Point loss for posting that Captain Planet pic.
I mean come on.
What was the Feel-Good Story for PC Gaming in 2007?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Ahhh now back to the feel-good stories of 2007! :D
Who remembers Psychonauts! That was one of the feel good stories of 2005! I wish I could find that game!!
Mfsa:
I think that is a really cynical outlook - no offence:biggest_loser
None taken, I'm a bitter and cynical bastard and I hate most things and most people. I am also impossible to offend, so feel free to hurl terrible insults at me.
Just because a game is popular does not automatically mean that there isn't quality in itbiggest_loser
Not automatically - certainly not. Not even most of the time. I don't live by the rationale that if it's popular, it must be bad. Crysis is pretty damn popular, and I love it. Hell, four of my favourite games have sold past the four million mark. My point was simply that the best way to make the most money is to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Typically, the broader the audience, the simpler, stupider and easier to understand (and therefore usually worse) the something is.
Gamers are not entirely stupid - Could it be that a game is popular because gamers see the quality in it? biggest_loser
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You describe the GTA games in an extremely harsh light and yet the last two GTA games alone have sold something like a conmbined thirty million. The argument that popular things aren't necessarily good is no more or less valid than the argument that popular things are good. It's a matter of taste more than quality, and I firmly believe that the broader the audience, the lower the quality.
But I'd like to make a distinction here between something being popular because it has as broad an audience as possible and something being popular because it's extremely highly regarded within a particular and limited audience. There is a difference between the two.
Good examples: Half-Life 2 - that is one of the highest selling PC games and not even you could say that that isn't a great game. biggest_loser
I like it, but it's still a matter of taste. I believe the game was simply extremely popular within a very specific demographic, rather than appealing with moderate success to an extremely broad demographic.
I think the difference between popular and unpopular is not so much quality but accessibility: you Mfsa would like System Shock 2 to have sold millions and millions of copies, which is fair enough, you love the game. If it became popular like that I don't think you would mind in other words.But on accessibility many gamers would obviously like to jump into a game and not have to worry too much about the learning curve (hence the popularity of most FPS) - I think SS2 has a pretty steep curve and its a difficult game wouldn't you agree? - thats okay though. biggest_loser
I would definitely agree. System Shock 2 is incredibly inaccessible - I remember hearing some Irrational employees mention in a webcast that Ken Levine wanted to put a video at the beginning of System Shock 2 to explain to people why the game was so cool, because most people didn't get it and found it too confusing until they knew what they were doing. I myself ended up quitting the game on my first try through (around 6/8 into the game), only to restart armed with the knowledge of how to play the game properly.
My problem with BioShock is that they went from one extreme to the other, from extremely difficult and conplex to the lowest common denominator. It was a knee-jerk reaction purely so the game would appeal to as broad an audience as possible - all of the coolest elements of SS2 have been simplified, trivialised even to the point of superficiality. The entire game feels like a funhouse mirror reflection of Shock 2. And yet that grotesque, deformed image is selling much, much better than the beautiful work of art ever did - and because of that, I may never get to experience another game as beautiful as System Shock 2. I'm stuck just looking at its ugly reflection. All because of popular.
Anyway, there's not going to be a winner here. Thanks for disagreeing with me. I was planning on doing a SS2 vs BioShock video for my next video and it's much easier to write when you're bouncing thoughts off of someone. You've helped me here tonight.
No offence: but please play the full game before making a judgement. You have played the demo: you really can only comment on the plasmids and their use over time if you have played the game for many hours. I am still getting through it.
Sure some are better than others but it allows people to make up their own preferences. Mfsa said it himself in a way. He chose lightning I chose ice.
biggest_loser
The real problem with the game is that it's incredibly repetitive (enter level, kill 3 big daddies, a bunch of splicers, buy ammo/supplies with your near infinite amount of money, move on to next level, rinse, repeat).
The other problem that I personally have with it is what others have already mentioned, that regardless of what weapon/plasmid combination you choose the combat plays out the same way (i can freeze you, shock you, set you ablaze). In addition, the lack of RPG elements is mind boggling. There aren't any character choices to be made (i.e., character customization) or quests involving anything other than fetch this, take some pictures, or open some door to which a switch is located on the opposite side of the level.
These problems are the reason why i stopped playing the game about 4 hours in and i haven't played it since, though i do want to finish it someday since i paid good money for it.
No offence: but please play the full game before making a judgement. You have played the demo: you really can only comment on the plasmids and their use over time if you have played the game for many hours. I am still getting through it.
biggest_loser
Ahem... "I'm not trying to take a stance on Bioshock's quality..." I'm explaining mfsa's point on this aspect (which I agree with, provided I would draw the same conclusion as he upon trying the plasmids in the full game) because you're not understanding it.
Sure some are better than others but it allows people to make up their own preferences. Mfsa said it himself in a way. He chose lightning I chose ice.
biggest_loser
That's just the point. You shouldn't be picking a single preference. You said yourself that there's a whole myriad of ways you can combat the enemies. Yet you picked one way as your primary method. You felt a desire to pick one as more preferable than all the others for most situations, thus making them nearly pointless for you beyond initial experimentation. You should be wanting to use a vast array of them. You should be all wired up in a part of your mind over the fact that you chose the one plasmid over the other (not because you find out the one you're using isn't as good, but because the other one was equally or nearly as good).
It should be like... like you're a kid in a candy shop. It should be like shopping for candy for yourself as a kid, and your mom will only let you buy three candy items. You go CRAZY as you war with yourself over which ones you should get. You try to think which ones taste the best, which ones you feel like tasting right now, which ones will last you the longest, but it's no use. You just can't stop going insane. They all look and taste so darn good. When you finally make your choices and buy them, you walk out of the candy shop, happy with your treats. But it doesn't stop you from looking over your shoulder at the store and wishing you could taste those other candies soooo bad.
That's what the plasmids should be like (and I'm not saying I wouldn't think they are, I'm trying to get you to understand what mfsa is trying to point out, and why [explaining what I think his position is and why it's valid, if you will]).
Isn't Jp_Russel and Msfa roomates?
Heh just play it on Msfa computer.
OoSuperMarioO
me: in Florida
mfsa: in the UK
People are going to have favourites though lol...
Thats just a natural thing - you don't have to use every plasmid - thats the choice..
[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Isn't Jp_Russel and Msfa roomates?
Heh just play it on Msfa computer.
JP_Russell
me: in Florida
mfsa: in the UK
O I see. I remember reading a thread a while back where some guys attended the same college. Mixed up the wrong guys. Apologize for that one.[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]No offence: but please play the full game before making a judgement. You have played the demo: you really can only comment on the plasmids and their use over time if you have played the game for many hours. I am still getting through it.
Sure some are better than others but it allows people to make up their own preferences. Mfsa said it himself in a way. He chose lightning I chose ice.
spierdalaj666
The real problem with the game is that it's incredibly repetitive (enter level, kill 3 big daddies, a bunch of splicers, buy ammo/supplies with your near infinite amount of money, move on to next level, rinse, repeat).
The other problem that I personally have with it is what others have already mentioned, that regardless of what weapon/plasmid combination you choose the combat plays out the same way (i can freeze you, shock you, set you ablaze). In addition, the lack of RPG elements is mind boggling. There aren't any character choices to be made (i.e., character customization) or quests involving anything other than fetch this, take some pictures, or open some door to which a switch is located on the opposite side of the level.
These problems are the reason why i stopped playing the game about 4 hours in and i haven't played it since, though i do want to finish it someday since i paid good money for it.
What do you care about repetition? You have 4 Medieval games in your collection: you can't tell me that doesnt get a little samey. It would be like calling HL2 repetitious because you spend all your time shooting.
Games are repetitive in nature, but really it becomes a polished formula rather than repetition and if you personally find that formula to be fun then you won't mind if you're doing the same things over and over.
People are going to have favourites though lol...
Thats just a natural thing - you don't have to use every plasmid - thats the choice..
biggest_loser
Of course you're going to have favorites. But you should still have a keen interest in other cand- I mean, plasmids; enough so that you wouldn't feel like you're using a clearly inferior one if you used something other than your preference. I prefer the Ganz over the LMG's in 2142; that doesn't mean I don't frequently feel like using them instead.
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]People are going to have favourites though lol...
Thats just a natural thing - you don't have to use every plasmid - thats the choice..
JP_Russell
Of course you're going to have favorites. But you should still have a keen interest in other cand- I mean, plasmids; enough so that you wouldn't feel like you're using a clearly inferior one if you used something other than your preference. I prefer the Ganz over the LMG's in 2142; that doesn't mean I don't frequently feel like using them instead.
I find them all so satisfying and that is my opinion! Bioshock for life!!
[QUOTE="JP_Russell"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]People are going to have favourites though lol...
Thats just a natural thing - you don't have to use every plasmid - thats the choice..
biggest_loser
Of course you're going to have favorites. But you should still have a keen interest in other cand- I mean, plasmids; enough so that you wouldn't feel like you're using a clearly inferior one if you used something other than your preference. I prefer the Ganz over the LMG's in 2142; that doesn't mean I don't frequently feel like using them instead.
I find them all so satisfying and that is my opinion! Bioshock for life!!
There's always one, isn't there. Always one.
I don't know if you're telling the truth - you might easily just be fibbing to back your argument, but I can tell you for a certainty that a hell of a lot of people agree with the plasmids-are-crappy argument. Not only are they poorly balanced and often redundant, they're also just weapons - often pretty generic weapons - we've seen before plenty of times in games. Tazer, flamethrower, gravity gun.
That's not to say they aren't sometimes cool, setting someone on fire, chasing him as he runs to the nearest water source to douse the flames, then blasting electricity into the water to kill him is just good - but the thing is that the game is so easy (it is the easiest FPS I've ever played) that strategy is redundant. Why go to all that effort when you can just smack a guy in the face? Because you want to? It's the developer's job to make us want to.
The other problem is that the level design is only half a notch higher than Dark Messiah's oh let's put a big wall full of spikesright here for no reason. The combat feels artificial - contrived. There were times when I saw a pool of water and I was just telling myself than an enemy would spawn and path right through it so I could electrobolt the water - and it always happened. I didn't feel like I was in a candy store to use JP_Russell's metaphor, I felt like I was in a queue to receive war rations and my only choice was to stand in the queue or starve.
Can you honestly tell me that for the big daddy who shoots grenades, you ever even thought of doing something other than telekenesising his grenades back at him? It's simply the most efficient way of killing him. And that is really a summation of the whole combat. The most efficient way of doing something. If the gunplay itself was actually satisfying, it wouldn't matter - but this is no F.E.A.R. Hell, this is Quake. Quake was great in '96, but it's not blowing my mind today.
I dodge the grenades and then use my own grenade launcher, followed by Armour piercing bullets from the machine gun. I have also used a security plasmid to get the Big Daddy to fight the turrents to soften him up.
There is nothing wrong with the level design at all. The art direction is amazing and unique. There are many extra rooms to explore and it is just a great setting. More interesting than the Cargo bay of SS2 thats for sure!
Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
biggest_loser
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
mfsa
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
biggest_loser
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
I find it pretty hard to not compare the two games when BS has copied every single gameplay mechanic in SS2, has copied the story, has copied the narrative structure and style, and has copied level design elements and gameplay scenario elements.
As for the soundwork, I didn't say it was bad - just bad compared with System Shock 2's. Taken on its own merits, it's probably pretty good... but I just can't avoid that comparison (see above paragraph). Maybe not in quality, but certainly in content - the writing was not very compelling, which goes to the horror elements, where BioShock falls flat.
I would not compare them so much if BioShock had tried to be its own game, had tried to be an item entirely apart from System Shock 2 in the same way that Half Life 2 is completely removed from Half Life as a gaming experience, but BioShock didn't even try to do that - in fact, it tried the absolute opposite. It did try to be System Shock 2, only it tried to be a bastardised and mainstream version of System Shock 2. I can't move past that.
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]But there is freedom in the game - they just don't spell it out for you. You have so many ways to attack your enemies with your powers. You can set them on fire and then electrify the water they dive into. You can attack them with bees and then hide while they are stung. You can freeze them and then smash them with a wrench or shoot them. There are many options with the combat. But there are so many upgrades to choose from and you really have to think which ones you want.
JP_Russell
Mfsa already brought up his point about that, though. All those different ways to do those things are nice, but if most of them are far less efficient than a select few, they lose their merit. Sure, experimenting with them for the first several times might be fun, but once the novelty wear off, you stop and go "Well, that was neat, but it didn't work nearly as well as that one other method. I should just stick with that." I can see how that would be a real disappointment. All that fluff, and no point in most of it beyond experimentation the first few times.
Note: I have not played Bioshock (just the demo), but I understand what mfsa is saying and agree with his logic. I'm not trying to take a stance on Bioshock's quality, I'm just trying to explain his position to you.
First of all, what the hell has happened to Biggest Loser? He's actually writing interesting posts and makes some sence all the same time!
Second, I agree with him. Maybe I'm an inefficient guy, but damn it, I want to have fun in games, not zap and whack people the whole game through. After the first level I never used that tactic again. It was fun to use different weapons and plasmids and upgrading them, although some were pretty lame. I did not like decoy at all. Sometimes you have to "help" the game on it's way to become a better title than it is. The ideal thing is for the game to force you to use different tactics, but if you refuse to stray away from the "zap and whack"-strategy, then it's your loss, I'm afraid.
System Shock 2 is better than Bioshock in almost any way. Except resolution. Yes, I find SS2's graphics to be better (with mods, but still, and not in the last level, the only weakness in that game). It's a classic. A far better FPS than any other out there. Imo. That might explain the "Bioshock sucks!" comments. The game is good, most people will (unwillingly) agree on that, I think... But after eating your grandmother's warm pie (SS2), you simply won't enjoy some pie your local baker has made (Bioshock). It tastes good, but it blows compared to gm's pie.
[QUOTE="spierdalaj666"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]No offence: but please play the full game before making a judgement. You have played the demo: you really can only comment on the plasmids and their use over time if you have played the game for many hours. I am still getting through it.
Sure some are better than others but it allows people to make up their own preferences. Mfsa said it himself in a way. He chose lightning I chose ice.
biggest_loser
The real problem with the game is that it's incredibly repetitive (enter level, kill 3 big daddies, a bunch of splicers, buy ammo/supplies with your near infinite amount of money, move on to next level, rinse, repeat).
The other problem that I personally have with it is what others have already mentioned, that regardless of what weapon/plasmid combination you choose the combat plays out the same way (i can freeze you, shock you, set you ablaze). In addition, the lack of RPG elements is mind boggling. There aren't any character choices to be made (i.e., character customization) or quests involving anything other than fetch this, take some pictures, or open some door to which a switch is located on the opposite side of the level.
These problems are the reason why i stopped playing the game about 4 hours in and i haven't played it since, though i do want to finish it someday since i paid good money for it.
What do you care about repetition? You have 4 Medieval games in your collection: you can't tell me that doesnt get a little samey. It would be like calling HL2 repetitious because you spend all your time shooting.
Games are repetitive in nature, but really it becomes a polished formula rather than repetition and if you personally find that formula to be fun then you won't mind if you're doing the same things over and over.
Damn, i should really update my profile (more games to add now) to show you that i appreciate variety:D
The point I was making wasn't about the firefights being all the same, my point was simply that the only differences between bioshock and any other FPS are the setting and the inclusion of plasmids. The game was almost completely devoid of RPG elements, which in my opinion, would have made is much much better. Imagine being confronted with real moral choices (not just save little girl and get enough adam or kill her and get slightly more) and situations where you didn't have to kill everything that moves.
And as for the medieval games in my collection, medieval II total war is a "spiritual" successor to Medieval total war :)
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
mfsa
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
I find it pretty hard to not compare the two games when BS has copied every single gameplay mechanic in SS2, has copied the story, has copied the narrative structure and style, and has copied level design elements and gameplay scenario elements.
As for the soundwork, I didn't say it was bad - just bad compared with System Shock 2's. Taken on its own merits, it's probably pretty good... but I just can't avoid that comparison (see above paragraph). Maybe not in quality, but certainly in content - the writing was not very compelling, which goes to the horror elements, where BioShock falls flat.
I would not compare them so much if BioShock had tried to be its own game, had tried to be an item entirely apart from System Shock 2 in the same way that Half Life 2 is completely removed from Half Life as a gaming experience, but BioShock didn't even try to do that - in fact, it tried the absolute opposite. It did try to be System Shock 2, only it tried to be a bastardised and mainstream version of System Shock 2. I can't move past that.
I hardly believe that Bioshock has copied System Shock 2 - I think of it as a remake - thats right: I believe that Bioshock is really a remake of that game. Just as Doom 3 was to Doom 1, that wasn't a copy now was it? And its not as crazy as you might think: Ken Levine is the creative director of 2K Boston - he worked on both Bioshock and System Shock 2 so of course there are going to be similar things there.
And don't tell me that the elements of System Shock 2 are "dumbed down" please - at least Bioshock is accessible and as such it is more fun and enjoyable to play. I think it is complex in the way that you can only have a certain number of powers and you have all the various upgrades and what not.
The point of the game is to make you as strong as possible. The developers don't want to hinder you for once - they want you to play through the world and explore - hence you have the reviving chamber so you can keep playing and progressing and also the ability to search through rooms and be rewarded accordingly.
First of all, what the hell has happened to Biggest Loser? He's actually writing interesting posts and makes some sence all the same time!
artur79
:lol: I've been thinking the exact same thing for the past couple days. He's actually being... Oh, dare I say it? He's being n-... N-... N-!... Aherm. Noooohhheeeeyabalamanobobble!
Woah. Let's try that again. Nyyyyyyy-eeeehhhklopsaniberaja!
Damn it, I can do this! NORMmmmmm- *grunts* -mmmuuhhaaaahhhhxerredosajiggajiggabobo!!
Forget it. It's just not possible. No, I've probably slipped into an alternate dimension somehow. Yeah, that's it.
[QUOTE="artur79"]First of all, what the hell has happened to Biggest Loser? He's actually writing interesting posts and makes some sence all the same time!
JP_Russell
:lol: I've been thinking the exact same thing for the past couple days. He's actually being... Oh, dare I say it? He's being n-... N-... N-!... Aherm. Noooohhheeeeyabalamanobobble!
Woah. Let's try that again. Nyyyyyyy-eeeehhhklopsaniberaja!
Damn it, I can do this! NORMmmmmm- *grunts* -mmmuuhhaaaahhhhxerredosajiggajiggabobo!!
Forget it. It's just not possible. No, I've probably slipped into an alternate dimension somehow. Yeah, that's it.
Lol, I have a sneaking suspicion that his drugs are finally kicking in. Haha, no offence B_L, you know I'm kidding. :D
Yes well ahem, that is laregly correct: but more importantly I await the response of Mfsa...biggest_loser
It's 4 am in Uk. He's probably off to bed. That reminds me, I should do the same. Damn my job, screws up my internal clock in new and imaginative ways every month...
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Yes well ahem, that is laregly correct: but more importantly I await the response of Mfsa...artur79
It's 4 am in Uk. He's probably off to bed. That reminds me, I should do the same. Damn my job, screws up my internal clock in new and imaginative ways every month...
Wow, you guys are only five hours later in the day than here under Eastern Time. For some reason, I was thinking there was close to a twelve-hour differential.
[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
biggest_loser
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
I find it pretty hard to not compare the two games when BS has copied every single gameplay mechanic in SS2, has copied the story, has copied the narrative structure and style, and has copied level design elements and gameplay scenario elements.
As for the soundwork, I didn't say it was bad - just bad compared with System Shock 2's. Taken on its own merits, it's probably pretty good... but I just can't avoid that comparison (see above paragraph). Maybe not in quality, but certainly in content - the writing was not very compelling, which goes to the horror elements, where BioShock falls flat.
I would not compare them so much if BioShock had tried to be its own game, had tried to be an item entirely apart from System Shock 2 in the same way that Half Life 2 is completely removed from Half Life as a gaming experience, but BioShock didn't even try to do that - in fact, it tried the absolute opposite. It did try to be System Shock 2, only it tried to be a bastardised and mainstream version of System Shock 2. I can't move past that.
I hardly believe that Bioshock has copied System Shock 2 - I think of it as a remake - thats right: I believe that Bioshock is really a remake of that game. Just as Doom 3 was to Doom 1, that wasn't a copy now was it? And its not as crazy as you might think: Ken Levine is the creative director of 2K Boston - he worked on both Bioshock and System Shock 2 so of course there are going to be similar things there.
And don't tell me that the elements of System Shock 2 are "dumbed down" please - at least Bioshock is accessible and as such it is more fun and enjoyable to play. I think it is complex in the way that you can only have a certain number of powers and you have all the various upgrades and what not.
The point of the game is to make you as strong as possible. The developers don't want to hinder you for once - they want you to play through the world and explore - hence you have the reviving chamber so you can keep playing and progressing and also the ability to search through rooms and be rewarded accordingly.
Bioshock is a carbon copy of SS2, if you can't believe that then I won't argue with you since there is no point in arguing with someone that doesn't want to be convinced. Doom 3 and the Originals is horrible comparison to support your argument since Doom 3 is drastically different in nearly every way.
You say "Don't tell me that elements of SS2 are dumbed down" but immediately contradict yourself by saying that Bioshock is more accessible and more "fun and enjoyable." Personally I found Bioshock boring after the first couple hours of playing. As for the limited space for plasmids I found it incredibly simple to pick and choose which ones to equip simply because there were relatively FEW worth using on a regular basis.
The exploration in this game is very limited, Bioshock is a very linear game, there would be more merit to what you say that the devs made a world for the users to play through and explore, IF there was a world to explore.
As I already said it is a remake of System Shock 2 - it was worked on by the same guy.
Just because something has been made more accessible and easier to use doesn't mean that it is dumber surely. Have you actually played System Shock 2? Do you know how insanely difficult and confusing that game can be?
The exploration is not limited at all. You have so many extra rooms to search through. They are all beautifully decorated in a very unique style and have many goodies as I have already said: health, eve, plot points, ammo. You have COD4 and Crysis so you obviously don't mind linear games lol.
You also have to look at the story: its really rich in detail when you look at the themes like corruption, abuse of power, greed, autocracy, utopia vs. dystopia. Did i mention the game looks and sounds gorgeous? I am more impressed with the visuals and the style than Crysis!
Bottom line: Bioshock is fun, and fun, and fun! Did I say fun?
I prefer other kind of games, like Fallout, Baldur's Gate or the Thief series, but hey, Bioshock too is fun in its own way. And very atmospheric. I was completely overwhelmed by SS2 (I played SS1 too) at first. After a while I felt like "this is getting old". And I don't necessarily have to rationalize that, it's not like I'm reading Nietzsche or anything (my HUMBLE opinion, don't shoot me). I am not saying, for Christ sake, that is not valid to do so. Only that it won't change the way anybody feels, ever. People like it, people don't like it, the same goes for everything. I'm a proud and faithful member of the worldwide "Fallout Fanatic Brotherhood" and I don't rationalize about it either. All I know is that the game is fun like hell (er.. I guess hell isn't fun). :)
I meant to write only the first line. Forget the rest. ;)
[QUOTE="SentientGames"][QUOTE="mfsa"]BioShock came nowhere near touching its hype. The hype said Shooter 2.0. The hype said a spiritual successor to System Shock 2.
BioShock belongs on the biggest disappointment list of 2007. BioShock belongs on the Feel-Good story of crappy console games ruining PC gaming in 2007 list.
I agree with The Witcher, though. It's like a mixture of Baldur's Gate, an argument between two fourteen year olds on MSN and a brothel. It's a perfect mixture.
biggest_loser
That just goes to show you that you should never believe the hype. Chances are, if it's a spiritual successor, you shouldn't expect the same thing, even if they try to hype up the fans of the original. For example, Diablo > Hellgate: London.
Anyway, neither BioShock or the Witcher had very light-hearted, feel-good stories. Both were pretty dark and depressing, which was awesome, but not really "feel-good". Off the top of my head, the only game that left me with a positive vibe was Portal. The ending theme definitely was a "feel-good" song.
I didn't mean a game that had a feel good story literally - I meant a game that came out and really delivered and made you feel proud: it made you feel good to play it etc.
But yes I think Portal is another great example, reinspiring the puzzle genre really and proving that humour can work in games. It was really awesome.
I thought Bioshock was a feel good game... Didn't you see the good ending (spoilers: I felt like Oscar Schindler and just saved the Jews!) Also Bioshock's combat is amazing. It's far superior than something like CoD4, which is just point and shoot constantly respawning enemies in super linear levels. Bioshock gave you the tools to have a great time (the plasmids), if you weren't really using them, well ofcourse your not going to see what the big deal about the gameplay was. But even more amazingly, you could just play it like every other shooter if you wanted to and just go guns blazing with a machine gun, or you could play it crysis style and go cloak behind a tree or something. The sheer variety is mind blowing and hugely satisfying. And yes, I have played system shock 2, people these are two diffrent games, yes ss2 is deeper, but not being as deep doesn't mean its crap, neither does being deeper makes it a more fun game to play.
for there are quite a few games :
(1) OB : portal - absolute masterpiece, i expected some lame moving puzzles. tf2 revived my interest in online games and episode 2 showed how valve are masters at creating scripted games
(2) crsysis : with so much hype i was sure i was going to be disspointed, but the game didn't dissapoint a bit atleast till the end
(3) stalker : years in the making and finally came out as a great game
(4) witcher :great game from a first time dev
As I already said it is a remake of System Shock 2 - it was worked on by the same guy.
Just because something has been made more accessible and easier to use doesn't mean that it is dumber surely. Have you actually played System Shock 2? Do you know how insanely difficult and confusing that game can be?
The exploration is not limited at all. You have so many extra rooms to search through. They are all beautifully decorated in a very unique style and have many goodies as I have already said: health, eve, plot points, ammo. You have COD4 and Crysis so you obviously don't mind linear games lol.
You also have to look at the story: its really rich in detail when you look at the themes like corruption, abuse of power, greed, autocracy, utopia vs. dystopia. Did i mention the game looks and sounds gorgeous? I am more impressed with the visuals and the style than Crysis!
biggest_loser
It's not a remake of System Shock 2, it's a spiritual successor, if it were we would be seeing "System Shock 2 The Remake! When something is made more "accessible" it is more often than not dumbed down, such is the case with Bioshock. Indeed System Shock 2 is challenging and some reduction in difficulty could be desirable, but look again, that difficulty helped with the horror tone. With Bioshock there is no difficulty, everything can be done from the get go, money ammo and medkits/eve are everywhere, there are no repurcussions of death, the combat is dull and boring after the novelty of plasmids wear off, and hacking is remarkably simple.
And yes the exploration is very limited, for a so called FPSRPG Bioshock is pretty damn small, several extra rooms is nothing compared to the entire Zone that you can search and explore in STALKER. You are right that I don't mind linear games, so long as they are entertaining throughout the playthrough, which Bioshock did not do for me whereas CoD4 and Crysis did. Why you would claim Crysis is a linear game is beyond me though.
Anyway the story structure itself is the same as System Shock 2, not to mention both of Bioshocks endings, and the moral choices, were disappointingly shallow. I will agree that the art direction is well done in Bioshock, but the visuals themselves don't top Crysis in my book.
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]As I already said it is a remake of System Shock 2 - it was worked on by the same guy.
Just because something has been made more accessible and easier to use doesn't mean that it is dumber surely. Have you actually played System Shock 2? Do you know how insanely difficult and confusing that game can be?
The exploration is not limited at all. You have so many extra rooms to search through. They are all beautifully decorated in a very unique style and have many goodies as I have already said: health, eve, plot points, ammo. You have COD4 and Crysis so you obviously don't mind linear games lol.
You also have to look at the story: its really rich in detail when you look at the themes like corruption, abuse of power, greed, autocracy, utopia vs. dystopia. Did i mention the game looks and sounds gorgeous? I am more impressed with the visuals and the style than Crysis!
DucksBrains
It's not a remake of System Shock 2, it's a spiritual successor, if it were we would be seeing "System Shock 2 The Remake! When something is made more "accessible" it is more often than not dumbed down, such is the case with Bioshock. Indeed System Shock 2 is challenging and some reduction in difficulty could be desirable, but look again, that difficulty helped with the horror tone. With Bioshock there is no difficulty, everything can be done from the get go, money ammo and medkits/eve are everywhere, there are no repurcussions of death, the combat is dull and boring after the novelty of plasmids wear off, and hacking is remarkably simple.
And yes the exploration is very limited, for a so called FPSRPG Bioshock is pretty damn small, several extra rooms is nothing compared to the entire Zone that you can search and explore in STALKER. You are right that I don't mind linear games, so long as they are entertaining throughout the playthrough, which Bioshock did not do for me whereas CoD4 and Crysis did. Why you would claim Crysis is a linear game is beyond me though.
Anyway the story structure itself is the same as System Shock 2, not to mention both of Bioshocks endings, and the moral choices, were disappointingly shallow. I will agree that the art direction is well done in Bioshock, but the visuals themselves don't top Crysis in my book.
How can you even bring Stalker into this? They are so different, different purpose, etc.
Of course we agree to disagree..
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="SentientGames"][QUOTE="mfsa"]BioShock came nowhere near touching its hype. The hype said Shooter 2.0. The hype said a spiritual successor to System Shock 2.
BioShock belongs on the biggest disappointment list of 2007. BioShock belongs on the Feel-Good story of crappy console games ruining PC gaming in 2007 list.
I agree with The Witcher, though. It's like a mixture of Baldur's Gate, an argument between two fourteen year olds on MSN and a brothel. It's a perfect mixture.
TheGrayEye
That just goes to show you that you should never believe the hype. Chances are, if it's a spiritual successor, you shouldn't expect the same thing, even if they try to hype up the fans of the original. For example, Diablo > Hellgate: London.
Anyway, neither BioShock or the Witcher had very light-hearted, feel-good stories. Both were pretty dark and depressing, which was awesome, but not really "feel-good". Off the top of my head, the only game that left me with a positive vibe was Portal. The ending theme definitely was a "feel-good" song.
I didn't mean a game that had a feel good story literally - I meant a game that came out and really delivered and made you feel proud: it made you feel good to play it etc.
But yes I think Portal is another great example, reinspiring the puzzle genre really and proving that humour can work in games. It was really awesome.
I thought Bioshock was a feel good game... Didn't you see the good ending (spoilers: I felt like Oscar Schindler and just saved the Jews!) Also Bioshock's combat is amazing. It's far superior than something like CoD4, which is just point and shoot constantly respawning enemies in super linear levels. Bioshock gave you the tools to have a great time (the plasmids), if you weren't really using them, well ofcourse your not going to see what the big deal about the gameplay was. But even more amazingly, you could just play it like every other shooter if you wanted to and just go guns blazing with a machine gun, or you could play it crysis style and go cloak behind a tree or something. The sheer variety is mind blowing and hugely satisfying. And yes, I have played system shock 2, people these are two diffrent games, yes ss2 is deeper, but not being as deep doesn't mean its crap, neither does being deeper makes it a more fun game to play.
I'm glad you found it satisfying. It is a game that you just enjoy for hours on end with little complaint. I am off to play it now...still getting through it!!
[QUOTE="DucksBrains"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]As I already said it is a remake of System Shock 2 - it was worked on by the same guy.
Just because something has been made more accessible and easier to use doesn't mean that it is dumber surely. Have you actually played System Shock 2? Do you know how insanely difficult and confusing that game can be?
The exploration is not limited at all. You have so many extra rooms to search through. They are all beautifully decorated in a very unique style and have many goodies as I have already said: health, eve, plot points, ammo. You have COD4 and Crysis so you obviously don't mind linear games lol.
You also have to look at the story: its really rich in detail when you look at the themes like corruption, abuse of power, greed, autocracy, utopia vs. dystopia. Did i mention the game looks and sounds gorgeous? I am more impressed with the visuals and the style than Crysis!
biggest_loser
It's not a remake of System Shock 2, it's a spiritual successor, if it were we would be seeing "System Shock 2 The Remake! When something is made more "accessible" it is more often than not dumbed down, such is the case with Bioshock. Indeed System Shock 2 is challenging and some reduction in difficulty could be desirable, but look again, that difficulty helped with the horror tone. With Bioshock there is no difficulty, everything can be done from the get go, money ammo and medkits/eve are everywhere, there are no repurcussions of death, the combat is dull and boring after the novelty of plasmids wear off, and hacking is remarkably simple.
And yes the exploration is very limited, for a so called FPSRPG Bioshock is pretty damn small, several extra rooms is nothing compared to the entire Zone that you can search and explore in STALKER. You are right that I don't mind linear games, so long as they are entertaining throughout the playthrough, which Bioshock did not do for me whereas CoD4 and Crysis did. Why you would claim Crysis is a linear game is beyond me though.
Anyway the story structure itself is the same as System Shock 2, not to mention both of Bioshocks endings, and the moral choices, were disappointingly shallow. I will agree that the art direction is well done in Bioshock, but the visuals themselves don't top Crysis in my book.
How can you even bring Stalker into this? They are so different, different purpose, etc.
Of course we agree to disagree..
Why not, Bioshock was touted as a big hitting FPSRPG.
[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
biggest_loser
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
I find it pretty hard to not compare the two games when BS has copied every single gameplay mechanic in SS2, has copied the story, has copied the narrative structure and style, and has copied level design elements and gameplay scenario elements.
As for the soundwork, I didn't say it was bad - just bad compared with System Shock 2's. Taken on its own merits, it's probably pretty good... but I just can't avoid that comparison (see above paragraph). Maybe not in quality, but certainly in content - the writing was not very compelling, which goes to the horror elements, where BioShock falls flat.
I would not compare them so much if BioShock had tried to be its own game, had tried to be an item entirely apart from System Shock 2 in the same way that Half Life 2 is completely removed from Half Life as a gaming experience, but BioShock didn't even try to do that - in fact, it tried the absolute opposite. It did try to be System Shock 2, only it tried to be a bastardised and mainstream version of System Shock 2. I can't move past that.
I hardly believe that Bioshock has copied System Shock 2 - I think of it as a remake - thats right: I believe that Bioshock is really a remake of that game. Just as Doom 3 was to Doom 1, that wasn't a copy now was it? And its not as crazy as you might think: Ken Levine is the creative director of 2K Boston - he worked on both Bioshock and System Shock 2 so of course there are going to be similar things there.
And don't tell me that the elements of System Shock 2 are "dumbed down" please - at least Bioshock is accessible and as such it is more fun and enjoyable to play. I think it is complex in the way that you can only have a certain number of powers and you have all the various upgrades and what not.
The point of the game is to make you as strong as possible. The developers don't want to hinder you for once - they want you to play through the world and explore - hence you have the reviving chamber so you can keep playing and progressing and also the ability to search through rooms and be rewarded accordingly.
Doom 3 wasn't a copy of Doom 1 because it was nothing like the game at all - if you've played all four games in the lineup, you'd know that that argument is utterly transparent. But whether it's a remake or a copy is semantics, my point was that comparisons at every level are impossible because they're basically the same game.
Of course, no one would compare Doom 1 with Doom 3 - one is a full blown hardcore shooter, the other is a horror-themed game. BioShock, however, has everything System Shock 2 had. It's a copy, even if it is a remake, it's a copy - even if it is a remake, the comparison is unavoidable. BioShock has everything that System Shock 2 has.
I'm very familiar with Ken Levine. Are you familiar with the strongly touted rumour that no one at Irrational wants to work with him ever again and the BioShock 2 team has been built from the ground up, with Ken off to head some other project? It seems like the developers may not have been happy with how BioShock turned out, perhaps.
Saying BioShock is complex in that you can only have a certain number of powers is like saying Quake is complex in that you can only have a certain number of weapons. The security system in BioShock has been trivialised to the point that it works in your favour; hacking is free, has no real cost for failure and the game pauses while you're hacking so you can go ahead and take your time and the enemies will happily wait; there's no inventory so you don't have to make any choices about anything - go ahead and carry all ten weapons with full ammo (most games have gotten away from this - and limited weapon choice is arguably a complicated feature).
What else? You can use every plasmid and every gene tonic, there are stations everywhere for you to swap them out - you can actually afford just about everything so there's no chance you'll make a bad decision. Even the moral choice is entirely superficial. BioShock is more complicated than Quake 4, but calling it complex is laughable.
If the point of the game was to make you as strong as possible, and yet the game hinges so heavily on gunplay... what's the rationale in that? Hell, why didn't they just enable God mode - they're already half way there with the vita-chambers. If their goal was to make us as strong as possible.. I just don't see the percentage in the gamer. As for exploration, I didn't get much out of exploration. The audio logs were rubbish. I had full resources almost all the time.
Also, I'd like to remind you that you haven't finished either game.
[QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Yes well ahem, that is laregly correct: but more importantly I await the response of Mfsa...JP_Russell
It's 4 am in Uk. He's probably off to bed. That reminds me, I should do the same. Damn my job, screws up my internal clock in new and imaginative ways every month...
Wow, you guys are only five hours later in the day than here under Eastern Time. For some reason, I was thinking there was close to a twelve-hour differential.
Yeah, I'm four or five hours ahead but I'm actually living on an American timezone at the moment - while I'm on holiday. It better facilitates my gaming (all of my friends are American). I made the mistake of getting into bed last night, though. I wasn't tired but the warmth, dark and comfort just overwhelmed me. Guess it's time to buy a lot of coffee and fix my sleeping pattern again tonight.
Hmm..So many great moments in games for 2007. One of the most memorable would be hitting Agropom and than X18 in STALKER, and being completely freaked out and realizing what an amazing game it was.
Seeing a nuke go off for the first time in World In Conflict was just amazing.
Likewise, booting Crysis up for the first time and making the jump in the beginning of the game, releasing how amazing the game looks and plays, definitely memorable.
Playing through Portal, a huge breath of fresh air, giving the OB the perfect touch. Playing the "beta" for TF2 on PC a few weeks early was also a sweet sweet surprise. Getting the cliff hanger at the end of Ep2 after one of the best end game fights in recent memory. I can't wait for Ep3.
Seeing the Witcher get released and easily live up to the hype plus more. Than finding out that it sold very well and realizing a small developer from Poland can really bring us an amazing game. Gotta be proud of them.
I can easily see Sins of the Solar Empire being a memorable moment for 2008.....
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
mfsa
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
I find it pretty hard to not compare the two games when BS has copied every single gameplay mechanic in SS2, has copied the story, has copied the narrative structure and style, and has copied level design elements and gameplay scenario elements.
As for the soundwork, I didn't say it was bad - just bad compared with System Shock 2's. Taken on its own merits, it's probably pretty good... but I just can't avoid that comparison (see above paragraph). Maybe not in quality, but certainly in content - the writing was not very compelling, which goes to the horror elements, where BioShock falls flat.
I would not compare them so much if BioShock had tried to be its own game, had tried to be an item entirely apart from System Shock 2 in the same way that Half Life 2 is completely removed from Half Life as a gaming experience, but BioShock didn't even try to do that - in fact, it tried the absolute opposite. It did try to be System Shock 2, only it tried to be a bastardised and mainstream version of System Shock 2. I can't move past that.
I hardly believe that Bioshock has copied System Shock 2 - I think of it as a remake - thats right: I believe that Bioshock is really a remake of that game. Just as Doom 3 was to Doom 1, that wasn't a copy now was it? And its not as crazy as you might think: Ken Levine is the creative director of 2K Boston - he worked on both Bioshock and System Shock 2 so of course there are going to be similar things there.
And don't tell me that the elements of System Shock 2 are "dumbed down" please - at least Bioshock is accessible and as such it is more fun and enjoyable to play. I think it is complex in the way that you can only have a certain number of powers and you have all the various upgrades and what not.
The point of the game is to make you as strong as possible. The developers don't want to hinder you for once - they want you to play through the world and explore - hence you have the reviving chamber so you can keep playing and progressing and also the ability to search through rooms and be rewarded accordingly.
Doom 3 wasn't a copy of Doom 1 because it was nothing like the game at all - if you've played all four games in the lineup, you'd know that that argument is utterly transparent. But whether it's a remake or a copy is semantics, my point was that comparisons at every level are impossible because they're basically the same game.
Of course, no one would compare Doom 1 with Doom 3 - one is a full blown hardcore shooter, the other is a horror-themed game. BioShock, however, has everything System Shock 2 had. It's a copy, even if it is a remake, it's a copy - even if it is a remake, the comparison is unavoidable. BioShock has everything that System Shock 2 has.
I'm very familiar with Ken Levine. Are you familiar with the strongly touted rumour that no one at Irrational wants to work with him ever again and the BioShock 2 team has been built from the ground up, with Ken off to head some other project? It seems like the developers may not have been happy with how BioShock turned out, perhaps.
Saying BioShock is complex in that you can only have a certain number of powers is like saying Quake is complex in that you can only have a certain number of weapons. The security system in BioShock has been trivialised to the point that it works in your favour; hacking is free, has no real cost for failure and the game pauses while you're hacking so you can go ahead and take your time and the enemies will happily wait; there's no inventory so you don't have to make any choices about anything - go ahead and carry all ten weapons with full ammo (most games have gotten away from this - and limited weapon choice is arguably a complicated feature).
What else? You can use every plasmid and every gene tonic, there are stations everywhere for you to swap them out - you can actually afford just about everything so there's no chance you'll make a bad decision. Even the moral choice is entirely superficial. BioShock is more complicated than Quake 4, but calling it complex is laughable.
If the point of the game was to make you as strong as possible, and yet the game hinges so heavily on gunplay... what's the rationale in that? Hell, why didn't they just enable God mode - they're already half way there with the vita-chambers. If their goal was to make us as strong as possible.. I just don't see the percentage in the gamer. As for exploration, I didn't get much out of exploration. The audio logs were rubbish. I had full resources almost all the time.
Also, I'd like to remind you that you haven't finished either game.
You're really trying to rubbish this game by putting a lot of unfair criticism on every single aspect of the game. You deliberately hate the audio, level design, story, combat, everything simple because it has become more popular that System Shock 2. Remake/Spiritual successor or not I dont really care. Can't you just appreciate it on its own merits? Aren't you at least interested by some of the themes and elements of the story like corruption of power, etc? The fact that the story has taken much inspiration not just from SS2 but by the philosopher Ayn Rand as well?
It is not a bad game at all. It is a very good one. And thankfully there are many gamers and critics alike out there who agree...
[QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="mfsa"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Aren't you at least impressed by the technical aspects of the game? Like the sound design?
Sure it is easy but I have been playing through it solidily since Monday - It is a game that you can just play through for hours without complaining about the formula - it is very polished and compelling!
biggest_loser
I haven't played it since the week of its release (I plan on replaying it soon, as well as System Shock 2) but the only things I particularly remember about the soundwork is how bad the voice acting is compared with System Shock 2. It did not impress me at all.
Nothing about BioShock hooked me or sucked me in. The only impressive thing is the technology powering the game. And I've seen pretty far too many times for it to impress me much. The artistic style is cool, but it's hardly the kind of thing that makes me want to shout from the rooftops. I mean, it's no TF2.
Well you are the only one I believe that would think the voice acting is bad. It is perfectly suited to the period.
You only seem to dislike the game because its not System Shock 3
I find it pretty hard to not compare the two games when BS has copied every single gameplay mechanic in SS2, has copied the story, has copied the narrative structure and style, and has copied level design elements and gameplay scenario elements.
As for the soundwork, I didn't say it was bad - just bad compared with System Shock 2's. Taken on its own merits, it's probably pretty good... but I just can't avoid that comparison (see above paragraph). Maybe not in quality, but certainly in content - the writing was not very compelling, which goes to the horror elements, where BioShock falls flat.
I would not compare them so much if BioShock had tried to be its own game, had tried to be an item entirely apart from System Shock 2 in the same way that Half Life 2 is completely removed from Half Life as a gaming experience, but BioShock didn't even try to do that - in fact, it tried the absolute opposite. It did try to be System Shock 2, only it tried to be a bastardised and mainstream version of System Shock 2. I can't move past that.
I hardly believe that Bioshock has copied System Shock 2 - I think of it as a remake - thats right: I believe that Bioshock is really a remake of that game. Just as Doom 3 was to Doom 1, that wasn't a copy now was it? And its not as crazy as you might think: Ken Levine is the creative director of 2K Boston - he worked on both Bioshock and System Shock 2 so of course there are going to be similar things there.
And don't tell me that the elements of System Shock 2 are "dumbed down" please - at least Bioshock is accessible and as such it is more fun and enjoyable to play. I think it is complex in the way that you can only have a certain number of powers and you have all the various upgrades and what not.
The point of the game is to make you as strong as possible. The developers don't want to hinder you for once - they want you to play through the world and explore - hence you have the reviving chamber so you can keep playing and progressing and also the ability to search through rooms and be rewarded accordingly.
Doom 3 wasn't a copy of Doom 1 because it was nothing like the game at all - if you've played all four games in the lineup, you'd know that that argument is utterly transparent. But whether it's a remake or a copy is semantics, my point was that comparisons at every level are impossible because they're basically the same game.
Of course, no one would compare Doom 1 with Doom 3 - one is a full blown hardcore shooter, the other is a horror-themed game. BioShock, however, has everything System Shock 2 had. It's a copy, even if it is a remake, it's a copy - even if it is a remake, the comparison is unavoidable. BioShock has everything that System Shock 2 has.
I'm very familiar with Ken Levine. Are you familiar with the strongly touted rumour that no one at Irrational wants to work with him ever again and the BioShock 2 team has been built from the ground up, with Ken off to head some other project? It seems like the developers may not have been happy with how BioShock turned out, perhaps.
Saying BioShock is complex in that you can only have a certain number of powers is like saying Quake is complex in that you can only have a certain number of weapons. The security system in BioShock has been trivialised to the point that it works in your favour; hacking is free, has no real cost for failure and the game pauses while you're hacking so you can go ahead and take your time and the enemies will happily wait; there's no inventory so you don't have to make any choices about anything - go ahead and carry all ten weapons with full ammo (most games have gotten away from this - and limited weapon choice is arguably a complicated feature).
What else? You can use every plasmid and every gene tonic, there are stations everywhere for you to swap them out - you can actually afford just about everything so there's no chance you'll make a bad decision. Even the moral choice is entirely superficial. BioShock is more complicated than Quake 4, but calling it complex is laughable.
If the point of the game was to make you as strong as possible, and yet the game hinges so heavily on gunplay... what's the rationale in that? Hell, why didn't they just enable God mode - they're already half way there with the vita-chambers. If their goal was to make us as strong as possible.. I just don't see the percentage in the gamer. As for exploration, I didn't get much out of exploration. The audio logs were rubbish. I had full resources almost all the time.
Also, I'd like to remind you that you haven't finished either game.
You're really trying to rubbish this game by putting a lot of unfair criticism on every single aspect of the game. You deliberately hate the audio, level design, story, combat, everything simple because it has become more popular that System Shock 2. Remake/Spiritual successor or not I dont really care. Can't you just appreciate it on its own merits? Aren't you at least interested by some of the themes and elements of the story like corruption of power, etc? The fact that the story has taken much inspiration not just from SS2 but by the philosopher Ayn Rand as well?
It is not a bad game at all. It is a very good one. And thankfully there are many gamers and critics alike out there who agree...
As I have indicated to you before, and as I always try to make clear, I like BioShock. It's certainly not all bad, and taken on its own merits, it's pretty good - I'd give it at least a 7/10. But as I have also indicated before, it's just impossible to avoid that comparison.
And I don't hate anything about the game - and I certainly don't deliberately hate it (whatever that means?). We don't choose what we like and dislike. I don't, anyway.
As for the inspirations drawn from other sources - it's neat, but it's hardly profound. I mean, the loading screen soundbytes could do just as adequate a job by having one saying power corrupts.
We're going around in circles now, we have contrary opinions on just about everything, and we aren't really going to resolve anything. Let's agree to disagree and resume when BioShock 2 comes out?
You have to look a lot deeper at the story Mfsa - its more than saying power corrupts thats for sure..
We agree to disagree.
But yes: I shall see you again my good sir when Bioshock 2 comes out. Farewell...
What do you care about repetition? You have 4 Medieval games in your collection: you can't tell me that doesnt get a little samey. It would be like calling HL2 repetitious because you spend all your time shootingbiggest_loser
I know what you are driving at, however, I'd like to point out HL2 might be one of the last first person shooters you want to use in that analogy ("all your time shooting") :D
You have COD4 and Crysis so you obviously don't mind linear games lol.biggest_loser
I agree COD4 is linear, but did you only play Crysis post-KPA? How the? did you manage that? :P
You have different approach entries on targets and locations, you have different means/methods (e.g. vehicles) of getting there, you can take them out in different orders, there's the opportunity to scout out or around a location before engaging. In addition, you have customizable weapons and use of the nano-suit expands your gameplay possibilities in how you approach your targets and enemies.
That sounds more linear to you than BioShock? :o BioShock is extremely linear in it's path (free-roam) in comparison to a game like Crysis -- it's sandbox play comes more in the form of it's plasmids, some combat options, etc. (which I felt were mediocre :) where I truly enjoyed the combat options in Crysis) There's some non-linearity that's subject to opinion, sure, but how can you possibly categorize Crysis as a linear game similar to COD4??? Many of your posts have been based on good reasoning, not that I necessarily agree, but I enjoy reading them...but Crysis is not linear in terms of games as we know them today ;)
It would be Sins. A little-known town in Bangledesh brought together to create what is currently considered RT4X (or something). I wonder what they have planned next?Ps2stony
Seriously? It looks like Ironclad Games is Canadian, was dev work outsourced to Bangladesh? I have a friend originally from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_Games
http://www.ironcladgames.com/about.html
It is not a bad game at allbiggest_loser
Hold the thought right there and I'd agree 100% ;) OK, sorry, I won't bring up any further BS :) either if you guys want to drop it.
Don't you guys get tired of writing such long posts ?Darth_Kane
Nope it keeps me entertained.
[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]
What do you care about repetition? You have 4 Medieval games in your collection: you can't tell me that doesnt get a little samey. It would be like calling HL2 repetitious because you spend all your time shootingNitrous2O
I know what you are driving at, however, I'd like to point out HL2 might be one of the last first person shooters you want to use in that analogy ("all your time shooting") :D
You have COD4 and Crysis so you obviously don't mind linear games lol.biggest_loser
I agree COD4 is linear, but did you only play Crysis post-KPA? How the? did you manage that? :P
You have different approach entries on targets and locations, you have different means/methods (e.g. vehicles) of getting there, you can take them out in different orders, there's the opportunity to scout out or around a location before engaging. In addition, you have customizable weapons and use of the nano-suit expands your gameplay possibilities in how you approach your targets and enemies.
That sounds more linear to you than BioShock? :o BioShock is extremely linear in it's path (free-roam) in comparison to a game like Crysis -- it's sandbox play comes more in the form of it's plasmids, some combat options, etc. (which I felt were mediocre :) where I truly enjoyed the combat options in Crysis) There's some non-linearity that's subject to opinion, sure, but how can you possibly categorize Crysis as a linear game similar to COD4??? Many of your posts have been based on good reasoning, not that I necessarily agree, but I enjoy reading them...but Crysis is not linear in terms of games as we know them today ;)
It would be Sins. A little-known town in Bangledesh brought together to create what is currently considered RT4X (or something). I wonder what they have planned next?Ps2stony
Seriously? It looks like Ironclad Games is Canadian, was dev work outsourced to Bangladesh? I have a friend originally from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_Games
http://www.ironcladgames.com/about.html
It is not a bad game at allbiggest_loser
Hold the thought right there and I'd agree 100% ;) OK, sorry, I won't bring up any further BS :) either if you guys want to drop it.
I may have only played the demo of Crysis but from what I saw in that game I wasn't that blown away. That first level is very linear - obviously as an introductory stage - but even when you're attack the radar thing and that checkpoint there is really only one way. I didn't find it as satisfying as some other games. I don't know why. I want to like the game so much.
It is strange, I know, but I just wasn't blown away by the visuals as I thought I would be. Probably because we have seen that whole jungle thing many, many times before. Now the opening of Bioshock where you are in the water after the plane crash - I don't think I have ever seen visuals like that before in a video game. It was like movie quality. Have you played the game in Directx10? And a bit further in where your plane breaks one of the tubes you're walking through. The first time I saw that in the demo it just blew me away.
I may have only played the demo of Crysis but from what I saw in that game I wasn't that blown away. That first level is very linear - obviously as an introductory stage - but even when you're attack the radar thing and that checkpoint there is really only one way. I didn't find it as satisfying as some other games. I don't know why. I want to like the game so much.
That was my exact feelings after playing the demo too. I thought "that's it"? After I got past that stage, I was totally sucked into the game. Crysis is a fantastic technical achievement and it's fun as hell at times. Give it one more chance, you won't regret it. I'm not saying it's the perfect FPS, but it's easily one of the best games last year. Except those lame vehicle missions, seriously, what were they thinking? Halo CE has better vehicle control for God's sake. A 7 yr old console-game...
only played the demo of Crysis but from what I saw in that game I wasn't that blown away. That first level is very linear - obviously as an introductory stage - but even when you're attack the radar thing and that checkpoint there is really only one way.biggest_loser
It's not linear, and no, there is not only one way to those places. You can go by boat or swim to any single area once you get to the jammer in any order you want. The shoreline may be linear (obviously, shores being like that), but who says you have to walk along with the direction of the shore? You don't.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment