View Single Post

Default 

August 31st, 2007, 20:18
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
Remember that Bioshock was *never* supposed to be anything but a FPS. You see stuff and kill it and move on to the next bunch of stuff to kill. It doesn't matter whether you shoot it, fireball it, or telekinesis back a grenade at it, you just have to kill things.
I'm pretty sure that Ken Levine did say that this game is the spiritual successor to System Shock 2. And it is my understanding that it may have actually been marketed to EA as System Shock 3. So I don't agree that it was never supposed to be more than an FPS. I think that has been the sales pitch ever since it was announced for the XBox 360, but not back when it was first announced.

But if that is the case, then it should be compared with other FPS's, like F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Half-Life 2, Gears of War, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Painkiller, or Far Cry. And in terms of being an FPS, its gameplay isn't as good as any of those. In fact, I would say that it's not even on the radar screen. The weapons are weak, the environments are tiny and cramped, there is no aiming down the sights, there is no challenge to the game, AI doesn't use cover, no alt-fire on the weapons, etc etc. I made this same argument with Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. If you place the game into the FPS space, then the standards for combat are much much higher. Combat is, by far, the most important feature in an FPS, and if you ask me, Bioshock's is good, but definitely not great. I think that its strength lies in the huge variety of fun ways that you can experiment with to kill people (in a way that goes far beyond the normal variety that you find in any FPS). But I still find combat to be a nuisance a lot of the time. Granted, System Shock 2's combat was a nuisance a lot of the time, perhaps even more, but that game was more robust in a lot of ways. Especially with its role-playing system.
doctor_kaz is offline

doctor_kaz

Keeper of the Watch

#12

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 622