Question of the Day, Feb. 16, 2010

Tzekelkan

New member
Dec 27, 2009
498
0
0
I'm all for multiplayer in any game. If it is a compelling single palyer experience with multiplayer just tacked-on, I'm fine with it. At least you've got something. I don't think adding extra anything to a game can damage it, unless it somehow detracts from its quality.
 

wilsonscrazybed

thinking about your ugly face
Dec 16, 2007
1,654
0
41
I said yes, and now thinking about it I have come to the conclusion that it was a bad idea. Sure it's nice to have a multiplayer experience to go with your singleplayer, but I can't help wondering how much better the singleplayer experience would have been if they had devoted those resources to polishing it up and maybe hiring more/better writers.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
Depends on how it turned out. I hear Bioshock 2 turned out well. I'm know when it gets here in the mail. HOPEFULLY TODAY...
 

Benjeezy

New member
Dec 3, 2009
523
0
0
I was surprised at how fast my roommate beat the damn thing, and I was rather disappointed as well. The story sucked me in, and I wasn't even playing it.

OT: I clicked yes. If they have a good multiplayer mode, more power to them.
 

TheBritish

The really, quite jolly rascal
Nov 12, 2009
99
0
0
Hmmm... I think the problem here is the word "adding". Anything developers can "add" is a good thing. Yeah, sure it's selling out to the bullet point, but from what I hear it's kinda fun, so this is "bonus".

I also think the singleplayer would have trouble standing up on it's own this time around because you always need to add something with a sequal and the singleplayer doesn't add enough to qualify the cash.

All this said, I havn't played the Bioshock 2 multiplayer, despite being really excited about it. The reason? Too many problems with Games For Windows Live. I could probably get it working eventually, but considering the AvP game was an early demo, and I clicked and played, as opposed to spending over an hour resolving the problems for Bioshock 2, it's just not worth the effort.

In summary... not a bad thing to add it. No matter how good or bad it is, provided it didn't drain resources from the singleplayer experience.

-- Just an added thing to say that the plasmid/weapon gameplay would be great for gameplay, but I wonder if the atmosphere is ruined by deathmatching around Rapture, a place with such solomn atmosphere.
 

Shycte

New member
Mar 10, 2009
2,564
0
0
While it could have stand on it's own as a single player game, the re-play value would be a tad short without a mutiplayer mode. As where the problem with the first game.

Words can not descripe how happy I am that they got another studio to do the multiplayer. It could not gone any better.

The photos and gameplay vidoes we've seen of the muliplayer shows a "run-to-the-mill" kind of shooter. Personly, I have no problem with that.

So my answer is Yes, it was the right thing to do.
 

BlueInkAlchemist

Ridiculously Awesome
Jun 4, 2008
2,231
0
0
Here's my take on it.

The same night I picked up Mass Effect 2 covered in my review [http://www.blueinkalchemy.com/2010/02/13/the-way-to-her-heart/]. I've put in a few hours already and am eager to play through more of it, but there's an aspect of the game that strikes me as somewhat perplexing.

I don't mind the notion of playing through scenarios set in the tumultuous civil war of Rapture that broke out on New Year's in 1959. On the contrary, I think it'd be fascinating to see Rapture when it had more rational people in it than spliced-up foamy-mouth quasi-zombie Splicers. However, since this setting is being used for multi-player, it's unlikely much time would be spent looking at Rapture since if you get distracted you're likely to wind up face up on the ground with some kid from Albuquerque teabagging you while the respawn timer counts down. I still might try it out, but the inclusion of multiplayer into a shooter that was strictly single player up until now just strikes me as odd.

I know the BioShock games are powered by the Unreal engine and it's developed for multi-player environments, and I have no objection to multi-player in and of itself. I used to play Counter Strike on a regular basis, and every once in a while I blow the dust off of Team Fortress 2 to make sure my skills haven't atrophied entirely. But the multi-player of BioShock 2, at least on a concept level, feels a little tacked on. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, and I'd rather get back to playing through the story.

I think that if you want to really capitalize on a multi-player environment with an established single-player franchise, the best move is likely to spend the time and resources developing a separate game that focuses entirely on that experience rather than tacking it onto a single-player game. I mean, Mass Effect doesn't have any arena or deathmatch play, but then again, if BioWare were to develop a multi-player environment for that universe, I'd pray to the gaming gods that it would be less like a multi-player shooter and more like an MMO.

Seriously. Think about it. A Mass Effect MMO.
 

SantoUno

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,583
0
0
There seems to be a pattern, it's like if a single-player game has multiplayer in the sequel, it WILL take some thunder away from the single-player campaign.
 

mattttherman3

New member
Dec 16, 2008
3,105
0
0
Well the single player was just like the first, except for the drill. But the multiplayer, I don't know, the way it's set up is stupid, the matchmaking takes forever to find a match. I don't know, it just feels as if something is missing.
 

Podunk

New member
Dec 18, 2008
822
0
0
Having not yet finished the game, I have to assume that the length of the game will be roughly the same as the first Bioshock. If this is the case, then I believe the single player experience is indeed worth the 55 bucks. I only played the first Bioshock last fall(Got it for a lot less than full price, naturally), and it showed me Bioshock 2 would be worth my time and hard-earned cash. Even if it wasn't, and to those who don't feel the single player experience is worth it, then I have some bad news: The multiplayer mode is not a value-add. It is terrible. Having played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has shown me as good as a current-gen FPS can get (Apart from that holiest of grails, Team Fortress 2). Bioshock 2 takes some of the worst parts of Call of Duty(Level grinding for goodies, which seems even more irrelevant than in CODMewTwo), mixes in parts from it's own game that don't belong (Researching enemies? Seriously?) and has a control scheme not very well suited for multiplayer gaming. It seems especially contrite and tacked-on when you considered they actually tried to tie the multiplayer into the fiction! All in all, I believe Bioshock 2 would be much better received without its vestigial and dreadful multiplayer mode. If you want to play a multiplayer FPS there are much better options, and if you are a fan of Rapture you should avoid this like the plague. It only cheapens the immersive single-player campaign and the experience as a whole.
 

Kalfira

New member
Feb 14, 2010
128
0
0
I thought it was a great thing. I mean yes, to multiplayer will never have the appeal of other games like MW or Halo but it is fun to play around with when your bored or waiting for your hot pockets to cook. I personally thought Bioshock 2 was a freaking awesome game and the multiplayer was just something added on that I got for free.
 

Citrus

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,420
0
0
The online is pretty weak in my opinion. They should scratched out the multiplayer component and put more resources into the single-player. Maybe on the graphics; Bioshock 2 doesn't look as good as as the original, and when the original came out in 2007, that isn't a good sign.

Although in whole, I don't think Bioshock 2 was necessary at all. Of course, Bioshock was a successful new IP so a sequel was pretty much inevitable, but there really wasn't much you could build on from the original Bioshock (hence all the hubbub about it being "more of the same", "repetitive", "lacking the wonder of the original", etc) so I think making a sequel to it was unavoidably going to lead to a lesser product.

It upsets me, then, to hear that they have... what... three more games lined up? No thanks.
 

Monshroud

Evil Overlord
Jul 29, 2009
1,024
0
0
I would have prefered if they had removed multiplayer and used the disc-space saved to include a longer single game. Bioshock is a story and atmosphere driven game, and I felt the Multi-Player messed it up. Bioshock 2 isn't a better game becuase it now has multi-player. I don't personally know anyone who said they were really looking forward to Bioshock 2 because now it had MP. Everyone I know was looking for a continuation of the story and experience.

Contrary to popular belief, games don't need multiplayer to extend value. You can add challenges, difficulty settings to a game to increase replayability (is that a word). There are so many games out there that have multi-player that a few months later after release you can't even find a match for, everyone just goes back to playing Halo, CoD, etc. So where is all this value? Virtually no one plays the MP for The Darkness, Prey, etc.

Hell, imagine buying an older title and wanting to get all the achievements, but you can't because no one is playing that older title online. Not saying this is a huge deal or is the case with every game, but I know people who pride themselves on getting all the achievements / trophies for a game and they can't. Using Prey as an example, I kept trying the MP on it for around a month before I finally found 2 people who were on, and we all wanted the same thing, to try the MP and get the achievements. It was pretty damn boring because instead of actually playing against each other we all just took turns killing each other with the weapons because we were not sure when we would have this chance again.

Every game does not need multi-player. Half-Life isn't a better game with MP. Portal would not be a better game because of MP. Uncharted 2, God of War would not be better with MP. Just because you can add it does not mean you should...

/rant
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Where is the option of "Bioshock was the biggest waste of 5 EUR since I bought Sonic 3D"?
 

Donofat13

New member
Feb 16, 2010
5
0
0
Bioshock was one of my favorite games so i was extremely excited for the second one. I ended up pre-ordering just because of the multiplayer. If there was no multi added in I would have just got it through gamefly cause I never replayed the first one. So far ive enjoyed the multi, ive played it a lot more than the single player campaign which didnt really draw my attention like the first one did during the hour and a half I have played. So id have to say yes it was the right thing to cause replayability is the biggest factor in why I purchase games compared to renting and it seems to be the way most people think which is why they did include it. Still having trouble keeping my hands off ME2 and MAG though so bioshock will prob jus gather dust once Bad Company 2 arrives.