Is Bioshock 2 really as bad as we remember? (Spoilers)

[anthony87]

Never played 2 so I can't really comment on how much it's "hated" but I've always thought it seemed like an unnecessary sequel, made for the sake of being made. Then again I didn't even like the first one so I may not have liked the second one either.

Wait....isn't OP the same person who said something in another thread about how people who like Bioshock Infinite are wrong?

Yep

Guess he's moved on from "Stop liking what I don't like" to "Stop not liking what I like".

 

[Gameguy20100]

I liked Bioshock 2 what they did with the plasmids was fun but the story was a bit weaker and I missed my crossbow * sheds tear*

 

[V3rtig0]

I think it wasn't bad at all. I liked returning to Rapture for a different point of view at a different time. Also, being able to use plasmids and weapons at the same time was pretty cool and thus the combat system felt a bit more fluid and smooth than in the first game. And it had some interesting, though pretty limited, ideas with the moral choices. But people seem to jump on Yahtzee's dick and claim it was bad because he may think so(he didn't say so explicitly, after all). I disagree. In my opinion, the case here is just that it's only a little worse than the first one. It's a sequel, after all.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot. The drill. It was fucking awesome.

 

[IrateDonnie]

snip

Meltzer's story was pretty big. He was the main character of the "theres something under the sea" bioshock 2 marketing campaign. Following how he worked out where rapture was and where all the little girls were disappearing too. The logs you find carry on from that. Really well done.

True about some of the secondary characters in infinite. Fink wasn't gone into too much, neither was the leader of the vox populi or that war guy in the museum either to be honest. I get that the stories meant to focus on booker and elizabeth, but at what cost?

I loved the Bioshock 2 ARG, I still have the record & pawn card from it framed in my garage. I would have loved to gotten one of the masks they gave out. Plus the way the masks were delivered was pretty awesome.

 

[itsthesheppy]

It lacked the soul of the first game. It was a cheap cash grab. The game played okay and was moderately interesting but only just so. At the end of the day it was just bland and forgettable.

 

[spartandude]

its no where near as good as the first.... but saying its not as good as the earthly manifestation of chirst isnt saying its bad. infact i though bioshock 2 was a very good game, just not as good as the first but i can say the same about most games ive played

 

[teebeeohh]

it was never bad, it was just a dumb idea to make a direct sequel to bioshock. yes it was mechnically better but that is not what you play bioshock for, you do it for the atmosphere and the environment and shit. or you do it to watch a 19 year old women throw a rocket launcher in your face.

and personally i disliked playing as a big daddy, being just a guy with a gun and bees coming out of his hand made you kinda vulnerable and cutting through hordes of splicers felt like i did something. when i did the same thing in 2 it just felt like tuesday since i was a walking tank.
oh and HOW THE FUCK IS RAPTURE STILL AROUND AFTER TEN YEARS? and why did wrist tattoo guy not blow it up?

 

[TrulyBritish]

I always found that a bit odd that it was deemed so much worse, nice to know I'm not crazy. I mean sure, the story and characters were less interesting (Absolutely loved Cohen) so I did find it making less of an impact, but basically everything else it seemed to do better in, combat being the best example.
Still hated the multiplayer decision and the "moral choice" idea. I killed most of the people in Rapture and still seemed to get the good ending. And I didn't buy the idea that Lamb was such a special part of Rapture society when I'd never heard of her before.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I'm one of the few people who liked it more than the original. Being able to TK an enemy, then suck their health out while the squirmed in my grip, then tossing their corpse aside...mua ha ha!

Also, I cared about the characters more in the second one than I did in the first. Andrew Ryan annoyed me, but Sofia Lamb...grr. I did not like that woman, which made her a great villain to me. And the (good) ending made me tear up a bit.

 

[ABLb0y]

Y'know, I don't think I've heard anyone (Apart from Yahtzee) Hate on Bioshock 2...
As for my opinion, it's a great game, all the Bioshocks are.

 

[shrekfan246]

I killed most of the people in Rapture and still seemed to get the good ending.

'Spoilers' are in the thread title and all over the thread, but here's a warning anyway.


The brilliance of how Bioshock 2 did its moral choice system was that killing or sparing the secondary characters didn't impact the ending you got; It impacted how you saw Rapture through the Little Sister's eyes during a section late in the game. If you killed them, statues of Delta being oppressive would be erected around the place, while if you saved them they would portray Delta as a savior. What you did with the Little Sisters was still what had the greatest impact on the actual ending, as it altered Eleanor's disposition while she watched how her 'father' treated her 'sisters'.

The game wasn't about the same sort of black & white moral decisions that the first Bioshock put forth, as it was focused much more on being a personal story. So the player didn't get smacked upside the head for being immoral if they decided to waste the plot characters, which I feel was by far the proper way to approach the situation.

 

[TrulyBritish]

'Spoilers' are in the thread title and all over the thread, but here's a warning anyway.


The brilliance of how Bioshock 2 did its moral choice system was that killing or sparing the secondary characters didn't impact the ending you got; It impacted how you saw Rapture through the Little Sister's eyes during a section late in the game. If you killed them, statues of Delta being oppressive would be erected around the place, while if you saved them they would portray Delta as a savior. What you did with the Little Sisters was still what had the greatest impact on the actual ending, as it altered Eleanor's disposition while she watched how her 'father' treated her 'sisters'.

The game wasn't about the same sort of black & white moral decisions that the first Bioshock put forth, as it was focused much more on being a personal story. So the player didn't get smacked upside the head for being immoral if they decided to waste the plot characters, which I feel was by far the proper way to approach the situation.

Yeah, I got that bit (which I did quite enjoy), but are you sure? I'm sure (well I might have to check the wiki) that both the characters killed and sisters saved affects the ending. I didn't really like it in the first one either.

 

[shrekfan246]

Yeah, I got that bit (which I did quite enjoy), but are you sure? I'm sure (well I might have to check the wiki) that both the characters killed and sisters saved affects the ending. I didn't really like it in the first one either.

I'm preeeeeetty sure. Can't be 100% positive because I only killed one of them, but I believe that it's only the Little Sisters that directly impact the actual ending.

And while the redeem/harvest Little Sisters is still the same black&white morality from the first game, it at least makes more sense in the context of Bioshock 2's story, and they weave it into the narrative more effectively with how it changes Eleanor.

 

[Pebkio]

'Spoilers' are in the thread title and all over the thread, but here's a warning anyway.

The brilliance of how Bioshock 2 did its moral choice system was that killing or sparing the secondary characters didn't impact the ending you got; It impacted how you saw Rapture through the Little Sister's eyes during a section late in the game. If you killed them, statues of Delta being oppressive would be erected around the place, while if you saved them they would portray Delta as a savior. What you did with the Little Sisters was still what had the greatest impact on the actual ending, as it altered Eleanor's disposition while she watched how her 'father' treated her 'sisters'.

The game wasn't about the same sort of black & white moral decisions that the first Bioshock put forth, as it was focused much more on being a personal story. So the player didn't get smacked upside the head for being immoral if they decided to waste the plot characters, which I feel was by far the proper way to approach the situation.

Actually, if I remember correctly, there was a slightly different ending for if you saved the sisters but killed the sub characters. I think if you killed the sub characters, Sophia Lamb was drowned by Eleanor... but if you saved most of them, Eleanor gives her mom a breathing device. In the good ending, at least. That' why I said that the moral choice system made a smelly mess on the ending. But it didn't ruin it too much because it was a thrilling escape that ended in you escaping. There are two rising in the water variations (Sophia drowns or lives) and four after escaping variation (good in which Eleanor recruits you with no choice, neutral and living within Eleanor, neutral and choose to die, evil in which you seem to choose to die but Eleanor takes you by force)

Oh, here, IGN made nice chart.
http://www.ign.com/wikis/bioshock-2/Secret_Endings

 

[Daveman]

I'll be honest, the need to sign into Windows Live Arcade in order to save and me forgetting my password meant I couldn't play it from that save pissed me off so much I barely played it. Seemed shit though. I didn't even like Bioshock that much but at least I could play it.

Absolutely LOVE Infinite though...

 

[TrulyBritish]

I'm preeeeeetty sure. Can't be 100% positive because I only killed one of them, but I believe that it's only the Little Sisters that directly impact the actual ending.

And while the redeem/harvest Little Sisters is still the same black&white morality from the first game, it at least makes more sense in the context of Bioshock 2's story, and they weave it into the narrative more effectively with how it changes Eleanor.

Right, did a quick check and you're pretty much right...ish. Killing or saving the citizens means either Eleanor save dear mummy or kills her, while the little sisters affects whether she's a hero of mankind or a psychotic witch-child.
I have to admit it was sliiightly better, at least there was a kind of grey area in the middle where you could choose, but being the people-hating sociopath that I am, I would have gleaned some amusement from watching Eleanor go "Meh, I wonder what the internets like on the outside world?".
*now thinking of the different ways it could be used as an analogy for wasted potential*
*Now thinking about cats and cookies*
Mmm cookies.....

 

[Xanadu84]

I liked Bioshock 2. Combat was better, and the story wasn't bad, it just felt a bit derivative. They had interesting ideas that didn't quite match what they were hoping for. But they also put effort into it, had some interesting concepts, and it was interesting to see a sort of counterpoint to the first game, criticising extremist views in the opposite direction of Andrew Ryan. Overall, it wasn't as good as the first, but I think it was a solidly good shooter, hovering around the better games of the year, and really only suffered because Bioshock kind of felt like the first modern incarnation of the philosophically relevant modern AAA game, and Bioshock 2 therefore had a nigh impossible act to follow.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I really liked Eleanor and the relationships to Big Daddies...

The combat was still pretty meh. I missed weapons like the Crossbow and the Revolver, and it wasn't a huge step up from Bioshock except for removing my favorite weapons and making plasmids a lot easier to use. I didn't like replacing humanoid Jack with nigh-unstoppable Big Daddy Delta, I missed some of the characters from the first game like Ryan, but it was okay.

And I also missed having to pause to jab yourself with a syringe. It felt so cool and different to reload by injecting yourself with glowing power.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

The way I've always thought of it is that if Bioshock 2 was the first Bioshock game to be released, it would be the better one. It has better gameplay, and umm... Yeah, that's all I can say for certain.

But as it didn't come out first, it immediately loses all points for atmosphere and creative setting, which are the two biggest points for the series in my opinion. There weren't any big "wow" moments in it simply because you'd seen it all before. I'm also a bit annoyed with Bioshock 2 for ruining Andrew Ryan for me; in the original he was a man who would literally order you to kill him in order to make a point. In the sequel you can't go five steps without finding an audio diary that portrays him as a complete hypocrit. It completely destroys any political statement the original might have made, since it shows that Andrew Ryan compromised his objectivist vision so thoroughly that Rapture's failure can no longer be seen as a criticism of that political view. Instead we get Sofia Lamb, who may be one of the most annoying and stupid villains ever. Remember the bit in Bioshock 2 where she floods a massive section of Rapture to try and stop you? When you're wearing a massive diving suit. And then she goes on to radio you while you're underwater and tell you that it's all your fault.

And of course the whole "playing as a Big Daddy" thing was a bad decision from the start. I don't much like Bioshock 2 because it was an unnecessary sequel and I feel like the only areas that I can say it improved on for certain are the easiest ones to improve. Making the combat better in the sequel isn't much of an accomplishment, especially when it had such glaring flaws in the original.

 

[Dfskelleton]

When I think back to Bioshock 2, no matter how hard I try to think that it sucked, I then remember the Electro Shock + Drill Charge combo.
That was the best.
I guess it's not bad, but there wasn't as much mystery an novelty in it now that we knew just what happened to Rapture.