No Competitive Multiplayer

#1 Posted by MattSchwabby (117 posts) -

Anyone else crushed by this? I loved the multiplayer mode in Dead Space 2. My all-time favorite competitive shooter.

#2 Posted by big_jon (5732 posts) -

Nope, couldn't care less.

#3 Posted by hoossy (934 posts) -

Awesome.... no need...

Now if they would only scrap the co-op.

#4 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

It's for the dudebro bonding. I hope they have a highfive button

#5 Posted by EXTomar (4745 posts) -

What would competitive multiplayer for this game look like anyway?

#6 Posted by Levius (1140 posts) -

While I didn't particularly like Dead Space 2's multi player, I would take it over having co-op in campaign as EA's obligatory online pass component any day of the week.

#7 Posted by HatKing (5958 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

What would competitive multiplayer for this game look like anyway?

It was kind of a bad Left 4 Dead. It certainly had potential though, and I wish they had worked on it rather than scrapping it and trying something new.

#8 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@TheHumanDove said:

It's for the dudebro bonding. I hope they have a highfive button

Army of Two had a highfive button. I used it exclusively for griefing.

#9 Edited by NTM (7384 posts) -

No, not at all. I thought the one match I played was fun, but it was enough. I love the fact that they're focusing on the campaign, and I think the co-op is getting too much flack for no reason when you think about it. It's going to be great. Also, I think people aren't getting the point of co-op, and some may still be confused about it.

#10 Posted by DillonWerner (1528 posts) -

I'm almost as heart broken as when they took the multiplayer out of Redfaction: Armageddon

#11 Posted by Sackmanjones (4708 posts) -

Wow your all time favorite?

#12 Posted by Brodehouse (9953 posts) -

@DillonWerner said:

I'm almost as heart broken as when they took the multiplayer out of Redfaction: Armageddon

I'm actually unsure which way you mean this, because I thought the Dead Space 2 multiplayer was kind of bad whereas I think I enjoyed the Red Faction: Guerilla multiplayer more than the campaign. The idea of just smashing through a damn wall to get at someone, knocking the struts off a building just as someone enters and they have to scramble to get out... that multiplayer was so unique and interesting.

Although ultimately you just got the stealth backpack, the prox mines and the hammer and went 22-1. That part was a bummer.

#13 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

Yeah, sorry, but while it was alright for an afternoon, Dead Space 2 multiplayer wasn't really all that memorable.

#14 Posted by DillonWerner (1528 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@DillonWerner said:

I'm almost as heart broken as when they took the multiplayer out of Redfaction: Armageddon

I'm actually unsure which way you mean this, because I thought the Dead Space 2 multiplayer was kind of bad whereas I think I enjoyed the Red Faction: Guerilla multiplayer more than the campaign. The idea of just smashing through a damn wall to get at someone, knocking the struts off a building just as someone enters and they have to scramble to get out... that multiplayer was so unique and interesting.

Although ultimately you just got the stealth backpack, the prox mines and the hammer and went 22-1. That part was a bummer.

I loved Guerllia's multiplayer so much, probably more than most multiplayer games out at that time. I admit the Dead Space 2 multiplayer was kind of broken and not that well designed, but I just had so much fun being the Necromorphs with my friends and running around like idiots. Besides that I hated the multiplayer, I would never touch that multiplayer if I wasn't playing with a friend.

#15 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

I thoroughly enjoyed DS2's MP but it had no longevity.

It was fun briefly, but I'm glad they're cutting it because it was a waste of resources.

#16 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -

The multiplayer was ok, but certainly only driven by the corporate decision that everything has to have MP. I am actually ok with DS3 having Co-op.

#17 Edited by BeachThunder (11960 posts) -

Survival horror is all about competitive multiplayer; I mean, I can't wait to play deathmatch in A Machine For Pigs!

#18 Posted by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

No if only they'd get rid of the co-op and human enemies.

#19 Posted by Wuddel (2092 posts) -

@joshthebear said:

No if only they'd get rid of the co-op and human enemies.

Yeah, the human enemies bother me. However that seems a logical continuation of the story. Still, killing a human being is a fucked up thing and Issac is only a normal dude and no soldier.

They still can't let go of the co-op since EA imposes all these online passes on its developers.

#20 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

I am thrilled about this, not every game needs multiplayer, the lack of a multiplayer means more focus on the single player.

Take note Mass Effect 3!

#21 Posted by NTM (7384 posts) -

@Hizang: Not only single-player, but campaign all together. I think changing it from competitive multiplayer to co-op is a good thing, and for some, after the initial play through (if you choose to go in yourself first), playing on co-op will be a fun and interesting addition. A lot of people are complaining, but it's sounding more promising than Dead Space 2 was when we heard about MP, or at least it is to me. I think Dead Space will probably still do what Dead Space 2 did, not really go back to the horror of what the original brought, but still not an all out action game like people believe it to be. I'm extremely excited just to play another campaign game that's at least 12 hours long (which I'm sure will be the case), and going through the story that we left off with in two.

#22 Posted by s10129107 (1183 posts) -

A lot of people were outraged at DS2's Multiplayer. Most people saw it as an anti piracy measure and are happy to see it go.

#23 Posted by Subjugation (4720 posts) -

This is not the game for multiplayer.

#24 Posted by DeF (4894 posts) -

@joshthebear said:

No if only they'd get rid of the co-op and human enemies.

why does the co-op bother you? it's 100% optional and you don't have an AI companion in singleplayer so how does the option affect you?

#25 Posted by JTB123 (1046 posts) -

Not at all, I own Dead Space 2 on all three platforms and have still never touched the MP. It didn't look aggressively bad, but Dead Space 2 was all about the single player for me.

#26 Posted by nasseh (83 posts) -

I'm really ok with this. I didn't even touch the multiplayer in Dead Space 2, and I'm pretty sure not many other people did either.

#27 Posted by jillsandwich (762 posts) -

It's your all-time favorite competitive shooter?

Look, I don't like to bash people for opinions, but...fuck dude, is Dead Space 2 the only competitive shooter you ever played?

#28 Posted by flindip (533 posts) -

@Hizang said:

I am thrilled about this, not every game needs multiplayer, the lack of a multiplayer means more focus on the single player.

Take note Mass Effect 3!

This..

I really don't understand why games can't just be one or the other. Why do all shooters need a single player element(BF3)? Likewise, not all games need a multiplayer element to it.

#29 Posted by Yanngc33 (4496 posts) -

Who cares, I never touched the multiplayer in 2

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.