Does Everything Need Co-op or Multiplayer
One of the best additions to the console market in recent years is the ability to connect one another via the Internet. Back in the day, if you wanted to play a game against someone, you had to be sitting in the next room, unless you had a PC. Now, all consoles have been linked to the Internet, and it seems that this new found console technology has put developers into a corner, forcing multiplayer into titles that do not need it.
Lets roll back to August 2007. A little title under development called Bioshock was released. It told a twisting story that captured the imagination of gamers everywhere. It even managed to work in ideas from Rand and others to make for one of the most compelling storylines anywhere. But with all that said, there was clamoring from the masses, stating that the game was good, but was missing multiplayer. I could not understand the arguement. Why did the game need multiplayer? Here was a story that delved into the inner pychosis of man, and a chunk of gamers shrugged and asked why there was no multiplayer. Worst still is that they want to add multiplayer and/or co-op to the upcoming Bioshock 2, which to me is a travesty.
I always wonder why multiplayer trumps solid design and writing for gamers. I mean, a great example of how mutliplayer can go wrong is The Darkness. The Darkness told a dark and foreboding story of Jackie, and how no matter what he did, he was doomed to join his demonic side. There was so much more that could have been examined with that story, but it seems like the developers felt the need to include multiplayer in The Darkness. Problem is that the multiplayer ended up being the worst implementation of multiplayer ever in a console game. The mechanics, the levels and even the technical problems just getting a game together ended up hurting The Darkness at the register, whereas, if Starbreeze would have ignored the calls and just focused on a single player experience, you might have had people look at the game in such a different light.
Now before people think I am going crazy again, realize that I love me some good multiplayer and co-op gameplay. Mercenaries 2 and Saints Row 2 are really quality games, that implement co-op perfectly, writing them from top to bottom for co-op play from the start. And I am a child of Doom, Duke Nukem and Quake to name a few titles that had multiplayer working for them, and working well. But they were designed that way. Even Epic realized that they needed to split the Unreal franchise, having one team focus on single player, while the other crafted the hugely successful multiplayer title.
Multiplayer is suppose to compliment a game that would fit the concept. When it is forced in, either to meet a launch date (The Darkness), or patched in as an afterthought to remedy complaints (Deus Ex), you end up with a subpar product that no one ends up playing, and lost resources that could have gone anywhere else in development. Even looking at the new Chronicles of Riddick game, it has added multiplayer, but I don’t feel that it fits the spirit of the game, which was all about stealth kills and hand to hand combat. So what do you end up with, a new styled game, that really has nothing close to the concept of the single player game.
I guess I was set off by the idea of 2K Marin announcing that they are adding some form of multiplayer to Bioshock 2. It just did not make any sense to add multiplayer mode to the title, as it was a solid story on its own. Does multiplayer factor into your decision to purchase a game, or can you look past it to see a solid story and gameplay mechanics.
Tags: bioshock, co-op, deus ex, multiplayer, resident evil 5, saints row 2, the darkness
17 Comments »
Leave a comment!
i really dont want multiplayer in bioshock 2 when i first herd about it my first thought was that it will take away from the games single player story line and that is not good for a game like that. other games like delta force or any other fps game story really doesn't matter.but i think if they work on the story line first then work on multiplayer and it doesnt feel tack on it will be fine.
I agree with you, Professor Haygoodius. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one of my favorite games of all time due to its online multiplayer. However, BioShock is another one of my favorite games, but that is due to it's fantastic single player campaign. BioShock 2 will have multiplayer, for better or worse, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the development of the single player campaign, I'm fine. I think developers these days are worried about replay value so some of them are adding multiplayer to bring players back no matter how fit multiplayer is for the game. One example of this would be Resident Evil 5. Resident Evil 5 is, in my opinion, the worst shooter that online versus multiplayer could ever be implemented in. The tank controls will destroy any potential fun to be had. Like you said about The Darkness, developers need to realize when multiplayer is not suited for their game and solely focus on the single player aspects.
You really need to get off the no MP train. You really make no sense whatsoever. You have the same team of people behind Bioshock 1, and they are very dedicated to bringing out a quality game. They have added more employees just to make sure of it. To say its a travesty to include MP in a game is just stupidity to me. Many developers manage to make games with great single player and MP components. Bioshock 2 is gonna make a shitload of money and they know that. I doubt they are gonna risk negative reviews by tacking on a crappy MP. Most tacked on MP is there because the company wants to add value to the game, possibly because they know there game might not be so good to begin with, and its too late to change things. Your argument of it causing poor design is just dumb. Either they now how to make a good MP or they don't. All the time and the money in the world won't change that. They have shown they know how to make a great single player game, and they will most likely deliver on that again. If the MP turns out bad then who gives a rats ass, you still got your moneys worth.
No one is expecting a MP the scope of Halo 3 coming out of Bioshock 2. Many games have had simple MP that is fun for maybe a month or two and then you move on.
The argument I really don't get it when people say “It takes away from the story” Do these morons realize that these games narratives are done far in advance of the first level being made. The creation of a MP games never takes away from games story.
Guess what….when you buy the game you don't have to press the button for MP. Just play the story. There now you don't have to complain.
I would welcome multiplayer support in Bioshock 2. Developers work these things out long before. I doubt that they are stupid enough not to spend the time making the single player the best it can be. This isn't the Darkness or any other game. Its unfair to compare one to another. They are different companies, one quite more resourceful then the other. Would you tell Bungie to keep MP out of Halo 4…no! So I say they can bring the MP on. If its bad I am sure at least the single player will be quite nice.
There are plenty of ways they can screw up the multplayer, but nothing ventured nothing gained, If developers listened to you no progress would ever be made. Sorry but I have to completely and utterly disagree.
Just remember the hype on the game is all about the single player, and they know that.
Co-op could go either way. It just depends on how the story was structured in the beginning. Either way I could care less if it has it.
Okay…no. First of all, BioShock 2 isn't being made by 2K Boston/Australia anymore, it is in development by 2K Marin. Yes, that studio is made up of former 2K Boston/Australia employees, but some of the main designers behind the game, such as Ken Levine, have nothing to do with this sequel.
Furthermore, we're not just worried that it's going to be bad multiplayer, it's just that it's completely unnecessary. BioShock has such high critical acclaim because of its atmosphere and storytelling, although that's not to say it didn't have great gameplay as well. This game included no multiplayer and it was probably for the best. Unfortunately, 2K Marin has already expressed their interest for implementing multiplayer in BioShock 2. Like you said, “No one is expecting a MP the scope of Halo 3 coming out of Bioshock 2. Many games have had simple MP that is fun for maybe a month or two and then you move on.” That just proves how unnecessary it is. If it's just some throw away mode that they tacked on, what's the point?
Finally, having multiplayer in a story-driven game definitely derives from the game's narrative. Developing the multiplayer takes time that the team could have spent furthering and improving the story, level design, and other campaign elements. When people hear “BioShock” they think of a gripping storyline and a creepy atmosphere, not multiplayer versus modes. Therefore, in the sequel, people will be expecting another interesting story, not online modes. I, and hopefully many others, believe that spending time developing the multiplayer would be wasted efforts that could have been used to improve the single player.
Would you tell Bungie to keep MP out of Halo 4…no!
The Halo series is known for its multiplayer aspects. Of course people would expect Bungie to include multiplayer. Games like BioShock, however, needed no multiplayer whatsoever. BioShock was great because the development time and resources went directly into its kick-ass single player.
Just remember the hype on the game is all about the single player, and they know that.
If it's all about the single player, why take such a big risk with multiplayer when they could spend that time improving the single player?
As Jordania said, not having Ken Levine behind Bioshock 2 makes it a completely different experience. But adding in multiplayer for the sake of fans stating they have to have it does hurt the game in the long run, because a lot of times, it is shoe-ed in as a last minute hack of a mode, and leaves people with a bad taste in their mouth.
Also, I am not saying there should be no multiplayer. If you read the opinion, I love multiplayer, but only when it is designed from the start and made with the main game in mind. The first Unreal had multiplayer, but it was never a competitior to Quake II, but when Epic broke it out into its own game, Unreal Tournament, it became an overnight sensation, giving full dedication to the multiplayer game. Left 4 Dead did it right as well. Its plan was to be a team based co-op game, and never strayed to try and give players a single player experience. Sure you can play it in a private match by yourself, but it plays so differently that it loses its purpose.
Mutliplayer is fine, but it does not need to be a factor in every game.
never thought i'd say it but jordan is right
i have a feeling that this game if not done 100% right it's going to alienaite a large portion of the fan base. now having it cut into sales probally not as i will have it on day one via pre order but still. but i dont think it can be done right because it is not being done by the same people.
You do realize that the people who work on story and multiplayer design work in different departments in almost every game studio. The story is going to be refined and over and over again and its not gonna matter that the other part of the team is working on the MP. If you have everyone working on the story it would become a mess. Bioshock 1 was so good because the story was done by medium sized group of people who knew what they were doing.
Just because the MP might not be amazing doesn't mean its unnecessary. The reason to do MP is to expand the game and maybe make an online game unlike anything before.
Sorry but none of us are game designers and I think you are a bit nutty to think the way you do. I agree that not all games need multiplayer, but that's not a valid excuse not to do one because a bunch of pretentious people think it shouldn't be done. You all seem to assume that they are rushing the game to market and don't care. Personally I find that disrespectful to the people that made the game. They have given you no reason to doubt their ability to produce a good game, online or not.
The setting and characters in Bioshock are begging for some kind of multiplayer. Big Daddy Juggernaut make me scream with glee. You can be all negative or realize its out of your realm to change what the game will be.
You have to remember something about the first BioShock: It had no cut scenes. Therefore, the story and single player level design were a collaborative effort. If that team was off making the multiplayer while the writers were on their own doing the story I don't think the storytelling would be as effective. They need to be working together to deliver that amazing story, especially since it's all done in-game. That's why I believe they should just ignore those selfish fans begging for some type of online multiplayer; if it's not broken it doesn't need to be fixed. Besides, even if it had fun multiplayer I'd probably check it out one day, say “That's pretty neat,” and continue playing Call of Duty whenever I need an online shooter fix.
“I agree that not all games need multiplayer, but that's not a valid excuse not to do one because a bunch of pretentious people think it shouldn't be done.”
So are you saying it's a valid excuse to include multiplayer because a bunch of pretentious people think it should be done? It's not that I don't think they can make a decent and possibly fun multiplayer mode, it's that I don't want them to waste their time on it when they already know what the core elements of BioShock are: story and atmosphere. We know that the game is being developed by 2K Marin instead of 2K Boston/Australia, so at this point I'm just hoping they can turn out another great single player campaign; hearing about these multiplayer modes that they want to implement just makes me more worried. Let's be honest, when BioShock 2 comes out with its online multiplayer, does anyone really think that it will stand up against games like Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears of War?
is not necessary but could be fun!
I really think multi-player is focused on way too much. I mean do we really need yet another FPS multi-player game to play online? There are dozens already.
Just focus on a great one player campaign, and forget the multi-player.
very true but at this point i belive companys are just doing it for cash even if mulitplayer is only “hot” for say 1 month it may help sell more copies and it leaves the door open for dlc options which leads to more possible cash flow in the end they could gives two hoots about us the end user/gamer. because it is about cash not fun.
I believe co-op alone will sell more copies. Bioshock 2 would benefit from “casual” co-op, meaning if you hack a flying security bot, your co-op buddy would control it. If you hypnotize a Big Daddy, your co-op buddy would control the Big Daddy for the short time.
That is, if those particular situations ever occur in the sequel.
I believe co-op alone will sell more copies. Bioshock 2 would benefit from “casual” co-op, meaning if you hack a flying security bot, your co-op buddy would control it. If you hypnotize a Big Daddy, your co-op buddy would control the Big Daddy for the short time.
That is, if those particular situations ever occur in the sequel.