The first Bioshock is overrated

Really it is, because critics continuously fail to point out the games flaws or ignore them altogether. The plot isn't that good, the characters outside Ryan and Tenebaum are mostly one dimensional, and after the twist the game loses steam. And take away "Would you kindly?" and this game is nothing more than decent world building. Nevermind that the game clearly takes much of its ideas from System Shock 2, so it isn't all that original either. You go after Ryan for Atlas like you go after the Many for SHODAN. Nevermind Levine has shown he just cannot put together ideas into a cohesive whole and wrap a game properly. All these flaws pop up again and worse on Infinite.

Its the sequel that had more rounded and dynamic characters, choices that matter, and knew how to actually wrap a game (and its DLC as well). yet it gets bashed for being a rehash, goes to show the stupidity of gaming journalism. Here is a hint, by counterpointing the first, it actually has the more original plot, and Infinite copies it. And I will say this its funny how Bioshock 2 is actually a more influential game when it comes to the game industry.

BioShock is a rip off of Far Cry and System Shock 2, absolutely.

It was hyped as a spiritual successor to System Shock and in that regard it failed miserably but taken in it's own regard, it was a decent game.

So you don't like it as much as other people did and therefore it is overrated? This term is meaningless.

No its overrated because it has critical flaws that people who like it want to ignore.

My biggest issue was just how lame and unfulfilling were the shooting mechanics. I kinda can understand why someone would like the game regardless. As I do know a few who did really like the BioShock world. But those mechanics left a bad impression during and after I finished BioShock.

@texasgoldrush: Nobody overlooks the plot. They just think it's one of its strongest points and you simply argue that it's not great. Seems like a textbook example of one not liking something as much as most and calling said thing overrated as a result.

And sky is blue. Look at my signature. I'm playing the game again after 9 years and it's still decent game so far and nothing that deserves 90+ on Metacritic. System Shock 2 (the game that inspired it) is miles better and I played that game 15+ years after its release while I played Bioshock on launch day and now replaying it.

And despite being late to the party I think System Shock 2 is one of the greatest experiences I've ever had in any entertainment medium. Bioshock on other hand is your typical 7th gen shooter so far (haven't finished my second walkthrough yet).

The only thing that really stands out is sound technology but that's hardly a surprise since it's created by Eric Brosius who worked on System Shock 2.

It was a great game in its time, not sure how well it holds up now for people who never tried it. I sure as hell liked it when I played it. It was among one of the first few games I had for my Xbox 360 and felt unlike anything I'd played before.

Still better than life is Strange. Critics agree

Can't agree with that. Bioshock at least makes a valid effort at telling a compelling story and at keeping its level design interesting. It's more than just going through corridors shooting at bad guys. The concept of Rapture is very interesting. The whole civil war, descent of civilization into chaos and loss of humanity were all very good concepts. The gunplay was spectacular but at least it gave the player more agency and freedom when it came down to taking on enemies and challenges. Did it allow for emergent gameplay? Not at all but it was a whole lot better than the campaign of COD or Halo.

I'm replaying Bioshock right now and it is delicious.

And I'm in the minority because I liked Bioshock 2 even better, the arm mounted machine gun mowing everybody down, the whole thing felt great.

Bioshock Infinite was...good but weird, I didn't understand the story, all the jumping around into alternate universes and the twin scientists playing word games and "you are you but you're also Comstock" and 12 Elizabeths drowning you in the water, it was just incoherent and didn't do anything for me. The gunplay was nice, artwork, music and the whole jazz, but as far as the story is concerned, I'm just a merc rescuing a girl. My only complaint is that a game like that should have more than 2 weapon slots.

you're overrated, ugh

No, no it's not. It's a masterpiece.

What is the plot? Its "Would You Kindly?". That's it, other than that, it has no real plot.

The protagonist isn't really there, and the story falls apart after the big twist. The themes and ideas never come together (and is something Levine may agree with).

Bioshock 2 has a much better plot, and actually has plot. And it knows how to end.

There is more than that. The concept of man being free to do whatever he can accomplish. The whole idea of bringing geniuses and masterminds together in a society with no boundaries to their creativity. I think the plot was lackluster but that's mostly due to gaming being a medium that cannot really carry a good plot. The story however was good to me.

Even though I share in that opinion, I'm not into shitposting for the sake of it.

Bioshock is a great game, in spite of its weak ending and other inconsistencies.

But these are just ideas, they are great and all, but they really do not come together well at all after the mid point. In the end, Bioshock says nothing.

This is the problem with all of Levine's games, including SS2, he does not know how to bring his ideas together properly.

1. So far I'm not impressed with the story. In fact I found it so forgettable back then that I can't remember anything even though I've played the game already. But may be later it will become better, so we'll see. Level design? It's linear as hell. There are some side rooms here and there from where you can get ally robots and ammo but other than that it's nothing special in that department.
2. But that's exactly what it is. It's a corridor game where you shoot bad guys.
3. OK setting is interesting. I agree with you on that.
4. Gunplay is not spectacular. Only weapon that is satisfying to use is shotgun. Other than that gunplay is serviceable and guns are not that fun to use.
5. It's better than COD but that's not an achievement. As I said, it's decent game. May be great even but 90+ MC great? Hell no. Fun? Sure. That's all.

Of course this is just my opinion.

I love SS2 as well, however it too has problems that carried over in Bioshock and really the first game's story is far better than SS2's. SS2 didn't seem to seal the deal either and in the end, was about nothing really. And the game does take a big dip in quality once you get off the Von Braun, and the Body of the Many is just a plain terrible level. On the other hand, the first game had a more focused coherent plot about human nature causing the calamity and involved the protagonist far more in the backstory.

And SS2 never really fleshed out SHODAN as well, so SS3 will do it.

I played Bioshock at launch and I'm replaying it right now, well I'm more or less at the end of it and for me it's been excellent even knowing going into it what the big twist was.

It's atmospheric, it looks great, has great world design, works great as a dual shooter/spellcasting hybrid though the controls are maybe a bit clunky compared to what we're used to now but I am loving it and can't wait to play 2 and Infinite which I have never played before and also the DLC (I just bought the Collection).

It has a 'world' story as opposed to a personalised linear hand-holding by-the-numbers explain literally everything as you go along story maybe that's what the TC has a problem with I don't know. I appreciate we're all different but it's difficult for me to understand how someone can play Bioshock and not be enchanted and mesmerised by its utter weirdness or at the very least have a blast with its excellent weapon and plasmid mechanics.

I look at all the average FPS we have had over the years and yawn loudly at how they all do the same thing slightly different and diamonds in the rough like these just don't come along nearly often enough, in my humble opinion, of course.

I meant to say the gunplay was not spectacular not spectacular. I'm not saying Bioshock is great either. I'm simply saying it is a different experience than your typical 7th gen shooter. Killzone, Halo, Resistance, BF. You can all lump their campaigns in one basket. Bioshock doesn't belong there. Not saying it's better or worse but it attempted to do things the others did not. Now whether it did them well or not is entirely a matter of preference.

You can use the crossbow to make traps, plasimds to control big daddies or hurl objects at enemies. If you take your time you can actually set up some pretty elaborate kill zones. None of that is possible in run-o-the-mill broshooters.

Yeah that's why I said the story was good but the plot wasn't. The chronological order and the events were actually interesting. The way it was executed wasn't. The exposure, falling action and final conflict were really lackluster. Do I think Bioshock deserves a 9.6/10? Absolutely not but calling something overrated is pretty meaningless. If some dude absolutely loves the game and is barely bothered by its flaws who am I to tell him how much the game sucks? I consider Majora's Mask a nigh flawless game. I acknowledge its flaws but they are minor gripes to me. To some others they are unacceptable.

But that's what overrated is. It doesn't mean bad, it means it gets too much credit or its over praised, which the first game is.

The second game on the other hand, is underrated, it doesn't get the credit and praise its due, and its badly misrepresented. And really, the game has more influence on the industry than the first game, as it influenced the walking simulator genre and games like Dishonored.

Which is why I'm saying it's meaningless because rating is inherently subjective. Let's say a guy holds almost the same opinion as you but the flaws of Bioshock really don't bother him that much, what can we tell him? I mean he acknowledges the flaws but to him they're not enough of a big deal tot ake away his enjoyment. For you they obviously are. Neither of you is right or wrong. It entirely depends what you want from your games and how you evaluate them and what you hold more important. Some people don't care about plot/story in the slightest and even if it's hot garbage, they'll rate the game highly if the gameplay is good to them.

That's why I'm saying the term "overrated" doesn't mean a thing. You can't rightly say people are wrong for holding something in high regard because you don't.

you basing this on playing the inferior remaster release?

play the original bro.

However, these flaws can be compounded on further releases if not corrected. if the critic doesn't take the developer to task over issues and overpraises the game, this can lead to the developer making the same mistake over and over again, where more people get tired of it.

Look at Telltale.

O yeah, extra tools that they provide definitely bring more interesting stuff on the table. But I found rest of the stuff a lot closer to linear FPS games of last gen, it's easy to spot those famous trends everywhere that hold the game back IMO but as I mentioned before it's better than COD and most of those linear FPS campaign from last gen.

To me , all bioshock games are overated ... i never understood , aside some cultural references in game , what was so great about them

There are definitely flaws in System Shock 2. It's not a perfect game but when it's all said and done, the overall product is just absolutely brilliant. Of course System Shock 1 did some of the stuff better than the second one. They can really do interesting stuff with Shodan considering how System Shock 2 ended. Hopefully they won't miss the opportunity.

This happens all the time. Not to mention the gaming industries is riddled with idiot critics who hand out perfect scores like candies. Every year several games get perfect scores from dozens of different publications. Perfect score should be extremely rare. Only in the gaming industry is getting a 70% rating considered "average or mixed". In the music industry a damn 60% is considered positive whereas it'd be considered shit for a game.

That's why you see shovel-ware open-world games dotting the landscape. Reviewers keep praising games like GTA V and its boatload of padding and give it crazy high scores. It sells like crazy and then other devs start copying its model. It's exactly as you said overpraising lead to mistakes that are committed over and over again. GTA V learned nothing from GTA IV which was complete shit. But hey it got a 94 Metascore and GTA V got 95 so it must be great right? Nope lol.

Anyway, I'm a much bigger fan of games where gameplay is at the forefront of the line like Dark Souls or Ninja Gaiden. I loath when games try to emulate other mediums because they always fail hard at it. They try to make things cinematics or try to make you "care" about characters like movies and books because so-called "artists" don't take gaming seriously as an artistic medium. Reminds me of that awkward kid who always tried too hard to fit with that group of "cool" kids at school who were just really a bunch of entitled pricks.

What is the plot? Its "Would You Kindly?". That's it, other than that, it has no real plot.

I don't a crap about the number of people praising a game or not. I played Bioshock a few times and it's a solid 9/10 game.

I treat Bioshock as an FPS which means the story takes a back seat. So long as the story is plausible enough, I'm happy.

That's not much of a plot. Much of this is setting storytelling, not the actual plot. And the problem with Bioshock is that the setting building and the plot do not come together well.

And in fact, many of the characters you encounter, such as Cohen, have nothing to do with the bare bones plot.

Contrast this with the sequel, where most of the characters deal with the plot.

System Shock 2 is overrated, BioShock is not.

GTA V made massive improvements over GTA IV and fixed most of its grievous problems like the complete clash of tone when it comes to its story and world, the lack of checkpoints and its side content, while some of it is padding, a lot of it was not. That too, is an improvement over GTA IV. Some of the best missions and moments in GTA V are optional.

If a Rockstar game is overrated, its Red Dead Redemption.

I enjoyed it. In fact, I'm going to replay it soon. Guess I like overrated games, what a shame.

@texasgoldrush:

Bishock was unique for its kind on early 360 and ps3. Of course rehashing it for the sequel would get bashed. The sequel was so lazy!

How is it a rehash?

Its not, its actually a counterpoint. While the gameplay is the same, the story is completely different. In fact, it provides the closure the first game failed to provide and is actually the most original plot of the series along with Minerva's den.

And lazy? I don't think so.

Hell, Levine basically Mad Libs Bioshock 2's plot for Infinite. Talk about lazy.

@texasgoldrush:

The majority of Bishock 2's world was the same as 1's build. Hell yeah that's lazy! The only thing original about it was the storyline which was basically a retelling of the first. Bishock 2 was Bishock 1's 2nd shot at milking more of the same idea. At least Infinite was in a different world altogether.

Wrong

How is the sequel a retelling of the first? Does the original deal with Jack trying to rescue his daughter from Ryan? I don't think so.

And Infinite rips off Bioshock 2.

Its funny how a game can be a masterpiece, and years later have people say its overrated for some of its best features.

This site is weird.

2 was fresh bro.

1 was wack.

3 was a Britney.

No, its overrated because of its worst features, like the third act of the game.

@texasgoldrush:

Well vaguely, Bishock 1 guy and 2 guy are both slaves forced under the mercy of whoever is willing to "help". 2 might have had more details and things in between but it's all just filler. It's hilariously hypocritical how you can like 2 over 1 when it was clearly feeding off Bishock 1.

I don't think it's the second coming of jesus, but it's a damn good game. Atmosphere is great.

I wholeheartedly agree. The need to take photos to scale weapon damage was just annoying as hell, the story was honestly nothing special, and the ending chunk was just so poorly paced. Then, after playing System Shock 2, Bioshock literally is System Shock 2 in a different setting, just with deeper mechanics and better writing in general. Great visually, aurally, and powers can be fun to mess with, but all it was was pseudo philosophical BS for people who don't like to think too hard about things (ADDENDUM: Not saying people who like the game are dumb, just that there are other games out there with far deeper writing and story, including system Shock 2- Bioshock pretty clearly lays everything out for you).

Not an awful game, but as someone who went in ready to love the shit out of it, I thought it was mediocre at best. Maybe I should replay it now that I'm a little bit older, but as of right now, Bioshock is simply an overrated and overhyped game and little else to me.

Ironic that you are knocking B2 for feeding off B1 when B1 was aping most of its story/ thematic/ atmospheric/ gameplay elements from System Shock 2. It's not so much that the two are similar so much as it is that the creators took a bunch of stuff from System Shock 2, dumbed it down, and set it underwater instead of in space.

I liked it, expect they stretched out the end a little too much. still a fun game.