I know Bioshock got the best reviews from magazines and web sites. My opinion is based not just on playing the demo but also reading those supposedly positive reviews. I also know that those of you who bought and tried the game love it, and I appreciate your reviews.
Yes, Bioshock has gorgeous graphics: water, fire, and reflections, etc. And the captivating ambiance is an original twist on Art Deco. It also has great characters and a great script. The idea of the Little Sisters and the Big Daddies is brilliant, and some of scripted events based on these characters capture your attention like a good movie does.
But that's exactly the problem: Bioshock would be better as a movie than it is as a game.
How innovative is Bioshock where it matters--in gameplay?
Because there is a limit to what plasmids you load, you have to decide what powers you want and when. But isn't that basic RPG mechanics?...
You also have many mini games or puzzles to solve, which add many hours to the gameplay. But if I wanted to play mini games, I would just go to Yahoo! Games...
The choices you make affect the game. You can choose whether to attack Little Sisters, for example. But how is this different from Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II released back in 1997, where the player could choose from the Light path or the Dark path?...
In Bioshock there are dozens of ways to attack each enemy and situation, some that work better than others. But how is this different from what Splinter Cell was doing 5 years ago?...
The great problem with Bioshock for me is a lack of non-linearity. Yes, there is some storyline branching (or so I've heard) and there are RPG elements to the game. But essentially you are still very limited on how much gameplay you can manufacture yourself. Playing Bioshock (or is it "watching"?) you are still experiencing situations meticulously crafted by the script writers as you would in a movie.
The qualities that made Grand Theft Auto, Oblivion, and Stalker innovative games--nonlinear, sandbox, emergent gameplay--are simply just not present in Bioshock. It only took me two doors to close permanently behind me and a glass bridge to rupture and block my way back to realize how much "on rails" my progress would be through the game.
I have to confess that one reason for going against Bioshock is the pleasure of being a contrarian. But that doesn't make my points any less valid.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
You never pointed out where Biochock sucked, just where it wasn't overly original. Basically this boils down to a "Simpsons did it" post.
Why does Bioshock have to reinvent the wheel to be good?
It tells a story, very well I might add and lets you choose the path to where it ends. Plus it's hella fun to play. It may not be as open ended as you like but the level/maps are expansive enough to explore for days.
It entertains. That's what I plunked my money down for.
And yes begin a contrarian colors your entire approach to reviewing the game. Taking pleasure in shitting on the parade only makes you an asshole. ;-)I'm not saying you have to go along with the crowd but at least bring something other than "It all been done". Because who the hell doesn't know that?
Ya dig?!
Later Gator
Thanks for the comment.
I don't understand why criticizing is the same as "shitting on the parade". If someone criticizes something I really like, it usually doesn't make me like it less.
In some cases a critique may indeed "break the spell". It may change peoples minds about how much they like something.
Usually it works that way when The Emperor Has No Clothes. Could it be that Bioshock's quick popularity is a case of 'The Emperor Has No Clothes'?...
It's not the critique but the motive behind it.
"I have to confess that one reason for going against Bioshock is the
pleasure of being a contrarian."
If I don't like something or find fault with whatever, it's because I genuinely don't like it. I don't go out of my way to poop on it because I take pleasure in doing so.
In many cases The Emperor is stark naked. However when he really does strut around in his new threads, a contrarian either still say hes naked or now has to point out the smallest flaw. Because they get a kick out of saying stuff like that. Which is a pretty crappy thing to do. Nobody likes a guy like that. Truthfully, we disagree on many things but I never found you to be a "Your favorite ____ sucks" guy.
Bioshock has a full wardrobe.
Your critique = The Clothes are nice but they're outta style.
You could've pointed to the game's AI. Which is the weakest part of the game. Or something else a little deeper. Something many may have missed.
If you have to look that hard to find fault with it. The problem doesn't lie in what your looking at.
Thanks for reporting on the weak AI. I was going to say something about that, but wasn't 100% sure. I was going to say that making the the Splicers crazed quasi-zombies was a transparent subterfuge to hide the deficient AI of these characters. It's the same reason why the enemies in old shooters were monsters, not humans.
The sad thing about Mr. Ken Levine (Bioshock's lead designer) is that he actually pays lip service to non-linearity and open-endedness. In an interview he says "Yeah, I love GTA. People always used to talk about open-ended games, and GTA was the first popular example. When I used to talk about choice, and immersion and open-endedness, people used to think I was crazy. Then GTA comes out and they really figured out how to popularise that. It's been a lot easier for guys like me since then, as everyone understands open-ended themes because of Grand Theft Auto.".
And then what does he deliver in Bioshock? The choice to kill, or not, the Little Sisters. Two different endings do not a non-linear, open ended game make.
I suspect Mr. Ken Levine is a closeted Hollywood director wannabee. Good at cinematography and script writing, but not very good at game making.
And that's why he created a game that sucks.
Cue the cursing and personal attacks.
You still have yet to make an argument for why the game in question sucks.
All you have stated is what the game is not.
It's not your cup 'o' tea.
We get that but that doesn't mean it sucks either.
Try again
After having played the Bioshock demo (XBox 360 version), I have to side with Marcelino and give it my thumbs down. And here is why...
In my opinion, although a pretty impressive game graphically, Bioshock suffers from two major flaws that Marcelino already pointed out:
First it does not, to me, bring the what's new factor to make this stand out from all the other dozen FPSs out there. The introduction of plasmids is interesting, the use of the environment to dispatch your enemies as well, but not enough to make this a stand out addition. The story did not grab me that much as well...While it might entertain some, it is a bit boring to me...I guess I have played too many FPSs already...
Second and more important, it does feel too much like a scripted and 'on rails' game. That, to me, is the biggest flaw of the game and one that, given existing games like Oblivion, GTA, makes this a poor proposition (a flaw that I have previously pointed out on major games like Gears of War, see previous post).
I did buy Gears of War when it came out, and by now I have long traded it in for something else...I am not planning on doing the same mistake and spending my $60 on Bioshock...
I would have to agree with francisco about the XBOX version of Bioshock, but not that it is the game, I think it is the platform. I find that console games, especially a single player story based game, like Bioshock, Gears of War, and Call of Duty 3, all fall short on the console. I am a big fan of Call of Duty 2 pc, and when checking out COD3 on the XBOX, although graphically impressive, very path driven, and the field of view was short. This is even worse with Gears of War. However, I am still going to be open minded when Gears of War does finally make it's appearence on the pc platform. I think the only thing console games are really good for are fighting games, Mortal Combat style, and Racing Games, but thats just my opinion.
Personally I would not dismiss Bioshock based on an XBOX review, or any game for that matter, I think the differences between the platforms is huge. It can also go the other way. There is a huge Halo fan base out there, but Honestly, Halo 2 is awful on the pc, and everyone else in the xbox world loves it. I personally don't like halo on the xbox, and have now given up on the series, because halo 2 just did not deliver on the pc. Bioshock is an impressive game, graphically, story, creatively, and gameplay. It does have a couple of short comings, but they are minor, and in the bigger picture there are more positives than negatives, and it's alot of fun.
Demo's are only good for a couple things in my book. First off, does it play, and how well. This maybe pc only, but, we all want to know if a game will play, how it plays, and if the gameplay is fun, responsive, etc...
Demo's show you the enviorment, graphics or theme, whether it be a scary place, or a tropical island, can it set a mood.
Demo's are not good for giving you a story, and are often about the worst part of the game, which is the case in Bioshock, It is the start of the game, where it has to try to teach the player about the new world that you are entering, you have to follow a path to be shown the new features, options,and characters. The rest of the game is definately not as path driven as the demo, and certainly not like the scene where you get introduced to the little sisters, I mean come on, the path is only as wide as your character on the lighting brackets, but they want to be sure you get some history, some idea of whats going on. Call of duty 2 would never have been bought if path driven openings were not accepted. The "training" in a fenced in area, where you can't move anywhere the cattle master doesn't order you to... the rest of the game isn't that bad. Still path driven, but not that bad. I don't think I have played a game that isn't path driven, sure there might be a couple paths to take, or even 3, but ultimately in order to give a story you have to bring a character to someplace to get the story to evolve. I think the things you see, interact with, and can enjoy along your journey is part of what makes a game good. Even if on a small path.
My position is that shooters and storytelling go together like cookies and wine. I like them both, but not together.
In Half Life 2 it didn't matter to me who Alyx Vance, Dr. Kleiner, or Dr. Breen were, why they were helping Gordon Freeman, what kind of relationship they had with the Combine, or, for that matter, what the Combine was. I liked the game for many other reasons (graphics, the Striders, physics that matters to gameplay, etc.), but not because of the story.
Likewise, In Halo 1 it didn't matter to me the back story to the Master Chief, or who the UNSC and the Covenant were and why they were fighting each other. I liked the game for many other reasons (the vehicles, the weapons, the map design, etc.) but not because of the story.
With the exception of Gordon Freeman and Master Chief, the only reason I can even mention names of characters and factions for the two games above is because I am looking it up on Wikipedia. I had completely forgotten about all that.
Let's just mention a third landmark shooter: Call of Duty 2. In this case my point is even easier to make because there is no overall story, just specific missions. The short story about the American, Russian, or Brit I am about to play, which is shown at the beggining of a level, is good for one thing and one thing only: distract me while I wait for the map to load.
Let's face it: even the best shooter storylines are worse than the plot of, say, a made-for-TV movie. And Bioshock doesn't change that (based on what I hear from those who love the game and what I read in articles that pretty much describe the entire story). Bioshock has a great story when compared to other shooters, but not a great story when compared to a movie or a book.
A good indication of how bad the stories are in shooters in particular and in video games in general is that they fail miserably as movies when they are adapted to the big screen. That's why I would say to game developers if they read our blog: "Don't even try to build a complicated story. If you were even just an OK writer you would by now have published a book or sold a script to Hollywood."
But this discussion of the role of a storyline in a shooter will not end here. Not with this blog's discussion and not with the Bioshock game. It's clear who wants their shooter to tell an apparently elaborate story (our friends Danny and Craig, for example, and many, many other gamers) and who doesn't (myself and, for example, a certain Mr. John Carmack you may have heard of).
This heated debate makes me even more curious and impatient about all the promising big-title games that are coming out in the next weeks and months. It will be interesting to see whether they make the story a central part of the game, and, if so, how good that story is.
The story , and history doesn't matter, and when I played through call of duty and was in the heated battle of the bulge, which was completely made up from the creative minds at EA games, I hide behind a really nicely detailed 1957 chevy fontain, the graphics were so impressive that I could read the bumper sticker a block away that said "Built Ford Tough"...
Of course the Story, History, enviroment matter... If the world you created in a game was so unbelievable, people would just laugh, and not want to stay or play in it. World War 2 was a huge deal, with many heroes and casualties. Richard Winters, and god help you if you don't know who that is, played a very important part of our history, and not only commands, but deserves respect, and admiration. I don't think playing these games is just like being there, but it may offer a look into the history, and or story from 1942, it may peak your interest into finding out the details of the war, or maybe the reason for the game is realy just to follow a certain path to a radio that isn't working and repair the power cord to get it operational again... I would think that a story, any story would help, and if you put a little interest into the games you spend your money on, you might get more out of them. I do agree that some games, should be mindless shooters, like Serious Sam, Unreal Tournament, just play the CTF, or Death Match. That has a big place in the gaming world. But, to try to create a world under the ocean, away from another world that is in conflict (World War 2), Gathering great minds to help the world to thrive, and become something better than what was left behind, was a good idea, and after 15 years and genetic advancements, the new world evolved into something unexpected, and by the time you get there, the world had infact, gone from something good to a hell all it's own. Your surrounding might make more sense when you know when the place was built, why it was built, and what happened. I wonder how long it would take for someone to go crazy if left on the space station, a year, 3? When would that person start talking to themself? Or answer? Now add the crazy doctor who can enhance you, what gives him pleasure, is it a nose job? or maybe he figured out a way to splice your genes and got creative... I don't know I guess if I went into the game thinking i could shoot alot at a nice looking monster, and loaded up a demo of a game that in the first minute took my weapon away, showed me the nice looking monster protecting a little girl, and didn't allow me to shoot it, I would have been disappointed too.
I also think some entertaining movies have been made from the stories of these first person shooters. Not all were great, but, some were entertaining. Final fantasy, resident Evil, Doom, tombraider, and BloodRayne just to name a few games to movies... not all going to win an oscar or picture of the year, but had a nice enough story to generate enough interest from the motion picture industry to invest millions of dollars to create a feature film of the game, it's story, and characters...
Now you are mixing story with history and implying that I'm showing disrespect to a real-life War Veteran--Mr. Richard Winters--just because I couldn't care less about the minimal stories EA created for the fictional characters in their game (Private Vasili Ivanovich Koslov, Corporal John Davis, Tank Commander David Welsh, and Corporal Bill Taylor.)
The accusation is frustrating. I give up.
I agree... I was trying to make a point, These are games, they are supposed to be fun, and not a way for you, me or any of us to attack eachother. I give up as well, and think, hope, and want our next blog to be welcomed with open opinions and less agruments... I am Sorry for poking at you Marcelino, and making false accusations to get a rise out of you...
The developers deliberately, in no uncertain terms in several E3 interviews, stated that Bioshock would follow many conventions of the first person shooter genre. In one interview on G4's E3 coverage Ken Levine even used the phrase "unwinding ball of thread" to describe how the game and story progress forward.
How that ball unwinds is different for some than others I guess. You don't have to do all of the mini-games. You don't have to interact with all of the Little Sisters. You can complete the game, at least on Easy or Medium, by doing little of either one.
Bioshock has gotten a lot of complaints about not being "innovative" or "new". The question for me is: How entertaining, if at all, is it? My answer is "very. very, very entertaining and worth the time spent with it". Since entertainment is a subjective thing what entertains some won't entertain all.
stikkbomber: welcome to GamerConnect and thank you for your informative comment. I was not aware of Levine's comments on the "ball of thread" and I didn't know that there were actually "a lot of complaints"; I thought I was the only one... :o)
I agree 100% with you: in the end what really matters is that it was entertaining to you (and to many, many others).
Cheers!
Just finished the game... and... IT DOES SUCK... the storyline isn't too bad but I found the rest of the game frustrating and boring?? A Mini game of connecting pipes together... Boring. Triggering Alarms... LAME and boring. Walking around searching desks and lock boxes for misc crap.... Very Boring. Fighting lame enemies 1 or 2 at a time.... VERY Freaking BORING!!!!
Can't wait for Halo... that will show em how high the real bar for game playing is!! Bioshock sucks... do yourself a favor and skip this one!!!
Ok screw all of you who are disagreeing with the blog. Its very obvious you are all giving some crazy reason like "I was entertained" when reviewing the game. Wake up and smell the damn game industry. When a game says its going to re-invent the wheel, it has to do it. If it doesnt, its worth less than a lying whore who just took all your money. And thats exactly what Bioshock did, hype it up on things that are held in high esteem (war in Iraq anyone?), and then fail to deliver. Let me give you some points on why it sucks.
It wasn't long, if Bioshock is long for you, then you obviously are biased against real RPGs and crap that takes 40-100 hours to beat like Oblivion and Baldurs Gate series. As for a first person shooter, it wasnt long at all.
It wasn't challenging. Games have different skill settings to give players their own choice in how challenging they want it to be. This is a given for games. But when its hardest difficulty rating is a joke, this isnt added value, its lame. Nobody wants to be a winner at something that isnt worth mentioning.
It wasnt flexible. Linear was what it was all about. I had to find tonics and gain the ++ ones. I had a limited number of slots. Weapon upgrades were one shot wonders. The wrench is the best weapon in the game. The best plasmid is electric and frost. Wow, great. 3 weapons and you are set. Did I mention on hardest difficulty it doesnt take any ugprades or tonics to beat? Thats right, its that linear, you dont need the gameplay system to win. No choice necessary!
The most advanced AI. Clearly this is a marketing clause as we see in MOH: Airborne which was just released. Sorry. Your AI is worse than so many other games (like FEAR, Halflife 1, and so forth). So what if AI runs away to heal. They come right back to get their ass kicked again. So what if the AI can cling to walls, wait thats not AI is it. Crap. Half of the AI was scripted. Bots in games like Natural Selection do a better job. Oh wait, if AI was better, then the game would be too hard. I guess they didnt want people to be saying that when they offered settings like "Easy: Ive never played a FPS before".
Guys this isnt a matter of platforms or not at this point. This game, has no story, has no plot twist. Have you played Doom 3? Do you realize the PDA system is the same as Bioshock's Personal Recorder system? Have you realized this is such a crappy way to tell the story? Oh wait, it has no story. Well, it did, but it was so blatantly obvious. Cohen's scene was maybe the only thing in there that was interesting. Perhaps if you were playing as a character other than Jack, and were able to change the story by changing what happened as Jack progressed, then maybe there might have been something more to do than sit back and let EVERYTHING happen to do as it should. Did I mention the game developer has a liberal arts degree and was influenced by 1984?
Entertaining. Ok heres where I had to give it some value. Unlike other first person shooters, it had its fun moments...when I was playing pipe dream. Seriously though, besides fighting the same enemies, pipedream (hacking) was probably the most entertaining portion of the game. Not because I like shitty puzzles, but because you can actually lose at that game. How you ask? Well it actually gives you insolvable puzzles. How cool is that? You have to have hacker tonics to beat some of them! Oh you can just use auto hacker tools right? Where is the flexibility people.
What about U-Invent? Invent your own "crap that you dont even need or will ever use". Talk about waste of gathering hundreds of bolts, screws, porn mags, glue bottles, nuts, bags of chips, and chocobo feathers.
There is plenty more, but again I'd like to drive the point that this game promised and failed to deliver. Everyone knows it, you got to be kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Everyone who jumped on the bandwagon hopefully realizes their mistakes by now. One more thing. Weapon slot 6. The Camera. But lets not talk about the camera, and how stupid that was. I mean, its painfully obvious to see that they put it in so that they could add some spin on the FPS experience. But truthfully, this camera is perhaps one of the biggest wastes of time I have seen in the game. Can anyone really tell me what the point of the camera was in the game? Wait, I already know the answer. Levine has a fetish with camera action. I was quite amused by the fact that taking hot action shots of demo splicers would defuse their grenades. That was a riot. Crap, I just talked about the camera.
Graphics? You've got to be kidding me you silly rabbit. The graphics, ok they are not realistic, and it looks hella retro artsy with a whole lotta bloom (if you dont know what this is, you cannot say SHIT about graphics). The graphics look as good as Condemned f-...
I am done with this blog, but I guess the fire lives on... "Bioshock has received multiple nominations in the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) Game Critics Awards and to date has won 17 E3 awards including a sweep of Best of Show awards from IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy."
Not to mention it has sold 1.5 million copies so far. I could be the only one who enjoyed playing through the game, but I think the numbers speak for themselves...
I liked the game, and nothing you say is going to change that for me. I have accepted that others may not like the game, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Sorry you didn't feel it was worth your money, maybe try selling it to someone, and make some of your pain go away...
I hope you mean "I am done with this post" (the post about Bioshock), not with the whole GamerConnect blog :)
Yes, I did mean done with the "Bioshock sucks" post or blog. I expressed my opinion, listened to yours and others, and tried to point out things in the game that I liked or didn't. At times people don't agree, and thats fine, but, at this point, for me, it is time to move on and discuss other things. I have played through Bioshock twice, really enjoyed it both times, played it differently both times, first was mainly a one two attack, freeze 'em, then kill 'em, The second was more of let the AI help (big daddy) or the turrets and cameras (security bots). I also used other plasmids that I didn't try the first time through, so it was still new and fun for me.
im ice
well, my little brother enjoys so much playing the game of Bioshock. but i have stopped playing it. why? because i think, yes, bioshock does sucks.
the gameplay is fun, graphics are great. no doubt about that. the electric bolt thingy can flows on the water and so on like that, but i still feel something missing here.
bioshock is, something else. i dont feel like its a good game. yes, it should be a movie of some sort. when i first played it, it does feel like a game but i dont feel like to play even more. im sorry but i dont feel anything special in this game.
the gameplay is below average. although we all have seen it rating way high above the sky but in my opinion, bioshock is just an okay game to play. i really think that i should have spent my cash on buying other games instead of bioshock.
bioshock does impressed me with the graphics, enviroment and features and thats just about it.
this is just me. maybe i dont like an old style of enviroment in the game.
that's all. good luck on your bioshock!
Ok, I just bought this game after reading countless glorious reviews and other satisfied gamers posts on blogs and I have to say this game is fucking terrible.
If games were based solely on how good you can make the levels look it would be fantastic. Too bad it's not.
Here is why I think this game sucks.
1. Character models are stiff and unrealistic. Their deaths even worse.
2.Gore. What a cheap fucking gore engine this game uses. Initially I thought this game was going to be very gory and realistic... it looks cartoonish and completely unrealistic. Very unimpressed.
3.Dying is part of gameplay. This can get really annoying really fast, trumping through the same part of the level over and over again to fight the almost indestructable big daddies. You of course can choose not to die... that is if you want to spend a half an hour with each big daddy you meet. Yawn....
4.Label = FPS. This game is not even worthy of an FPS title. The game puts you in first person sure, but then wants to incorporate RPG tactics, about 1000 mini puzzles and a heap of what I consider "gay magic crap" in the form of Plasmids.
5.Complexity. This game is way too overly complicated for an FPS. Picking and choosing your magical powers which include, if I remember right, 4 different teirs of upgrades, all of which dont upgrade you but rather allow you to barely manage the next threat thrown at you. When my character gets upgraded I want to feel upgraded and not just barely survive. (A lot of games have this problem)
6.Computer AI. Self explanetory, enemies are dumb.
7.Comparisons to other FPS. (Using FEAR as an example) Put this game next to FEAR as a whole and it fails miserably. FEAR is very simple, smooth and incorporates a much more believable and realistic story into it's gameplay. Where it lacks in expansive levels it makes up for in physics, character models and gameplay all of which Bioshock doesnt seem to consider important.
I was pretty much tricked into buying this game because of it's label. Bioshock redefines FPS? Not hardly. If this is what people consider advancing the genre forward I'll never pick up another FPS again. All the developers did was make a complicated game which gives the illusion of gameplay depth.
Final thoughts: Dont waste your money. Buy something else.
I couldn't help but notice that last comment about Bioshock sucking because it was too complex for a FPS... So call it a thinking man's FPS. Why does it have to have a limit in its complexity and depth just because the view? Its not like you were duped into buying Bioshock thinking its going to be like Halo or other "simple" shooters. You chose to play it knowing it was going to be different. That raises another point. People keep putting this game down for being different, then saying it didn't meet expectations of being something new. It isn't an RPG and it isn't a FPS. Get over it. If you want one, go somewhere else. This is a survival horror/FPS/RPG/thrill ride/pipedream/whatever the hell else you want to call it, new experience. I thought the story was fantastic as long as you have the attention span to pay attention to stories in-game. This game makes you the lone survivor of a plane crash, enter a neo-50's, creepy as hell, practically lifeless city alone, and figure out the story alone. You are supposed to feel... alone. There's not any better of a way to tell a story when you're alone than finding bits and pieces of it as you go. Ouch! Thinking involved there, I know. Next, the AI is hardly weak. Don't forget the situation these people are in. The AI behaves how they intended it to. Desperate and crazed, drugged up, rioting civilians. Somebody said it took half an hour to take down a big daddy. Hm. With all the possibilities in the game, there are the obvious "best". However, don't say the game sucks because it gives you more than you need. Open your mind and experiment. Its fun, let it be. And let yourself get immersed in the environment of the game. Thats what really did it for me. Last, think of how many sandbox shooters there are... Yeah. Think of the great stories sandbox games tell... Yeah. I like this game very much, but if you don't, then I respect that. My friend doesn't like this game either. Just give reasons that make sense. Theres so much more I wanna say, but I'll leave you with this. Bioshock brings meaning and art to a deprived group of gamers. Open your minds a bit and take it for what it is, an experience.
The game doesnt suck for being complicated alone, thats just one of the reasons. And I'm pretty sure my other reasons make perfect sense.
You know a game should generate an experience on it's own. When you have to keep reminding yourself your playing the game for the "experience" it's not worth playing at all.
If I want a thinking mans game I'll pick up an RTS. This game is labeled as an FPS, not a quote "survival horror/FPS/RPG/thrill ride/pipedream/whatever the hell else you want to call it, new experience". You cant just make up catagories and genres on your own, thats exactly why they have specific genres, so when people are looking for an RPG game to buy they dont pick up Starcraft. I guess I'm just more into the "old fashion" FPS's. Call Of Duty 4 wasnt revolutionary and it's still an incredible game. Same with FEAR and Halo 3. This game tried to do something different and failed as far as I'm concerned.
Oh yeah, and one last thing... FPS's are arguably designed around the weapons, "First Person SHOOTER". The weapons on Bioshock are fucking terrible, from the animations to the weapons themselves they are stagnant beyond beleif. Im guessing they realized this and their solution to the problem were Plasmids. What a joke.
I won't be as wordy as many of the posters here, but having just got a 360 about a month ago, I was eager to play 3 games. Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, and Bioshock. So I went out and bought them all. Played many hours of Mass & a few hrs of Assassins (which dipped in popularity after its release) then I got to Bioshock....
My question is: What freakin game are all of these people playing who think it's the best game of 2007? I keep playing it to wait for that singular moment when it all hits me and I love the game. Instead, every 20 minutes I try to get myself up and swap the disk back to one of the other games...it finally lost me after the 3rd switcheroo trying to meet Atlas, it's a stupid carrot and stick game that yanks the rug out from under you over and over-it's frustrating.
Also, this game is NOT original *at all*. Maybe it never claimed to be, but the "best game of 2007" better damn well be original. It really reminds me of Doom, but with some neat add-ons (i.e. magic).
The Big Daddy and hacking concepts are kind of neat, but not mind blowing.
The graphics for the environment are stellar, but all the other ones are cartoonish (like a previous poster said). Especially the gore, it looks worse than a PS2 game.
I just don't feel Bioshock is that entertaining, and it's certainly not captivating. With the other 2 games I couldn't wait to get back and play some more, with this one, I'm half way through and sick of it.
Glad to see at least some out there as confused as I am how this game could get so much applause...
OK, so I was wordy...
I think bioshock is a decent fps game. I dont think the game sucks if you dont let it to.
The graphics are amazing, specially the water and fire effects.
I think the game itself is original. It has added quite a few new things to the fps games, one of them is the envioronment. I dont remember any other fps which has the same envioronment which bioshock has.
I think that the underwater city and the 50-60ish artwork, music and arquitecture is something that not any other fps game has.
Also, i think they have marked some philosophy issues about moral, religion and society along the story of the game, and that is something I havent really seen in other fps. I mean this game actually makes you think about things, but I suppose not everyone gets the message behind the story of the game.
The pipe mini game is something that i suppose adds variety to gameplay, but it does become annoying after a while, the good part is that you can either choose between playing the mini game or not, its not like you are forced to do it.
The plasmid variety is also there.
The A.I didnt really impress me.
The weapons are ok, I mean its not your regular sci-fi game with those big futuristic weapons or your contemporary game with uzi's and Ak47's.
I think I havent seen this old fashioned collection of weapons since blood.
I think the levels are quite big and there are quite a few rooms to explore. They have also been very well designed.
The voice acting is very good, compared to most games these days.
The feature that was annoying was the resurrection, you die constantly because the game is extremely hard, you cant beat the game without dying once. The camera feature was boring, it felt like doing homework instead of playing a game.
The good part is that you can choose to play on easy difficulty to make it, well, a bit easier and load the game each time you die instead of using the ressurrection feature to make it a bit challenging.
The enemies are a bit repetitive, they all look the same.
Anyway thats what i think are the good features and bad features about the game.
peace.
I've never actually played the game, so I don't know whether it sucks or not, but it is interesting to know it's creative director admits he screwed up the game's story if he had to do it again.
I've never actually played the game, so I don't know whether it sucks or not, but it is interesting to know it's creative director admits he screwed up the game's story.
I just finished it, and man, do I agree. I had some fun, but it's just a remake of System Shock 2, the plot similarities are, excuse the pun, shocking. Won't point them out not to spoil the game, but any SS2 vets will jawdrop at the 'barefaceness' of the developers. What I felt like when I was playing Bioshock is the same as I felt when I played Hellgate:London, I want to play SS2 again. ( in the HG:L case, I went back to Diablo 2 ;-) )
"Can't wait for Halo... that will show em how high the real bar for game playing is!! Bioshock sucks... do yourself a favor and skip this one!!!"
Yeah, spoken like a true gamertard! If they rant about halo you know what kind of moron they are!
Yeah yeah...flame me all you want. I purchased Bioshock for PC yesterday since I don't really have anything to play while waiting for Diablo 3. I guess I was expecting something similar to Doom, F.E.A.R, Half-Life, or even the great Oblivion but to my surprise (after reading all the reviews) all I got in return was everything I never liked in a FPS based game.
Luckily I'm not one of those players who just says a game sucks without any reasons. Firstly I don't really like the mouse control (I'm playing the PC version) as it's not as accurate as most FPS games. I tried to set the sensitivity but it seems to be a game related problem. Secondly I keep on getting lost (maybe I have problems reading the weird map provided, I dunno) but I actually found myself running around in the medical area for about 30mins with no idea of where to go. The enemies also have this tention to pop out of nowhere even though they're not spawing or something. I'll look behind me and see nothing, then take a few steps and wham!, something hits me from behind which is really annoying.
The 5.1 feature sucks in comparison with Doom/Quake 4 since it shifts the whole enviromental area and not your position. For example, I hear radio playing infront of me, I turn around and it's dead silent, turn around again and I hear it.
The story is rather confuzing and does not grab my attention in any way. I also don't like the idea of wasting time searching bodies on the floor for items (why can't they just drop them?). Maybe I'm weird but I guess it's different strokes for different folks and I'm just that guy who has to disagree with the Bioshock reviews on this one. After playing about 4 hours I decided to just exit the game for good and not even bother completing it. Pity I did not try the demo first.
Oh well, back to Diablo 2 for me...
It was simply boring. The cutscenes were the best part, and that's pretty pathetic.
It was monotonous , and the character development was crap.
Bioshock sucks....??
Well, not exactly in my opinion.... Like said, it has its monments, style and graphics, and generally speaking it doesn't really suck,, there are other games that really suck, for me all kinds of tom clancy games and stuff etc.
but what is my point then??
the point is Bioshock is boring as hell, ok I havent played it through yet, am somewhere in arcadia, but until now its been just boring, no interaction with characters, ok I didnt read the reviews, only the ratings, hehe, but somehow I expected a deus ex style game that back in the days made my day, I mean the first part, in Bioshock u just wal;k through rooms and corridors and spend a lot of time wasting uninspired enemies, solving puzzles etc. somehow the game doesnt really catch u like oblivion for example does, or even the darkness wich has a great atmospehere, biochosk reminds me somehow of doom, u find a lot diaries which u can listen to, but what the heck I would have liked charackters to talk to... well u cant have everything, thing is I will play it through and probably keep it as its somehow unique but Im uncertain if I ever give it another try, choosing to save or extract the little sisters to little an incentive
Okay first you talking about how some of BioShock gameplay are similar to Jedi Knight, and Splinter...AND THEN at the end you complain about how it should be like Grand Theft Auto, Oblivion, and Stalker??? so...what are you trying to say? that BioShock should be different and blending in with the crows at the same time???
-Christ sake its an independent game for a reason. The reason why Bioshock is linear because its has a strong story line that force it to be linear. Here you are stuck in the deep sea and trying to figure out whats going on and avoiding death traps...so you see there is no freedom, and therefore being a nonlinear game is not possible. In GTA4, Oblivion story lines are what...you are a thug, you are a warrior...so much freedom and possibilities therefore being a nonlinear game are possible.
And you accusing it for being like Splinter for having tons of way to attack enemy...well isn't that a good thing, and plus its a general gameplay ability that all good game adapted it, so you can't accuse it for copying because there a shit load of games out there that does this. And for the light and dark path thing, how else could they have done it in Bioshock? its in the story line you can't change that....
Hi Marcelino, I don't have played Bioshock, but I liked your opinion.
Bye.
Post a Comment