Dead Rising 2 does have multiplayer

By Tom Bramwell Published 28 April, 2009

"Single-player alone is not going to cut it."

Capcom R&D kingpin Keiji Inafune has confirmed that Dead Rising 2 features multiplayer after all, despite confusion at GDC earlier this year.

"We're at a point in game history that you need to have some form of multiplayer component in a game," Inafune told journalists at Captivate 09 in Monaco last week.

"Single-player alone is not going to cut it. So rest assured we are going to put multiplayer in the game, but I can't go into specifics about what type of multiplayer as that directly relates to some of the game systems that we don't want to talk about at this event. It will be online multiplayer, so keep that in mind."

Inafune held court over an hour-long demonstration of the survival horror sequel, revealing that development partner Blue Castle Games manages to do 7,000 zombies on-screen at once - and showing us that in action.

You can read more about that demo and all the treats Dead Rising 2 has in store (double-chainsaw-fronted motorbikes, anyone?) in our extensive Dead Rising 2 preview, and check out the gameplay footage on Eurogamer TV.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (18) 2 years ago

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

  • menage #1 3 years ago

    Sigh, repeats rants in previous posts:D

    While I do see some multiplayer merit with this one, I call BS on the SP alone isn't cutting it. How about Bioshock, SOTC, Fallout 3, God of War, etc, etc. All fucking classic without MP.

    And aren't like millions of gamers, you know, not online? Ah well, hope the hype dies down soon enough. Resi 5 sucked.
    Edited by 4 at 28/04/09 @ 16:06

  • Inquisitor #2 3 years ago

    It has to be co-op. I can imagine a survivor style mode ala Left 4 Dead being brilliant with 4-8 players or so too, though with the amount of zombies on screen I'm not sure what they could get away with.

  • Freek #3 3 years ago

    "We're at a point in game history that you need to have some form of multiplayer component in a game,"

    It all depends on the game, if a game has a strong and compelling singleplayer experience you don't have to do a multiplayer mode. Infact it'd be better not to do it at all if the gameplay doesn't fitt.

  • andywilkie35 #4 3 years ago

    Co-op would be absolutely immense

  • JahB #5 3 years ago

    And aren't like millions of gamers, you know, not online?

    i somewhat doubt that, as it takes away a significant part of the gaming experience. it's kinda like having an Xbox/PS3 and an SD TV

  • menage #6 3 years ago

    I think you would be surprised how many people have that.

  • mkreku #7 3 years ago

    The only kind of multiplayer I would possibly want from this is co-op. The one mode least likely to be included (in any game), it seems.

  • asphaltcowboy #8 3 years ago

    drop-in/out co-op would be ace.

  • kinky_mong #9 3 years ago

    If you're going to shoehorn a crap competitive multiplayer mode onto this for the love of god don't assign any of the achievements to it.

    Co-op however would be a great addition.

  • the_dudefather #10 3 years ago

    RAR THIS IS GOING TO FAIL BECAUSE IT HAS MULTIPLAYER AND THE LAST GAME DIDN'T HAVE MULTIPLAYER RAR

    etc

  • jim1975 #11 3 years ago

    like a light switch were you can choose to have light or choose to not have light. games that have multiplayer you can choose to not USE the multiplayer.

    its simple mathmatics people

  • SixFootHalfling #12 3 years ago

    "like a light switch were you can choose to have light or choose to not have light. games that have multiplayer you can choose to not USE the multiplayer.

    its simple mathmatics people "

    Apart from the fact that dev time is now going to be taken up with getting the Multiplayer content in.

    Personally I'd rather not have it, at no point during Dead Rising did I think "Instead of an AI controlled retard nearby, I want a real world retard"

    Also it wont be as good as Left For Dead online, so why try?

  • sneetch #13 3 years ago

    @jim1975
    like a light switch were you can choose to have light or choose to not have light. games that have multiplayer you can choose to not USE the multiplayer.

    its simple mathmatics people

    I think you mean logic rather than mathematics but whilst you're right I think people are more annoyed that resources will be taken away from developing the single-player game.

    Multi-player modes don't write themselves and the people working on it and working on balancing and tweaking it and designing and creating the multi-player maps and so on and so forth would be better employed working on the single-player experience. Also there are often compromises made for multi-player modes (for example, the devs cut down on effects or geometry to accommodate for the fact there there may be 10 players in this small area). That said, co-op is always appreciated, I've played through R6 Vegas and Vegas 2 three or four times each on co-op, I've never bothered playing the single-player mode.

  • stulo0 #14 3 years ago

    @SixFootHalfling

    While you would personally not have it I would absolutely love it if they included a co-op feature so I can play with some friends, you say that this won't be as good as Left 4 Dead's online play but they are both very different games even if they do feature zombies so you can't really compare the two.

    I loved making barricades in the first one but I got bored quickly with no one to share it with.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #15 3 years ago

    I agree that a game shouldn't have multiplayer merely for the sake of it. However, Dead Rising 2 would make a good multiplayer, it's far more suited for it than Resident Evil, since atmosphere and tension aren't the focus.

    I'd like split-screen co-op though. I still find co-op with people in the same room to be far more fun than co-op with X random person. I had real good fun playing split-screen co-op Left 4 Dead with my brother.

  • zuljin #16 3 years ago

    @jim1975
    "like a light switch were you can choose to have light or choose to not have light. games that have multiplayer you can choose to not USE the multiplayer."

    Sorry to put it bluntly, but no. You're wrong. I'm not suggesting games developers are putting a gun to my head forcing me to play the multiplayer, but the Godfather II is a good example of a game forcing you to play multiplayer, if you want to be good at the single player. And it sucks. Hard.

    (FYI - you rank up your single player buddies by achievements recieved online. Whoever thought at any point in time that this was a good idea needs to have their head examined).

  • spongebob #17 3 years ago

    If it has a good co-op I'll pre-order it. I'll pre-order the most expensive version. I'll even send the developers flowers. And eat their brain, mwahahahah. Err..

  • bendowson #18 2 years ago

    I think it was poorly done. Perhaps this influenced shortage of time. As time has shown, prices are too high. Pricing policy needs improvement. Ben from mahjong and crazy taxi club with new hidden object games.