Question of the Day, June 29, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Well there being no I haven't played it (or haven't played the first), I guess My only option is to not vote.
I can't force myself to play it for more than a few minutes at a time.
Seriously, its a pale reminder of how great bioshock was. Sure, bioshock had some flaws, but bioshock2 didn't fix any of them. Just turned it into a multiplayer-arcade shooter.
Seriously, its a pale reminder of how great bioshock was. Sure, bioshock had some flaws, but bioshock2 didn't fix any of them. Just turned it into a multiplayer-arcade shooter.
It wasn't a disappointment to me. I think Bioshock 2 focused more on the gameplay side of things. Bioshock on the other hand was more of a story focused game. I like them both a lot though.
I think it was a great game. It was fun, and the story was nice.
A lot of people praise the original BioShock for it's story, which was very well done and had nice philosophical undertones. However, I think many of the same people forget that lightning often doesn't strike twice, and the world of BioShock is just that--a world. What we saw in BioShock 2 wasn't meant to succeed the original BioShock in anyway other than chronology. It gives a more complete feel to the universe of the game and what goes on in Rapture. With the multiplayer being set in the Rapture Civil War, the fact that it's a world--not a story--is even more apparent.
As such, I think it did very well. It improved on some parts of the original that were... not as good. *cough*HACKING*cough* I look forward to further installments of the series to expand the world and improve the mechanics even more.
I think I had more fun playing BioShock 2 than the original, too... which is always a plus, I guess.
A lot of people praise the original BioShock for it's story, which was very well done and had nice philosophical undertones. However, I think many of the same people forget that lightning often doesn't strike twice, and the world of BioShock is just that--a world. What we saw in BioShock 2 wasn't meant to succeed the original BioShock in anyway other than chronology. It gives a more complete feel to the universe of the game and what goes on in Rapture. With the multiplayer being set in the Rapture Civil War, the fact that it's a world--not a story--is even more apparent.
As such, I think it did very well. It improved on some parts of the original that were... not as good. *cough*HACKING*cough* I look forward to further installments of the series to expand the world and improve the mechanics even more.
I think I had more fun playing BioShock 2 than the original, too... which is always a plus, I guess.
I didn't enjoy the original Bioshock and the sequel was worse...It wasn't so much disappointing since I did't expect anything of it, but still...
I actually don't really know.
I didn't think Bioshock was any sort of saviour of games.
It had a great atmosphere and pretty good gameplay.
I enjoyed the second one a lot, but not quite as much as the first.
That's not to say the game is any better or worse, it's just that I think it might be because it's like more of the same game.
If I played Bioshock 2 first, I might have enjoyed it more than Bioshock 1.
So it's really hard to say which one is better objectively.
I didn't think Bioshock was any sort of saviour of games.
It had a great atmosphere and pretty good gameplay.
I enjoyed the second one a lot, but not quite as much as the first.
That's not to say the game is any better or worse, it's just that I think it might be because it's like more of the same game.
If I played Bioshock 2 first, I might have enjoyed it more than Bioshock 1.
So it's really hard to say which one is better objectively.
For a sequel that had no real right to exist, I found it to be a very enjoyable experience. I played through the first game about 4 times and it ranks as one of my favorite games of all time. The sequel doesn't match the same level of excellence, but it didn't need to reach that in order to be very fun. Now, if they make a THIRD game, I may start worrying about the brains over at 2K..
You left out the middle option: 'It was great, but not as great as the original'. Basically, by virtue of trying to fit new characters/events into a pre-existing world, the developers were forced to fit the story to something that couldn't change, and which hadn't accounted for a sequel--at the end of the original BioShock, all of the characters' futures (or lack thereof) have been determined: the little sisters, the player, Andrew Ryan, etc. Therefore, they needed to invent totally new characters (who somehow weren't mentioned at all in the first game, yet appear to have been major players) and new gameplay mechanics (namely being a Big Daddy) because they couldn't just do the same game twice. While the gameplay is just as fun as it was with the first iteration, the story just wasn't quite there this time--and the narrative is a large part of what makes BioShock one of the best games I've ever played (and it's even better if you've read Atlas Shrugged, since the whole game is a counterpoint which takes all of Ayn Rand's arguments and throws them in her face).
BioShock 2 is still a lot of fun, and definitely worth picking up and playing, and it was more or less exactly what I expected it to be, but it's still in the shadow of its spectacular older sibling.
BioShock 2 is still a lot of fun, and definitely worth picking up and playing, and it was more or less exactly what I expected it to be, but it's still in the shadow of its spectacular older sibling.
I wasn't really a fan of the first Bioshock when I first played it. I took me a second run on survivor difficulty with Vita-chambers turned off to really turn into something amazing for me. The world seemed to come alive and I would really feel immersed. I love the game now. So far I've only played BS2 once on easy, and given my previous experience I won't be judging BS2 too harshly.
It does go without saying, however, that BS2 did not draw me in as much as the first, but I am willing to give it another chance when I play on hard.
It does go without saying, however, that BS2 did not draw me in as much as the first, but I am willing to give it another chance when I play on hard.
It's still a decent game but the story was greatly lacking, playing as a big daddy wasn't fun, the graphics seemed slightly downgraded to me and the big sister should have been just one person like they were originally going to do instead of being the stock boss on every level. Also, it was just way too predictable when the BS was going to show up, it was like clockwork.
It was't a disappointment, it just wasn't as good as the first one. Besides the shitty ending, Bioshock was an awesome game. Bioshock 2 removed the fear factor by making you play as a massive armored marine, so you never felt the fear you did in the first one, when all you had was a wooly jumper to protect yourself.
These options are not great, I loved Bioshock 2 but it's very hard to compare to the experience of entering Rapture for the first time. It's probably for that reason that I enjoyed the first game more but Bioshock 2 was not what I would call a disappointment.
I found the first Bioshock soooooooo fantastic I couldn't even play the second...
Oh wait no I disliked the first one so I didn't even look at the second, that was it.
Oh wait no I disliked the first one so I didn't even look at the second, that was it.