[comments] Bioshock 2 review

[rmoxon]

Bioshock 2 has better characters and a better story for me too, more actualy happens in it and youre right you do actualy end up caring about what happens to some of the people in it, besides maybe one occasion this never happened in the first game.

I must admit though that not being able to backtrack at the end of the game annoyed me a bit. This was becuase in one playthrough I had managed to bag all the single player achievements besides ONE, apparently I must have missed a power to the people machine. Now I very rarley get the full 1000g on games, but considering I only missed one I felt a bit annoyed with both the game and myself and I certainly wasnt going back through the whole thing again for one little achievement.

As I have already said I thought the sequel was a great game though and just a massive improvement over the overrated original.

[ItsThere]

Eight Rooks - thank you for the well thought out response. I will try and post some of my deeper thoughts up later today but, as you have probably gathered, I was really underwhelmed by the game.

[ItsThere]

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.

SPOILERS
In my opinion the reason why the second game fails to produce the same emotional tie to the character is because the backstory is forced on you.

For me it is anlagous to Jason Bourne waking up with amnesia, chasing his past while you attribute to him snippets of his past that you can fill in with your own imagination. In the first Bioshock you could be anyone (and you can make the same point regarding our good Dr. Freeman) but in the second game you have to adopt the dogmatic premise that is forced on you. Well done Mr. Bond, you did what we told you to do. Now go away and enjoy a Martini.

While making this point I understand that the very nature of the character in the first game is the exact opposite of what I am saying but, the point is, you don't know that you are being manipulated. It is a revelation and it is one that questions the central nature of nearly all games, why do we do do everything we are told by games deisgners? Biochock 2 doesn't ask any questions of this nature. It is simply find A rescue A, thwart B.

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!

I don't believe it is pointless whining, to me it felt exceptionally contrived to have to lock the player out of each previous level with a set piece. How often is anyone ever prevented from turning back in 'real life'? I read an interview with the design team which stated that this was done to help with load times for the overall engine because not many people engaged in backtracking in the first game. Well I did so I see this as feature removal, plan and simple.

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.

Sorry but I disagree. Lamb spends the vast portion of her considerable airtime spouting the same, 'Kill him' stuff aimed to distress you that Ryan did. I didn't feel that Sinclair was different enough from Fonatine and, to be honest, I couldn't remember who Wales or Alex were until I researched it. Wales was a less interesting version of Sander Cohen, twisted by his 'art', in this case false religion. I will however admit that Gilbert Alexander (who I presume you are referring to) was a good character and I enjoyed the interaction I had with him. BUT and this is important to my central argument that the the moral impact of choice is gone with Bioshock 2, is that he wants you to kill him. You want to kill him, it is basically scripted that he will die and thus, another empty decision is taken away from the player.

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.

I'm glad you enjoyed it and, as I am keen to point out, 5 is not a bad score, it is an average one. For me Bioshock 2 never hit the same emotional notes as the first. I never meant to imply that it was 'weird and stuff' but the whole project reeks of over commercialism to me. I still don't see the need for this game and I don't see how ANY of the history or purpose of Rapture as a setting was fleshed out. It should have stayed under the sea instead of being trotted out to the masses to earn some more coin for the publishers.

[rmoxon]

I'm glad you enjoyed it and, as I am keen to point out, 5 is not a bad score, it is an average one. For me Bioshock 2 never hit the same emotional notes as the first. I never meant to imply that it was 'weird and stuff' but the whole project reeks of over commercialism to me. I still don't see the need for this game and I don't see how ANY of the history or purpose of Rapture as a setting was fleshed out. It should have stayed under the sea instead of being trotted out to the masses to earn some more coin for the publishers.

This statment confuses me alot, there are loads of things in Bioshock 2 that flesh out the story way more, for instance when you control a little sister for the first time and see what the world is like through her eyes, you understand why they are like what they are like, it is genius and you would think that as a fan you would apricate this kind of knowledge being presented to you.

Overall you seemed to be disapointed but much like Eight Rooks I cant really understand why. Even now I cant understand why you are finding negative things in points that arent negative at all.

For the record 5 is a bad score for the game, simply becuase it will put some people off buying it.

[ItsThere]

This statment confuses me alot, there are loads of things in Bioshock 2 that flesh out the story way more, for instance when you control a little sister for the first time and see what the world is like through her eyes, you understand why they are like what they are like, it is genius and you would think that as a fan you would apricate this kind of knowledge being presented to you.

Overall you seemed to be disapointed but much like Eight Rooks I cant really understand why. Even now I cant understand why you are finding negative things in points that arent negative at all.

For the record 5 is a bad score for the game, simply becuase it will put some people off buying it.

That is another sequence that I did enjoy but, curicially (and this is my whole problem with Bioshock 2), I didn't enjoy it as much as I should have.

There were so many little sisters leading up to that point, and the lack of the ability to backtrack had ruined my harvesting attempts in a previous level. This was because you can't take them out underwater, that is fine, I understand the logic behind that. I have no problem with that. My problem was that the game spawned ALL of the Little Sister's in the latter section of the level (past the external water section) so that there were not enough corpses in the latter half of the level so I cannot properly harvest my Adam.

This experience annoyed me so much that I lost interest in the Little Sisters alomst completely, they were yet another tedious aspect of the game that was just used too much. I explained why I lost interest in the main character, I explained why I lost interest in the Big Sisters and to lose interest in them as well? Almost fatal to my enjoyment of the title.

Regarding the section you mention, it was perhaps the only part that featured any narrative exposition of any interest but, like the rest of the game it was a linear path through. I know you could walk into some rooms on the way but, could you die? I certainly didn't. Was there any threat? I don't think so. Did it heighten interest in the plot as a whole? I didn't think so. The more I think about the game the more I actually dislike it in comparison to the first game. I recognise that the review was one of opinion but I can't be swayed on this one. In my opinion, it was an inferior product.

[averybluemonkey]

About Us --> Statement of Intent:

"- Our reviews have a 1-10 grading system, with 10 being the best. Unlike many other sites, our middle ground or average mark is 5, which we believe to be a fair and accurate score for an 'average' game."

[rmoxon]

That is another sequence that I did enjoy but, curicially (and this is my whole problem with Bioshock 2), I didn't enjoy it as much as I should have.

There were so many little sisters leading up to that point, and the lack of the ability to backtrack had ruined my harvesting attempts in a previous level. This was because you can't take them out underwater, that is fine, I understand the logic behind that. I have no problem with that. My problem was that the game spawned ALL of the Little Sister's in the latter section of the level (past the external water section) so that there were not enough corpses in the latter half of the level so I cannot properly harvest my Adam.

This experience annoyed me so much that I lost interest in the Little Sisters alomst completely, they were yet another tedious aspect of the game that was just used too much. I explained why I lost interest in the main character, I explained why I lost interest in the Big Sisters and to lose interest in them as well? Almost fatal to my enjoyment of the title.

Regarding the section you mention, it was perhaps the only part that featured any narrative exposition of any interest but, like the rest of the game it was a linear path through. I know you could walk into some rooms on the way but, could you die? I certainly didn't. Was there any threat? I don't think so. Did it heighten interest in the plot as a whole? I didn't think so. The more I think about the game the more I actually dislike it in comparison to the first game. I recognise that the review was one of opinion but I can't be swayed on this one. In my opinion, it was an inferior product.

I respect that its is your opinion, im certainly not trying to sway you, there wouldnt be much point really. The thing is I still just cant understand the negative comments you are making in regards to the game. In fact dont even understand what your second sentence here means at all, your havesting plans were ruined? eh? If you paused it the game told you if there were any more little sisters left to harvest in the level, so you never had to leave until you got all the Adam you could from any given section of the game.

You just seemed to be really streching for negative things to say in the review (stuf like theres "too much combat" when its a shooter for instnce). Maybe you didnt like the fact that the game was much more action orientated than the first one (though thats one of the reason i liked it more) but I didnt really got that from the review or what you have said here so much as you just seem so desperate to not like it.

[rmoxon]

About Us --> Statement of Intent:

"- Our reviews have a 1-10 grading system, with 10 being the best. Unlike many other sites, our middle ground or average mark is 5, which we believe to be a fair and accurate score for an 'average' game."

I understand that, but generaly a score of 5 will still put many people off. If a curious person was looking for reviews of Bioshock 2 online and were linked to this one the score would no doubt make them step back and wonder if they should really buy the game.

I think thats a shame really, becuase it was one of the best shooters made in the last few years.

[Neon Ignition]

I'd say that there's things it gets right and gets wrong overall.

Right:

-Narrative. It's missing some of the most memorable characters that B1 contained but for me it tells a better story overall. I've never subscribed the notion that a Bioshock game shouldn't exist unless it contains a shock or twist that equals or out does the one in the original. The story of Bioshock 2 is more predictable than the first but I found the tale of the Big Daddy you control to be quite warming and helped to really back up the relationship between them and the Little Sisters that the first game showed so much.

-Gameplay. For me, they didn't change a huge amount but it just plays and and out better than the first game. They ironed out the combat system and made it less of a strain to keep the character on a par for new enemy types.

-Structure balancing. I can understand the back tracking complaint for those who liked it in the first but it's such a small aspect that I don't think it warrants being a negative. Plus, I don't understand the little sister harvesting point. There's too much of it in the game but there's certainly enough instances that with a fairly average amount of exploration you can max them out in a single playthrough.

-Multiplayer: It's not going to beat out the main games but like Uncharted it really shouldn't have worked but I found it to be fun for what it is and more successful than I'd expected.


Wrong:

-Rapture: Their realisation of it holds up well to the first game but given the size of the city and the plans to reuse it through the many upcoming sequels I'd have hoped they'd vary the environments to keep them interesting over time.

-Atmosphere: A mixed one. I do like the atmosphere of B2 but it is missing any sense of tension or scares. Largely it's due to who you're playing as which I can live with as long as it's not for every game here on. I do miss creeping around though, the opening areas of B1 at the time were uber-eeiry.

-Engine: I can understand them using the same engine again but it is admittedly already showing it's age. I'd be happy for them to release Bioshock 3 very late this generation in order to have it running in a newer engine that can better make use of water physics and allows for the memory for more varied locals.

[Guts]

I understand that, but generaly a score of 5 will still put many people off. If a curious person was looking for reviews of Bioshock 2 online and were linked to this one the score would no doubt make them step back and wonder if they should really buy the game.

You've used this argument before and it's still idiotic.

First, Bioshock 2 has an average of 87/100 on Gamerankings, anyone deciding not to buy a game based on one single review (and one that scored "average" like mentioned) is a lazy moron. And if he decides to check a review on this site, he should make sure he understands the scoring range also.

Second, a review boils down to being an opinion of a person and guess what, people have vastly different ones on about any subject in the world, including video games. Just because you or the even the majority of people think something is great, doesn't mean everyone will think the same also.

But don't worry, like I said Bioshock 2 scored 87/100 on average.

I think thats a shame really, becuase it was one of the best shooters made in the last few years.

You thought it was one of the best, the reviewer didn't. It happens, sometimes people appreciate different things. I think it's better the reviewer give his honest opinion about a game rather than rating a game highly because "everyone else did too".

[dvdx2]

About Us --> Statement of Intent:

"- Our reviews have a 1-10 grading system, with 10 being the best. Unlike many other sites, our middle ground or average mark is 5, which we believe to be a fair and accurate score for an 'average' game."

so nearly 90&#37; of the games released would get a '5'? (lets face it most are 'average')

doesnt make sense i'm afraid and isnt really a good enough grading system to sift average games. Can i ask you what games you would give a 8 and 10?

[ItsThere]

so nearly 90% of the games released would get a '5'? (lets face it most are 'average')

doesnt make sense i'm afraid and isnt really a good enough grading system to sift average games. Can i ask you what games you would give a 8 and 10?

I know this wasn't asked of me but personally (and not related to NTSC-UK) I would give Demon's Souls a 10 and Unchartered 1 an 8.

[ItsThere]

In fact dont even understand what your second sentence here means at all, your havesting plans were ruined? eh? If you paused it the game told you if there were any more little sisters left to harvest in the level, so you never had to leave until you got all the Adam you could from any given section of the game.

No - this is a design fault with the level in question, please read what I said properly. The issue arose because it was a mid level obstacle that prevented me taking the Little Sister back to the corpses before the mid level obstacle.

If you are going to have Little Sisters appearing at random then you should not be prevented from using them to harvest the maximum Adam from Splicer Corpses. I had a Little Sister on my shoulder and I was prevented from taking her to the first part of teh same level to gather more Adam.

The level was Alexander Gill's stage where the entrance to the next stage is located on the ocean floor (you need his genetic key to access it). I didn't mention this in the original review because it isn't a problem with the linear level progression per se but a glitch that I encountered but I doubted many others would have.

[rmoxon]

You've used this argument before and it's still idiotic.

First, Bioshock 2 has an average of 87/100 on Gamerankings, anyone deciding not to buy a game based on one single review (and one that scored "average" like mentioned) is a lazy moron. And if he decides to check a review on this site, he should make sure he understands the scoring range also.

Second, a review boils down to being an opinion of a person and guess what, people have vastly different ones on about any subject in the world, including video games. Just because you or the even the majority of people think something is great, doesn't mean everyone will think the same also.

But don't worry, like I said Bioshock 2 scored 87/100 on average.



You thought it was one of the best, the reviewer didn't. It happens, sometimes people appreciate different things. I think it's better the reviewer give his honest opinion about a game rather than rating a game highly because "everyone else did too".

Sorry, I didnt realise I had to write "IN MY OPINION" at the start of every single sentence I wrote in order for me to make it clear that its only my opinion I am writing, so here goes.

IN MY OPINION The reveiw is wrong. IN MY OPINION the review could put someone off a game when they would probabaly enjoy it which is not somthing I belive a fair review should do. IN MY OPINION this is a shame.

There, how is that?

[rmoxon]

No - this is a design fault with the level in question, please read what I said properly. The issue arose because it was a mid level obstacle that prevented me taking the Little Sister back to the corpses before the mid level obstacle.

If you are going to have Little Sisters appearing at random then you should not be prevented from using them to harvest the maximum Adam from Splicer Corpses. I had a Little Sister on my shoulder and I was prevented from taking her to the first part of teh same level to gather more Adam.

The level was Alexander Gill's stage where the entrance to the next stage is located on the ocean floor (you need his genetic key to access it). I didn't mention this in the original review because it isn't a problem with the linear level progression per se but a glitch that I encountered but I doubted many others would have.

It dosent sound like a design fault, I still dont relaly understand what youre saying, but it sounds like somthing that very few people would actualy experience and yet just another example of how you seem to be really looking for negatives where there arent many.

Anyway as I said earlier i respect your opinion so you can rate the game anything you really want too, I just dont find your score of 5 for the game justified at all really.