Bioshock 2 - First Reviews

[Dhruin]

We won't be covering Bioshock 2 in full detail but IGN seems to have negotiated for the first reviews and it's interesting to see the results. It's a 9.1/10 from IGN (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1066915p1.html) and 9/10 from IGN UK (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1066941p1.html), written by Alec Meer. Here's Alec's great intro:
One of my flat mates, not a gamer but drawn to the sound and fury, sits down to watch me play. "Is this Quake?" "No, it's called BioShock 2." "Uh-huh. But it's like Quake, right?" "Um, not really - it's about the nature of man" - BLAM! Aaargh! - "and the effects of trying to create Utopia "BIFF! Aieeeeeeeeeee! "in an art-deco city populated by artists and scientists" CHUDDA-CHUDDA-CHUDDDA-YeaaaaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaAAA-SPLAT" and inspired by the philosophical theories of Ayn Rand and John Stuart Mill." I messily ram my giant drill-arm into the face of a screaming, swearing mutant in a party dress, and then we both fall silent as we watch the blood fade from the screen. He looks at me, brow furrowed. I relent: "Yeah, it's kinda like Quake."

It has become too easy to forget what BioShock is, and too tempting to discuss it purely in terms of the more high-minded ideas behind its narrative, not the practicalities of what happens when we press buttons on the gamepad. It is a game in which you will spend much of your time messily ramming a drill-arm into the face of a screaming, swearing mutant in a party dress. While it's lovely that the voiceovers have a literate backdrop, this is not a game in which you will actively engage in consideration of utilitarianism and objectivism. It's a first-person shooter, first and foremost.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=14332)

[Anderson]

:lol: That's excellent.

And he's right. Reviewers would wax philosophical about Bioshock, and they (imo) gave it exaggerated praise because of those philosophical features. It came across, to my ears anyhow, as extremely pretentious. Ok, so the distant backdrop is an oversimplified version of an already-oversimplified philosophy. Woop dee doo. The gameplay was basically just shooting and magic powers. I don't recall a lot of philosophizing.

[GhanBuriGhan]

Still, a shooter with an interesting backdrop is more enjoyable to me than a shooter without. In fact, its probably got me as far as I got in BS - the hectical in-your-face combat eventually turned me off, though.

[dagoo7]

Just replayed the original on a console and I have to say as far as shooters and story/atmosphere goes, I got sucked in way more than I have with ME2. So rpg or not I am looking forward to sequel.

[JDR13]

Yeah Bioshock was good, even better than most people give it credit for. As long as you drop the expectations of it being anything like the System Shock games, it's a lot of fun.

[zakhal]

I didnt like biosbock. The characters were crazy and unmemorable. Story/background was stupid and dialogue non-existant. Most if not all of the npcs were crazy and just attacked you when they saw you, so there was not much of other interaction except combat with them. It was okay for arcade shooter (nice graphics) but thats about it.

If there were philosophical features in one of the crazy monologues done by the crazy characters I dont remember them.

[JDR13]

I didnt like biosbock. The characters were crazy and unmemorable. Story/background was stupid and dialogue non-existant.

I found characters like Andrew Ryan, Sander Cohen, and Frank Fontaine to be quite memorable, and the story was excellent for a first-person shooter.

[Zloth]

PC Gamer gave it a 90%, too, saying that the atmosphere and story weren't as good but that the shooter aspects were improved a lot.

[Dasale]

B1: Many monsters look the same, the controls are a lot too complicate, you can't avoid shoots (first pleasure in shooters is aim and hit, second is to dodge and avoid), some monsters are a lot too fast, all the undead and crazy stuff is very tedious very soon. Beside that, ton of polishing, elegant graphics, and more. But not enough to keep me in the game I tried play 3 times now. i haven't give up yet.

[Kostaz]

Does it add anything interesting to the story?
Cause I think Bioshock's plot is very much finished.

[Grandor Dragon]

Alec Meer's review doesn't read like a 9.1 to me. More like an 8. He has some serious issues with the plot. I didn't have such high expectations, so I cannot say I am disappointed. Since setting and plot made the first part so fun for me, I will wait until I hear more opinions.

I wish 2K had produced a different "smart FPS", and not a sequel to Bioshock. The first part was so unique, and told such a complete story, that a sequel runs the serious danger of diminishing it. It would be very difficult to write a plot for Bioshock 2 that didn't feel tacked on. And while I may be biased due to my expectations, I think that the review supports my point.

[zakhal]

I found characters like Andrew Ryan, Sander Cohen, and Frank Fontaine to be quite memorable, and the story was excellent for a first-person shooter.

I dont remember even one character and only small bits of story of underwater nazies doing biological experiments. For me its just not the names, I dont remember anything about the characters. The only character I can sure say existed was somkind of homicidal doctor who tried to kill me. He had an interestingly looking operating theater. I guess the game was simply too bizarre and surreal for me to be memorable.

Since there seems to be polarity here and me been the lazy guy I seached som comments from other players who shared my views:

story, game world and characters were too bizzare and over-the-top te be taken seriously. big daddy & little sister!!!, seriously???…..

-the game is extremly linear and the game world feels confined and small, you never really really feel that you're in a huge underwater city!…

-gameplay gets dull and boring rather fast due to the lack of enemies and enviroments variety, you keep fighting the same few types of enemies in the same small areas the whole game..

-you never run into any friendly npc's that you can interact with!, almost all the npcs in this game are hostile psychos who run straight at you…

I guess its one of those love it or hate it games. Those four things are really spot on what I disliked about the game. I doubt any of them were changed in the successor.

[JDR13]

Anyone can search the internet and find negative comments about something. I could easily do that with any game that's ever been made, as if it proves something. :rolleyes:

I could also find many more positive comments, seeing as how the vast majority (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/bioshock) don't seem to agree with those quoted opinions.

[zakhal]

Anyone can search the internet and find negative comments about something, I could easily do that with any game that's ever been made, as if it proves something. :rolleyes:

Lol. I wasnt trying to "prove" anything. The fact that I dont like the game is not somthing that i need to "prove". It just is.

I was just trying to explain what I dislike about the game and looking up comments from others usually speeds that process. The things in the quote are the key ones.

[JDR13]

Lol. I wasnt trying to "prove" anything. The fact that I dont like the game is not somthing that i need to "prove". It just is.

Of course you don't, but listing quotes is an obvious attempt to strengthen the perception of one's opinion, whether you want to admit it or not. :)

[zakhal]

Of course you don't, but listing quotes is an obvious attempt to strengthen the perception of one's opinion, whether you want to admit it or not. :)

Im only trying to explain as precicely as possible what I dislike about the game. You are free to disagree.

[JDR13]

Im only trying to explain as precicely as possible what I dislike about the game. You are free to disagree.

No problem, and I apologize if I came off the wrong way. I think misunderstood your intention.

[zakhal]

No problem, and I apologize if I came off the wrong way. I think misunderstood your intention.

No problem. Its just somtimes hard to explain these things and then they may come out the wrong way. Currently Im somwhat tired after 8 hour ad&d session so my focus isnt at its best.

[Anderson]

I also wasn't a fan of the constant flow of undead/psychotic creatures. That is not a flaw in the game, just a preference of mine (I tend not to like dark, creepy, horror-themed films or games).

I remember the names you mentioned, JDR, but I never felt like they were fully drawn personalities. I think it had something to do with the tape-recorder mechanic they used for storytelling. I didn't find that very engaging. I hope they changed that for the sequel.

Only one moment from Bioshock really stands out for me. When I visited the place where the group of girls were hiding, and they backed off from me, calling me a bad man ... that made me feel guilty and kind of sad. I had been eating their sisters, so I can hardly blame them, but I had a real emotional reaction at that point, which surprised me.

[zakhal]

[QUOTE=Anderson;1060996498]I also wasn't a fan of the constant flow of undead/psychotic creatures. That is not a flaw in the game, just a preference of mine (I tend not to like dark, creepy, horror-themed films or games).
/QUOTE]

I dont mind horror and have played many such games in the past including silent hill which was very creepy. The thing about bioshock is somthing more for me.

I remember one of the first battles. Husband and wife were having an interesting discussion. They looked mostly normal. I thought this looks interesting and approached them wanting to know more about them. But the instant they see me they turn from normal to psychotic. I was annoyed from that instant.

[zakhal]

I also wasn't a fan of the constant flow of undead/psychotic creatures. That is not a flaw in the game, just a preference of mine (I tend not to like dark, creepy, horror-themed films or games).


I dont mind horror and have played many such games in the past including silent hill2 which was one of my favorites. The thing about bioshock is somthing more for me.

I remember one of the first battles. Husband and wife were having an interesting discussion. They looked mostly normal. I thought this looks interesting and approached them wanting to know more about them. But the instant they see me they turn from normal to psychotic. Did I do somthing wrong that made them aggressive?

I loaded earlier save thinking I had somhow provocated them. Perhaps there was other way to deal with them besides killing. But I released thats just how the game plays. I was very annoyed from that.

[DArtagnan]

The best thing about Bioshock, in my opinion, was the premise and setting. The atmosphere is amazing.

The writing was pretentious and did nothing to form any adult conclusions. It's easy to ask interesting questions, but when you don't answer any of them - you don't do anything, really. Like, say, making a game based on the theme "do you believe in God?" - would make for a great beginning, but you have to do something interesting or new with it. If you don't - people might still think great things, but that the story itself did anything is like the Emperor's New Clothes. To me, it's easy to see why Levine didn't make it in Hollywood as a writer. He's got the ideas and he knows how to copy others (it felt like half the dialogue in Bioshock was from Miller's Crossing) and every single character was painfully one-sided - but he's yet to tell a complete and coherent tale with meat on it. Great for shooters, though - certainly more than most get.

Taking innocent little girls and making you feel guilty about harvesting them, is NOT profound. Anyone really needs to think about that in terms of reality? No. We're playing a game and harvesting is a strategic/roleplaying choice - but it does nothing to ask or answer any questions. In fact, I'd say the game was pathetically black and white for something supposed to deal with morals and grey areas. I mean, your entire moral "choice" consists of saving or harvesting innocent super-cute big-eyed little girls!!!??? Wow, let me think about what's right or wrong here…

That said, the story had nothing if not potential and up and until the "primary twist" - I was thoroughly engaged. It was truly a letdown to have it turn into what it did, and the less said about the end-sequence the better.

It was really novel to introduce the ideas of Rand - and it fit perfectly with the whole notion of a city under the sea made by the elite. But introducing gene-altering drugs to everyone would have crippled any closed society - so there's really nothing told by the destruction. But still, interesting questions that deserved much deeper exploration than the Hollywood twist and the ridiculous actions of certain characters. The way the protagonist was fit into the grand plan was exceedingly far-fetched and unbelievable to me. But whatever. In fact, I'd LOVE to hear what would have happened WITHOUT the drugs. I mean, everything that went wrong based on the tape-recordings seemed more or less unrelated to the drug itself.

The gameplay was run-of-the-mill shooting, and the upgrade mechanics were dumbed down from System Shock 2 to the point where you could upgrade everything, and effectively nullify the power of choice.

Possibly the worst sin is making the levels separate theme-parks with almost no sensation of cohesion. No backtracking and no idea of a seamless city ruined much of the game for me.

Oh, and don't get me started on Vita-chambers and bright golden arrows and highlights of quest objects - or the obscene fetch filler quests in a SHOOTER.

It's a hollow shade of its legacy - but I'll admit the setting and premise lingers for me still. When I first went into that tower in the water - I was literally awe struck with expectations. But I wasn't rewarded like I hoped - but it WAS a fun ride, if only they hadn't called it "shock" in any way. Much like I expected Mass Effect to be an evolution from KOTOR - I was expecting Bioshock to be an evolution from System Shock 2. I was warned in previews - but I guess I wasn't paying enough attention.

I see both games as significant steps down, but taking as isolated games they're both pretty damn good. I don't really blame them for going the money-route, but I'll do my best to remember the brilliance that came before.

[Grandor Dragon]

The problem with the decision "killing vs. saving the girl" is that gameplaywise, there are no consequences. Do I get more Adam now, or less Adam plus some other reward (ammo, IIRC) later? That's not enough to make cruel decisions attractive. If being cruel would lead to a true gameplay advantage, now that would have been interesting. "Good"players could still catch up later, perhaps by getting the reward after the big plot twist (don't wish to spoil), but would have a harder time for a larger proportion of the game.

[Bedwyr]

It was fun but ultimately silly. Nothing took me out of the game more than an absurd golden Atlas as the main Foozle. So they completely ran out of Objectivism references and had to take the dust-cover image and slap him in a classic Boss fight? Philosophical my hiney.


(Can't take the ammo and adam kiosks seriously either, at least SS2 had the thin justification that they were "replicators")

[fatBastard()]

The problem with the decision "killing vs. saving the girl" is that gameplaywise, there are no consequences. Do I get more Adam now, or less Adam plus some other reward (ammo, IIRC) later? That's not enough to make cruel decisions attractive. If being cruel would lead to a true gameplay advantage, now that would have been interesting. "Good"players could still catch up later, perhaps by getting the reward after the big plot twist (don't wish to spoil), but would have a harder time for a larger proportion of the game.
Except then your choice wouldn't be based on what's right and what's wrong but on "what do I get out of it", thus removing any morality aspect of the choice.

[Grandor Dragon]

It is still a choice based on what's right (saving a girl) or wrong (killing it). What I am saying is that, if you want to be good, the choice is so obvious (actually it's stupid) that you need more incentive to do evil, so that doing good feels like a sacrifice.

[JDR13]

The problem with the decision "killing vs. saving the girl" is that gameplaywise, there are no consequences. Do I get more Adam now, or less Adam plus some other reward (ammo, IIRC) later? That's not enough to make cruel decisions attractive.

Perhaps you weren't aware, but your decision also changes the ending.

[DArtagnan]

Except then your choice wouldn't be based on what's right and what's wrong but on "what do I get out of it", thus removing any morality aspect of the choice.

There's no morality aspect to the choice as it is, though.

Kill innocent little girls or save them. You'll be rewarded either way.

What kind of person needs to consider morality to make that choice?

[Grandor Dragon]

Perhaps you weren't aware, but your decision also changes the ending.


I know that. But still it boils down to the question of whether you *want* to be evil or good. I do not think that this is very interesting. Apart from psychopaths, people do immoral things to get some reward that you wouldn't get if you were good.

Some games do it right. For example you may steal a lot and get great equipment now, and only face consequences further down the road (or sometimes not at all). Others avoid good and evil choices altogether and make choices more gray.

Bioshock (and some other titles) are more superficial. Whether you are good or bad, the game is equally easy/hard at all times. I am sure most players only choose to be evil because they want to see what it's like in the game. Fallout 3's Megaton nuke quest is another example of such shallowness.

Choices become more interesting if you make the evil path more tempting. Make the reward for kiling the girl much greater, or the one for saving the girl much smaller. Give players who blow up Megaton not only an apartment, but also some piece of unique armor, or a permanent stats raise.

I am happy that at least DArtagnan understands :)

[fatBastard()]

There's no morality aspect to the choice as it is, though.

Kill innocent little girls or save them. You'll be rewarded either way.

What kind of person needs to consider morality to make that choice?

But that is exactly what morality is about, isn't it? Knowing right from wrong, no matter what you stand to gain/lose. Otherwise we're talking about a calculated risk/decision where the pros vs. the cons are weighed against each other.

I'm not saying that such an approach can't be interesting but it has nothing to do with morality.

[JDR13]

I know that. But still it boils down to the question of whether you *want* to be evil or good. I do not think that this is very interesting. Apart from psychopaths, people do immoral things to get some reward that you wouldn't get if you were good.

Maybe by your definition of immoral, but not everyone thinks the same way, psychopaths aside :).

I also don't think rewards are the sole reason people do things.

[DArtagnan]

But that is exactly what morality is about, isn't it? Knowing right from wrong, no matter what you stand to gain/lose. Otherwise we're talking about a calculated risk/decision where the pros vs. the cons are weighed against each other.

I'm not saying that such an approach can't be interesting but it has nothing to do with morality.

I can't agree. Morality is not exclusively about black and white answers - and one of the most important things to realise is that you can be asked a question that you can't answer. That's when it becomes real and not the illusion of right/wrong yes/no black/white.

Morality can be an interesting subject. But in my opinion, it's not interesting to ask whether I think murdering little girls for no real reason is alright or not. It would be like making a game dealing with water and asking me if it's wet or not.

No, morality can be interesting to me - but I require a little more subtlety and some grey areas. Not that I expect game developers to ever challenge my moral standings - and I'd rather just have competent gameplay. Bioshock did nothing for me in those terms, and that's my primary issue.

The story was pretentious and ultimately hollow - but that's ok, it's not why I play games.

[Grandor Dragon]

I also don't think rewards are the sole reason people do things.

Intersting, because if you consider a broad definition of reward, this is almost a truism. Anyway, what I am saying is that it would be nice to provide players with some kind of incentive to do bad deeds apart from "I want to kill children". Otherwise these "moral" choices are insubstantial.

[JDR13]

Intersting, because if you consider a broad definition of reward, this is almost a truism. Anyway, what I am saying is that it would be nice to provide players with some kind of incentive to do bad deeds apart from "I want to kill children". Otherwise these "moral" choices are insubstantial.


I was thinking more in terms of simple material gain. Anyways, the incentive for that choice in Bioshock was to gain more ADAM sooner, not to simply kill children.

I understand what you're trying to say though, and I agree, the end result didn't make much of a difference either way.

[Kostaz]

Not to mention that the ending was terribly broken,I killed just 2 little girls(the 1st one and the last one) and I got the bad-guy ending :pout:

[Grandor Dragon]

I was thinking more in terms of simple material gain. Anyways, the incentive for that choice in Bioshock was to gain more ADAM sooner, not to simply kill children.

I understand what you're trying to say though, and I agree, the end result didn't make much of a difference either way.

Yeah, you get it sooner, but it's just a matter of a couple of minutes. Also, you get a bit more, but then the girls also give you some other items when you let them live.

[JDR13]

Not to mention that the ending was terribly broken,I killed just 2 little girls(the 1st one and the last one) and I got the bad-guy ending :pout:

Yep, you can't harvest more than 1 Little Sister and get the "good" ending.

[bkrueger]

Not to mention that the ending was terribly broken,I killed just 2 little girls(the 1st one and the last one) and I got the bad-guy ending :pout:
ROFLMAO!

How many little girls can you kill in real life and still be considered good? :lol:

[Kostaz]

ROFLMAO!

How many little girls can you kill in real life and still be considered good? :lol:I thought I had redeemed myself by saving the other 19 :p

After all if I had killed just one I would have gotten the good ending..

[DArtagnan]

Yeah, that's one profound statement right there :)