Ive been playing bioshock 2 recently, and i'm dumbfounded as to why it gets such negative reviews, it was a pretty entertaining game in my opinion. As I have not played the first one yet, I am wondering why everybody says it's so much better.
What makes bioshock 2 worse than the first one?
- Thread starter bananazx03
- Start date
It's just more of the same, it's a lot shorter, and it suffers from just plain being a sequal of the first game.
It's a pretty good game on its' own and it's quite fun, but it just feels like it might as well have been added on to the first game (which isn't really too much of a bad thing, but it doesn't share the same feel and wonder you would normally get on your first playthrough in the first game.)
It's a pretty good game on its' own and it's quite fun, but it just feels like it might as well have been added on to the first game (which isn't really too much of a bad thing, but it doesn't share the same feel and wonder you would normally get on your first playthrough in the first game.)
I never heard any bad things about it.
Maybe there complaining about the multiplayer? It was fun but not as lasting as other multiplayer games.
Maybe there complaining about the multiplayer? It was fun but not as lasting as other multiplayer games.
Because there's barely any twists in Bioshock 2. And 1 had a huge ass twist in it. Also, a lot of the story of 1 was introducing you to Rapture, showing you how a paradise turned into disaster and catastrophe, using radio diaries, genetic memory swaps, and just the surroundings. By 2, we were like, we've seen it all before, a lot of story is now no longer new and cool. Also, in 2 a lot of splicers had banded together under Lamb, making it feel a lot less lawless and abandoned.
Though, the plasmids in Bioshock 2 were AMAZING. Finally Ice plasmids were useful once you could freeze and shatter and still collect gear, the ability to wield plasmids with weapons, to dominate bots, etc etc. Great improvement.
Overall, theyre both great games, and while 1 might have had a better story and maybe atmosphere, 2 had much better weapons and gameplay.
Though, the plasmids in Bioshock 2 were AMAZING. Finally Ice plasmids were useful once you could freeze and shatter and still collect gear, the ability to wield plasmids with weapons, to dominate bots, etc etc. Great improvement.
Overall, theyre both great games, and while 1 might have had a better story and maybe atmosphere, 2 had much better weapons and gameplay.
I think we can call it a case of "It's differnet from the first so that means it is bad" opinions by people who will always hate sequels. I haven't played though I'm told it has been dumbed down quite a bit... whatever you think yourself.
The Big Daddy is not as interesting a character, it lost all the intrigue, Sofia Lamb was a worse antagonist than Andrew Ryan because she should have been in the god damn kitchen instead of making a name for herself (jokes, but she just didn't seem as good), the multiplayer was boring, the ending was predictable, and it was WAY too easy.
I thought it was much better than the first.
Then again, I really hated the first. So I'm probably not a good judge.
Then again, I really hated the first. So I'm probably not a good judge.
The story line and how it's told in the first game is much better than how it's handled in the second.
It even ends in a way that makes a sequel feel unnecessary.
Sure, the second one has better combat and powers. But, at the price of a dumbed down story.
It even ends in a way that makes a sequel feel unnecessary.
Sure, the second one has better combat and powers. But, at the price of a dumbed down story.
It was basically everything that BioShock 1 was, minus the incredible story. Nearly everything that happened in it happened in the first one and it was obviously made for a quick buck. I actually really enjoyed it, especially the ending, but the rest of the game was a bit repetitive and nothing we haven't seen before. I still think it was a lot of fun, but it was nothing compared to the original.
Simple, the story.
The first game had a very tight, well written, and very deep story that deconstruted the very idea of a utopia, objectionism, and the world pushed to madness. It was an emotional, chilling tale of two powerful man that are fighting for control of the player that was never slow, dull, didn't leave any hanging plot threads, or badly paced at any point.
Bioshock 2 on the other hand was a sequel that had no loose threads to go on, so had to take the first game and add unmentioned characters, settings, or movements in Rapture that hadn't even been MENTIONED in the first game. It was slow at points, it had to many central characters to developed in a shorter amount of time, filled with more holes they hope Adam would just explain away (the first game didn't even begin to have that problem), and it just doesn't feel true to the original. It did have a few good ideas, like seeing how the little sister sees things and having your choices effect somebody else, but that and the few minor gameplay upgrades didn't make up for the lack luster story.
Not to mention they decided to put that one most hated part of Bioshock across the ENTIRE game.
The first game had a very tight, well written, and very deep story that deconstruted the very idea of a utopia, objectionism, and the world pushed to madness. It was an emotional, chilling tale of two powerful man that are fighting for control of the player that was never slow, dull, didn't leave any hanging plot threads, or badly paced at any point.
Bioshock 2 on the other hand was a sequel that had no loose threads to go on, so had to take the first game and add unmentioned characters, settings, or movements in Rapture that hadn't even been MENTIONED in the first game. It was slow at points, it had to many central characters to developed in a shorter amount of time, filled with more holes they hope Adam would just explain away (the first game didn't even begin to have that problem), and it just doesn't feel true to the original. It did have a few good ideas, like seeing how the little sister sees things and having your choices effect somebody else, but that and the few minor gameplay upgrades didn't make up for the lack luster story.
Not to mention they decided to put that one most hated part of Bioshock across the ENTIRE game.
... This is a joke, right?
Let's see...
Gameplay-wise, you can only carry 5 medkits and eve hypos instead of 9.
Your health, despite being in an armored diving suit, is a JOKE.
Little Sisters are worse than in the first game
Remember how the levels in Bioshock 1 encouraged exploration, and even let you return to levels later in the game in case you missed something? Yeah... they kind of got rid of that.
Plot wise:
So many retcons stuffed in it makes the star-wars prequels look probable
You're a big daddy who can't even take a few revolver bullets despite having an arsenal big enough to supply a good deal of splicers
Vita-Chamber use. Plot fail.
Multiplayer:
...
(Rips controller in half)
Let's see...
Gameplay-wise, you can only carry 5 medkits and eve hypos instead of 9.
Your health, despite being in an armored diving suit, is a JOKE.
Little Sisters are worse than in the first game
Remember how the levels in Bioshock 1 encouraged exploration, and even let you return to levels later in the game in case you missed something? Yeah... they kind of got rid of that.
Plot wise:
So many retcons stuffed in it makes the star-wars prequels look probable
You're a big daddy who can't even take a few revolver bullets despite having an arsenal big enough to supply a good deal of splicers
Vita-Chamber use. Plot fail.
Multiplayer:
...
(Rips controller in half)
seriously? I pity all who forked out for it then. Nothing worse than paying just released price for a bargain bin game.AjimboB said:
The first one played out better in my opinion. I hated Lamb and felt that she was just another cultist with no real conflict in Rapture.
In Bioshock 1, there was a civil war between the ADAM addcited supporters of Fontaine and the ADAM addicted supporters of Andrew Ryan. That worked extremely well in my opinion and every area in Bioshock 1 felt creepy and unique. Bioshock 2's level just felt lack luster to me.
The only real improvement in Bioshock 2 that I saw was the upgraded plasmids. Now instead of a Slightly more powerful thunder bolt, I can shoot a constant stream of it from my hands.
In Bioshock 1, there was a civil war between the ADAM addcited supporters of Fontaine and the ADAM addicted supporters of Andrew Ryan. That worked extremely well in my opinion and every area in Bioshock 1 felt creepy and unique. Bioshock 2's level just felt lack luster to me.
The only real improvement in Bioshock 2 that I saw was the upgraded plasmids. Now instead of a Slightly more powerful thunder bolt, I can shoot a constant stream of it from my hands.
I will say now before I get (if I get) flamed. I liked them both. Maybe not equally but I certainly didn't dislike either of them. The only reason why I found Bioshock 2 to be not quite as good as the original was that you were playing a big daddy. For me that took away all fear which I had when I was wondering around as a squishy human in th original. However they made up with this by giving you one big ass drill as well as lots of other little things.
I think the atmosphere plays a big part in why Bioshock 1 is liked more then the second one.
The first one has you arrive in Rapture via a plane crash and being the only survivor. Through out my first play-through of Bio 1, I was constantly on edge, flailing away with my wrench and spewing fireballs as I scrambled madly to avoid the Splicers. In Bio 2, seeing as I was a walking tank with a huge drill, the sense of scrambling madly and the sheer thrill of taking down a Big Daddy and saving a Little Sister[footnote]I always rescue. Always.[/footnote] was not the same as Bio 1, where I had near as makes no difference low ammo, low EVE and low health which made the experience all that more buttock clenching. In Bio 2, there was no real butt clenching moments apart from the Big Sister attacks and maybe
Another plus Bio 1 has over Bio 2 is the 'bad' guys. Bio 1 has a two really notable ones, Andrew Ryan, obviously being the main bad guy and an interesting character with a sweet accent who has some motive and also Sander Cohen. Just as it's Cohen, plus he's quite fucking insane. One of the audio diaries you find around Fort Frolic, his poem about bunny ears, is a real WTF? moment. It made 0.o due to its nature. Plus, the story makes you wonder if Ryan is really a bad guy or not. But seeing as I didn't really grasp the story all that well and I am currently replaying it to catch up, I may have missed something before. In Bio 2, you got Sophia Lamb. That's it. You don't learn much about her history, or at least I didn't whilst playing, and she is instantly dislikeable to me. Plus she's English. Why are English people always bad guys, we are a nice country! Anyway, Lamb is an OK bad guy, while Ryan and Cohen as 'bad' guys are quite superb due to insanity/goals that make you wonder.
And as mentioned above by Ryokai in this post on this very thread, the story in Bio 2 doesn't have any OMGWTF?! moments unlike Bio 1, which had a lot.
But all that said, I don't think Bio 2 is bad. It's really very good and I had a blast playing it. It's just that Bio 1 was a very unique experience for me and nothing in Bio 2 topped/really matched it.
Plus there is also the feeling of many people saying that it is 'More of the same.'
Well, of course it will feel like that, it's a sequel and most sequels I've played tend to be more of the same with a few game-play tweaks, new weaponry and a shiner coat of paint
Oh, and OP, you really should have played Bio 1 first.
You're missing out on a lot. And, apart from around this site, I haven't seen that much hate towards it.
[sup]Did I actually answer the OPs question at all there?[/sup]
The first one has you arrive in Rapture via a plane crash and being the only survivor. Through out my first play-through of Bio 1, I was constantly on edge, flailing away with my wrench and spewing fireballs as I scrambled madly to avoid the Splicers. In Bio 2, seeing as I was a walking tank with a huge drill, the sense of scrambling madly and the sheer thrill of taking down a Big Daddy and saving a Little Sister[footnote]I always rescue. Always.[/footnote] was not the same as Bio 1, where I had near as makes no difference low ammo, low EVE and low health which made the experience all that more buttock clenching. In Bio 2, there was no real butt clenching moments apart from the Big Sister attacks and maybe
Another plus Bio 1 has over Bio 2 is the 'bad' guys. Bio 1 has a two really notable ones, Andrew Ryan, obviously being the main bad guy and an interesting character with a sweet accent who has some motive and also Sander Cohen. Just as it's Cohen, plus he's quite fucking insane. One of the audio diaries you find around Fort Frolic, his poem about bunny ears, is a real WTF? moment. It made 0.o due to its nature. Plus, the story makes you wonder if Ryan is really a bad guy or not. But seeing as I didn't really grasp the story all that well and I am currently replaying it to catch up, I may have missed something before. In Bio 2, you got Sophia Lamb. That's it. You don't learn much about her history, or at least I didn't whilst playing, and she is instantly dislikeable to me. Plus she's English. Why are English people always bad guys, we are a nice country! Anyway, Lamb is an OK bad guy, while Ryan and Cohen as 'bad' guys are quite superb due to insanity/goals that make you wonder.
And as mentioned above by Ryokai in this post on this very thread, the story in Bio 2 doesn't have any OMGWTF?! moments unlike Bio 1, which had a lot.
The entire Atlas/Fontaine [sp?]/Ryan plot twist I didn't see coming, along with the mystery behind the phrase 'Would You Kindly?' are just a few prime examples.
But all that said, I don't think Bio 2 is bad. It's really very good and I had a blast playing it. It's just that Bio 1 was a very unique experience for me and nothing in Bio 2 topped/really matched it.
Plus there is also the feeling of many people saying that it is 'More of the same.'
Well, of course it will feel like that, it's a sequel and most sequels I've played tend to be more of the same with a few game-play tweaks, new weaponry and a shiner coat of paint
Ryokai said:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Splicers under Ryans control in Bio 1?
I distinctly remember, when waiting for the Lazarus...whats-a-majig to kick in and het rid of the gas in Arcadia, I think, Atlas said 'Ryan's sending his Splicers after you!' or something to that effect which suggest to me Ryan had some form of control over them. But I may have totally misunderstood that.
I distinctly remember, when waiting for the Lazarus...whats-a-majig to kick in and het rid of the gas in Arcadia, I think, Atlas said 'Ryan's sending his Splicers after you!' or something to that effect which suggest to me Ryan had some form of control over them. But I may have totally misunderstood that.
Oh, and OP, you really should have played Bio 1 first.
You're missing out on a lot. And, apart from around this site, I haven't seen that much hate towards it.
[sup]Did I actually answer the OPs question at all there?[/sup]