Way back in 2007, 2K's Elizabeth Tobey stated that multiplayer in BioShock would compromise the story. We never forgot that statement, so it was strange to see BioShock 2 proudly pimping multiplayer as one of its core components. Naturally, we were all "WTF," so we asked 2K Marin creative director, Jordan Thomas, why multiplayer doesn't compromise the single-player game anymore.
"Our first decision with Multiplayer was to recruit Digital Extremes to own the experience completely, precisely so that neither component would suffer a lack of creative focus," explains Thomas. "I think if we had tried to do both in-house, it absolutely would have been detrimental, so I understand the concern.
"Our internal multiplayer liaisons (headed up by Melissa Miller) helped to keep both teams apprised of our shared goals, keep us playing the game and offering direction on fiction and tone when needs be. I think everyone who put their hands to MP, internal and external, have done excellent work on a very hard creative problem."
Rather simple answer, really. They got somebody else to do it, so that they could focus on the single player mode. Still, we had yet more questions about the game's multiplayer, and you can view that discussion after the jump. Go ahead and do it!
We know how the multiplayer got into BioShock 2, but we're still a little stumped on the why? Why did 2K feel it was necessary to bolster such a story-driven game with a multiplayer mode? Naturally, we put that question to Jordan Thomas as well.
"Well, 2K sought the opinions of players from all walks of life, who game for different reasons. And we found that a lot of people craved an extension of the experience, that to them, multiplayer was a way to keep their favorite games alive," he answers. "And since we knew we’d be focusing on the game’s single player legacy internally, the choice to partner up naturally followed.
"I wouldn’t call the decision easy, in the sense that (just like playing a Big Daddy, say) we knew that it’d be turned into a sound bite initially, and critiqued at about that level of surface engagement, with no explanation forthcoming for a while. But we felt that if, again, we took the question seriously -- “what does BioShock mean to people, and how could some of that set of sensations be expanded to involve others?” --then we could win some people over, and make others who were crying out for it very happy."
BioShock 2's multiplayer is a prequel, set before the fall of Rapture. This is quite an interesting idea and, again, we wanted to know how it was concocted. Exactly why did 2K Marin decide that the multiplayer would be tied to the story?
"It wouldn’t be BioShock without narrative integration, none of us would be comfortable with that. The civil war of Rapture was the event where Utopia’s symptoms went terminal, and Dystopia sprung up in her guts like cancer.
"A lot of people are curious about that period of time -- while a single player prequel set in Rapture would be a major, major departure from the interactive feel of the original (if it was at all honest about simulating a city), multiplayer mechanics actually translate the skirmishing that tore Ryan’s paradise apart quite beautifully.
"We felt that it was an opportunity to explore the Fall through the eyes of average citizens caught up in the conflict -- so you get this FDR style live broadcast from a hale and hearty Andrew Ryan to kick it off. And then as you rank up, fictionally you’re moving through time between 1959 and 1960, unlocking audio diaries from the playable characters, describing each of their plunges into madness."
That actually sounds rather tasty. I like the idea of a multiplayer game that fleshes out the overall story in that way. Progressing through matches in order to get new audio diaries and add more to Rapture's narrative could be pretty cool indeed. Anyway, keep checking out Destructoid over the next few days for more BioShock 2 interview stories, leading up to our review!
Contest:
11:00 AM on 02.06.2010
| 
The fact that a different developer worked on the multiplayer component just strikes me with so many awful memories of past experiences with other games who did the same thing. The one that most comes to mind is The Darkness, which had an excellent single-player narrative but a God-awful multiplayer experience, which felt like a total afterthought that was just tacked-on so players like me would say; 'Well shit, its got a good story AND multiplayer?! SOLD!'
Then there was the Wolfenstein debacle. Oh Wolfenstein. The best experience I have ever had on XBox1's Live was with RTCW multiplayer. SO much so, that I blindly bought the latest Wolfenstein remake, fully expecting it to be on-par with that of the original. Boy was I wrong, and I was out $60. This is why I am cautious when different developers work on multiplayer.
That said, BioShock2's multiplayer sounds like it will be interesting. For some reason, I picture the announcer from TF2 and some kind of progression of Rapture from Utopia to Ruin as told by the narrative which is the Map Cycle itself.
TL;DR: I am excite.
Cite sources, plz.
I just hope the single player wasn't sacrificed for this, like Da Shiz hinted at: otherwise I'll just stick to Bioshock 1.
If you read the reviews they mostly say things like "the single player is not as good as the first game: not nearly as memorable or forgettable, etc".
You can't really attribute that to just one thing. Honestly, the lack of Ken Levine partially did it; the fact that it's just damn hard to live up to Bioshock is another reason; and possibly because of the MP development. The universal theme seems to be "improved combat/worse story", but I think we all expected that.
Make Bioshock 2's MP full of puppies and rainbows for all I care. I doubt I'll ever play it.
I'm just saying I'd like to know who's saying the story has dramatically suffered because of the multiplayer like DaShiz is referencing.
Keeping in mind that even the first Bioshock had its own story problems, so I'm just curious how it stacks up objectively, and not from the viewpoint of someone who thinks "OMG mp dis game is gunna sux!!11!"
Sadly, though, I can see the predictions coming true and the multiplayer fizzling out because people didn't give a chance. It's reasons like that I wish that more modern shooters would incorporate split-screen into their games. At least if the online MP dies out, I've still got my friends. I could really see us enjoying this game together in split-screen...
An awesome game gets multiplayer, it's fine by me, it'll probably give the game more replay value.
"Similar and slightly improved mechanics make this a worthy sequel, despite a sadly less-memorable story."
They still gave it a very nice score if this means anything and so did all of the other reviews. I didn't mean to imply the story sucked its just when I think of Bioshock and System Shock I automatically think "Amazing story" not MP. Which is why I think I will be dissapointed with this game. It feels cheapened to me.
I agree with Rammstein on the subject with Wolfenstein and I fear this will have the same fate.
I can see what you mean, I just think that a slightly less-memorable story than one of the most well-written games of all time (though not without its faults) will still be a worthy investment in my opinion.
As for multiplayer cheapening the overall experience, I can't really comment until I play it. I do commend their efforts for injecting a coherent narrative into it though, and not just "tacking it on" like some have accused them of doing. Failure or not, they at least tried something that appeases the story-driven players (myself included). I think it can either be brilliant or a train wreck, but at least they are trying something new.
Halo is the only series to focus on both and succeed, and even then only the first game really.
I honestly don;t expect a whole lot more though from what I've already seen. The smack talk that the characters deliver during the MP seems weak and extremely hackney, as though they are designed to scream out "Raspberries" like a 1930's grifter who has been caught by the police just because it's that era.
I think if I was in an underwater battle for survival against robots and mutants, I'd have a little less dialogue and more screaming. If I did speak, I think I'd have more of a horrified tone in my voice as well.
The fact of the matter is that I'm excited for this game, but not so much for the MP. Hopefully I'm wrong, but it's shaping up to be one of those things that just got added in order to be one of the cool kids amongst developers.
But, they seem to actually have put thought into it to make it more than just work. Me like.
As for the Single Player campaign, I just read the IGN review, and they are full of priase for it. The main difference with Bioshock seems to be the newness of Rapture, asking questions of what is a splicer, etc. are not there.
Bioshock 1 relied on a kind of Shock and Awe when it came to rapture. Shock at the insanity, chaos, and degredation of the city as a place. Shock at the moral slide that led them there. Awe at the surroundings of Rapture. The breathtaking visuals, the largness of the storyline, etc. A sequel, because I can not reacpture these things at 100% will be hard pressed to have the same feel.
Please note the sarcasm, and I have a tingly feeling in my pants for this.
I didn't have high hopes for Uncharted 2's MP, but I don't think Bioshock will get the same pass. The shooting mechanics of the first were downright embarassing. Silent Hill 2 had a more intuitive control scheme.
And not for nothing, but Bioshock 2's MP looks like absolute garbage. Bioshock is honestly the most overrated game this side of GTA IV. Oh well.
And Bioshock is certainly not a critique. If it was, it'd have had a parodying five hour speech about moral crisis in the middle of it. Stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.
O and nice avatar, fanboy. :P
But when you are obviously ignorant (i.e. not knowing you can have a critique without parody, or a realizing the difference between a rip off and a critique), it is probably best for you to stick to the shallow end of the gaming pool.
In short take your own advice:
"Stop pretending that you know what you're talking about."
If you do not think Bioshock was offering a critique (a critical opinion) of Rand's thought you either have not read Atlas Shrugged or did not pay attention to Bioshock.
Best regards, Anna, CEO of iscsi for linux and itunes download
The Krup Law Group
Outdoor Patio Sets