Levine: “We have not made any determinations about multiplayer” in BioShock Infinite

Saturday, 21st August 2010 19:59 GMT By Stephany Nunneley


Ken Levine has said Irrational is experimenting with different things at the moment with BioShock Infnite, but there’ no guarantee it will contain multiplayer.

Speaking with Kotaku at gamescom, Levine said the team is not interested in multiplayer unless it brings something new to the table; otherwise, players will just go back to playing Halo or CoD.

“Here’s what I have to say about multiplayer – it’s what we said about BioShock 1: ‘We have not made any determinations about multiplayer’,” said Levine.

“I will say that we experiment with things, but for us we are never interested in making a multiplayer mode you could just play in some other game. Because, A) that’s not creatively interesting and B), financially, you’re wasting your time. They’re going to go play Halo. They’re going to go play Call of Duty.

“If we do something new — if we do something like Left 4 Dead that has something new to say — people will come to your game. If you don’t, don’t waste your time.”

“You’re not much of a game designer if you can’t draw lessons out of A) good games and bad games and B) games that are not really applicable to what you are doing. You need to look past the surface.”

BioShock Infnite is slated for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 in 2012. Catch our hands-on preview here, and our own gamescom interview with Levine here.



  1. Daodan

    He’s fresh. Says what he feels is right. He always did that. Only he used a lot more ‘fuck’ than he’s doing now.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. LOLshock94

    gotta agree with

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Happy Hardon Harry

    Indeed. Anyway, it’s only fucking Yank/American gamers who insist on every game have a multiplayer mode now. You know what they’re like “what about multiplayer mode, man., it’s single player experience…stupid cunt. Next they’ll be asking for a multiplayer mode in a game like The Last Guardian…sigh.

    For the rest of us gamers, in other parts of the world, we’d prefer a superior single player experience anyday.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Stephany Nunneley

    @3 Not all of us. At least ones over 12. :(

    #4 4 years ago
  5. DSB

    The whole all things to all people has to go /agree with Happy Hardon Harry.

    You just get a better experience when everything’s been put into either optimizing the singleplayer or the multiplayer. Doing both well, would be like making two individual games.

    Fair enough if you want to put in a token campaign, as long as it’s clear what you’re actually buying into.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. freedoms_stain

    I think it’s the publishers who push multiplayer more than bratty American kids who like to scream fuck a lot when the parents are out.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. Stephany Nunneley

    Thing is, tons of folks complained about BS1 not having MP – which it honestly didn’t need in the first place – and so BS2 has it, and now folks are complaining about the MP in it.

    Games don’t HAVE to have multiplayer. They just don’t. There is nothing wrong with SP. Like Levine said, if you want MP go play COD or Halo – unless it’s something innovative and new. You can only play capture the flag so much. I would personally rather have an awesome SP experience than a shit MP one any day of the week, and so does everyone else – esp. if said addition of MP cuts down on my SP experience.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Amir Mirzaee

    We need more game designers like Levine. I really don’t expect Respawn to make a great single-player game. They’re masters in MP, not SP experiences. (Those cinematic moments of Modern Warfare games are awesome, but they can’t be compared to heavy story driven SP games)

    Respawn should stick to MP games, and guys like Levine to great single-player experiences.

    also, we need the publishers to fuck off and let game designers do what they want.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. DSB

    @7 Reviewers are really bad at slapping the “no multiplayer” label on games, though. I think they’re missing the point most of the time.

    Ultimately I think it’s giving publishers ideas, because it’s always gonna be easier to sell multiplayer DLC, since you don’t have to get people off the bench to play again.

    I haven’t bought singleplayer DLC for any game, yet. I’m not gonna pay just to have another halfbaked nibble at a game.

    If I’m enjoying a multiplayer game on the other hand, I’m quite likely to pay to get some extra mileage on that.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    Reviewers who slap a game that have no multiplayer are not a professional reviewers, they are IDIOTS that don’t understand that good game should not be judged by “How much content is on the disk”.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Sidology

    This was more or less my sentiment with Metroid Prime 2 and more recently Bioshock 2.

    Multiplayer is just a tacky add-on a lot of the times. If you don’t think it’s going to be a solid game without it, then maybe you need to rethink your game.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. freedoms_stain

    I have read comments on this site before (I believe in relation to the revelation that Dead Space 2 would have mp) along the lines of “any game with manual aim shooting should have competitive mp”.

    But tbh probably the most fun I’ve had playing an FPS in the last year was Metro 2033, 100% mp free. Having said that, as good as the game is, you’re probably not going to play it through more than twice which makes it a prime candidate for rental, which I suppose is a strong argument for cramming in a multiplayer in the hopes that it’ll encourage purchase.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. distraet

    Multiplayer is a fancy, trendy disease spreading like a freaking wildfire. It should be put down, locked up with restricted access only to developers, who know what they’re doing.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Blerk

    Don’t do it, Ken!

    #14 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.