Take Two Disappointed With BioShock 2

[Dok Zombie]

I loved Bioshock 2 from start to finish. While it would never have the unique appeal of the original, it managed to improve on every single aspect of the gameplay that needed improving, most noticeably the horrible gunplay of the first game and the terrible disappointment that was the "turn yourself into a Big Daddy" level.

I really don't understand the lukewarm reception it received, both games are fantastic and, while the first one is untouchable in terms of story, setting, atmosphere and script, the second took the world that had been created and polished the "game" aspect whilst expanding on the story.

I consider it to be a faultless game and a perfect example of what a sequel should do, that said, we don't need another one.

Although I would be interested in a prequel set before the civil war, with a more free-roaming, RPG feel to it. Really getting to know Rapture and it's inhabitants before it all goes to Hell.

 

[Xocrates]

I never had a problem with the pacing of bioshock. It felt more like it was going for realism, while bioshock 2 wanted to be an arcade rail shooter.

I would like to contest that, not only for the oxymoron of using "realism" and "Bioshock" in the same sentence, but also because I was under the impression that the levels in Bioshock 2 were actually less linear than the first.

At best the reason Bioshock didn't feel as linear was because it forced you to backtrack more, and the levels were harder to navigate.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Bioshock 1 was amazing. Bioshock 2 was okay, outstanding in the ranks of most FPS games today, but lacks the originality of the first one because of that "Yeah, I've seen this before." feeling. Still, there aren't many things that can compare to drilling through the skulls of your enemies. Bioshock 2 was a bit more fun, but Bioshock 1 had better story and atmosphere. Still, I just can't get over how fun it is to drill through gnetically altered maniacs attacking you with wrenches.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

would like to contest that, not only for the oxymoron of using "realism" and "Bioshock" in the same sentence, but also because I was under the impression that the levels in Bioshock 2 were actually less linear than the first.

At best the reason Bioshock didn't feel as linear was because it forced you to backtrack more, and the levels were harder to navigate.

Realism as in, "ur just a dude playin a dude in a place." Rather than, "the game exists only when you interact with it."

Realism isn't just, "this is all 100% possible with current technology," its a design philosophy centered around making the player feel as if the world depicted actually exists. At least thats my best guess, as every "realistic" game in the last few years had regenerating health.

 

[Kelethor]

While I enjoyed Bioshock 2 very much, it was not the location being familiar that made the game weaker than it's predecessor. A lack of imagination in anything beyond combat and a story that just went bizarre near the end would be the main factors.

My favourite parts were the very beginning and the very end, around about 2/3rds of the way in they lost track, just like with Bioshock. The difference is that they didn't have an amazing twist or revelation just before it to make fans less critical.

I loved both both Games.
I thought BioShock 1 was better Story wise.
And BioShock 2 was better Gameplay wise.

Basically yes. Although the issue is that fans of Bioshock were almost unanimously because of the story and atmosphere as opposed to game-play and so they really should have dug deep to have a story as good as the firsts.

AHh! System shock!

OT: Bioshock 2 was a good game, don't get me wrong. the controls were excellent, the combat was exciting and well done. the only problem was...the atmosphere. In Bioshock 1, Andrew Ryan was able to show that he was an all powerful master of the realm in the beginning of the game "a thousand adam to the man or woman who clips it's wings!" while Lamb...well, I just wasn't afraid of her. maybe that came with being a big daddy, but I think it had more to do with the fact that she was more focused on a team effort, IE, forgetting the self infavor of the family. the family as it was was just a bunch of jacked up splicers, and Lamb had no real power or control over them. she just wasn't as good a villain as Ryan was, and I suppose thats where the game suffered.

 

[poiuppx]

Top tip: the largest ever thread on the Take-Two forums is a thread reporting and complaining about the PC version's ridiculously low physics engine FPS cap. The problem was acknowledged by a mod that wrongly suggested peoples PCs were to blame and then never got back to us. The problem is not a bug or an error, but a deliberate design choice so that puny consoles wouldn't be overworked by Havok's engine and it was just left as it is for the PC.

Take-Two could have fixed it, they could have promised it wouldn't be in Bioshock 2(it is, but less severe) and they could have avoided scaring away PC players by not consolising it even more with rubbish multiplayer and embarrassing 'dee-el-see'. They had already discouraged console players by making the first game too cerebral, so apologising and earning back some of the goodwill of PC players was the way to go. They didn't do it though.

Yes, I don't like consoles or console players. You suck.

Thanks. We love you too.

OT, I'd like to see a Bioshock game that broke free of Rapture. We know how things were down there. Rapture's story is told. But not the story of this world. Think about it; what happens if Ryan's original fear came true? What happens if/when governments start looking for just where exactly all those useful people vanished to? What happens when one of them finds Rapture, now able to better sustain itself thanks to Lamb's followers restoring it? What happens when they find ADAM? Or Plasmids? Or a Big Daddy?

The world of Bioshock stand to potentially be irrevocably changed. And if the story & game were good, I'd love to see that change. It can't possibly be as genre-defining as Bioshock 1 was, but that doesn't mean there isn't meat on the bones if they wanted to pursue it.

But please... don't go to Rapture again for the core of the game. There's only so much underwater dystopia you can squeeze out before it starts getting silly.

 

[Arec Balrin]

If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

I'm ambivalent about it. I think large late design changes were made to Bioshock in the last year of development, again because of stupid console-tards, developers need to dumb down to meet that market.

You're gonna get chucked off of here pretty quickly if you come out with shit like that.

Well just point out what is wrong with it in terms of what rules I'm breaking and I'll avoid it in the future. You'd be hard-pressed to call it trolling considering it makes up such a small part of my overall post and encroaching consolisation is a common and legitimate concern among a lot of PC gamers.

 

[Woodsey]

If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

I'm ambivalent about it. I think large late design changes were made to Bioshock in the last year of development, again because of stupid console-tards, developers need to dumb down to meet that market.

You're gonna get chucked off of here pretty quickly if you come out with shit like that.

Well just point out what is wrong with it in terms of what rules I'm breaking and I'll avoid it in the future. You'd be hard-pressed to call it trolling considering it makes up such a small part of my overall post and encroaching consolisation is a common and legitimate concern among a lot of PC gamers.

Yeah, games being dumbed down for consoles is a common concern for us - but that's mainly down to a limited handset, not because console gamers are "tards". Nor does it matter how much of your post it takes up, it's still there.

 

[non_entity]

Bioshock 2 was definitely good, great, but yeah, a lot of the quality of Bioshock 1 was the "new" setting. Bioshock 2 did too little to ... "make up" for the familiarity of the setting.
But I really liked the daughter idea of Bioshock 2, that added a lot for me.

I've got no kids, haven't planned for any anytime soon, hell, I don't even like most kids. But this emotional hook they created really worked for me, I really cared about this character and that's the thing I remember most from Bioshock 2 and what will make me play it again soon.

Also.... I really don't think I can play the asshole route, much as I want to, to play it in a different way. Doing that in Bioshock 1 was hard enough but now even more so.

If they make a new Bioshock game I hope they'll do something like this or something similarly powerful. I don't mind if they move away from Rapture, I'd be happy about it actually. I like Rapture but we've been through the place a lot, going back there again would just be running through the same types of corridors, learning the same plasmids again etc.

I'm sure the innovative heads behind Bioshock 1 can think of something new and cool for Bioshock 3.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I believe what this franchise needs is a departure from its current setting, location and main gameplay elements to make it a stunning success again - effectively rendering 'Bioshock' useless as a franchise for future installments. Just give us a new Shock, Feder... it doesn't have to be a Bio just because the last one was good.

I agree... System Shock - Bioshock - ....shock?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Take-Two could have fixed it, they could have promised it wouldn't be in Bioshock 2(it is, but less severe) and they could have avoided scaring away PC players by not consolising it even more with rubbish multiplayer and embarrassing 'dee-el-see'. They had already discouraged console players by making the first game too cerebral, so apologising and earning back some of the goodwill of PC players was the way to go. They didn't do it though.

Yes, I don't like consoles or console players. You suck.

Enjoy your stay here - It won't last long.

I don't know one person who played Bioshock on console and didn't love it. Take your elitism elsewhere.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[

Well just point out what is wrong with it in terms of what rules I'm breaking and I'll avoid it in the future. You'd be hard-pressed to call it trolling considering it makes up such a small part of my overall post and encroaching consolisation is a common and legitimate concern among a lot of PC gamers.

How about you just avoid calling people 'tards' because they prefer a particular platform? That might give you some hope of not being booted off the forum.

 

[Alar]

I was already hoping that Bioshock 2 wouldn't be in Rapture... the idea of a pre-quel is need, but the story didn't really grab me as much as what I'd hoped would happen: Rapture beasties are attacking small towns on the coast, and you are a detective on a mission to figure out what's going on. Eventually you would find, say, a big submarine or an island with a bunch of Rapture tech on it, where you would get your plasmid fix and find clues to continue your investigation.

 

[L34dP1LL]

I personally didnt like Bioshock that much. For me, it's just a carbon copy of System Shoch 2, not very original. The developers should have noticed this.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

Leaving Rapture would be an epic fail.

Bioshock 2 was mediocre not because of the setting, but because of the presentation. It didn't pull you in like the first one did. There was no connection to care about the events or characters. It felt like the writers were relying completely on hype carried over from the first one.

 

[Kojiro ftt]

I personally didnt like Bioshock that much. For me, it's just a carbon copy of System Shoch 2, not very original. The developers should have noticed this.

Bioshock is a spiritual successor to System Shock, both of which were designed by Kevin Levine. So yeah, I think the developers noticed, since it was on purpose.

 

[Gigaguy64]

I loved both both Games.
I thought BioShock 1 was better Story wise.
And BioShock 2 was better Gameplay wise.

Got to agree with you, I think. I liked BS2, but it wasn't BS1.

BioShock 2 would have been better if it had stayed with the BS1 devs, IMHO. Whilst BS2 was a good game, I expected too much from it and I think that played against it for a lot of people. You expected a new WYK moment, you wanted to learn so much more about Rapture, but it never really happened.

Whilst adding MP was a good idea (and they used another company to do so), I felt it was a bit tacked on, but I suppose it did make the asking price a bit less painful. It was £30 (PC)/£40 (Consoles) for a 6-7hr game, maybe a bit longer if you took your time, explored every nook & cranny and found all audio files. Surely they could have squeezed a few more hours out of it?

But Eleanor Lamb? Mrawr :3

Yea, it should have been longer.
Though i went in knowing it wouldn't be like the first one, and that may be why i like it so much.

I especially liked being able to have your Plasmids AND Weapon equipped at the same time.

And i also agree.
Eleanor was cute.
:3

 

[Tiswas]

I'm not sure. I mean. I played 2 before 1 (because 2 arrived first. Ordered both at the same time.)

I thought 2 was a joke of a game. NO challenge (even on the harder difficulties.) and easy to get 100%

1 was a LOT more better more because the place actually seemed mysterious. You were walking around and saw Big Daddies at other locations. It was pretty awesome.

Saying that. Sinclair is one of my favourite game chars of all time.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Umm, yeah. 2K? I'm just wondering why you felt that you needed a sequel to a game that wrapped up all the loose ends without needing one.

Seriously, does everything have to be a franchise nowadays?