I don't have to undermine your opinion, it was already an unsubstantiated and irrelevant by yourself. I'm merely commenting on it.
You have't got anything to say, it's clear you are a waste of time, giving nothing but meaningless conjecture and arbitrary contrarianism without even an attempt at a coherent argument.
Hell, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth then confirm my assessment of you:
"I actually didn't like how it showed the girls as materials"
It did NOT show them as materials, if you did see them as nothing but that and you murdered them then you EARNED the bad ending where you essentially start a nuclear war. You play a child murderer, who murders children for quick gains. That makes you an evil bastard.
Double-talk is your only tool, but I can see right through it. I see how you flip flop CONSTANTLY on every point. As soon as I prove the game is not one thing you then say it is the other extreme, that is pure madness. From too Linear to too much backtracking.
Your word is WORTHLESS!
"It loses tension when it turns into a fetch quest game. Simple."
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.
If you don't like the game because it just doesn't suit your personal tastes, but admit that it is a good game: fine. But your problem is you seem to think your personal taste should somehow automatically make the game crap.
I don't like sports games, I hate them and would rather dig a ditch than have to play Madden 2012. But I am not such a jerk as to say madden is "deeply average" or a 6/10 game just because it does not fit my tastes. Quantified scores have to be objective, that is the whole point of scoring.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I've read your post very clearly. That is why I am mad as hell, and not going to take it any more.
Again you contradict yourself, that it is linear with backtracking. Have you even played Bioshock? How god damn vast and dynamically multi-pathed the areas are? It is about as non-linear a game as you can get. And why do you act like back-tracking is some mortal sin? When with soft-respawning enemies if always leads to new combat scenarios.
Of course in REAL LIFE you are not "evil" but within The Game YOU ARE! Don't be surprised if you go through the game murdering and eating little girls then you continue to rule rapture like an evil bastard. If you murder so many children with ease, what is a little nuclear terrorism on top? All within the game of course. EVERYTHING we have been talking about has been within the game, now all of a sudden you want to step outside the game world?
That's your problem, YOU are the one confused about what is in the game and what is in the real world. When I say "your weapons" I don't mean the air-rifle-or-whatever you have under your bed! I mean the Wrench, Tommy Gun and Shotgun from within the game; Bioshock!
Games
Reality
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
Bioshock is not tedious because it is inherently tedious, it's clear it does not suit your tastes and strengths and weaknesses. Please, you are being a TERRIBLE critic! I don't give a hoot about your personal feelings - I don't even know you - but if you have some objective assessment, THAT is something worth sharing.
All I've gotten from you is poorly concealed hate, and yet you act surprised when you make me mad.
For me, it was the atmosphere. I haven't gotten that immersed in a game since...I don't know when. I can't remember the last time a game made exploration that much fun, or genuinely managed to 'wow' me with it's environments and locales. It's storytelling is also a cut above the average video game.
I was fairly 'meh' on the gunplay, since there wasn't anything particularly groundbreaking about the weapons, (Although I AM a big fan of the crossbow) but I do enjoy the plasmids. I mean, come on. You can shoot BEES from your hands. BEEEEEEEES.
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.
I've read your post very clearly. That is why I am mad as hell, and not going to take it any more.
Again you contradict yourself, that it is linear with backtracking. Have you even played Bioshock? How god damn vast and dynamically multi-pathed the areas are? It is about as non-linear a game as you can get. And why do you act like back-tracking is some mortal sin? When with soft-respawning enemies if always leads to new combat scenarios.
Of course in REAL LIFE you are not "evil" but within The Game YOU ARE! Don't be surprised if you go through the game murdering and eating little girls then you continue to rule rapture like an evil bastard. If you murder so many children with ease, what is a little nuclear terrorism on top? All within the game of course. EVERYTHING we have been talking about has been within the game, now all of a sudden you want to step outside the game world?
That's your problem, YOU are the one confused about what is in the game and what is in the real world. When I say "your weapons" I don't mean the air-rifle-or-whatever you have under your bed! I mean the Wrench, Tommy Gun and Shotgun from within the game; Bioshock!
Games
Reality
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
Bioshock is not tedious because it is inherently tedious, it's clear it does not suit your tastes and strengths and weaknesses. Please, you are being a TERRIBLE critic! I don't give a hoot about your personal feelings - I don't even know you - but if you have some objective assessment, THAT is something worth sharing.
All I've gotten from you is poorly concealed hate, and yet you act surprised when you make me mad.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA", when I post, as that is annoying. You say absolutely horrible things like calling me an "evil bastard" and then can't back it up when I tell you it is a VIDEO GAME. You again assume that I did the evil playthrough when I did not. How do you know how I play? You don't, so don't try to.
I never said I was a great critic, I just said that I found the game not as good as others say it is. Then you say Rio the movie game is average, IT'S A WORK OF ART (jkes)
I don't understand why you are mad as their is nothing to be mad about.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA", when I post, as that is annoying. You say absolutely horrible things like calling me an "evil bastard" and then can't back it up when I tell you it is a VIDEO GAME. You again assume that I did the evil playthrough when I did not. How do you know how I play? You don't, so don't try to.
I never said I was a great critic, I just said that I found the game not as good as others say it is. Then you say Rio the movie game is average, IT'S A WORK OF ART (jkes)
I don't understand why you are mad as their is nothing to be mad about.
Errm, I EXPLICITLY stated it was to do with your video game person was the evil-bastard, not YOU personally. You are the one reading things wrong. I of course meant hypothetically, I'm explaining why the morality of the little sisters reasonably affects the outcome of the game. You also talk about the different endings, I presume you had played both.
I DID NOT say Rio-the-game-of-the-movie was average, I said it was hideously BELOW average with a score of 6/10, the same score you give bioshock. Don't you read what i type? Or can you not comprehend such concepts as "Half =/= average"!?!!?
This is why I am so mad, because you talk endless contradictory and muddled nonsense. You can't seem to keep a single contiguous thought in your brain without it getting muddled. You still insist that 6/10 is an average score for a game WHEN IT IS NOT! Your comprehension of maths is is so bad it generationally is a problem here. Please, educate yourself on numbers before you use them.
I also suggest you educate yourself on prose, as you seem to have serious problems articulating yourself or even following what I type.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA", when I post, as that is annoying. You say absolutely horrible things like calling me an "evil bastard" and then can't back it up when I tell you it is a VIDEO GAME. You again assume that I did the evil playthrough when I did not. How do you know how I play? You don't, so don't try to.
I never said I was a great critic, I just said that I found the game not as good as others say it is. Then you say Rio the movie game is average, IT'S A WORK OF ART (jkes)
I don't understand why you are mad as their is nothing to be mad about.
Errm, I EXPLICITLY stated it was to do with your video game person was the evil-bastard, not YOU personally. You are the one reading things wrong. I of course meant hypothetically, I'm explaining why the morality of the little sisters reasonably affects the outcome of the game. You also talk about the different endings, I presume you had played both.
I DID NOT say Rio-the-game-of-the-movie was average, I said it was hideously BELOW average with a score of 6/10, the same score you give bioshock. Don't you read what i type? Or can you not comprehend such concepts as "Half =/= average"!?!!?
This is why I am so mad, because you talk endless contradictory and muddled nonsense. You can't seem to keep a single contiguous thought in your brain without it getting muddled. You still insist that 6/10 is an average score for a game WHEN IT IS NOT! Your comprehension of maths is is so bad it generationally is a problem here. Please, educate yourself on numbers before you use them.
I also suggest you educate yourself on prose, as you seem to have serious problems articulating yourself or even following what I type.
Here is maths 101 for people who don't understand like you. Just trying to help.
The average of numbers 4 and 2, is 3 because 4+2 over 2 = 3
Now with game scores it goes something like this...
1/10 = Waste of time, money and space
2/10 = Horrible
3/10 = Very bad
4/10 = Bad
5/10 = average
6/10 = ok
7/10 = good
8/10 = great
9/10 = amazing
10/10 = masterpiece
Hopefully you understand now, if you look up any official review (say IGN) they say 7 is around the good mark, not average, that makes no sense. Post back when you find a professional review that follows your logic.
I enjoyed Bioshock for the gameplay (which although not particularly original was pretty well done) and the setting. If Rapture had just been some old military installation or another location we've seen hundreds of times before, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much.
The story didn't really do much for me. Frankly I don't understand why that gets so much praise; it wasn't particularly deep (which most people seem to claim it is), the "amazing plot twist" could be seen from miles away, and I don't think it was all that original.
Still, a fun game because of the setting and (IMO) smooth gameplay, even if it is one of the most overrated modern games out there.
Here is maths 101 for people who don't understand like you. Just trying to help.
The average of numbers 4 and 2, is 3 because 4+2 over 2 = 3
Now with game scores it goes something like this...
1/10 = Waste of time, money and space
2/10 = Horrible
3/10 = Very bad
4/10 = Bad
5/10 = average
6/10 = ok
7/10 = good
8/10 = great
9/10 = amazing
10/10 = masterpiece
Hopefully you understand now, if you look up any official review (say IGN) they say 7 is around the good mark, not average, that makes no sense. Post back when you find a professional review that follows your logic.
Oh jebus, why are you being so bloody minded about this inanely simple point that you just seem incapable of grasping.
Fact: The average score for games is 7.5/10.
If you score lower than 7.5/10 then you are below average. It is THAT simple. You just have the bloody minded obsession that "Half = average".
"IGN (say) 7 is around the good mark, not average, that makes no sense."
That DOES make sense IF you have any basic comprehension of statistical mathematics. You clearly do not, hence your confusion. But we can't all lower ourselves to your poor level of numeracy. GIVE UP on the assumption that "half = average". Just drop it, you are being utterly foolish.
Think of it like grades for an exam. Now what kind of incompetent teacher expects the average student to get HALF of their questions wrong?!?! That would be "5/10 = average". Games were initially scored in very technical way, hence the average was high with the high standard. In other word the average game was expected to get 3/4 of "things" "right".
Just ACCEPT the fact that 7.5/10 is average and 6/10 is as far BELOW average as 9/10 is ABOVE average. You know this, really, that's why you call Bioshock a 6/10 game. You want to have you cake and eat it. Bash it severely yet say you are being reasonable.
I enjoyed Bioshock for the gameplay (which although not particularly original was pretty well done) and the setting. If Rapture had just been some old military installation or another location we've seen hundreds of times before, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much.
The story didn't really do much for me. Frankly I don't understand why that gets so much praise; it wasn't particularly deep (which most people seem to claim it is), the "amazing plot twist" could be seen from miles away, and I don't think it was all that original.
Still, a fun game because of the setting and (IMO) smooth gameplay, even if it is one of the most overrated modern games out there.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA", when I post, as that is annoying. You say absolutely horrible things like calling me an "evil bastard" and then can't back it up when I tell you it is a VIDEO GAME. You again assume that I did the evil playthrough when I did not. How do you know how I play? You don't, so don't try to.
I never said I was a great critic, I just said that I found the game not as good as others say it is. Then you say Rio the movie game is average, IT'S A WORK OF ART (jkes)
I don't understand why you are mad as their is nothing to be mad about.
Errm, I EXPLICITLY stated it was to do with your video game person was the evil-bastard, not YOU personally. You are the one reading things wrong. I of course meant hypothetically, I'm explaining why the morality of the little sisters reasonably affects the outcome of the game. You also talk about the different endings, I presume you had played both.
The little sisters do not reasonably affect the outcome of the game. If you harvested them thinking "I need these to survive" like Atlas said then stopped midway through after a change of heart and saved the rest you still end up as Super Hitler.
You are either a saint or the devil, there is no middle ground and that's not a good thing.
EDIT Also the fact you say there are 2 ending shows how truly crap and unmemorable the third one is, it's just the evil ending only Tenembaum has a sad voice instead of an angry one.
A reformed child murderer is STILL a child murderer.
What? Do you think the game will be like:
"aww, he only murdered and cannibalised a FEW little kiddies. He's alll right "
[/sarc]
Seriously. In real life if you met someone like that, WHO MURDERED LITTLE GIRLS, yet saved a few later on... would you trust that guy to stay the right course?
Generally, murdering any number of children kinda makes you a devil. Or are you insane.
I enjoyed Bioshock for the gameplay (which although not particularly original was pretty well done) and the setting. If Rapture had just been some old military installation or another location we've seen hundreds of times before, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much.
The story didn't really do much for me. Frankly I don't understand why that gets so much praise; it wasn't particularly deep (which most people seem to claim it is), the "amazing plot twist" could be seen from miles away, and I don't think it was all that original.
Still, a fun game because of the setting and (IMO) smooth gameplay, even if it is one of the most overrated modern games out there.
A better job of what? If you just mean "games I enjoyed more", that would be System Shock 2, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Deus Ex (old one, haven't bought the new one yet), Morrowind, Mass Effect 1 & 2, to name a few. If you mean something more specific, be more specific.
Do you put your hands over your ears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA", when I post, as that is annoying. You say absolutely horrible things like calling me an "evil bastard" and then can't back it up when I tell you it is a VIDEO GAME. You again assume that I did the evil playthrough when I did not. How do you know how I play? You don't, so don't try to.
I never said I was a great critic, I just said that I found the game not as good as others say it is. Then you say Rio the movie game is average, IT'S A WORK OF ART (jkes)
I don't understand why you are mad as their is nothing to be mad about.
Errm, I EXPLICITLY stated it was to do with your video game person was the evil-bastard, not YOU personally. You are the one reading things wrong. I of course meant hypothetically, I'm explaining why the morality of the little sisters reasonably affects the outcome of the game. You also talk about the different endings, I presume you had played both.
The little sisters do not reasonably affect the outcome of the game. If you harvested them thinking "I need these to survive" like Atlas said then stopped midway through after a change of heart and saved the rest you still end up as Super Hitler.
You are either a saint or the devil, there is no middle ground and that's not a good thing.
EDIT Also the fact you say there are 2 ending shows how truly crap and unmemorable the third one is, it's just the evil ending only Tenembaum has a sad voice instead of an angry one.
A reformed child murderer is STILL a child murderer.
What? Do you think the game will be like:
"aww, he only murdered and cannibalised a FEW little kiddies. He's alll right "
[/sarc]
Seriously. In real life if you met someone like that, WHO MURDERED LITTLE GIRLS, yet saved a few later on... would you trust that guy to stay the right course?
Generally, murdering any number of children kinda makes you a devil. Or are you insane.
1. As atlas said, they weren't children anymore and seeing as they drained corpses of their blood and drank it it shows they weren't exactly "cute little girls" anymore.
2. In real life would you trust someone who saved 20 children but killed about 300 people and has the power to shoot fire from his fingertips?
They ARE little girls, only a true psychopath would think it's acceptable to calculatedly murder children for personal gain if they aren't cute. And all those splicers? You killed crazy people in self-defence as the only means to prevent your immediate death. That's war. Soldiers can make good statesmen, such as President Kennedy and not forgetting George Washington.
My analogy isn't even an analogy, it is a perfect explanation via a shifted perspective.
You are a worthy opponent, but you haven't got a leg to stand on.
I enjoyed Bioshock for the gameplay (which although not particularly original was pretty well done) and the setting. If Rapture had just been some old military installation or another location we've seen hundreds of times before, I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much.
The story didn't really do much for me. Frankly I don't understand why that gets so much praise; it wasn't particularly deep (which most people seem to claim it is), the "amazing plot twist" could be seen from miles away, and I don't think it was all that original.
Still, a fun game because of the setting and (IMO) smooth gameplay, even if it is one of the most overrated modern games out there.
A better job of what? If you just mean "games I enjoyed more", that would be System Shock 2, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Deus Ex (old one, haven't bought the new one yet), Morrowind, Mass Effect 1 & 2, to name a few. If you mean something more specific, be more specific.
Maybe you like them for dumb reasons, I don't know. You need to give an actual REASON not just your bare opinion. Everyone has an opinion on something.
I only played Bioshock 1, but what I really found appealing about it was the atmosphere. The gameplay was standard shooter gameplay, but the environments were fantastic. The entire city of Rapture felt like a broken down structure that could break at any moment. The story was also very well written. The whole "Would you kindly" thing was such a clever twist and was unlike any I'd ever seen in a game before. I mean alot of games have twists involving characters not being who they seem to be or whatever, but a twist that was based entirely on the fact that in games, players tend to do what they're told was brilliant.
I liked it because I played it at a time when I was just getting into shooters. I only played Half-Life 2 before, and it was also my first "horror" game. In retrospect, it was ok, but certainly not as brilliant or scary as I remember.
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 it was pretty good, nor did I find it repetitive.
The story is really nice with a few plot twists I didn't see coming.
Depending on your difficulty setting it can be challenging, distracting from the repetitiveness of the game and making it more fun.
If you are easily scared like I am, the thrill of the surprise adds to the feel of the game. Sure its horror level is nowhere near Amnesia, but it is pretty good in its own right.
They ARE little girls, only a true psychopath would think it's acceptable to calculatedly murder children for personal gain if they aren't cute. And all those splicers? You killed crazy people in self-defence as the only means to prevent your immediate death. That's war. Soldiers can make good statesmen, such as President Kennedy and not forgetting George Washington.
My analogy isn't even an analogy, it is a perfect explanation via a shifted perspective.
You are a worthy opponent, but you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Question: When you are isolated with little hope against surviving with murderous things after you and the only way to keep your chances of survival above 0% is to obtain a special substance, wouldn't you want as much of that substance to improve your chances of survival even if it means to kill someone you wouldn't normally?
Hint: The question is rhetorical, it is human instinct to survive, and when put in a situation and traumatized in such a manner, morals get thrown out the window for the average human being. It isn't just a psychopath who would do that.
On a side note: You just mixed morals and instincts leading to two different outcomes to prove a point which wasn't actually proven at all.
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.
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.
Wow, get off your PC high horse there. I don't play PC games because my computer is 10 years old, I do not like playing games at my computer desk, and I do not like keyboard movement controls (I like moving my character with analog controls, the mouse is better for aiming but the keyboard sucks for movement).
I was playing on the normal difficulty setting. Broken aiming or not, I'm sure freezing was also an overpowered attack on the PC as well, and it's the best way to take pictures to research the enemies. It's up to the developers to balance the game so that there are no noob tactics.
[sarcasm]And, I assume if I play on the PC, the game doesn't have those boring fetch quests in the middle either. Those were bonus levels in the shitty console ports.[/sarcasm]
Treblaine said:
Maybe the horror element wasn't appropriate later in the game?
The horror element was appropriate all the way until the twist since afterward, all the secrets of Rapture were kind of revealed so the game doesn't really have that unknown element to it anymore.
Treblaine said:
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.
There was no Code-yellow to use on Ryan, you were brainwashed not Ryan. Code-yellow couldn't have killed Ryan. Nor would Jack shooting or beating up Ryan have killed him. Now who's looking stupid.
Treblaine said:
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!
Explain to me how Fontaine found a way to prevent Ryan from being resurrected because Ryan disabled his own vita-chamber. Are you trying to imply Fontaine got in and broke Ryan's vita-chamber? Because if he could get to Ryan, he wouldn't need Jack. Oh, and by the way, the game lets you re-enable Ryan's vita-chamber before you kill him, I did that and Ryan still died. I thought there was going to be a twist at the end that Ryan was still alive.
Or explain how Fontaine knew Ryan went crazy and would let Jack kill him? That is never implied at all in the game. Fontaine's plan was just plain ill-conceived.
LMAO, the significance of Ryan saying "a man chooses, a slave obeys" was due to the fact that Jack was a slave and just didn't know it. Anything Ryan did would've been due to him choosing since he wasn't brainwashed. It's one of those things that if you go back and play the game again, you see the game giving you hints as to what is happening just like any movie with a twist.
Treblaine said:
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 didn't say I was under attack during conversations in Bioshock. I said if there is no gameplay to be done during dialog, I'd rather have the scene framed in manner to get the most emotional value out of it since I'm not able to do anything but move around. And if there is gameplay to be done during dialog, then I can't have my full attention on the dialog. The no cut-scene way of presenting the story WORKED in Bioshock since exposition was done with radio communications, I'm just saying it doesn't work for most games.
The scrolling test analogy isn't that good. A game could have scrolling text and make it work, you could shoot the text down to get to move text so it's static text but with interactivity as well. Games have are a very unique medium that can use techniques from pretty much all other mediums. A book can't use movie techniques because there is no visual or audio aspect to books. I'm sure movies have used several ways of framing a scene that were originally done in a comic book first. I don't see why you would want to limit the tools a game can use to deliver an experience.
Treblaine said:
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.
I dislike most Hollywood movies especially the summer blockbusters like Transformers. I also hate Halo. Well, I more-so hate Halo for what it has caused other FPSs to turn into, with the regen health (even though Halo didn't have regen health, just shields) and the 2 weapon carry limit.
They ARE little girls, only a true psychopath would think it's acceptable to calculatedly murder children for personal gain if they aren't cute. And all those splicers? You killed crazy people in self-defence as the only means to prevent your immediate death. That's war. Soldiers can make good statesmen, such as President Kennedy and not forgetting George Washington.
My analogy isn't even an analogy, it is a perfect explanation via a shifted perspective.
You are a worthy opponent, but you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Question: When you are isolated with little hope against surviving with murderous things after you and the only way to keep your chances of survival above 0% is to obtain a special substance, wouldn't you want as much of that substance to improve your chances of survival even if it means to kill someone you wouldn't normally?
Hint: The question is rhetorical, it is human instinct to survive, and when put in a situation and traumatized in such a manner, morals get thrown out the window for the average human being. It isn't just a psychopath who would do that.
On a side note: You just mixed morals and instincts leading to two different outcomes to prove a point which wasn't actually proven at all.
You don't HAVE to murder the little girls, you get by just fine by only Saving them, though you must suffer a bit but not too much. Only greed and psychopathic lack of empathy leads to harvesting. Greed, wanting more than you NEED. That makes you a BAD person. You need "some" to survive, but it does not justify infanticide to get "as much of that substance" as possible. Just because some is necessary, does not mean ALL must be obtained at all costs.
Every time a Splicer attacks you have no choice, it is kill or be killed. It is self-defence.
Now if ADAM was so short going the "Rescue Sisters" route that the game was almost impossible to beat, then that is no moral choice, you have no choice but to resort to Harvesting or dying. It's like those people whose plane crashed on a mountain and had to resort to cannibalism, they had NO CHOICE! If someone is chasing you with a knife intending to kill you and you use a gun to shoot them, it is not murder, you have no choice but to kill them to save your life.
It is in fact YOU who is the one conflating morals and "survival instinct"! Harvesting a single Little Sister is never necessary for survival. Only Greed.
I think this is a god damn excellent moral choice, as it shows how moral the players really are. Those who have poor moral guidance are the ones who say there is no real choice or they shouldn't be judged for infanticide. You're a slave to your greed. It deludes and blinds you that there is no choice, to obey your greed with the rationalisation of "survival instinct".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
"
