Rumor: BioShock Infinite Drops Multiplayer
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hope to see more of this.. It's a bad practice.
When I hear about "Adding Multiplayer" to games not made for it.. I can only think the equivalent to that is the much heard about, and completely loathed "focus groups" for pre-released films. Where a bunch of executives and interns show their movie to a small group of dimwits. One dimwit says, "Not enough shooty shooty." or "I'm really stupid and I don't understand the entire movie.".
Then the executives say okay, "Editor, make the movie more shooty shooty, and make the film simple."
I bet the same thing happens for games. "Not enough multiplayer, so the game sucks."
So the executive says, "Developers, axe development on your current goals and add multiplayer you never prepared for. You still have to meet the deadline."
When I hear about "Adding Multiplayer" to games not made for it.. I can only think the equivalent to that is the much heard about, and completely loathed "focus groups" for pre-released films. Where a bunch of executives and interns show their movie to a small group of dimwits. One dimwit says, "Not enough shooty shooty." or "I'm really stupid and I don't understand the entire movie.".
Then the executives say okay, "Editor, make the movie more shooty shooty, and make the film simple."
I bet the same thing happens for games. "Not enough multiplayer, so the game sucks."
So the executive says, "Developers, axe development on your current goals and add multiplayer you never prepared for. You still have to meet the deadline."
There's enough multiplayer experiences out there to make up for Bioshock skipping on it. I mean Fallout 3 didn't have a death match mode and the world didn't end. I'd rather they focus on a strong single player experience than water it down to half ass all powers to make a death match and 31 flavors of typical modes to an online shooter.
Games need to balance the characters for multiplayer or the campaign. In case of Bioshock, it's always felt like a series focused on a campaign, especially one where you steadily evolve into an unstoppable force of nature over the course of the game , it doesn't lend itself well to the multiplayer experience well. It's designed for you to be an overpowered being who wrecks waves of stuff alone.(while call of duty tends make you much more killable, and leaves all uber weapons for special scripted events or high level kill streak perks to even them out for multiplayer mode as you aren't remotely as power as the characters in bioshock.) You can't just translate those abilities wholesale (a game that did, Revenge of the Fallen didn't make forked modes seperate balance for campaign and multiplayer, and all flyers ruled the versus modes because they were just as mobile and deadly as when you tear up the AI. G1 starscream for the win!) You'd have to greatly water down the powers to balance it out or replace them entirely, at which point you might as well make an entirely new game balanced around the notion of a multiplayer style bioshock game from the ground up than try turn a sportscar into an offroad truck.
A game has to pick it's strength as it's rare a game excells at both competiative Multiplayer and campaign. I'd rather a developer picked their poison than crowbarred it in or just threw it in and said hey we did no balance it or put any effort toward it (like diablo2 ) and if you get horribly raped because you picked something underpowered for this mode not our fault. Plenty of games don't have competiative modes to them for multiplayer and I still love them. I love Megaman, Castlevania, Skyrim, fallout, bioshock , Mario, Final fantasy,Zelda, and many others that all lack any sort of death match or some other means of beating tar out of other players. It takes all kinds, and I love a good Co-Op game or death match not every game should try to be everything to every player. Pick your strength and don't worry about the rest. Sometimes less really is more, and this seems be definitely the case for game design.
Games need to balance the characters for multiplayer or the campaign. In case of Bioshock, it's always felt like a series focused on a campaign, especially one where you steadily evolve into an unstoppable force of nature over the course of the game , it doesn't lend itself well to the multiplayer experience well. It's designed for you to be an overpowered being who wrecks waves of stuff alone.(while call of duty tends make you much more killable, and leaves all uber weapons for special scripted events or high level kill streak perks to even them out for multiplayer mode as you aren't remotely as power as the characters in bioshock.) You can't just translate those abilities wholesale (a game that did, Revenge of the Fallen didn't make forked modes seperate balance for campaign and multiplayer, and all flyers ruled the versus modes because they were just as mobile and deadly as when you tear up the AI. G1 starscream for the win!) You'd have to greatly water down the powers to balance it out or replace them entirely, at which point you might as well make an entirely new game balanced around the notion of a multiplayer style bioshock game from the ground up than try turn a sportscar into an offroad truck.
A game has to pick it's strength as it's rare a game excells at both competiative Multiplayer and campaign. I'd rather a developer picked their poison than crowbarred it in or just threw it in and said hey we did no balance it or put any effort toward it (like diablo2 ) and if you get horribly raped because you picked something underpowered for this mode not our fault. Plenty of games don't have competiative modes to them for multiplayer and I still love them. I love Megaman, Castlevania, Skyrim, fallout, bioshock , Mario, Final fantasy,Zelda, and many others that all lack any sort of death match or some other means of beating tar out of other players. It takes all kinds, and I love a good Co-Op game or death match not every game should try to be everything to every player. Pick your strength and don't worry about the rest. Sometimes less really is more, and this seems be definitely the case for game design.
No problem Bioshock 2 never needed multiplayer and I would rather they spend time on single player anyway.
The response of the vast majority of the gaming community:
The multiplayer was bland and does not belong in a game that relies so heavily on atmosphere and isolation. Unless it was done in a fashion similar to Dark Souls, where you can see influences from other players in a subtle fashion, or with co-op/PVP in isolated instances entwined with the single player gameplay (and I don't mean that Mass Effect bullshit), I'd rather they just leave the connectivity out entirely.
The multiplayer was bland and does not belong in a game that relies so heavily on atmosphere and isolation. Unless it was done in a fashion similar to Dark Souls, where you can see influences from other players in a subtle fashion, or with co-op/PVP in isolated instances entwined with the single player gameplay (and I don't mean that Mass Effect bullshit), I'd rather they just leave the connectivity out entirely.
So... Basically two multiplayer modes I could not even possibly give any less of a flying dog shit about have been dropped.
When I first read the headline I though it was good news, there's no need for multiplayer in Bioshock. But after reading it, that co-op could have been really awesome, given the differing proficiencies of the 2 main protagonists. I would love it if Elizabeth had no gun at all, and had to rely on other tactics.
Oh, and to all the people getting their hopes up, they never said anything about deathmatch. This entire news story could very well signify that they've sacrificed the possibly interesting co-op for the most likely generic deathmatch.
Oh, and to all the people getting their hopes up, they never said anything about deathmatch. This entire news story could very well signify that they've sacrificed the possibly interesting co-op for the most likely generic deathmatch.
Yep. Multiplayer on a singleplayer game is icing. I'd like to make some parallel about single player in MW/BF games, but the right words escape me.Durgiun said:
Would have only been active for around a month or so after release and then the servers will dry up more than your mama's cooch, leaving many players annoyed that they'll be unable to achieve the multiplayer-only achievements.
I won't get to play generic fps multiplayer in my story/emotion-driven single player first person adventure game?
what a... tragedy.... '_' God I can't even pretend to give half a fuck about this. Actually, scratch that; I do care. I am HAPPY about this. Making multiplayer-centric games is fine, hell I endorse it! However, less time, effort, and resources spent on superfluous features for a primarily single player experience can only be a good thing.
I see your Oh no and raise you aInnegativeion said:
At this point I'll be happy if the game actually gets released, what with them losing two project leads recently.
It's nice to see some news about it at any rate and that it hasn't become vaporware.
indeedAerosteam 1908 said:
what with ME3's multiplayer being so surprisingly awesome
and that it felt like it was more in line with the concept of ME3's story than the campaign (you know, setting the galaxy in an all-out war and you playing as a random foot soldier trying to help do your part)
but don't worry, I'm sure they will bring it back for Bioshock Infinite 2, where you also play as a Handyman
not any Handyman, but the FIRST successful one
not any Handyman, but the FIRST successful one