The hammer came down from Elizabeth Tobey on the official Bioshock community site: No multiplayer for Bioshock. Unfortunately, the message was not a frank "we ran out of money" or "time issues." Instead, the lack of multiplayer was pegged as some artistic crime against gamers. Dance, online marketer, dance!
"BioShock features a compelling storyline that revolves around the experiences of one man as he enters the decaying world of Rapture," reads the explanation. "Having a multiplayer component would have compromised the story we were trying to tell so we made the decision to keep this game as a single player experience."
"Compromised," she says. How compromising is adding a multiplayer secondary mode to the game that has nothing to do with the story mode? This is not revolutionary thinking -- it's common sense and common industry practice. I can name a dozen modern games that do this. Open up some level maps where we shoot at each other and put some servers up. Bioshock has cool guns and great maps, why not? (sigh) We expect this to be a standard feature in our shooters because FPS single player campagins are typically just too short.
If the feature can't be in there; fine, we can deal. Just don't say it like you're doing us a favor. She's just reporting somebody else's bad decision, but can you imagine being married to people that talk like this?
"I'd love to offer captivating marital experiences for you, honey, but performing multiple chores today for the kids have been far too rewarding. Having your penis inside of me tonight as your wife would compromise the mom experience."
No honey, they're not related. Try again.
[Via Shacknews]
Contest:
4:05 PM on 01.22.2007
| 
If the developers envision their game as a terrific single player game let'em make it that way.
Did anyone ask Miyamoto after he made Super Mario Bros., "Hey, how come we don't have 8v8 multiplayer Mario vs. Koopa team deathmatch?"
While I admire the teams decision to at least attempt to maintain some level of artistic merit and storyline awesomeness (assuming it wasn't just a cover-up for more prosaic excuses, i.e. money, time), multiplayer is something gamers expect from FPS. Bioshock will never attain GoldenEye or Halo status, no matter how good the single player, without multiplayer.
Why not indeed?
I want great gamemakers to make great games. I don't have to have some silly 8v8 team deathmatch thrown in just to placate those who can't appreciate a stellar single player experience.
But, at the same time, I can't help but think that multiplayer wouldn't hurt. It certainly may not add to the single player experience, but multiplayer wouldn't detract, either.
Multiplayer in FPS gives life to the game when the story is done. We don't want to play FPS campaigns over and over; they're predictable after the first go-about.
Finding parts to upgrade guns, setting traps with sentrys. Talk about brutal CTF. Oh well, maybe another game will step up. Like many people I have lots of ideas but no skills.
What about a game that isn't predictable after the first go-about? That's what BioShock has claimed to be since day one. What if it truly isn't "monster-closet" enemies, collect-this-power-up-or-weapon-at-this-point, and all that stuff Levine has said?
What about replaying a game at a higher difficulty? I beat God of War on normal in about 6 hours, it took me nearly double that to beat it on God mode...
I don't even remember anyone at any point mentioning multiplayer for this game. Why this is a surprise is beyond me.
The reason it would detract from the multiplayer game is that the team would have to refocus onto another mode entirely, taking away valuable resources that should be focuses on the single player experience.
Again, who cares? This isn't a game that's going to be hurt by lack of multiplayer.
nice...
I want a prenup!
kekeke
And the game will encourage you to play trough it several times using different tactics (if SS2 is anything to go by).
That said, SS2 actually had co-op multiplayer which was kind of fun even though it totally ruined the tension and atmosphere.
1. HL2 shipped without multiplayer for the same reason as Bioshock. Valve released HL2DM afterwards of course, but I have a feeling that was only because one of their guys had made it in his spare time anyway.
2. Bioshock had multiplayer a few years ago (I'm reliably informed). It was a very different game back then, but it did have it.
I'm 100% happy with this decision BTW. If the game isn't as powerful as Irrational think it is, then yeah, it will have been an opportunity wasted, but I'm confident that won't be the case.
I don't care if the multiplayer mode is "tacked on", I don't care how polished it is or how nonsensical does the storyline become in coop. If it'd be there, I'd be happy.
Also from the same Q&A:
"Many development teams have learned important lessons from previous attempts to bring PC games to the console, though Deus Ex 2 is an infamous example. One of the main things we are doing differently is that we are leading our development efforts with the 360. Therefore all decisions on HUD and gameplay situations are made on the 360 and brought over to the PC to avoid the situations you are thinking about."
I don't see how can a sane person say anything like this.
Deus Ex 2 suffered *because* it got made for the consoles in the first place and dumbed down with the removal of many gameplay mechanics because they were simply considered too complex and unnecessary for a console game. The PS2 port of the original Deus Ex however, remained a brilliant game simply because they adapted the PC version to console controls and not vice versa, avoiding any "dumbing down" in terms of gameplay mechanics.
And, as a PC gamer, I feel insulted by the ex-PC developer's console-centricity too. :(
That FAQ entry is not accurate. According to Ken Levine, it was written by our new community development liaison who is coming to Boston this week to get fully briefed on our development process.
- Chris Kline, Lead Programmer
And I see now that the FAQ entry has been updated. It now reads "Therefore all decisions on HUD and gameplay situations that are made on the 360 will be re-thought and optimized when brought over onto the PC." instead.
That's good news actually.
*sets personal hype-o-meter back to high* :D
These are the people who want their cyber-cake and want to eat it too.
For example....Crackdown is a multiplayer game that i'm excited to play. Recently a demo was supposed to be released on Marketplace, but when the game wasn't ready on time MANY people bitched about how MS and the devs needed to get their shit together. If the demo had been released unfinished these same people would have crucified everyone involved for releasing a crappy product and telling everyone around how this game sucks.
Moral of the story? Some folks are going to bitch no matter what.
Did I hear someone say "virtual console Wi-Fi patch"?
Some of us out there still prefer single player to multiplayer. Multiplayer people seem to be catered to more than enough in the FPS arena.
I think it would be hard to balance multiplayer with the plasmids.I mean come on lighting people on fire with 1 button or turning them into ice it would be chaos and if they took out the plasmids then it would loose its touch. I would say keep telekineses and speed boost and make multiplayer!
Bah If the game takes me more then 8 hours to complete I will be satisfied without multiplayer.
for 5 minutes mwahahha