Question of the Day, June 29, 2010

[Spiner909]

It was far superior! The original was awful.

 

[Drexlor]

I haven't played Bioshock 2 yet but the first didn't blow me away. The storyline was too lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Catalyst6]

It was very similar to Bioshock, but it improved some aspects of the game while making others work. I give it a strong rating of "meh".

 

[Juan Regular]

Gameplay wise it was definitely better than the first. They succesfully got rid of all the annoying stuff in the first one and generally improved nearly every aspect of gameplay. On the story side I'd say it was simply a different beast, wether it was better or not is completely a matter of personal taste in this case. It wasn't as memorable as the first one. There weren't those big philosphical and political themes in it and it lacked levels and characters such as Fort Frolic and Sander Cohen. What it had was a very personal story about parentship and the influence that a father figure may have on a child and that made the choice wether or not to kill the little sisters far more imprtant than in the first game.
I loved it, obviously, but for much different reasons than the first one.

Compared to all the crappy, meaningless games out there (I'm again looking at you, Gears Of War), Bioshock 2 was a blessing in disguise and it should have its place.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It was just ok. As a stand alone game, sure it was good, but as a successor to one of the most creatively impressive games of the last decade, it was pretty disappointing. I think of it along the lines as what Alien 3 was to Aliens.

Good metaphor. Definitely fun and enjoyable, but nothing amazing.

 

[SirCannonFodder]

Artistically speaking it wasn't as good (I mean, no sequel could possibly have lived up to the original in that respect), but I enjoyed playing it a good bit more than Bioshock 1.

 

[Danpascooch]

I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the original. He's right, it didn't feel as "fresh", which is one of the reasons why Bioshock 1 was so good. I think for the third, they should really mix it up, try something new.

I really want to play a splicer during the fall of rapture, you could make morale choices like "That guy has plasmids, I want them, do I clusterfuck the back of his head?"

 

[Master Kuja]

I'd like some combination of answers to be honest, because as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a disappointment, I enjoyed it, but it still wasn't "great", it was fun, but it wasn't as good as the first. However, as mentioned, it didn't disappoint me.

 

[Hawgh]

I preferred the gameplay of Bioshoch 2 (plasmids and weapons available simultaenously, less annoying research mechanic), but the story felt a little tamer. Still a great game, though.

 

[reg42]

I actually liked it more than the first. Sure, it didn't really need to exist, but it was a lot funner overall.

 

[HasimirFenring]

It was a great game. Bioshock shouldn't have had a sequel, but this one was more than acceptable.

 

[Species5618]

I kinda miss the "I haven't played it yet because everyone who did told me it was bad in comparison to the first one and will probably only play it after it's been demoted to the bargain bin" option.

 

[wildpeaks]

Bioshock 2 is fine in itself (even if I'm under the impression that there is less of a story), but it feels like the same thing, which is the disappointing part for a full-fledged game.

On the other hand, I'm biased because I don't play multiusers (I'm with Yatzhee on that point: games should be able to stand on their own without multiuser being the real value [except for multi-users-only games like Counter-Strike]).

 

[nick n stuff]

too much crammed into it. no such thing as a superior sequel... except the spider man 2 movie game.

 

[wildpeaks]

I really want to play a splicer during the fall of rapture, you could make morale choices like "That guy has plasmids, I want them, do I clusterfuck the back of his head?"

I would play that