Pheonix_Assassin Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 http://media.1up.com/media?id=3715659&type=lg 2K knew that they could handle Bioshock 2's single-player, but the new multiplayer? They decided it was best to hand that aspect over to the experts. "You have to play to your strengths," 2K Australia senior designer Dean Tate told Gamespot. "Digital Extremes has a long history in the multiplayer gaming arena, they're proven experts in the field." Digital Extremes' resume includes Unreal, Unreal Tournament and Dark Sector. In the meantime, work continues on the single-player, which 2K calls "their strength." Look for Bioshock 2 on November 3. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmotoole2 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 well, I would rather them go with experts then to try and completely fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheonix_Assassin Posted May 29, 2009 Author Share Posted May 29, 2009 Im thinking that this Multiplayer addition to the Bioshock series will either be a Complete Success or a EPIC FAIL! Personally i would prefer it to be a Success as this way we can all enjoy the Multiplayer =] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathblow23 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 (edited) I don't know how others feel but this is simply the latest in a ridiculous trend of outstanding single player games that are tacking on multiplayer. For some unknown reason...Microsoft thinks that every single game that comes out now has to have some form of multiplayer. This couldn't be further from the truth. Now if this is simply a campaign co-op...then I can live with it,...but when I hear the word multiplayer...I'm thinking competitive. Now,...as for Digitial Extremes...did any of you actually play Dark Sector? the single player campaign was severely underappreciated...but the multiplayer...again...should have been wiped across someone's ass and flushed. It was simply a case of money that they spent to develop...that should have been re-allocated to the single player development. This announcement regarding Bioshock 2 is not a good one. The best announcement they could possibly make is that they are scrapping it all together. (this marks the end of my uber-truthful speech...) Edited May 29, 2009 by Deathblow23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatanko Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 The way I see it, this game needs no multiplayer. The original didn't have one and I didn't feel it needed one, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muhnamana Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Personally I'd rather Bioshock 2 not have multiplayer. I just don't under why games have to have multiplayer in then. For pete sake, just make a single player game and be happy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laundryman Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I have a feeling that this just won't work at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTMag06 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I don't know how others feel but this is simply the latest in a ridiculous trend of outstanding single player games that are tacking on multiplayer. For some unknown reason...Microsoft thinks that every single game that comes out now has to have some form of multiplayer. this couldn't be further from the truth. Now if this is simply a campaign co-op...then I can live with it,...but when I hear the word multiplayer...I'm thinking competitive. Now,...as for Digitial Extremes...did any of you actually play Dark Sector? the single player campaign was severely underappreciated...but the multiplayer...again...should have been wiped across someone's ass and flushed. It was simply a case of money that they spent to develop...that should have been re-allocated to the single player development. This announcement regarding Bioshock 2 is not a good one. the best announcement they could possibly make is that they are scrapping it all together. (this marks the end of my uber-truthful speech...) ... I couldn't have said it better myself. Dark Sector's campaign was alot of fun, the multiplayer just made the game unbarable... hopefully this won't be the case for Bioshock 2. I loved the first one, and hopefully I will love the second, but if they destroy Bioshock 2 the same way they did Dark Sector. I will be very upset with 2K if it sucks and they still release the multiplayer aspect, especially if it has achievements. I would prefer, if it is not their strength, they just leave out multiplayer. The first was only single player and there was nothing wrong with that. If it ain't broke, don't break it... or fix it, depending on how you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purge Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 The word fail comes to mind, but we'll see how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galrick Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 The way I see it, this game needs no multiplayer. The original didn't have one and I didn't feel it needed one, either. Indeed and I agree. But it's a tough market out there and while the first BioShock was critically acclaimed and sold rather well, it didn't receive as much credit and visibility as some other games, which were not as good, but had multiplayer. Whether we like it or not, this is the time for online gaming and with the economy being what it is, I can understand if a company wants to add an additional feature to one of its game, in the hope of selling a few more copies. And though Digital Extremes doesn't have the best track record, they do have more experience with multiplayer than 2K. I think its a good idea for 2K to go out and have someone else do the multiplayer while they can fully concentrate on the single player aspect of the game. And lets not forget, BioShock is 2K's baby. They like that IP. I'm sure they'll keep an eye (or two) on what Digital Extremes is doing to their game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mosin360 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 No co-op = no damn given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathblow23 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I think its a good idea for 2K to go out and have someone else do the multiplayer while they can fully concentrate on the single player aspect of the game. You'll change your mind when you see the achievement list and D. Extremes has some God-awful...retarded online multiplayer achievements for you to have to suffer through to max out the game. So many games try to 1-up each other...you had "Seriously"...then the cheevo from the The Club...then the 10K kills in Battlefield:Bad Co....then Seriously 2.0...the 53K+ kills in Dead Rising...then the knock off cheevo from L4D...etc., etc. BioShock 2 will prolly have some of the most terrible multi cheevos ever created... especially with D. Extremes at the helm. If you doubt that...go play Dark Sector online and then get back with me on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheonix_Assassin Posted May 29, 2009 Author Share Posted May 29, 2009 The word fail comes to mind, but we'll see how it goes. Its not a good sign with them already at them hinting its a FAIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysitis Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Aw man, you got my hopes up. I read the topic title and thought you meant they were cancelling the multiplayer. The fact that they're delegating the multiplayer to another company is good news though. This means the single player won't suffer. The only thing we have to worry about now is if they add terrible achievements for the multi. I really hope this is maxable in campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToXiCRalN Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I feel like Bioshock's multiplayer is going to be like Unreal Tournament's multiplayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XLO Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't particularly want this game to have a MP mode, but if it does IT BETTER NOT HAVE MP ACHIEVEMENTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashos Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't particularly want this game to have a MP mode, but if it does IT BETTER NOT HAVE MP ACHIEVEMENTS! I agree. I don't think this game needs multiplayer and if it does and has multiplayer achievements then I will be really mad. Unless it is just co-op achievements, those aren't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waggaz Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 looking forward to it - should be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antnie Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Like pheonix said, I think the multiplayer with either be amazing or just suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XLO Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I agree. I don't think this game needs multiplayer and if it does and has multiplayer achievements then I will be really mad. Unless it is just co-op achievements, those aren't bad. Agreed, if it is Co-op MP achievements that might be cool. But if it is Deathmatch achievements (get 10,000 kills, etc...) then I will be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollyrodger16 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I agree with everyone who's said MPs okay as long as there's no MP achievements. I'm all for it having MP but if they put stupid achievements in it to try and force us to play it, I'll reconsider buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-Forced Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I really don't get why they felt the need to add multiplayer in the first place. I mean online co-op would be a plus but im guessing that they are just going to go the lazy route and add death match, ctf, etc. Here's hoping they just stick to co-op. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronxs Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 The way I see it, this game needs no multiplayer. The original didn't have one and I didn't feel it needed one, either.I totaly agreed whit you. The original game was amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yunder Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I'm holding my breath on this. I so don't want to see this game fail because the first one was soooooo good. Co-op Achievements = WIN Muilti-player Achievements = FAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dz06lt Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 bioshock doesnt need multiplayer so its good they paid someone elese to make it that way the devs wont spend time messing around with shitty mp and just focus on the campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now