Did Anyone Else Not Like Bioshock?

Everytime I say I don't like Bioshock, I get loads of complaints and verbal abuse.So I am going to appeal this to people who didn't like it. So, Did Anyone Else Not Like Bioshock?

It might help, if you told why.

The combat was boring, but it still deserves 8.5-9.

I didn't like BioShock that much really because the combat sucked, the gameplay was repetitive and the story was mediocre at best. However its setting was unique and imaginative, its visuals were very appealing and the Big Daddy is a very iconic and cool looking character.

But overall i think the feeling that i get with BioShock is disappointment and regret.

You've gotta be kidding me, dude.

It might help, if you told why.

The combat was boring, but it still deserves 8.5-9.

RK-Mara

Yeah what didn't you like?

It might help, if you told why.

The combat was boring, but it still deserves 8.5-9.

RK-Mara

Pretty much sums up my opinion about the game.

I enjoyed it, but I didn't find the game as OMGWTFBBQ! as everyone seemed to. I wrote a somewhat negative review and scored the game 8, which seemed to offend a lot of people.

For me Bioshock can be boiled down to the following:

-The locations and general atmosphere of Rapture are incredible. It really feels like an undersea utopia that has collapsed.
-Voicework is pretty damn good.
-Pretty game, if way, way too shiny.
-Great environmental sounds.

-Combat sucks. Everything but the wrench is useless for 90% of the game, and the only useful plasmid is the shock one. The others are neat once or twice but useless during general gameplay.
-The hacking minigame is terrible. Even when you're pressed for time it just boils down to tapping around uncovering every piece and then slotting them in. There is very little strategy at all.
-Repeatedly taking pictures before every confrontation in the first half of the game is silly, but Bioshock encourages you to do so.
-You've got a 'choice,' apparently, but the only thing it changes is the final full motion video. Yay!
-The final boss sucks and is the epitome of everything wrong with the FPS genre that Bioshock was apparently trying to avoid up until that point. Oops. I guess they figured you had to use up all that ammo you were stockpiling.
-Feedback is nonexistent. Blasting an enemy in the face with a shotgun causes...a healthbar to go down. Where's the torso ripping in pieces? Where's the knockback? Why doesn't the enemy even flinch?
-All the enemies are dumb. Even the Big Daddies are dumb, they just look different than the splicers and take more damage.
-Infinite respawn is silly in this sort of game.

It's funny how I was saying how much I didn't like Bioshock when it was released. And everyone was freaking out over it. And just like I thought, a few months later and people are realizing just how incredibly over rated it was.

It's even worse if you're an old time FPS/RPG fan. Much less an old System Shock fan. I swear the developers were TRYING to piss them off.

I enjoyed it much. You've just got different opinions.majadamus

[QUOTE="majadamus"]I enjoyed it much. You've just got different opinions.CaptHawkeye

Ya, he has a different opinion, so what? But, he's not going with the majority. It's weird he doesn't like Bioshock because the game has been getting rave reviews, and many gamers love it. He is weird. He's out of the norm.

Ya, he has a different opinion, so what? But, he's not going with the majority. It's weird he doesn't like Bioshock because the game has been getting rave reviews, and many gamers love it. He is weird. He's out of the norm. majadamus

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="majadamus"]I enjoyed it much. You've just got different opinions.majadamus

Ya, he has a different opinion, so what? But, he's not going with the majority. It's weird he doesn't like Bioshock because the game has been getting rave reviews, and many gamers love it. He is weird. He's out of the norm.

And how exactly is this a bad thing?

The level design was extremely linear and disencouraged trying to play a different style since there wasn't much benefit. Furthermore, the difficulty was so pathetic that I'm not even sure why someone would try to play a level differently. Contributing factors to the lack of difficulty would be the extremely overpowered wrench tonics, stupid artificial intelligence, electic gel, trap bolts, telekinesis, extremely convenient ammo/first aid kit caches, walking money bags that respawn, extreme tolerance for bullets, and of course, infinite respawns.

I also have issues with the upgrade system. Hunting for them was a pain. I would've rather upgraded at U-Invent stations using spare parts that I found. It would've made much more sense and instead of having to hunt 14 of them down which for stupid reasons shut down afterwards. Multiple upgrades for each gun would've been really great to help develop the RPG aspect of Bioshock. Sure, this sounds way too much like RE4, but even it did a better job at being an RPG than Bioshock since you could choose what weapons you wanted to upgrade which in turn affect play style (not to mention it was an awesome action game that had very memorable moments (Knife Fight!))

I'll leave it at this: I've played much better games in the same genre e.g STALKER, Deus Ex

...and the story was mediocre at best.

1005

Really? I thought the universe/back story to the game was one of the most imaginative I've ever encountered. Granted, the story/twist of your player-character has been done before, but Rapture was amazing.

It might help, if you told why.

The combat was boring, but it still deserves 8.5-9.

RK-Mara

The ending was terrible, the combat sucked and I don't like horror games that much. It definatly didn'tdeserve to get game of the year 2007 (That shouldhave gone to Assassins Creed, Halo 3 or Mass Effect)

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"]

It might help, if you told why.

The combat was boring, but it still deserves 8.5-9.

69ANT69

The ending was terrible, the combat sucked and I don't like horror games that much. It definatly didn'tdeserve to get game of the year 2007 (That shouldhave gone to Assassins Creed, Halo 3 or Mass Effect)

Erm... Where did it get a GOTY? And Bioshock a horror game? I wasn't scared even once.

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"]

It might help, if you told why.

The combat was boring, but it still deserves 8.5-9.

69ANT69

The ending was terrible, the combat sucked and I don't like horror games that much. It definatly didn'tdeserve to get game of the year 2007 (That shouldhave gone to Assassins Creed, Halo 3 or Mass Effect)

I liked the ending myself. I don't understand why every game must adhere to the paradigm of super-challenging boss battle. The ending was different, which I enjoyed.

I agree that it shouldn't be game of the year, but where was it awarded so?

Neither Assassins Creed nor Halo 3 should get game of the year, from any media outlet. Mass Effect, on the other hand, has been alot of fun so far.

The level design was extremely linear and disencouraged trying to play a different style since there wasn't much benefit. Furthermore, the difficulty was so pathetic that I'm not even sure why someone would try to play a level differently. Contributing factors to the lack of difficulty would be the extremely overpowered wrench tonics, stupid artificial intelligence, electic gel, trap bolts, telekinesis, extremely convenient ammo/first aid kit caches, walking money bags that respawn, extreme tolerance for bullets, and of course, infinite respawns.

I also have issues with the upgrade system. Hunting for them was a pain. I would've rather upgraded at U-Invent stations using spare parts that I found. It would've made much more sense and instead of having to hunt 14 of them down which for stupid reasons shut down afterwards. Multiple upgrades for each gun would've been really great to help develop the RPG aspect of Bioshock. Sure, this sounds way too much like RE4, but even it did a better job at being an RPG than Bioshock since you could choose what weapons you wanted to upgrade which in turn affect play style (not to mention it was an awesome action game that had very memorable moments (Knife Fight!))

I'll leave it at this: I've played much better games in the same genre e.g STALKER, Deus Ex

Technoweirdo

I agree that the level design was not very open, but that didn't bother me. The wrench tonics were a tad bit overpowered when stacked, weren't they?

I had no problem with the infinite respawns, once the reason for them was explained. Unfortunately, you had to stick with the game until the end in order to get that explanation.

The many vending machines was also explained well, but on another site. Basically, once the war between Fontaine and Ryan got out in the open, these vending machines were placed everywhere for people to always have access to a method of self-defense. That's still a little cheesy, but at least it "kinda" makes sense.... I guess.

I think I only found about 4-5 weapon upgrade stations myself. I also agree that it would have been cooler to have that ability at the U-invent machines.

[QUOTE="majadamus"]

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="majadamus"]I enjoyed it much. You've just got different opinions.CaptHawkeye

Ya, he has a different opinion, so what? But, he's not going with the majority. It's weird he doesn't like Bioshock because the game has been getting rave reviews, and many gamers love it. He is weird. He's out of the norm.

And how exactly is this a bad thing?

I didn't say it was.

All in all I say it's a worthy addition to the System Shock universe, or along those lines.

I didn't hate it, in fact I gave it an 8.0 which is great. But for a game that supposedly is the second coming of Christ, I was a bit dissappointed. It was to me a generic shooter with a high production value and no replay value essentially, and the shooting part was mediocre at best. Also, the "moral choices" are quite easy to make, either suck the adam out of the Little Sisters or kill the parasite. Ooohhh...

Mass Effect, now that's a game where your decisions impact your outcome.

So I didn't dislike Bioshock, but it was pretty forgettable after the first run through honestly (I got like 45 of the 50 achievements on my first play through, I could have had them all if I paid more attention and played on hard).

Bioshock is one of the most atmospheric games I've played, which adds alot, however the combat is extremely repetive, almost every enemy acts the same, splicers and more splicers, even the bosses are acts as a splicer, only with more life and damage. The combat simply isn't fun after a while.

The style of Bioshock is perfect, every place has great detail and amazing design. The story is great, you'll really wonder what caused the chaos in the underwater city of rapture.

Since most of the time playing Bioshock is fighting, the game fails at being fun all through, much is just boring. I'd rather seen Bioshock as an full RPG than the pathetic "casual RPG" it tries to be with the tonics and magics.

[QUOTE="majadamus"]Ya, he has a different opinion, so what? But, he's not going with the majority. It's weird he doesn't like Bioshock because the game has been getting rave reviews, and many gamers love it. He is weird. He's out of the norm. foxhound_fox

Indeed, many people don't realize (or maybe they do, but don't care) that developers have like a week to beat a game, as such they might be fooled by the graphics and sound, and not get immeresed in the gameplay,finish it as fast as possible, with pressure from execs to get a review up as quick as possible, plus they'll cut a few (or alot) corners to 'technically' beat the game, and since that Jeff incident (if he really did get fired for giving that game a bad review) happened, for all we know some reviewers a give a game a good score from fear of losing their job. So what the hell do they know about replayability in games if they beat the game in 1 week tops and stopped playing when they are writing said review.