Levine "experimenting" with Infinite MP

By Robert Purchese Published 1 September, 2010

But "not convinced" it shapes up yet.

Irrational Games' Ken Levine has said he's "experimenting" with multiplayer in BioShock Infinite at the moment. However, he's not sure it yet holds a candle to the single-player experience.

"We got a lot of questions with the original BioShock saying, 'You're not having multiplayer? It's a first-person shooter - are you out of your mind?'" Levine told The Big O and Duke Show.

"We stuck very firmly to our guns on that, that unless we had something - a multiplayer component that was as compelling as everything else we were doing in the game - we were not going to put the investment into it, because that wouldn't be a service to the product, it wouldn't be a service to the fans and it wouldn't be a service to us - it wouldn't be any good to anybody.

"It's not like people won't buy the game if it doesn't have a world-changing multiplayer element. Unless you're Call of Duty, unless you're Halo, unless you've got something new to say like Left 4 Dead, people are not going to care, so why do it?

"From where we're sitting on BioShock Infinite, we are experimenting with lots of things in single-player and with things in multiplayer all the time. And the question is - and we're incredibly confident now that we've got a single-player experience that is absolutely going to be incredibly impactful on people... We're not convinced of that on a multiplayer side at this point.

"And we're still thinking about it," he added, "but unless we're absolutely convinced, it's not something we would do, because I don't see who it serves."

BioShock Infinite takes place before the events of BioShock, in Columbia, a floating city in the sky. Like Rapture, Columbia was created as an alternate society - in this case a propaganda experiment to show the world how mighty the USA was. But despite the political undertones, Levine's adamant he's not commenting on current affairs.

"What we're interested in here is not a critique of the United States in any way, shape or form," he declared. "What we're interested in is how two different people can look at those founding documents, the same documents - the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence - and come away with entirely different perceptions of what they mean. Different enough that they will actually take up arms against one another.

"That was what was so interesting to us about this," Levine said. "Certainly not about making any statement about current politics or current situation. This is not in any way a representation of what is currently going on [or] a direct mirror of that. It's about a larger theme: what is the purpose of a country? What is the purpose of its documents? How do you have a country of millions and millions of people - are they on the same page about what that country is?"

Eurogamer explored the world of BioShock Infinite last month. The game's in development for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360, and carries a release date of 2012.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (23) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bifbert #1 1 year ago

    If the multiplayer was as crap as bioshock 2 I would rather just have a brilliant single player. Like the look of infinite. Can play multiplayer in other games such as bfbc2 or cod black ops.

  • bad09 #2 1 year ago

    First BS didn't need or miss MP, from the sounds of general opinion BS2 didn't need and would not have missed MP. Concentrate on an atmospheric kick ass SP game.

    I wish MP was not pushed in every title, still waiting with dread to find out how they ballsed up Dead Space 2 by throwing in MP.

  • Dylbot #3 1 year ago

    DON'T DO IT.

    Bioshock 2's multiplayer was fucking awful. Invest that time in the single player campaign please.

  • reelbigkris #4 1 year ago

    I suggest sticking to single player. If you do want to add an online element just do a campaign co op. Nothing fancy, just have a clone of your main character running around kind of like Saints row 2, dead rising 2.

    When the first bioshock came out me and a friend had chat on while playing through the single player campaign in a race to see who could spoil the ending first while chatting about work, gf's and other games. We'll be doing it with bioshock infinite as well :)

  • Vortex808 #5 1 year ago

    I'd just like to echo the above comments- not every game needs a multiplayer element. Give a longer and entertaining campaign with no multiplayer, and your game will still sell well. Bioshock did not miss out for it. Neither Mass Effect games or any other single player only game really suffer for a lack of MP as far as I'm concerned.

    Bioshock 2's online portion was not really entertaing enough to warrant it, so it felt a bit tacked on. The original Bioshock didn't suffer from that, only a rather ropey escort mission and poor boss battle at the end let it down, but it was a brilliant game apart from that and I sincerely hope that Bioshock: Infinite can match and even surpass it.

  • MiniAmin #6 1 year ago

    No multiplayer...give us free DLC instead :D

  • LowEnergyCycle #7 1 year ago

    I remember a lot of people moaning about BS1 having no multi-player. And then when BS2 came out and finally gave them multi-player, everybody moaned that it was crap.

    As somebody who doesn't care for multi-player games in the slightest, I find the whole idea a gross waste of time and resources for strong single-player games, especially when the multi-player community seems so fickle and difficult to please.

  • OKcancel #8 1 year ago

    I don't quite get the venomous hatred towards the Bioshock 2 multiplayer. I had fun with it in some chaotic free-for-all sessions (reminded me of UT99 at times), and it was generally lag-free and in no way poorly made.

    However, just as Levine states, it was admittedly an unnecessary addition to the Bioshock franchise, and while it didn't really feel completely tacked on to me, it was surely shoehorned into the setting in some more or less clever ways. But still - either way it was not like the single player campaign suffered from it since the multiplayer component was handled by a different team.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 10:54

  • himynameisnathan #9 1 year ago

    Someone give this man an award, it's people like this that push gaming forward.

  • Eraser #10 1 year ago

    Yeah I agree with the post above. While BS2's multiplayer wasn't brilliant or revolutionary, it was fun to play a few games in there.

  • MiniAmin #11 1 year ago

    I don't quite get the venomous hatred towards the Bioshock 2 multiplayer. I had fun with it in some chaotic free-for-all sessions (reminded me of UT99 at times), and it was generally lag-free and in no way poorly made... But still - either way it was not like the single player campaign suffered from it since the multiplayer component was handled by a different team.

    I think people disgruntled by the fact that there are much better MP games out there, so Bioshock's MP seems unnecessary. The multiplayer component was handled by a different team, but this still could've affected the quality of the SP because of the cost of outsourcing the MP's development.

  • rojjer #12 1 year ago

    lol 'push gaming forward'

    I wouldn't say that at all. However, adding multiplayer for multiplayer's sake is a dumb idea. But.. coming from an angle where I only really play multiplayer games due to the limited time I have available on the console, I'll give this a pass.

  • Lemming81 #13 1 year ago

    Levine - STOP. You and other developers take note:

    MP is not needed in games like this. Ignore the media. Don't fret about a review that says 'the lack of multiplayer...'. It just means they have no clue what they are talking about.

    Games like this are about a single player experience. Quite alot of us still play games to unwind or be immersed, not scream like retards at the screen for hours on end.

    Cheers

  • metalangel #14 1 year ago

    "It's not like people won't buy the game if it doesn't have a world-changing multiplayer element."

    When someone spews out incomprehensible gibberish like this, don't quote them word for word! I have no idea what he means, triple negative confusion.

  • makeamazing #15 1 year ago

    Played BS2 MP for about an hour... i would prefer it not be in Infinite and would rather have more things to do in SP.

  • darleysam #16 1 year ago

    Seriously, make a good singleplayer game, and let Halo/CoD/L4D take the multiplayer. Unless you do something absolutely world-shattering, you're not going to dent their numbers or hold a crowd longer than a month or two.

    And yet, reviewers will still mark it down for its absence, which is about as absurd as giving a racing game a lower score for not being a RTS. Review what's there, not what's not.

  • Shikasama #17 1 year ago

    The US could do with some fucking criticising.

    'No! We love you really! Please buy our stuff! OH SAY CAN YOU $EEEEEEEEE!'

  • SheffieldSteel #18 1 year ago

    Just give us co-op, and we'll be cool.

    Co-op multiplayer on System Shock 2 = best patch ever

    ETA
    Actually, reading and re-reading the Levine text, he doesn't ever explicitly say that they are looking at deathmatch, rather than co-op, multiplayer. It's interesting that so many people - including presumably the writer and reader - simply assume "deathmatch" when they see "multiplayer" in an article about gaming.

    I still think that social gaming - i.e. co-op - is the future.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/10 @ 17:24

  • Alf-Life #19 1 year ago

    I agree with him, but it must be scary for the publishers to release an SP-only game and hope people buy it (and keep playing). I wonder how COD would sell as a 5-hour SP-only experience.

  • Ryze #20 1 year ago

    Kudos

  • Phantom_Dynamite #21 1 year ago

    This really doesn't need MP if its SP is awesome sauce like the original, saying that low if Ken can make a truly amazing multiplayer experience then im all for it, but don't just tack on some tat like BS2.

  • medicineboy #22 1 year ago

    If only Infinity Ward had the same notion in relation to their latest single player eh?

  • Bumbuliuz #23 1 year ago

    Just dont do it, simple.