Is Bioshock 2 worth playing?

[Gorilla Gunk]

Now, granted, the added multiplayer (which isn't very good by the way) dumb-ed down the experience considerably by taking time and resources away from the single player, which is why I hope they don't include it in Infinite.

I don't see how the multiplayer could have taken anything away from the single-player when they were developed by separate studios.

That's how it should be really: Two developers, one for the singleplayer and one for the multiplayer.

 

[Azahul]

Okay, so the characters in Bioshok 2 were varied and had a cool story to themselves, but what I mean is that they didn't "pull me in" as much as the characters in the first game did. First, you have Andrew Ryan, who, because of Atlas' influence, you see as the bad guy. This makes you want to meet him and ram your wrench down his throat - he also pulls you in with his story and philosophy. Then, we have Atlas, who helps you in the city, and after the submarine "mishap", you grow attached to him even more. Next, we have Tenenbaum, who helped create the little girls and helps you out later in the game after Atlas' "wig" "falls off"(wink wink) (although, she was the person I cared about the least in the game and the sequel). Finally, we have EVERYONE else through a tape recording or encounter. This is what I loved about the first game, you could play the whole game and not know the complete backstory of it. If you wanted to know, you would have to look around for tape recordings. From new visitors to people who had their daughter taken for the "little sisterfication process", every recording could have been its own story.

What do we have in the sequel? A poor black woman. A crazy religious old fart. An asshole of a reporter (just like the real thing) and a stuck up lady that is in dire need of some "hotdog to hole action" (if you know what I mean). The only people I loved were Gil Alexander (the lunatic I talked about) and Sinclair. I saw Sinclair as a friend that cared what happens to me in the city; just like Atlas. With Alex the Great, his story and part in the main story was, to me, one of or the one greatest part of the game. I actually felt sorry for him and what happened to him. This rarely happens to me....ever.

See, the way you describe the characters from Bioshock 2 could be made to look any character ever sound boring. I mean, let's look at the characters from Bioshock in the same way. What do we have? A tyrannical businessman. A regretful scientist. A crazy actor. A crazy smuggler. A crazy criminal mastermind. My point is, if you want to make the characters sound boring, it is very easy. Personally, the characters that came up in Bioshock 2 were far more appealing. We meet the architect brothers that built Rapture, and see how they each went down radically different paths. We meet a brilliant example of one of Rapture's lost souls, something the first game was lacking, which shows clearly that the great objectivist experiment didn't go well for everyone. We see how those that fail are reduced to desperation, and how they embrace anyone, anything, that then helps them get back on their feet.

Look at the "poor black woman"'s backstory as an example. It's really very tragic. Grace comes to Rapture hoping for a better life, but she ends up singing in bars for a pittance, she meets a woman whose philosophies give her hope again, and becomes a good friend to this woman. She is trusted such that when Lamb is arrested, she is entrusted with safeguarding Lamb's daughter. And then, to her horror, she fails. Eleanor is stolen away, and then found turned into a Little Sister. Sofia herself has to take matters into her own hands to get her daughter back, and Grace is left in charge of Pauper's Drop but with the horrible feeling that she has failed the woman that gave her hope again. That story speaks to me far more than any of the characters in the first game. It gives Grace motivation that goes beyond the "is crazy/wants money" motivation that drives nearly every character in the original game (barring Tenenbaum). It gives her actual emotion beyond insane rage. By summing up Grace's character as just "poor black woman", you take away a lot from the character that was created. Look at the dignity she shows when facing Delta, so sure that she's about to meet her death, yet calm and composed despite that. She's a brilliantly made character that speaks to me far more than the various levels of crazy that made up most of the characters in the original game.

Don't get me wrong! Bioshock 2 is an awesome game. It's just that, in terms of story and characters, it isn't as gripping as the original (however, that mini story with Mark Meltzer and his quest to find his daughter after she was kidnapped by a Big Sister was pretty f**king sweet).

After Fontaine and Ryan, the most memorable character in the original is Sander Cohen. I f**king love that guy!

Ultimately, yeah, this just comes down to personal taste. By the time I met Sander in the first game, a crazy psychotic was nothing new. He's fun, sure, but hardly a memorable character. I preferred the characters from the second game, as they tended to be more relatable, rational, emotional, rather than just outright insane. There was a main villain that made sense, and a political ideology that I found nearly as interesting as Ryan's objectivism.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, but I believe the characters of the second game were far more interesting than the first. Maybe its because I saw Atlas's revelation coming a mile off, maybe it's because I honestly didn't really care about Jack as a character (certainly nowhere near as much as Delta), or maybe it's because I fnd sane characters frequently more interesting than insane ones. Could even be a mix of all three. Like you, I think they're both amazing games, but when it comes to story and characters, the second one wins.

 

[II2]

The story is *functional*, but stands like a mouse in the shadow of an elephant when compared to it's predecessor. Thinking of it as surprisingly good, offically endorsed fan fiction instead of proper canon helps it go down easier; as a celebration of Bioshock rather than a literal continuation (despite aspiring to be that).

I enjoyed Bioshock 2 quite a lot and I genuinely believe it would have gotten better critical reception if it wasn't being compared to Bioshock 1... On it's own merits, it's a fine, even great game, just not "Bioshock good".

I'd compare it to the Half Life 1 expansions, in terms of quality and similarity of experiencing the same setting from a different perspective / timeline. Enjoyable and worthwhile, but people would have been let down if the HL1 Expansion packs had been sold as Half Life 2, you dig?

 

[babinro]

I'd only recommend Bioshock 2 at a discounted rate. It has decent combat and a lackluster story. I wouldn't say it's worth more than $10.00. Thankfully you can often find it for less than that on Steam sales.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

however despite everybody saying the story is bad, that's not strictly true. its worse, but that's only because it couldn't live up to the first one. it is still good, and if you head into the game with an open mind there is definitely enjoyment to be had.

I think this is a slightly unfair statement, that BioShock would have a better story than BioShock 2. The thing that BioShock did that makes us all remember it as "OH MY GOD AWESOME STORY!" is not actually presenting a very good narrative arc (the arc itself is basically "New guy has to survive in strange enviroment" followed by "New guy takes revenge on the man that set him up") but rather that it had a plot twist that resonanted deeply with gamers by toying with its' targets' audience expectations. For a non-gamer/casual gamer/new gamer, the plot twist in Bioshock is more of a "I see..." moment, because it relies on the fact that you as a gamer understand the take that! the game jabs at the player's expectations.
As such, as much as I love Bioshock, Rapture and the philosophical backdrop, I can't say that I think Bioshock has a very good story or narrative. It does manage to turn a few rote tropes on their heads and plays with them in a masterful way, but that's not the same thing as having a good story, that's a sign of good storytelling.

Bioshock 2 on the other hand plays it safe, realizing it will never be able to do a similar plot twist and take that moment. But it compensates by giving us a far more involved story. It uses the old "father rescuing his child" trope, one that is virtually unheard of in games and tells it expertly. Bioshock 2 makes you care about Eleanor and makes you realize that our protagonist care, despite our protagonist never saying a word. We also get to see the rest of the cast being given a very good and nuanced depiction from Sinclair who might be a shady business man with unscrupulous methods but who ultimately has a heart of gold to Sophia Lamb who comes off as both self-righteous and callous and caring and nurturing both at once.
Bioshock 2 doesn't go for the shock value of Bioshock, but rather sticks to keeping a constantly strong and compelling narrative. Instead of playing around with tropes, Bioshock 2 plays them straight and plays them well. To me it makes for a better and more compelling story. And the ending of Bioshock 2 is far more heartwarming/heartbreaking and emotional then what Bioshock could accomplish, which is a testament to how well crafted the rest of the story is.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Not to mention that 2 introduced a number of glaring plot holes. Worst one of all being; Subject Delta was resurrected 10 years after he shot himself in the head.
Since it's been roughly 10 years since Andrew Ryan copped a golf club to the face, couldn't he be resurrected as well? Afterall the Vita-Chambers are keyed to his DNA.

Not really. It is strongly implied through audio diaries, Sophia Lamb and Eleanor's monologues that Eleanor (with help from the other Little Sisters) tinkered with the Vita-Chambers to have them reconstruct Subject Delta with the express purpose of saving Eleanor from becoming something like Gil Alexander. That's why you see Little Sisters looking out from the vents at you in the beginning, they are making sure they've got the right Big Daddy.

So yes, technically the same might be doable with Ryan. But who would have the will or knowledge to ressurect Ryan? Eleanor had the collected knowledge of Rapture at her fingertips and an army of (nigh) immortal servants to help her. Ryan on the other hand died a hated dictator, with the exception of many deranged splicers, splicers who have a hard time operating a Circus of Values.

 

[dedem1315]

The story's not nearly as good as the first BioShock, but it is a lot of fun drilling faces as a Big Daddy.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

I keep telling myself I'll get this each time it goes on sale on steam for $5 and just have not gotten around to it yet.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I saw the new trailer for Bioshock Infinte, and I gotta say it looks pretty cool. I played the everlasting crap of the first one, got brass balls, ALMOST every tonic, and had tons of fun doing so.

Never got around to the second one though. A simple question, is it worth picking up and playing? It's 20 bucks, not too much, but for those that played it (Bioshock 2) and it's prequal, how do they stack up against each other?

No.

It's story more spread out, dumber, and makes less sense. Gameplay has improvements, sure, but MINOR ones. It just doesn't balance out well.

Wait for infinite, and lets all pretend the second one didn't happen.

 

[KingofallCosmos]

Since you'll play Infinite in three months I wouldn't bother. I forgot 2 it as soon as I finished it.

 

[6_Qubed]

Is good, man. Rent, buy used, do what you gotta do, it's worth a look.

 

[TheOneBearded]

See, the way you describe the characters from Bioshock 2 could be made to look any character ever sound boring. I mean, let's look at the characters from Bioshock in the same way. What do we have? A tyrannical businessman. A regretful scientist. A crazy actor. A crazy smuggler. A crazy criminal mastermind. My point is, if you want to make the characters sound boring, it is very easy. Personally, the characters that came up in Bioshock 2 were far more appealing. We meet the architect brothers that built Rapture, and see how they each went down radically different paths. We meet a brilliant example of one of Rapture's lost souls, something the first game was lacking, which shows clearly that the great objectivist experiment didn't go well for everyone. We see how those that fail are reduced to desperation, and how they embrace anyone, anything, that then helps them get back on their feet.


Ultimately, yeah, this just comes down to personal taste. By the time I met Sander in the first game, a crazy psychotic was nothing new. He's fun, sure, but hardly a memorable character. I preferred the characters from the second game, as they tended to be more relatable, rational, emotional, rather than just outright insane. There was a main villain that made sense, and a political ideology that I found nearly as interesting as Ryan's objectivism.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, but I believe the characters of the second game were far more interesting than the first. Maybe its because I saw Atlas's revelation coming a mile off, maybe it's because I honestly didn't really care about Jack as a character (certainly nowhere near as much as Delta), or maybe it's because I fnd sane characters frequently more interesting than insane ones. Could even be a mix of all three. Like you, I think they're both amazing games, but when it comes to story and characters, the second one wins.

You're correct in saying that it all comes down to personal taste. I personally like a lunatic more than a sane person, which is why I like the forced-into-insanity Gil Alexander than the religious architect. However, you are doing the opposite of what I was doing - you are explaining the characters in a way that they sound really good. The method you are doing so can be done to make anything sound awesome. For example, you look at a piece of crap and say that it has to be flushed. When I look at it, I see the mind of the artist - cracked and distinguished from the regular common folk, uncaring to the his dark heritage in order to do its job, which is to be flushed down the toilet (fyi, I don't think like this - its an example). It is fairly easy to make something horrible sound righteous and justified, which is the mistake that we both have done.

You said that one of the problems with the first one was the fact that it was taken to the extreme (everyone is a lunatic). The thing is, that was the point. One of the themes of the game was the fact that science can go crazy if advanced to fast. Another great example is Shelley's Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein advances the science of nature and life and creates the monster, and we all know how that ended for him (the book's version, not the movie). It showed that powerful advances in science is hazardous. In Bioshock's case, the monster created were the citizens of Rapture who, after months of anarchy and splicing, have gone crazy and murderous.

I enjoy Bioshock 2, but love to death the original. You enjoy the original, but love to death the sequel. I believe that Ryan's ideology of the individual is more interesting than Lamb's communism as you think they are both equally interesting. I had a hard time seeing Ryan as a bad guy because I believed what he said. In the sequel, I hated the idea of communism and I hated the idea of Lamb's version of it.

Although, you are right in one major topic - the main character. It is true that I felt more "attached" to Delta and his background and story (even through some of the plot holes) than the generic amnesia beginning of Jack. Also, Delta has an actual main story to go through. When stripped for its basic core, Bioshock is a story of a man going through a city to kill the person who created it. This makes no sense. On the other hand, Bioshock 2 is essentially a rescue mission. You, the father, are simply going through a city looking for your lost child. This was a mission I could get behind on.

To his, his own taste. In ideology. In characterization. In style.



Oh, after thinking it over, Gil Alexander is the third most interesting character; not Cohen. His part in the story, background, and what he has become got me more than Cohen, who was, like you said, just a special crazed denizen of Rapture.

I guess the people at this site have heard my cries. The website is a little faster today.

 

[TheOneBearded]

Wouldn't it be great if they made a book about the resurrection of Ryan? Since no one is at the throne of the city, Ryan can go back to being top dog. He could acquire all of his specs and instruments and start anew in another place - an island, a city, a floating city like Columbia. If he wanted to, he could do the same thing Jack does in the evil ending and bring the splicers topside and wage war on the world's mega powers. CRAP! I soiled myself!

 

[DarkRyter]

Play because you can shoot bees and shotgun shells at the same time.

And that's all I ever wanted.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

I had a blast with 2. I actually found the story to be more emotionally engaging (If not quite as fresh or clever) and the gameplay's a lot tighter. The multiplayer's also fun to fool around in, kinda has a Timesplitters feel to it.

 

[Red Roark]

I'd say it's worth experiencing but not worth supporting(buying new, which I'm sad to say I did).

While the tacked on story and gameplay mechanics failed to make it feel more than expanded DLC, Bioshock 2 has some merits. For one the mix of story and gameplay was good, there are a few examples but the one that really stands out is your final encounter with Sinclair. It provides a really good break down of collectivist philosophy which is probably the highlight of the game, if you were like me and a Rand fanatic going into Bioshock you'll love it for that, it's really competently executed. The story of the second game actually highlights some more positive merits of selfishness in the form Rand understood it.

That said, Bioshock 2 differs little in terms of structure, gameplay, or content. It's hard to ever see it in the same light as Bioshock because the first game was innovative and new. Bioshock Infinite took the best approach to make a true sequel to the first game (way to take chances and mix it up, holy fuck) but I had fun with Bioshock 2, it feels a little like directors commentary, you don't need to watch it but if you really couldn't get enough of the film...

 

[Azahul]

Snip

I don't actually think I'm doing the opposite to what you're doing. I'm merely describing the character based on the information the game provided me with. I could do the exact same thing with any character, and it would only make the character sound good if there was the detail and depth required to make the character sound good. I'm fairly certain I couldn't make a piece of crap sound good (and I don't really get what that analogy was on about...) by doing what I did.

Regardless, yes, we do seem to have differing opinions on each game. I will add that while I found Lamb's Collectivism as intriguing a prospect as Rand's Objectivism, I hardly support either of them. I loathe the idea of Objectivism, for example, but that doesn't mean I don't find it an interesting prospect intellectually. Same goes for Lamb's Collectivism.