Discussion value's a little sparse in here, boyo.
lysiaboy said:
*Bioshock has a better story/plot than Bioshock 2
Definitely. BioShock 1 wasn't anything extraordinary -- it gets a little obvious that the complete stranger with the fruity accent is probably going to betray you, and that mind control twist would have even put M. Night Shyamalamalamawhatshisname in his place -- but the second one felt very hackneyed. There wasn't much left to say and it showed.
Andrew Ryan captures your imagination more than Sofia Lamb, and is more memorable.
Anybody was better than Sofia Lamb. Fuck, even Fontaine was better than Lamb. Life asked her if she wanted to supersize her bitchiness and by God, did that woman do it.
Even her character in itself was a little sketchy. It was like the devs just said, "OK, let's just make her the exact polar opposite of Andrew Ryan" and then called it a day. Ryan had obvious human flaws and faults -- even over the radio, you can hear him getting angry and frustrated -- but Lamb talks with all the conviction and emotion of an answering machine. Remaining so calm
all the time made her downright robotic.
In my mind, Jack is a better protagonist than Subject Delta.
Yeah. Jack was a nobody, but I liked the feeling of being the only human survivor skulking around and lurking in the shadows. One of the things I hated most in the sequel was that stomping around as a Big Daddy completely obliterated any feeling of quiet stealth in the original.
The levels and settings of the first game was superior to the second.
Agreed. The levels in the original were pretty major, because each of them represented an aspect of life in Rapture -- Fort Frolic = entertainment, Hephaestus = industry, etc. The levels in the second game were fine, but they felt like throwaway levels that hadn't made it into the first game. I can't even remember any of them besides Ryan Amusements (because of the creepy-ass Ryan automatons) and that leisure resort at the very beginning.
Bioshock featured better gameplay sequences than it's sequal (classical music splicer kill-fest in fort frolic was my personal favourite).
They're kinda two things. The gameplay in the second was much, much better, but in terms of actual memorable moments (as the "classical music splicer kill-fest" would suggest), then the first wins, hands down. Dr. Steinman stabbing his "patient", Cohen's Tchaikovsky scene, Mariska Lutz begging for her daughter to come home, the list goes on. Only thing I remember in the second was electrocuting Alex the Great, and then hearing him scream and see the blood roll up in sheets inside his tank. Made me feel awfully guilty.
more crucially, combat in bioshock 2 seemed more natural than it's predecessor (with more noticable differences between upgraded plasmids, duel wield plasmids and weapons at the same time, etc)
Certainly. The first wasn't much more than fetch-quests and mowing down bad guys in every room you come across. That said, I have no idea why they limited your health kits and EVE hypos in the second to four or five or whatever. That was stupid.
doctimus said:
I think the achievement system undermines Bioshock. In both games you only get achievements if you take the good path (i.e. saving the little sisters, not killing key figures); plus you get all kinds of perks for saving the Little Sisters you wouldn't otherwise get. It takes a lot of the supposed choice out of the games.
I dunno, you get at least three achievements just for killing Sander Cohen. Considering he doesn't pose a threat to you the two chances you get to cave his pancaked face in, I wouldn't exactly have categorised it as strictly "good". You're right about the Little Sisters, though -- in the end, saving all the Little Sisters only makes you lose out on a pretty paltry amount of ADAM than if you'd harvested them all, and that isn't even including all the perks and bonuses you get for being the good guy.
Jeez, longer than expected post is longer than expected. I guess there was discussion...?
