Question of the Day, Feb. 16, 2010

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Question of the Day, Feb. 16, 2010



BioShock bucked recent shooter trends by focusing solely on a single-player experience, but its sequel decided to add multiplayer. Some view the decision as selling out, while others are happy for the chance to break out of the game's linear boundaries. What do you think?

Permalink
 

UnravThreads

New member
Aug 10, 2009
809
0
0
I think it was. On its own, the single player does not truly justify £30 (or £40 for the console players). I completed it in just over 6hrs and had 27/50 achievements, of which some of those 50 achievements are for the multiplayer.
In this day-and-age multiplayer is a very common part of an FPS game, whether it's the main focus (e.g. Left 4 Dead) or just an optional bit of fun (e.g. Far Cry 2). BioShock 2 will have sold primarily due to the single player and I doubt many people bought it for its multiplayer component, but the inclusion of the multiplayer helps make your purchase feel "worth it".

I suspect most people will have felt disappointed with the length of BioShock 2, as it is a relatively short game and the multiplayer helps you get extra value out of it.
 

Geamo

New member
Aug 27, 2008
801
0
0
Any -more- of a game that's optional to the main storyline is always a good thing. What with so much content being DLC, it's good that they included it.

Also, is this feature going to be a daily/weekly/monthly thing?
 

Snowalker

New member
Nov 8, 2008
1,937
0
0
I would have said yes, but my friend was a big time fan of the first and he feels that the story mode is lacking. This leads me to believe they spent more time on the multiplayer than they should have.
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,854
0
0
I feel the single player was sufficient. The thing that set Bioshock apart from the mass of generic FPSs was the setting, the ambience and the story behind Rapture and human hubris as well as good-intentioned ambition embedded within its walls.

I cannot in good conscience fault the makers of it for putting in a multiplayer (it increases sales), but I feel it was a wrong move gamewise. The time used for that part of the Bioshock 2 would have been better served by polishing the single-player mode. As it stands, it's a good game, but it could have been better. I guess I just can't see what the addition of multiplayer brings to the table.
 

notyouraveragejoe

Dehakchakala!
Nov 8, 2008
1,449
0
0
I thought it was a good idea since its a bit of a side-track for those that just wanna shoot-em-up in a Bioshock environment without dealing with objectives or anything.
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
the single player was still a great and awesome experience just like the 1st one if they want to put in a multiplayer section just for the hell of it then i see no wrong in it.

it be better if more companies do the same rather then just make a measly 6 hour campaign copy paste treatment and slap multiplayer features to sell for 60$...
 

MetaKnight19

New member
Jul 8, 2009
2,007
0
0
I haven't been able to connect to a multiplayer game yet, so I'm not sure. The single player campaign was good, if a tiny bit underwhelming
 

WrongSprite

Resident Morrowind Fanboy
Aug 10, 2008
4,503
0
0
Snowalker said:
This leads me to believe they spent more time on the multiplayer than they should have.
A different team did the multi, it didn't affect the single-player.

OT: Therefore, yes, why not?
 

ccesarano

New member
Oct 3, 2007
523
0
0
Snowalker said:
I would have said yes, but my friend was a big time fan of the first and he feels that the story mode is lacking. This leads me to believe they spent more time on the multiplayer than they should have.
Considering two completely different studios worked on the different components, I'd have to disagree. Especially since the two play completely different from each other. Most of the plasmids and tonics behave differently, you don't dual-wield in the same manner, and even hacking is completely different. It is an experience that is clearly crafted by two completely different developers that happened to work well together in keeping that valuable aesthetic.

I would have been happier with the single player if it wasn't for the length and the fact that they screwed the pooch on where enemies respawn and at what rate they do. It completely ruined the pace of the game for me. I'd clear a room out of splicers and start exploring, and next thing I knew more of them were showing up. Days before I had started a new game in the first Bioshock in order to get caught up, and even the largest of environments didn't work this way. Once you cleared a room out it was empty until you returned, and even then foes didn't always come back. It allowed players to explore the environment at their own pace, taking in every detail. In Bioshock 2 that pace is completely ruined, making one feel rushed to get it done.

This is only made worse when trying to prepare to hold off splicers during ADAM gathering. Respawning foes may start to trigger some of your carefully laid traps before you are ready, putting them to waste. Then there's the simple fact that even some of the smaller rooms don't spawn splicers at the doorways. They'll spawn them within the room, which means the only spots that are worth dropping traps down on are in the immediate vicinity of the corpse. SOME rooms work logically, where you can cover each doorway and pretty much go a whole ADAM gathering event without seeing a single splicer. Those moments are awesome. However, when you're in a relatively small room and suddenly you are fending off tons of foes, only to find after that all of your traps by the actual entrances to the room are untouched, it makes all that planning worthless.

And THEN causes trouble when the traps you CANNOT retrieve get stepped on or crossed by a Big Daddy, who then comes after you.

It's one small thing that becomes a huge oversight and hurts the entire experience.

As a result, I, someone that never enjoys competitive multiplayer as much as a single-player campaign, and in fact never really plays competitively in preference to playing co-operatively, finds the multiplayer in Bioshock 2 to be the real meat of the game. I have had more fun playing games like ADAM Grab and Last Splicer Standing than I have had in the entire single-player experience of Bioshock 2.

Which, for me, is saying a lot.

So yes, the multiplayer was a good inclusion, because otherwise it just wouldn't be worth the money.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
I think the multiplayer, although nice, didnt really need to be there.

Games dont HAVE to be more than one-player. Sometimes, it is what we want...
 

Valkyira

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,733
0
0
I think some games are better off just singleplayer (Dead Space 2). So I will say no, multiplayer wasn't the right thing to put it Bioshock 2.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
Bioshock2, the game fails on so many levels compared to the first one. Just didn't feel like they tried. MP just felt horribly tacked on and last minute. So no mp needed. should have focused more on varied environments, dynamically changing volumetric water, RANDOM big sister encounters, and perhaps the ability to back track.
 

Chipperz

New member
Apr 27, 2009
2,593
0
0
I can't think of a single reason why including multiplayer could be a bad thing, so I had to vote "yes".
 

Snowalker

New member
Nov 8, 2008
1,937
0
0
WrongSprite said:
Snowalker said:
This leads me to believe they spent more time on the multiplayer than they should have.
A different team did the multi, it didn't affect the single-player.

OT: Therefore, yes, why not?
Ah, see, didn't know this. Also, you did gather this wasn't exactly my opinion, more or less what I've heard form friends? I never enjoyed the first Bioshock. Thought it to be bland.
 

Geekmaster K

New member
Sep 29, 2009
189
0
0
I haven't played BioShock 2 yet, and while I do think the single-player campaign would have been enough, I don't think they were hurting anything adding multiplayer. The multiplayer was made by a different team than the team doing the single-player campaign, and I've heard a lot of good things about it from gaming journalists and my friends in real life. I'm not going to judge it until I play it for myself, but I personally think that it can only add to the experience, even though the game would have been complete without it. Just call it "the side dish that nicely complements the main course."
 

Banana Phone Man

Elite Member
May 19, 2009
1,609
0
41
I don't think it needed a multiplayer and that the single player experience could carry the game on it's own. However the multiplayer is a nice addition to the game for a little more fun.

Was it right to do? I don't know. I would have prefered them to have worked on the single player more. I enjoyed Bioshock without multiplayer. Bioshock 2 didn't realy need it. However if I get bored of the single player the multiplayer's unpredictability will keep me coming back (if the single player doesn't)