Why does everyone love Bioshock?
- Thread starter Justice4L
- Start date
Just because Bioshock is more interesting than most other FPSs doesn't make Bioshock great, it's just the bar is set too low. The story has huge issues when you start asking questions and the game has pacing issues.hermes200 said:
I didn't have issues with the story (maybe because I am not a big fan of Rand).Phoenixmgs said:
As I said, not perfect, yet better, more interesting, original and fully realized settings than a lot of other games. For me, that is a definitive plus.
So, if you like campaigns in console FPS, chances are Bioshock will help you understand how stale the genre really is. Although gameplay is not its strong suit, Rapture is light years away from generic Arab ruins, generic Russian tundra, generic New York urban area, generic jungle and generic warehouse.
My issue with the plot has nothing to do with how well it utilizes Rand's philosophy, it has to do with the fact Fontaine's plan makes no sense. Yes, Bioshock is a lot better than most shooters and it's a good game but it's at best an 8/10 game (I use the whole scale so 5 would be average and I don't hand out 8s and 9s like most review sites do). This thread isn't concerning whether or not Bioshock is good but why people think it's great since so many people love Bioshock.hermes200 said:
I would say it does makes sense, but that is beyond the point of this thread.Phoenixmgs said:
I already said why I think its great (can't speak for other people, but I guess I am not alone in my opinion). I happen to appreciate games that have personality and do interesting things, even when those things not always work. That is why I also love most of Tim Schafer's games, even though I know they are flawed in one way or another. To me, an interesting premise is more important than net code or frames per second.
hermes200 said:
Jack is the last person I would send to kill Ryan due to the brain control, plus Ryan is unkillable by normal means. Ryan only died because he wanted to and disabled his vita-chamber and there's no way Fontaine would've known that.
I really have a tough time loving a game when the story has so many issues, which is something Bioshock has. An interesting premise is a good thing but it could also be wasted. I don't think Bioshock wasted it but it definitely didn't use it to the full potential. I really hope Infinite can really deliver where Bioshock failed to. I also love games that have heart, most don't nowadays. The Last Guardian is my most anticipated game of this whole console generation. I bought a PS3 for MGS4 and Team ICO's next game, which wasn't even announced at the time, I just know that I will have to play whatever that studio makes after playing ICO and Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2. I can't wait for the HD collection because it's been quite some time since I've played either game so it'll kinda be like playing them for the first time in some respects.
What, in your mind, is the difference between hitting reload, and being rezzed at one of the vita chambers?CannibalCorpses said:
For anyone who's saying that their issue is Fontaine's plan being hard to believe or nonsensical, the story takes place in a failed underwater utopia in the late '40s, in which excessive genetic modification and class envy led to a civil war.
Now, you can accept all those things, but have a hard time accepting Fontaine's plan... Seems a bit selective to me.
Now, you can accept all those things, but have a hard time accepting Fontaine's plan... Seems a bit selective to me.
Blah blah blah opinions. There, that much is out of the way.
No, Bioshock was not the great ethics-examining masterpiece it was hyped up to be. Never trust hype. That is not to say that it was a bad game. On the contrary, it was still very good. The story was a very strong part of the gameplay, and it was fun exploring Jack's not-amnesia (Jack knows full well what his identity is, it's just wrong,) even though I had seen gameplay footage on Youtube beforehand, spoiling me to "the twist." I especially liked how the pistol and melee weapons didn't feel underpowered at any point; you could very easily use just the two weapons on the second to last level if you wanted, as something more than a last resort. My big complaint about that game was that there wasn't much incentive to try for the bad ending, or "asshole run" if you prefer. The only "moral choice" present was do you eat children or do you not eat children, and there's no proper difference in gameplay other than "more phlebotinum," and that isn't really much of an incentive by itself.
Now, Bioshock 2. Doesn't have half the story of the first, (SHUT UP IT DOESN'T) however it plays more nicely if only because one of those amazing Big Daddy upgrades was the ability to pat your head and rub your stomach simultaneously. (Use of weapons and plasmids at the same time for you thickies reading this.) It was little changes like that to the mechanics here that improved the overall gameplay; changing the hacking minigame, limiting the number of weapon upgrades (makes you weigh your options), and getting a camcorder instead of an SLR so you can actually kill things while you photograph them instead of having to pick one or the other (and subtly encouraging diverse gameplay in the process, the sneaky dickenses). Finally, they made moral choices beyond "eat children" or "don't eat children." Not big enough or numerous enough moral choices, but they were there, dammit.
But Bioshock 2 did have, for me anyway, one glaring flaw; multiplayer. See, I do not play multiplayer. I don't have online capability for my XBox (yet) and so having an entire section of the game that I can't play (or get achievements for, but that's a lesser gripe) is kind of a big problem for me, and it's one of the main reasons I continue to buy from Gamestop or other outlets that don't give the developers money. Bioshock 2 did not need multiplayer, simply put. Should the option been given for that? Certainly, but as DLC. In fact, I'll go ahead and be a big whinging **** and say that all online multiplayer functions should be DLC rather than part of the basic game.
Now, how does Bioshock compare to the titles that have been mentioned most prominently, Mass Effect and Fallout? Well, ME is much more focused on the present. Yes, there's backstory, but it isn't as relevant to the game's present story. (You could go the entire game without figuring out where all the male Asari are, for example.) Fallout is a little bit closer to Bioshock's framework of "massive shitstorm in the past casting ripples unto the present", but the key difference is scale. With exceptions, Fallout's pre-shitstorm movers and players aren't around to affect the post-shitstorm present, separated from such by centuries, whereas Bioshock's are. Hell, you even get to kill a few of them.
Ah, there. Wasn't it nice to read a big wall of text that wasn't a copypasted argument?
No, Bioshock was not the great ethics-examining masterpiece it was hyped up to be. Never trust hype. That is not to say that it was a bad game. On the contrary, it was still very good. The story was a very strong part of the gameplay, and it was fun exploring Jack's not-amnesia (Jack knows full well what his identity is, it's just wrong,) even though I had seen gameplay footage on Youtube beforehand, spoiling me to "the twist." I especially liked how the pistol and melee weapons didn't feel underpowered at any point; you could very easily use just the two weapons on the second to last level if you wanted, as something more than a last resort. My big complaint about that game was that there wasn't much incentive to try for the bad ending, or "asshole run" if you prefer. The only "moral choice" present was do you eat children or do you not eat children, and there's no proper difference in gameplay other than "more phlebotinum," and that isn't really much of an incentive by itself.
Now, Bioshock 2. Doesn't have half the story of the first, (SHUT UP IT DOESN'T) however it plays more nicely if only because one of those amazing Big Daddy upgrades was the ability to pat your head and rub your stomach simultaneously. (Use of weapons and plasmids at the same time for you thickies reading this.) It was little changes like that to the mechanics here that improved the overall gameplay; changing the hacking minigame, limiting the number of weapon upgrades (makes you weigh your options), and getting a camcorder instead of an SLR so you can actually kill things while you photograph them instead of having to pick one or the other (and subtly encouraging diverse gameplay in the process, the sneaky dickenses). Finally, they made moral choices beyond "eat children" or "don't eat children." Not big enough or numerous enough moral choices, but they were there, dammit.
But Bioshock 2 did have, for me anyway, one glaring flaw; multiplayer. See, I do not play multiplayer. I don't have online capability for my XBox (yet) and so having an entire section of the game that I can't play (or get achievements for, but that's a lesser gripe) is kind of a big problem for me, and it's one of the main reasons I continue to buy from Gamestop or other outlets that don't give the developers money. Bioshock 2 did not need multiplayer, simply put. Should the option been given for that? Certainly, but as DLC. In fact, I'll go ahead and be a big whinging **** and say that all online multiplayer functions should be DLC rather than part of the basic game.
Now, how does Bioshock compare to the titles that have been mentioned most prominently, Mass Effect and Fallout? Well, ME is much more focused on the present. Yes, there's backstory, but it isn't as relevant to the game's present story. (You could go the entire game without figuring out where all the male Asari are, for example.) Fallout is a little bit closer to Bioshock's framework of "massive shitstorm in the past casting ripples unto the present", but the key difference is scale. With exceptions, Fallout's pre-shitstorm movers and players aren't around to affect the post-shitstorm present, separated from such by centuries, whereas Bioshock's are. Hell, you even get to kill a few of them.
Ah, there. Wasn't it nice to read a big wall of text that wasn't a copypasted argument?
This just shows how little thought you put into bioshock.Phoenixmgs said:
The bees are a homing weapon. If you don't know where the enemy is, retreat around a corner and shoot bees in the general direction which will seek them out to stun them, damage them and from the noise they make indicate where they are.
Yeah, "most" of the time you deal with lone splicers... except when you don't. There are countless incidences when you are attacked with waves of enemies or otherwise large groups. Then Enrage is very useful.
What the hell is the problem? So the game is not entirely horror/suspense, only certain sections are.
So WHAT!?
How is this bad? Should it be either ALL horror or none at all? Are you really that hard headed to object to this variety? So the game has varied pacing and fitting tonal variance, how is this a criticism? It isn't.
What next, are you going to bash the game for the wonderful art design and presentation? Is every unique aspect of the game terrible? Bullshit. How about you give me some REAL reasons why you don't like this game, I think it has something to do with it being too complicated (you do endlessly spam noob plasmids).
Defend? Defend the excellent plot from what? You've said nothing that could possibly need defending, except the asinine offhand comment that Fontaine's plan was "dumb". When it was actually freaking ingenious and worked perfectly if only for your unpredictably disruptive influence. The plot is one of the most lauded in recent video game history, most significant because it is a true video-game plot and not a movie with gameplay interspersed (MGS4).
What part of it is dumb? What part of it does not make sense? It makes perfect sense and is so ingenious that it only fails thanks to Tannenbaum's interference and a lot of luck and persistence on your part.
Please, explain to me how cloning Ryan to make an agent to beat his security systems to use as an assassin is a dumb idea? Are you really so arrogant to think all you have to say is "this game is guilty of having a dumb plot" and not present any evidence, not even indicate any, to have you opinion accepted?!?! And THEN act aghast that your unsubstantiated claim is not "defended" against, somehow claiming victory on this point.
You haven't made a point, your opinion is pointless.
I won't accept pedantic plot-holes as reason to bash bioshock. The greatest stories have plot holes, like how Citizen Kane nobody heard him utter his final word "rosebud" yet the whole film is people reminiscing about what it could mean. It doesn't matter, not really.
Name me some games that does a better job at the political, social, moral and historical themes than Bioshock? (that isn't a de-facto movie like MGS4's TV-series length of cutscenes)6_Qubed said:
I can't stand it when people ONLY think of the little Sisters harvesting thing in purely resource terms, it is reductionist, simplistic and fundamentally Dishonest. When you make the decision to harvest or save the first Little Sister you have no idea what rewards you will get for saving if any or for how long. And the most important thing is you are making the decision of the lives of children, I am puzzled at how many people just ignore the moral aspect of that.
Taking the good path, means you need the virtues of trust and patience without greed. Greed for as much Adam as you can get, rather than just as much as you need. It is a hard-headed assumption that the "good path" must come with terrible forfeits, as this isn't particularly relevant to the way things work. People are rewarded for doing good things, evil is NOT the ONLY path to riches, though it is a sure-way.
And actually stop and think of a second, if you only got half ADAM with rescuing, you would be so pitifully underpowered that the players would be bitter at doing the right thing that most would not stick with it. The haters would instead be saying "huuh, it gave a moral choice but punished you so much for the right one you know harvesting the little sisters is the only way"
PS: Only idiots get caught up in the hype. And you shouldn't let relativism with idiotic-hype detract from what the game actually is on its own.
I never really like cramped and repetetive shooters which bioshock is to quite an exstent. The audio tape telling of story is also annoying as hell when your usually fighting or the sound is too low to hear anything. Or the audio is made so dreadfully boring that listening to the whole thing is just not worth it. example starting like "dear diary this is my log, i was reading some papers today and doing some paperwork BLALBALBALBLA when stupid game design idea popped into my head." So that pretty much made the story a bust and not fun listening to. whatever happened to beautifully crafted cutscene videos, a few is nice to tell the story. I mean even half-life had it to some extent, you could move around but story stuff would happen so you could get a better understanding of the MAIN storyline. Too much sidequesting and bullshit sneaking into fps's now. Thinking of wolfenstein 3 which was just horribad. sandbox action-fps WTF?
But anyhow, the littlesister and plasmid magic thing was the only nice different thing in bioshock which probably which gave it such a following. But the rest was staaaale.
But anyhow, the littlesister and plasmid magic thing was the only nice different thing in bioshock which probably which gave it such a following. But the rest was staaaale.
I play differently when i have no choice, the challenge is set by the game and i know what i'm aiming for. When i set personal challenges they are always too hard and if not hard enough at the start then certainly once i get to half way. It's easier for bragging rights with my mates aswell, they would be dubious if i said i'd done it but with a game defining mechanic there on display its easier for them to understand.Zechnophobe said:
It doesn't always work out right though. I played Fallout 3 eating and drinking when i deemed it necessary and that was cool. When i was forced to do it on Fallout vegas though it was a chore.
Moral choice? Kiss baby or eat baby, either way you get what you really want which is power ups. It pretended like you were getting less by being good but since the game only takes a few select advancements to make it easy there was no choice. The only real choice was whether to bother getting them at all.Treblaine said:
Why would I need a homing weapon to find or kill enemies? It's not like any of the enemies are tough to kill. I have surround sound, I can tell by listening where the enemy is.Treblaine said:
There are not "countless" times where there are groups of splicers. It's rather rare in Bioshock to be attacked by multiple enemies and even then it's easier to just deal with them. Enrage actually takes longer to kill them than doing it yourself.
The game was part horror, had horror elements, it wasn't straight horror, and it gave up on that a few hours in. I'm not asking for ALL or NO horror, I'm asking the game to not give up on shit that it was doing well.Treblaine said:
Treblaine said:
Ryan knew about the brainwashing/conditioning. Ryan could've used it on Jack to make Jack not kill him; "Would you kindly not kill me?" I'll buy that Fontaine didn't know that Ryan knew about that. However, Fontaine had to have known about the vita-chambers, one reason had for his plan was that Jack couldn't be killed. So, he had to know the vita-chambers worked with Ryan's DNA. So, sending anyone to kill Ryan is stupid because Ryan is unkillable by physical attacks due to the vita-chambers. A better idea would've been for Jack to poison Ryan's food or water supply. There is no way Fontaine would've had knowledge Ryan disabled his vita-chamber and wanted to die. If Ryan just decided to live, he would've lived. Fontaine's whole plan was dependent on Ryan himself wanting to die and not Fontaine being the cause of his death.
Why are you bashing on cut-scenes? Cut-scenes are almost always better than not having a cut-scene because during those "not cut-scenes," you normally can't do anything but move your character around like an idiot. I'd rather have the scene properly framed to get the most emotional impact from it. Enslaved wouldn't have been nearly as good if there wasn't cut-scenes with proper cinematic framing. If there is something to do and gameplay to be done during dialog, that means I'm not paying full attention to the dialog since I need to focus on other stuff that could be just trying to stay alive. In Bioshock, during the radio transmissions and diaries, I just stood still while listening so I could have my full attention on the dialog. Bioshock's storytelling method worked for Bioshock but for the majority of games, this doesn't work as most stories aren't told through radio communications and audio diaries.
Ah yes, "commenting", you obviously comment by saying everyone else's views are worthless. I don't care if you love the game, but don't put others down because they don't share your views. All your posts are just you being scared that maybe one of your favourite games is not loved by everyone. Your views are just aggressive, not smart, not interesting, just aggressive. You also fail to read my post clearly for the upteenth time, why do I bother talking to someone who won't read my posts and instead start spitting fanboy juice.Treblaine said:
It is linear and has a lot of backtracking, obviously something you are blind to.
"No. That is nonsense. It may make sense in your head but it does not make sense outside your mind in the real world where things like logic and reason matter." Yes because we know that going to fetch something and saying that is a fetch quest has no logic or reason -.-
"You play a child murderer, who murders children for quick gains. That makes you an evil bastard." I find this quite hilarious. Did I say I killed them? Look in my post and try to find it. You can't? Shame. Also this is a video game, so even if I did it does not make me a "evil bastard" as I am doing nothing wrong. You fail to realise that video games are not reality, it's true, they're not. So if I kill 100 people in GTA, I am not an "evil bastard" as it is a V-I-D-E-O G-A-M-E. Learnt that one when I was about 5.
So, if I don't like a game, I should say it doesn't fit my tastes. Ever thought that maybe i didn't like Bioshock because I found it tedious and repetitive, not that it didn't fit my taste? Of course not. You were too busy typing to people in a furious rage who didn't give the game a 10/10.
Yeaaah, I ain't buying it. I think you just plain did not know this. And if the enemies were easy, where are lots of difficulty settings.Phoenixmgs said:
Are you playing on that shitty console port? Because that platform made it unnecessarily tedious to switch weapons and plasmids aiming too was broken compared to on PC, no wonder you fall bad on boring, repetitive noob tactics.
This fails to be a criticism. This doesn't make the game "bad" or sub-par. Only "different from the way you would do it"
You can't just accept it for what it is. Maybe the horror element wasn't appropriate later in the game?
oh you idiot, The vita-chambers wouldn't have saved you from Code-yellow, that was how he was supposed to have gotten rid of you as Vita-chambers didn't heal that. Only thanks to a lot of searching on your part, help from Tannenbaum and Suchong's paranoia were you able to barely get a cure in time.
Fontaine clearly found a way to prevent Ryan being resurrected with Vita-chambers, what do you think he was doing the previous 2 years since the adopted his Atlas persona till you arrived in rapture?
"If Ryan just decided to live, he would've lived."
Do you NEVER pay attention? Ryan set the whole place to self-destruct when he realised he was finished, surrounded and that his "own flesh and blood" was here to kill him. Clearly it is pearls before swine, you don't realise the significance of the "a man chooses, a slave obeys". Fontaine's plan was not dependant on Ryan being suicidal, it depended on him not knowing, it just happens to be he was so beat he didn't want to live, nor anyone when he tried to destroy rapture.
The plot makes sense considering how Ryan is driven crazy by his objectivist ideology. But the problem is you have to actually comprehend such things and look beyond the superficial. You have to think about how it could work rather than how it does not!
And yes, I will bash cutscene, I am playing a game, NOT WATCHING A MOVIE!!
Imagine if huge important parts of a Movie were not explained by dialogue and montage, but by a black screen with scrolling text? That is cheap, falling back on an more familiar medium (prose) rather than retaining immersion! You actually had the nerve to complain about ruining immersion, yet now you demand cutscenes!?!? Cutscenes in a game - like scrolling-text in a film - have their place, at the beginning or the end where they won't break immersion.
Half Life 2 wouldn't have been a fraction as significant if every encounter it switched to a video recording from a "out of body" perspective while you are suddenly paralysed for no reason.
You are NOT constantly under attack! You CAN have dialogue in perspective without being distracted by fighting. Stop bullshitting. I don't think you really care about immersion, I don't think you are really passionate about gaming, really emotionally invested in the events. For whatever reason, you don't do that.
I think I know what you REALLY want now. You don't want a good game, you want a god damn safe and predictable Hollywood movie, where you can see every beat coming all compressed and explained for the lowest common denominator. Then some hand-holding combat in between.
Go play Halo. And don't bash Bioshock because it isn't Halo. Halo games are good, I would rate most of them highly for what they are but NOT if I was treating them as something they are not, something they never intended to be. Like bashing a Halo game for not being bioshock! Or whatever, some other hand-holding first-person-shooter with cutscenes for exposition.