Bioshock 1 vs Modern warfare 2

I just finished bioshock (late. i know) and i can honestly say it is one of the best games ive played this gen (maybe even in my top 10 ever) this coming from someone whos starting to hate the fps genre.The game seems to address my complaint about fps and their usually horrible stories.

Ive heard people saying mw2 is better and frankly i doubt that even though i havent played it, so i thought id hear sw`s opinion on this before going out to buy it.

p.s try to be objective.

It's really a toss-up in my opinion, Bioshock has great single-player, but MW2 has great multiplayer. It's pretty even, maybe with Bioshock edging out MW2 slightly.

I honestly don't even think its a contest. Id play MW 2 anyday over Bioshock. Maybe if Bioshock was actually a good FPS then maybe.

Eh, well.. Modern Warfare 2 obviously has a better multiplayer aspect and replay value where Bioshock has an amazing single-player campaign. If I had to choose between the two i'd say MW2.

I just finished bioshock (late. i know) and i can honestly say it is one of the best games ive played this gen (maybe even in my top 10 ever) this coming from someone whos starting to hate the fps genre.The game seems to address my complaint about fps and their usually horrible stories.

Ive heard people saying mw2 is better and frankly i doubt that even though i havent played it, so i thought id hear sw`s opinion on this before going out to buy it.

p.s try to be objective.

allife

This thread looks real messed up, but I just have to say MW2. The shooting is so vastly more satisfying in MW, and I personally was more interested in MW2's story than in Bioshock's, as totally over-the-top and action-dominated as it was (though I will say that Bioshock's story is pretty good for a narrative-focused game. Not great, but good)

mw2 has a horrible story that is only there in order for you to shoot things in different and unusual locationsSAGE_OF_FIRE

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]mw2 has a horrible story that is only there in order for you to shoot things in different and unusual locationsCherokee_Jack

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"][QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]mw2 has a horrible story that is only there in order for you to shoot things in different and unusual locationsSAGE_OF_FIRE

The poll is correct.

BioShock is one of the best games I've ever played; Modern Warfare 2 is an amusing diversion.

I honestly don't even think its a contest. Id play MW 2 anyday over Bioshock. Maybe if Bioshock was actually a good FPS then maybe.

JangoWuzHere

BioShock is an incredibly good FPS. The combat is excellent and the narrative is unmatched within the genre.

I've never understood these claims that BioShock is somehow inferior as a shooter; I simply don't see it. I've beaten BioShock 5 or 6 times, and each time I found the combat entertaining, intense, and hysterically violent. Rarely have I had so much fun killing **** in a game.

I know it's System Wars and I'm really NOT trying to start anything, but did anyone else notice that the people posting in this thread that favored MW2 seem to be primarily 360 gamers and the people who chose Bioshock seem to be more PS3 oriented? It makes sense given the stereotype that PS3 gamers prefer single player games.

That being said, Bioshock is EASILY better than MW2. The storyline, the atmosphere, the plasmids, all the exploration. Good stuff. The only game I think of being directly comparable to Bioshock isn't even an FPS: Batman: Arkham Asylum.

Anyway, MW2 isn't a bad game per se. It's been casualized to a good degree and the campaign, while fun, is short and doesn't justify the price of admission. They bank on you paying for the MP. Sadly, many people WOULD pay for it if it were only MP which is a sad statement regarding FPSs. I hated hearing people say they were buying Uncharted 2 or Bioshock 2 for the multiplayer. That's NOT what those games are about first and foremost.

Single player-wise, Bioshock trounces MW2 based on length and atmosphere alone, clocking in at around 10-12 hours compared to MW2's paltry 4-6 hour campaign. But again, MW2 takes MP simply because there is none to speak of in Bioshock. Yeah, I know BS2 has MP and I'm sure most don't think it's on MW2's level. I liked it because it was different.

So long story short: Bioshock > Modern Warfare 2. You might have a better argument with an earlier COD, but not this one. Anyone who argues the story is better in MW2 is a meathead. Yeah, I said it.

I think it just depends on what you want. Single player wise Bioshock wins hands down. However for re-playable multi-player obviously MW2 wins. Personally I really enjoy MW2, but I am more of a single player type person so Bioshock 1 and 2 both are better than MW2. Bioshock just has a better story, but I do understand why MW2 is as huge as it is.

An FPS with unique elements, a very good atmopshere, and a neat story VS a generic "US VS Some bad guy" military game with copypasted 1 hour long storyline and less features then it's predescesor.

Hmmm....

Basically I've played through Bioshock 1 time for about 8 hours since I bought it. I liked it, but really didn't see anything that warranted a second playthrough. W/ MW2 I've played for 2 days or 6X longer than I played Bioshock. I'm still not tired of it, and doubt I'll be playing bioshock over it anytime soon. It's not that MW2 is technically better, but it definitely has more value.

I know it's System Wars and I'm really NOT trying to start anything, but did anyone else notice that the people posting in this thread that favored MW2 seem to be primarily 360 gamers and the people who chose Bioshock seem to be more PS3 oriented? It makes sense given the stereotype that PS3 gamers prefer single player games.

That being said, Bioshock is EASILY better than MW2. The storyline, the atmosphere, the plasmids, all the exploration. Good stuff. The only game I think of being directly comparable to Bioshock isn't even an FPS: Batman: Arkham Asylum.

Anyway, MW2 isn't a bad game per se. It's been casualized to a good degree and the campaign, while fun, is short and doesn't justify the price of admission. They bank on you paying for the MP. Sadly, many people WOULD pay for it if it were only MP which is a sad statement regarding FPSs. I hated hearing people say they were buying Uncharted 2 or Bioshock 2 for the multiplayer. That's NOT what those games are about first and foremost.

Single player-wise, Bioshock trounces MW2 based on length and atmosphere alone, clocking in at around 10-12 hours compared to MW2's paltry 4-6 hour campaign. But again, MW2 takes MP simply because there is none to speak of in Bioshock. Yeah, I know BS2 has MP and I'm sure most don't think it's on MW2's level. I liked it because it was different.

So long story short: Bioshock > Modern Warfare 2. You might have a better argument with an earlier COD, but not this one. Anyone who argues the story is better in MW2 is a meathead. Yeah, I said it.

Ryan_Som

MW2 is worth a look, but not better than Bioshock. It runs silky smooth even on consoles, and the gunplay is top notch. Bioshock on the hand is a story driven FPS, and the action is more slowly paced when compared to most shooters.

Get Bioshock 2.

BioShock

A unique FPS vs a generic FPS? Bioshock wins that one hands down.

...and the fact that it means that I support Take-Two and not Activision is just a bonus. :D

I dont know how you can compare the two..one is a war game and the other is nothing likea war game andhardly has gun usage at all. One is fantasy and the other is supposed to be real events.