|
Member
(11-25-2012, 02:42 AM)
|
BioShock Infinite does not have multiplayer of any kind
#1
![]() ![]() YESSSSSSSSS party time. This fact was rumored but unconfirmed back in August from Kotaku. In this age of endless and sometimes needless multiplayer, this is special. Video Games are not inherently social, they have grown to be an evolving and engaging space for artist-to-audience storytelling. Coming after the shoehorned in modes in the shoehorned in BioShock 2, I feel this is important, and awesome. The sales of Dishonored were good if i recall correctly, and this will sell even more almost assuredly, solidifying a long line of single player only titles selling well. I expect a few lame critics and reviewers to blast the game for not having multiplayer, moreso because of the preceding title including some modes. Some niave reviewers will see this change back as a negative. To do my part in trying to undercut that, please understand dear reviewer, that not every game needs multiplayer. Single Player games are not going anywhere. let no one tell you otherwise. BioShock Infinite launches February 26 |
|
|
|
(11-25-2012, 02:44 AM)
|
#11
Great. Doesn't need it. Good to know that they didn't waste time or resources trying to shoehorn something in.
|
|
Member
(11-25-2012, 02:45 AM)
|
#17
It sounded like their multiplayer plans were too scatterbrained to ever come together in the time span they had, so it's nice to see that they decided to cut their losses rather than embark on a losing proposition. I'm sure that Take Two isn't thrilled with the idea, but Bioshock 2's multiplayer bled off so quickly that I doubt it would have made much of a difference in the long run for this game to have a mode like that.
|
|
demodded, not denutted
(11-25-2012, 02:46 AM)
|
#21
I actually had a fun enough time with Bioshock 2 multiplayer that I got to the level cap before the patch and saw the "ending", but I am definitely glad they are not forcing it into the package. Focus on making the singleplayer great and meaty if that is your intent.
|
|
(11-25-2012, 02:46 AM)
|
#27
Can't wait for the reviews that are going to dock points for no multiplayer. I can already see the GAF threads and they're nasty. |
|
(11-25-2012, 02:49 AM)
|
#30
Good. Leave the multiplayer shooter modes for the CoD/Halo/Battlefield monopoly. It's a waste of time and money for any other dev to try.
|
|
Banned
(11-25-2012, 02:50 AM)
|
#33
They were definitely hiring a bunch of multiplayer developers at one point but since then they've had a lot of problems with the game and that's when it was likely canned. I've heard they're having enough troubles trying to get their vision of the single player to work as it is, let alone whatever multiplayer crap they had planned.
|
|
Member
(11-25-2012, 02:50 AM)
|
#35
Yeah, the Kotaku article from a few months ago mentioned that they dedicated a fairly substantial amount of resources into a multiplayer mode, which was hurting them in the single player portion, as they were already having issues getting the game to match the potential of the E3 demo. I think it's safe to say that they made the right decision, but one can hope it was made sooner rather than later.
|
|
Member
(11-25-2012, 02:51 AM)
|
#36
SP only is great news though. EDIT : Ridley knows. He knows too much. |
|
Member
(11-25-2012, 02:52 AM)
|
#37
damn that sucks, it might have been a fun addition to the game that would provide hours and hours of replayability if they could have designed it well enough.
it's really hard to make good mp, It's probably even harder when you're struggling to make a good single player while going through development hell. |
|
(11-25-2012, 02:54 AM)
|
#40
|
|
Junior Member
(11-25-2012, 02:54 AM)
|
#41
|
|
He's not our sharpest knife. In fact, he's one of our dullest.
(11-25-2012, 02:54 AM)
|
#42
Awesome. Now I can buy it used for a low price within a few months of launch.
;) |
|
Member
(11-25-2012, 02:56 AM)
|
#49
Quote:
|