It's Not You, BioShock 2, It's Me
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Well, in my mind, at least, the story of Mark Meltzer comes close. When I heard the final ending to that in Dionysus Park, I was hugely moved by how unfair it was. Maybe that's just me, though.Susan Arendt said:
I'm the sentimental type as a whole, I guess, being literally incapable of harvesting even a single little sister. Not out of some desire to see the ending, it's just that being a bad person in video games makes my physically sick.
It's OK. This was my reaction to System Shock 2. Still was a great game, and so is BioShock 2. Just wasn't a true leap beyond the predecessor.
Meh take the story and dailog away from BS you have a random sandbox lulz fest, the story and art direction makes for a a rather shallow level of immersion because the gameplay dose not follow through on all the work that was put into the art and story....
Its still a ok game...but I was excepting a 9-11 and got a 6-7..............
IMO BS is not a true leap beyond SS2 its just to disconjointed and simplified.SaintWaldo said:
Its still a ok game...but I was excepting a 9-11 and got a 6-7..............
I loved Bioshock and if they ever do something like The Film Archive for games, Bioshock should be in there. Sadley, Bioshock 2 really didn't do much for me for various reasons with most of them being story-based.
1) Your enemies - I always liked Ryan as a character. He was a mis-guided genius whos dreams failed due to the introduction of an un-controllable random element (Adam). Everything he did was to try and stop his dream from collapsing. You then switched to Fontaine who, by Ryans rules, should have ended up controlling Rapture and so he was out for revenge and absolute power which, while cliched, is fairly understandable. Lamb on the other hand struck me as a power-crazy ***** who was determined to undermine Rapture and Ryan partly due to her beliefs but more because she didn't like Ryan.
Also, the minor bosses wern't as interesting this time around and were set up badly. In one level I didn't even realise I was in a boss battle until I had killed the guy. Compared to the great one like Sander Cohen and the Surgeon in the 1st, it definitely felt like a bit of a let down.
2) Your allies - In the 1st game you had Atlas and Tenenbaum and while we all know what happened with Atlas he at least was trying to help you in a supposed attempt to save Rapture. Also, Tenenbaum was a fantastic character who was desperately trying to make up for the previous wrongs she had done and because of this, I genuinely cared about her. In 2, you first had someone who was just after money which didn't make him sympathetic (or even likeable) in the slightest. You then switched to Evelyn Lamb who I will admit I did start to feel some affection for by the end.
3) Gameplay - In both games the gameplay is more to shift you from set-piece to set piece. In the 1st game this was fine because even when the setpieces were fairly bad (Never liked the Garden level) they were still better then a lot of games and when they were good, they were excellent. In 2 I kept wanting the level to be over with the only standout being
1) Your enemies - I always liked Ryan as a character. He was a mis-guided genius whos dreams failed due to the introduction of an un-controllable random element (Adam). Everything he did was to try and stop his dream from collapsing. You then switched to Fontaine who, by Ryans rules, should have ended up controlling Rapture and so he was out for revenge and absolute power which, while cliched, is fairly understandable. Lamb on the other hand struck me as a power-crazy ***** who was determined to undermine Rapture and Ryan partly due to her beliefs but more because she didn't like Ryan.
Also, the minor bosses wern't as interesting this time around and were set up badly. In one level I didn't even realise I was in a boss battle until I had killed the guy. Compared to the great one like Sander Cohen and the Surgeon in the 1st, it definitely felt like a bit of a let down.
2) Your allies - In the 1st game you had Atlas and Tenenbaum and while we all know what happened with Atlas he at least was trying to help you in a supposed attempt to save Rapture. Also, Tenenbaum was a fantastic character who was desperately trying to make up for the previous wrongs she had done and because of this, I genuinely cared about her. In 2, you first had someone who was just after money which didn't make him sympathetic (or even likeable) in the slightest. You then switched to Evelyn Lamb who I will admit I did start to feel some affection for by the end.
3) Gameplay - In both games the gameplay is more to shift you from set-piece to set piece. In the 1st game this was fine because even when the setpieces were fairly bad (Never liked the Garden level) they were still better then a lot of games and when they were good, they were excellent. In 2 I kept wanting the level to be over with the only standout being
When you take control of a Little Sister
It's so funny how quickly the hype train can become derailed after a game's release. Just before the *next big game* is released we hear again and again how awesome it is, and in the first week or two after it's release we hear much of the same. But THEN, the inevitable articles and comments saying well it's not THAT great after all. It's like the collective consciousness of gamers goes always goes through these troughs and peaks for the hyped games and then publishers wonder why there are so many second-hand sales!
To the article's author: If you didn't enjoy the game because it didn't feel new or special, that is a valid complaint. It's called a lack of new content. Bioshock delivered a amazing new world to explore and that was a large part of its appeal for you apparently. Bioshock 2 didn't deliver this, thus to you it is not nearly as good. No need to qualify or defend those comments by constantly lavishing it with praise even though you just said you didn't think it was very good. It's incoherent.
To the article's author: If you didn't enjoy the game because it didn't feel new or special, that is a valid complaint. It's called a lack of new content. Bioshock delivered a amazing new world to explore and that was a large part of its appeal for you apparently. Bioshock 2 didn't deliver this, thus to you it is not nearly as good. No need to qualify or defend those comments by constantly lavishing it with praise even though you just said you didn't think it was very good. It's incoherent.
The gameplay fixed a lot of issues I had with the first one.
No big twist, plot didn't really call or need one.
If anything it shined more light into the thoughts and relationship of big daddies and little sisters.
Which is kinda messed up since in both games you separate them.
The Alpha series daddies are particularly depressing.
I can't find myself to complain about the game.
Sure the color faded a bit.
it was still intriguing to see how rapture changed, which wasn't at all.
Ryan's views of borderline anarchy and lamb's views that skip on the lines of hardcore communism had the same reaction to the people.
If anything Lamb's rule was more horrible.
No big twist, plot didn't really call or need one.
If anything it shined more light into the thoughts and relationship of big daddies and little sisters.
Which is kinda messed up since in both games you separate them.
The Alpha series daddies are particularly depressing.
I can't find myself to complain about the game.
Sure the color faded a bit.
it was still intriguing to see how rapture changed, which wasn't at all.
Ryan's views of borderline anarchy and lamb's views that skip on the lines of hardcore communism had the same reaction to the people.
If anything Lamb's rule was more horrible.
I loved Bioshock 2, it got me just as enthralled with it as the first one. I could not put it down, just like the first one, and like the first one my only major complaint is that I wanted more, which as we know is not really much of a complaint.
It did awaken alot of maternal instincts I did not even realise I had, which really put me in the shoes of the big daddy. I was very skeptical about a second trip to rapture, but I loved every minute of it, it is just different to the first, which is why some do not like it as much, but it still a magnificent game.
It did awaken alot of maternal instincts I did not even realise I had, which really put me in the shoes of the big daddy. I was very skeptical about a second trip to rapture, but I loved every minute of it, it is just different to the first, which is why some do not like it as much, but it still a magnificent game.
I think you're missing part of the point of it all though. It was a living space that was meant to be cheerful. If everytime you wanted a snack you were greeted by a chipper voice it might help you forget that you havent seen the sun in 280 days, even if for a moment. Rapture was meant to be upbeat and part of the horror there is just how badly its falling apart into decay as the last remnants of a positive existence there slowly die out. It's actually kind of depressing.Tiamat666 said:
Just imagine yourself, personally, in a world so desolate of life that the only thing talking to you, other than the voices on the radio, are crazed people out for your blood... or diddies coming from a machine.
And they look like people who have used masks to cover their deformities. It makes as much sense as anything else to cover up what splicing has done to your once pretty face.
Seriously, why do people who obsess over what "wing" you are always have to find these things in other media when they're not invited. Of course Episode III had Padme referring to American politics at the time. Every comic book where the government does evil things is clearly some left-leaning liberal trying to smear the Reds... er, Republican led houses at the time.Therumancer said:
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of an Ayn Rand objectivist, a mentality that an incredibly small amount of people would know or even understand, is more alien and thus more interesting. We went from a guy who was obsessed with building a cult of man, a great society where man would worship himself through working for his wage. Then we learn of the city falling apart from within due to that same free enterprise going out of his control.
Bioshock 2 may as well be set in any cultist heavy environment because that's what we've moved on to. We've gone away from the strange and the unknown into a Rapture that's been taken over by a cult led by a psychologist. I just don't even see how people can expect the early impact of the game to not be entirely lessened. It has nothing to do with left or right wing anything, we've gone from being totally unfamiliar with the place (Rapture) and the minds of the people in there to revisiting Rapture alongside some cultists waiting on a comet.
Bought Bioshock 2 this afternoon.
Kinda disappointed that it's the same game with a different story and a couple of additions and alterations. It is worth playing if you loved the first one (as I did, I still play it on occasion) but once I finish it I'll just trade it in.
Kinda disappointed that it's the same game with a different story and a couple of additions and alterations. It is worth playing if you loved the first one (as I did, I still play it on occasion) but once I finish it I'll just trade it in.
I am yet to find someone who doesn't like/love Bioshock 2 who didn't expect to dislike/not love it.
It's something I can't understand either, Bioshock 2 is the only game where I have heard the criticism of being too similar, even Left 4 Dead 2 didn't get that much flack for it and the games practically identical to the first with the exception of 3 new enemies and melee weapons. The Halo and Gears of War games add nothing significantly new in their sequels either beyond continuing their stories (stories which a lot of people claim to be non-existent). Let's not forget GTA either.
I certainly can't agree that it felt too similar to the first. The level design and the quests were nothing a like. The combat, thanks to the new weapons and inclusion of escorting Little Sisters is also completely different. The only similarity are the enemies, and considering it's set in the same city, that's to be expected.
Each to their own though. I found Bioshock 2 to be just as good as the first, it was not as great in certain areas as there were no "wow" moments in the plot for example, but it improved significantly in every aspect of the game-play and the story was more touching and personal than before (especially the opening video/cut-scene where you are with Eleanor).
The game has faults of course. The ending story took a different turn than I was hoping for and I would have liked a more in-depth explanation of the Big Sisters (I also think having just one of them like they originally planned would have been better) but I disagree with most of the criticisms the game has been facing.
It's almost like people can't find any other criticism but feel that they have to say some thing negative about it.
This was the attitude of a significant portion of Bioshock fan's and it's those who tend to see Bioshock 2 as nothing more than a re-run.
It's something I can't understand either, Bioshock 2 is the only game where I have heard the criticism of being too similar, even Left 4 Dead 2 didn't get that much flack for it and the games practically identical to the first with the exception of 3 new enemies and melee weapons. The Halo and Gears of War games add nothing significantly new in their sequels either beyond continuing their stories (stories which a lot of people claim to be non-existent). Let's not forget GTA either.
I certainly can't agree that it felt too similar to the first. The level design and the quests were nothing a like. The combat, thanks to the new weapons and inclusion of escorting Little Sisters is also completely different. The only similarity are the enemies, and considering it's set in the same city, that's to be expected.
Each to their own though. I found Bioshock 2 to be just as good as the first, it was not as great in certain areas as there were no "wow" moments in the plot for example, but it improved significantly in every aspect of the game-play and the story was more touching and personal than before (especially the opening video/cut-scene where you are with Eleanor).
The game has faults of course. The ending story took a different turn than I was hoping for and I would have liked a more in-depth explanation of the Big Sisters (I also think having just one of them like they originally planned would have been better) but I disagree with most of the criticisms the game has been facing.
I do agree with this however, if we are talking about the story/characters/atmosphere that is.Susan Arendt said:
Pretty much what I mean. I can understand that considering the impact of Bioshock, people wanted to feel that again with the second, but it's a little unfair to hold this game to a different standard to all the others, how many others are set years apart with a new character along with completely new weapons and story?.JokerboyJordan said:
It's almost like people can't find any other criticism but feel that they have to say some thing negative about it.
When will people realise...
It's a damn sequel, there doesn't have to be major innovation or re-imagining of the game. It's meant to take the core gameplay principles of the first game, improve them and smooth out the rough old edges and fix what didn't work in the last game.
Sure it's nice to have innovation and there was, the hacking was simplified and now you could hack from afar; there was the ability to use plasimids and guns simultaneously; there was a more diverse range of enemies than the first. All contained within the brilliance that is Rapture.
I'm no game critic or reviewer but the game is still brilliant, there is only that lingering sense of familiarity that every reviewer is saying let the game down. If you wanted something completely new and fresh, go buy a different game. If you expected something different, then that would be to set Bioshock in a completely new location rather than a variation of the first, and that would take away everything that makes both the games so memorable.
And yes I did cry during the endings in Bioshock and Bioshock 2
It's a damn sequel, there doesn't have to be major innovation or re-imagining of the game. It's meant to take the core gameplay principles of the first game, improve them and smooth out the rough old edges and fix what didn't work in the last game.
Sure it's nice to have innovation and there was, the hacking was simplified and now you could hack from afar; there was the ability to use plasimids and guns simultaneously; there was a more diverse range of enemies than the first. All contained within the brilliance that is Rapture.
I'm no game critic or reviewer but the game is still brilliant, there is only that lingering sense of familiarity that every reviewer is saying let the game down. If you wanted something completely new and fresh, go buy a different game. If you expected something different, then that would be to set Bioshock in a completely new location rather than a variation of the first, and that would take away everything that makes both the games so memorable.
And yes I did cry during the endings in Bioshock and Bioshock 2
To be fair she probably already made up her mind about the game even before it released with that last statement.
However, seeing that Bioware was genuinely able to create yet another engrossing game with Mass Effect 2, having significant game play chances, Bioshock 2 just seems like a quick cash in, albeit 3 years later. It really just reeks of laziness when almost everything is the same and the MP seemingly tacked on because people complained that the first didn't have one.
Having the same issues as the first Bioshock on the PC with the unsupported widescreen resolution is further evidence that they simply took the old game and retreaded the whole thing. So no thanks to Bioshock2. I'm totally on the same indifference boat as Susan is for this game.
However, seeing that Bioware was genuinely able to create yet another engrossing game with Mass Effect 2, having significant game play chances, Bioshock 2 just seems like a quick cash in, albeit 3 years later. It really just reeks of laziness when almost everything is the same and the MP seemingly tacked on because people complained that the first didn't have one.
Having the same issues as the first Bioshock on the PC with the unsupported widescreen resolution is further evidence that they simply took the old game and retreaded the whole thing. So no thanks to Bioshock2. I'm totally on the same indifference boat as Susan is for this game.
I'm loving the return to Rapture, the imagery is still as beautiful and disturbing as ever, however, must... finish... Dragon Age...
(Not that there's anything wrong with Dragon Age, its just sooooooo long)
(Not that there's anything wrong with Dragon Age, its just sooooooo long)
I liked bioshock 2 more than the first one, the gun play was better, the plasmids were more entertaining, and the emotional impact was (I think) greater.
favourite parts of bioshock?
watching the tail of the broken plane right at the beginning slowly sink into the sea, with the lighthouse in the background, dont ask why...might have been the first, shit the bed moment of; this is not your average game, and its stuck with me ever since, it was haunting
others include said plane crashing into the walkway and flooding it, i was like, wtf!!!!!!! awesome!!!!!!!
first meeting with dr steinman with all those corpses hung up, and the part with the piano player strapped to a bomb
one of the best, not THE best, but top 3
watching the tail of the broken plane right at the beginning slowly sink into the sea, with the lighthouse in the background, dont ask why...might have been the first, shit the bed moment of; this is not your average game, and its stuck with me ever since, it was haunting
others include said plane crashing into the walkway and flooding it, i was like, wtf!!!!!!! awesome!!!!!!!
first meeting with dr steinman with all those corpses hung up, and the part with the piano player strapped to a bomb
one of the best, not THE best, but top 3
bioshock 2 is AMAZING towards the end.
*minor spoilers*
after that one part (those that played know where) i feel terrible doing anything to little sisters, adopt, harvest, or leave to their fate. audio logs are one thing, but (spoiler spoiler spoiler) seeing the world through their eyes is heartbreaking. that's been my problem with the series so far, too much story telling through audio logs, too much telling not showing. Stranger still since there's you know, camera's everywhere. i was also disappointed that the 'ghosts' theme wasn't kept throughout the game.
sure, the new is gone, and the 'newness' of commenting on philosophies is tired. but what really get's me is just how fucked up the Daddy/sister relationship truly gets. There isn't truly a 'good way' to beat the game, it's whether you get revenge now or later. and the killer question, how far are you willing to go for a woman you've been brainwashed into loving? despite the fact that you're saving this girl, and Lamb's plans, you're still tearing away a daughter from her mother.
*minor spoilers*
after that one part (those that played know where) i feel terrible doing anything to little sisters, adopt, harvest, or leave to their fate. audio logs are one thing, but (spoiler spoiler spoiler) seeing the world through their eyes is heartbreaking. that's been my problem with the series so far, too much story telling through audio logs, too much telling not showing. Stranger still since there's you know, camera's everywhere. i was also disappointed that the 'ghosts' theme wasn't kept throughout the game.
sure, the new is gone, and the 'newness' of commenting on philosophies is tired. but what really get's me is just how fucked up the Daddy/sister relationship truly gets. There isn't truly a 'good way' to beat the game, it's whether you get revenge now or later. and the killer question, how far are you willing to go for a woman you've been brainwashed into loving? despite the fact that you're saving this girl, and Lamb's plans, you're still tearing away a daughter from her mother.
Seriously, why do people who obsess over what "wing" you are always have to find these things in other media when they're not invited. Of course Episode III had Padme referring to American politics at the time. Every comic book where the government does evil things is clearly some left-leaning liberal trying to smear the Reds... er, Republican led houses at the time.Therumancer said:
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of an Ayn Rand objectivist, a mentality that an incredibly small amount of people would know or even understand, is more alien and thus more interesting. We went from a guy who was obsessed with building a cult of man, a great society where man would worship himself through working for his wage. Then we learn of the city falling apart from within due to that same free enterprise going out of his control.
Bioshock 2 may as well be set in any cultist heavy environment because that's what we've moved on to. We've gone away from the strange and the unknown into a Rapture that's been taken over by a cult led by a psychologist. I just don't even see how people can expect the early impact of the game to not be entirely lessened. It has nothing to do with left or right wing anything, we've gone from being totally unfamiliar with the place (Rapture) and the minds of the people in there to revisiting Rapture alongside some cultists waiting on a comet.[/quote]
In some cases people might be reading into things. However in this paticular case the analogy to politics was apparently intended and part of the success of the game. Like it or not in this case, that was what "everyone" was talking about and what got the game so much attention. We've even seen political discussions about the original Bioshock right here on The Escapist. Yes, in some cases people might be "reading into things" but not here, and I think it has had a lot to do with why the expressed reactions to Bioshock 2 by the same group of people who were worshipping the first one are lukewarm at best.
As far as politics in movies, The Star Wars prequels were simply a mess. A better example would be things like "V For Vendetta" which took massive liberties with the storyline it was based on, and while still set in Europe was intended to have direct analogies to American politics at the time. Another even better example would be Marvel's "Civil War" in comics, which incidently was specifically promoted as a political commentary, newsletters to comic shop owners even presented it that way in trying to get them to stock the issues, specifically referring to things with terms like "superhuman gitmo". This is one of the reasons why what could have been an epic storyline had it stayed rooted in the Marvel Universe (which was building towards something like this for years) rather than having all kinds of character personailities and such altered specifically for the purposes of making an out of place political statement about Homeland Security in the real world and such. It only succeeded as well as it did because so many left wingers were involved.
I don't think the issue so much is anyone being "concerned" about left wing or right wing, but like it or not the labels exist because they are accurate in looking at trends and groups of belief, and do very much apply to cases like this.
In the end though I think it largely comes down to the fact that a lot of those who praised the original Bioshock, are reluctant to praise something that doesn't cater directly to their world view.
As far as the city being taken over by a cult lead by a psychologist, that's no more accurate really than a similar definition of Ryan's behavior. Where Ryan was a big fan of individualism, capitolism, and one succeeding by their own capabilities, Sofia Lamb is exactly the opposite and believes in everyone sacrificing their individual needs for the good of the community as a whole. Psychology is merely the tool she works through (and what she is an expert in, to have been invited to Rapture to begin with). The whole thing with "The Family" and the like is intended to be a very unsubtle referance to communism. Socialism also feeds into things because ultimatly SHE (the goverment) is deciding who gives up what, and believes very much in forcing people to make sacrifices for what she sees as the communal good. This taking the place of things like medical experiments, and trying to create an Asimov-like group mind out of the memories of people in Rapture. She (like Ryan) takes things to extremes, but her central philsophy is pretty much incredibly liberal and shows the problems with it.
You even have an entire section (Siren's Alley) dealing with the message that grass-roots type resistance movements (a liberal staple) are not always a good thing.
The overall message being that while Ryan was pretty psycho in his own way, and definatly ruthless, his system was at least workable, and only had serious problems due to massive pressures like Fontaine's syndicate, and her rabble rousing. Sophia Lamb's is not, because despite having an organization she can't even begin to reconstruct rapture, and ultimatly has locked everyone into a self destructive cycle, which she feels she can only break by creating a being which would house everyone's minds equally, and be dedicated to what she sees as the common good.
Such are my thoughts, I don't want to get into too many details.
In the end we will probably have to agree to disagree.