Due to 2 kids and a full time job I've had this game on the shelf for a couple of years. I finally got around to playing it and was amazed. The atmosphere story and depth of gameplay blew me away. It's arguably the best game I've ever played. How is #2.
Finally played through bioshock
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
I didn't think the first Bioshock was a very good game, but the atmosphere and the world "sort" of made up for that. The second game is just terrible and has none of the things which made Bioshock cool.
Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
Socijalisticka
lol I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
contracts420
lol I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.
The intention behind Bioshock was to streamline the System Shock 2 model for a modern audience, which is understandable, but in result it suffers as does every other FPS-RPG hybrid in existence: not being competent as a FPS, or an RPG. The fundamental essence of SS2 was scarce-resource management. As the resources necessary for character progression are extremely limited, every choice you make comes at a substantial cost. If you invest in a tech build, you severely limit yourself with other options. Unlike in Bioshock, if you don't invest in hack, you simply cannot hack. Even every hack you perform comes at a substantial cost (in precious nanites). You may not obtain the items you need, you may not even succeed in a hacking attempt. Oh and unlike in Bioshock the game doesn'tpause in realtime while you're hacking. Ammo is limited, weapons degrade, health restoration comes at a price.
In Bioshock, Adam and Eve are plentiful enough that it lacks any meaningful restriction how a player can interact in the game world. If you confront an obstacle, the game hands you the necessary tool to overcome it. There are no sacrifices, no alternatives. In SS2, you may or may not overcome an obstacle based on how you build your character. In Bioshock, you could get all the plasmids you could ever need, and on top of that you can SWITCH between plasmids through a gene bank. Imagine in a RPG if you could respec your character at any time and at no cost. Speaking of no costs, the game doesn't punish you at all for DYING, you essentially are GOD.
I could go on forever (haven't even begun on the FPS elements), but I need to sleep. Oh and I know you're thinking the narrative, but don't bother. It's a complete retelling of System Shock 2.
[QUOTE="contracts420"]
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
Socijalisticka
lol I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.
The intention behind Bioshock was to streamline the System Shock 2 model for a modern audience, which is understandable, but in result it suffers as does every other FPS-RPG hybrid in existence: not being competent as a FPS, or an RPG. The fundamental essence of SS2 was scarce-resource management. As the resources necessary for character progression are extremely limited, every choice you make comes at a substantial cost. If you invest in a tech build, you severely limit yourself with other options. Unlike in Bioshock, if you don't invest in hack, you simply cannot hack. Even every hack you perform comes at a substantial cost (in precious nanites). You may not obtain the items you need, you may not even succeed in a hacking attempt. Oh and unlike in Bioshock the game doesn'tpause in realtime while you're hacking. Ammo is limited, weapons degrade, health restoration comes at a price.
In Bioshock, Adam and Eve are plentiful enough that it lacks any meaningful restriction how a player can interact in the game world. If you confront an obstacle, the game hands you the necessary tool to overcome it. There are no sacrifices, no alternatives. In SS2, you may or may not overcome an obstacle based on how you build your character. In Bioshock, you could get all the plasmids you could ever need, and on top of that you can SWITCH between plasmids through a gene bank. Imagine in a RPG if you could respec your character at any time and at no cost. Speaking of no costs, the game doesn't punish you at all for DYING, you essentially are GOD.
I could go on forever (haven't even begun on the FPS elements), but I need to sleep. Oh and I know you're thinking the narrative, but don't bother. It's a complete retelling of System Shock 2.
I fail to understand how Bioshock is not a competent FPS game.
When creating Bioshock the team decided to abandon the uneccesary fluff that comes with RPG elements and instead focus on crafting a more atmoshpheric FPS. The developer intended that the player be able to accomplish whatever task is presented to them without having to build their character in any specific way. Instead giving the player upgrades to their existing skills rather than locking the player or limiting the players control. Wether you prefer this or the method of character building in SS2, it by no means makes Bioshock worse, as a matter of fact it makes Bioshock a more friendly title allowing you to use whatever you want at any given time without limiting your abilities. This is not a bad thing.
I will completetly agree that the plot of both tiles is very similiar and hits the same marks. This is not up for debate.
You seem to undermine Bioshock for not bearing the trappings of a Survival-Horror title. Most of the points you try to make in SS2' favor are actually reasons why Bioshock IS a far superior FPS game.
Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
Socijalisticka
I disagree, Bioshock and System Shock 2 are both great games.
I may be in the minority here but I enjoyed the story and gameplay of Bioshock 2 over Bioshock 1 both top notch game though.
to be honest, I found the game frustrating, unfun, poorly paced and the story to be not that great. I understand that the atmosphere is great and stuff, but... well, as a point of reference, Bioshock is the only game I can honestly remember where I forced myself to finish it.
A lot of people say Bioshock 2 is rubbish,ignore them.It's a great game in its own right,the shooting is better,the story is easier to follow and it has some interesting new mechanics.You wont get the same sense of wonder you had exploring Rapture for the first time but just the fact that you are playing as a Big Daddy is very cool.Also check out the Minervas Den DLC which is also very good.
lol I just realised I completetly forgot to answer the TC' question. Yes, Bioshock 2 is a great title and is worth checking out. More Bioshock is never a bad thing.
A lot of people say Bioshock 2 is rubbish, ignore them. It's a great game in its own right
OneInchMan99
Nah you should ignore this guy, his opinion sucks because I say so.
i personally loved both, can't wait for infinite
[QUOTE="contracts420"]
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
Socijalisticka
lol I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.
The intention behind Bioshock was to streamline the System Shock 2 model for a modern audience, which is understandable, but in result it suffers as does every other FPS-RPG hybrid in existence: not being competent as a FPS, or an RPG. The fundamental essence of SS2 was scarce-resource management. As the resources necessary for character progression are extremely limited, every choice you make comes at a substantial cost. If you invest in a tech build, you severely limit yourself with other options. Unlike in Bioshock, if you don't invest in hack, you simply cannot hack. Even every hack you perform comes at a substantial cost (in precious nanites). You may not obtain the items you need, you may not even succeed in a hacking attempt. Oh and unlike in Bioshock the game doesn'tpause in realtime while you're hacking. Ammo is limited, weapons degrade, health restoration comes at a price.
In Bioshock, Adam and Eve are plentiful enough that it lacks any meaningful restriction how a player can interact in the game world. If you confront an obstacle, the game hands you the necessary tool to overcome it. There are no sacrifices, no alternatives. In SS2, you may or may not overcome an obstacle based on how you build your character. In Bioshock, you could get all the plasmids you could ever need, and on top of that you can SWITCH between plasmids through a gene bank. Imagine in a RPG if you could respec your character at any time and at no cost. Speaking of no costs, the game doesn't punish you at all for DYING, you essentially are GOD.
I could go on forever (haven't even begun on the FPS elements), but I need to sleep. Oh and I know you're thinking the narrative, but don't bother. It's a complete retelling of System Shock 2.
There's a problem with your reasoning, Bioshock was never meant to be a FPS-RPG, shooter hybrid or a steamlining of System Shock 2. Both games are trying to achieve two very different things and have two different design philosophies. I don't understand how anyone could ever even consider Bioshock an RPG. It's almost purely a shooter that lets you use abilities/powers and upgrade your weapons, hardly anything "RPG" about it. While Bioshock is definitely a "spiritual" successor to System Shock 2, it's an entirely different beast and both games should be judged on their own merits.thx for the feedback. I'll have to give 2 a shot.
BioShock 2 refined gameplay, but everything else suffered. The claustrophobic/damp/dark underwater environments were cool the first time around but they get stale in the second game, I want to soar! The story is fundamentally flawed because it's trying to show the downfalls of a collectivist society (the antithesis of BioShock 1); however, by setting the game in an already failed society that was built exclusively on one principle another failed society based on a completely different principle can not be shown.
For example, saying that an extreme collectivist society that is struggling to start up in a decrepid infastructure, has the same ill-effects on society as an extreme objectivist society that started out booming with a brand new infastructure is illogical. The collectivist society had no chance of being successful it was doomed from the beginning. Not because it was necesarrily a flawed idea, but because it was up against rebuilding an already failed society with no resources to do so from the ground up (and not just relocating the society like Andrew Ryan did).
BioShock should have remained a self-inclusive story, like it was meant to be (Different Team for BS2). There was no need for a direct sequel. That being said I'm extremely excited for BioShock Infinite and cannot wait to see the critique of jingoism.
Bioshock is one of my favorite games of this generation. Bioshock 2 doesn't capture the same magic. like some others have already stated why.
Bioshock felt a bit clever to me by not being so damn obvious with it's objectivist ideology led society. At least to me it was not immediately recognized. in literally the first level of Bioshock 2 it became clear to me what this new society was all about - the exact opposite. which felt painfully predictable and lame.
I also remember being a tinged upset at the announcment of Bioshock 2. Bioshock 1 was so well done and self-encapsulated story-wise there was no reason to go back and make a sequel.
Bioshock is indeed an outstanding masterpiece with a phenomenal story, art style, concepts and gameplay. Bioshock 2 is also an amazing experience and improves upon much of the gameplay from the first game. It doesn't have such an engrossing plot and characters however.
How was the objectivist society not apparent from the start? The first thing you see/hear upon entering Rapture was "No Gods or Kings just man" "Is man not entitled to the sweat on his brow?"Bioshock is one of my favorite games of this generation. Bioshock 2 doesn't capture the same magic. like some others have already stated why.
Bioshock felt a bit clever to me by not being so damn obvious with it's objectivist ideology led society. At least to me it was not immediately recognized. in literally the first level of Bioshock 2 it became clear to me what this new society was all about - the exact opposite. which felt painfully predictable and lame.
I also remember being a tinged upset at the announcment of Bioshock 2. Bioshock 1 was so well done and self-encapsulated story-wise there was no reason to go back and make a sequel.
SaudiFury
It was a good game.. Was'nt too keen on the sequel though
B2 greatly improves on the core mechanics and, while certain levels are still an absolute blast to go through (I'm talking to you last level), the story just isn't as good. Additionally, there's a fantastic set-piece moment towards the middle, followed by an equally fantastic level. Both Bioshock and Bioshock 2 had great "good karma" endings. The first game had a pretty bad "bad karma" ending, while the second was definitely improved. I recommend you play it.
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]How was the objectivist society not apparent from the start? The first thing you see/hear upon entering Rapture was "No Gods or Kings just man" "Is man not entitled to the sweat on his brow?" I know that now. even when Andrew Ryan is playing that reel criticizing Washington DC, Vatican and Moscow. just on the first playthrough it didn't immediately occur to me that, as i explored more and saw more, the more it came together and i figured it out. Think it was when i figured out about how the society was supposed to work and how it got exploited (Bibles, contraband being shipped in) did it suddenly occur to me what i was looking at. Also the little radio's talking about the parasites and those who don't work but ask for their share. I'm not that immediately familiar with Objectivist theory. I am however very familiar with collectivism (just as a history buff and every day life). So going into Bioshock 2, i knew the trick and to see it merely flipped, being made more obvious, and being more familiar and recognizing it almost immediately with it just sort of took all the mystique and fun out of that aspect for me. That's why i'm excited for the Patriotic Jingoism world of Columbia for Bioshock Infinite. See what they do with it, even though i am aware what it's about.Bioshock is one of my favorite games of this generation. Bioshock 2 doesn't capture the same magic. like some others have already stated why.
Bioshock felt a bit clever to me by not being so damn obvious with it's objectivist ideology led society. At least to me it was not immediately recognized. in literally the first level of Bioshock 2 it became clear to me what this new society was all about - the exact opposite. which felt painfully predictable and lame.
I also remember being a tinged upset at the announcment of Bioshock 2. Bioshock 1 was so well done and self-encapsulated story-wise there was no reason to go back and make a sequel.
Minishdriveby
Couldn't bring myself to finish it. Got 4 or 5 hours in and it just feels rather repetetive and dull. Metroid Prime is WAY better (somewhat similar games).
Couldn't bring myself to finish it. Got 4 or 5 hours in and it just feels rather repetetive and dull. Metroid Prime is WAY better (somewhat similar games).
NaveedLife
I can agree with this. It's repetitive in a bad way. (All games are reptitive, but some are in a good way and some aren't.) Except I forced myself to finish the game. and Metroid Prime is waaaaaaaaaay better.
to be honest, I found the game frustrating, unfun, poorly paced and the story to be not that great. I understand that the atmosphere is great and stuff, but... well, as a point of reference, Bioshock is the only game I can honestly remember where I forced myself to finish it.
turtlethetaffer
Exactly the same for me. I couldn't have said it better myself and I also forced myself to finish it.
Couldn't bring myself to finish it. Got 4 or 5 hours in and it just feels rather repetetive and dull. Metroid Prime is WAY better (somewhat similar games).
NaveedLife
I don't think I could compare the two other than both being FPS. Metroid Prime is one of my favorites of all time though so maybe I'm seeing the comparison as an insult to metroid instead of actual gameplay comparisons, lol.
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
[QUOTE="contracts420"]
lol I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.
contracts420
The intention behind Bioshock was to streamline the System Shock 2 model for a modern audience, which is understandable, but in result it suffers as does every other FPS-RPG hybrid in existence: not being competent as a FPS, or an RPG. The fundamental essence of SS2 was scarce-resource management. As the resources necessary for character progression are extremely limited, every choice you make comes at a substantial cost. If you invest in a tech build, you severely limit yourself with other options. Unlike in Bioshock, if you don't invest in hack, you simply cannot hack. Even every hack you perform comes at a substantial cost (in precious nanites). You may not obtain the items you need, you may not even succeed in a hacking attempt. Oh and unlike in Bioshock the game doesn'tpause in realtime while you're hacking. Ammo is limited, weapons degrade, health restoration comes at a price.
In Bioshock, Adam and Eve are plentiful enough that it lacks any meaningful restriction how a player can interact in the game world. If you confront an obstacle, the game hands you the necessary tool to overcome it. There are no sacrifices, no alternatives. In SS2, you may or may not overcome an obstacle based on how you build your character. In Bioshock, you could get all the plasmids you could ever need, and on top of that you can SWITCH between plasmids through a gene bank. Imagine in a RPG if you could respec your character at any time and at no cost. Speaking of no costs, the game doesn't punish you at all for DYING, you essentially are GOD.
I could go on forever (haven't even begun on the FPS elements), but I need to sleep. Oh and I know you're thinking the narrative, but don't bother. It's a complete retelling of System Shock 2.
I fail to understand how Bioshock is not a competent FPS game.
When creating Bioshock the team decided to abandon the uneccesary fluff that comes with RPG elements and instead focus on crafting a more atmoshpheric FPS. The developer intended that the player be able to accomplish whatever task is presented to them without having to build their character in any specific way. Instead giving the player upgrades to their existing skills rather than locking the player or limiting the players control. Wether you prefer this or the method of character building in SS2, it by no means makes Bioshock worse, as a matter of fact it makes Bioshock a more friendly title allowing you to use whatever you want at any given time without limiting your abilities. This is not a bad thing.
I will completetly agree that the plot of both tiles is very similiar and hits the same marks. This is not up for debate.
You seem to undermine Bioshock for not bearing the trappings of a Survival-Horror title. Most of the points you try to make in SS2' favor are actually reasons why Bioshock IS a far superior FPS game.
Had there been no emphasis on choice, had the plasmids and gene tonics been just granted to the player, had the gene bank not been implemented, had Irrational not place so much emphasis on horror, you'd be right. It's clear that they've attempted to recapture the success of Shock 2. All these genre elements, RPG, action, and horror, come to undermine eachother. And therein lies my criticism.
There's a problem with your reasoning, Bioshock was never meant to be a FPS-RPG, shooter hybrid or a steamlining of System Shock 2. Both games are trying to achieve two very different things and have two different design philosophies. I don't understand how anyone could ever even consider Bioshock an RPG. It's almost purely a shooter that lets you use abilities/powers and upgrade your weapons, hardly anything "RPG" about it. While Bioshock is definitely a "spiritual" successor to System Shock 2, it's an entirely different beast and both games should be judged on their own merits.AcidSoldner
I didn't consider Bioshock an RPG. Bioshock is a FPS/RPG hybrid, which is by default, self-defeating in intention. As I've stated alread, it doesn't grant you every plasmid or tonic. The gene tonics themselves, as they arepassiveupgrades. You choices in regards to the Little Sisters their resulting "consequences" (I use that in an ambiguous sense). Research and Hacking. These are all RPG elements WITHOUT the number crunching. Terribly implemented, yet immersive, but RPG elements nonetheless.
[QUOTE="contracts420"]
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
The intention behind Bioshock was to streamline the System Shock 2 model for a modern audience, which is understandable, but in result it suffers as does every other FPS-RPG hybrid in existence: not being competent as a FPS, or an RPG. The fundamental essence of SS2 was scarce-resource management. As the resources necessary for character progression are extremely limited, every choice you make comes at a substantial cost. If you invest in a tech build, you severely limit yourself with other options. Unlike in Bioshock, if you don't invest in hack, you simply cannot hack. Even every hack you perform comes at a substantial cost (in precious nanites). You may not obtain the items you need, you may not even succeed in a hacking attempt. Oh and unlike in Bioshock the game doesn'tpause in realtime while you're hacking. Ammo is limited, weapons degrade, health restoration comes at a price.
In Bioshock, Adam and Eve are plentiful enough that it lacks any meaningful restriction how a player can interact in the game world. If you confront an obstacle, the game hands you the necessary tool to overcome it. There are no sacrifices, no alternatives. In SS2, you may or may not overcome an obstacle based on how you build your character. In Bioshock, you could get all the plasmids you could ever need, and on top of that you can SWITCH between plasmids through a gene bank. Imagine in a RPG if you could respec your character at any time and at no cost. Speaking of no costs, the game doesn't punish you at all for DYING, you essentially are GOD.
I could go on forever (haven't even begun on the FPS elements), but I need to sleep. Oh and I know you're thinking the narrative, but don't bother. It's a complete retelling of System Shock 2.
Socijalisticka
I fail to understand how Bioshock is not a competent FPS game.
When creating Bioshock the team decided to abandon the uneccesary fluff that comes with RPG elements and instead focus on crafting a more atmoshpheric FPS. The developer intended that the player be able to accomplish whatever task is presented to them without having to build their character in any specific way. Instead giving the player upgrades to their existing skills rather than locking the player or limiting the players control. Wether you prefer this or the method of character building in SS2, it by no means makes Bioshock worse, as a matter of fact it makes Bioshock a more friendly title allowing you to use whatever you want at any given time without limiting your abilities. This is not a bad thing.
I will completetly agree that the plot of both tiles is very similiar and hits the same marks. This is not up for debate.
You seem to undermine Bioshock for not bearing the trappings of a Survival-Horror title. Most of the points you try to make in SS2' favor are actually reasons why Bioshock IS a far superior FPS game.
Had there been no emphasis on choice, had the plasmids and gene tonics been just granted to the player, had the gene bank not been implemented, had Irrational not place so much emphasis on horror, you'd be right. It's clear that they've attempted to recapture the success of Shock 2. All these genre elements, RPG, action, and horror, come to undermine eachother. And therein lies my criticism.
How do they undermine eachother?
You are simply letting your knowledge of existing genres distort your view of Bioshock as a title. Your narrow view of gaming must be fairly limited in that if a game doesn't adhere to a specific genre and/or genres than it must fail in doing what YOU believe it set out to do. We live in a time where games borrow elements from other genres without needlessy clinging to its conventions.
If you cannot accept this than you should probably stick to older titles. But looking at the games you're currently playing... I'd say you already know that.
I played both, I and I liked both actually. Would give a nudge to bioshock for the art and atmosphere in that game is really something. But yea, most critics say both are fine and stellar games. If you cannot see the amount of effort and love that has went into you must be a jaded gamer. It most definitely is not a terrible game.Grats, now play System Shock 2 and realise how terrible Bioshock is.
Socijalisticka
but if the OP is not a whore about graphics he would benefit from playing SS2.
Oh and for bioshock 2, will echo some of the general setiment, it does well to capture the atmosphere, but the characters are not great, the storyline is nothing special, there is one REALLY neat 'level' in the game, regarding the little sisters that I wont speak further of, but seriously that level should be talked about alot more. Other then that, it is an average-above average game that does deliver a bioshock experience, just not as stellar as the first. C_Glass
That Little Sister sequence was awesome!
[QUOTE="C_Glass"]Oh and for bioshock 2, will echo some of the general setiment, it does well to capture the atmosphere, but the characters are not great, the storyline is nothing special, there is one REALLY neat 'level' in the game, regarding the little sisters that I wont speak further of, but seriously that level should be talked about alot more. Other then that, it is an average-above average game that does deliver a bioshock experience, just not as stellar as the first. ReviewerDrake
That Little Sister sequence was awesome!
Favorite level across both games. No contest. Also, be careful about spoilers. (Saying the above is not a true spoiler, but it's close.)
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
[QUOTE="contracts420"]
I fail to understand how Bioshock is not a competent FPS game.
When creating Bioshock the team decided to abandon the uneccesary fluff that comes with RPG elements and instead focus on crafting a more atmoshpheric FPS. The developer intended that the player be able to accomplish whatever task is presented to them without having to build their character in any specific way. Instead giving the player upgrades to their existing skills rather than locking the player or limiting the players control. Wether you prefer this or the method of character building in SS2, it by no means makes Bioshock worse, as a matter of fact it makes Bioshock a more friendly title allowing you to use whatever you want at any given time without limiting your abilities. This is not a bad thing.
I will completetly agree that the plot of both tiles is very similiar and hits the same marks. This is not up for debate.
You seem to undermine Bioshock for not bearing the trappings of a Survival-Horror title. Most of the points you try to make in SS2' favor are actually reasons why Bioshock IS a far superior FPS game.
contracts420
Had there been no emphasis on choice, had the plasmids and gene tonics been just granted to the player, had the gene bank not been implemented, had Irrational not place so much emphasis on horror, you'd be right. It's clear that they've attempted to recapture the success of Shock 2. All these genre elements, RPG, action, and horror, come to undermine eachother. And therein lies my criticism.
How do they undermine eachother?
You are simply letting your knowledge of existing genres distort your view of Bioshock as a title. Your narrow view of gaming must be fairly limited in that if a game doesn't adhere to a specific genre and/or genres than it must fail in doing what YOU believe it set out to do. We live in a time where games borrow elements from other genres without needlessy clinging to its conventions.
If you cannot accept this than you should probably stick to older titles. But looking at the games you're currently playing... I'd say you already know that.
The abundance of resources (and in result the lack of character restriction) and Gene Banks undermine the whole concept of role-playing. Having character progression that impacts how you interact with an environment gets in the way of you and blowing off enemy heads with a sniper rifle in an action game. I don't consider God Mode, mediocre AI, and Oblivion-esque health meters in replacement of visual damage to be indicative of a good FPS. Oh and God Mode and non-threatening enemies works well with horror doesn't it?
[QUOTE="contracts420"]
[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]
Had there been no emphasis on choice, had the plasmids and gene tonics been just granted to the player, had the gene bank not been implemented, had Irrational not place so much emphasis on horror, you'd be right. It's clear that they've attempted to recapture the success of Shock 2. All these genre elements, RPG, action, and horror, come to undermine eachother. And therein lies my criticism.
Socijalisticka
How do they undermine eachother?
You are simply letting your knowledge of existing genres distort your view of Bioshock as a title. Your narrow view of gaming must be fairly limited in that if a game doesn't adhere to a specific genre and/or genres than it must fail in doing what YOU believe it set out to do. We live in a time where games borrow elements from other genres without needlessy clinging to its conventions.
If you cannot accept this than you should probably stick to older titles. But looking at the games you're currently playing... I'd say you already know that.
The abundance of resources (and in result the lack of character restriction) and Gene Banks undermine the whole concept of role-playing. Having character progression that impacts how you interact with an environment gets in the way of you and blowing off enemy heads with a sniper rifle in an action game. I don't consider God Mode, mediocre AI, and Oblivion-esque health meters in replacement of visual damage to be indicative of a good FPS. Oh and God Mode and non-threatening enemies works well with horror doesn't it?
Once again you expect it to adhere to a genres conventions even when they are not the focus. This so called "God Mode" you speak of does not exist. It simply causes you to respawn, it works just like checkpoints except enemies killed stay dead, it also comes at a cost... any ammo used you don't get back and you only respawn with a fraction of your maximum health. So in the end it balances itself out.
Mediocre A.I? Really, because the A.I is vastly improved over something like SS2. This alone proves how biased and narrow minded you are.
Splinter Cell Conviction is a stealth game, but also an action game. Allowing the player to use whatever means to get by. However the game only gives you limited supplies (weapons, gadgets) to utilize. But you can swap these when you come across weapons crates, now would this make Conviction an RPG game? I mean you can upgrade things as well, including your suit in the game. But no, it's not an RPG.
You are so limited in your view of gaming and so biased that you really can't see the problem with your logic. You simply pick what you believe is the "definition" of a genre and expect other games to adhere to that without question, otherwise it fails.
But I believe the real issue is probably this, you prefer System Shock 2 and you don't like Bioshock because it wasn't exactly the same. So you try to justify that. You are simply biased. Case closed.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment