Why does everyone love Bioshock?

[Zakarath]

Yeah, it was pretty meh. The Game is stupidly easy because of Vita-Chambers (which removes the survival concerns from what is supposedly a partly survival-horror game), and the plot is pretty bleh, too.
If, like me, you don't give a damn about objectivism apart from getting vaguely irritated about it, the plot is pretty much just running tiresome errands for NPCs you don't care about. And Having only a handful of sane NPCs that pretty much INVARIABLY died the moment you actually met them got pretty old.

The art style was okay, I guess.

 

[AFnord]

Fallout had a good story?

Funny, the one reason I hated the games was because there stories were drawn out messes.

Secondly, nostalgia really takes it's hold on you in cases like this. There is a reason that games are being "dumbed down".

It makes them better. It makes the basic mechanics more deeply integrated into the game while getting rid of the ones that people seemed to have forgotten were tedious and mundane

No, it does not make the games better, it makes them more accessible. Better for the masses, possibly, and worse for us who are willing to (and even wants to) spend some time learning the ins and outs of the games system. One of the most rewarding games that I've played in recent years was Victoria 2, a game that you really had to spend some time with in order to learn how to actually play the game. It was not accessible, but it was fun (it was also very scaleable, so you could automise the parts that you did not want to deal with). And what about Dwarf Fortress? These don't have such a wide appeal, but for us who are willing to spend some time with our games, they are just amazing (oh, and how about Wizardry? I just recently played through Wizardry 5 for the first time, with no nostalgia attached, and I loved it far more than any modern CRPG).

I agree with you about the story in Fallout though, none of the fallout games had a particularly good story. 3 was the worst offender of the lot, but not by a wide margin.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

RECIPE FOR POPULAR THREAD

1. Pick popular and/or critically revered game.
2. Make thread saying "Why does everyone love (GAME)"?
3. Make generic, nebulously worded argument supporting your dislike for said game.
4. If challenged on your sketchy critical analysis, fall back on timeworn. "IT IS MY OPINION" defense.
5. Express desire to hear other opinions, then furiously debate those which are different from yours to bump the thread.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Because it's one of the few games out there to take a genuine, intelligent look at its underlying mechanics and it's nature as a game.

While a game like Mass Effect or Fallout 3 have a huge story that's interesting to take in, the problem is that they're blissfully ignorant of their limitations as a medium. Fallout 3 and Mass Effect both try to present moral dilemmas. However, for the most part, all the games have to say is "hey! isn't it cool to be a bad ass and save the world?" Despite all of the nominal freedom in Mass Effect and Fallout 3, the player is ultimately
unable to control how they ultimately act.

Contrast this with Bioshock. The game has all of the trapping of choice and freedom, but the player is ultimately limited. Even the game's nominal moral choice is ultimately meaningless, as the player gets roughly the same benefits. Aside from this, the game, being a shooter, essentially forces the player to kill tons and tons of people. It's doubtful that the player would even have second thoughts about gunning down several people. Now, if this is all that the game had to offer, it would have been just another game, but the fact that it actually, rather than force the appearance of freedom into everything, decided to instead make the fundamental lack of freedom into part of the story. It's genuine deconstruction and critique, something that neither Fallout 3 or Mass Effect can lay claim to have done or even attempted.

 

[SpaceBat]

OT:
I've only played Bioshock 2, but I couldn't really get into it. Saying that, at the time I was playing I had a lot going on. My housemate as bought it so I may have to borrow it and give it another try...

Don't bother. Bioshock 2 is a horrible, horrible game. Especially in the story and character department (And atmosphere and sound as well if you've played Bioshock 1 first.)
That's probably the reason you couldn't get into it. Because it sucks.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

I'm not sure what you mean by repetitive (in that, I didn't find it particularly so), but I know it's not a perfect game. I still love it anyway because of its atmosphere, visual design, music and sound design, and a whole bunch of other things...

I've heard a lot of people complain "Bioshock's story wasn't that interesting, it's just some dork running around following orders until a predictable plot twist happens."

To which, I have to say- that's not Bioshock's story, that's Jack's story. The great story elements of Bioshock have to with Rapture's story- how and why it was built, how it went wrong, and how people reacted to that.
It's so gratifying to find little details in the game world that give insight into the people that populated the city- that's the sort of thing I think of when I say I love that game.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Because most of the people who played it disagree with you on what made you dislike it.

There, next time you feel like asking the same question about something else read that again Beccause it's going to have the exact same answer.


Am I the only one who hates these threads?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Mass effects story is fairly good but fallout 3 NOPE

Spoiler: fallout 3 story is not very good

Mostly due to the massive plot hole of going in at the end when you have a Super mutant standing next to you, who is immune to radiation

Uhh... you can actually make him enter the chamber, in case you didn't know. You need the Broken Steel add-on, I think. Don't remember. And if not, it's your own fault you made that choice, it's not a plot hole.

You do need the Broken Steel expansion pack. If you don't have it, either A) You go in, you die, story ends, or B) You make Sarah Lyons go in, she dies, story ends and calls you a pussy.

 

[Composer]

very well done environment

unique combat for its time considering its main competitors.
a motherfucking wrench!
seriously the wrench is a pretty big reason.

 

[AngelicSven]

Am I the only the only person who thought that Bioshock was deeply average?

Sure the story was decent with a few cool plot twists but that didn't make up for the tedious gameplay which became boring and repetitive. People kept on praising the story when games like Fallout and Mass Effect's story is 10x better. They also have better gameplay. I don't hate the game, I'm just pretty underwhelmed.

Does anyone else think it was average or do you think it was great?

I thought Bioshock was extremely atmospheric, immersive, and atheistically pleasing,(Which in my book, goes a long way.) and the gameplay and story were terribly average. I actually caught on the 'twist' way early because it's from an old Sci-Fi book I read when I was kid.

However, to say Fallout and Mass Effect weren't samey and repetitive is strange, considering if you read much Sci-Fi, ME is a bunch of used concepts thrown into a game and that Fallout is plothole ridden and overall just not interesting. Though, if you dig em, more power to ya.

FYI, these threads are stupid.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The gameplay was really great for the first few hours but it did get a bit repetitive during the middle sections. I basically did the freeze/shoot combo for most of the game. I wish the game would've had situations that forced you into changing up your tactics. Later in the game, I choose to start using the wrench and with all the right tonics stacked, the wrench was so overpowered.

This is what I am talking about, gamers over dependence on "hand-holding".

EVEN IF BORED you won't try anything new until it is SO LONG into the game! You say you have to be forced by game design to try something you want to try anyway. How about you actually use the freedom that is given to you than demand that other freedoms are taken away for you to try them.

Why weren't you trying all the weapons at a steadier pace?

I was trying the other plasmids and weapons here and there, you had pretty much a standard arsenal of guns in Bioshock, I know what those guns are capable of. And, most of the plasmids were weren't that effective. A game should make it so that one tactic should not be allowed to be abused. It's like in a hack and slash game where one combo is effective against every enemy, there's no reason to not use the same combo the whole game then. How is it "hand-holding" if a game throws a new situation and/or enemy type at you that forces you to think of a new combat strategy? That's the opposite of hand-holding as it makes the player think of the solution themselves.

Also, the ghosts were never explained.

http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Ghosts

They were explained...

My fault then. I did play Bioshock off and on over like a 2-3 year period.

 

[Naeras]

Decent atmosphere and magnificent storytelling.

The shooting action in itself was also somewhat above average.

 

[Treblaine]

The gameplay was really great for the first few hours but it did get a bit repetitive during the middle sections. I basically did the freeze/shoot combo for most of the game. I wish the game would've had situations that forced you into changing up your tactics. Later in the game, I choose to start using the wrench and with all the right tonics stacked, the wrench was so overpowered.

This is what I am talking about, gamers over dependence on "hand-holding".

EVEN IF BORED you won't try anything new until it is SO LONG into the game! You say you have to be forced by game design to try something you want to try anyway. How about you actually use the freedom that is given to you than demand that other freedoms are taken away for you to try them.

Why weren't you trying all the weapons at a steadier pace?

You are complaining because he didn't limit himself due to bad game design?

Jesus christ...

N.O.P.E

Fail attempt at putting words into my mouth.

Limit himself? How is willingly trying out NEW THINGS a LIMITATION?!?!? What he is saying is the game SHOULD have limited him, and FORCED him to use different weapons/plasmids and combos rather than just trying them himself out of sheer boredom/curiosity.

He WAS limiting himself by his nonsensical refusal to try new combos till he was bored to the point of quitting. Gamers today are so dependant on hand-holding, it is beyond their comprehension to try something without being rail-roaded into it. I am arguing AGAINST limitation, both the player's own limitation (to stick with familiar weapons) and also Against any idea that developers should limit the game to force you to try new things.

There was no bad game design, except for all the games previously that has gamers "raised in captivity" unable to think for themselves in games they aren't ready to appreciated freedom when it is given to them. And they call it bad game design.

He is saying there should be a reason to use the other plasmids instead of the ice combo and that is a perfectly valid point.

I love how you are trying to act all high and mighty in this games defence when in reality it is a dumbed down game itself, made for dumbed down gamers.

I'm reminded about something to do with a pot, kettles and black...

Look at System Shock 2, look at Bioshock. I hope you realise you have been insulting yourself as Bioshock does hold your hand and is dumbed down whether you want to admit it or not and that is the very thing you are against.

You don't seem to have played either. Nor thought particularly hard about what you are saying, just regurgitating the same narrow arguments the traditionalists have been using since 2007.

Bioshock doesn't hold your hand any more than System Shock 2.

You seem to be confusing:

"get rid of bullshit like your weapon dissolving after 10 shots"
___and___
"constrain the freedom of the player to compensate for poor player imagination"

You have just as much, actually MORE freedom in Bioshock! You don't have to be stuck along a particular path of plasmids/tonics, there is more CHOICE there to swap out and try different things! System Shock 2 limited things so much that you were forced to ignore whole aspects of gameplay to focus on a few areas specialising enough to make it through the game.

Bioshock gives so much freedom, in options and resources to explore those options.

Actually, Bioshock DOES give you occasion to try new things, like in Fontaine Fisheries you temporarily lose all your weapons but the wrench (keeping plasmids of course).

"He is saying there should be a reason to use the other plasmids"

There is, it's called endeavour. It's the reason Human Beings have created civilisation and travelled as far as The Moon while our Chimpanzee cousins are still shitting in trees.

The logic astounds me. He is bored of using just ice-combo, yet will not endeavour to try something new to break that monotony??!?!

"hmmm I'm sick of buying and eating this flavour of ice cream, yeah there are plenty of other flavours but I need someone to force me to try something new"

Do games REALLY need to pander to such foolishness?

Well I was referring to the giant arrow that tells you where to go in Bioshock, that would be the hand holding you dearly hate.

The weapon degradation is unrealistic but you can compensate for it and if it truly is unmanagable for you a quick ini edit can make it easier for you.

The fontaine fisheries point is valid but it only lasts for about 3 minutes and all I did was spam sonic boom and they couldn't do shit to stop me.

I have no real problem with your point on changing tactics, I did that all the time on BS1, I had to considering how hard some bits of the game were early on on very hard mode with no vita chambers (ps3 only).

BS2 however I just spammed Cyclone Trap and Security Plasmid III until it said game over.

I think BS is a good game however playing SS2 has sullied my opinion of it.

Gawd, you are a hypocrite. You are happy to recommend editing code to compensate for dissolving gun bullshit in SS2 yet you won't factor ticking the check box to turn off the compass in Bioshock? The Quest arrow isn't "hand holding" which you seem to totally misunderstand.

There is a difference between subtly pointing out options and being taken against your will (like a parent leading a toddler by the hand) to the choice that you are forced to make.

Bioshock does do this minimally with the least curtailing of freedom, like Fontaine's Fisheries you lose your guns only temporarily. Also later when the plasmids go crazy you have to rely on your weapons more and try new plasmids you may never have considered before.

The arrow doesn't tell you where all the loot is, where all the hidden rooms and alternate pathways are. It's there in case you get completely lost with just a general clue as where is the right way to go to advance to the next stage.

And you admit to spamming the same attack over and over yet complain that it is boring. If it is boring, why do you do that?

You really have it in for Bioshock, in that you dismiss the Fontaine's Fisheries section being only 3 minutes. Not only is that an exaggeration but it is also irrelevant, the point is that it forces you to TRY new plasmids and that is all you need, an introduction. I don't think ANY developer can accommodate for players like you that seems to constantly fall back on spamming over and over again the most simplistic plasmids (sonic boom).

Maybe you would be more suited to a simpler game with less options, like Halo or something. You just like to spam the same thing over and over again, all the depth and variety of bioshock games is wasted on you if you refuse to use it all unless forced to.

 

[orangeban]

When you say Fallout has a better story, and we're talking about games that share the time period, please say you don't mean Fallout 3. Bioshock was an excellent story up until

Spoiler

Atlas/Fontains betrayal, which sorta just let the game meander for a bit before dying in a ditch

Fallout 3's story. The italics are plot holes.

Spoiler

Dad opens the vault, somehow letting in 50 billion radroaches that kill lots of people and drive the overseer crazy, forcing you out.

You go out, and find that people, after 200 years, are still scavenging for salisbury steak and living in dirty shacks, with no attempt at farming or infrastructure made . You find dad in some old vault with an old crazy dude in it. Kudos to the game, that bit was well done.

You help dad fix his big water purifyer until the Enclave attack and attempt to activate the purifyer, which dad also wanted to do. So he blows himself, the Enclave, and the purifyer up.

Someone else wants you to go to Little Lamplight, a settlement populated entirely by kids, which someone still exists and have great difficult going through. You then fight through a billion super mutants, grab GECK, at which point you are ambushed by the Enclave, who apparently made it to the GECK despite the fact they'd of had to go through Little Lamplight, which trust me, they are way too dickish to have done.

The Enclave then decides not to kill everyone like their president wants, the colonel rebels, and decide to just plain activate the purifyer, like dad wanted to. You break out, kill a bunch of dudes, possibly destroy the base, and then have an epic battle for the purifyer despite the fact you are both attempting to do the same thing with it.

Bioshock however, was an interesting, simple (as in straightforward) story that had a wonderful setting and intriguing premise. You might say I'm being unfair with my anlysis, but I stand by my statement that Fallout 3's story and writing was Dumb and Bioshock's was clever.

 

[The Funslinger]

I haven't played any Bioshock games, but here's the answer: People have different preferences and standards to you.

A better question is "why do people love 'why do/explain why people like X" threads. It's pointless, at best. And this is coming from someone who rarely complains about thread trends.

 

[k-ossuburb]

I went into it a little bit biased, for one I'm a great fan of the Steampunk subgenre, for another I loved "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" (although I can't really remember anything about it since it was years ago since I read it last).

Also, on a very old gaming show I used to watch I saw it make its first appearance at E3 in a very short demo. Some things were different, like the animations for the plasmids, but it was pretty much love at first sight and I waited for what seemed like forever for it to finally "surface" (LOLSEEWHATIDIDTHERE?).

 

[robot slipper]

I'm glad I gave Bioshock a chance, because I really liked it once I got into it. At first I was like - plane crash? underwater world? crazy people in masks? WTF?? But the crazy people grew on me! There was also something very awesome about a little girl calling a giant killer robot with a giant killing drill "Mr Bubbles". That and the interesting social commentary of course. And the wrench.

In comparison to other games that I like, I did find it quite easy (didn't figure out that I could turn off the vita-chambers - doh!), but it was good for the story. It would have been nice if they had some more variety for the hacking, but I did get quite kick-ass at connecting those pipes!

 

[DarkRyter]

You can shoot bees out of your arms, man.

BEES.

EVERYWHERE.

 

[blindthrall]

Bioshock 1 had much better gameplay than Fallout 3 or Mass Effect 1(not 2, 2 was pretty fucking tight, gameplay-wise). Mass Effect 1's combat, while thrilling, was still very mired in skill rolls, which definitely took away from the spontaneity of combat. Fallout 3's gameplay was the same, but with added wonkiness and bugginess. There is almost always a splicer looking for you-how can you not like that level of tension? You never know where the next fight will take place-Bioshock forces you to improvise, not just use the same shotgun/biotic over and over (although you can do that with the bees). Finally, Bioshock's story was on par with Mass Effect for about 2/3 of the game, then peters off into cliche. And Fallout 3's story... I played the hell out of that game but it wasn't for the story.

 

[Rad Party God]

Meh, just one of those "Am I the only one who didn't like this?" threads.

I loved it. That's all.