Bioshock is such a chore ** SPOILERS **

I have it for 360.When I first read the reviews and seen the trailers I couldn't wait to get it.Then it all went down hill from there.Just like most of you have already said,it is a chore and is repetetive.I have completed it.I had to take a long break from it though.Then go back to it.The 10s that it got.I have no idea how but it did get good ratings.I finished it saving all little sisters and the ending was pretty cool.So I am one console owner that wasn't impressed by it.

It's a piece of art work, and a beacon in an industry ruled by generic trash.NAPK1NS

That's a joke, right?

BioShock is nothing but a recycled version of a masterpiece. System Shock 2 did everything BioShock did, and it did most of it way, way better than BioShock did.

A work of art is a very big call - it is extremely artistic in a way that no game has really been before. I don't know about "a beacon of light" lol...

However, I do see that both Crysis and Bioshock are a catalyst for the evolution of the FPS genre in that players are having much more input into what is happening on screen - they are the ones deciding on how to attack situations with different approaches.

Yawn, pc gamers touting their superiority complex again, It seems as if we need to constantly tout it, perhaps a sound of insecurity? The pc master race strikes again. :roll:

I'm an exclusive pc gamer, and I enjoyed bioshock immensely, so no, it's not a console thing. It's a gamer thing, it's a taste thing.

A decent game? Yes.

A good Half Life-esque shooter? Yes.

A good System Shock successor? No way in hell.

After many months of hyping I was lured to believe we were waiting for an epic FPSRPG hybrid (like STALKER) with at least some freedom (like, for example, Far Cry or Crysis). What we got was an overly easy and lineal game, where the plasmids system breaks down halfway (a very small fraction of them are any useful) and the 'moral' choices a complete joke. Since there's no multiplayer, and two endings that you can get to in less than a week, it has barely any replay value. The game is not bad, just disappointing.

I really liked Bioshock, I guess I am one of those people that varied the way I played the game and I really made the most of all the different ways of completing tasks and combat with all the tools available at hand. I loved creating traps with the plasmids and the weapons. There was nothing more enjoyable than putting mines on the roof and having a couple of cyclone traps underneath them, which would fling an unwitting splicer up into the mines, then explode them over in to a pool of water in which I would electrocute them, then freeze them and shoot them with the shot gun. Great fun and I don't know of any other game that gives me that type of freedom. I understand that some people just used the same attack routine over and over again to complete the game and whilst I think that is a fault of the game, it really is a reflection of a player, how they play all games and perhaps a reflection on a limited imagination.

I loved the game and yes it was a dumbed down version of System Shock 2 but I hold no grudge towards Bioshock because of it. In fact I was so into System Shock 2 that I was a member of the "Rebirth" and "SHTUP "Mod teams. And whilst I still believe that System Shock 2 is the best game ever made, there were aspects of it that were irking. Such as the constant backtracking in the later levels. This was something that Bioshock actually improved upon. The rehash of the story twists in SS2 was a bit dissapointing but Bioshock still has a better storyline than 95% of the games out there, rehashed or not. If you hadn't played SS2 before i would imagine it would have been a revelation just like SS2's storyline was the first time round.

I find it odd that some vocal minority on this forum throw the example of STALKER up, as a competitor to be classed in the same genre as System Shock 2, Deus Ex and Bioshock. The similarities end as far as being a FPS Hybrid IMHO. STALKER's freedom comes from approaching combat from different shooting strategic angles. I.E. whether you approach from the North, South, East or West, what gun you are going to use etc. But there were no different ways of defeating an enemy apart from shooting them. There was no using the environment against them (and I don't mean using the terrain or darkness to hide behind). In System Shock 2, Deus Ex, AND Bioshock, it was up to you on how you were going to take those enemies down (Deus Ex was the best exponent of this) In STALKER, at the end of it all you can only defeat the enemy by shooting them.

Oh and the mindless repetitive backtracking, seemingly endless map trekking, pointless "busy work" side quests, and generic respawning really took the shine of an otherwise great game in STALKER for me. I can't understand how the STALKER pimps complain about the limited NPC's in Bioshock, when STALKER is guilty of the same thing. I would class STALKER as the same genre as Crysis, and Farcry and should as they all have the same linear sandbox approach to gaming.

Yawn, pc gamers touting their superiority complex again, It seems as if we need to constantly tout it, perhaps a sound of insecurity? The pc master race strikes again. :roll:

I'm an exclusive pc gamer, and I enjoyed bioshock immensely, so no, it's not a console thing. It's a gamer thing, it's a taste thing.

Siofen

Nice to see someone point out the obvious. Bioshock was a great game. It's atmosphere alone absolutely destroys anything that has come out in recent memory. The way they aloud the player to find the recorders and play them to reveal the story was genius. The environments were downright beautiful. The concept in general was great and they fleshed out the story perfectly. Was the combat a bit derivative? Ya it probably was. Do I care? Not at all. The combat was good enough and everything else was above and beyond every other FPS period. Bioshock was easily a 10 and then some.

Too bad you had audio logs in System Shock 2 and Doom 3. It was genius back in 1999.

The story is pasted from SS2, which is a shame, the shooting is BAD, the plasmids are basically Dark Messiah Reloaded, Adam is useless, the RPG is lackluster (DM was better in this aspect) and you had even more choices in combat in DM - 'cause you had like a crapload of weapons, traps, spells and combos.

The level design is again Doom3, including the backtracking; the moral choices are actually only one repeated throughout the game, and it's a weak one, and the hacking simply blows. I'll never understand why it's the same type of hacking for all the devices.

The graphics are meh - horrible textures, but the rest is good; unfortunately, Prey looks almost the same, it just doesn't have pretty water and soft shadows.

The sound is good (if you don't experience the darn sound bugs).

The atmosphere sucks and it's not immersive. It's interesting in the beggining, but the levels are too confined to be believable, except for the mall, others are really unimaginative, like the laboratories in the end, and the gameplay becames bland and it sucks out all the fun.I can't believe that after playing Stalker someone could say Bioshock has a better atmosphere.

And the worst part is that it acts so god damn smart, but when you look back in 1999 and you see a game miles better in every aspect except the graphics... you get my point.

They promised "Shooter 2.0"...

Too bad you had audio logs in System Shock 2 and Doom 3. It was genius back in 1999.

The story is pasted from SS2, which is a shame, the shooting is BAD, the plasmids are basically Dark Messiah Reloaded, Adam is useless, the RPG is lackluster (DM was better in this aspect) and you had even more choices in combat in DM - 'cause you had like a crapload of weapons, traps, spells and combos.

Baranga

No, the story is not pasted from SS2 - you could pull similarities and what have you but I could do that to anything. Half-Life 1 and Doom: A portal was opened that allowed monsters to travel from another universe into our world.
The way the story is presented and the feel of it is so different between Bioshock and System Shock 2. One is very focused on a precise era, the other sci-fi and horror.

The shooting is bad? I hate generalisations. The weapons have been under the ocean for twenty years! They are old and authentic! What do you expect? If you just had the guns you wouldn't use the powers. There is a precise focus on powers here.

Don't even think about trying to say that Bioshock ripped off Dark Messiah. Just don't. That game is hardly original and certainly didn't invent them. Adam is not useless as it allows you to purchase a limited number of powers - again generalisations in arguing. Why are you even comparing it to Dark Messiah? They are nothing alike? lol

The level design is again Doom3, including the backtracking; the moral choices are actually only one repeated throughout the game, and it's a weak one, and the hacking simply blows. I'll never understand why it's the same type of hacking for all the devices.

Baranga

I never had to backtrack. The level design is doom3? What does that mean? Its linear. Well there's a lot of those mate and I'll tell you what this game has a hell of a lot more interesting art direction that Doom. The moral choice is a repeated theme and motif, while isn't weak as it has its own advantages and disadvantages, as well as two endings.

The hacking is just a little mini game - stop trying to put as much crap on the game as possible.

The graphics are meh - horrible textures, but the rest is good; unfortunately, Prey looks almost the same, it just doesn't have pretty water and soft shadows.

Baranga

Again putting rubbish on the game which no one would agree with. The graphics are excellent if you have decent hardware, and showcase varied and beautiful art direction all authentic to the era.

The atmosphere sucks and it's not immersive. It's interesting in the beggining, but the levels are too confined to be believable, except for the mall, others are really unimaginative, like the laboratories in the end, and the gameplay becames bland and it sucks out all the fun.I can't believe that after playing Stalker someone could say Bioshock has a better atmosphere.

Baranga

No the atmosphere doesn't suck. It keeps the game very tense and spooky. Its extremely immersive actually. You always feel so involved in the world because of the art direction, the music, the decorations. You could believe that it actually existed perhaps.

The levels are fairly small but intentionally so. Unimaginative? What about the threatre that was great!

And the worst part is that it acts so god damn smart, but when you look back in 1999 and you see a game miles better in every aspect except the graphics... you get my point.

They promised "Shooter 2.0"...

Baranga

It acts so smart? I really don't know what you're talking about here. Again putting youknowwhat on the game. Its a video game. I don't want to look back to 1999. I'm not going to make a judgement on System Shock 2 here. That was a good game and so is this.

They didn't promise Shooter 2.0 - whatever that means.

They promised a game that would give you a bit of freedom in the action, an awesome art **** a unique setting and some great atmosphere.

And you know what? They delivered.

[/end thread]

No, the story is not pasted from SS2 biggest_loser

I can go into detail on how all the themes and subtext of BS are present in SS2. I can go into detail on how all the character archetypes of BS are present in SS2. The core stories are almost identical. There is only one difference, a relatively insignificant B story. I will leave it to Baranga to respond if he chooses to, but BS and SS2 are close to identical - simply changing everyone's trousers to a different style doesn't make it a different story.

you could pull similarities and what have you but I could do that to anything. Half-Life 1 and Doom: A portal was opened that allowed monsters to travel from another universe into our world. biggest_loser

Half Life's story is just a glorified version of Doom's. Many reviews noted that at the time of the game's release. But Half Life does expand on Doom's concept a little, and subsequent HL releases have fleshed out the story.

And we aren't just talking about "similarities" between SS2 and BS. We're talking about completely identical elements. You can argue that the game is good all you want, and many of your arguments are legitimate, but you cannot argue that BS's story is particularly different to SS2's. Either you didn't play SS2, you didn't pay much attention to it, or you aren't capable of looking beneath the surface layer of a story, because they are close to identical.

Or you're just arguing for the hell of it.

Bioshock is a good example of dumbing down a game. All it has going for it is artistic design and scenery. The gameplay is as stale and linear as they could make it... and short. kpsting

This is coming from someone who rated Far Cry higher than Morrowind.

It's a remake. They could have done a better story. The philosophy is good, of course, but it's still a copied story and I hate it when people say it's original etc.

I'm not sure how long has passed since Rapture failed. But since the food was still good to eat, the bodies weren't entirely rotten, and from Suchong's logs about your age and growth, I'd say it's a few months. I haven't really thought about this. If I'm correct, than the weapons were well maintained, despite the two decades since they were brought, so they had to feel "good". A game with great gunplay is Quake4, or Doom3, or FEAR. Here, the guns feel float, just like in HL2. SWAT4, another Irrational game, had better shooting...

I'm comparing it to Dark Messiah because it's very similar. Action-RPG. Only that DM had inventory and skills. Using the plasmids or using the spells is kinda same.

I could compare it to Undying, but that one beats Bioshock. It has more original upgradeable spells, and you can simultaneously cast spells and shoot. Even the inventory is almost like Bioshock's.

Or with Oblivion, but that game is bland.

Adam is useless, because I got to the last level with 300 following the good path, and with 1000 with the bad one. I finished the game twice because after patching I found Sonic Boom to be awesome and I lied myself that I'm a Jedi Master.

Well, I had to backtrack a lot. The part with the doctor that was Shodan's voice sucked, and hunting the three idiots to take a picture of them was again backtracking. It was about 1.5 hours of going back and forward, because Arcadia seems like a maze to me for some reason and I fel over those wooden ledges a lot while looking for roses:lol:

It's Doom3 with the lights turned on and pretty architecture. Or Prey without wet walls.

The hacking may be a minigame, but it's dumb and repetitive. Even the biased reviewers noticed that. How was I supposed to know that safe no. 876 didn't contain some awesome goodies? Of course I had to hack it. The flying robots were annoying, so I had to hack cameras. The turrets were hurting, so I had to hack them ('coz they are helpful too when the splicers respawn).

The graphics may be excellent on decent hardware, but not everybody has it. The textures are the main problem, they are low-res. On medium it's difficult to read, and on minimum... it's useless.

About the levels - the theatre is the mall level I said it was the good one: Every society, even one at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, needs a place to unwind. A place where adults can indulge themselves, be it a couple of drinks, shopping, trying their luck in a casino or simply having some 'company'. In Rapture this place was none other than Fort Frolic. It featured everything the citizens of Rapture could want from it. From the fine arts such as music and theater to the more salacious distractions such as strip clubs and gambling. And since it was also a shopping destination, it featured many boutiques selling goods from the most luxurious clothing to the finest tobacco.

About the atmosphere is a question of taste. I didn't like it, I felt it was too god damn small to be believable, especially the apartament block.

It was advertised as shooter 2.0. That's a quote from the official site, dated feb. 14 2007:

BioShock is a revolution in the shooter genre that will forever change
the expectations for the FPS. Going beyond "run and gun corridors,"
"monster-closet AIs" and static worlds, BioShock creates a living,
unique and unpredictable FPS experience. BioShock is the Shooter 2.0.

I found it here, and I remember I first saw this in the summer of 2006.

They promised a lot of freedom, but again, nothing new since Dark Messiah had it too:P

I'm not sure how to explain the "acting smart". It's just that everything tries to create such an intelectual atmosphere, but for me at least it failed. It feels like one of those ludicrous movies, Eyes Wide Shut or Vanilla Sky or The Fountain; sometimes and for some folks it works - I liked The Fountain and Vanilla Sky, but I hate other intelectual movies.

Or even better, it feels like the two Matrix sequels: full of philosophy and **** but it's all sty.le, no substance.

They could have done a better story? But you're also saying the story is a copy? So therefore you must think that SS2 has a weak story? You give Duke 10 but you're criticising this game's story even though you agree that it has strong philosophy?

Aren't you at least impressed that games now can deal with such mature themes and elements like philosophy?

Its not a remake btw. There are many similiar elements but this game standards on its own merits and strengths too.

The games named have high tech weapons and automatic assault rifles and what not. Again I go back to the authenticity of the weapons. How are they well maintained? Guns rust over time.

Bioshock isn't an RPG. It just has customistation.

Does Bioshock even have an inventory?

The Adam rewards you in different ways. Two endings.

You really have to stop saying things suck for no reason.

That was just your own experience. It didn't effect me in a negative way.

It's Doom3 with the lights turned on and pretty architecture. Or Prey without wet walls.

No its not. That is just cynical. It is very uinque in its art direction and nothing like doom.

The hacking requires quick thinking.

Not all the reviews can be biased. The mini games were quite intense.

I could say the same thing about Crysis. Except this game is optimised better. Theres nothing wrong with the textures at all. They look great. You need better hardware.

Right, so because Dark Messiah had freedom then this game isn't anything new?

It might be advertised as Shooter 2.0 but as I have said about this and Crysis it is the right way for the FPS genre in giving players more options as to what is happening on screen in relation to handling combat situations, whether its using powers, hacking, sneaking, throwing items, etc.

It had a lot of substance since you were given so many ways to approach situations.

Are you really going to talk about substance and give Duke Nukem 10/10?

Anything can be improved. If a game has a better story than another, it doesn't mean the other story is worse.

There are guns decades old that still work. It requires vaseline and skilled technicians.

Bioshock tries to be a FPS/RPG hybrid. By "inventory" I was talking about the small menu of customisations that you can do on the fly to your weapons and the list that appears when you use something, I know it's not a proper inventory.

The puzzles were intense sometimes, I agree, but I was often just like "dang, why didn't I flipped the other square...", especially on the safes. Hacking a camera the bazillionth time was not fun, and if I didn't hack it it was not fun either. I didn't like the security plasmids, perhaps it's another taste thingy:)

The textures are a well-known problem. It must be the HL2 syndrome of low-res textures! As the tweakguides dude says,

Texture Detail: This setting has three options: High, Medium and Low. As Texture Detail is lowered, textures become progressively more blurry. You can see an animated screenshot comparison of the different texture levels by clicking this link: Bioshock_Textures.gif (858KB). As demonstrated, there is a clear increase in blurriness even at Medium, and by Low textures are so blurry that the text on the poster is illegible. Given most textures in BioShock are already not very high resolution, and the fact that you won't gain any real performance by reducing this setting, I recommend keeping this slider at High. The only reason you should lower it is if you notice a great deal of stuttering and loading pauses as you move around the game world, and given BioShock's engine uses a streaming approach for textures, stuttering should be minimal.

Crysis is HUGE, Bioshock ain't. It's not a fair comparison.

OK, Dark Messiah was first person melee:P But the use of plasmids/spells and the number of options is similar.

Games deal with mature themes as philosophy since the beggining. Planescape Torement still has the most awesome philosophical story ever, and Fallout is light-years beyond in terms of mature themes.

Duke 3D is a parody and is built only with action and fun in mind. You can't compare Ayn Rand with Chuck Norris. Not to mention that it's closer to Nietzsche than to Rand, in the end it seems to criticize her, and I read that Levine got Objectivism wrong.

See, I also gave Painkiller and The Club a 10; that's because the gameplay rocked, and since they hadn't had the slightest intention to create an awesome story with tons of substance, I can't rate them lower because they don't have it. I can't rate Duke lower because it's premise is that Duke's holiday is ruined and he embarks on an epic quest of chewing bubble gum and kicking ass... and he's all outta gum.

But when Bioshock tries and fails, creating another pop-culture-meets-philosophy fiasco along the lines of Reloaded and Revolutions...

Anything can be improved. If a game has a better story than another, it doesn't mean the other story is worse.

There are guns decades old that still work. It requires vaseline and skilled technicians.

Bioshock tries to be a FPS/RPG hybrid. By "inventory" I was talking about the small menu of customisations that you can do on the fly to your weapons and the list that appears when you use something, I know it's not a proper inventory.

The puzzles were intense sometimes, I agree, but I was often just like "dang, why didn't I flipped the other square...", especially on the safes. Hacking a camera the bazillionth time was not fun, and if I didn't hack it it was not fun either. I didn't like the security plasmids, perhaps it's another taste thingy:)

The textures are a well-known problem. It must be the HL2 syndrome of low-res textures! As the tweakguides dude says,

Texture Detail: This setting has three options: High, Medium and Low. As Texture Detail is lowered, textures become progressively more blurry. You can see an animated screenshot comparison of the different texture levels by clicking this link: Bioshock_Textures.gif(858KB). As demonstrated, there is a clear increase in blurriness even at Medium, and by Low textures are so blurry that the text on the poster is illegible. Given most textures in BioShock are already not very high resolution, and the fact that you won't gain any real performance by reducing this setting, I recommend keeping this slider at High. The only reason you should lower it is if you notice a great deal of stuttering and loading pauses as you move around the game world, and given BioShock's engine uses a streaming approach for textures, stuttering should be minimal.

Crysis is HUGE, Bioshock ain't. It's not a fair comparison.

OK, Dark Messiah was first person melee:P But the use of plasmids/spells and the number of options is similar.

Games deal with mature themes as philosophy since the beggining. Planescape Torement still has the most awesome philosophical story ever, and Fallout is light-years beyond in terms of mature themes.

Duke 3D is a parody and is built only with action and fun in mind. You can't compare Ayn Rand with Chuck Norris. Not to mention that it's closer to Nietzsche than to Rand, in the end it seems to criticize her, and I read that Levine got Objectivism wrong.

See, I also gave Painkiller and The Club a 10; that's because the gameplay rocked, and since they hadn't had the slightest intention to create an awesome story with tons of substance, I can't rate them lower because they don't have it. I can't rate Duke lower because it's premise is that Duke's holiday is ruined and he embarks on an epic quest of chewing bubble gum and kicking ass... and he's all outta gum.

But when Bioshock tries and fails, creating another pop-culture-meets-philosophy fiasco along the lines of Reloaded and Revolutions...

Baranga

First of all the graphics were great. It's your hardware. Your taking some random guys words for fact and he's nitpicking at best.

Second of all your rating a game horribly because it has things in common with another game from 13 years ago. Who cares? Everyone didn't play system shock. It's not like it's a brand new game. This is like saying the new Halo' are worthless cause they do in fact recycle ALL the same themes. Somehow everyone still buys and loves them.

Third, please name a game within the last few years that has a better atmosphere. I can guarantee it will be a horror suspense game because you would have to pull that card to come close to Bioshocks atmosphere.

Fourth, Crysis is "huge" and Bioshock isn't? That's how you judge a good game.. How about this Bioshock is fun and Crysis isn't. See how easy that was to throw my random opinion into? Still means nothing.

Fifth, you can judge any game on story because without one the devs were just plain lazy. What they put so much effort into gameplay they just didn't have the time? That actually makes sense to you? Story is a basic element of any non-rudimentary game. BTW you gave "The Club" a 10?

I'm sorry but it seems like you played the games "spiritual precursor" and liked it better so by default are throwing everything you got at Bioshock. Maybe your expecting to much? Maybe Bioshock is what it is. Maybe "dumbing down" could mean streamlining in someone elses definition.

Good day.

Dude you really are the man! lol.

I was going to respond to my friend here but GS wasn't working last night:

lol, because they didn't intend to have a story of substance you can't mark them down? So what you're saying is its better to not have any story at all then to try something a little bit more mature and complex....right. I dont care if Crysis is huge. The game still had to have decent optimisation when it was released.

There were a lot of gamers before DM that used spells mate.

Save the Duke Nukem quotes mate. Bioshock is a terrific game with a lot more substance than that.

Just because you don't understand a game please don't put crap on it and try to rubbish everything about it.

SS2 best shooter ever. Bioshock meh.1q3er5

That seems to be the theme of this thread: SS2 is not the best ever. Neither is Bioshock. Both are great games in their own right. No need for exaggerations.

I loved the game. One of the best games of the year. IMO it was only topped by the Orange Box.

I could see how it could get repetetive near the end, especially when old enemies were simply made more powerful. The overall experience was great, though. It was very cinematic.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Anything can be improved. If a game has a better story than another, it doesn't mean the other story is worse.

There are guns decades old that still work. It requires vaseline and skilled technicians.

Bioshock tries to be a FPS/RPG hybrid. By "inventory" I was talking about the small menu of customisations that you can do on the fly to your weapons and the list that appears when you use something, I know it's not a proper inventory.

The puzzles were intense sometimes, I agree, but I was often just like "dang, why didn't I flipped the other square...", especially on the safes. Hacking a camera the bazillionth time was not fun, and if I didn't hack it it was not fun either. I didn't like the security plasmids, perhaps it's another taste thingy:)

The textures are a well-known problem. It must be the HL2 syndrome of low-res textures! As the tweakguides dude says,

Texture Detail: This setting has three options: High, Medium and Low. As Texture Detail is lowered, textures become progressively more blurry. You can see an animated screenshot comparison of the different texture levels by clicking this link: Bioshock_Textures.gif(858KB). As demonstrated, there is a clear increase in blurriness even at Medium, and by Low textures are so blurry that the text on the poster is illegible. Given most textures in BioShock are already not very high resolution, and the fact that you won't gain any real performance by reducing this setting, I recommend keeping this slider at High. The only reason you should lower it is if you notice a great deal of stuttering and loading pauses as you move around the game world, and given BioShock's engine uses a streaming approach for textures, stuttering should be minimal.

Crysis is HUGE, Bioshock ain't. It's not a fair comparison.

OK, Dark Messiah was first person melee:P But the use of plasmids/spells and the number of options is similar.

Games deal with mature themes as philosophy since the beggining. Planescape Torement still has the most awesome philosophical story ever, and Fallout is light-years beyond in terms of mature themes.

Duke 3D is a parody and is built only with action and fun in mind. You can't compare Ayn Rand with Chuck Norris. Not to mention that it's closer to Nietzsche than to Rand, in the end it seems to criticize her, and I read that Levine got Objectivism wrong.

See, I also gave Painkiller and The Club a 10; that's because the gameplay rocked, and since they hadn't had the slightest intention to create an awesome story with tons of substance, I can't rate them lower because they don't have it. I can't rate Duke lower because it's premise is that Duke's holiday is ruined and he embarks on an epic quest of chewing bubble gum and kicking ass... and he's all outta gum.

But when Bioshock tries and fails, creating another pop-culture-meets-philosophy fiasco along the lines of Reloaded and Revolutions...

Dude_The_Man

First of all the graphics were great. It's your hardware. Your taking some random guys words for fact and he's nitpicking at best.

Second of all your rating a game horribly because it has things in common with another game from 13 years ago. Who cares? Everyone didn't play system shock. It's not like it's a brand new game. This is like saying the new Halo' are worthless cause they do in fact recycle ALL the same themes. Somehow everyone still buys and loves them.

Third, please name a game within the last few years that has a better atmosphere. I can guarantee it will be a horror suspense game because you would have to pull that card to come close to Bioshocks atmosphere.

Fourth, Crysis is "huge" and Bioshock isn't? That's how you judge a good game.. How about this Bioshock is fun and Crysis isn't. See how easy that was to throw my random opinion into? Still means nothing.

Fifth, you can judge any game on story because without one the devs were just plain lazy. What they put so much effort into gameplay they just didn't have the time? That actually makes sense to you? Story is a basic element of any non-rudimentary game. BTW you gave "The Club" a 10?

I'm sorry but it seems like you played the games "spiritual precursor" and liked it better so by default are throwing everything you got at Bioshock. Maybe your expecting to much? Maybe Bioshock is what it is. Maybe "dumbing down" could mean streamlining in someone elses definition.

Good day.

No, I just had to turn off post-processing, I kept the textures on high. The damage control is amazing here:lol: I'm not talking about performance or the cartoony design, which I liked, only about textures and I'm lmaoing because it's such a strong point in our argument:)

Just play the first level again and look at the rocks you have to smash, it's like Oblivion. Or the glass and the metal model inside. Or the wood, or the blood and water pools that look like wax. I'm not talking about the art sty.le, which is beautiful indeed, or the water (which is mindblowing in DX10), it's just that the textures are lackluster. I played the game on DX10 too, and I was like wtf mate, only the water seems better. The random guy is one of the most famous guys on the Internet, he's the god of tweaking and analysing engines and I'm sure 80% of the gamers visited his site at least once to learn how to improve visuals or performance.

Second, if someone would make a game that has the same story of HL2 or Deus Ex, only in a new setting, everyone would bash it. This works especially for Deus Ex, since it wasn't such a succesful game at the time and it's one year newer than SS2.

Third, I pull the Stalker, Jade Empire, Assassin's Creed and Rise Of Legends, Heroes V and World In Conflict card. Stalker is definately not horror in most areas outside, it's just depressing. Inside it pwns Bioshock. But why wouldn't I pull the horror card, since a lot of people say Bioshock is the scariest game ever? I was scared only when the doctor suddenly appeared behind me, I really didn't see that one coming:lol:

Then, Jade Empire is an RPG in a freakin' fantasy chinese setting, which is full of awesomeness. Assassin's Creed is a BAD game, but I'll be damned if it doesn't have a fantastic atmosphere. Rise Of Legends is an RTS, but I fell in-love with it's world and I could play it all day long just to see "things". Heroes V is turn-based, but it features an amazing fairy-tale atmosphere. World In Conflict is simply made of win in this department, it has one of the best stories in any game and it creates a realistic atmosphere which is also worthy of a (good) Tom Clancy novel.

When I said "Crysis is huge", I was talking about the huge levels in regards of optimisation. You can't demand Crysis, a game with levels of a few square kilometers, to run like the confined BioShock.

Since when is a story required? It's a game, not an interactive movie, not a book. It can have the most basic story, like a simple comic-book. What, you rate SMG a 5 because the story is save the damn princess? I bet you agree with the Bioware chieftain that said about I dunno what game that since "story IS gameplay", blah-blah. Story is gameplay on another planet...

I rated The Club a 10, because I like it's arcade sty.le. The team didn't give a crap on the story, they just created a weird backstory and then they created the arenas. On their site, it's stated they just wanted a change from racing games and they wanted to show they can make a shooter.

IF a dev doesn't give a damn on the story and it just creates a good gameplay, I won't rate it a 5 for the story. If a dev creates a story which is a copy, is advertised as a strong point of the game and it ultimately fails, I do rate it a 5. Perhaps it failed for me because I was drooling for a change, for a new brilliant story from Irrational, and when I witnessed the copy/pasta, I felt cheated. It's not cool to have the same story in two games.

God help us is all games will be eventually "streamlined":lol: Let's take the Deus Ex example: the first one is complicated, but everybody learns it in 30 minutes. The second one is "streamlined", and everybody agrees it's worse, despite the fact that the story is very good. Maybe that's because only 3 years passed between them, not 8. Or Oblivion - Daggerfall was awesomely huge in every aspect, Morrowind was dumbed-down, but still a very good RPG, and Obli is an Indiana Jones simulator.

I expected only what Levine promised, but instead of a successor I got a remake with dumbed-down gameplay in every aspect.

And now to BL:P

I already answered what's my take on game stories.

Crysis WAS well optimised. Here are the requirements:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory

It plays at 1024, 20-25 fps on minimum on that setting, which is perfect. Crytek stated that Crysis is about ten times more demanding than Far Cry.

I know there were a lot of games, I played Heretic 2 too:D But I can't think of any such game that gave you the freedom of DM in combat, the same thing Bioshock aimed for, so it's the easiest comparison.

It's a quote, but it's also the entire story of Duke 3D:)

What is the substance of Bioshock? Ayn Rand quotes taken out of context? The moral choices which were rubbish, but the emphasis that was put on them made them seem a central element of the game? The same story of an 8 years-old game?

The only thing that I think was really, really good was Sander Cohen. That part concentrated all the game's substance. Man, that was awesome.

I have friends that only play consoles, they love Bioshock. TheWalrusKing

What's that got to do with anything? Are you an elitist?

I couldn't stand Bioshock either. The gunplay is just awful.

[QUOTE="TheWalrusKing"]I have friends that only play consoles, they love Bioshock. teh_goonster

What's that got to do with anything? Are you an elitist?

I couldn't stand Bioshock either. The gunplay is just awful.

It has mouse acceleration, it's the only FPS that uses it.

There's a hack, you must edit the .ini files, then create a new bind etc. It's such a chore:lol:

[QUOTE="teh_goonster"]

[QUOTE="TheWalrusKing"]I have friends that only play consoles, they love Bioshock. Baranga

What's that got to do with anything? Are you an elitist?

I couldn't stand Bioshock either. The gunplay is just awful.

It has mouse acceleration, it's the only FPS that uses it.

There's a hack, you must edit the .ini files, then create a new bind etc. It's such a chore:lol:

What?

I'm just saying I couldn't stand Bioshock by the end. Just couldn't stand the frustrating gameplay.

[QUOTE="Baranga"][QUOTE="teh_goonster"]

[QUOTE="TheWalrusKing"]I have friends that only play consoles, they love Bioshock. teh_goonster

What's that got to do with anything? Are you an elitist?

I couldn't stand Bioshock either. The gunplay is just awful.

It has mouse acceleration, it's the only FPS that uses it.

There's a hack, you must edit the .ini files, then create a new bind etc. It's such a chore:lol:

What?

I'm just saying I couldn't stand Bioshock by the end. Just couldn't stand the frustrating gameplay.

Well you said the gunplay is just awful, and the acceleration is the main factor, 'coz it controls weird:|

No, that's not what I meant at all.

The acceleration was fine. The guns, the lack of ammo, enemies being too hard etc ruined it for me.

Oh.

I liked the revolver and the electric gel. The heat-guided missiles were fun...

Sonic Boom is, for me, the best plasmid and weapon in the game.

No, I just had to turn off post-processing, I kept the textures on high. The damage control is amazing here:lol: I'm not talking about performance or the cartoony design, which I liked, only about textures and I'm lmaoing because it's such a strong point in our argument:)

Just play the first level again and look at the rocks you have to smash, it's like Oblivion. Or the glass and the metal model inside. Or the wood, or the blood and water pools that look like wax. I'm not talking about the art sty.le, which is beautiful indeed, or the water (which is mindblowing in DX10), it's just that the textures are lackluster. I played the game on DX10 too, and I was like wtf mate, only the water seems better. The random guy is one of the most famous guys on the Internet, he's the god of tweaking and analysing engines and I'm sure 80% of the gamers visited his site at least once to learn how to improve visuals or performance.

Second, if someone would make a game that has the same story of HL2 or Deus Ex, only in a new setting, everyone would bash it. This works especially for Deus Ex, since it wasn't such a succesful game at the time and it's one year newer than SS2.

Third, I pull the Stalker, Jade Empire, Assassin's Creed and Rise Of Legends, Heroes V and World In Conflict card. Stalker is definately not horror in most areas outside, it's just depressing. Inside it pwns Bioshock. But why wouldn't I pull the horror card, since a lot of people say Bioshock is the scariest game ever? I was scared only when the doctor suddenly appeared behind me, I really didn't see that one coming:lol:

Then, Jade Empire is an RPG in a freakin' fantasy chinese setting, which is full of awesomeness. Assassin's Creed is a BAD game, but I'll be damned if it doesn't have a fantastic atmosphere. Rise Of Legends is an RTS, but I fell in-love with it's world and I could play it all day long just to see "things". Heroes V is turn-based, but it features an amazing fairy-tale atmosphere. World In Conflict is simply made of win in this department, it has one of the best stories in any game and it creates a realistic atmosphere which is also worthy of a (good) Tom Clancy novel.

When I said "Crysis is huge", I was talking about the huge levels in regards of optimisation. You can't demand Crysis, a game with levels of a few square kilometers, to run like the confined BioShock.

Since when is a story required? It's a game, not an interactive movie, not a book. It can have the most basic story, like a simple comic-book. What, you rate SMG a 5 because the story is save the damn princess? I bet you agree with the Bioware chieftain that said about I dunno what game that since "story IS gameplay", blah-blah. Story is gameplay on another planet...

I rated The Club a 10, because I like it's arcade sty.le. The team didn't give a crap on the story, they just created a weird backstory and then they created the arenas. On their site, it's stated they just wanted a change from racing games and they wanted to show they can make a shooter.

IF a dev doesn't give a damn on the story and it just creates a good gameplay, I won't rate it a 5 for the story. If a dev creates a story which is a copy, is advertised as a strong point of the game and it ultimately fails, I do rate it a 5. Perhaps it failed for me because I was drooling for a change, for a new brilliant story from Irrational, and when I witnessed the copy/pasta, I felt cheated. It's not cool to have the same story in two games.

God help us is all games will be eventually "streamlined":lol: Let's take the Deus Ex example: the first one is complicated, but everybody learns it in 30 minutes. The second one is "streamlined", and everybody agrees it's worse, despite the fact that the story is very good. Maybe that's because only 3 years passed between them, not 8. Or Oblivion - Daggerfall was awesomely huge in every aspect, Morrowind was dumbed-down, but still a very good RPG, and Obli is an Indiana Jones simulator.

I expected only what Levine promised, but instead of a successor I got a remake with dumbed-down gameplay in every aspect.

And now to BL:P

I already answered what's my take on game stories.

Crysis WAS well optimised. Here are the requirements:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory

It plays at 1024, 20-25 fps on minimum on that setting, which is perfect. Crytek stated that Crysis is about ten times more demanding than Far Cry.

I know there were a lot of games, I played Heretic 2 too:D But I can't think of any such game that gave you the freedom of DM in combat, the same thing Bioshock aimed for, so it's the easiest comparison.

It's a quote, but it's also the entire story of Duke 3D:)

What is the substance of Bioshock? Ayn Rand quotes taken out of context? The moral choices which were rubbish, but the emphasis that was put on them made them seem a central element of the game? The same story of an 8 years-old game?

The only thing that I think was really, really good was Sander Cohen. That part concentrated all the game's substance. Man, that was awesome.

Baranga

HL2 was in The Orange Box that everyone and their mother has played. SS is just plain old and no thats not a stab at you it's just true. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of my lifetime old. Your comparing a remake of say Forrest Gump to a remake of The Bourne Ultimatum. It's not the same thing. I would venture to guess 50% of the people who played Bioshock had never even played System Shock.

First of all yes Assassin's Creed was complete trash but i'm going to have to totally disagree on it having an atmosphere of any kind. The crowd mechanic aside it was a bland experience in every way. None of the characters were memorable and all of it's citizens were generic. Half the cities were identical if not more and there was no sense of hey im in middle ages. The game never drew me into the character or the scenery. Jade Empire on the other hand was a great game overall and I will give it to you it had a pretty well fleshed out world. Was it better then Bioshock? Not even close in my opinion. Haven't played Rise of Legends and I would differ to GS' review but lets be honest they get nothing right. I own Heroes of Might and Magic V and all it's expansions (I hope this is what your talking about as I don't see any other Heroes V listed) are we talking about the same game? It was an RTS with little to no story or character interaction. World in Conflict is another RTS with no sense of self which by definition detaches you from the experience. It had no atmosphere at all as having a good story alone does not make a good atmosphere.. Stalker I will give you but it is a horror themed game and atmosphere is what they thrive on. Bioshock still had it beat as to much of stalker was wandering randomly in blandly designed levels that all looked detached. Where as every area in Bioshock felt like it was a part of a whole. Every room felt like it was apart of an underground city and nothing felt out of place. They fleshed out the main characters perfectly and explained how they were all connected. By the end if you paid attention you will have had as many characters as a modern novel and each of them has a purpose that ties back into the city and how it got to that point. From every little piece of rubble and every place the water seeps in the entire game feels right.

From what I gathered you said Crysis was "huge" and thats what made it a good game. Maybe I misunderstood you. Regardless Crysis is 99% empty area that is meaningless. You walk along empty terrain till you find the next pocket of enemies and then rinse, repeat. The guns had a great feel to them and the combat was fun which is what made Crysis a "good" game.

Story is as vital to me as good gameplay and graphics. Theres a reason the phrase "mindless shooter" is a negative not a positive. That reason is if you take that same shooter and give it a cohesive story that pulls you into the character the end product will be ten times better. A purpose is just as important as an action. It's hard to care about what your doing when theres no meaning behind it.

The Club was a beat your high score game and thats fine for what it is. Is it worth a 10? Not even close. If it had the story the dev team decided to ignore? Then maybe it might have been worth a 10. Without it it's just another game thats missing something. This of course works both ways. A game with a great story that pulls you in only to have boring, broken or limiting gameplay will also be lacking.

In your example your bias toward gameplay over story is pretty clear. I see all components as important. In your example if the game is lacking story or gameplay but has the other I would give them both a 5. As they are both lacking.

As far as a game being streamlined it is indeed a good decision in some cases. Over complicating something that does not need to be, that detracts from the experience is never a good thing. Bioshock did not need an inventory. It worked perfectly without one. Having one would of been pointless and slowed the pace of the game needlessly. This is the case for the majority of FPS'. Mass Effect could of added a few points to it's score with a bit of streamlining. It is probably the biggest example that comes to mind as it's inventory and menus were all just needlessly over complicated. Streamlining is not a bad thing.

In the end even if Bioshock is very similar to System Shock it still means nothing as Bioshock is a great game. Do you hate Dawn of the Dead because of Night of the Living Dead? Or do you enjoy it more? But like I said maybe your expecting to much.

Iam playing it for the first time currently and i think its amazing! It sounds like you dont like the game because you find it too hard.daytona_178

I really enjoyed Bioshock, and tend to be somewhat surprised that so many people seem to despise it. A few random thoughts on the game:

• I think a lot of people dislike the game because it was a poor RPG. However I don't think it should be viewed as an RPG. While it feel's like an RPG, it actually dosent really have many RPG elements in it.
• I cant really see how anyone could descript its visuals as being bad. I thought it looked very good from a technical point of view and i thought it was arguably the best looking game I've seen in a very long time from an artistic point of view
• I do agree that the gunplay was somewhat lackluster. It wasent broken or bad, just kinda bland.
• One think that saddened me a bit was that the game supportd a lot of really cool ways to advance / fight (use telekinises to hurl stuff that the bad guys, make enemies fight among themselves, electrify water, gravity traps trap wires and so on, but ultimatly you just seemed to be better of just gunning stuff down for the vast bulk of the game.

I don't think it was the best game ever, but I do think the game pushed the boundries in terms of interactive storytelling and the creation of imersive enviroments.

It's very true that it did feel a lot like System Shock 2 without the RPG elements. But to be honest if you are going to emulate a game, you could do a helluva lot worse emulating SS2 :P Overall I thought it was a great game and after reading this tread I kinda think I might have to dig out the disk and give it another play through.