Yes, up to a point. I understand why you prefer System Shock, but all those things are unusual in shooters, aren't they? Even if the shooter is somehow inspired by the older RPG/Action RPG or whatever System Shock is labeled. I don't see why Bioshock was dumbed down just for being a FPS. Unless that's it, it is dumbed down for being an FPS…
I didnt like the story, setting or atmosphere of bioshock I think that was the killer for me since the gameplay wasnt that great either. It was just too stupid and unbeliavable imho. Nazies in the bottom of the ocean? Right…Its like saying that "Iron Sky" had good story and setting.
I didnt like the story, setting or atmosphere of bioshock I think that was the killer for me since the gameplay wasnt that great either. It was just too stupid and unbeliavable imho. Nazies in the bottom of the ocean? Right…Its like saying that "Iron Sky" had good story and setting.
Whether story and setting are believable or not makes critiques on human nature,piracy,video gaming industry no less valid.Main story line might not be brilliant but if you listen audio log and every Andrew Ryan speech you will understand what is Bioshock all about.Gameplay could(should) have been deeper,but game most be linear or "would you kindly" simply make no sense.
The project was always - CLEARLY - meant as a spiritual successor to System Shock 2. You can watch some of the earlier Gamespot interviews - and you'll find that the original concepts were much closer to System Shock 2. But, as time went on - and the budget bloated - they had to dumb it down and make it appeal to a wider audience, with familiar shooter mechanics and forgiving gameplay.
That's not spelled out, obviously, as that would be very bad PR. But it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see how Bioshock happened.
So yes, Bioshock is a shooter more than it is anything else. I don't particularly care for shooters.
If you prefer straight-up shooting to something more cerebral or with a slower pace like System Shock 2 - then it makes sense that you would prefer Bioshock.
To each his own, as they say.
Note that I'm not saying you have to be dumb to play Bioshock - as that would be a stupid thing to say. All I'm saying is that the gameplay mechanics and the overall design is a dumbed down = simplified and more accessible version of System Shock 2. It's not "just a shooter" - as it's incredibly obvious where it gets its non-shooter elements from.
Levine failed to learn from Looking Glass. Well, he didn't - because he made the game a huge success, and LG went down because they were too innovative and their games weren't accessible enough as a result.
After I got over the massive disappointment of Bioshock being basically just an atmospheric shooter with a handful of half-assed RPG elements - I rather enjoyed it. Well, right until the "twist".
I will explain better why I pointed this out. It was just the use of the expression "dumbing down". I just think it is being used too much and usually misused (it's not the case here, because Bioshock, as you say, was meant as a spiritual successor to System Shock and, at some point in it's development lost the RPG elements and went to become a shooter - although a shooter with something more than the usual shooters). Again, I also don't like shooters, I don't like Bioshock and I was not contesting your comparison between both (I didn't even know that bit about Bioshock being supposed to not be a shooter at some point). But whenever I read something was "dumbed down" I get nervous - specially because I don't agree with the point of view that the older games were more "cerebral" just because the game mechanics were more complex. Well, they were more cerebral in the arithmetic, management and economics kind of way. Anyway, that's not my kind of cerebral. Deep storytelling was never the biggest thing in videogames, neither in the 80s, 90s, nor nowadays, but that's besides the point.
I understand what you're saying.
Personally, I agree it's an overused expression.
Bioshock is a very fine example of how dumbed down is most appropriate - at least in my opinion.
But there's a vast difference between a game being "dumbed down/accessible" and the people playing the game being dumb or ignorant.
Some people get defensive when you call their favorite games dumbed down - and I'm not sure that's a very appropriate response.
Also, I DEFINITELY think most games were more "cerebral" in the past - meaning you had to invest more of your brain to succeed in whatever challenges you encountered.
That was just a natural consequence of catering to a less broad audience.
That has nothing to do with linearity.
The player doing what he's told can happen exactly the same way in a non-linear environment. The same thing was true in System Shock and System Shock 2 - the first being very non-linear in comparison. You still did what you were told to do to progress.
Also, I'm one of those few people who never understood the "amazing" revelation regarding this sentence.
A player in a computer game is bound by the constraints of the design - and are subject to the whims of the quest-giver?
Wow, I certainly didn't realise that after playing games for 30 years. I really thought I was free to do as I please in a computer game made with limited resources on a platform with hardware limitations.
The preconditioning aspect was neat - but it wasn't the game-changer people made it out to be.
You were "preconditioned" to take down an AIRPLANE IN MIDFLIGHT - and you were just expected to survive and swim to that place? Right - that makes a LOOOOOT of sense. The VITA chambers function with a limited range - so…
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why Andrew Ryan didn't regenerate in the VITA chambers - seeing as how they were coded to his own DNA. Since the player regenerates - so must he.
The less said about the boss fight ending the better.
This is the part where I disagree. Well, not quite a disagreement, but I have a different point of view. Maybe some games were more cerebral in the past (certainly not all) but in the way solving equations is a cerebral activity. I like to maintain a healthy cerebral activity, but I would rather read a book than solve some mind puzzles. But those are personal choices, personal tastes.
What really annoys me is the hipster mentality behind the whole "dumbing down" meme in videogames. Gamers always had a special place in their memory for the classics, but on the last few years (2 maybe 3, not sure) things went a little worse. When someone says this or that game is "dumbed down", usually they mean it the same annoying hipster-blasé fashion that could be translated as "that's too mainstream, dude". The same is valid for the love of old school games. Most times someone praises old school games I almost can read between the lines the message "I totally digged that before it was cool". So, that's it. Just one more thing - I certainly am not directing this semi-rant to you. I was just explaining why I don't link the "dumbing down" thing.
Actually, from what I've read, SS2 was a "dumbed down" SS 1. Noticing a pattern?
More of a step sideways- SS1 had pretty much zero RPG mechanics so while things like cyberspace were gone you did get something in return. You didn't have to choose upgrades or the like in SS1, you just installed everything no loss no foul, which was certainly not the case with SS2 where you had to pick your upgrades carefully.Yes, other than improved graphics, SS2 was a small step back from the first game.
I didn´t like Bioshock, it was easy, you could kill anything with your wrench (repeat after Vita chamber), no Stress, no Fear factor, boring gameplay due to too much Ammo and to light in the RPG department.
Actually, from what I've read, SS2 was a "dumbed down" SS 1. Noticing a pattern?
Now ain't that a new internet recipe how to construct a nuke?So here's a thing. If a bunch of Codexers and RPGwatchers met up with Gamasutrians, would there be an explosion?