Interested to see how the multiplayer is going to work. Balancing the plasmids and the guns into a neat package that works well - will be difficult. I just want a good shooter that isn't MW2 or CS. :(
hmmm i probably wont bother, lets face it the guns in bioshock weren't exactly satisfying. i reckon online thats going to become glaring obvious. the first one was mediocre gameplay wise, doesnt look like they're changing much, and i've seen the pretty architecture now thanks
Its all very well giving a balanced review but here you're slating the original game one minute and the next you're practically humping its leg -make your mind up!
The original was definately one of my favourite games and I like forward to the prequel
Currently working my way through Bioshock. I'm finding it a deeply engaging game and I've really bought into the whole environment, atmosphere and ambience of the game.
Without doubt, it's definitely been the most engaging single-player FPS I've played since Half-Life 2 hit the stores and a game which has restored my faith in PC Gaming - to an extent.
IMO Crysis - while technically immense & despite all it's jungles, vehicles, bells and whistles - pales in significance to this as a world to be experienced.
Additionally, the variety of Bioshock (setting traps, using plasmids, plus the weapons - which may not be the most satisfying to begin with, but certainly grow on you) sets it apart, too.
I haven't got to the end, yet, so hearing that the endings weren't so great is slightly disappointing. I'll judge it for myself as and when I get there.
The re-playability would certainly be an issue for someone getting it for the full retail price, but, as it's now an older game, it's certainly worth buying it and playing it through once or twice.
It would be nice to see BioShock2 have some really inventive/innovating multiplayer which would be in keeping with the delivery and presentation of this game.
This really is a must-play game - one to own and have experienced.
The original Bioshock is one of my favourite games, mainly due to its fabolously engaging story that may stumble a little towards the end.
If they can achieve the same level of atmosphere and integrate the new elements well enough into the world of rapture and its history, then I will be sold. Again.
this "preview" didn't actually say anything preview-like about the game, apart from some new information about the multiplayer mode. Can't we get some opinion on how the game is shaping up and if the multiplayer is a worthy addition, gameplay-wise?
Originally Posted by Gunsmith Console dross, i cant believe people actually rate the first, well actually i can, if they play with thumbsticks and are under 16.
Now, now. Save your superiority complex for those really awful console ports ;)
Originally Posted by eRased86 Erm... not sure where you guys got your information from... but the game is not a prequel.. it's set 10 years after the events of the first game.
The multiplayer is set during the Civil War but the main Single Player is set well well after the events of the first game..
Originally Posted by smc8788 Now, now. Save your superiority complex for those really awful console ports ;)
looooolll
true its not the worst port ever, just a bad game ;)
lets face it you could beat the first game by electric shocking everything and clouting it with a spanner. no realistic need to go beyond that mechanic if you dont want to. oh you died? thats ok we'll spawn you 10 yards behind and give you half your health back. very pretty and all that but also predictable and holds your hand to a ridiculous extent.
Nobody said you HAD to play with the vita chambers :P Play with save games tbh. And just because you CAN use only the shock plasmid and the rench, you guessed it, DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO. If that's your reason for the game being 'bad' then I'd like to see what games you rate as 'good' LOL.
I for one enjoyed it (on the pc :p). Interested to see how this will turn out.
my point is that you can go through the entire game with the first two weapons you are given and most of the time they're the most effective anyway, why would you surround a splicer with bees and then take him down with a massively upgraded shotgun when you can use mr sparky and mr wrenchy much quicker and easier.
i rate all sorts of games as 'good' and they usually include weapons that have to be used in order to progress, try taking down a walker in HL2 without a rocket launcher for example. its called balanced gameplay, and plenty of games have it.
The original Bioshock was a good game, and I enjoyed playing it, but it was seriously overrated by most. The vita-chambers just seemed to leave the game broken, and after meeting Ryan, the game seemed to just fall apart a bit for me. I might take a look at the sequel, but I wouldn't exactly say I can't wait for it.
Yes and apparently you can finish half life in less than 40 minutes but wheres the fun in that?
I thought the effects of the different guns and plasmids was interesting.
The argument about the Vita chambers is ridiculous since there are plenty FPS games where you can quicksave at any point you like allowing you to essentially respawn at the point of your choosing rather than where the game puts you
I'm with the pro-Shock fans on this one. Yes, the gameplay was not the greatest in the world, but the atmosphere and premace were utterly brilliant. Personally I didn't use the Vita chambers, just old fashioned quick save quick load. Same effect really.
The Big Sisters (there's more than one now?) really interest me, they seem very well realised, but I share my fears with Bit, it stands to lose more than it can gain. Bioshock was a bit of a one-off experience, one I won't even think about replaying for a good while just to keep it fresh. Bit like Braid, the first one was fantastic, but a sequal would just be wrong on so many levels.
BioShock is a pretty game with a nice story and absolute dogshit gameplay. I'm interested in BioShock 2 but it seems even more like a shooter for people with developmental disorders... and the first one came pretty close to that already. Everything about the game reeks of cash cow, from the totally unnecessary and unimaginative tacked-on multiplayer, to the storyline which is stapled on to the original, requiring more retcons than Fallout Tactics to even make sense. And seriously. Guys. Big Sister? Do you really think you are clever? This game was designed by a ****ing marketing committee.
Comments 1 to 25 of 48
ReplyThe original was definately one of my favourite games and I like forward to the prequel
Without doubt, it's definitely been the most engaging single-player FPS I've played since Half-Life 2 hit the stores and a game which has restored my faith in PC Gaming - to an extent.
IMO Crysis - while technically immense & despite all it's jungles, vehicles, bells and whistles - pales in significance to this as a world to be experienced.
Additionally, the variety of Bioshock (setting traps, using plasmids, plus the weapons - which may not be the most satisfying to begin with, but certainly grow on you) sets it apart, too.
I haven't got to the end, yet, so hearing that the endings weren't so great is slightly disappointing. I'll judge it for myself as and when I get there.
The re-playability would certainly be an issue for someone getting it for the full retail price, but, as it's now an older game, it's certainly worth buying it and playing it through once or twice.
It would be nice to see BioShock2 have some really inventive/innovating multiplayer which would be in keeping with the delivery and presentation of this game.
This really is a must-play game - one to own and have experienced.
If they can achieve the same level of atmosphere and integrate the new elements well enough into the world of rapture and its history, then I will be sold. Again.
The multiplayer is set during the Civil War but the main Single Player is set well well after the events of the first game..
More info:
http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/BioShock_2
Now, now. Save your superiority complex for those really awful console ports ;)
Whoops - that was me getting confused about the multiplayer/singleplayer campaigns. I've updated the article.
looooolll
true its not the worst port ever, just a bad game ;)
lets face it you could beat the first game by electric shocking everything and clouting it with a spanner. no realistic need to go beyond that mechanic if you dont want to. oh you died? thats ok we'll spawn you 10 yards behind and give you half your health back. very pretty and all that but also predictable and holds your hand to a ridiculous extent.
I for one enjoyed it (on the pc :p). Interested to see how this will turn out.
Want a demo of this.
If it is the same as the first, its not worth the full price.
Bioshock was way overrated.
i rate all sorts of games as 'good' and they usually include weapons that have to be used in order to progress, try taking down a walker in HL2 without a rocket launcher for example. its called balanced gameplay, and plenty of games have it.
I thought the effects of the different guns and plasmids was interesting.
The argument about the Vita chambers is ridiculous since there are plenty FPS games where you can quicksave at any point you like allowing you to essentially respawn at the point of your choosing rather than where the game puts you
The Big Sisters (there's more than one now?) really interest me, they seem very well realised, but I share my fears with Bit, it stands to lose more than it can gain. Bioshock was a bit of a one-off experience, one I won't even think about replaying for a good while just to keep it fresh. Bit like Braid, the first one was fantastic, but a sequal would just be wrong on so many levels.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums