Being bad at it has nothing to do with it. It's worthless and games don't need it out of the few that are so massively successful that nothing else lasts more than a few months. I was never able to figure out why some people need to play deathmatch in every single game when it's exactly the same.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BioShock Infinite does not have multiplayer of any kind
- Thread starter pargonta
- Start date
Being bad at it has nothing to do with it. It's worthless and games don't need it out of the few that are so massively successful that nothing else lasts more than a few months. I was never able to figure out why some people need to play deathmatch in every single game when it's exactly the same.
grimshawish
Banned
Well there was no point in it having it.
These days if you don't do Multi better than most you just won't stand out.
Hopefully they have a single player though
Exactly! At the start of this gen before AAA was the only way to go; there was so much bullshit multi in games.
If your game can't add or do anything new/interesting in multiplayer - don't bother.
Games are increasingly either single player or multiplayer experiences with a handful who can do both really well.
These days if you don't do Multi better than most you just won't stand out.
Hopefully they have a single player though
Exactly! At the start of this gen before AAA was the only way to go; there was so much bullshit multi in games.
If your game can't add or do anything new/interesting in multiplayer - don't bother.
Games are increasingly either single player or multiplayer experiences with a handful who can do both really well.
Who said "never"? Maybe that does happen, but in the day of used game sales and DLC it's not hard to see that publishers are willing to spend a little extra on top of what they already would to reuse assets from that campaign and build some net code, just in the hopes of keeping players around.
People's knee-jerk against multiplayer is even more bizarre (and hilarious) because they've been absolutely DEAD wrong three major times now; Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and, appropriately, Bioshock 2.
You know, I'm not really sure if Bioshock Infinite having no multiplayer is a sign of "victory" in any way. What sort of victory would it be?
It certainly isn't a victory for game design celebrating the single player experience and focusing all resources on the campaign, because we know that they have been developing various multiplayer modes which simply haven't been working out.
The only thing this says to me is that the development has been such a clusterfuck that they couldn't salvage any worthwhile multiplayer at all from the pro-longed development process. If they could have, they definitely would have.
It certainly isn't a victory for game design celebrating the single player experience and focusing all resources on the campaign, because we know that they have been developing various multiplayer modes which simply haven't been working out.
The only thing this says to me is that the development has been such a clusterfuck that they couldn't salvage any worthwhile multiplayer at all from the pro-longed development process. If they could have, they definitely would have.
Haunted
Member
Generally, a game with troubled development history is well served by having a tight focus on its core features. Nothing good can come from spreading out resources and lengthening the development process further to try and make an MP mode work [especially since no one is going to play it two months after launch anyway, don't kid yourself].
Personally, I don't much care for MP games and I like Levine and Irrational for the SP experiences they've created, so that's what I want out of them.
So... you never even try multiplayer, or what? Look at the three games I just listed shortly after you posted: Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock. All of them do things different than just point-and-shoot deathmatch. And the best multiplayer game in a decade, Red Faction Guerrilla, certainly isn't that because of simple deathmatch.
If Infinite's team couldn't come up with anything good or interesting and decided to nix the project, good for them, I guess. I just wish they wouldn't have spent all that time and money on it in the first place.
However, I find it hard to believe that a fun multiplayer mode would be that hard to come up with for this game. I just think of two teams on opposing sky landmasses, trying to jump and zip and sneak across to capture the other territory, or a king of the hill type mode where the only way to truly lose is to fall off the stage. It'd be like some first-person Smash with goofy Bioshock powers. That sounds like fun to me.
None of the ones you listed are anything special or worth breaking from the typical popular shooters. Uncharted and Bioshock 2 in particular are standard multiplayer, except with uncharted you get to keep the extremely bad shooting mechanics from the single player. How fun!
thomasmahler
Member
Hard enough making a great single player game. Glad these guys don't have to invest their time and money into a multiplayer mode that people wouldn't end up playing anyway.
But they already did apparently. Twice. Or more. It just all sucked shit.
Instead of us just going back and forth with "none of those are special," "yes they are," "no they're not," "yes they are," how about you list for me some multiplayer you actually like.
The occasional rounds of battlefield and COD (though I haven't played any COD online in a few years now) with friends. Any other MP is a waste of my time and I don't bother playing much of it at all. I'd rather play unique SP games than MP modes that I could just be playing in more fun games like BF.
grimshawish
Banned
None of these games multiplayers are relevant.
I see the reason for COD having SP/MP; its good at both.
Battlefield I think should drop its single player entirely. Its a multiplayer game; I'd prefer if they just went fucking crazy and developed a AAA multiplayer only game.
The games you listed are just of no consequence or importance. They off no unique experience or level of persistence that will keep me coming back.
I don't see why its a difficult concept for some that some games are single player, some are multiplayer and some like COD/Mario Kart etc. are both because the experiences on both are the same.
Bioshock is a single player game. Nothing about its mechanics really lend itself to a deep multiplayer experience.
Honestly the 'it must have multiplayer' is from the start of the gen as console games were lacking the same multiplayer experiences the PC offered. This has changed, PC is still far ahead, but thats because of Multiplayer ONLY experiences.
It is another worrying sign of the dreadful management of this game. How such a big AAA game can be so poorly managed is quite shocking.
A lot of money is riding on stuff like this.
Before they went to the skies they really should have tested how well it worked. (honestly it shouldn't be dreadfully difficult to make work; they just seem to have messed up every stage of development to the degree that their always working from scratch).
Yes, but I'm bad at competitive shooters, and now I won't have to play it to get 100% of the achievements! I win!
thomasmahler
Member
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but how is the result of all that not a victory? Of course they try out multiplayer to see if it's a fit - if you find a way that fits the game and is tons of fun to play, great, put it in. If you try it and it just doesn't really work, it's better to just leave it out and focus on what's really important rather than trying over and over again to improve upon something that just doesn't fit the game you're making.
A ton of times developers are forced to put in some multiplayer mode even if the game itself isn't really suited for it - what you end up with is millions spend on a mode that the first week after release a few thousand people try and within 2 weeks the mode ends up not being played at all. So it's just a huge waste of resources.
This isn't a new issue though - Hollywood has been forcing writers and directors to add 'love interests' to pretty much everything out there, even if the story at hand didn't really support it, thinking that more people will end up watching a film if it has a hot lady in it. Actually... I'm guilty of that
thomasmahler
Member
That might very well be - They tried to do multiplayer in Portal 1, but the stuff they came up with back then didn't work out. So in the end, what would you prefer? Portal 1, the way it was, or Portal 1 with a tacked on Multiplayer that is no fun?
That's just the reality of game development. Sometimes things don't work out. The right thing to do is to cut your losses and move on, try to make the best out of the thing you lost rather than still putting it in just to make the publisher happy. I for one am glad they weren't forced to bring in a multiplayer that sucks balls - Like Bioshock 2s multiplayer. How many people ended up playing Bioshock 2s multiplayer over its lifetime? 4?
That's why I'm not exactly jumping over the moon with this news; the fact that they killed the mulitplayer rather than it have drain more resources is good news, but without knowing when they decided to do that, it's hard to know just what the net gain will end up being. Maybe they killed the idea after the E3 demo, and maybe they killed it after this year's E3, if not a little bit later than that (given the Kotaku article's publishing date). The former scenario would be the most ideal one, while the latter one would probably not make much of a difference.
Haunted
Member
"Not relevant" to who? To what? What does that mean?
And if you don't want to see the unique experience offered by Uncharted or Bioshock 2, fine, I won't bother. But how on Earth can you say that about Red Faction and Assassin's Creed? You don't see anything different in the "cause the most destruction to these buildings," or "blend in with AI and try to assassinate other players in the most stealthy way possible" models? These aren't unique experiences?
It seems like all people are doing is looking at games where the multiplayer activity is high, and saying those are the only ones worth continuing to make. It's disturbing, really, as this is the same approach lots of publishers take in making any game -- "why take a chance on something when we can just make a CoD game?"
Yes, more games should follow the example of "waste time and money trying to make a mode and then have nothing to show for it."
If all you can list is CoD and BF, then I think you've shown that you don't have an open mind on the subject.
There's nothing much to be open about. Those are the best at the traditional MP right now and everything else just tries to copy it. Badly too.
AranhaHunter
Banned
Bioshock's 2 multiplayer showed that there was potential in a Bioshock multiplayer world.
I enjoyed what I played of Bioshock 2 multiplayer, it had a fun little story setup and the levels where allot of fun to run around, plus using your own plasmid and tonic setups.
But I do remember the MP was crippled by awful lag.
There was a really shitty freezing bug on the 360. Loved the apartment setup and all.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Since they already spent a large amount of time on the multiplayer...years most likely, aren't we just getting a weaker product? Regardless of your feelings about multiplayer in a game like this, they already spent the time and money. I don't know. If the single player isn't up to snuff, even a shitty tacked on multiplayer adds a little value to the package.
I'm excited for Infinite too, but a troubled development isn't something to be celebrated. Assassin's Creed 3 was announced in what, March? And came out in October. I saw 10x as much about that game in the first months it was announced than the years we've known about Infinite. I feel like all we keep getting are similar looking trailers that show cinematic action
I'm excited for Infinite too, but a troubled development isn't something to be celebrated. Assassin's Creed 3 was announced in what, March? And came out in October. I saw 10x as much about that game in the first months it was announced than the years we've known about Infinite. I feel like all we keep getting are similar looking trailers that show cinematic action
Where are these hordes of CoD-alikes? That seems like the Red Scare for social defectives circa 2008. Almost all of the recent, critically acclaimed first-person games from the last two years have been focused on single-player (or co-op): Deus Ex: HR, Bulletstorm, Dishonored, Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2. Who is doing competitive multiplayer well? CoD, Halo and Battlefield. Team Fortress 2 is still plugging along.
This is not to say BioShock Infinite needed a multiplayer mode (it obviously didn't), but some of these statements are laughably ignorant. We need more progressive multiplayer experiences.
This is not to say BioShock Infinite needed a multiplayer mode (it obviously didn't), but some of these statements are laughably ignorant. We need more progressive multiplayer experiences.
Vinterbird
Member
Irrational won't be making the Vita game (if it will ever happpen). I believe they said it will be outsourced with them just having some input on it.
... Except those of us who like MP, and wish that, if Irrational at one time thought there was a fun multiplayer to be had in this setting, they could deliver it to us.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Yeah, I think a lot of people have begun blaming multiplayer for the downfall of some franchises. But honestly, it has added value to some games without taking much away. Uncharted 2, anybody? Fun multiplayer, still a great single player. The only time I've ever really thought the addition of a multiplayer mode was questionable would be Dead Space 2. It just didn't make sense to me. But I think the changed direction that franchise had taken would have happen regardless, as evidence by what we've seen of Dead Space 3 and the marketing campaign of DS2.
Glass Rebel
Member
MP in Bioshock Infinite could have been interesting using those skyways or whatever they're called to make something Tribes-like.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Dammit GAF, I read Bioshock Infinite and almost had a heart attack thinking it was cancelled.
Crisis adverted (with no MP and not being cancelled and all). Phew.
Crisis adverted (with no MP and not being cancelled and all). Phew.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
System Shock 2 usually falls in the 6-10 hour gameplay range unless you go at a sloth's pace. It's one of the best FPS ever. The original System Shock had a freaking time limit and it's one of the best FPS ever. We don't know what Infinite's replayability will be. Linear story-driven shooter status doesn't tell us. It's how you can build your chaacter gameplay-wise that will encourage multiple playthroughs.
This news is good because what we will get will at least likely be very polished graphically and balanced well.
Assassin's Creed multiplayer is. It's nothing like any of the shooters.
Or just outsource it to Nihilistic Software and call it a day
(or 5 months)
Anyway, I can't wait for Infinite. The original Bioshock was so good, and I hope Move controls will be awesome.
Net_Wrecker
Member
As amusing as Red Faction Guerrilla's multiplayer mode was, it turned out to be a failed venture. Within 6-8 months, it was a ghost town. The draw for that game was, and still is, the large scale destruction and crazy engine tech in the singleplayer campaign. They didn't even bother with it for the sequel. On the other hand, Assassin's Creed multiplayer happened in the 3RD major game in a hugely popular franchise from a developer well known to have a ridiculous number of people working on the games. Completely different situation.
The thing about multiplayer is that if you're doing it, you should really be going ALL IN and making it a huge part of the game design and marketing plan. Sure you can get lucky with a Gears of War or, to a lesser extent, Uncharted 2, but that doesn't happen often. IP's, especially new ones, need identities. If your pitch, your trailers, and your previews all focus on the singleplayer experience, so should the development team, especially ones that can't afford to hire or split off people to make a completely separate mode. NO ONE is buying Bioshock Infinite for its multiplayer. They can either come to terms with that and make a singleplayer experience with enough content and replay value to satisfy, or make a strong push for multiplayer and make it just as important as the campaign. The middle ground of "Oh, we're also doing this thing" helps nobody.
And it may seem like people are happy to "concede" PvP multiplayer on consoles to CoD, Halo, and BF, but it's for good reason. Those fan bases haven't shown a want, or willingness, to move from the experience they get yearly and biyearly from those specific franchises. Trying to attract them in any way is usually a giant waste of money.
Are you actually suggesting that a multiplayer game must last longer than this for it to be considered a success? That seems pretty crazy.
Irrational canceling multiplayer is a sign of quality control. That's why I'm happy about the decision.
Net_Wrecker
Member
It was a ghost town down from relatively small numbers in the first place. And yeah, if a good chunk of the community doesn't stick around for one reason or another for at least 6-8 months after launch, I wouldn't consider it a success, especially on a non-yearly title. RFG multi was fun, but it wouldn't shock me if Volition would've rather worked more on singleplayer than splinter off a portion of the team to make PvP.
Roland Deschain
Member
Well, the game's supposed to be in stores in three months so if it doesn't work now, it's just not going to work. They already wasted whatever a working mp suite would have cost but now they've got nothing to show for it.
