I'm disappointed there is no multiplayer.

#1TakuruPosted 3/25/2013 10:57:42 PM
It was actually somewhat decent in Bioshock 2. Plus it was done by a different developer so people can't claim that it "took time away from making single player".
---
http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/april6e/csa_zpse392a5e8.gif http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/april6e/s_zpsa7dec947.jpg
#2grampamurkedPosted 3/25/2013 10:59:24 PM
I have to agree but prepare to get flamed
---
New user...long time lurker.
#3bluehat94Posted 3/25/2013 11:04:21 PM
I thought the MP was a pretty generic experience. Not without its fun, but nothing that really made me care about it being in future titles.
---
"So my lunch today involved both a noodle packet and a sauce packet....so yeah, things are going pretty well for me."
#4SirEsquireIIIPosted 3/25/2013 11:05:19 PM
Yeah because Totally wats the point of games with no MP?

QQ <-----Me
#5OhGoodPosted 3/25/2013 11:10:38 PM
I thought the multiplayer in the second game was downright abysmal. There was literally no balance with all the better weapons being unlocked last. all the maps pretty much looked the same, and the bioshock mechanics just all together didn't mesh well.

I played it for the trophies, but i'm happy i never have to touch that sorry ass excuse for multiplayer again.

As for the multiplayer in the second game being done by a different developer... well that is a sure sign that the game was rushed out the door to meet deadlines without any last sort of polish thrown in. This is also why the main game is still very good, while the multiplayer is terrible.

They did the same thing with medal of honor, and look how many people consider the multiplayer in that good. Same with spec ops the line.

I'm not saying i wouldn't mind multiplayer. It just needs to be good multiplayer.
---
Everything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
PSN - Ohgood
#6DarthLaharlPosted 3/25/2013 11:11:13 PM
Being done by a different developer doesn't change the fact that it still ate into the budget.
---
PSN: Unretributed
#7drointhewindPosted 3/25/2013 11:12:18 PM
yeah if theyre not going to do a good job just spend the money on single player. I hate slapped together multiplayers it just reeks of wasted potential.
I remember the darkness 1, probably the worst offender that comes to mind
---
On DLC: ""You know what would make this better? Paying more money."- Cracked.com
#8selphie8Posted 3/26/2013 12:35:52 AM
I'm not disappointed, i'm very happy. Finally a game that focuses solely on single-player, something that's very very rare these days.
---
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today (Laurence J. Peter).
#9AceTheMadAngel7Posted 3/26/2013 1:04:50 AM
selphie8 posted...
I'm not disappointed, i'm very happy. Finally a game that focuses solely on single-player, something that's very very rare these days.


Dishonored. Not flaming/trolling/trying to provoke just pointing out another great game with no MP
---
Gamertag - AceTheMadAngel
"We all do our share of murdering around here, don't we?" - Zevran
#10OhGoodPosted 3/26/2013 1:32:00 AM
AceTheMadAngel7 posted...
selphie8 posted...
I'm not disappointed, i'm very happy. Finally a game that focuses solely on single-player, something that's very very rare these days.


Dishonored. Not flaming/trolling/trying to provoke just pointing out another great game with no MP


i know you're not trying to provoke, but i'd give dishonored a 7 at best (on a good day). I was pumped for it, but I found it so boring that i never finished it. I dropped it for XCOM in a week.
---
Everything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
PSN - Ohgood