All the way back when the original BioShock was selling at retail, the murmurs of the lack of co-op were already surfacing. Not a surprise, considering the current trend to pack co-op play into absolutely everything. I'm not personally against co-op, but as some of you may recollect, I have some pretty distinct feelings about the value of single player games -- and why sometimes games are a great deal better with no co-op option anywhere in sight.
With the announcement this morning that BioShock 2 would feature co-op gameplay, I realized one of my worst fears about this sequel would come true -- that it would in fact move away from the core concept that made the first game the immersive and powerful experience that it was and more towards what the general cry of the public seems to want. In other words, it's walking away from what made it unique, and I'm vastly disappointed knowing that.
Of course, finding out that the word of co-op
was in fact not true was nowhere near as relieving as it should have been -- I'm not convinced it won't still show up in the final game. Hit the jump to come back to the world of Rapture with me for a few brief moments and understand why co-op would be horribly wrong there.
Our own Jim Sterling has already spoken about his concerns over the sequel to BioShock in general, so if you're interested in a more general overview of why the game should not be made as a whole, don't miss his original article on the topic. If the specific addition of co-op is what sends you into a huff, well, you're in the right place. There are plenty of reasons why BioShock makes a much better standalone title than it likely will as a franchise, but the concept of the addition of co-op is not only awful, but completely goes against what BioShock was originally intended as.
Reach back in your memory, if you will, and revisit your first descent into Rapture with me. From the first few moments in which your plane crashes and you find yourself in the ocean surrounded by rapidly sinking wreckage to the looming statue of Andrew Ryan waiting for you just beyond Rapture's doors, one of the game's key themes is already being established: isolation. You discover Rapture while trapped in one of the most alienating predicaments possible, and even once you do come across other living beings, they are already mad to a point where you cannot communicate with them in a way that would provide any relief from the feelings of being alone.
All the fascination and fear I felt while exploring Rapture was directly influenced by this sense of isolation. There were people here once, but many of them are gone now, and the ones left aren't quite human anymore. The only voices of reason you have are Atlas, a man who you have no right to trust in the first place were it not for the fact that you have no one else to help you, and Andrew Ryan, who from the very beginning comes across as a man to cower in fear of. Even so, you don't have any physical proof of these men for the majority of the game, and their disembodied voices only served to make me feel more like I was trapped in an oubliette while both of them observed me coldly from outside.
Now that you've come back with me to that point and considered how this sense of alienation played into your first experience with Rapture, take a moment to imagine having the same experience with another person sitting beside you. It can be pleasant, even joyful, to share a game with a friend, and I'd daresay it could even better the experience for certain games. However, to descend into Rapture with another, to be able to feel less alone and more like you have a hand to hold as you experience its darkness and mystery -- it would actually have pulled me out of the immersion, made me realize that I was merely playing a game rather than losing myself to the experience. This is why I stand firmly by the idea that adding a co-op option would have severely blunted the efffectiveness of BioShock.
Of course, BioShock 2 is not BioShock. I fully acknowledge that this "prequel/sequel" could choose to move in a completely different direction, and that it could aim to accomodate a different sort of atmosphere in Rapture (one, perhaps, where the city had already been explored by people and was in an even worse shambles than it was in the first game). This may not be a bad game. In fact, it could be a very good game. However, it won't be the Rapture that sucked me in so effectively that it etched a permanent place is my gaming history in mere moments, and for that reason alone I know this sequel will be a different beast than its predecessor.
Will adding in co-op, should that ever happen, help to sell copies of BioShock 2? Sure, it absolutely will. There are many gamers who will only buy games if they offer the option. It's catering to the general public, and what the people want, the people get, because that's how money is made. Will the addition of said co-op rape the game of one of the key elements that made it as effective as it was? Absolutely. A Rapture devoid of sadness and despair doesn't appeal to me -- it just isn't the same place. It may sound odd to say that I preferred that world's unhappiness, but it was the darkness and isolation that made it so strikingly beautiful ... and sometimes that type of solitary beauty should just be let to be what it is, and nothing more. Take me where you will, but leave Rapture behind, just as we found it, just as we eventually chose to leave it.
Contest:
7:00 PM on 03.13.2009
| 
Oh yeah, a splicer is walking through water, I'm gonna electrocute the water then my partner is going to throw fucking bees at him while I start shooting him with a shotgun.
Because there aren't enough coop games, especially ones with a story mode
Don't like the idea? Play it single player.
Even having somebody in the same room as me could easily spoil this experience, let alone somebody with a control pad in their hands and a medic badge in their pocket.
Co-op just doesn't cut it for some games. Some games I just want to shut my door, close the curtains and get wrapped up in like a good wan... bar of chocolate.
Nice read.
Really?
Also, playing single player would more than likely involve some AI creature staring me in the face like I'm not even there and blocking my way as I try to walk down some stairs.
Nobody cares how many whether someone else is playing the game with his friend. We care about *how the game will be made.* A BioShock specifically made to accommodate co-op would, to summarize, suck.
Whether it's the six-layers-deep critique/rebuttal/reinforcement of Ayn Rand's novel, the survivor horror element, or the sense of loneliness and awe cultivated throughout the game, nothing in BioShock would be improved by adding co-op.
Just look at the f-ing screenshot of the lobby in the post and tell me that would be better with someone making snarky comments.
I think a bigger concern is how Platinum justifies putting co-op, if they do decide to implement it. Assuming there was co-op, the story would need to tie the characters together in a believable way and make it seem reasonable that they would both be in Rapture and working together, in order for co-op to work. If it is a case like Halo 3, where two other Covenant characters were just thrown in, so that you could have a semi-coherent 4 player co-op, then I think it would be distracting and really only serve to undermine what the game would seek to accomplish in terms of the story. This isn’t the sort of game you want to shovel in gameplay features just for the sake of doing so, but I think Platinum knows that.
On one side, I think it's great for sequels to fully differentiate themselves by adding game-changing features like this. If you want the isolation and atmosphere of the original Bioshock, then play the original Bioshock. If I'm going to buy a new game, I want it to be a new game, not just more of a game I already have.
On the other end, why call it Bioshock 2 if it divorces itself completely from what Bioshock was about?
"Working co-op into the story" would result in something completely unacceptable (an idiot AI partner) or at best a redundant character. It would also result in the game world (the levels, the writing, the art, everything) being made with the intent that they be seen with a friend; quite a different experience than BioShock. Even if you didn't feel alone because of the radio, you can't deny that almost every room had some experience - radio messages, blood splatters, blood *art*, disturbing sculptures - that was intended to be experienced by the player alone.
And even the most casual player had to pick up on the intentional way the three other completely sane characters remained tantalizingly out of reach for the entire game.
Playing it in co-op mode is definitely going to lose you some immersion. But it's smart to include it for those that are not like us, who appreciate a great immersive story like a fine wine.
Those crazies that want co-op can get it too and everyone wins. It's like 'do you want ot watch City of Angels or Face-Off?" Both have Nic Cage but they're very different movies. I like both movies, but I can't just put them in whenever and watch them, I gotta be in the mood.
I think I'd like to beat it through on single-player and then go through with a friend and tear shit up. It'd be like putting Castor Troy in City of Angels :P
I always thought that's what bioshock was about when it first came out (I only ever looked at the cover). I was really disappointed when you couldn't play as big daddy.
Okay, so that's pretty ridiculous, but you never know. And face it, you're going to buy Bioshock 2 regardless of whether it has co-op.
Fair points. However as you said, "it would also result in the game world (the levels, the writing, the art, everything) being made with the intent that they be seen with a friend; quite a different experience than BioShock. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I think a common concern about the sequel is what it will be too similar to the first and it won't differentiate itself (other than the story). I think it would be interesting if Platinum could make a game that believably works a partner into the game.
You said the character would be redundant, but that doesn't mean it has to be. Each character may have skills that they each need to utilize for example. Again, this has to be balanced in such a way that the game works properly as a single and co-op game. My primary concern is that it will be forced in, without explanation. My secondary concern, which I didn't mention before (but you did bring up) is that the AI issue is tricky, but that goes back to balancing the game. Is it difficult to make competent AI? Yes, but the payoff if it is done right means that Bioshock 2 would have something to significantly differentiate itself from Bioshock. As you said, it would be "quite a different experience than BioShock."
Wait, has Bioshock turned into a Wii game overnight? Didn't think so.
I don't know what you are getting at, negative people. Its up to the minds at 2k to come up with the multiplayer part. You'd be a bit stupid, if you thought it would never happen, in an age where the majority of FPS games have online play.
Why should Bioshock be exempt from this? Because its not set in a futuristic dimension. Gimme a break.
It's true that if it could be executed properly (a dicey proposition), it could be "a good game." However, that is not IMO adequate for a sequel to Bioshock. If you said to me "well it's being made by the same people who made Bioshock; don't you trust them?" I would have to agree, but with the developers being changed and the reported 2K delusions of turning Bioshock a megafranchise, I frankly don't feel the need to give the new developers the benefit of the last title.
Your point about the potential value of adding novelty stands; however, incorporating the cliches of the new generation of games is not the "novelty" most of us have in mind.
@Cowboy: An "FPS"? It does have that control scheme, but it has nothing else in common with games of the genre. You could make a better case for Call of Duty 4 being an RPG.
"Hey, innovate, but don't innovate TOO MUCH."
This is exactly how I feel about this whole debacle.
I would even admit that the execution issue is a very dicey and risky proposition. I can also understand your distrust of 2K, as I do have my doubts as well. I just don't think the idea should be dismissed as inherently bad. There is merely potential for it to work (or it could very well ruin the game), and I can understand if people are apprehensive about it. Also, I do want to clarify that adding clichés (i.e adding co-op just for the sake of having it) is not acceptable in my opinion and it needs to have a rationale purpose for being there. Otherwise, as I said, it will only serve to undermine the game and the story.
sounds like it will be 'teh suck'
no seriously you think people over-rated Bioshock???
how? i only heard of it about a month after its release. I sure it was not on many people's radar too.
but hey, here's a crazy idea. Just don't play co-op until you've experienced it yourself?
and
@hitnrun
Who said coop means single player will have to have an NPC follow you? Or effect the single player. Not all coop games are RE5 in which the vacant player is an NPC. Look at the Halo games, Timesplitters 2 and 3, Doom 3 for xbox, or System Shock 2.....
Tell me, did System Shock 2's coop ruin the single player? Did it have an NPC staring you at the face? Did it even effect the single player? No. And there are plenty of people who will argue that System Shock 2 is better than Bioshock. So why complain about coop? What's the point? You want to play the game by yourself, no one is forcing you to play it with anyone else. And I bet all of you bitching are probably going to end up liking Bioshock 2 anyways. Just quit complaining, wait till the game comes out, and then judge to see if it gets ruined or not. Do you distrust the developers that much? From what I understand, 2k Marin has former employees of 2k Boston, so do you really think they will screw this game up that much, even after they have made Bioshock and System Shock 2?
Don't expect much from it.
Also considering the hardest difficulty was rather moderate (IMO); I cringe at the notion of the developers compensating for the lack of difficulty with a second player by throwing hordes and hordes of crazies at the player and after taking a couple of shots they need to take cover while they wait for the health bar to regenerate. Fuck that.