So now that Bioshock 2 is finally out what do you think of it?

I got the game yesterday and found it to be pretty fun but not as immersive as the first game.

i think the games good. i had to play on normal because i found it hard to progress on hard given that you don't get much ammo or money at the start. Does anyone know if you can keep anything if you decide to play it again...i found it hard protecting little sisters with only a few bullets and power in the drill....normal is alot easier.

I'm waiting for a price drop. The first game was pretty good, but the 2nd imo looks very similar.racing1750

im liking the second more, having more fun this time around.

I'm waiting for a price drop. The first game was pretty good, but the 2nd imo looks very similar.racing1750

I'm enjoying it a lot. I'm also very surprised at how fun the MP is.

The game is very good. It was much more than I expected, and I hyped it pretty hard. So far the story is great, a lot more action oriented, and the multiplayer is loads of fun. My only complain is the lag in multiplayer. Its not terrible, just annoying.

I am loving the game so far, and think it seems to have gotten some unfairly low review scores. I am absolutely amazed by some of the sites like gametrailers etc that harp on how "familiar" it is and seem to suggest it isn't innovative and merely more of the same. What I would love to ask those reviewers is how this seems to be such a negative with Bioshock 2, which has one of the most original, captivating and lovingly detailed gaming worlds ever created, yet these same exact criticisms can be made about Modern Warfare 2 (which was released with a criminally short single campaign and multiplayer infested with bugs cheats and exploits) yet, to a man, they all wetted themselves over it and gave it extremely high scores and did not site the same derivative quality and lack of innovation as being a negative. It's unbelievably stupid to me and it makes me think reviewers are merely going to push all developers to try and copy whatever game is selling the most and discourage the few games that have some degree of intelligence in their story.

im liking the second more, having more fun this time around.

incred_davis

I love it surprisinfgly

I was gonna wait til it came down in price but seeing as though I got the 'Rapture Edition' for £29 (about $45) I thought 'what the hey! it comes with a nice artbook'

and to my surprise it has much better gameplay than the first one, and is a superb shooter plus the drill is awesome

gonna play it alll night

I am loving the game so far, and think it seems to have gotten some unfairly low review scores. I am absolutely amazed by some of the sites like gametrailers etc that harp on how "familiar" it is and seem to suggest it isn't innovative and merely more of the same. What I would love to ask those reviewers is how this seems to be such a negative with Bioshock 2, which has one of the most original, captivating and lovingly detailed gaming worlds ever created, yet these same exact criticisms can be made about Modern Warfare 2 (which was released with a criminally short single campaign and multiplayer infested with bugs cheats and exploits) yet, to a man, they all wetted themselves over it and gave it extremely high scores and did not site the same derivative quality and lack of innovation as being a negative. It's unbelievably stupid to me and it makes me think reviewers are merely going to push all developers to try and copy whatever game is selling the most and discourage the few games that have some degree of intelligence in their story.

albatrossdrums

I agree with you 100%, it makes no sense that reviewers would give Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (the sixth game in a series that was around when Medal of Honor was still in its prime) such a good review, Bioshock is still fairly new and given the popularity of the first one an inevitable sequel was in order. Rapture will get femiliar when we know that 2K is trying to milk the series like Bungie is milking Halo and right now Bioshock 2 is just a sequel.

I am loving the game so far, and think it seems to have gotten some unfairly low review scores. I am absolutely amazed by some of the sites like gametrailers etc that harp on how "familiar" it is and seem to suggest it isn't innovative and merely more of the same. What I would love to ask those reviewers is how this seems to be such a negative with Bioshock 2, which has one of the most original, captivating and lovingly detailed gaming worlds ever created, yet these same exact criticisms can be made about Modern Warfare 2 (which was released with a criminally short single campaign and multiplayer infested with bugs cheats and exploits) yet, to a man, they all wetted themselves over it and gave it extremely high scores and did not site the same derivative quality and lack of innovation as being a negative. It's unbelievably stupid to me and it makes me think reviewers are merely going to push all developers to try and copy whatever game is selling the most and discourage the few games that have some degree of intelligence in their story.

albatrossdrums

im about 5 hours in at the mo and it feels very similar to the first but for me thats no bad thing in fact i have found myself thinking of a second playthrough already, i willfinish it first before i make full judgments but i dont think ill even use multiplayer.

ive played quite a bit of it so far, and its realy good but does anyone think you burn through med kits far too quickly, its like a few shots from splicers and youre almost dead. youre supposed to be a big daddy, you should be tougher. the only real challenges should be big daddies and brute splicers

im about 5 hours in at the mo and it feels very similar to the first but for me thats no bad thing in fact i have found myself thinking of a second playthrough already, i willfinish it first before i make full judgments but i dont think ill even use multiplayer.

sharkbiscuit79

No I dont think I will ever use multiplayer either, like I didnt with Condemned 2

I will also play through it a second time but for a year or so, as an evil big daddy next time

I pre-ordered and stayed out until midnight to get it! I was not disappointed! I loved it and I'm ready for the next. I've already went though twice. Multiplayer was not all that great IMO but they tried. That's not why I got it anyway. I beat it once by saving all the girls and killing Grace and the one dude. Now I'm playing through all over again and harvesting all the little girls and saving Grace and the dude. I want to see if there is a different ending. It's so hard to harvest the girls though. I have to look away because I feel so bad and I try to tell myself it's just a game! Paragraph summed up...LOVE IT!!!

I am loving the game so far, and think it seems to have gotten some unfairly low review scores. I am absolutely amazed by some of the sites like gametrailers etc that harp on how "familiar" it is and seem to suggest it isn't innovative and merely more of the same. What I would love to ask those reviewers is how this seems to be such a negative with Bioshock 2, which has one of the most original, captivating and lovingly detailed gaming worlds ever created, yet these same exact criticisms can be made about Modern Warfare 2 (which was released with a criminally short single campaign and multiplayer infested with bugs cheats and exploits) yet, to a man, they all wetted themselves over it and gave it extremely high scores and did not site the same derivative quality and lack of innovation as being a negative. It's unbelievably stupid to me and it makes me think reviewers are merely going to push all developers to try and copy whatever game is selling the most and discourage the few games that have some degree of intelligence in their story.

albatrossdrums

Bioshock 2 is, pretty much, more of the same. It's the same formula, and there's nothing terribly new about it. Gamers buy and love Bioshock for it's awesome immersive story, its single player campaign. Rapture, in your second encounter with it, loses some of it's initial awe and personality. There's nothing new in Rapture, the environments are pretty much the exact same, except for the deep sea parts, and unfortunately those are extremely short and few and far between. It's the exact same formula: go here, collect this, take pictures, harvest/rescue Little Sisters, fight off splicers, and defeat the Big Daddy/Sister. It's not different at all, and it should be ENTIRELY different, considering that you're playing as a Big Daddy this time around. You still run around at relatively the same pace and take the same amount of damage from the pathetic slicers which were dispatched with ease by the Big Daddies in the first game.

A series like Modern Warfare, on the other hand, has a community which is overwhelmingly devoted to the multiplayer component. So as long as the multiplayer component for a game like that retains its redeeming qualities while adding new maps weapons and features, it's a much more entertaining sequel.

That's what I think.