BioShock ain't dead yet & RDR sequel rumored

Couldn't really give a shit about Red Dead. Give me more BioShock any day of the week. Also a possible stealth revival of 2K Marin the people who did BioShock 2 means it's in good hands as well.

Looking forward to the next game in like what...2016? lol

@misterpmedia

most of Those guys are gone.

I still have faith, 2K Marin improved the gameplay of BioShock to satisfying levels. Can't wait to see what they come up with this time around. Maybe they could tap into Levine's original vision.

You are the best Cow on the board by far. I agree with you completely.

they had me at dual wielding <3

@misterpmedia

I'l wait until it comes out 1st.... Bioshock Infinite blew up in my face and I'm not gona let that happen to me again.

2k Marin does not have many of the Bioshock 2 people, they left.

I put that down to restrictions of 8 year old hardware. Now a BioShock game technically has room to breathe and like I said, maybe this time 2K Marin, let's say if they decide to make a sequel to Infinite, decide to take a look at the gameplay seen in 2011/12 that was ultimately dumbed down because it was probably too ambitious. A next gen BioShock game is most exciting news to me, like a whole other franchise sequels that now aren't shackled to extremely last gen a tired tech.

@misterpmedia

My Issue with Infinite was in its Gameplay which no amount of technology couldve fixed.

If anything I was expecting more of Bioshock the only differences I was expecting were cosmetic one, just a City in the Sky, Mechanically Speaking I just wanted more of the same.

As For a Next Gen Bioshock.... Theres no improvements so significant that they won't be possible on 7th Gen Consoles......

Bishock in Space with a Renaissance Theme, Anyone ?

I didn't think so, not my second time through it. The pacing could have used some work, and less padding, but the gameplay was excellent and like the Arkham games, was empowering. It was a game that existed to tell a story and make the player feel like a cowboy/outlaw. It achieved that in spades.

yep uk baby god save the queen

when playing bioshock 2 u get a sense of been there done that, for the first game it was great because we had never experienced anything like it but bioshock 2 is just the same thing again. bio2 also didnt have the sense of wonder/tension that the original or infinite have. the game just felt tedious throughout and a chore to finish, i actually got near to finishing the game but stopped playing it because i got bored, then i summoned some will power and finished it. it was just too similar to the original

bio2 story is pretty crap compared to the other 2 games because there were no surprises/twists. everything that happened was expected. inifinite story has some minor plot holes but at least it was ambitious, and the first game is just a classic the usual suspects moment, just incredible when the twist happens. u never get that feeling in bio2.

'Gameplay IS the only component important to gameplay. Everything Else is only important for our perception of gaming.' why is perception or any other stimulus less important though? the problem here is it seems ur criteria in judging a game removes emotions from the equation yet in real life emotions cant be removed. if a game makes u feel excited for example because of its good gameplay thats ur perception of the gameplay is it not? just because u perceive it to be fun/exciting doesnt mean everyone else does. and what if i am emotionally stimulated more through bio1/inifinite story than i am by bio2 gameplay?

my point here is gameplay is of course important BUT bioshock gameplay does not and never has really excited me, it is always the story/atmosphere/characters that lores me to the franchise. bio1/infinite story/atmosphere etc. exceed anything bio2 has to provide therefore they are the better games. bio2 gameplay is nothing spectacular even though it may be the best of the franchise.

'So even if Bioshock provides the Better experience, Bioshock 2 is still the Better game simply because it has better gameplay' - well i judge a game by how much i enjoyed the experience it seems u rate a game just by the gameplay even though there is more to a game than gameplay which u also acknowledged in ur post. and if found bio2 atmosphere to be superior than i guess we just have different opinions because i dont think it comes close, it was just too similar for my tastes.

so basically what u are saying is bioshock 2 story creates inconsistencies hmm i wonder why? i know!! because it isnt written by ken levine maybe thats why.

the only memorable character i can even remember in bio2 is that black lady who keeps yelling over the loud speeker 'stop tin daddy, he is coming for baby elonor' or something like that. i liked the wacky characters more than the boring ones

@ghostwarrior786

1) Thats hardly a Critism, if the 1st game was great and the 2nd game was basically Copy and pasted with some minor editing then thats good. Also its a sequel, change too many things and you risk the identity of the franchise (see President Evil 4). Also those who Played Bioshock 2 1st would make the exact same critism about Bioshock, which is why we should judge each game by its own merits, as if theres nothing else like it, as if we are new to everything about it.

2) Again thats not a Critism, the problem with Plot twists is they completely unravel every single aspect you thought you understood and learned, I'l never give credit to Da Vinci if he was almost done painting the Mona Lisa and then stopped and immediately pissed on the potential masterpiece. Luckily for Bioshock, that wasn't the case, it was a good twist unlucky for them, it was a huge climax and it everything that followed it suffered because of its extended duration, it felt padded, heavily !

Bioshock 2 is safe and interresting but most importantly it is without flaws. Don't underestimate the power of simplicity. Its not a bad thing by any means.

3) Then I suggest you put on your sport jacket and head to the nearest theatre. Even if I was subjective, I'm subjective about the most important of a game.... Its gameplay. But I don't think thats the case, I'm really good at compartmentalising my logic from my emotions, I know this because I can still feel negatively towards something but still accept it. Like Software Programming, it involves an intense amount of memorizing, double checking, bland interfaces and a whole lot of otherr boring things, but Thats what programming is, I can't change that just because I don't like it, I can't say coffee is a part of programming even if it does yield better programming results. I have the same attitude towards reading, I would seriously love it if Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol had pictures in it, but if a review were to take points off for that then my logic would nag at me, books are not about Pictures and if theres a BOTY award then it should go to the book with the best writing, not to ones with the coolest pictures that more people can relate to... Thats Illogical. And I have that same attitude towards non-gameplay features in gaming.

If Bioshock's Gameplay doesn't excite you then well.... Sucks to be you, I guess.

story/atmosphere/characters are only important if the gameplay utilizes them. If this was a book then I would say its important how the writing utilizes them, if it were a movie then I would say its important how the cinematogrophy and imagery utilizes them. But in games it doesn't seem to matter. I believe gameplay is more capable than you think it is. And yes Gameplay is the only defining Factor of Video Games, the moment you begin to favour something else over gameplay then thats when Developers exploit that. It makes a mockery of our well established system, I take the same approach to music and singing, and I think its a mockery of the art when Lady Gaga is rated higher than somebody who sings better just because shes a freak in a Meat Dress, A MEAT DRESS, SERIOUSLY !?!

I'm not saying it doesn't belong (even though it doesn't) I'm saying it doesn't count.

1. of course it is a criticism, they didnt add nearly enough new features to bio2 to keep it interesting like inifinite did. it was a straight up copy and paste for the most part. u can change many things and still keep the identity of franchise, inifnite done it wonderfully. 'Also those who Played Bioshock 2 1st would make the exact same critism about Bioshock' - well that would be beyond stupid because how can u criticise the original game for being too similar to the sequel even though it released first? thats makes 0 sense

2. nothing suffered after the plot twist, it didnt feel padded to me because it built up the boss fight with atlas. plus the environments u travel to after the twist were incredible and just made for an amazing experience. they got it just right, it didnt drag on for too long and wasnt too short either, just perfect.

3. 'I'm subjective about the most important of a game.... Its gameplay' - again u are being subjective, gameplay is not i repeat NOT the most important part of a game, it is a component that is JUST as important as other factors like story/characters/atmosphere etc. if gameplay is most important i guess call of juarez/tetris are ur fav games? because they have good gameplay but very little else. having just gameplay means nothing if the rest of the package is mediocre, and bio2 gameplay isnt anything great to begin with nevermind the copy/pasting of assests from original.

4. 'Gameplay is the only defining Factor of Video Games' - WRONG, it is ONE of the defining factors of a video game, not the only one.

your whole argument is centred around gameplay being the only factor in making a good game and that is just flat out wrong. videogames is in the entertainment industry and like other medians such as films/music there are different genres, it has expanded beyond what games used to be in the past. cinematic experiences are what bioshock franchise is all about and bio1/infinite do it best therefore are the best games of the franchise.

RDR is overrated as all hell but still an okay game. I never saw the amazing story that other people claimed to see, and I thought the world was far too barren (as in lack of interesting things to do). There were some things to do, but most of them were either far too short or just flat out boring. The only really fun activity in the game was the shooting.

And the only part of the story that actually felt focused, well written and all around good was the ending segment. The rest of it felt pretty aimless and things just happened then were gone. John Marston was still a solid protagonist, though, which is why the ending segment was well done in my eyes.

As for Bioshock, I played it about two years ago, and the first one was enough. It had ambition and good production values, but the gameplay was far too clunky feeling and just not very fun. I have no interest in playing either of the sequels.

@ghostwarrior786

1) Ofcourse it makes zero sense, I was merely pointing that out by switching it the other way around. You should never make critisms based on which game was released 1st or how many clones they are (Wouldn't you want Megan Fox to have 50 clones just like her...... With better gameplay ? :p ), Like I said, judge it by its own Merits.

2)Fine... If you insist.

3)Gameplay is the most Important of a game, Everything else is Only important for how we perceive games.

If the Atmosphere/Story/Characters don't effect gameplay then too bad.... Play LA Noire for an Example of Story/Characters/Animation/Graphics that do utilize gameplay. And yep, I love Tetris and Pong, saying it doesn't derve 10 out 10 because theres not story or atmosphere is just wrong.

4) You don't judge a medium based on things that have nothing to do with them, you can't say a Documentary about Soap sucks because it Doesn't have characters in it. Thats just wrong, no matter how boring Soap is. If you need a story to enjoy soap then sucks to be you..... Because thats not a defining factor of Documentaries.

Unlike you I don't look at the state of the interactive medium and accept how it is just because the majority of people can't get into tetris without a story about an Older male block bonding with a younger female block over the struggles of surviving in a post acopoclyptic setting littered with Zombie Blocks, Yes... I'm good at absract thinking...... Its fine if thats what you're into and I would love to see "The Last of Tetris" come into fruition, but thats no excuse to redefine something into what it most definately is not. I'm confident that I came to that conclusion objectively.

1. but sequels being too similar to original is a valid criticism because they are an entry into the franchise. games should only be judged on their own merit if they are new ip but if they were sequel they should be compared to the original because they are a follow up. 50 megan foxs would be boring, 1 is enough hope the other 49 are different but just as good as megan fox.

i was reading 1 of your earlier posts, 'If anything I was expecting more of Bioshock the only differences I was expecting were cosmetic one, just a City in the Sky, Mechanically Speaking I just wanted more of the same.' - thats ur problem, u want bioshock to stay the same whereas i want them to keep some of the core essentials the same but progress the series like they done with infinite.

3. against i go back to what i said about perception of gaming, 'why is perception or any other stimulus less important though? if a game makes u feel excited for example because of its good gameplay thats ur perception of the gameplay is it not? just because u perceive it to be fun/exciting doesnt mean everyone else does. and what if i am emotionally stimulated more through bio1/inifinite story than i am by bio2 gameplay?' - emotion is a big part of gaming and removing it when judging a game would be doing a disservice.

4. why does story telling have nothing to do with gaming? like i said, gaming has evolved and u seem determined to cling on to the past. yes tetris cant be deduced points for not having a story but what if tetris 2 released and all they changed was the colour of the blocks or something would u be happy with that? is that all u ask for in a sequel? unlike u i want more than just small incremental updates from sequels. bioshock infinite is the perfect sequel in imo, it changes enough core mechanics while keeping whats good about the franchise.

u have a very narrow view of gaming it seems 'but thats no excuse to redefine something into what it most definately is not', gaming is not just about gameplay like it was when computers could only process 2 pixels on the screen because it has evolved. reading some of ur comments it seems u hate change and just want everything to stay static, newsflash, everything changes and i for one like where gaming is headed.

@ghostwarrior786

1) You're well with in your right to call it simular, you're also well with your right to say thats a bad thing. You're not well with in you right to say anything is worse when its actually the same. Yeah sure Its a bad trend, but that doesn't make Bioshock 2 an inferior product.

2) My mistake.... I meant to say I was "expecting" more of the same.... You may give me crap for that... I deserve it, but it was an honest mistake. Truth is I did want the gameplay to get better, but I was willing to settle for more of the same.

3) Well theres a difference between Importance and Relevance..... Its more important that you love what you do, if that means needing a story to make that happen then by all means go for it, however its irrelevant to the actual task whether something is important to you or not. In other words whats important to you is not important to Games unless it factors into gameplay ofcourse. You're right, it would be a disservice, only to you, gaming doesn't become any worse just because we can no longer have an emotion towards it. Do you realise I can say this an Infinte number of ways just as you can say the opposite?

4) I'm not clinging on to the past, gameplay has evolved too. Yes you can hate the trend of copy pasting tetris, you can not deduce points for that thought, if those points are meant to serve as a guide for the quality of something then deducting points would mean that you're calling only one of a completely identicle product inferior to another. Imagine having to explain that to someone, "You're inferior to Megan Fox because you are her exact clone, yet the original Megan Fox is better than you even though she is exactly like you" you're gona hurt Megan Fox's clone's Feelings if you do that, you're also gonna confuse her because that doesn't make sense. Don't be that guy. 2K Marin worked very hard to rehash Bioshock. :p

like You I want more from a sequel, like you I'm upset when I get the same old crap. Unlike you I can still make an objective conclusion despite my emotions. Why can't you be cool like me, ;)

oh and FYI, gameplay predates computers, it goes beyond them, gameplay has a lot potential, games evolve without all that stuff.

I love change. You think I wana play the same old crap for the rest of my life, I'm only 22, that would be BORING. But since we are now in the business of labelling each other, You are incapable of being objective, and abstract logic. I like where its heading too, but objectively speaking if its heading away from gameplay then it is becoming worse. What you should keep in mind though is that not everything has to be a game, There is already something for people who like story and atmosphere above all else, its Called the Twilight Movie.... You're Welcome ;)

1. but if its the same as before then it is inferior because sequels are supposed to improve upon the original not be the same as them. if i wanted to play the same game i would just play the original, sequels must expand on the premise of the original and people are well within their rights to demand that.

and to further clarify my point of bio1 being superior to bio2 in everything but perhaps game play, even if people played bio2 first most will still find bio1 to be more superior because the gameplay for bio2 doesnt compensate enough for its weaker story/atmosphere/character.

3. story is largely relevant to gaming though and yes i can see we are never going to agree on this

4. 'Yes you can hate the trend of copy pasting tetris, you can not deduce points for that though' - of course u can because u have already experienced what it has to offer therefore are not stimulated emotionally like u were before therefore when playing the sequel if nothing substantial is added then u deduct points. standards change and its a good thing they do otherwise we would be stuck in a cycle of mediocrity and lowered expectations.

the cloning megan fox example doesnt really illustrate ur point because u are lowering the term 'sequel' to mean 'cloning'. sequels are not clones, they are expansions. if a scientist was intent on creating an improved megan fox yet what he ended up with was a identical replica of something that is already imperfect im sorry i would have to deduct points because we already have a megan fox.

yes not everything needs to be a game but the great thing about gaming is the different genres of games, its like deducing points from an rpg for not having the same traditional game play of a platformer.

now u see im 23, those extra 12 months + living in uk (god save the queen) have made me so much wiser haha maybe when u are 23 u can adopt a more holistic view because there is so much more to gaming than just game play. now im off to play uc2 another game u probably hate but nice debating u, its clear we are never going to agree

But it IS written by those who worked on the first game, including the guy who wrote Sander Cohen and Fort Frolic.

Other than Andrew Ryan, none of the first game or Infinite characters had depth. Actually, this includes Elizabeth.

@ghostwarrior786

1) Same = Same

Same =/= Inferior. I think thats logic so simple even Megan Fox's Clone can grasp it ;) . I mean if you skip the Original you're not getting a worse experience by playing the Identicle Sequel yet you may think less of the original if you play it after the Sequel.

Actually, Your argument for Bioshock 2's inferiority was it was too much like Bioshock, more if the same remember ? So if you're gonna change your reason then I'l disprove it and we'l be right back where we are now, just giving you a heads up..... Because I like you ;)

3) We can Agree on that in LA Noire and Mass Effect, we Can not agree on that in Bioshock. Your mistake is generalizing what I think about gaming down to an incorrect assumption.

4) "....u have already experienced...." Well sir you can't colour the facts with your subjective experience, like I said.... If you skip tetris and play the rehashed Tetris 2 then your experience would be the same as if you had played the 1st.....

Yes standards change, definitions remain the same, if they didn't, you could call books with Pictures an Evolution of books without pictures..... And thats just wrong, thats why you should give them a category of their own ie. Comic Books. We wouldn't be stuck in a Pattern of Mediocrity and Lower Expectations, if you don't want more of the same then don't play the sequal, yes it will be worse experience but it wouldn't be a worse game, not obectively.

You're right Expanding and Cloning are two different things, but if you agree that cloning is what happened here then your point is moot. Your welcome to deduct points from 2K Marin since theyre bad at expanding but if the failure is essentially clone then..... Well you can fill in the rest.

Funny you should bring up RPGs, its not even a real genre, it doesn't have a clear definition like a Platformer so thats a bad example. Also you should never compare different genres anyway, classic apples and oranges mistake right there. You're getting tired and your logic is degrading. Take another nap and try again.

So now you think living longer makes you smarter ? Wrong ! You become smarter by consuming and trading as much information as possible, I argue with a lot of people all the time and theres rapid exchanges of facts and oppinions. You don't know more than me just because you sat on your ass talking only to people who agree with your subjective outlook for 12 months. We can agree, just excercise some simple logic.

Anyway its been real talking to, But you didn't teach me anything :( you wasted my time. If you could prove me wrong then atleast I wouldve learned something, you can't just leave me before we reach that conclusion. :(

1. 'Your argument for Bioshock 2's inferiority was it was too much like Bioshock, more if the same remember ? So if you're gonna change your reason then I'l disprove it and we'l be right back where we are now, just giving you a heads up' - ur confused it seems, read my original reply again 'bio2 story is pretty crap compared to the other 2 games because there were no surprises/twists. everything that happened was expected.' i said from the start bio2 story is the weakest but u turned this argument into something else. the atmosphere/characters i said are very similar but the story is weaker and the gameplay improvements dont compensate enough for the weaker story which is why it is the weakest entry in the franchise.

3. 'We can Agree on that in LA Noire and Mass Effect, we Can not agree on that in Bioshock' - why not? why is story important in mass effect than in bioshock. double standards? ken levine is known for his narrative driven games first and foremost so thats what one should expect when playing bioshock.

4. 'Well sir you can't colour the facts with your subjective experience' - everything is subjective, someone can claim to like bio1 gameplay more. 'If you skip tetris and play the rehashed Tetris 2 then your experience would be the same as if you had played the 1st' - well this isnt tetris, its bioshock and the second has the weakest story of the franchise so the experience wont be the same at all and yes i know the better story part is also subjective but most will agree bio1>>bio2 story.

actually definitions do change, they are also constantly changing. for example the word 'gay' used to mean happy now it means something entirely different. if the experience is worse than it is a worse game because weather u like it or not u cant remove emotions from gaming, thats a fact.

'Funny you should bring up RPGs, its not even a real genre' - wtf? again wrong, role playing games are indeed a genre of video games and can be properly defined. a simple google search all u need

'So now you think living longer makes you smarter ?' - ermm it was a joke

'If you could prove me wrong then at least I wouldve learned something' - hmm lets see, what was ur response to 'story is largely relevant to gaming though' - 'We can Agree on that in LA Noire and Mass Effect, we Can not agree on that in Bioshock'

yep thats u admitting there is more to games than just gameplay but strangely holding bioshock to a double standard than other games, quite the change from 'Gameplay is the only defining Factor of Video Games' <<ur words not mine.

u have gone from making some sense to 0 sense. ur original argument of 'Gameplay is the only defining Factor of Video Games' has been destroyed, im not going to waste my time on here any more because u have already proven my point which is that there is more to games than just gameplay.

@ghostwarrior786

1) I already told you.... No plot twists is not a bad thing.... Its actually pretty good. If you didn't like it then I feel for you but plot twists arent the Chuck Norris of Storytelling.... Its just a device and a story is not bad just because it didn't shock you. There.... Disproved.

3) Its not a Double Standard, you just think everything is the same.... It never once occurred to you that its how the story is implimented not wether or not its implimented. Ken Levine can write as good a story as he wants but what good is it if its not reflected in gameplay. And the same applies to movies.... The writers can write a perfect story but it would be pretty lame to watch a movie where the characters only express the story in dialogue. "Don't Tell Me, Show" thats the mark of a good screen writer. And for video games it would be "Don't Show/Tell Me, Let/Allow Me"

4) Thats a fallacy, everything is most definately not subjective. Objective Logic is a real thing. And your preference for story is irrelevant because it doesn't make use of the gameplay.

I have no desire to to remove emotion from gaming, gameplay can be very emotive, your the one who thinks it can't, not me.

I did research RPGs extensively, and its as much as much a genre as Open World is a genre. And I mean both are not genres they don't describe how they're played like Platformers and Shooters and Racing Gamings are. Like an Open World game an RPG is a formula you apply to another genre, anything from action to strategy. If you don't, then you have no game..... Simple !

You don't get what gameplay is do you, in LA Noire story and gameplay are practically one in the same, its not something you layer on top like in Bioshock, the story has a real function in gameplay. Its the samething with Cinematography in Film and Writing in Books. And yes Gameplay is the only Defining Factor of Video games and I stand by the statement in LA Noire.

I get the sense that you've never played a game for the gameplay. Not once. Do you always see it as some chore that you have to complete just to get a piece of the story ?

@Lulu_Lulu: BioShock 2 is the weakest in the series. Instead of progressing the franchise, it ruined what makes it special in the first place: the narrative. In fact it is practically Bioshock 1.5, with the true sequel being Infinite. It may have played marginally better than the original, but because everything had a "me too" attitude, it was stall. We complain about Call of Duty being the same year after year, so why shouldn't other games be held to the same standard?

@double_a73

I do hold Call of Duty by the Same Standards as Bioshock... I critisize it constantly for its lack of innovation....... I've never called one of 2 identicle Call Of Dutys inferior though..... Its why I don't rate Video Games. The score will always be biased. Anyway if something is more of the same then so be it.... Nobody's forcing you to play it.

I hope 2K Marin does more ARGs with BioShock. There's Something in the Sea was amazing.

Bioshock 2 did progress the franchise, it told a far more human story with far superior character writing than the first game, and if you got it, the narrative was far more about the characters than Rapture this time around. the first game already fleshed out Rapture, Bioshock 2 instead fleshe dout the Little Sisters and the Big Daddies, something underexplored in the first game and wrote a human story out of the bond.

Infinite is garbage. It was a step back in the series. While you accuse Bioshock 2 of not progressing, at least it didn't regress. Nevermind the story is one big deus ex machina after another and the character writing is appalling. Nevermind they simply thrown away their setting half way through the game. And that's not talking about the series raping DLC.

Bioshock Infinite is the series' Phantom Menace.

Talking about the Mark Metzler storyline?

Wow, Bioshock 2 did an incredible job ending that.

@texasgoldrush

I liked the Miniplot in the recordings with the outsider who came to Rapture looking for his daughter after a big sister snatched her on the surface, only to discover she was turned into a lil sister........ The conclusion was so sad and unexpected.....

and it fits into the theme of parenthood the game was about.

@texasgoldrush

I still want to play Burial At Sea though..... Just to see what its like playing as Elizabeth

Its awful, if you hated Infinite, you will really hate Burial At Sea. It pisses all over the series as well.

As for playing Elizabeth, its another overhype. A toned down Booker is all she is.

Wild west with aliens just like with james bond init. lol..

RDR and Bioshock are good games.. Good if it will happen.

@texasgoldrush

Either way I wana show my support form female PCs

dude do u even know what ur original argument was? u said only gameplay matters and now u have backtracked and said oh wait actually story is also important. that was my whole point, there is more to games than just gameplay. this is going to be my last reply because u have already admitted there is more to games than gameplay so u have proven my point. im not going to even waste my time reading ur last response as frankly this argument much like ur fav game of all time bio2 is getting tedious

@ghostwarrior786

Gameplay is the most imprtant and only deciding factor of a gaming. And that goes for LA Noire.

My argument never changed you, sir, simply have an archaic and backwards pre-21st centurary view of what gameplay is Or how far its come..... Or how much potential it still has.

But whatver.... Nice trading blows with ya.....

I'd rather play Eleanor Lamb

and the actual story is better in Bioshock 2 as I have already told you.

Thanks to Burial at Sea, I see now how flawed the original was storywise. They had to use Elizabeth to fill plot holes and give new meaning to the first game's lackluster ending.

Agreed!

@texasgoldrush

That does sound much much better !

Uhh, he's right tho, Bioshock 2 is garbage.

Bioshock 1 was revolutionary

Bioshock 2 was meh

Bioshock: Infinite was mind blowing

@Mozelleple112

Bioshock was a Spiritual Successor to System Shock. And is responsible for coining the phrase "Ludonarrative Dissonance", before you jump for joy, thats actually a bad thing.

Bioshock 2 was an Improvement

Bioshock Infinite was a pathetic attempt to redo what Bioshock did.