I've come to the conclusion that Bioshock 2 is vastly superior to the first...

in almost every conceivable way.

Graphics - Both look the same, and both look dated. Nothing special here.

Gameplay - Bioshock 2 blows the original away in this department, not much arguing it. The combat is now soooo much smoother and flows beautifully.

Pacing - With a more streamlined story that's better suited for a video game, and the removal of those horrific hacking minigames that almost single-handedly destroyed the original's pacing, BS2 again proves to be vastly superior in this department.

Story - BS1 wins of course, but I can't help but feel that it's superb story would have been better suited for a novel or film. BS2's story, while inferior to it overall, works better as a "video game story" in my opinion. It's a more coherent and structured narrative that provides an excellent backdrop for the mindless video game killing that we all love.

Characters/dialogue/voice acting - Eh, I know A LOT of people will disagree with me but I'm calling this a draw. I don't think either game outdoes the other in this area. Both were incredible.

I think it's pretty rediculous that BS2 was ignored at the GS awards this year, and by a lot of gamers in general, for supposedly not living up to the original. Are you kidding? It's better than the original! Discuss...

in almost every concievable way.

Graphics - Both look the same, and both look dated. Nothing special here.

Gameplay - Bioshock 2 blows the original away in this department, not much arguing it. The combat is now soooo much smoother and flows beautifully.

Pacing - With a more streamlined story that's better suited for a video game, and the removal of those horrific hacking minigames that almost single-handedly destroyed the original's pacing, BS2 again proves to be vastly superior in this department.

Story - BS1 wins of course, but I can't help but feel that it's superb story would have been better suited for a novel or film. Bioshock 2's story, while inferior to it overall, works better as a "video game story" in my opinion. It's a more coherent and structured narrative that provides an excellent backdrop for the mindless video game killing that we all love.

Characters/dialogue/voice acting - Eh, I know A LOT of people will disagree with me but I'm calling this a draw. I don't think either game outdoes the other in this area. Both were incredible.

I think it's pretty rediculous that BS2 was ignored at the GS awards this year, and by a lot of gamers in general, for supposedly not living up to the original. Are you kidding? It's better than the original! Discuss...

Master_ShakeXXX

i agree with you that bs 2 is better thatn bs1 but there is no such things as "not a story suited for a game" some games are great for their stories and all video game should have great stories

I have to agree with you for the most part, TC.

I have to agree with you for the most part, TC.

jasonharris48

Why thank you very much Mr. Jason Harris. I said it once and I'll say it again. Your taste in video games is simply astounding :D

*Shrugs* Speaking in defense of those of us who ignored Bioshock 2, based on what I've heard the gameplay is better but Bioshock 2 just struck me as an unnecessary, timid sequel.

The original didn't really leave room for a sequel, so returning to Rapture and making the protagonist another fast moving guy (judging by the demo and the footage it contained, being a Big Daddy certainly didn't impact his speed of movement and didn't instill in him any qualms about harvesting Little Sisters) who was confronting the leader of the city and had the option to harvest Adam reflects a profound failure of imagination.

I'm not saying Bioshock 2 isn't a better game than Bioshock, but its not the sequel Bioshock deserved. Based on what I've seen Bioshock Infinite is the game Bioshock 2 should have been. A reimagining, not merely a rehash.

*Shrugs* Speaking in defense of those of us who ignored Bioshock 2, based on what I've heard the gameplay is better but Bioshock 2 just struck me as an unnecessary, timid sequel.

The original didn't really leave room for a sequel, so returning to Rapture and making the protagonist another fast moving guy (judging by the demo and the footage it contained, being a Big Daddy certainly didn't impact his speed of movement and didn't instill in him any qualms about harvesting Little Sisters) who was confronting the leader of the city and had the option to harvest Adam reflects a profound failure of imagination.

I'm not saying Bioshock 2 isn't a better game than Bioshock, but its not the sequel Bioshock deserved. Based on what I've seen Bioshock Infinite is the game Bioshock 2 should have been. A reimagining, not merely a rehash.

CarnageHeart

I completely agree :D.

I liked Bioshock 2, I really didn't like the first one at all. Bioshock 2 improved the gameplay, I didn't like the characters in Bioshock 1 (except for the artist), I didn't feel like the story had any real surprises, and I didn't think the game had a good atmosphere or environment after the demo portion ended.

while i like them both i still think bioshock 1 is better than bishock 2

I have to say Bioshock 1 is still better than Bishock 2.

Gameplay-wise B2 is better but what could we expect? It is the sequel and something needed to be improved on and it was the gameplay. But dont forget: Bioshock is a story-driven shooter and to get rid of the suspence of the story means you failed to deliver the basics of the idea behind the series.

In B2, only after 15 or 20 minutes of gameplay you are actually TOLD who the villain is and what you need to do. Where is the climax, where is the twist?

As i said, story should have been number one priority for the devs to get it right and they failed.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

*Shrugs* Speaking in defense of those of us who ignored Bioshock 2, based on what I've heard the gameplay is better but Bioshock 2 just struck me as an unnecessary, timid sequel.

The original didn't really leave room for a sequel, so returning to Rapture and making the protagonist another fast moving guy (judging by the demo and the footage it contained, being a Big Daddy certainly didn't impact his speed of movement and didn't instill in him any qualms about harvesting Little Sisters) who was confronting the leader of the city and had the option to harvest Adam reflects a profound failure of imagination.

I'm not saying Bioshock 2 isn't a better game than Bioshock, but its not the sequel Bioshock deserved. Based on what I've seen Bioshock Infinite is the game Bioshock 2 should have been. A reimagining, not merely a rehash.

streak000

I completely agree :D.

I agree too.

I agree with you that BS2 is considerably better, but I have to disagree on two accounts:

Graphics: At least on the PC, the first game looks vastly superior to the second. The textures in BS2 are much, much blurrier. It's very obvious that BS2 is a straight console port.

Story: I don't think the story in BS1 was better. Sure, the philosophical backdrop was more interesting and deeper than in the second game, and of course it had the benefit of presenting an all-new setting. However, I thought the central plot in the second was much stronger. It actually had something going on, and was consistent throughout the whole game until taking a nose-dive with a very lame late-game plot twist. Not to mention the ending of BS1 was absolutely horrible, while the (good) ending to the second was beautiful.

Cryostasis still blows both games out of the water in terms of story, though.

I enjoyed them both but I would give the edge to the second game for sure. I loved the multi-player and thought the story and gameplay were much improved.

I want Bioshock: Infinite. Though I don't see the setting of a floating city more interesting than that of Rapture.

some games are great for their stories and all video game should have great storiesKrelian-co

Haven't got round to playing it yet, the thought of stamping arround playing as another dig daddy just does'nt appeal to me..

Whilst he thought of playing amongst the clouds in the third title makes me want to avoid the franchise even morso.

Story - BS1 wins of course, but I can't help but feel that it's superb story would have been better suited for a novel or film.

Master_ShakeXXX

I couldn't disagree more. I think a video game was the perfect medium for Bioshock's story because the "Would you kindly?" twist might have been surprising in a novel or film, but it couldn't have had the same effect as in a video game. I don't know about you, but I was blown away when I found out that I was just a pawn for the villain. Because I had been actively playing the role of Jack, and not just reading about him or watching him, I felt like I really really him and that I really had just discovered I had no free will. Plus, part of the story is that you have to make the choice of saving the Little Sisters or harvesting them, and you can't really incorporate choices into novels or films.

Better in some ways? Yes. Vastly superior in all categories? Certainly not. The combat in B2 was much better, but B1's story and specific environments were far more engaging. Also, B1's characters were more memorable. **SPOILERS AHEAD** I was incredibly disappointed with the fact that Andrew Ryan didn't make some kind of return. Don't say it's impossible because he's dead...the Vita-Chamber works for everyone with his DNA, don't forget.

I couldnt stand Bioshock 2.Allicrombie

Bioshock 1 was amazing, Bioshock 2 just didn't have the WOW factor the first did, or a good story.

The basic premise of Bioshock 2 already had it pegged as inferior. Bioshock 1 was never popular for it's action, what made it great was the sense of discovery exploring such a new and interesting enviroment and it's story. It's story was superior (Reguardless of how well suited for a game it was) and having already explored rapture there was little sense of discovery in the sequel.

I think the debate between Bioshock 1 & 2 can be summed up in the following: A game needs to be more than just a collection of ideas to be great. It has to be greater than the sum of its parts. Bioshock 2 while technically superior in many ways. It lacked any real effort to come up with new ideas.

The only new mechanic that had a large impact on the game was being able to equip a plasmid and weapon at the same time. Virtually NO other idea presented in BS2 made it stand above BS1. Instead the developers were content to let it remain in the shadow of the first one.

Big Sister was originally supposed to be the main villain, their was originaly only going to be one. Instead they basically took the exact same story from BS1. Made a new villain, and centered the idea around Altruism as opposed to the first ones Objectivism oriented story. The game didn't suffer from being a bad game, it suffered from a lack of creativity and exicution on the part of the developer.

Well I am extremely glad to hear that as I got it for Christmas and am very ancy to play it. Once I finish Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which should be soon I'll be diving right in to Bioshock 2 and honestly I have been anticipating starting it since I first got it. Cannot wait! And glad to hear it is so great! For some reason I haven't been this excited to start a game in quite some time, and I've played some pretty good games over the recent months.

I want Bioshock: Infinite. Though I don't see the setting of a floating city more interesting than that of Rapture.

iAtrocious

Exactly...there is no better game setting than Rapture imo, so I am very happy about the sequel being made. Call it my own personal greed, but I want to re-visit it even if its similar to the first one. I am excited about Infinite, but I hope in 5-6 years from now Rapture is once again re-visited and re-imagined whether it be during its glory days or in more modern times like say the 90s.

Both suck.

I think both were great, but the only valid points that you point out about BS2 are related to the fact that it is a sequel (Of course it will have better gameplay). However, BS1 just had an amazing story that I will always fall in love with. So overall, Bioshock is definitely better than the second, but the second is a great game. Then again, I am a little biased against things you say TC, after all, I think (Sorry if wrong, but I am almost sure I am not, unless someone else has the same avatar as you), you are the one that says ME and ME2 are bad games.Mythomniac

I never said ME1 and ME2 are bad games. I have said (numerous times) that the ME2 demo is terrible, and it absolutely is. Even ME2 fans have agreed with this. That said, I'm not going to be purchasing ME2, atleast not until a price drop, because I didn't like the clunky gameplay in the demo at all. I'm sure that wont change much in the full game.

Both were good. The first one was slightly better for me

I think the debate between Bioshock 1 & 2 can be summed up in the following: A game needs to be more than just a collection of ideas to be great. It has to be greater than the sum of its parts. Bioshock 2 while technically superior in many ways. It lacked any real effort to come up with new ideas.

The only new mechanic that had a large impact on the game was being able to equip a plasmid and weapon at the same time. Virtually NO other idea presented in BS2 made it stand above BS1. Instead the developers were content to let it remain in the shadow of the first one.

Big Sister was originally supposed to be the main villain, their was originaly only going to be one. Instead they basically took the exact same story from BS1. Made a new villain, and centered the idea around Altruism as opposed to the first ones Objectivism oriented story. The game didn't suffer from being a bad game, it suffered from a lack of creativity and exicution on the part of the developer.

keech

But it didn't really need to be creative because there was still a lot of exploring to do in Rapture. That viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me. Why throw away all that potential for expansion on history and story in one of gamings' all time greatest cities simply for the sake of "creativity"? Does that make sense to you?

Bioshock 2 already had an awesome basis to start on and needed to only worry about expansion / making improvements, and it did just that. It would have been a total waste to throw that opportunity away. Besides, they are getting "creative" with the next installment, and to be quite honest I don't think Columbia looks anywhere near as interesting as Rapture. I'm just happy that we got a chance to see more of it before moving on to a different and most likely inferior location.

[QUOTE="keech"]

I think the debate between Bioshock 1 & 2 can be summed up in the following: A game needs to be more than just a collection of ideas to be great. It has to be greater than the sum of its parts. Bioshock 2 while technically superior in many ways. It lacked any real effort to come up with new ideas.

The only new mechanic that had a large impact on the game was being able to equip a plasmid and weapon at the same time. Virtually NO other idea presented in BS2 made it stand above BS1. Instead the developers were content to let it remain in the shadow of the first one.

Big Sister was originally supposed to be the main villain, their was originaly only going to be one. Instead they basically took the exact same story from BS1. Made a new villain, and centered the idea around Altruism as opposed to the first ones Objectivism oriented story. The game didn't suffer from being a bad game, it suffered from a lack of creativity and exicution on the part of the developer.

Master_ShakeXXX

But it didn't really need to be creative because there was still a lot of exploring to do in Rapture. That viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me. Why throw away all that potential for expansion on history and story in one of gamings' all time greatest cities simply for the sake of "creativity"? Does that make sense to you?

Bioshock 2 already had an awesome basis to start on and needed to only worry about expansion / making improvements, and it did just that. It would have been a total waste to throw that opportunity away. Besides, they are getting "creative" with the next installment, and to be quite honest I don't think Columbia looks anywhere near as interesting as Rapture. I'm just happy that we got a chance to see more of it before moving on to a different and most likely inferior location.

I wasn't inferring that the games setting should not of been in Rapture. I think Rapture is a fantastic setting and every single sequel could of taken place in it.

But as far as "expansion/making improvements". IMO other than what I mentioned in my first post they didn't make any. The one or two new ideas they did have felt horribly under developed. You being a Big Daddy was a joke, you may as well of been another random guy. I know the reasoning was you're supposed to be an early prototype model. But that just came of as a hollow excuse because they dev's couldn't figure out how to make it work.

I think that's the real problem. This game had no less than 4 (possibly 5, I don't remember) development teams working on it at the SAME TIME, none of which were the developers of BS1. 4 development teams, one of which worked exclusivly on multiplayer, and look at how bad that was. Yet the best they could do was to copy what Irrational Games did down to the letter? When I first read a preview for BS2 all the ideas they had sounded great on paper. Most the ideas were either scrapped or stripped down to the point of asking "why bother?"

Despite all it's bolster and few shining moments when you could tell the dev's were actually trying, the game was a carbon copy of the original. A retread in almost every way, with an inferior villain and story. Standing on the shoulder of greatness doesn't make you great. It just makes you taller.

Bioshock 2's story is better than the first. Why?

In fact, she is the mirror of your choices. Your choices mean so much more in the second than in the first game its not even funny.

In fact, while Sophia Lamb is the opposite of Ryan, her ideology is not the focus, her treatment of her daughter is. Really while Bioshock 1 was more epic and grand, Bioshock 2 is more personal and intimate. It really wasn't about alturism, but about parenthood. Sophia's brutal abuse of her daughter is far more important than her ideology.

The finale is also far better in the sequel as well, no contest.

Minerva's Den is awesome as well.

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

[QUOTE="keech"]

I think the debate between Bioshock 1 & 2 can be summed up in the following: A game needs to be more than just a collection of ideas to be great. It has to be greater than the sum of its parts. Bioshock 2 while technically superior in many ways. It lacked any real effort to come up with new ideas.

The only new mechanic that had a large impact on the game was being able to equip a plasmid and weapon at the same time. Virtually NO other idea presented in BS2 made it stand above BS1. Instead the developers were content to let it remain in the shadow of the first one.

Big Sister was originally supposed to be the main villain, their was originaly only going to be one. Instead they basically took the exact same story from BS1. Made a new villain, and centered the idea around Altruism as opposed to the first ones Objectivism oriented story. The game didn't suffer from being a bad game, it suffered from a lack of creativity and exicution on the part of the developer.

But it didn't really need to be creative because there was still a lot of exploring to do in Rapture. That viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me. Why throw away all that potential for expansion on history and story in one of gamings' all time greatest cities simply for the sake of "creativity"? Does that make sense to you?

Bioshock 2 already had an awesome basis to start on and needed to only worry about expansion / making improvements, and it did just that. It would have been a total waste to throw that opportunity away. Besides, they are getting "creative" with the next installment, and to be quite honest I don't think Columbia looks anywhere near as interesting as Rapture. I'm just happy that we got a chance to see more of it before moving on to a different and most likely inferior location.

I wasn't inferring that the games setting should not of been in Rapture. I think Rapture is a fantastic setting and every single sequel could of taken place in it.

But as far as "expansion/making improvements". IMO other than what I mentioned in my first post they didn't make any. The one or two new ideas they did have felt horribly under developed. You being a Big Daddy was a joke, you may as well of been another random guy. I know the reasoning was you're supposed to be an early prototype model. But that just came of as a hollow excuse because they dev's couldn't figure out how to make it work.

I think that's the real problem. This game had no less than 4 (possibly 5, I don't remember) development teams working on it at the SAME TIME, none of which were the developers of BS1. 4 development teams, one of which worked exclusivly on multiplayer, and look at how bad that was. Yet the best they could do was to copy what Irrational Games did down to the letter? When I first read a preview for BS2 all the ideas they had sounded great on paper. Most the ideas were either scrapped or stripped down to the point of asking "why bother?"

Despite all it's bolster and few shining moments when you could tell the dev's were actually trying, the game was a carbon copy of the original. A retread in almost every way, with an inferior villain and story. Standing on the shoulder of greatness doesn't make you great. It just makes you taller.

Neither game had a good story. The setting is fantastic with a richly imagined backstory that is unimaginatively told through audio recordings that show up in the most bizarre of places (and in chronological order, too!). I think if they had based Bioshock 1's plot on the events recorded in the audiofiles, they would have had an incredible story. But they didn't and backstory is not the same thing as plot. Bioshock's plot has about 3 scenes in it (plane crash, twist, finale), and while the twist is magnificently set up through radio communications, it doesn't make up for the fact that the narrative is almost non-existent in between these three scenes.

I will agree that Bioshock 2's gameplay feels more significant because of the way your actions are reflected back at you in your original little sister. And the villain in 2 is far superior to Ryan or Fontaine, who just strike me as the stereotypical fat cat - Rapture's equivalent of "the Man." Sofia Lamb, on the other hand has a religious edge to her. Guys that do it for religion will always be scarier than guys that do it for profit. It's that simple.

Bioshock 2 was more fun to play than the original, but I'm hardly going to give it credit for the plasmid/firearm dual wielding when games like Psi-ops were doing this sort of thing years before and were much more fun with it. Should have been able to do this in the first game, which to me is a further illustration of how the original put all it's creativity into the backdrop and didn't leave anything left for the gameplay, which regardless of the emphasis is boring.

Bioshock 2's idea to play as a Big Daddy is interesting, but the execution of it doesn't feel much different from playing as the protagonist in the first game. Seems like, if I'm a Big Daddy, this game should be throwing 10-15 splicers at me at once...but it's just throwing three or four at a time and I really didn't feel anymore powerful than in the original. Waste of potential.

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]I think both were great, but the only valid points that you point out about BS2 are related to the fact that it is a sequel (Of course it will have better gameplay). However, BS1 just had an amazing story that I will always fall in love with. So overall, Bioshock is definitely better than the second, but the second is a great game. Then again, I am a little biased against things you say TC, after all, I think (Sorry if wrong, but I am almost sure I am not, unless someone else has the same avatar as you), you are the one that says ME and ME2 are bad games.Master_ShakeXXX

I never said ME1 and ME2 are bad games. I have said (numerous times) that the ME2 demo is terrible, and it absolutely is. Even ME2 fans have agreed with this. That said, I'm not going to be purchasing ME2, atleast not until a price drop, because I didn't like the clunky gameplay in the demo at all. I'm sure that wont change much in the full game.

[QUOTE="keech"]

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

But it didn't really need to be creative because there was still a lot of exploring to do in Rapture. That viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me. Why throw away all that potential for expansion on history and story in one of gamings' all time greatest cities simply for the sake of "creativity"? Does that make sense to you?

Bioshock 2 already had an awesome basis to start on and needed to only worry about expansion / making improvements, and it did just that. It would have been a total waste to throw that opportunity away. Besides, they are getting "creative" with the next installment, and to be quite honest I don't think Columbia looks anywhere near as interesting as Rapture. I'm just happy that we got a chance to see more of it before moving on to a different and most likely inferior location.

texasgoldrush

I wasn't inferring that the games setting should not of been in Rapture. I think Rapture is a fantastic setting and every single sequel could of taken place in it.

But as far as "expansion/making improvements". IMO other than what I mentioned in my first post they didn't make any. The one or two new ideas they did have felt horribly under developed. You being a Big Daddy was a joke, you may as well of been another random guy. I know the reasoning was you're supposed to be an early prototype model. But that just came of as a hollow excuse because they dev's couldn't figure out how to make it work.

I think that's the real problem. This game had no less than 4 (possibly 5, I don't remember) development teams working on it at the SAME TIME, none of which were the developers of BS1. 4 development teams, one of which worked exclusivly on multiplayer, and look at how bad that was. Yet the best they could do was to copy what Irrational Games did down to the letter? When I first read a preview for BS2 all the ideas they had sounded great on paper. Most the ideas were either scrapped or stripped down to the point of asking "why bother?"

Despite all it's bolster and few shining moments when you could tell the dev's were actually trying, the game was a carbon copy of the original. A retread in almost every way, with an inferior villain and story. Standing on the shoulder of greatness doesn't make you great. It just makes you taller.

Exactly. For me that's the biggest thing that made Bioshock 2 work. In the original, we are simply an outsider. A "guest" who stumbles accross this strange place and spend most of our time exploring and learning more about it. This was great of course because Rapture was so damn original and well-designed with a very rich history.

For the sequel the devs were wise enough not to make a retread of this, and instead (brilliantly, in my opinion) went for a more personal story like you say. We are no longer an outsider, but a part of the world, and therefore feel more involved and emotionally attatched to the going-ons of Rapture. This was what made BS2's story work incredibly well despite it being inferior overall to the original's.

I disagree about the villains though. Sophia Lamb simply was not anywhere near as interesting as Andrew Ryan and Fontaine. A brilliant rational psychopath will always be superior to an irrational religious zealot nutcase. Andrew Ryan had some downright interesting and creepy points of view on society and business strategies.

Lamb merely spent the whole game spouting off about weird religious crap that made absolutely no sense. While technically there isn't anything wrong with that as that's simply her type of character, but it doesn't make for a very interesting one because we cannot connect with her ideas. There's nothing to connect with. They are just the illogical ramblings of a crazy person.

Can't agree, but you stated your case well.

I couldnt stand Bioshock 2.Allicrombie

You're wrong. It's not that Bioshock 2 was bad, but it was no Bioshock 1. It just felt... derivavtive. The story wasn't nearly as good, and while the characters were pretty good, Bioshock 1's were better. The much touted feature of playing as a big daddy was a complete failure. You feel just like a human, as splicers with wrenches not only damage you, but can take 1/4 ot 1/3 of your health in one blow. Made no sense.