This topic is locked from further discussion.
I've been looking at some footage of this game, and I gotta tell you, it looks awesome. I can't help but wonder why many people here are calling it a HUGE dissapointment and a mediocre game at best. Has it been somehow watered down form it's "spiritual prdecessor" System Shock 2?
Did the people who didn't play that game enjoy it more?
In my opinion, the game is very good, and I think, others think the same. Among today's games, Bioshock holds up very well, but it is a true representation of the game, and the current era we live in as a whole, that Bioshock isn't anywhere near as detailed in terms of gameplay as System Shock 2 was, a game made almost nine years ago.
Obviously the graphics are far advanced, and yes, the combat is also much more fun. But that's the thing about today's games - on shiny surface they look and feel great, but once you've scratched and dug into it, the game is usually far less advanced than any game from 10 years ago. It's a very odd thing, that games have almost taken a step backwards in gameplay - but apparently this is what gamers want. Great graphics and decent gameplay with more explosions than the last game is all we want these days?
I'd say it's quite disturbing.
I think it's combination of factors, but mainly because of all of the inexplicable hype (some might even say hysteria) being piled on this title by the gaming media. I even read a review in which the reviewer said he cried at the end. No lie. I cried, too, but only because I couldn't get those fifteen hours of my life back.
Unfortunately, beneath Bioshock's shiny surface, you find there's not much substance; gameplay has been horribly dumbed down for the console crowd. I played 90% of it with maxed health, money, ammo, etc, etc and never even directly engaged a Big Daddy (just hacked turrets, lured the BD into range, and lobbed a bullseye plasmid at him--the bots did the rest). By the end, there just wasn't much to do, and when I reached the lame boss battle and unsatisfying cut-scene, I was over it and beyond bored.
Sadly, the biggest problem of all this is that the attendant hype and lack of any critical evaluation on the part of the gaming press will only encourage the developers to keep doing what they've been doing for the inevitable sequel, which means more of the same lameness, but with prettier graphics and maybe a different setting. 2k probably now thinks it's the God of Games, and can pull a sequel out of it backside and print money with it. I hope this not the case. But considering how the industry works these days, I'm afraid this is what will happen.
That being said, I will give the devs props for wholly original story and art direction in an age of sequels and tired re-treads. But good looks will take you only so far when the gameplay is weak.
Amen.
Yeah,
not deep at all,
very very short,
not unique,
NOT the savior of all gaming,
hates ATi
IMHO BS is the second worst game I've played this year (nothing beats societies). It has everything I don't want to see in an FPS game: The game has boring as hell enemies (zombies is the type of enemy you see almost all the time... halfway through I have only battled zombies... then I quit) The AI is nothing special... but then how good can an AI be for a zombie game The game has the worst weapons ever seen in an FPS game (guns looks and feels like plastic...) The level design is almost as bad as Doom 3 The game is extremely easy I can't compare this to System Shock 2, never played it and probably never will I honestly can't see what people like about this game. Everything this game has to offer there are tons of other games that did it betterADG_
The enemies in BioShock aren't zombies you fool. They're called splicers and are not zombies. Seems you really didn't play the game properlyor understand it properly.
I personally thought it was a great game.
I've been looking at some footage of this game, and I gotta tell you, it looks awesome. I can't help but wonder why many people here are calling it a HUGE dissapointment and a mediocre game at best. Has it been somehow watered down form it's "spiritual prdecessor" System Shock 2?
Did the people who didn't play that game enjoy it more?
gotcha455
It's popular, that's why people hate it.
:rolleyes: So what if they're called splicers instead of zombies? They look like zombies and they act like zombies = they are zombiesThe enemies in BioShock aren't zombies you fool. They're called splicers and are not zombies. Seems you really didn't play the game properlyor understand it properly.
I personally thought it was a great game.
dazman31
I've been looking at some footage of this game, and I gotta tell you, it looks awesome. I can't help but wonder why many people here are calling it a HUGE dissapointment and a mediocre game at best. Has it been somehow watered down form it's "spiritual prdecessor" System Shock 2?
Did the people who didn't play that game enjoy it more?
gotcha455
People need to stop comparing this to System Shock 2. They are two different game. Once everyone gets over that fact, they should be able to give a fair and unbiased review.
I personally thought that Bioshock had good graphics, decent story (though it disappointed me at one point in the game and my thoughts never recovered about it story being really good), lots of ways to kill things...
On the other hand, it lacked any decent AI; the enemies always gave themselves away by making tons of noise, the final battle was a joke, the overall gameplay didn't amount to anything different from most other FPS out there.
Sadly, with how Gamespot changed their review system, I gave Bioshock a 9.0. I feel it wasn't quite that good, but I couldn't express my true opinion because of the changes. Perhaps a 8.7 or 8.8....but the game was far from perfect from what I've seen other gaming magazines/sights rate it as.
If you like FPS, this is one of thedecent ones, but it is not this drop dead awsome System Shock 2 spinoff/cousion/twin or whatever you want to call it. They are different games, please stop comparing them.
Bioshock is to me everything what is wrong with the current game industry. Creativity and innovation doesn't seem to get any sales, while stupid rehashed titles are selling by the millions. This ofcourse leads to more rehashed games never really bringing anything new.
Especially Bioshock annoyed me, not because it was bad, but it was a rehash from System Shock 2 and unlike system shock 2 it actually sold in the millions. Now take Mass Effect, while overall it's still the Bioware formula, it tries to do something truely unique and does so quite well. How much did it sell? Not much..
It does have great artistic value, but I can only look at a wall for so long till I get bored.. The point being is where were the RPG elements with in the game? What was given was Oblivion eque character devolpment (in another words there was none).. Not to mention plasmids and genetonicswere either extremely overpowered or underpowered so in the end you basically had nearly the exact same build every time..
Its a good game, but its something I can't replay over and over again.. The games action is not the best odviously, we were expecting rpg elements to pikc that slack up.. The only problem was, there was none.. Also the harvesting or saving little sisters did absolutely nothing in the end.. It was such a small difference it was not noticable.. All you for a tiny cutscene at the end that lasted all of 20 seconds that they could have explained to me in a few lines of text. THe game is frustrating because its direct victim to being dumbed down for consoles.
People need to stop comparing this to System Shock 2. They are two different game. Once everyone gets over that fact, they should be able to give a fair and unbiased review.
At last a person that understands the whole point begind Bioshock. The biggest mistake here is to compare it to SS2, since the developers worked on it and OVERHYPED the fact that "if you liked SS2, you are going to LOVE Bioshock". Its not like that.
If you compare Bioshock to SS2, BS looks like a big pile of crap with nice graphics.
I believe that around 70% of the players that dont like/hate BS do it because "it sucks compared to SS2". The rest just didnt like the game because it didnt suit their playing style. Please GET OVER IT, this game IS NOT SS2!!!
To be honest, I though it was a great game (please notice that I said great, not AWESOME, REVOLUTIONARY, SAVIOR OF THE FPS/RPG GENRE or any stupid thing like that). It had its cool and dull moments. Overall a solid playing experience
I've been looking at some footage of this game, and I gotta tell you, it looks awesome. I can't help but wonder why many people here are calling it a HUGE dissapointment and a mediocre game at best. Has it been somehow watered down form it's "spiritual prdecessor" System Shock 2?
Did the people who didn't play that game enjoy it more?
gotcha455
It isn't SS2, but it really is a lot of fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it and played through it twice.
When I first got it I thought it was amazing
I then realised I was doing the same thing in the same corridor-y place
I don't understand why people are down on this game. Personally, it's my GOTY. The artistic style is absolutely phenomenal, its crazy original and beautifully done. It gave me the feeling of actually being in this 1940's genetically mutated disturbia. I could see people feeling the guns are on the weak side, but then again you're encouraged to experiment in combat with this game. Just pure shooting is really my last option, you can just do so much with the combination of plasmids, hacks, and other abilities. Finding inventive ways to take down a Big Daddy is the best. I thought the story was incredible. I honestly didn't see any of the twists coming, which says a lot for a videogame. I also felt genuinely scared at certain points, which is pretty rare. Also, the scene when you finally meet Andrew Ryan is one of the more jaw-dropping moments I've ever had in gaming (I won't ruin it for anyone) And for my money, the Big Daddies/ Little Sisters is the coolest and freakiest enemy every in gaming.lockjaw333
lockjaw333 you`re the man!You said everything about bioshock I can say and more.I give you my respect!
I think ME is selling very well. It has sold close to a million copies in 3 weeks.Especially Bioshock annoyed me, not because it was bad, but it was a rehash from System Shock 2 and unlike system shock 2 it actually sold in the millions. Now take Mass Effect, while overall it's still the Bioware formula, it tries to do something truely unique and does so quite well. How much did it sell? Not much..
_Pedro_
Anyways, my problem with Bioshock was that I believed the hype surrounding the game prior to release and was hugely dissappointed when I played it. A great game but not everything it was made out to be.
Bioshock is a good example of the style over substance so prevalent in modern games. Beneath its pretty exterior is an extremely shallow and linear game that's a gigantic step back from its now almost decade old predecessor System Shock 2. The game was dumbed-down in favor of the 360 version, and all of the emphasis seemed to be on the graphics and atmosphere and not the actual gameplay. The RPG elements from SS2 were almost completely absent to the point where you can't even bring up an inventory screen. I especially hated how the vita-chambers made death essentially irrelevant, which made the Big Daddies far less intimidating than they would have been otherwise. You could kill them with a wrench by respawning again andagain at the nearest vita chamber if you wanted.Not like it mattered much because the game was ridiculously easy to begin with. The final boss fight with Fontaine made me laugh out loud it was so easy. The storyline was pure cheese, especially the big twist and the ending. There was no incentive to be an evil character, as the rewards were the same either way, and you got a crap ending for being evil (actually both endings were pretty lame). I hated the weapons. The powers seemed tacked-on. There was almost no variety in the enemies, and they all spout the same tiredphrases. Worst of all the game wasn't even that scary...it was just kind of cheesy. I've never found evil little girls very frightening. I wasn't scared by them inThe Ring, or FEAR, and not in Bioshock either. They are a tired horror movie cliche at this point. Try something original for once.I loved System Shock 2, but I really felt like I wasted my money and time on this one.
BioShock's biggest problems:
Horror is sacrificed in favour of mediocre gunplay
The horror feel of SS2 is gone entirely - firstly, the catastrophic events which befell rapture are not scary at all, unlike The Many. Most of the great supporting horror elements, like the awesome soundwork and the enemies which offend one's senses are gone. But the biggest problem here is that there is a focus on the combat - and the combat is more or less the same as System Shock 2's. If you played Shock 2, you'll know that smacking a guy with a wrench in the face is not enough to carry a game. What made SS2 awesome was its horror, not its combat. The combat just played off the horror.
BioShock has no horror, so the combat is just there, like any other generic run 'n' gunner. The game does have plasmids, which are basically just extensions of weapons (for example, you can fire fireballs - which is no different than having a flamethrower), and while these are great in principle, they don't work out in practice. Poor balance means you're going to use a very particular set of tools throughout the entire game. You may want to experiment with the others - but variety for variety's sake is a nonstarter when it comes at the expense of efficiency. As gamers, we instinctively look for the most effective way of doing things.
The game is too easy
You are more likely to drown in money, health and ammo than in the waters flooding Rapture. Even on hard, the game is absurdly easy. You'll have a near unlimited amount of money if you explore at all, and thanks to the conveniently placed vending machines, that means you'll have unlimited health and ammo, too. Hacking costs no money and vita-chambers cost no money. This all adds up to just make the game boring. You'll almost never die, you'll never be short on money, you can always hack anything without any significant risk (ever) and even if you do die, you respawn with everything at exactly the same health level as when you died.
How easy the game is also hurts the potential horror. A lot of horror is just the result of self-preservation, the desire to live. Which comes about through being threatened. Playing on impossible difficulty in SS2, you can take one or two hits before dying early on. Not only did the enemies scare the hell out of me through their offensive appearances and sounds (especially the sounds - they all have a perfect wrongness to them) and the fact that enemies randomly spawn (another flaw with BioShock - it relied too heavily on triggers), but the enemies were also damn hard to kill. It sent me into mad animal panic as I literally ran for my life. BioShock could not even dream of recreating that kind of feeling.
It copies, then subtracts
It's true that SS2 had a pretty high barrier to entry for new - especially inexperienced - players. I first played the game when I was about sixteen. Now, I will grant you, I was pretty stupid back then - but I found the game complex and confusing and a challenge - and I didn't actually finish it. I had to restart and try again, with my knowledge of how to properly play the game. This is exactly what irrational wanted to get away from - and that's understandable, because imagine how frustrating it must be to make a masterpiece that almost no one experiences because it's too much for them. Over-simplification may be an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction, but that's how it played out. They wanted people to get it, they just went too far.
BioShock is dumb. That is the honest truth. You have no inventory, you have no stats, you can hack everything with basically no cost (or risk, because the game pauses while you hack), the security system is simplified to the point that it mostly works in your favour, character development is moot because how you build your character is a response to how you play the game, and you'll always find yourself playing the game in the same way unless you force yourself into awkward, inefficient playstyles.
The moral choice is pretty much a nonstarte rbecause it almost doesn't affect the game at all. You get a different ending and being good gives you one extra plasmid. Youe arn enough adam (the generic currency) to buy everything that's worth having, and most of the things that aren't worth having, and these can all be swapped out at any time. Never mind risk vs reward, there's no risk at all. Call me a traditionalist, but I like character building to be about making choices.
Gene tonics are the one smart thing the game does - rather than having a numerical stats system (something I feel is quite archaic now), the game gives you abilities instead. These may just equate to more strength, which is no different than going from 3 str to 4, but it just feels better. Other gene tonics include the ability to turn invisible while standing still, damage reflection when attacked and taking reduced damage. The problem is that there are too few, and they are too specific. You can tell at a glance the ones you need and the ones which are worthless. More creativity would've been good here. On the whole, gene tonics are not something I will critisise.
Story
For people who haven't played SS2, and I feel sorry for you, you may be forgiven for saying that BioShock has an original story - the sad truth is anything but. BioShock takes SS2's story, swaps out cybernetic with genetics, removes most of the best bits, guts the methods of storytelling and then expects us to be surprised when it pulls the exact same twist. The one that wasn't exactly hard to guess in SS2 is glaringly obvious before the five minute mark in BioShock. Yahtzee said something like "you may as well dress up Shodan in a waistcoat and give her a copy of Atlas Shrugged". And he was completely right.
In all, BioShock isn't a bad game - set against modern standards, it's probably pretty good. But it's a simple game compared with System Shock 2. And what's worse is that it's a copy of SS2, which means that direct comparison is just unavoidable, which makes the game just seem all thw worse.
The combat is boring and easy, the atmosphere is barely present, the story is a straight up copy, the character development is extremely simple to the point of redundancy and the environment doesn't have the kind of chlaustrophobic, oppressive and isolating feel that the ships in SS2 have. The most disappointing thing of all, for me, is that the audiologs and passive storytelling is just not handled very well atall.The only truly great thing about BioShock is the technology powering it.
hell you can beat everyone in the game with a wrench and just respawn when you die and completely beat the game with it ....ColdfireTrilogyI beat half the game using almost only the wrench without dying once at second hardest difficulty. The only times I didn't use the wrench was when I got a new weapon and had to try it out, but in the end I always got back to the best weapon of them all: The wrench An FPS game where you can beat half the using only the wrench on second hardest difficulty without dying has some serious problems IMHO
Well, first of all, I dont want to get into an argument regarding "why people hate/love bioshock". I ve already posted my opinion on the subject before.
But as I was reading your post, I couldnt help but notice that there a few things wrong (IMO) on it (while comparing BS to SS2).
BioShock's biggest problems:
Horror is sacrificed in favour of mediocre gunplay
The horror feel of SS2 is gone entirely - firstly, the catastrophic events which befell rapture are not scary at all, unlike The Many. Most of the great supporting horror elements, like the awesome soundwork and the enemies which offend one's senses are gone. But the biggest problem here is that there is a focus on the combat - and the combat is more or less the same as System Shock 2's. If you played Shock 2, you'll know that smacking a guy with a wrench in the face is not enough to carry a game. What made SS2 awesome was its horror, not its combat. The combat just played off the horror.
BioShock has no horror, so the combat is just there, like any other generic run 'n' gunner. The game does have plasmids, which are basically just extensions of weapons (for example, you can fire fireballs - which is no different than having a flamethrower), and while these are great in principle, they don't work out in practice. Poor balance means you're going to use a very particular set of tools throughout the entire game. You may want to experiment with the others - but variety for variety's sake is a nonstarter when it comes at the expense of efficiency. As gamers, we instinctively look for the most effective way of doing things.
mfsa
If I remember correctly, SS2 had Psi Powers. So according to this... the Psi Powers on SS2 "were good in principle but didnt work in practice"? Or they do work because they are Psi Powers provided through cybernetic modules rather than genetic mutations caused by the plasmids? Its the same exact concept, just witha differente name.I liked the Psi Powers, though I didnt use them too much because the upgrades were extremely hard to get (too much cybernetic modules). On the other hand, Plasmids were easier to obtain, which was a welcome change for me
The game is too easy
You are more likely to drown in money, health and ammo than in the waters flooding Rapture. Even on hard, the game is absurdly easy. You'll have a near unlimited amount of money if you explore at all, and thanks to the conveniently placed vending machines, that means you'll have unlimited health and ammo, too. Hacking costs no money and vita-chambers cost no money. This all adds up to just make the game boring. You'll almost never die, you'll never be short on money, you can always hack anything without any significant risk (ever) and even if you do die, you respawn with everything at exactly the same health level as when you died.
mfsa
Though you are not likely to drown in money and health on SS2, you had your fair share of nanites and med hypos. I mean, I always finished the game with unused nanites and hypos, so that means that the game gave me more than I could use. So what's the difference with Bioshock? Bioshock gives you just a little bit more. I have to agree on the ammo part: it was very scarce on SS2. But you could always exploit the "re-spawning" of the shotgun zombies: kill tem, search the corpse and unload the shotgun to get free shotgun bullets. Regarding the Vita Chambers, its the same chamber that you had in SS2 with the difference that it cost you a few nanites to get back to life. I dont see WHY the vita chamber makes Bioshock bad when you had the same concept on SS2.
I was just wondering how you criticize some aspects of Bioshock, while you had those same aspects on SS2. Im not bashing at you and dont take that Im a Bioshock fanboy. I agree that BS was a dumbed down copy of SS2. But I though that these things you were pointing out didnt make much sense (at least, didnt make too much sense to me).
Well, first of all, I dont want to get into an argument regarding "why people hate/love bioshock". I ve already posted my opinion on the subject before.
But as I was reading your post, I couldnt help but notice that there a few things wrong (IMO) on it (while comparing BS to SS2).
[QUOTE="mfsa"]
BioShock's biggest problems:
Horror is sacrificed in favour of mediocre gunplay
The horror feel of SS2 is gone entirely - firstly, the catastrophic events which befell rapture are not scary at all, unlike The Many. Most of the great supporting horror elements, like the awesome soundwork and the enemies which offend one's senses are gone. But the biggest problem here is that there is a focus on the combat - and the combat is more or less the same as System Shock 2's. If you played Shock 2, you'll know that smacking a guy with a wrench in the face is not enough to carry a game. What made SS2 awesome was its horror, not its combat. The combat just played off the horror.
BioShock has no horror, so the combat is just there, like any other generic run 'n' gunner. The game does have plasmids, which are basically just extensions of weapons (for example, you can fire fireballs - which is no different than having a flamethrower), and while these are great in principle, they don't work out in practice. Poor balance means you're going to use a very particular set of tools throughout the entire game. You may want to experiment with the others - but variety for variety's sake is a nonstarter when it comes at the expense of efficiency. As gamers, we instinctively look for the most effective way of doing things.
Whermacht02
If I remember correctly, SS2 had Psi Powers. So according to this... the Psi Powers on SS2 "were good in principle but didnt work in practice"? Or they do work because they are Psi Powers provided through cybernetic modules rather than genetic mutations caused by the plasmids? Its the same exact concept, just witha differente name.I liked the Psi Powers, though I didnt use them too much because the upgrades were extremely hard to get (too much cybernetic modules). On the other hand, Plasmids were easier to obtain, which was a welcome change for me
I didn't like or use PSI powers in SS2, but I wouldn't criticise them because they weren't a major focus of the game. They were the opposite. You can play the game without ever even trying out PSI powers. So their quality becomes something of a relative issue. But with BioShock, they are one of the major selling points of the game. The combat as a whole is not really something to complain about in SS2, because it plays off the horror. With that utterly absent in BioShock, and nothing but the combat in there, it becomes a very prominent, important feature of the game. So I feel justified in criticising one thing in BioShock, and overlooking it entirely in SS2.
You may feel that is unfair, but I do not. In the same way that I don't criticise HL2 for having bad AI because I don't think the game was about gunplay. Certain games lean toward certain gameplay inclinations which make certain things overlookable - or utterly inexcusable - in my opinion. In BioShock's case, I think certain combat elements are important in their mediocrity, while those same (or similar) elements in SS2 are overlookable.
[QUOTE="mfsa"]The game is too easy
You are more likely to drown in money, health and ammo than in the waters flooding Rapture. Even on hard, the game is absurdly easy. You'll have a near unlimited amount of money if you explore at all, and thanks to the conveniently placed vending machines, that means you'll have unlimited health and ammo, too. Hacking costs no money and vita-chambers cost no money. This all adds up to just make the game boring. You'll almost never die, you'll never be short on money, you can always hack anything without any significant risk (ever) and even if you do die, you respawn with everything at exactly the same health level as when you died.
Whermacht02
Though you are not likely to drown in money and health on SS2, you had your fair share of nanites and med hypos. I mean, I always finished the game with unused nanites and hypos, so that means that the game gave me more than I could use. So what's the difference with Bioshock? Bioshock gives you just a little bit more. I have to agree on the ammo part: it was very scarce on SS2. But you could always exploit the "re-spawning" of the shotgun zombies: kill tem, search the corpse and unload the shotgun to get free shotgun bullets. Regarding the Vita Chambers, its the same chamber that you had in SS2 with the difference that it cost you a few nanites to get back to life. I dont see WHY the vita chamber makes Bioshock bad when you had the same concept on SS2.
I guess it depends on the difficulty level you're playing on. Playing on medium, you're right and I'd concede the point. But playing on hard or impossible, it's just a totally different story. For me, anyway. Maybe I'm just not all that great at games.I rarely have what you might call a shortage of supplies in SS2 - playing on the harder difficulties -but I certainly don't have an abundance. And I often find myself worrying over my supplies. Not in some game-breaking way, but I have to stop and think at times. BioShock, on the other hand, is a game where I don't even need to check my supplies ever - and I can always rely on the wrench. Even if I take a few hits, so what? Worst case scenario, I die -at no expense.
The vita-chambers were in SS2, I know, but they did cost nanites - and those nanites were precious if you didn't harvest them in the same way you can harvest ammo - admittedly, exploiting the security system is a flaw with the game, and I acknowledge it, but I also choose to not take advantage of it. Plus, it's a lot harder on the harder difficulty settngs. And besides that, SS2 isn't about the combat, and its horror is so much more, and so much deeper than the mere risk of death. With BioShock, the game is about combat and the focus really becomes to survive, to succeed - with SS2, I always feel it is far more about the experience. Maybe that's just a personal thing with me, and I can't really argue the point, but that is how I feel. Almost every combat-related flaw in SS2 is overlookable, because there's much more to the experience than fighting enemies. But with BioShock, I don't think so.
Really, I think half of BioShock's problems could be solved by renaming Medium as Easy, renaming Hard as Medium an slapping in two extra difficulty levels for Hard and Impossible, and making hacking and vita-chambers cost money. Basically, making it into the more opposing game SS2 was, which is exactly what Irrational wanted to get away from. They could have appeased the casuals and the hardcores at the same time. In fact, I've been told there's mods out that do just that.
I loved bioshock, one of the best I played, its innovative and gorgeous looking.DarkdesiresInnovative how? The only thing this game has that I haven't seen in other games like this (probably because I usually ignore games with that feature... but it has probably been used in other games) are those plasmid powers. But everything else seen in this game has been seen in other games, and usually done better IMHO So what's innovative in this game?
[QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] hell you can beat everyone in the game with a wrench and just respawn when you die and completely beat the game with it ....ADG_I beat half the game using almost only the wrench without dying once at second hardest difficulty. The only times I didn't use the wrench was when I got a new weapon and had to try it out, but in the end I always got back to the best weapon of them all: The wrench An FPS game where you can beat half the using only the wrench on second hardest difficulty without dying has some serious problems IMHO
You beat half the game, including big daddy's with the wrench? I call BS and all comments by you on this topic completely invalid.
Wow..some people here have long-overly-thought-out hate for this game.(See walls of text on page 2)
There are two things that draws hate towards bioshock.
1. The game was completely overhyped by the media.
2. It was made by the same people who made SS2 and its not SS2 with better graphics so people cry.
Personally I thought the game was great with a really immersive story, interesting gameplay, and a cool environment.
I beat half the game using almost only the wrench without dying once at second hardest difficulty. The only times I didn't use the wrench was when I got a new weapon and had to try it out, but in the end I always got back to the best weapon of them all: The wrench An FPS game where you can beat half the using only the wrench on second hardest difficulty without dying has some serious problems IMHO[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] hell you can beat everyone in the game with a wrench and just respawn when you die and completely beat the game with it ....weirjf
You beat half the game, including big daddy's with the wrench? I call BS and all comments by you on this topic completely invalid.
So you call the truth BS? Well, that's your problem :) Ok, I admit I don't know if it's EXACTLY 50% of the game I had finished, but I believe it's close[QUOTE="Whermacht02"]Well, first of all, I dont want to get into an argument regarding "why people hate/love bioshock". I ve already posted my opinion on the subject before.
But as I was reading your post, I couldnt help but notice that there a few things wrong (IMO) on it (while comparing BS to SS2).
[QUOTE="mfsa"]
BioShock's biggest problems:
Horror is sacrificed in favour of mediocre gunplay
The horror feel of SS2 is gone entirely - firstly, the catastrophic events which befell rapture are not scary at all, unlike The Many. Most of the great supporting horror elements, like the awesome soundwork and the enemies which offend one's senses are gone. But the biggest problem here is that there is a focus on the combat - and the combat is more or less the same as System Shock 2's. If you played Shock 2, you'll know that smacking a guy with a wrench in the face is not enough to carry a game. What made SS2 awesome was its horror, not its combat. The combat just played off the horror.
BioShock has no horror, so the combat is just there, like any other generic run 'n' gunner. The game does have plasmids, which are basically just extensions of weapons (for example, you can fire fireballs - which is no different than having a flamethrower), and while these are great in principle, they don't work out in practice. Poor balance means you're going to use a very particular set of tools throughout the entire game. You may want to experiment with the others - but variety for variety's sake is a nonstarter when it comes at the expense of efficiency. As gamers, we instinctively look for the most effective way of doing things.
mfsa
If I remember correctly, SS2 had Psi Powers. So according to this... the Psi Powers on SS2 "were good in principle but didnt work in practice"? Or they do work because they are Psi Powers provided through cybernetic modules rather than genetic mutations caused by the plasmids? Its the same exact concept, just witha differente name.I liked the Psi Powers, though I didnt use them too much because the upgrades were extremely hard to get (too much cybernetic modules). On the other hand, Plasmids were easier to obtain, which was a welcome change for me
I didn't like or use PSI powers in SS2, but I wouldn't criticise them because they weren't a major focus of the game. They were the opposite. You can play the game without ever even trying out PSI powers. So their quality becomes something of a relative issue. But with BioShock, they are one of the major selling points of the game. The combat as a whole is not really something to complain about in SS2, because it plays off the horror. With that utterly absent in BioShock, and nothing but the combat in there, it becomes a very prominent, important feature of the game. So I feel justified in criticising one thing in BioShock, and overlooking it entirely in SS2.
You may feel that is unfair, but I do not. In the same way that I don't criticise HL2 for having bad AI because I don't think the game was about gunplay. Certain games lean toward certain gameplay inclinations which make certain things overlookable - or utterly inexcusable - in my opinion. In BioShock's case, I think certain combat elements are important in their mediocrity, while those same (or similar) elements in SS2 are overlookable.
[QUOTE="mfsa"]The game is too easy
You are more likely to drown in money, health and ammo than in the waters flooding Rapture. Even on hard, the game is absurdly easy. You'll have a near unlimited amount of money if you explore at all, and thanks to the conveniently placed vending machines, that means you'll have unlimited health and ammo, too. Hacking costs no money and vita-chambers cost no money. This all adds up to just make the game boring. You'll almost never die, you'll never be short on money, you can always hack anything without any significant risk (ever) and even if you do die, you respawn with everything at exactly the same health level as when you died.
Whermacht02
Though you are not likely to drown in money and health on SS2, you had your fair share of nanites and med hypos. I mean, I always finished the game with unused nanites and hypos, so that means that the game gave me more than I could use. So what's the difference with Bioshock? Bioshock gives you just a little bit more. I have to agree on the ammo part: it was very scarce on SS2. But you could always exploit the "re-spawning" of the shotgun zombies: kill tem, search the corpse and unload the shotgun to get free shotgun bullets. Regarding the Vita Chambers, its the same chamber that you had in SS2 with the difference that it cost you a few nanites to get back to life. I dont see WHY the vita chamber makes Bioshock bad when you had the same concept on SS2.
I guess it depends on the difficulty level you're playing on. Playing on medium, you're right and I'd concede the point. But playing on hard or impossible, it's just a totally different story. For me, anyway. Maybe I'm just not all that great at games.I rarely have what you might call a shortage of supplies in SS2 - playing on the harder difficulties -but I certainly don't have an abundance. And I often find myself worrying over my supplies. Not in some game-breaking way, but I have to stop and think at times. BioShock, on the other hand, is a game where I don't even need to check my supplies ever - and I can always rely on the wrench. Even if I take a few hits, so what? Worst case scenario, I die -at no expense.
The vita-chambers were in SS2, I know, but they did cost nanites - and those nanites were precious if you didn't harvest them in the same way you can harvest ammo - admittedly, exploiting the security system is a flaw with the game, and I acknowledge it, but I also choose to not take advantage of it. Plus, it's a lot harder on the harder difficulty settngs. And besides that, SS2 isn't about the combat, and its horror is so much more, and so much deeper than the mere risk of death. With BioShock, the game is about combat and the focus really becomes to survive, to succeed - with SS2, I always feel it is far more about the experience. Maybe that's just a personal thing with me, and I can't really argue the point, but that is how I feel. Almost every combat-related flaw in SS2 is overlookable, because there's much more to the experience than fighting enemies. But with BioShock, I don't think so.
Really, I think half of BioShock's problems could be solved by renaming Medium as Easy, renaming Hard as Medium an slapping in two extra difficulty levels for Hard and Impossible, and making hacking and vita-chambers cost money. Basically, making it into the more opposing game SS2 was, which is exactly what Irrational wanted to get away from. They could have appeased the casuals and the hardcores at the same time. In fact, I've been told there's mods out that do just that.
The big difference with the Psi powers in System Shock 2 was that they actually felt powerful and like something special,whereas the plasmids in Bioshock were just like having a few other weapons. The Psi wall ability in particular saved me during the massive rumbler attack when you defeat the many at the end of the game. If I hadn't been able to build a little fort out of psionic energy walls to protect myself, the rumblers would have finished me off quickly.
I beat half the game using almost only the wrench without dying once at second hardest difficulty. The only times I didn't use the wrench was when I got a new weapon and had to try it out, but in the end I always got back to the best weapon of them all: The wrench An FPS game where you can beat half the using only the wrench on second hardest difficulty without dying has some serious problems IMHO[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] hell you can beat everyone in the game with a wrench and just respawn when you die and completely beat the game with it ....weirjf
You beat half the game, including big daddy's with the wrench? I call BS and all comments by you on this topic completely invalid.
... No its possible later on you become extremely powerful to the point where a wrench can destroy big daddies.
[QUOTE="weirjf"]I beat half the game using almost only the wrench without dying once at second hardest difficulty. The only times I didn't use the wrench was when I got a new weapon and had to try it out, but in the end I always got back to the best weapon of them all: The wrench An FPS game where you can beat half the using only the wrench on second hardest difficulty without dying has some serious problems IMHO[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] hell you can beat everyone in the game with a wrench and just respawn when you die and completely beat the game with it ....sSubZerOo
You beat half the game, including big daddy's with the wrench? I call BS and all comments by you on this topic completely invalid.
... No its possible later on you become extremely powerful to the point where a wrench can destroy big daddies.
without big daddy killing you first? not likely. He stated "without dying once". The second time I played I took all of the defensive plasmids and the wrench monkey plasmids and there was still no way I could take down a big daddy without him taking me out at least once using a wrench. I say BS because I tried it myself several times.
[QUOTE="weirjf"]I beat half the game using almost only the wrench without dying once at second hardest difficulty. The only times I didn't use the wrench was when I got a new weapon and had to try it out, but in the end I always got back to the best weapon of them all: The wrench An FPS game where you can beat half the using only the wrench on second hardest difficulty without dying has some serious problems IMHO[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] hell you can beat everyone in the game with a wrench and just respawn when you die and completely beat the game with it ....ADG_
You beat half the game, including big daddy's with the wrench? I call BS and all comments by you on this topic completely invalid.
So you call the truth BS? Well, that's your problem :) Ok, I admit I don't know if it's EXACTLY 50% of the game I had finished, but I believe it's closeI call likely exageration BS based on personal experience. Plus I see you in ALL of the Bioshock topics talking the game down meaning like other topic trolls chances are you aren't being truthful about what you have done or how long you played the game. I played through Bioshock3 times and beat it on all difficulties normal and above. I played it the 2nd time as wrench monkey and big daddies still pound the crap out of you even with all of the defensive plasmids. You get close enough to hit them, you are close enough to get hit back.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment