What Was The Problem With Bioshock 2?

[RJ 17]

Saw Bioshock 2 on sale for $10 the other day and figured "Eh, why the hell not?" and picked it up. This would be the 2nd time that I've bought the game, having gotten it, played it, and enjoyed it when it first came out only to eventually trade it in towards something else many months down the line.

That said, I do recall a lot of people criticizing the game, saying it wasn't nearly as good as the first one. What exactly were those complaints again? I recall one being "it's not nearly as scary as the first game." Well really I didn't find the first game to be all that scary since those hand-dandy respawn chambers literally take the fear of death away from the player. Got your ass kicked by that Big Daddy? No worries, just go find him again with however much health you left him with and finish the job. Though to that point, I do agree with most people's notion that playing as a Big Daddy lessened the scariness. It's hard to get frightened when your character - the vessel for your immersion - is one of the iconic big badasses that is one of the most recognizable images of the franchise. Indeed, it's tough to get scared when according to the story you know you were built to be a nigh-indestructible killing machine.

But that aside, I personally think that Bioshock 2 is one of the rare examples of a sequel whose story doesn't directly play off the first game's story yet it's as good, possibly a little better than the first game's story. Really the only thing the first game has to do with the second is that they both take place in Rapture and the end of the first came created a power vacuum that allowed Lamb to take control. Beyond that, it's a whole new chapter.

The first game was a good mystery as you play a surface-dweller unwittingly forced into Rapture and you gradually learn the secrets about the truth of your past and why you were destined to come to Rapture and take out the bad guys. The second game is about a prototype Big Daddy desperately seeking to be reuinited with the Little Sister he had been specifically bonded to. Despite the fact that this bond was forced upon the Big Daddy and the Little Sister, there is still a love between the two. They would do anything to be reunited with one another and I, for one, felt an emotional response to the emotional connection between the two.

So, strictly from a story point of view (which I've heard a lot of critics say the story is one of the game's weakest points), what was so bad about Bioshock 2? From what I can tell, there's no major plot-holes to speak of, the flow of the story is good, I feel the use of the audio recordings is a great way to intermingle story-telling with gameplay, and other than being a bit short I thought the story was pretty solid.

Captcha: "Mom and Dad". Wow, I've had some that were topic-appropriate, but this one's dead-on.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I think it may have been criticized (rightly or wrongly) because it didn't have anything as memorable as the "Would you kindly?" moment that the first game had. Or the human quote-giving machine that is Andrew Ryan.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It was too much like the first one in terms of gameplay and surroundings, but without the WOW factor the first one had, without the clever story and awesome characters and their awesome quotes. Seeing Rapture for the first time was magical. There was none of that in Bioshock 2. And playing as a Big Daddy was stupid. The game was not immersive at all. And I didn't care about the story either. Unlike in Bioshock 1 where I just had to know what's gonna happen next and what lies behind the next door. I actually played Bioshock for 12 hours straight. It is to this day the only game that managed to pull me in like that. It's not my favorite game of all time, but for some reason I couldn't stop playing it and I completely lost the track of time.

 

[mParadox]

On its own, it's a pretty damn good game.

But as it stands, a sequel to Bioshock, it just doesn't have the wow factor. Sure you can walk in the water now, but it would've been way more cooler if you actually did something while outside Rapture.

 

[aguspal]

I am not sure.

My opinion: While I belive that 1 is better (And its not even by much difference mind you), 2 is also a very good game. It was slower paced than 1 IMO, that kind of killed it a little bit... but not by much. By the end, it was around the pace 1 had (A good thing).

 

[skywolfblue]

I rather loved Bioshock 2, so you won't see too many complaints from me. Combat blows the first one away, Lamb is the villain Fontaine should have been.

It is a tad short, but I'd rather have short and sweet then long and tedious (as some parts of bioshock 1 got).

 

[Shadowstar38]

Overblown expectations make it look worse than it is. When someone REALLY loves a game, the sequel has to be twice as amazing or everyone thinks it's shit.

Gameplay wise, 2 is better. Story wise, it's meh. Also, big daddies were terrorfiying powerhouses in the first game. They made you play as one yet you still feel as week as the human you play in the first game. That's just wrong.

 

[hermes]

Because it wasn't fresh. To be fair, there was no way the game would have the praise and impact of the first one. Rapture was an incredible place to explore, and the second one was just "more Rapture".

There were a lot of expectations about what the "would you kindly?" moment would be in 2 and people were disappointed that it didn't really had one (I still believe the ending is pretty good and way above the average of the genre, and a WYK moment would have been cheap).

Also, one of the best things of Bioshock was that it was neatly crafted. Everything in the first one was there to tell a part of the story. There was little to no room in the mythology to build a sequel, so it felt weird that a whole section of Rapture (and an adversary Ryan calls "more dangerous than Fontaine") would be overlooked.

Finally, it is extremely repetitive. The whole game progress was: Collect Little Sister -> Harvest Adam -> Harvest Adam (again) -> Rescue Little Sister -> Repeat 3 times -> Fight Big Sister. Of course, there were more things to do in between, but the whole progression was based on that flow which could be interesting one or two times, but you were asked to do it almost ten times.

It wasn't all that bad... It had its moments and the combat was way better than the first one. But trying to live up to the expectations of the original was too hard for anyone.

PS: If you liked Bioshock 2, make sure to play Minerva's Den. Its pretty self contained (it don't assume you finished the game), its a more compact experience and the writing is superb.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the first one was quite the shocker with the brand new world and ideas behind it, second one couldn't pull that off anymore, everything they did was equal or worse which makes the end package feel much inferior.

And yes the combat got smoother but it wasn't countered with a more challenging setup so you just creamed enemies and this once creepy highly atmospheric place was starting to dissipate it's magic all together.

 

[RJ 17]

I think it may have been criticized (rightly or wrongly) because it didn't have anything as memorable as the "Would you kindly?" moment that the first game had. Or the human quote-giving machine that is Andrew Ryan.

You know, that's a very good point that I hadn't thought of. Towards the end of the first game when you finally start finding out about your past, you had just recently heard of "Would You Kindly" and next thing you know Ryan is telling you to bash his face in. Gotta say that really is a very powerful scene, I'd dare say one of the more powerful scenes I've seen in any game recently. And really, there's nothing that powerful in the second game.

And while not nearly as signifigant as WYK, I still like wandering around in the magical, enchanted world that the Little Sisters think they live in.

Also, one of the best things of Bioshock was that it was neatly crafted. Everything in the first one was there to tell a part of the story. There was little to no room in the mythology to build a sequel, so it felt weird that a whole section of Rapture (and an adversary Ryan calls "more dangerous than Fontaine") would be overlooked.

I understand what you're talking about, but to be fair, according to a number of the recordings, Lamb was imprisoned during the events of the first game, and Ryan had assumed that she was a problem that had officially been delt with, no longer his concern. As such, he could turn his focus on "Atlas".

Finally, it is extremely repetitive. The whole game progress was: Collect Little Sister -> Harvest Adam -> Harvest Adam (again) -> Rescue Little Sister -> Repeat 3 times -> Fight Big Sister. Of course, there were more things to do in between, but the whole progression was based on that flow which could be interesting one or two times, but you were asked to do it almost ten times.

By that measure, couldn't the first game be just as repetative? I don't know about you, but the first thing I did in both games was hunt down the Big Daddies once I had made it to a new area. Literally the only difference between that aspect of both games is the 2nd one makes you defend the Little Sister twice while the first game just gave'em to you.

 

[hermes]

Also, one of the best things of Bioshock was that it was neatly crafted. Everything in the first one was there to tell a part of the story. There was little to no room in the mythology to build a sequel, so it felt weird that a whole section of Rapture (and an adversary Ryan calls "more dangerous than Fontaine") would be overlooked.

I understand what you're talking about, but to be fair, according to a number of the recordings, Lamb was imprisoned during the events of the first game, and Ryan had assumed that she was a problem that had officially been delt with, no longer his concern. As such, he could turn his focus on "Atlas".

True but, also according to the recordings, she was a mayor player in the history of Rapture before she was captured; being one of the reasons for Ryan to justify its growing violent approach to the management of Rapture, the creation of poor neighborhoods, making an impact on Tenembaum and the proliferation of the addictive abuse of Adam by the masses; and yet, nothing is ever mentioned about her. Characters go to great length to explain how they made the drainage work underwater, but not a word of "Ryan's biggest rival"? I know it can't be expected to be left hanging in the first one for the possibility of a sequel, but the first one was so tight than adding stuff over it just cheapened it.

Finally, it is extremely repetitive. The whole game progress was: Collect Little Sister -> Harvest Adam -> Harvest Adam (again) -> Rescue Little Sister -> Repeat 3 times -> Fight Big Sister. Of course, there were more things to do in between, but the whole progression was based on that flow which could be interesting one or two times, but you were asked to do it almost ten times.

By that measure, couldn't the first game be just as repetative? I don't know about you, but the first thing I did in both games was hunt down the Big Daddies once I had made it to a new area. Literally the only difference between that aspect of both games is the 2nd one makes you defend the Little Sister twice while the first game just gave'em to you.

Yes, the first one was also repetitive, but the difference was that the cycle of repetition was much shorter and less frequent. You killed 3 or 4 big daddies, rescued their little sisters and it was done; while here, for each little sister, you had 2 or 3 harvests (which feel more like an easy tower defense game, since they can't die), and then you fight with the big sister, in every single area. Simply put, as a mechanism, it overstated its welcome...

In the end, the point is, in the first one, Rapture felt like nothing before, a mysterious place built to be explored by the player. In the second one, it felt like they had nothing else to say, but they bent over backwards to use Rapture, the Big Daddies, Tenembaum, the audio logs and everything else because it was expected from a sequel. It was a difficult position to be in, and I think they did an admirable job, all things considered; but in the end result, it showed...

 

[jamesworkshop]

Bioshock 2 for me was quite a step up from bioshock 1, the story felt more connected to me as the protagonist second by second, all the interesting stuff in bio1 happened to other people before you got there, it lacks motivation.

Handyman tonic, it's what I always wanted.

It's a much more replayable game, the sisters and survivors were more nuanced as to how eleanor changes in game and the ending sequences(delta, sisters, lamb, eleanor)

The plasmid, tonic, gun combos made one of the most varied metagames in any fps i've ever played, it made bioshock 1 look like Doom compared to Deus ex, just getting cyclone trap to lvl 2 made almost every other plasmid even more valuable.

Enemys in terms of variety/numbers was greatly improved.

Research camcorder FTW.

The little sister harvesting was an inspired idea, a good reason to use the more trap type toys, made you pay attention to the environment and study it which also comes into effect when deciding where to fight the big sister on the map, it was like tower defense but built into the game-world rather than a out of place mini game like assassins creed revelations did.

F yeah

 

[Best of the 3]

Personally I found the tension to be lacking. Bioshock you play a man. Just a man. You're up against creatures more powerful, stronger, faster, possibly smarter than you. You are just a man. Squishy, easily killed. This gave all those little noises in the background some gravitas and really added to the feel of the game. Bioshock 2, you play a hulking Big Daddy. You're reminded about this every time you walk, when you hear the "thud thud thud thud" of your boots. You have a built in drill arm and guns up the gazoo. It made the game feel less of a tense almost horror/action game, into a more thriller/action game. I felt like I could rip a hole straight through Rapture, and to me was what was "wrong" with Bioshock 2.

Still did enjoy it though. It was a good game to me.

 

[CityofTreez]

There's nothing wrong with it.

The big thing is that we had already been to Rapture so the "newness" is knocked off. A little big of 'been there done that".

They're both very good games, and if Bio2 was judged as a stand alone game instead of being compared to the first one, it would probably be reviewed better.

 

[octafish]

Because all that Bioshock had going for it was Rapture. It was a mechanically lacklustre shooter, and Bioshock 2 was much better, however the lack of newness is what hurt the game.

Myself, I preferred Bioshock 2 because the game-play was tighter and had more emergent combat style, particularly the harvesting. Bioshock was extremely regimented in its encounters. Also Bioshock 2 actually seemed to step outside the shadow of System Shock a couple of times, something that Bioshock failed to do entirely.

Basically, despite being a superior playing experience, it felt like it had been done before, and I agree. I have never played either game twice, but at least I finished Bioshock 2.

 

[Doclector]

On its own, it's a pretty damn good game.

But as it stands, a sequel to Bioshock, it just doesn't have the wow factor. Sure you can walk in the water now, but it would've been way more cooler if you actually did something while outside Rapture.

Agreed.

I did like how it showed the flipside. If Bioshock 1's rapture was the extreme capitalist nightmare, with the notion of dog eat dog ruling society and a rich upper class trying to keep that position by putting down the lower class citizens, bioshock 2's rapture was the extreme communist nightmare, with individuality giving way to a mass insanity.

In this way, Bioshock's social commentary goes from simply "capitalism is bad" to a more specific "extremes are bad".

I liked some of the little touches elaborating on rapture's mythology. Through the audio tapes and some of the more memorable segments, we got more detail on the characters of Ryan and Fontaine. The section in which you see what a little sister sees was cool, and showed how your actions determined the little sister's thinking.

All in all, it couldn't have hoped to beat bioshock 1, but it holds it's own.

 

[Risingblade]

I found it superior to the first game in every single way. I felt more connected to the main character, and found the story much more enjoyable. The new weapons were nice too. The big sisters now those were some good boss fights. Much more enjoyable than big daddies.

 

[Mikejames]

I thought the game some decent moments, like Eleanor's character and the whole dreamlike Little Sister hallucination, but it didn't have the drive or atmosphere the first game had.

Lamb wasn't as compelling as Ryan, nor did I understand her motivation for wanting to reclaim the leaking hole of psychotics.

Alex the Great wasn't as creepy as Sander Cohen.

Playing as Super-Big-Daddy didn't have much tension, so they compensated by padding out helping Little Sisters with wave after wave of splicers and Big Sisters.
It got tedious, didn't really stand up on its own merits.

If you want to know what was wrong with Bioshock 2, just look at the upcoming Bioshock Infinite.

Agreed. Taking the original idea to a new setting, concept, and story, is what a sequel for Bioshock needs.