What Was The Problem With Bioshock 2?

[RJ 17]

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.

As for Lamb: I thought it was quite clear what her motivations were the entire time. She's the antithesis of Ryan. Ryan said that the only person you need worry about is yourself. Earn what YOU make. Keep what YOU earn. Never let anyone censor your ideals or your dreams. Lamb, on the other hand, was a collectivist (as labled in one of Ryan's audio recordings). She believes that all people should work towards the common good. That in order achieve Utopia, we must first become Utopians. And the way you become Utopians is by utterly foresaking the notion of your Self and completely surrendering to the "common good". This is what she was trying to turn Eleanor into. It's what Alex the Great failed to become.

Speaking of Alex, I do agree that Cohen was creepier than Alex. But come on, Cohen made sculptures out of the living and the dead. At least Alex certainly was crazier (i.e. loonier) than Cohen. Though I always loved the part where Cohen's got the guy playing piano...on a piano loaded with dynomite.

But I found Lamb to be just as compelling through her own lens as Ryan was through his. As I said: they were made to be complete opposites of one another. Think of it as the two clashing stereotypes of the ultra-conservative business man vs. the tree-hugging hippie.

As for the notion that Infinite will be the sequel that Bioshock 2 should have been. I can understand that. However there's only so many unique places to build a city. City in the ocean: check. City in the sky: check. Space has been done, land has obviously been done. Where too next? One of the common complaints I've noticed popping up is the notion that one of Bioshock 2's biggest failings was simply that it was set back in Rapture. Yeah, it'd be great to see a new place, and Infinite will deliver this, but where else could they go? Just how many super-secret cities in unthinkable locations filled with psychotic super-powered freaks can there be?

 

[SlaveNumber23]

The story didn't really live up to the first game. In my opinion the second had the superior gameplay though.

 

[Mikejames]

She believes that all people should work towards the common good. That in order achieve Utopia, we must first become Utopians. And the way you become Utopians is by utterly foresaking the notion of your Self and completely surrendering to the "common good". This is what she was trying to turn Eleanor into. It's what Alex the Great failed to become.

Still not sure about her return to Rapture after not being important enough in the first game. It wasn't like Ryan, staring mournfully at the decrepit wreck his utopia had become, it was someone trying to take over whatever sinking salvage was left of it. Plus, why combine Rapture's minds considering its clientele? Chalk it up to her being crazy I suppose.

Speaking of Alex, I do agree that Cohen was creepier than Alex. But come on, Cohen made sculptures out of the living and the dead. At least Alex certainly was crazier (i.e. loonier) than Cohen. Though I always loved the part where Cohen's got the guy playing piano...on a piano loaded with dynomite.

Well he was less subtle about being loony. That was something interesting about Cohen, he didn't want to kill you for the heck of it, just for his artistic integrity.

Yeah, it'd be great to see a new place, and Infinite will deliver this, but where else could they go? Just how many super-secret cities in unthinkable locations filled with psychotic super-powered freaks can there be?

Hmm.. Well space isn't impossible, though it'd have to leave any steampunk themes. Underground? Not good enough.. Unless in a volcano. A different world entirely? Again, more sci-fi, but you could do anything you want with the setting.

Another sequel isn't mandatory of course, but tis an interesting thought.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

It's not the game or even the quality of the story so much that I have an issue as a firm belief I hold: Stories should know when to end. Bioshock was all very self contained with not really any sequel threads to pull at. The antagonists were dead and rapture was pretty much fucked. Then it became shockingly successful and there must be an attempt to cash in on that. If they did a Bioshock Infinite style idea, take a similar concept and do something else with it, I'd absolutely love that. It's why Bioshock Infinite is one of my more anticipated games.

 

[daveman247]

where else?

another system shock could be cool...

they could go underground maybe? only red faction has really done that. But that may be to close to underwater...


OT: I enjoyed bioshock 2 more. It suffered from the deus ex/ dead space syndrome.

deus: The first was so good that the second had trouble improveing upon its story. The bar was waaaaaay high.

Dead space: The monsters and setting were fresh, new and unknown. You had no idea what monster was gonna come up next. The second lost that edge (but was still really good).

Bioshock had many gameplay problems, but hid them easily with the fresh setting.

Bioshock 2 easily had better gameplay (better weapons, upgrades, general combat, etc) and i really liked the little sister defence bits. It was a place i could try all my new toys, hooray bee cyclones ^_^

The story was still quite good and the endings were much, MUCH better. The endings in the first were disappointing to say the least.

 

[Bobic]

Bioshock 2: Goddamn did they make ADAM gathering annoying. In Bioshock 1 it's kill Big Daddie, get ADAM. In Bioshock 2 it's kill Big Daddie, escort little sister to a body (and not just any body, specific ones randomly littered about the map), defend her for ages while random splicers constantly charge at her, then repeat this one or two more times, then escort little sister to vent, then possibly fight Big Sister. Jesus that got old, and I know I could have just killed the little sister but I'm one of those people who try to be morally just towards a bunch of stupid ones and zeros. Also, I could have skipped some of the ADAM but I don't like missing out on anything that could come in useful later in games, which is especially dumb, since I stopped playing the game long before it looked like coming to a close, and don't give a damn. (Bioshock infinite looks awesome though).

That Adam gathering completely killed the game for me, it was incredibly tedious.

And to justify this post I'll add a couple of nitpicks

Awkwardly shoehorning in Ryan's exclamation that Lamb was the biggest threat rapture had faced or whatever it was, just felt fake, really awkward and. . . well, sequelly

Playing as a big daddy also seemed dumb. It seemed like a decision made by marketing, rather than a writer (I don't know if this was the case though). 'Hey, people liked big Daddies right? Well what if, I hope you're sitting down for this, what if this time you play as a Big Daddy!' They were shambling monstrosities of little thought, they aren't meant to have a personality (even the little personality granted by player controlled silent protags). To paraphrase Yahtzee 'they may aswell have you playing as a vending machine in Bioshock 3')

But it was mainly the painfully dull and repetitive ADAM gathering mechanic. ugh.

There were some alright gameplay improvements though. No more pipedream, yippee.

 

[Baron_Rouge]

I loved it. Even better than the first one, in my opinion. Just as atmospheric, more fun to play, and with a very solid story that rivalled that of the first.

 

[Joccaren]

Gameplay:
Far better than the originals. Duel wielding both a Plasmid and a Weapon at once was needed, as was the filming camera rather than taking still shots, and all round it was a smoother and more enjoyable experience. And little sister harvesting was fun.
Story:
On par with BS1. It was a different kind of story, but it was executed just as well. There was no great twist, but it was more emotional and personal instead.
Atmosphere:
Not as great as 1's. BS1 really mastered the dystopian feel to Rapture, made it feel like a madhouse, and really engaged me. #2 got me more with the characters, but the city itself didn't feel as atmospheric. I get 2 went for a different atmosphere to one, I just don't think it pulled it off as well. It was still good though.

 

[Zhukov]

It was a pointless retread tacked onto the end of an already completed story.

It was actually a decent game in its own right, but it didn't hold a candle to the original.

 

[daveman247]

snip

Well they couldnt have you playing as a survivor/ newcomer again could they?

Playing as a splicer slowly going mad would have been cool though. Like in the multiplayer, but explored more

 

[luckshotpro]

Pros:
-Dual wielding weapons and plasmids was fun.
-Secondary characters were still very interesting.
-I enjoyed the new weapons.
Cons:
-The ending of the first game was so tight and contained that the very idea of a sequel was unnecessary at best and insulting at worst.
-Bioshock 1 needed to have Vita Chambers every 10 feet because the enemies posed much more of a threat, whereas Bioshock 2 was insultingly easy.
-Adam was much more plentiful which virtually eliminated the tough upgrade decisions from the first game.
-Defending the Little Sister was an absolute chore.
-The plot was a little too convenient.
-The inability to backtrack was an unnecessary step backwards.
-Playing as a Big Daddy didn't feel any different from playing as Jack

 

[RJ 17]

From what I can tell, there's no major plot-holes to speak of

Well, I can think of a couple.

The Vita-Chambers are a massive plot-hole in the sense that they can bring anyone back to life. This presumably would include Ryan, since the chambers are initially keyed to his DNA.
Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of Lamb's "Ryan is dead!" PA announcements.

Also, at the end of the first game, Rapture is leaking like a sieve. So to return ~8 years later, and find the place still inhabitable is a bit of a stretch.

Actually I'm pretty sure they explained why the Vita-Chambers didn't bring Ryan back to life. I think it was Ryan, himself, that made it so that he wouldn't be brought back to life. Part of his whole "If I'm going down, I'm going down on my own terms" motif. Think he turned the closest one to his office off or something, leaving him out of range of the next closest rezz tube.

As for the leaks, I can see what you mean. About the only counter I could offer was that you do see Big Daddies wandering around outside, some appear to be doing repairs. While it's doubtful they'd ever manage to fully rebuild Rapture, they've apparently been doing a good enough job to prevent it from "sinking".

 

[ksn0va]

You are supposed to be a big daddy yet your character feels just like some random dude.

 

[Kermi]

I found it kind of dull except for the parts where you have to protect the little sister while she's harvesting, and those bits I just didn't enjoy.

Don't know why exactly. It wasn't a bad game, it just didn't engage me. It just didn't register on my care meter.

 

[wings012]

I liked poking things with a giant drill.

Bioshock 2 was enjoyable for me, but not on the same level of Bioshock 1. Going back to the same old rapture, the story wasn't as cool. I enjoyed the refinements to the combat all the same - dual use of plasmids and weapons and all that.

Overall it felt like a very unnecessary sequel. At the end of the first Bioshock, there really isn't a whole lot more to tell. Then Bioshock 2 kinda introduces a whole new lot of people, elevates their importance and just stretches things out.

 

[Denamic]

Technically, it was a better game than Bioshock 1. It's just that the magic was gone for the second one. Well, not gone. 'Depleted,' more like. It was more of the same, really. Better, sure, but ultimately the same.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I rather quite liked both, to this day I've only beaten 3 games in one sitting, Bioshocks 1 and 2 (To the dismay of my xbox which at times sounded like it was trying to take off, as well as my eyes which at one point may have begun bleeding) and Black Ops (because my mom picked it up and I didn't want to seem ungrateful).

The writing in both games was very good, yes Bioshock 2's writing wasn't as good but that's like saying you don't like a perfectly good movie because it wasn't as good as Schindler's List. On the upside 2 had better gameplay and for me was much more fun. All in all I'd say they were both equally good.

But then I've been wrong before.

 

[NeutralDrow]

The way you describe Bioshock 2 makes it sound pretty good, and I regret missing it for $10.

To be honest, I liked the way the first Bioshock played, but I was far from impressed with the story. "Would you kindly" was kind of interesting, but people keep playing up that scene and Andrew Ryan as having some kind of depth and power to it. I saw it as me hunting down and killing a hypocritical jackass who stood between me and freedom, and who I'd seen kill people for no good reason...

Spoiler

And then the bastard had the absolute gall to steal my kill. "A man chooses, a slave obeys," he says, while ordering me to kill him with his riding crop. It was basically the suicidal equivalent of "You can't fire me, I QUIT!" I had a crossbow bolt with his name on it, dammit.

I never really felt it as a horror game, either. Even aside from the Vita-Chambers, I just became pretty powerful and confident as Wrench Man, Destroyer of Splicers, and even Big Daddies went down pretty easy once I got the crossbow.

Really, the one thing I unequivocally liked in the first game was the little sisters, so Bioshock 2 sounds right up my alley.

 

[LetalisK]

I'll add my voice to this echo chamber. Bioshock 2 was a pretty good game...following an incredible game.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Sofia, like Andrew Ryan in the first game, has a driving idea that makes her goals ethically problematic. With Ryan, it was the freedom to profit from your work without intervention ? basically, he was a teabagger, which meant that most with a cursory interest in politics could identify with the game ? either with him, or against him. Lamb offers no such easy way in.

The central conceit in Bioshock 2 isn?t freedom but free will. That?s why it?s a little more difficult ? the typical person?s response to ?should we have free will?? is ?yes, you idiot?. It?s just one of those common-sense things. Life without free will is pointless. Except Lamb doesn?t think so.

Lamb has Eleanor in her custody, and she is using her in an attempt to create the first ?Utopian? ? a multi-talented beacon of excellence with no questions about sacrificing her identity or self in the process. It?s here that things are a little more complicated. The Utopian Eleanor won?t have self-doubt, an apathetic nature, nor will she be prone to violence or sadness. All she lacks is the desire for autonomy ? aside from that, she is being conditioned to be at her happiest when she?s controlled, a willing slave.

I don?t know about you, but I love stuff like this. The really interesting ethical issues are the ones that make you cringe ? where you?re forced to consider the merits of a viewpoint that just seems wrong. That was one thing Bioshock didn?t have ? from the very beginning, you were either with Andrew Ryan?s ideals or against them, and the plot was largely separate. In Bioshock 2, the fact that the ending relies so heavily on your choices makes sense; Eleanor?s impressionable mind is learning from your actions with every single step, and if you fuck up, then she will too when the time comes.

That morally murky territory is made muddier by the fact that the place you explore is the burning husk of a monument to liberty; it?s a perfect example of how the individualist passions of greedy men can tear a place apart. Bioshock 2, like its predecessor, does not deal in moderation. You?re being asked by the villain to support total submission of the self in a ruined playground that worshipped the individual.

http://www.csicon.org/what-does-it-mean-to-be-free-in-defence-of-bioshock-2/

says it all really

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz4AXklTY2M&HD=1