series of linked Skirmish maps.

I would argue that these games are primarily multiplayer (or multiplayer being the main reason you would buy it) and single player certainly is not the focus of these games. These games were built to be multiplayer from the ground upwards, it stands to reason that they aren't particularly bothered about the single player, as most of their players wouldn't.

 

[The Rockerfly]

I thought the whole story was based as a prequel and not just the multiplayer
In all honesty, I trust 2k to do a good job of Bioshock 2 and the multiplayer so good luck with it and to everyone who says otherwise wait until reviews