which one is the best ?!!

hi, just wanna take opinions...

i wanna buy one of these 2 games for PC..

BIO-SHOCK or CRYSIS ??

i really need to know, which one is pretty cool...

rank, and tell me what do you think about these games...

thank you :)

ohhhhh heheheh:

Bioshock! It is just superb.

Both games off you great options in the gameplay and different approaches to situations but Bioshock has such superb atmosphere, a great story that is rich in its themes and characterisation. It looks and sounds gorgeous too and if a lot of fun to play.

Crysis easily. While bioshock has atmosphere but you can only look at a wall for so long. its gameplay is below averagenaval

Would you like to explain that? At least Bioshock uses its visuals to enhance the story and atmosphere...

[QUOTE="naval"]Crysis easily. While bioshock has atmosphere but you can only look at a wall for so long. its gameplay is below averagebiggest_loser

Would you like to explain that? At least Bioshock uses its visuals to enhance the story and atmosphere...

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="naval"]Crysis easily. While bioshock has atmosphere but you can only look at a wall for so long. its gameplay is below averagenaval

Would you like to explain that? At least Bioshock uses its visuals to enhance the story and atmosphere...

How the game is below average. And I dont see how according to ADG: its the worst game released in 07...how can that be justified.

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="naval"]Crysis easily. While bioshock has atmosphere but you can only look at a wall for so long. its gameplay is below averagebiggest_loser

Would you like to explain that? At least Bioshock uses its visuals to enhance the story and atmosphere...

How the game is below average. And I dont see how according to ADG: its the worst game released in 07...how can that be justified.

i said gameplay is below average and not the game. even with that i am being liberal as the game's greatest point is story is mostly a rehash

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="naval"]Crysis easily. While bioshock has atmosphere but you can only look at a wall for so long. its gameplay is below averagebiggest_loser

Would you like to explain that? At least Bioshock uses its visuals to enhance the story and atmosphere...

How the game is below average. And I dont see how according to ADG: its the worst game released in 07...how can that be justified.

See I don't think so: you say the game is linear but there are so many extra rooms to explore. And its great how you are always rewarded for your exploration with money, story threads, ammo and eve. You can tackle situations in multiple ways using your powers. The weapons are underpowered yes to a degree, but its suitable because they are from the 1940s and you come in in the 1960s.

Weren't you at least impressed by the Spider Splicers and their ability to jump on the roof and what not? That was so cool. Also, the AI was really impressive, how they would run to health machines or dodge your powers.

Bioshock is awesome, I really can't find anything bad about this game except it's a bit short. Crysis seems okay, but the super powers are way better in Bioshock.
bloodling

Yes I find that it is a hard game to fault. I'm not saying its HL2 but I just found it to be a game that you can play for hours and hours without complaint. Its very immersive.

Interesting how you say its short because some say its 20 hours whereas ol' man Crysis is meant to be about 7...

I wanna reply to biggest-loser,,,

i'm with you, and I agree, cuz I've read many reviews about BS, seriously, i think that BS is pretty good, and crysis is a fair game,, not bad but maybe BS is more exciting than crysis..

so here i can see that most opinions are voting for BioShock as the best,,

if someone think that crysis is better than bioshock,, plz reply..i wanna have more points of view.. i really don't wanna regret for buying crysis or bioshock either..

thank you all :)

Get Crysis... it has a great single player, and don't get me wrong, so does BioShock. But Crysis also has multi-player making it more fun and playable.

See I don't think so: you say the game is linear but there are so many extra rooms to explore. And its great how you are always rewarded for your exploration with money, story threads, ammo and eve.

biggest_loser

You can tackle situations in multiple ways using your powers.

biggest_loser

Weren't you at least impressed by the Spider Splicers and their ability to jump on the roof and what not? That was so cool

biggest_loser

Also, the AI was really impressive, how they would run to health machines or dodge your powers.

biggest_loser

do you mean that Bioshock hasn't an exciting single-player game ?!

or you mean crysis single-player is more awesome than the BS one ?!!

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

See I don't think so: you say the game is linear but there are so many extra rooms to explore. And its great how you are always rewarded for your exploration with money, story threads, ammo and eve.

ADG_

You can tackle situations in multiple ways using your powers.

biggest_loser

Weren't you at least impressed by the Spider Splicers and their ability to jump on the roof and what not? That was so cool

biggest_loser

Also, the AI was really impressive, how they would run to health machines or dodge your powers.

biggest_loser

You've played 30 minutes of the game and you're dismissing it...

Whatever...

I really can't find anything bad about this game except it's a bit short.. bloodling

[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

See I don't think so: you say the game is linear but there are so many extra rooms to explore. And its great how you are always rewarded for your exploration with money, story threads, ammo and eve.

biggest_loser

You can tackle situations in multiple ways using your powers.

biggest_loser

Weren't you at least impressed by the Spider Splicers and their ability to jump on the roof and what not? That was so cool

biggest_loser

Also, the AI was really impressive, how they would run to health machines or dodge your powers.

biggest_loser

You've played 30 minutes of the game and you're dismissing it...

Whatever...

[QUOTE="bloodling"]I really can't find anything bad about this game except it's a bit short.. ADG_

The atmosphere, visuals, sound, combat choices. There is just so much to do in the game and its very polished.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

See I don't think so: you say the game is linear but there are so many extra rooms to explore. And its great how you are always rewarded for your exploration with money, story threads, ammo and eve.

ADG_

You can tackle situations in multiple ways using your powers.

biggest_loser

Weren't you at least impressed by the Spider Splicers and their ability to jump on the roof and what not? That was so cool

biggest_loser

Also, the AI was really impressive, how they would run to health machines or dodge your powers.

biggest_loser

You've played 30 minutes of the game and you're dismissing it...

Whatever...

Oh right 30 minutes after seeing a big daddy. Thats about an hour of the game. Out of 15-20 hours..yeah.

Oh right 30 minutes after seeing a big daddy. Thats about an hour of the game. Out of 15-20 hours..yeah.

biggest_loser

ok,, ADG

tell me what excitement do you find in crysis ?!!!

[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="bloodling"]I really can't find anything bad about this game except it's a bit short.. biggest_loser

The atmosphere, visuals, sound, combat choices. There is just so much to do in the game and its very polished.

Yeah, nothing was below my expectations. I loved the environments and had fun playing. The story isn't great but I didn't expect much.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Oh right 30 minutes after seeing a big daddy. Thats about an hour of the game. Out of 15-20 hours..yeah.

ADG_

Sure you can judge it but to say its the second worst game of 07 i would expect that you've actually seen and played through all of it to make a call that big.

biggest loser.... you are right..

i've played SWAT4 ((special weapins and tactics)),, it's awesome and pretty exciting.. i played 2 or 3 hours to find how exciting it is,, when i first played it,, it was not the same as now

ok,, ADG

tell me what excitement do you find in crysis ?!!!

Electric-Guitar

and i got to go,, i'll discuss later.. sorry

and thank you biggest-loser,, nice opinions,, keep it up :)

[QUOTE="ADG_"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Oh right 30 minutes after seeing a big daddy. Thats about an hour of the game. Out of 15-20 hours..yeah.

biggest_loser

Sure you can judge it but to say its the second worst game of 07 i would expect that you've actually seen and played through all of it to make a call that big.

Gunplay

Crysis wins

Crysis's gunplay is just so, so much better. The tools at your disposal let you interact with the AIs and environment in a large variety of ways, and it's all well balanced meaning you'll likely want to use all your tools, giving the combat a large degree of diversity. You can approach any given situation from a number of directions, in a number of different ways. You can attack the enemy head on and engage in firefights, you can play the stealther and execute enemies silently, or even avoid them entirely. This is a game where you can rig a building with C4, lure the AIs inside, sneak outside and blow it. This is a game where you can throw chickens at people. There isn't a very large variety of weapons in the game, but they are all satisfying to use and your weapon selection will be a tactical choice based on how you're attacking. If you are assaulting, you will favour rifles and shotguns, for example, while you may favour a scoped rifle or a silenced pistol for a stealthier approach.

Crysis's AI is also pretty magnificent. The Koreans will take cover and flank if they can, fan out and coordinate when moving on your position - and they also have a short term memory. If you're spotted briefly and a Korean is set on alert, he will come over and check out whatever he saw. If you then lob a grenade as a distraction, he will go check that out too. Once he's satisfied that there's nothing over by the explosion, he'll come back and check out his earlier interest. They are pretty amazing AIs to play with, and mostly importantly they facilitate all the different playstyles. If you play the stealther, the AI will react exactly as it should - if you go for firefights instead, the AI will react as you would expect.

BioShock's gunplay amounts to little more than your typical corridor shooter. You have a fairly large selection of weapons available, but the problem is that they don't really fill specialised roles. The difference between the weapons is mostly cosmetic. There is no real incentive to use one weapon over another, making the fairly large selection fairly pointless.

The plasmids are a good idea on paper, but their execution is poor in two ways. Firstly, there is too little diversity between the plasmids. They mostly fall into two basic categories - damage plasmids and distraction plasmids. You can blast an AI with electricity, set hornets on him, set up a decoy illusion - and all this is good and well, but they all serve the same role. They exist to distract the AI. That's like a game having three different types of shotgun. Similarly, there isn't much incentive to use one type of damage plasmid over another. They have no clearly defined purpose, meaning their use is entirely optional. But the second problem with the plasmids is that they're poorly balanced; the most efficient way to kill the majority of enemies is to shock them with electricity and then smack them with your wrench. This is how the majority of the gunplay pans out.

Also, plasmids amount to little more than weapons thinly disguised as something else. The electrobolt is a tazer, the fireball is a flamethrower, telekenesis is a gravity gun. It's really nothing special. This, coupled with how mediocre the AI is - it's real generic run n gun stuff - makes for some unsatisfying combat.

Atmosphere

Crysis wins

Crysis is not a game where you feel like you're some invincible supersoldier who can take three bullets in the chest while killing five enemies with four bullets while dropping some witty one-liner. You're very mortal, and the game keeps you aware of this at all times - but at the same time, you have a clear edge over your enemies. But it's not simply that you're 'better' - the game doesn't stoop to such computer gamey contrivances. You're wearing some fifty billion dollar trousers. You feel elite, but you feel elite for a realistic and contextually appropriate reason - but this feeling is tempered by your continually refinforced sense of mortality. You are in a super suit, but you're not a super human. You can die like everyone else.

And because you're part of an elite commando unit, you're usually alone and always operating deep inside enemy lines. The Korean army is tough and merciless and you'll find yourself hiding a lot of the time, scouting and planning your attacks. The game also goes to lengths to create the sensation that, even though you are an elite commando, you're not a one man army. The game gives a strong impression that there is a full scale skirmish being fought on the island, and other army units are involved. The game does a really good job of presenting these contrasting elements - you're powerful, but mortal; you're alone, but you're just a cog in a machine. Few games handle this as well as Crysis.

The problem with BioShock is that it's too easy. Even on the hardest difficulty setting, there's no challenge. Enemies are wasy to put down, there's such an absurd abundance of money (with which to buy health and ammo) that you will never find yourself in a tight stop - and even if you do die, you respawn nearby with no penalty. It means you can just run around not even paying attention to your health if you like; god mod is active by default. If the resources were scarcer and there was a clear penalty for using the respawn chambers, the enemies themselves may have been a little more formidable. As it stands, BioShock's gameplay mechanics undermine its atmosphere.

Visuals

Crysis wins

Crysis has vastly superior visuals and much larger environments. It is simply impossible to play Crysis and not be absolutely awestruck by how beautiful it is, while BioShock is merely impressive. BioShock is by no means bad looking - it's great looking, but it just cannot compare with Crysis. What BioShock does have is a well realised and largely unique artistic style. It's just fun to look at, and you'll probably have never played a game that looks quite like it. BioShock also suffers from some very plasticy character models - something we haven't really seen since the Doom 3 engine, and it's something most games have moved past. It spoils an otherwise impressive experience.

Story

BioShock wins

Crysis's story is really a bottom-of-the-barrell action type thing. There are aliens, oh noes, time to stop them. The hero wins, America saves the day. Go humanity! It also has a fairly poor presentation; the dialogue is merely acceptable and the voice acting is real B movie stuff; but it's better than FarCry's by a considerable margin.

BioShock's story is much better. It is well structured and well narrated, and the game's content is heavily entwined with it - but the problem with BioShock's story is that it is literally a copy of System Shock 2's. The central story itself is almost identical, the presentation of that story is identical, but inferior and the characters even fill cookie-cutter roles set out by SS2. Many of the game's narrative tools are also drawn from System Shock 2, only generally not as well executed. While BioShock's story is superior to Crysis's, if you have played System Shock 2, there is a good chance you'll appreciate Crysis's story a whole lot more.

Misc

Crysis wins

Crysis has a few other very impressive elements. The game features a large number of expertly crafted set pieces (the opening of Assault had me hollering in a way that no game has managed since Call of Duty) and the game offers many interesting scenarios; you will at one point man a tank in an armour division - but like every other part of the game, you can choose how you proceeed. You can even dump the tank if you like and go commando, taking out gun emplacements with explosives. The game also radically shifts focus throughout the game. It's split into roughly four acts, each of which is utterly unique. While the game mayhave become repetitive if it was just the jungle, you also have a zero gravity environment, a xenoformed jungle and an aircraft carrier. They all play very differently.

BioShock has many side-elements that are interesting, but poor execution right across the board marrs just about everything. For example, there is a hacking mechanic whereby electronic devices can be brought under your control - but there is no penalty for failure, so there's absolutely no reason to not hack them. There is a security system in the game, but it is so easy to manipulate that it works in your favour (making the game even easier), there is a basic character development mechanic - but you have the resources to buy just about every possible character option, and stations located almost everywhere let you swap out your choices - it's not character development if you aren't making choices.

BioShock also features a moral choice, but your options are simply good or bad, and they don't have any real impact on the game, the gameplay or the story. Remember how Black and White came in two box flavours? A white sleeve and a black sleeve? BioShock basically has an ingame equivalent of that. It doesn't affect the game at all, it's simply an empty preference. It's good that it's there, but its mere presence is nothing significant; what matters is how it impacts the game, and it does not.

BioShock is not without merits. It's a good game, and it's well worth playing (even if you have played System Shock 2), but Crysis is just on an entirely different level. It plays better, it looks better. The environments are larger and better designed. Crysis is also a potentially much longer game, featuring a campaign upto five hours longer, a decent multiplayer (BioShock has no multiplayer) and Crysis also ships with editing tools than even the modding layman can get to grips with in a few hours.

In short, Crysis wins.

Combat:

Bioshock has a limited number of weapons as there is a focus on the powers. The weapons you do have though are a standard collection of the FPS arsenal. They remain authentic in being underpowered given that they are from the era of the 1940s. Since you enter Rapture in the 1960s all of the weapons you find are aged and realistically underpowered.

The real weapons are the powers that allow you to attack situations in different ways. You could set up a whirl wind trap for an enemy and then bash him while he's on the floor. You could sniper him with fire and then wait for him to burn. You could electrify him and then get into close quarters with the wrench. You could set bees on him as well and then run right past him while he's distracted. You could freeze him and then shoot him to shatter him into pieces. You could get him to fight your enemies using enrage. Why not hack a turrent and then set them onto him. Maybe use a big daddy to fight for you against him.

The incentive to use these powers is to experiment and see what will and won't work - thats the fun of it. Saying that the powers don't have different purposes is like suggesting that the guns in HL2 don't do anything unique - they are their for your defence and to kill enemies. The game creates an incentive to use all of these powers because enemies later in the game become resistant to certain ones like fire. You have to use something more effective to take them out. Also, you might not be able to hit a Spider Splicer with an electro bolt - thus you may need a homing target like a grenade launcher or the bees to attack them while they are out of your reach on the ceiling. There is depth to the combat in that certain ammunition types are more effective against enemie: IE: the armour piercing rounds will take down a Big Daddy quicker.

You might say that these powers are nothing new. Well sorry mate but Deus Ex and Invisible War had powers like invisibility, strength, speed, well before Crysis. To describe the AI as mediocre is just cynical. Enemies react to sound and will often just go about their business. If you listen to them and look at them their is still a degree of humanity about them - they were people who just wanted a better life, free from corruption. The AI is smart in that they will dodge your powers and then run off when wounded. They are smart enough to use health machines. Spider Splicers can even jump right up onto ceilings (unscripted) to evade your fire.

The AI in Crysis from what I've seen at least is a mess. They seem to be psychic in that they will randomly know that you are there, as they set off flares without even seeing you. A boat gunner somehow spotted me miles away while I was crouched ontop of a cliff. That defeats the purpose of this game: to give you a choice in your approach - how can I remain stealthy if the AI already knows I'm there? I have also heard stories about how the AI will just go back to standing around after they have given up chasing you or seen their mates shot.

This is a video showing how bad the AI in Crysis can be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_MHh0Zu2AA&feature=related

I know that some people have a problem with the no-dying element of Bioshock. But to me at least I didn't care: I don't to have to spend ages battling through one section. The challenge arises from working out how to deal with your enemies. I would save very often anyway so the chamber is not all that different to a save really. You are still going to lose out on ammo and EVE. You say that there are too many resources: mate you have to have some incentive to explore the other rooms and thats it.

Are you honestly saying that you would rather have a game that doesn't let you utlilise all its elements? Bioshock gives you so much money and things to collect so that you can grow stronger to a degree and see the different functions to things like the weapons (which can be upgraded) and the various powers. At last there is a game where the developers don't want to hinder you but to keep up the pace and explore and benefit from their game world.

You say that the environments are much larger but lets face it mate: thats redundant to argue that because the level design is for completely different purposes. Bioshock is about intensity and scary corridors (yes corridors fair enough) whereas Crysis is about an open world. I think Crysis comes off second best best because even though it has this supposedly vast landscape its still incredibley linear - you still have to go to Checkpoint X - there isn't much of an incentive to explore this vast jungle. Its a vast corridor if that makes sense.

Most people would agree that Crysis has better visuals but at least Bioshock has originality - I have seen the 1940s captured like this in a video game before - every room and corridor is just soaked in atmosphere and rich in its tiny details. Crysis is essentially Far Cry - in regards to **** I can honestly say that I was far more blown away by the opening of Bioshock - which is perhaps one of the most cinematic moments in a game we've seen since in a while - than Crysis and its palm beach visuals. The bit where you are in the water with the flames racing around you and then the introduction to the city - it was just superb...

I don't think I need to argue about Crysis' story because there really isn't one and we agree on that. Not a huge fan of Psycho, AKA: Captain Price's Nephew. Now Bioshock has a very interesting story and some may be frustrated by it because cleverly we dont get all the links in the story - we're not meant to. As the new arrival we are an outsider and as such you get tiny little fragments of the story and bits and pieces which does actually make sense. You say its a copy of System Shock 2 - but mate: they were made by the same people - They have admitted to using the same elements like the ghosts and what not - if I write a story and then write something else using the same devices and motifs I cant be copying myself can I?

Bioshock is far superior in its themes than System Shock 2 - Its about corruption and power, greed, socialism, **** If you want to talk about copying SS2 is basically 2001: A space odyssey. I wonder if you have seen that film? Its about a computer on a space ship that goes crazy and starts killing the crew.

There is often a penalty for failure if you don't correctly hack the turrents - I think it only comes about though if you hit the deadly squares in the hacking game though. Several automated bots will come and find you if you stuff it up and then you will have to waste health, ammo and eve in disposing of them. The security parts as you scramble to find the correct pieces in time are some of the most intense bits of gaming I have played through.

The moral choice does have an impact on the game - there are essentially two ending in the game - which are vastly different. But also if you choose to harvest the child then you recieve more Adam. You can acquire your powers much quicker. However, if you choose to save the child then the little sisters will reward you with a large sum of atom as well as an addition plasmid. Thats a fact so you can't say it doesn't have an impact. It is a game and perhaps doesn't have the emotional charge once you have performed your choice several times over - but the first time I did it I really took the time to think about it and it was difficult.

How can you see Crysis plays better? It was so poorly optimised when it was released. More games are using the Unreal 3 engine than the Crytek one. Bioshock doesn't strive to have large environments so there's no point in aruging that. Crysis is not a longer game. lol, 5 hours long? Bioshock has no multiplayer but the multiplayer in Crysis isn't supposed to be that good anyway. Mate Bioshock is 15-20 hours long and you can play it through a second time to check out the different powers as well as the different ending. So that could be up to 30-40 hours. And You know what? I loved every moment of it.

In short, Bioshock wins.

Bioshock by far, I like crysis, but it is hard to run and bioshock is great with the plasmids and different approached to killing enemies.

Both games are easy, especially crysis, but I would get bioshock now and maybe get crysis if you get some upgrades or a new PC (not that yours is bad, i don't know, but no computer runs that game great)

Bioshock by far, I like crysis, but it is hard to run and bioshock is great with the plasmids and different approached to killing enemies.

Both games are easy, especially crysis, but I would get bioshock now and maybe get crysis if you get some upgrades or a new PC (not that yours is bad, i don't know, but no computer runs that game great)

harrisi17

Especially Crysis? Crysis is much more difficult than Bioshock. Even on medium, without the armor power-up on you'll die in 2-5 hits and Koreans will typically take 3-5 shots to go down. Bioshock wasn't even difficult on the highest difficulty. And saying no PC runs Crysis great is flat-out stupid. My friend bought his PC for $700 and it maxes Crysis with a 40 FPS average @ 1680x1050.

The real weapons are the powers that allow you to attack situations in different ways. You could set up a whirl wind trap for an enemy and then bash him while he's on the floor. You could sniper him with fire and then wait for him to burn. You could electrify him and then get into close quarters with the wrench. You could set bees on him as well and then run right past him while he's distracted. You could freeze him and then shoot him to shatter him into pieces. You could get him to fight your enemies using enrage. Why not hack a turrent and then set them onto him. Maybe use a big daddy to fight for you against him. biggest_loser

Yeah, you could do all of those things, but the question is why would you? There's no incentive to do so - in fact, there is incentive not to, as I have said several times; there is a more efficient means of killing enemies most of the time - and experimentation only takes you so far. Once you find out that x is more effective than y, why bother? In FPS x, you could go around using only melee - wow, this developer is giving us such a great choice! But the choice is worthless unless the options are of equal value. There is no clearl incentive to use melee attacks in FPS x, so why make use of it except in its specific, specialised use? And if the game is developed in such a manner that that use only presents itself once every few hours... again: if the choices are not of equal value, what is the value in the choice?

The incentive to use these powers is to experiment and see what will and won't work - thats the fun of it. biggest_loser

I had experimented with the powers - and let's not split hairs, they're weapons - fully before the half way point. I had found out what works - I did not find experimenting fun, I found it serve a functional and somewhat mundane purpose. The only reason I saw to experiment was to, as you say, find out what works. Once I found out what works best, I used it. Because it works best. If the game had been balanced, I may have found reason to make better use of my tools.

Saying that the powers don't have different purposes is like suggesting that the guns in HL2 don't do anything unique - they are their for your defence and to kill enemies.biggest_loser

Funny, this is a BioShock vs Crysis argument - why are you bringing Half Life 2 into it (a game with poor gunplay, by the way)? Why not use Crysis in your example? Because Crysis doesn't support your argument, right? Because the weapons in Crysis do do something unique. FPS games with good gunplay generally have weapons with specialised roles which are used for specific reasons, at specific times. This adds a tactical element; a tactical element absent in BioShock not least of all because the game is so pointlessly easy, but also because the weapons lack clearly defined purposes and because the plasmids are all too generic and easy to pigeonhole.

The game creates an incentive to use all of these powers because enemies later in the game become resistant to certain ones like fire. You have to use something more effective to take them out. biggest_loser

I wouldn't know about fire immunity. I was using electrobolt most of the game. Because it's the most efficient way of killing most enemies.

Also, you might not be able to hit a Spider Splicer with an electro bolt - thus you may need a homing target like a grenade launcher or the bees to attack them while they are out of your reach on the ceiling. biggest_loser

I never had that issue, and I'm less accurate that most FPS players.

There is depth to the combat in that certain ammunition types are more effective against enemie: IE: the armour piercing rounds will take down a Big Daddy quicker. biggest_loser

I didn't consider that depth in System Shock 2 and I don't consider it depth in BioShock. But in SS2 at least, you had to conserve the ammo and the depth lies in the choices you have to make; do you attack this guy with your precious AP rounds, or save them for later? BioShock offers no such question, because ammo is all but in unlimited supply.

You might say that these powers are nothing new. Well sorry mate but Deus Ex and Invisible War had powers like invisibility, strength, speed, well before Crysis.biggest_loser

Yeah, but originality is only one factor - there is also implementation. Crysis's features are well implemented, while BioShock's are not. After arguing the point of implementation, I go on to argue the point of originality, because it is a natrual response to an argument of poor implmentation: it may not be great, but we've never done it before, etc.

If you listen to them and look at them their is still a degree of humanity about them - they were people who just wanted a better life, free from corruption. biggest_loser

I spent a long time looking at them and listening to them, I am fully familiar with the subtext. It doesn't impress me much. It impressed me in System Shock 2, when it was horrific and unavoidable for the crew. In BioShock, I feel no emotional connection.

The AI is smart in that they will dodge your powersbiggest_loser

They are smart enough to use health machines.biggest_loser

That doesn't strike me as smart - it wouldn't be hard to code. I just see it as a contrived and ultimately vain attempt at making the game a little tougher.

Spider Splicers can even jump right up onto ceilings (unscripted) to evade your fire.biggest_loser

I don't see why that's so impressive. We don't see that kind of thing in most games only because games don't tend to want to facilitate it for reasons of realism. And as far as scripting is concerned, in general, check this video out. The enemies used fixed and absolutely predictable triggers. You can literally anticipate attacks.

The AI in Crysis from what I've seen at least is a mess.biggest_loser

Just to be clear, you played the demo only, right? And based on your attitude towards Crysis, I would say you didn't play it very well.

They seem to be psychic in that they will randomly know that you are there, as they set off flares without even seeing you.biggest_loser

I wouldn't say that. Let's consider a few points:

• Most of the game is set during broad daylight
• The natural environment is greens and yellows
• You are wearing a black suit

You would stick out like a sore thumb. But I never actually experienced this: when I was noticed, I was always aware of why I was seen. Remember that they can hear, too.

A boat gunner somehow spotted me miles away while I was crouched ontop of a cliff.biggest_loser

This is admittedly one of the game's flaws. It isn't perfect, and I hold no allegiances - I'm happy to accept when a game makes mistakes. This is one of them. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they a) probably have binoculars and maybe thermal visioning, b) if you are talking about the part I'm thinking you're talking about, you were silhouetted against a clear blue sky, making you stand out clearly, and c) they are on high alert - in a time of war. They are bound to be on the lookout.

That defeats the purpose of this game: to give you a choice in your approach - how can I remain stealthy if the AI already knows I'm there?biggest_loser

How to remain stealthy 101: use your nanosuit to turn invisible. Argument moot. I had no issues turning remaining stealthy. I finished the first half of the game making only a few dozen kills.

I have also heard stories about how the AI will just go back to standing around after they have given up chasing you or seen their mates shot.biggest_loser

I haven't. I also don't need to rely on secondhand heresay. I've played both games. I experienced only magnificent AI.

This is a video showing how bad the AI in Crysis can be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_MHh0Zu2AA&feature=relatedbiggest_loser

Transcript of video:

Player is invisible, headshots one AI then immediately turns invisible again.

AI is shocked and confused. How often do you go toe to toe with people turning invisible?

Ledt AI dodges (super amazing feature wow!!!) then heads for cover behind boxes.

Right AI moves into the building for cover - bearing in mind that the player is invisible.

Left AI believes he's squared the location of the enemy, moves out of cover, crouches to present a small target, is killed.

Player kills right AI, more head to his position. Player opens fire, Ais retreat to cover, bearing in mind they still have no idea where he is.

Player picks them off one by one, turning invisible again immediately afterward.

The AI only made one mistake - it did not blind fire - besides that, it was flawless. And I have to wonder how fun the game would be if the AI would wildly shoot all over the place all the time. I also have to wonder about their ammo supplies. You also have to recognise that the player was visible for less than a second at a time. So, to recap, we have an AI that dodges, that takes cover, that retreats and that can be confused because it is only human.

Compare that with the splicers who just charge you, and I think Crysis wins by a clear margin. And that stealth video was by no means a clear example of how the AI operates in a real firefight, where the player is not turning invisible before the AI realises what is going on. All your argument does is illustrate how the game can be played as a stealther, something you above didn't seem to be able to manage.

The challenge arises from working out how to deal with your enemies.biggest_loser

Only it's not a challenge.

I would save very often anyway so the chamber is not all that different to a save really. biggest_loser

They're miles apart. When you reload a save, everything resets. When you use a vita chamber, nothing resets. You can take an enemy down by spamming it and just respawning. And you don't lose out on health and eve, really - because getting it back is no challenge.

You say that there are too many resources: mate you have to have some incentive to explore the other rooms and thats it. biggest_loser

Actually, that same incentive would exist - and would even be greater - if there were fewer resources. Just think, you're out of ammo, you need to explore more, find supplies. In BioShock, you don't, so you may not. I always explore every room, so I did see it all - but there was mostly no reason to. But fewer resources would create a greater incentive to explore than more resources.

Are you honestly saying that you would rather have a game that doesn't let you utlilise all its elements?biggest_loser

Yes. If you're familiar with roleplaying games, you'll know that character development is fun. Restrictions are a fundamental element of character development. It encourages a particular playstyIe based on the character you are building. In System Shock 2, you could play as a Marine, who is all guts and glory, a weapons expert. You could play as a Navy man, who is half weapons and half technical, or you could play as a Psi character, able to use crazy psionic powers. Each gave for a very unique and diverse experience, and it was actually fun to play one styIe then go through again trying another.

The game was built around particular characters only being able to do particular things, the game facilitated the cIass roles. BioShock has such vague character development that it has to facilitate everything. You like Deus Ex, right? You should know what I'm talking about.

to things like the weapons (which can be upgraded) and the various powers.biggest_loser

The weapons upgrade thing made no sense to me. There's enough stations to upgrade almost every weapon completely - meaning it's not really a choice. So what is the point? Resident Evil 4 did a better job of weapon upgrading. All that is is a very artificial way of keeping your character on par with the (inexplicably) more powerful enemies as the game progresses.

At last there is a game where the developers don't want to hinder you but to keep up the pace and explore and benefit from their game world.biggest_loser

Just to clarify, you're saying pointless easy = good, right?

Bioshock is about intensity and scary corridors (yes corridors fair enough)biggest_loser

What's scary or intense about it? You're invincible. The developers want to make you as powerful as possible. Fear is a product of self-preservation, if god mode is active by default, where's the self-preservation? What's intense about not being able to die, about having unlimited ammo? Even the themes and subtext of BioShock are not frightening, especially not compared with SS2.

I think Crysis comes off second best best because even though it has this supposedly vast landscape its still incredibley linear - you still have to go to Checkpoint X - there isn't much of an incentive to explore this vast jungle. Its a vast corridor if that makes sense.biggest_loser

Again, you've only played the demo, right? Which is practically a training mission. The game is very open as a whole, there are often multiple routes through areas. There is no incentive to explore the jungle - why would there be, it's a jungle? It's not a game of exploration. You're a soldier with a mission. You explore only to find the best COA, and the openness of the environments offers you many. You need to look at the game in context before you start talking about linearity.

Most people would agree that Crysis has better visuals but at least Bioshock has originality biggest_loser

Originality is meaningless in and of itself. Cutting your hand off would be an original experience for you,

in regards to (styIe?) I can honestly say that I was far more blown away by the opening of Bioshock - which is perhaps one of the most cinematic moments in a game we've seen since in a while - than Crysis and its palm beach visuals. The bit where you are in the water with the flames racing around you and then the introduction to the city - it was just superb... biggest_loser

It was good, I won't argue that. But a good opening sequence doesn't make for a good game. In fact, the good opening sequence just set me up for disappointment.

Now Bioshock has a very interesting storybiggest_loser

That people who played SS2 have already experienced.

You say its a copy of System Shock 2 - but mate: they were made by the same people - They have admitted to using the same elements like the ghosts and what not - if I write a story and then write something else using the same devices and motifs I cant be copying myself can I? biggest_loser

I was pleased to see the ghosts and audiologs make a return, but they are very poorly implemented compared with System Shock 2. Interesting how you don't touch on how the story is identical, though. If The Usual Suspects got a sequel, and it was the exact same story with the exact same twist at the end, would you defend it?

Bioshock is far superior in its themes than System Shock 2 - Its about corruption and power, greed, socialism, (cIass?) If you want to talk about copying SS2 is basically 2001: A space odyssey. I wonder if you have seen that film? Its about a computer on a space ship that goes crazy and starts killing the crew. biggest_loser

Yeah, I've seen it. I've seen a hell of a lot of films. I think justifying one game copying another by claiming that a game copied a movie is a pretty weak argument. They are entirely separate mediums, and they follow fundamentally different stories. BioShock's story is almost identical to System Shock 2's.

BioShock has good themes, but let me ask you this: so what? The simple themes of BioShock are meaningless without the dialogue and characterisation to back it up. The only good character in BioShock is Sander Cohen. While it may not be original, The Many is by far the most fascinating alien entity I have ever encountered in book, game or film, and Shodan is easily the most magnificent character in computer game history. Many agree.

And the subtext - the corruption, is present in SS2 as well. Only I find it far more horrific and frightening in SS2. To become host to an alien, to lose your mind, yourself; to become a drone. That's basically the same as the splicers. They lose themselves to the drugs. Personally, I think aliens are more horrible than drugs, but whatever.

There is often a penalty for failure if you don't correctly hack the turrents - I think it only comes about though if you hit the deadly squares in the hacking game though. Several automated bots will come and find you if you stuff it up and then you will have to waste health, ammo and eve in disposing of them.biggest_loser

Actually, you can just disable them with electrobolt and hack them. Turning failure to your advantage. You're rewarded for failing.

To be continued (due to character limit)...

The security parts as you scramble to find the correct pieces in time are some of the most intense bits of gaming I have played through. biggest_loser

How are they intense? You succeed, you win. You fail, you win. There is a computer game maxim: risk vs reward. BioShock is all reward, no risk.

The moral choice does have an impact on the game - there are essentially two ending in the game - which are vastly different. biggest_loser

However, if you choose to save the child then the little sisters will reward you with a large sum of atom as well as an addition plasmid. Thats a fact so you can't say it doesn't have an impact.biggest_loser

How can you see Crysis plays better? It was so poorly optimised when it was released.biggest_loser

I experienced nothing short of perfection, and I got it at release. Most of the people complaining about poor optimisation are unable to grasp the concept that Crysis is not a corridor game. Not only does it look magnificent, it is set in an environment with a draw distance several times larger than a corridor shooter. Poorly optimised? I played with everything on high at 1600x1200, and had a flawless experience.

More games are using the Unreal 3 engine than the Crytek one. biggest_loser

Crysis is not a longer game. lol, 5 hours long? Bioshock has no multiplayer but the multiplayer in Crysis isn't supposed to be that good anyway.biggest_loser

This comment epitomises your entire post. You haven't played the full game, and if you have, you haven't played it properly. Crysis can be finished in six hours if you rush like hell and skip large chunks (which the game lets you do because the environments are so large and non-linear), but it can also last 15 hours if you want it to. It took me about twelve, first time through. But there are so many wonderful playstyIe to adopt that I went and played it through a second and third time, trying out different things.

Mate Bioshock is 15-20 hours longbiggest_loser

and you can play it through a second time to check out the different powers as well as the different ending. biggest_loser

besides hypnotise big daddy, which powers might you miss out on first time round? You can afford just about everything, and most of the plasmids are just tier 2 or 3 versions of the same basic starting plasmids, so if you buy smart, you can skip t1 or t2 and get everything in one play. As for the different ending, I don't think sitting through eleven hours of that again is worth it just for a different cinematic. They are on youtube.

Holy crap, Mfsa. I wondered when your longer than infinity posts would return.

Anyway, Bioshock is a good game. Crysis is a great game. If I had to choose I'd go for Crysis, more replay-value, more freedom to horse around and by the looks of it a lot more interesting mods. (Are there mods for BS?) I'm waiting for a Predator-mod, that would rule...

Holy crap, Mfsa. I wondered when your longer than infinity posts would return.

Anyway, Bioshock is a good game. Crysis is a great game.

artur79

Despite all my ranting, I totally agree. BioShock is a good game - I'm actually replaying it right now, and enjoying it - it's just not this industry-altering work of art that so many people are making it out to be. And if it's indicative of the future of the FPS genre, then I'm gonna buy a Wii.

Or a gun.

I actually haven't played Crysis because my PC is weak, but I have to put a couple cents in to stick up for Bioshock against the people who are saying it isn't any good.

I can understand that you may not feel it is the greatest game of all time, afterall- that's all just a matter of personal taste. But to say it's crap is just wholy untrue and misleading. To put down the game by saying "All it has over other games is story and some atmosphere" is to me like saying "All a Corvette has over a Malibu is a better engine and a little nicer styling."

The combination of storytelling and atmosphere in Bioshock is one of its greatest achievements. If you allow yourself to get into the game it becomes really immersive. The build up of suspense before you first fight a Big Daddy, for example, was so great that I when I heard the trademark groan and footsteps in my rear surround speakers for the first time, I actually shot a glance over my shoulder!

On another front, the sheer volume of different plasmids and tonics allowed a depth of gameplay that could be tailored to meet a number of gaming styles and preferences- something not a lot of games can boast.

When you get right down to it, very very few games are actually completely new. What makes the difference between good games and great ones are the subtle nuances like the story or the atmosphere. It's the way the developers took "old" concepts and put a new twist on them.

The last thing I'll say is that Bioshock started off pretty slow for me- it took me a while to really get into it. But the more I played, the more it grew on me and I think it's a game that any gamer should experience at least once.

[QUOTE="harrisi17"]

Bioshock by far, I like crysis, but it is hard to run and bioshock is great with the plasmids and different approached to killing enemies.

Both games are easy, especially crysis, but I would get bioshock now and maybe get crysis if you get some upgrades or a new PC (not that yours is bad, i don't know, but no computer runs that game great)

GodLovesDead

Especially Crysis? Crysis is much more difficult than Bioshock. Even on medium, without the armor power-up on you'll die in 2-5 hits and Koreans will typically take 3-5 shots to go down. Bioshock wasn't even difficult on the highest difficulty. And saying no PC runs Crysis great is flat-out stupid. My friend bought his PC for $700 and it maxes Crysis with a 40 FPS average @ 1680x1050.

Well I guess he got lucky with that PC, I didn't mean that Crysis is easier than Bioshock, but beating it on delta is not much harder than normal, all you need is cloak/armor all the time, and to take it slower.

I usually can't beat any FPS on a higher difficulty than normal, but with crysis, I had few problems with delta. I expected delta difficulty to be at least as hard as far cry's normal/hard difficulty, but no, its not.

both are great games, bioshock took longer for me, some of that is because I did extra exploring and made sure I got everything, I can't say which you would come back to more, because I hardly ever beat a FPS twice. (get bored)

[QUOTE="artur79"]

Holy crap, Mfsa. I wondered when your longer than infinity posts would return.

Anyway, Bioshock is a good game. Crysis is a great game.

mfsa

Despite all my ranting, I totally agree. BioShock is a good game - I'm actually replaying it right now, and enjoying it - it's just not this industry-altering work of art that so many people are making it out to be. And if it's indicative of the future of the FPS genre, then I'm gonna buy a Wii.

Or a gun.

hopefully a Wii, I love mine. :)

Oh and Mfsa: HL2 does not have poor gunplay and I don't know why you would think that.

Keep it under 1000 words...