I don't get reviewers example: Bioshock 2

Bioshock 2 is a much better game then Bioshock 1. Of course the story was new in the original bioshock but that is it. Bioshock 2 fixes almost every single issue with part 1. It also adds a fun multiplayer.

Why is it rated so much lower then the first one? I don't get that.

did you read the review or just look at the number?

Bioshock 2 is a much better game then Bioshock 1. Of course the story was new in the original bioshock but that is it. Bioshock 2 fixes almost every single issue with part 1. It also adds a fun multiplayer.

Why is it rated so much lower then the first one? I don't get that.

Gamelova79

I completed it last night and i thought the gameplay was significantly better and the story although not as 'wow' was much more emotionally involving IMO

but it just isnt gonna have the same impact as the first one as rapture was the star of the show first time round

so much lower? didn't Bioshock get 9.0?

anyway.... I guess its because standards change. A 9.0 today =/= 9.0 in 3 years.

I think most people agree, B2 is better than the 1st in just about every way.... it just doesn't feel as original this time around.

A sequel is expected to do more than just make the bad stuff good, it should also expand on what was already good. This is what BS2 lacks, it refines but it never redefines.

Well from someone whos play the 1st and the 2nd I would have to agree with the reviews. It just felt to much like the first Bioshock, nothing really changed. The main character wasnt nearly as interesting and the story wasnt nearly as good. The first one at the end i was like "WHAAAAAAAA No way" this one i was like "oh" lol.

Well from someone whos play the 1st and the 2nd I would have to agree with the reviews. It just felt to much like the first Bioshock, nothing really changed. The main character wasnt nearly as interesting and the story wasnt nearly as good. The first one at the end i was like "WHAAAAAAAA No way" this one i was like "oh" lol.

destro123

Okay, but thats 1 aspect of the game.... the 2nd trumps the 1st in everything else. So, well you know.

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

So probably by your logic if a random NES game got 9/10, 20+ years ago, Bioshock 2(and many others) should get around 30/10 because it's a much better game.:|

A sequel is expected to do more than just make the bad stuff good, it should also expand on what was already good. This is what BS2 lacks, it refines but it never redefines.

Vaasman

It was ok, diserved a 8.5 or a 9 like the original.Nothing special like the first one.

And the multiplayer was pretty mediocre.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

A sequel is expected to do more than just make the bad stuff good, it should also expand on what was already good. This is what BS2 lacks, it refines but it never redefines.

Merex760

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

SAGE_OF_FIRE

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

SilverChimera

Standards change.

Standards change.

Gamerz1569

One thing that you should put into account when looking at review scores is initial impact and impressions. When Ocarina of Time first came out people were amazed by it because it was the first time they played anything like it, but when other Zeldas came out even though they played better they didn't have the initial awe factor. Same goes for Bioshock 2 not having the awe factor from exploring Rapture, hence the lower score.

the fun factor alone in Bioshock 2 is more than most fps on consoles this gen

the added atmosphere of a Rapture in severe decay and the story make it even better

imo very overlooked game, but it's not an exclusive so nobody is there to overhype it i guess

Bioshock 2 is a much better game then Bioshock 1. Of course the story was new in the original bioshock but that is it. Bioshock 2 fixes almost every single issue with part 1. It also adds a fun multiplayer.

Why is it rated so much lower then the first one? I don't get that.

Gamelova79

It needed more Sander Cohen. Or the surgeon guy. In fact, there was no real "freaky-evil" person in the game, other than Lamb, and she was more misguided than freaky. Rapture was much cooler in the original. That said, BioShock 2 was still a great game, just not as memorable.

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

SAGE_OF_FIRE

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

Skittles_McGee

Killzone 2 deserved the 9, and I also take issue with Far Cry 2, it was a really good game. I do agree with the BioShock score though.

Rapture was special the first time because it was new and unique. And the story was extremely well done.

Sure, the sequel improved on it's problems, but it wasn't new, unique or original anymore.

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

Trigger_Hppy

Killzone 2 deserved the 9, and I also take issue with Far Cry 2, it was a really good game. I do agree with the BioShock score though.

A sequel is expected to do more than just make the bad stuff good, it should also expand on what was already good. This is what BS2 lacks, it refines but it never redefines.

Vaasman

Expanded set of moral quandaries Story expands upon the world of Rapture Fantastically atmospheric and creepy Improved combat mechanicsGameSpot

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]

No the sad thing is games like Killzone 2 (9.0) and Farcry 2 (8.5) among others score very well compared to the quality (in some cases poor) of the game. While Bioshock 2 is a fantastic game and only scores an 8.5 (not saying 8.5 is a bad score).

Skittles_McGee

I force them to have the big daddies and splicers and sisters to escape during the nam war. DO IT.

It's just missing that "wow" factor the original had, I suppose. It was inevitable too, considering it is a sequel, and I find devolopers criticizing that aspect so much a little unfair. Games like Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, Halo 2, and GTA: Vice City were never criticized for being very similar to their predecessors, so why should Bioshock 2? enterawesome

I have to disagree with it too bioshock 1 was vastly superior to bioshock 2 in every way, 2k has turned bioshock 2 into a fast paced twitch shooter, where as the first game was a slow paced strategic adventure shooter.

I have to disagree with it too bioshock 1 was vastly superior to bioshock 2 in every way, 2k has turned bioshock 2 into a fast paced twitch shooter, where as the first game was a slow paced strategic adventure shooter.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]It's just missing that "wow" factor the original had, I suppose. It was inevitable too, considering it is a sequel, and I find devolopers criticizing that aspect so much a little unfair. Games like Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, Halo 2, and GTA: Vice City were never criticized for being very similar to their predecessors, so why should Bioshock 2? Bigboi500

It's just missing that "wow" factor the original had, I suppose. It was inevitable too, considering it is a sequel, and I find devolopers criticizing that aspect so much a little unfair. Games like Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, Halo 2, and GTA: Vice City were never criticized for being very similar to their predecessors, so why should Bioshock 2? enterawesome

I have to disagree with it too bioshock 1 was vastly superior to bioshock 2 in every way, 2k has turned bioshock 2 into a fast paced twitch shooter, where as the first game was a slow paced strategic adventure shooter.

WilliamRLBaker

spoilers

you have to fight the priest guy, i forgot the name of that area. the art is so nice and the area is so well done and really gives the feel that the place used to filled with history and culture.

bioshock 1 was awesome, but this game is way better in the gameplay department, character development (i mean you really feel bad for some characters in the audio logs and they really suck you in) and all the environments seem a bit bigger, however sometimes claustrophobic. the only other thing that bioshock 1 had that was better was the antagonist andrew ryan. he was such an awesome character and really made the story way better than BS2. Lamb isnt the most interesting of characters imo and while the story is good, she is no andrew ryan

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]It's just missing that "wow" factor the original had, I suppose. It was inevitable too, considering it is a sequel, and I find devolopers criticizing that aspect so much a little unfair. Games like Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, Halo 2, and GTA: Vice City were never criticized for being very similar to their predecessors, so why should Bioshock 2? StealthMonkey4

It needed more Sander Cohen. Or the surgeon guy. In fact, there was no real "freaky-evil" person in the game, other than Lamb, and she was more misguided than freaky. Rapture was much cooler in the original. That said, BioShock 2 was still a great game, just not as memorable.

Trigger_Hppy

The patient is ugly... ugly... UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*scarfaces me with a MP40*

It needed more Sander Cohen. Or the surgeon guy. In fact, there was no real "freaky-evil" person in the game, other than Lamb, and she was more misguided than freaky. Rapture was much cooler in the original. That said, BioShock 2 was still a great game, just not as memorable.

Trigger_Hppy