[comments] Bioshock 2 review

[charlesr]

Bioshock 2 review

Thanks to Blair and Matt for the words and Duncan for the banner.

[Neon Ignition]

Another well written review but it's the first one in a while that I've really got to disagree with the score.

[dvdx2]

thats a crazy score.....

i thought bioshock 2 surpassed the 1st in everyway

[abigsmurf]

I agree with the review really, too many tiresome elements and a plot that isn't as gripping or surprising as in the first.

[QualityChimp]

I've got the game but have yet to play it, so I won't read the review yet and make my own mind up.

I hope I enjoy it more than the reviewers seemed to!

I'm just glad the banner is a little tamer now. I'm glad you didn't have a Big Sister in her bikini or something...

[Eight Rooks]

Yeah, utterly disagree, at least for the single player. Better than the first game in every respect, and that includes the story; the first game was good, but on reflection it's a serious Shyamalan twist, in that it doesn't hold up to repeat plays anything like as well as it should. The first would be a low 8 for me, the second a high 8 or even a 9, and I mean that on an Edge scale, not an IGN one. Combat dragged in the first game, but not here. The story was far, far more meaningful and the ending(s) far more effective. There's nothing in the second game to equal the original's half-way setpiece, but other than that, there's no reason to choose the first.

[dvdx2]

I've got the game but have yet to play it, so I won't read the review yet and make my own mind up.

I hope I enjoy it more than the reviewers seemed to!

I'm just glad the banner is a little tamer now. I'm glad you didn't have a Big Sister in her bikini or something...

5 is a score i would attribute to a very, very average game. The amount of detail, care, attention to detail, sound and graphical quality that bioshock 2 has, makes it anything but - i dont even pay that much attention to the story as its fairly hocum (as was the first). As a strategy/FPS its great

a solid '8' from me (single player)

[Kaido]

I agree with the wording, the game was a disappointment for fans of the original's deeper plot and the combat was slicker and marred by the linear and familiar weapon set.

I suppose for those who go for a more action oriented ("untouchable badass") fps it wasn't nearly as much of a disappointment, having improved on the original in those areas.

As many would rate the original a 9 out of 10, I could certainly agree something like 7 out of 10 applies here, as it has been well received by some, especially those new to bioshock or not keen on the originals storyline, and poorly by others such as myself.

[rmoxon]

5/10?

eh?

I thought this was better than the original for the single player alone, plus the multiplayer was actualy quite good.

What a crazy score.... Id give the original 7 (It was a bit overated at the time I thought from a gameplay perspective) and the sequel a 9 as it was such a big improvment.

[MisterBubbles]

subscription cancelled, just kidding, of course with my user name im going to totally disagree with the review and the score. So modern warfare 2 gets 9/10 here on NTSC- UK and that story was complete and utter cack, least the characters in Bioshock 2 are believable and arent one dimensional.

[dvdx2]

a 6 (minimum) or 8 (highest) is a much more sensible score

I'd hate people to be put off playing it, just because of that really low score

[SuperBeatBoy]

I'm the same, no way a 5/10. That score would mean that the game is average and to be honest its anything but, its the 2nd in a series where it revolutionised a stale market in the way to play a first person shooter and it still feels fresh today for those new to the series or old. I enjoyed the story for what it is and it had some great moments in places. The multiplayer was even better than i thought it would be but its probably dead on its arse now.

A 7 or an 8 would have been a fairer score for this. It does what it needs to do and did it well considering Ken Levine wasn't involved.

[112]

a 6 (minimum) or 8 (highest) is a much more sensible score

I'd hate people to be put off playing it, just because of that really low score

Aye....... Im considering changing my mind now.............

But you posts have reassured me

112

[abigsmurf]

*shrugs*

I thought his score was well justified in the review. One of the main things I look for in reviews is a well supported opinion. I dislike reviews that spend 3/4 of the text pointing out things they don't like about it then give it a 7+

[Eight Rooks]

I thought his score was well justified in the review. One of the main things I look for in reviews is a well supported opinion. I dislike reviews that spend 3/4 of the text pointing out things they don't like about it then give it a 7+

The clear sense of purpose that you are given seriously damages the ability of Bioshock 2 to spin any meaningful narrative to truly engage the player. This is a computer game. If the main aim is to rescue someone then, nine times out of ten, the rescue mission will be a successful one. In comparison to the mystery surrounding the first game’s plot the sequel looks like a phoned-in performance.

What's that now? You could say the same thing about any number of books, films, television shows... pointless quibbling over semantics. The second game is clearly about the journey as much as or far more than it is about the original reason you're doing what you're doing, and it arguably does a far better job of this than the first game, which - underneath all the 'My goodness! You're right! Why am I playing this, exactly?' hoo-hah wasn't actually that great a story. It had some amazing plot threads; Ryan remains one of the medium's most memorable characters. But the backstory of who the player really is fails to impress (the second game does a far better job of developing this, in fact, given it's much more relevant to the overarching themes in the sequel) and the general thrust of the story from A to B - find sisters, save or absorb sisters - wouldn't stand up so well on its own.

Oh yes, that’s right, Rapture isn’t a sandbox environment any more, it is a one-way ride that does not allow backtracking, so you had better make sure that you do everything you want to before moving on this time around.

I've still never seen anyone make this argument in a way that doesn't make it look ultimately like pointless whining. Rapture never was a sandbox environment, apart from maybe with its combat - and the sequel improves on that. There's nothing meaningful anyone could possibly want to do that they'd need to go back for. Oh noes! They won't let me retrace my steps and pace up and down empty corridors for a few more hours! I might not platinum/1000 everything!

It just doesn’t have the same emotional hooks as the first game. It doesn’t have the same fresh feeling as the first game and it doesn’t expand the potential of the setting as much as it should have done. There are fewer interesting characters and the ones that do exist mirror those from the previous game so closely they may as well be palette swaps.

Who exactly is a carbon copy from the first game? Can't be Lamb. Can't be Grace. Sinclair is very different from Fontaine. Wales has no equivalent, though admittedly he was definitely under-developed. Stanley's under-developed but the moral dilemma

->Open Spoiler<-

of whether or not to shoot him

still held me up for far longer than anything Bioware's ever written. There's no Alex in the first game, and again, I hesitated for ages at the end of his levels.

I'm bored, yes. But just saying. I don't think it reads like a well-supported review at all, just like the usual 'But the first was amazing! Andrew Ryan! Golf clubs!!!1!1!!1!' repeated ad nauseam by people who can't understand why anyone would want to try making a sequel. No suggestion of what they could have done instead, no reasons why the story's boring except paper-thin nonsense, no reason for why the first game's better except, effectively 'It Was Weird And Stuff'.

It was too easy, yes, the same tricks were used a little too often, the Unreal tech was showing its age, the exterior levels were a letdown and some characters were far too quickly sketched out. But the combat was beautifully tuned up, and even with the difficulty curve out of whack by the end of the game there were still some fantastic set-pieces, the setting was re-used in some brilliant visual and narrative ways and the story was tremendously compelling stuff, much less about one big twist and far more about the moral themes underpinning everything. It even built on everything the first game suggested but never elaborated, with the extra Ryan material they threw in.

Sorry for going on and on. I just... loved the game, was blown away by it in many respects, and I simply don't get a lot of the criticisms. They don't seem well-founded to me at all, and I'm afraid this review is no different to my way of thinking. <shrug> But hey! Opinions and all, right? I'll get my coat.