Bioshock: Infinite Multiplayer Modes Supposedly Axed

Status
Not open for further replies.

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
a gears of war person going to help infinite... i dont like that, not one bit...

that said, multiplayer being axed isnt bad, considering bioshock didn't lend itself well to that.
 

sp0nger

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2008
188
0
18,690
1
Bioshock 1 was amazing for its single player, if bioshock infinite holds up to that as it appears it will the single player is all i need!

still saddens me tho that there having problems!
 
G

Guest

Guest
im with alidan, GOW developer will ruin bioshock, gears of war is boring action, while bioshock has an interesting story to it, and that is essential to the success of the game.

that being said the multiplayer was never a big part of bioshock, its like multiplayer for god of war... just useless and loosing the point to the game.
 
I could see coop being a fun option, but bioshock is about single player. I happened to enjoy bioshock 2 as well.

What's with the last paragraph though? "A slew of bad news"? where? The only bad news I saw was the bit about a gears off war developer joining up...
 

billcat479

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2006
74
0
18,630
0
I agree with some that keeping their eye on a good single player game is a better choice. That first game had such a neat setting and game play and story made it a total immmersion experience.
If they get into trying to make it good for one player and multi player some times the game gets lost trying to get them both to work well.
I have never been a real fan for mult-player games unless they were designed that way from the start. It's kind of why Unreal tourn. was such a great on line game because that was what they worked towards and so made it well.
I loved the first bio-shock for it's uniqueness.
There were no games that had such a new and weird setting and game play I almost felt I was part of the game and it always made me feel like I was in the Overlook Hotel from the Shining when I was in that game. What a feeling and what a game that was.
They just couldn't get back into it with the second one and I hate it, well, disliked it more accurate. It had it's moments but it lost the immersion factor that the first one did and it was not easy to play. Could never seem to get the right control setup on the game. It was too bad.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I liked Bioshock 2 better. Guns and player hand models were so badly drawn and animated in the first one... Enemy models also were all the same, stuttering, out of synch with the whole world rendering frequency and with terrible terrible animations as well, 10 years old quake 2 did better job, but i guess that was the unreal engine 2.5 problems...
 

leakingpaint

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2007
141
0
18,680
0
Bioshock 2 was a great game - not as good as the first but then I can't really say many games were better than the original Bioshock.

Multiplayer should be axed if it's interfering with the single player development. Same with Dead Space, not all games need online, some games were brilliant because devs put all their focus on only the main aspects - good gameplay and great story.

How long did diablo 3 take? and yet is it an equal to the original series? Irrational is a good company and I can't wait to see what the original devs of bioshock 1 have started to fix and perfect.
 

leongrado

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2010
142
0
18,690
1
Tower defense/ horde mode doesn't seem like a terrible idea but yeah, I can see why developers want their games to have multiplayer. Unless they're an open world game with a hundred hours of content like Skyrim, they're going to get traded in.
 

arcu86

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2011
8
0
18,510
0
Okay so 2-3 years of development for selling a game at $60 a pop. Some people only buy multiplayers games... Rather then adding on a 5-6 months finish grinding out the multiplayer content to sell more copies of their game, they scrap it. So they can move on to a new game. I just don't think this is a wise decision. Sounds like they are pushing the budge so close they can't afford to keep going with it, but at the same time losing money for scraping extra features. Perhaps scrapping was a smart move but I would have to firmly disagree.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]superkfa[/nom]im with alidan, GOW developer will ruin bioshock, gears of war is boring action, while bioshock has an interesting story to it, and that is essential to the success of the game.that being said the multiplayer was never a big part of bioshock, its like multiplayer for god of war... just useless and loosing the point to the game.[/citation]

as long as the gears of war guy isn't involved in story, and is only there to make the action feel better, work better, i do believe that's the only way that could be beneficial, granted i saw nothing wrong with bioshock 1 in that regard, i never played 2 and it wasn't made by them so lets not bring that game up.

[citation][nom]arcu86[/nom]Okay so 2-3 years of development for selling a game at $60 a pop. Some people only buy multiplayers games... Rather then adding on a 5-6 months finish grinding out the multiplayer content to sell more copies of their game, they scrap it. So they can move on to a new game. I just don't think this is a wise decision. Sounds like they are pushing the budge so close they can't afford to keep going with it, but at the same time losing money for scraping extra features. Perhaps scrapping was a smart move but I would have to firmly disagree.[/citation]

bioshock 2, did anyone here play that more than just as a "i wonder what we have here" kind of deal? and has anyone played it recently? from what i read after 2 months online was absolutely dead.

unless you want to go full military shooter and lock away almost everything by rank or some crap, you dont play a fps for more than a few weeks. only a few that dont have unlocks survive longer than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY