Bioshock 2 Catch-All

RPS wrote:

I’m told, too, that developers 2K Marin, headed by Jordan Thomas, the brainiac level designer behind the Sander Cohen sequence of Bioshock 1 and the legendary Cradle map in Thief 3, are well aware of how and why the first game failed at times. This doesn’t, of course, guarantee we’re not in for another terrible ending, but to know that this game isn’t being made under an arrogant presumption that the first one was flawless is enough for even its greatest detractors to show some interest in this sequel.

I'm encouraged that they don't see Bioshock as some sort of flawless jewel. I'm hoping that they realize that the game's problems went much deeper than its poor ending.

Mordiceius wrote:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,68...

New pictures.

I'm left unimpressed and uninspired.

Because you didn't like the first Bioshock? In trying to understand the immediate negative feedback, I'm becoming confused by the equal cries of "this looks bad" and "this looks just like the first one." They're separate people making this complaint but enough on both side that I have to wonder if these two camps are speaking about the same smattering of images.

With the exception of the difference of character models for the little sisters, these could be from a lost map of the first game. It does not look all that dissimilar.

Potentially interesting that as a Big Daddy you can adopt little sisters to collect ADAM. Then, if you wish, you can then destroy the little sister.

Oh ho, what's this? Bioshock 2 multiplayer, you say?

Very interesting indeed!

Of the just-released details, two facts stand out as super-fun: 1) we’ll finally get to visit pre-fall Rapture 2) this mode’s being handled by Digital Extremes, co-developer of UT and UT2003/4. Oh, you’re listening now, aren’t you?
And, as previously mentioned, the multiplayer is set before Rapture plunged into decay and anarchy. Well, maybe not before the anarchy, given there’ll be a bunch of plasmid-enhanced crazy men fighting each other. No word on if there will be civilians or any other sort of NPC, or just deathmatch arenas, but it’ll certainly be interesting to see what super-shiny Rapture looked like, given ol’ Andrew Ryan’s boasts about its splendour.

This, from the link, sounds to me like the best way to handle Rapture's descent into chaos to me. While the concept has heft, I just didn't see it working well in a single player mode--several hours of FPS New Years Party attending action? Didn't appeal. But multiplayer is always a single step removed from an actual riot, so this sounds pretty good.

And the multiplayer is being done by Digital Extremes. You may remember them from Dark Sector and Unreal Tournament.

Well that's a great fit if I ever saw one.

*sigh*

The multiplayer actually sounds more interesting than the single player game.

LobsterMobster wrote:

And the multiplayer is being done by Digital Extremes. You may remember them from Dark Sector and Unreal Tournament.

Well that's a great fit if I ever saw one.

*sigh*

Yep, and it will be as popular as Dark Sector's or UT's multiplayer was. I think it's a waste of resources.

nukacola23 wrote:

Yep, and it will be as popular as Dark Sector's or UT's multiplayer was. I think it's a waste of resources.

Does not compute.

Whether UT was popular or not, it's a COMPLETELY different feel from the slower, more methodical approach of Bioshock. Or at least the first, "real" Bioshock.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Whether UT was popular or not, it's a COMPLETELY different feel from the slower, more methodical approach of Bioshock. Or at least the first, "real" Bioshock. :P

So, because they did something that wasn't slow and methodical, they never can? Until we actually see something, I'm just going to take it as a sign that people who understand how to make multiplayer are making the multiplayer.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Whether UT was popular or not, it's a COMPLETELY different feel from the slower, more methodical approach of Bioshock. Or at least the first, "real" Bioshock. :P

Sure, and Dark Sector was a slow and methodical Gears ripoff. Pariah was a slow and methodical Halo ripoff. My point was that UT, a multiplayer shooter, was a hugely successful game. What was your point?

Podunk wrote:
nukacola23 wrote:

Yep, and it will be as popular as Dark Sector's or UT's multiplayer was. I think it's a waste of resources.

Does not compute.

I meant UT on the consoles, or even the latest UT on the PC.

Sorry I was posting in between job calls.

What I mean in general is that I'm not so sure how much return on investment they're going to get with multiplayer.

UT2003 was very successful and a great game at the time, but if the latest UT is any indication it seems that the market has changed. While the latest UT had decent sales over some time and had a slight resurgance a couple months ago, it seems that the online community has dropped off on the PC, and I don't think there ever really was much of an online UT scene on the consoles to begin with. On the PC I don't think I'll be playing Bioshock 2 multiplayer over L4D or TF2.

I don't mean to derail into a discussion of UT, so back to the original topic. I'm sure DE can create some great multiplayer if given the resources and time, but I don't think many people are going to be picking up Bioshock 2 for the multiplayer, and those that do check it out I doubt are going to stick around long enough to create a scene around it.

nukacola23 wrote:

I meant UT on the consoles, or even the latest UT on the PC.

I see. I don't think DE was involved with any of those, so I was confused. I see what you're saying, though.

The only reason to mention UT is to point out that DE has a history of successful collaboration with bigger studios. Their recent games have not been so great, but from what I understand, that is more a problem with the creative leadership in the studio. When someone else is calling the creative shots, I think they still have the capacity to make some really quality stuff.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bioshock 2 multi will play anything like UT.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Whether UT was popular or not, it's a COMPLETELY different feel from the slower, more methodical approach of Bioshock. Or at least the first, "real" Bioshock. :P

So, because they did something that wasn't slow and methodical, they never can? Until we actually see something, I'm just going to take it as a sign that people who understand how to make multiplayer are making the multiplayer.

Yes. This straw man is exactly what I was saying. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Podunk wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bioshock 2 multi will play anything like UT. :)

Looking at how they plan to use it: the chaos of Rapture's fall - I suspect it will be various areas of Rapture with some kind of "in-game" obstacle keeping it from being too free-roaming, while up to X players (as different kinds of Splicers - maybe classes) run around and kill people. I would think that instead of a straight up kill count, the scores would be determined by who had the most ADAM at the end of a round - and there would probably be Big Daddies roaming around with Little Sisters to keep a more Bioshock feel to it.

I think it could be really, really fun. I'm not sure how much interest there is in a deathmatch game these days, but there could be some kind of objective that I'm just not thinking of right now. A basic deathmatch is the only thing I can think of that fits with the way the Splicers acted in the first game. Should be a nice add-on, and with the work being done by a different team, it shouldn't be too much of an impact on the quality of the single player.

I'd rather play Pipe Dream then see sixteen players bunny hopping around Rapture, grenade jumping and shooting fireballs at each other.

LobsterMobster wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Whether UT was popular or not, it's a COMPLETELY different feel from the slower, more methodical approach of Bioshock. Or at least the first, "real" Bioshock. :P

So, because they did something that wasn't slow and methodical, they never can? Until we actually see something, I'm just going to take it as a sign that people who understand how to make multiplayer are making the multiplayer.

Yes. This straw man is exactly what I was saying. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Oh, I should perhaps thank you for doing likewise? That straw man sure seemed to be exactly what you were saying. You say the styles might not fit, I'll say they at least know what they're doing, and we'll leave it at that, fair?

Atras wrote:

I think it could be really, really fun. I'm not sure how much interest there is in a deathmatch game these days, but there could be some kind of objective that I'm just not thinking of right now. A basic deathmatch is the only thing I can think of that fits with the way the Splicers acted in the first game. Should be a nice add-on, and with the work being done by a different team, it shouldn't be too much of an impact on the quality of the single player.

A basic deathmatch I don't see ever going out of style, just because it's a system that works. But there's room for team deathmatch, at the very least, if I'm remembering the details right. You'd have Team Fontaine and Team Ryan, at the least.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

A basic deathmatch I don't see ever going out of style, just because it's a system that works. But there's room for team deathmatch, at the very least, if I'm remembering the details right. You'd have Team Fontaine and Team Ryan, at the least.

The fact that those are the team names and that's the mentality behind this just furthers the idea, in my mind, that they are just sh*tting all over what made Bioshock such a great experience.

nukacola23 wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

A basic deathmatch I don't see ever going out of style, just because it's a system that works. But there's room for team deathmatch, at the very least, if I'm remembering the details right. You'd have Team Fontaine and Team Ryan, at the least.

The fact that those are the team names and that's the mentality behind this just furthers the idea, in my mind, that they are just sh*tting all over what made Bioshock such a great experience.

Those aren't official. They're glib terms I came up with to delineate factions that exist in the backstory. A multiplayer thing may not have the grace and precision of a single player experience, but as a way of fleshing out the environment, which for me was the great part of the first game, I can see this being clever and effective.

I really hope the multiplayer has the bee plasmid. Shooting bees at people never gets old.

Some of you guys want to hate this game so bad.

edit: agree 100% on the bee plasmid.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
nukacola23 wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

A basic deathmatch I don't see ever going out of style, just because it's a system that works. But there's room for team deathmatch, at the very least, if I'm remembering the details right. You'd have Team Fontaine and Team Ryan, at the least.

The fact that those are the team names and that's the mentality behind this just furthers the idea, in my mind, that they are just sh*tting all over what made Bioshock such a great experience.

Those aren't official. They're glib terms I came up with to delineate factions that exist in the backstory. A multiplayer thing may not have the grace and precision of a single player experience, but as a way of fleshing out the environment, which for me was the great part of the first game, I can see this being clever and effective.

Ah, alright I read that incorrectly then, sorry.

I don't want to hate on this game at all, I actually think the single player game is looking interesting and I'm sure I'll pick this up. I personally just hate it when developers spend resources on adding multiplayer to a game that doesn't need it. For all the people that complained that Bioshock didn't have multiplayer, how many of them would have played multiplayer more than a couple times out of curiosity before going back to COD 4/WaW, Halo 3, Gears, GTA 4, WoW, TF2, L4D, etc.

nukacola23 wrote:

...before going back to COD 4/WaW, Halo 3, Gears, GTA 4, WoW, TF2, L4D, etc.

Many of those have fairly complete single player modes. Should they not have developed their multiplayer modes? (Heh, the answer might be that they shouldn't have developed their single player modes. I dunno, I haven't played all of them.)

Podunk wrote:

Some of you guys want to hate this game so bad. :)

I don't want to hate it, but Bioshock multiplayer is just dumb. Stupid and dumb. And wrong.

BadKen wrote:
Podunk wrote:

Some of you guys want to hate this game so bad. :)

I don't want to hate it, but Bioshock multiplayer is just dumb. Stupid and dumb. And wrong.

Why? Zapping each other with plasmids sounds like fun to me.

BadKen wrote:

I don't want to hate it, but Bioshock multiplayer is just dumb. Stupid and dumb. And wrong.

Yeah, well, maybe you're that.

Latrine wrote:
nukacola23 wrote:

...before going back to COD 4/WaW, Halo 3, Gears, GTA 4, WoW, TF2, L4D, etc.

Many of those have fairly complete single player modes. Should they not have developed their multiplayer modes? (Heh, the answer might be that they shouldn't have developed their single player modes. I dunno, I haven't played all of them.)

All of them put major resources into their multiplayer modes and creating communities around them. Their environments and atmosphere are also conducive to a multiplayer setting. You have to try really hard to and bend a lot of rules in the world of Rapture to make multiplayer make sense in Bioshock.

If MP in Bioshock 2 really takes off and you got a bunch of regulars playing, I know I'll give it a shot, then I'll eat my words, and I'll be happy to do it. I don't want this to fail, I want their investment to pay off, but I have my doubts.

Well, if they have to include a multiplayer mode (and I wouldn't be surprised the publisher is insisting on it), at least they gave it to an entirely different team instead of forcing the 2K Marin one to split their resources.