Slashdot Log In
BioShock Review
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:43 PM
from the somewhere-across-the-sea-somewhere-waiting-for-me dept.
from the somewhere-across-the-sea-somewhere-waiting-for-me dept.
BioShock, the moody drama-driven FPS for the Xbox 360 and PC, was released last month to rave reviews from the major gaming news sites. Since then the internet has been ablaze with outcry about the game's high rating scores. It's hard to understand why. The work of Ken Levine and Irrational Games on the spiritual successor to System Shock 2 is sublime. It's incredibly atmospheric, the game's story is well written and compellingly told, and the first-person shooter gameplay is a respectable, tightly crafted experience. It's a really, really good game. I'll tell you now: it's a 5/5. So why all the angst? Why the backlash? Read on for my review of BioShock, and a few comments on the dangers of 'merely' being a good game.
- Title: BioShock
- Developer/Publisher: Irrational Games (2K Boston/2K Australia) / 2K
- System:360 (PC)
- Genre: RPG/ FPS Hybrid
- Score: 5/5 - This game is a classic title. It transcends genre, is certain to be a part of many serious gamers' collections, and is definitely worth purchasing.
The setting is gripping, but it's also the least of the player's worries. It can frighten, but the remaining citizens of Rapture - they can kill. And they'll kill cheerfully, too, all the while singing songs and muttering enthusiastically to themselves. These people are lumped together under the generic term 'Splicer', implying their extreme genetic modification. From low-powered thugs in masks through to fire-tossing, teleporting madmen, their strength when wielding a pipe is far outweighed by the impact they can leave on your nerves. Far more threatening than this group of variously-powered miscreants are the iconic monsters of the title: the Big Daddies. Acting as patrons for their ADAM-hording Little Sister companions, these creatures are just as tough as you've been lead to believe. While much of a given level involves stalking from room to room dealing with the slicer infestation, the most memorable moments you'll have probably come from one-on-one combat with the diving-suit clad behemoths. And they are completely memorable. Even taken out of context the Big Daddy is one of the creepiest enemies ever to grace a videogame. Everything, from their low groans, to their thudding footsteps, to their cries of rage when they attack, gets across to you that when you face down a Daddy it's 'for real.' Game on. I particularly like how, as they become more and more damaged, steam escapes the Daddy's suit. The implication seems to be that there's something deeply wrong under that helmet.
That's extremely similar to System Shock 2, of course. In keeping with the spirit of that game, your ability to customize your avatar is expansive. There are actually four tracks of powerups to choose from: plasmids, physical tonics, engineering tonics, and combat tonics. While it might sound like you will be engineering a carefully constructed 'build', I found during the course of play that a particular style just emerged based on what I found most useful. Engineering tonics were the upgrades that most appealed to me, and so I made an effort to gain slots in that area. There are far more tonics than slots available, so even as you bump up your character's potential you'll never find yourself wanting for powers. Making use of these powers in the 'emergent gameplay' style is also equally effortless. While it sounds like work from the outside, when you're playing through the game encounters happen so quickly that you rarely have time to realize that you're doing cool stuff before it happens. That was another reason I particularly enjoyed engineering; emergent gameplay can even happen when you're not around. I regularly returned to an encampment I'd made out of hacked turrets to find that they'd been clearing the stage without me. All I had to do at that point was loot the corpses.
All of these elements probably seem very familiar to veteran gamers, and they very well should. You've probably played a handful of games that had many elements similar to BioShock before. What sets this game apart and above other offerings, though, is the way the title brings it all together. There's almost nothing out of place here. There's no "but the story could have been better" or "the weapons didn't feel right", or "the enemies got boring" to mar the experience of playing this through for the first time. Is it the best game that will be released this year? Possibly. It's certainly the best FPS to be released since Valve's Episode One hit last year.
So where has all the hate come from? Why are there so many posts and protestations on message boards, all claiming that BioShock 'isn't all it was promised to be'? Even Zero Punctuation's analysis of the game (which you should really seriously check out because it's hilarious) takes some cheap shots at the game's purported low difficulty level. It's all for laughs, of course, but it shows up in the review because it's a common complaint among players. The issue is that the restoration capsules scattered throughout the game, which allow you to respawn right after your death, apparently remove the 'challenge' from the game. Others have said in response, "just don't play it that way, that's why there is a quicksave option." That also seems like a strange argument, because it's essentially telling someone they're 'playing wrong'. I don't really think anyone can play a game incorrectly.
The real problem, I think, is that hype has made game players disappointed with games as they're actually delivered. When a game is unexpectedly good, we all marvel over the 'sleeper hit.' There comes a point in a game's marketing, though, when more hype is just too much. The result is that when the game is finally delivered, there's almost no way for the real product to match up with player expectations. After Halo 3 launches later this month, odds are there will be a lot of people in forums nitpicking the slightest flaw or perceived imperfection. The lesson, I think, is that as gamers we need to learn to manage our expectations. I'm really looking forward to Mass Effect, for example, but I don't think it's going to change my life. Really, what can we expect out of a game other than a few hours of enjoyment we might not otherwise have had? Just getting that much out of a game, I think, is a big win for the publisher, the developer, and (of course) the player.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
No bearing? (Score:5, Informative)
And of course general bugginess means the several crashes I've encountered lost an hour or two of play. That too has bearing.
Gaming on Windows? Never again. This was the first time I had tried to return to that realm in years, and found I was not welcome there by the very software I bought for my own use.
I loved the game, but it was only just marginally worthwhile to use it on Windows. I would not advise people to buy it unless it's on a console they already own.
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
A review should cover the entire experience, and that includes the DRM. To make up a tortured example, if a movie's distributor is so terrified of people making copies that theaters have to agree to strip search everyone who sees the movie, yeah, that should be noted in any good review in addition to the quality of the film itself. Or to be less contrived, it's fair game for a theater review to note that, say, the theater is in a very dangerous neighborhood, or that you'll end up spending as much on parking or cab fare as on the tickets themselves. Similarly, if a game's installer fails on a large number of systems, rendering the game effectively unplayable, that should be mentioned in a review as well. The publishers included the DRM in the box and as part of the game, so it should get reviewed along with the game.
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
A review is a subjective thing that covers the REVIEWER'S experience. In this case, he played it on the XBox 360, where there are no DRM issues. And if he had installed it on a PC, and did not have any installation or DRM issues, then how can that factor in his experience with the game, either?
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does a game need to limit the amount of installs I can do?
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:4, Interesting)
8 years, 3 machines+, 10+ operating systems install (at least, remember this game started back in the days of windows 98, reinstalling that once a month was not unheard of) and removing steam to clear up space for other games.
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Accepting this type of digital restrictions on anything is a bad idea.
In Bioshock's case I unfortunately did not learn of it until unlock day. It just didn't occur to me that a Steam title would have anything like that. Had I picked up on it earlier I would've voted with my cash and canceled my preorder. I don't buy protected titles as a rule. And vice versa, I buy some unprotected titles just to show support.
Thankfully, there's always a crack. But I'm really fed up with the pirates consistently getting the better product than the legit customers.
Parent
Can't Start My Car After Mouthwash (Score:3, Insightful)
Insert car analogies here
I would not buy a car that won't start if a seatbelt is not engaged or it makes me take a fucking breathalyzer test. Why? Because I don't need my damn car to decide if I can drive or not. I am very well capable of doing this on my own. If I want to drive my car from my front yard to the back yard without a seat belt on, I should be able to. If I want to swish my mouth with mouthwash before I drive my car, I damn well have the right to. Further, you better believe that I would be supremely pissed off
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the time the police don't have any affect on you if you aren't doing anything wrong. They don't pull you over and ask to check your license & paperwork for no reason at all. DRM on the other hand affects you wether you're ripping the game off or not. In fact, it arguably has MORE of an effect on those who bough
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you think that the game companies themselves feel exactly the way you do, in that they are "really fed up with the pirates consistently getting the better product than the legit customers" as well? They are, and this is why they are making it increasingly difficult to pirate their games.
They're fed up with pirates consistently getting a better product, so they try to make their product even worse for legitimate customers?
Don't even go there trying to attack cars that attempt to determine if you are too drunk to drive.
Why not? Would it make it harder for you to feel self-righteous if people could find a flaw in this? But it's so easy to do! Firstly, "too drunk to drive" varies from person to person. Secondly, one of the problems with technical enforcement is that it fails to take into account exceptional circumstances.
Say you go camping with some friends, and you all sit around t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if it breaks? What if you just rinsed with mouthwash? What if you're in a fucking hurry(maybe you're even beeing chased?)?
Ditto goes for a car that doesn't start if you don't have your seatbelt on. What if the switch/sen
Re:CRACKS != PIRACY (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't have anything to add to this, just thought you might be interested in seeing just how much of a self-righteous jackass you are.
Nobody's complaining that it's inconvenient to have to pay for a game in order to legally own it. A better analogy would be that it's inconvenient to be strip-searched every time you want to travel to another part of the country. After all, some number of people smuggle drugs by jamming them up their arse, and drugs are bad, so it's quite reasonable to strip-search everybody and stick your gloved hand up their arse just in case they happen to be trying to smuggle drugs. Every single time they travel on a plane.
Now Joe, he enjoys being anally violated, so it's not an inconvenience for him. You don't like it? Well, tough, because Joe's okay with it, and your opinion is unimportant in the grander scheme of things. Of course, if this happened, then people would stop smuggling drugs on airplanes, so they'd have to incorporate not just an automatic breath tester in your car, but also an automatic invasive drug search, just in case you're trying to smuggle some drugs to your friends place. Then people would stop driving if they're smuggling drugs, so they'd have to add it to your bicycle as well. Then have cops to search you when you're walking down the street, just in case.
Is it that hard to understand that there's different people in the world who are okay with different levels of inconvenience? Having to enter a serial number when I install a game doesn't bother me too much -- I don't like it, and I think it's a pointless inconvenience, but I'm okay with it. Having to enter the serial number every single time I start the game would bother me, and I'd try to find a crack for it, or failing that, not bother with it. For some, having to have a CD in the drive to play the game is too much inconvenience, so they find a workaround.
Having to have the CD in your drive isn't an inconvenience to you. Fine. Will it be inconvenient to have to be connected to the internet every single time you want to play the game, because it verifies you're authorised to play the game each time you run it? Will it be inconvenient that you have to wait for it to download 2 gigs of data every time you play the game, because it removes itself from your drive after you've finished playing it? Will it be inconvenient when their auth servers are down so you can't play the game when you want, or will you be fine with that because it "helps stop piracy"? Will you still think it's fine and dandy when you're only able to play the game on overpriced "certified" PCs which are tightly controlled and prevent you from running any software not signed by one of the manufactures which has purchased, or will you be happy because consoles are already like that?
Just because you're happy with the current measures doesn't mean that anyone who isn't happy doesn't matter. People need to voice their opinions on these things, or else the manufacturers will have no idea when they've gone too far. Every anti-piracy measure is going to piss off some number of legitimate customers, and they need to be able to weigh that against the benefit it provides to them in terms of increased sales. Furthermore, the fact that people who legitimately buy games do feel inconvenienced enough by the copy protection mechanisms that they go out looking for cracks should be a concern to publishers. These people may have otherwise never considered pirating a game, but since they have to go looking for cracks for it anyway, they might end up discovering that it's actually easier to pirate it in the first place rather than go to the store and buy it.
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:4, Informative)
However I don't know about the 5 installs per 5 machines part, last I heard it was 5 flat installs active at any time. He may be wrong on that, I do not know if it has changed.
Parent
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Game publishers that are in touch with reality understand that every type of copy protection can (and will) be cracked. Some will crack for the fun of it, some because they hate DRM, and some for profit motives - to sell bootlegs.
There is always someone out there with the skill and determination to crack a game. The goal of a reasonable publisher is not to prevent but to DELAY the crack. The theory is that the longer it takes the first cracked copy to reach BT/Usenet/P2P, the fewer sales will be lost to casual downloaders. This is especially important during the first few post-release weeks, which is when many games have the bulk of their total sales.
If you've got time, ability and determination, you will crack the game. I hope you're cracking a copy that you've purchased.
If you're determined to get a free copy of the game, you will wait until a crack is available, and no amount of cajoling, marketing, or DRM will make you buy a copy.
However, what about Joe Gamer, the guy who really wants to play the game and doesn't have the ability or desire to crack it himself? The longer he has to wait for a crack, the more likely he is to just pony up the money and buy a legit copy. This describes the large majority of gamers, and this is the group that copy protection is ultimately aimed at.
I'm not a big fan of DRM - it's a pain to work with, both as a user and as a developer, and it almost always puts burdensome, often anti-fair-use restrictions on what I can do with media that I have purchased/licensed/whatever. But these guys seem to be taking a moderately enlightened approach; lock down copying and number of installs at first, then relax the restrictions when the peak sales period is over. If this approach improves the commercial success of good games and lets developers keep making more, then I can live with it.
(And since the parent put this on record, I am also a computer scientist and a former professional game developer.)
Parent
unimportant (Score:3, Insightful)
While it is annoying, it has to be said that copy protection only got so nasty because of the virtually unrestricted internet sharing of games. We've all done it at some point or other, so we're all to blame.
The argument 'but I just want to see what the games like' doesn't cut it either. I still know people who say that, but when it comes to my saying 'hey lets play a game online', I get an all too familiar, '
Re:Why no mention? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
The issues with Bio-Shock (Score:4, Interesting)
environment at all. Rather, the SecuRom DRM, the online activation and restrictive number of times
it can be loaded on a PC.
The console variants do not suffer from any of this, thus those folks would not have been exposed to it.
I've long been of the mindset that if the console folks would wake up and give me a keyboard and / or a
mouse / trackball interface, I would switch to consoles for all my gaming needs tomorrow.
Just absolutely hate the controllers the consoles come with today
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
UT3 on PS3, will have mouse/kb support (Score:3, Informative)
I've long been of the mindset that if the console folks would wake up and give me a keyboard and / or a mouse / trackball interface, I would switch to consoles for all my gaming needs tomorrow.
Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3, will have mouse/kb support in order to keep its old hardcore fanbase happy and hopefully the trend will continue. For what its worth though, they took the copy protection right out of the last PC UT game so I doubt that the PC port is going to exactly redefine evil.
My PS3 is the first console I've had since my childhood SNES, and being a PC gamer I've also had a little bit of trouble getting used to the Playstation's FPS controls. With Sony's dual analogue control schema (left
Re:Bull. Controllers are good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because after having played a refined Wii/Nunchuck system, you'll NEVER want to go back. I was so incredibly skeptical of the control scheme before I played, that I actually started writing out my own control setup, in hopes to send it out to developers. After having played MP3, though, I've completely abandoned it. It's litterally better than a keyboard/mouse... I didn't think I'd ever say that. I'm really reluctant to buy any FPSs for systems other than the Wii, now.
Parent
It's OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the theme, sound, story and art direction were fantastic. The only downside I noticed was how repetitive and how horribly ea
fun yes; groundbreaking no (Score:4, Insightful)
Also a much hyped feature was the ability to create your own items like ammo. Well... not really. It was just a collect-the-crap thing that allowed you to sort of unlock extra ammo. It wasn't on the level of, say, the spellbuilder in the Elder Scrolls series.
Finally, there were a lot of plot discrepancies and things that pulled me out of the storyline. Like if I were a plane crash survivor, discovering this underwater city, why would I just inject myself with a syringe I found on a table? There are a lot of things like that which caused the game to simply fall back into the vanilla FPS genre. I find it comparable to Heretic / Hexen, with modern graphics.
The work they did was definitely polished but it's disappointing because there is SO MUCH MORE they could've done with the storyline and gameplay.
Re:fun yes; groundbreaking no (Score:5, Interesting)
If you mean stealth as in sneaking through levels without killing anything, then yes, that's not really an option. If however you meant being able to sneak around a take people out without being seen, then that is most definitely an option, and the way I've found myself playing. Ever since I got the camo tonic and a couple of the wrench power ups, I use stealth kills and the wrench almost exclusively. Nothing quite like sneaking up on a splicer and one shotting them with a wrench, or even better, sneaking up on a security camera and hacking it.
As for the ammo creation, yeah, that was kind of lame, but all in all, kind of understandable. If this had been an MMO, then conceivably they could have allowed you to randomly toss components together and see if it makes something useful (destroying the components in the process), but being a FPS with a somewhat limited playtime and therefore component count, it would have been just wasteful and frustrating to players to take that route. Players would just take the easy way ultimately and download a crafting guide telling them exactly what combinations made what which would potentially unbalance the game by allowing the crafting of very powerful items early in the game.
What I think they did a brilliant job of was setting up the atmosphere and providing enough interesting interactions between items to allow players different styles of play. I was quite surprised recently to discover for instance that the trap bolts can be used to take out security bots. A friend of mine also shared his approach to taking down big daddies (apparently tossing a barrel at them can take about half their health in one shot), which was something I hadn't even thought of.
There is a lot of depth to this game, but you need to know where to look. Enjoy it for what they did good on, and not necessarily what the hype lead you to believe it was going to deliver. Having not read any of the hype (well, I read some of what PA said about it) before I bought it, I'm thoroughly enjoying the game. I've also found the PC version to be fairly stable, even though I have had it lock up on me once (no blue screen, it just froze, think it may be a overall stability problem though as I had a problem in another game as well).
Parent
SPOILER on plot discrepancy !! (Score:3, Informative)
SPOILER DON'T READ IF NOT PLAYED TO THE END
YOU WERE WARNED !!!!!!
Finally, there were a lot of plot discrepancies and things that pulled me out of the storyline. Like if I were a plane crash survivor, discovering this underwater city, why would I just inject myself with a syringe I found on a table? There are a lot of things like that which caused the game to simply fall back into the vanilla FPS genre. I find it comparable to Heretic / Hexe
The real problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hence the outstanding success and praise of games like Gears of War. Granted, GoW had its own following of hype before the release, but nothing like how Mass Effect and Halo 3 are at the moment.
With GoW, gamers all around expected it to be a good game, but never quite had that "OMG! I'LL DIE IF I DON'T GET THIS!" feeling until after it was released and everyone realized how well made it was.
Yet, with Halo 3, we have the popularity of the series plus the teaser of a multiplayer beta pumping steroids into every fanboy's wet dreams. You made a great point in predicting how critical people will be with the game, but that's to be expected. We're human, we live in our minds and hope for the absolute best.
BioShock is an amazing game, even if it is considered easy to most gamers.
Making the low difficulty level is purposely done to help entice new FPS users. Also, so you don't end up with a controller lodged in your television.
Hyped too far? (Score:5, Informative)
In terms of answering your question of why some folks have complained about overly superlative reviews:
There are invisible walls everywhere, many of them extremely obvious.
There are a a multitude of doors that are locked but mysteriously unlock at precisely the moment that the current radio-message-from-an-NPC that you're listening to actually finishes.
Regards much vaunted "moral choice" aspect - do I harvest or rescue the little sisters? I have to say that after being locked into a windowed box and forced to watch an exposition of exactly how extremely tough the "big daddies" are, right at the start of the game, then being told by some random radio voice whom I have no reason to trust that "you need to kill big daddy and this small child he's protecting in order to take her "Adam", (which appears to mean basically drinking her blood) my response was to just avoid them completely. This produces, just before you try to exit a level, a preposterous peice of fourth-wall-exploding nonsense - a dialog box pops up and tells you "you haven't either rescued or harvested any little sisters on this level - you should go back and do this otherwise the game will be very difficult later on". I mean - seriously - this is what counts for great writing these days? You give me a situation where I appear to have a free choice on how I react to the events you put infront of me and then when I come to what appears to me to be the completely reasonable conclusion that screwing with "big daddy" is a lot of trouble for no recognizable value you tell me "no, you're not playing it right!". Give me a break!
Now, I'm not saying there aren't some worthy things about BioShock. Graphics are obviously fairly awesome, there's a good variety of equipment and environmental toys to play with, but on the whole I don't think it lives up to the hype.
Re:Hyped too far? (Score:5, Interesting)
Come on -- while it's true that the "you haven't rescued/harvested all the Little Sisters" dialog box is fourth-wall shattering and could've been done better, the game is essentially trying to remind you "hey, there's more XP to be earned on this level that you might have missed" (since the Big Daddy/Little Sister encounters are more or less random save for those first few). Now perhaps they could've done it with a radio announcement from Atlas, and perhaps they could've given you an option to shut off reminders, but I saw the popup as a helpful reminder when I hadn't hit START to check if I'd rescued all the Little Sisters.
If things that niggling jar you out of suspension of disbelief, I'd imagine you'd rather keep track of your remaining health in your head, or have to physically open your weapon to examine how much ammo is remaining, because having meters up there on the screen "break the fourth wall" too much.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really wanted to like bioshock... (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as there are a few neat gimmicks (plasmids etc.) and one interesting plot twist, the experience was in my opinion ruined by a complete sense of claustrophobia in terms of player choices: I haven't played in so long a game where you are so railroaded in doing a, then b, then c with absolutely NO flexibility whatsoever (invisible walls and locked doors abound). That and the crappy AI of your opponents (honestly, the mobs were as intelligent as the ones in doom in my experience) makes for a very, very, very boring experience.
I started playing on normal difficulty, but about 1/3rd of the way through I switched to easy so I could just get over with it, since it was boring me to tears to have yet another errand to do (listen to this, do that, go there, etc.) before being allowed to go to the next level. I really wish I could have my $49 back.
Technically the game has run great for me (without upgrading the nvidia drivers, I have a 7900gto), no crashes, no bugs, just perfect, but it was not even 10% as good as the original system shock, which in my opinion was a masterpiece, and much more so than the blah-ish system shock 2 and, even worse, bioshock: the 95%+ review scores are way out of line, this game is maybe an 80%, heck, I had more fun playing Prey than bioshock, and pray had way worse reviews.
Re:I really wanted to like bioshock... (Score:5, Funny)
I mentioned all of these serious flaws to some game designers I know, and they informed me there's this "real life" thing that implements all these features, but I can't figure out where to download it.
Parent
Simply doesn't live up (Score:4, Insightful)
First off is the fact that it all feels dumbed down for a console audience looking for fast, simple gameplay with a few nods to complexity and story thrown in. There's no inventory so everything is just thrown up on your screen like any other shooter. No stats, because everything is handled through the plasmids. In fact, just about everything that would normally be mapped to a sub-screen is now handled in a very limited fashion by wall-mounted consoles (e.g. gun upgrades, plasmids, invention, etc.).
The game is far more linear and yes, the Vita-Chambers do make it too easy. From a console/FPS point of view getting back in the action might be desired, but this isn't a deathmatch here. Dying should feel like it has some consequence. SS and SS2 both had regen machines, but they never felt cheap or easy because there was only one per level and you had to go out and find it and activate it first. As a result dying was a concern. Until you activated the regen there was real tension and once you did, it meant that you weren't totally out of it and back to your last save, but you'd still have to trek across the entire level through hordes of enemies and with very little ammunition. Not just pop out of the chamber and go back to shooting the same enemy.
It's not a terrible game. The graphics are pretty (albeit, on a PC running at Maximum settings, not that much better than what we've gotten used to in recent years) and the setting and theme are novel and interesting even though the art direction seems to have stolen a page from Fallout more often than not. It's just that it was heavily hyped and arrived to glowing reviews when really it's more of a 7/10 sort of game. It's a low point for the series where they tried to transition into a simpler console audience and treated the PC version as the port rather than the other way around. I guess if this is the first game in the series you've ever played it might seem great, but if you've been along since the start then you'll know that it's just no match for it's deeper forebears.
Re:Simply doesn't live up (Score:4, Insightful)
When you adapt a game for each system you need to keep this in mind and aim at the proper platform, not just the one that will ship the most units. System Shock or System Shock 2 wouldn't work very well on a console. It requires a bunch of keys for activating upgrades, psi-powers, weapons, and the like. Navigating an inventory, searching around the environment to pick things up and the like would be unpleasant on a console because the controllers just aren't well adapted for it. As such it feels like Bioshock was adapted to play better on consoles. In the process a lot of the depth was shift out of it to make it work more easily not only with the controls available, but also to fit the predominant styles of playing. Instead of an inventory where you can pick and choose what kind of ammunition and supplies to carry you get fixed slots for ammunition. You likewise get fixed slots for health and EVE with no ability to choose to focus on one or the other. You hold supplies in a nebulous, uncheckable space until you get to a U-Invent-It machine rather than going into the inventory and combining items there. Stats are slightly abstracted out and you can't check your current tonics without visiting a gene bank (not change, that's a game design decision, check) because it would require yet another sub-screen.
Everything is adapted to work on a gamepad with a relatively small number of buttons and no good ability to precisely pick out and move objects around.
Finally, like it or not, but the modern Xbox 360 owner is far more likely to be a more casual gamer than the current PC gamer. I'm talking about the kind of guys who own a system and maybe a couple of games (Halo, Madden, etc.) to play on occasion. While this is definitely subjective, compared to the greater depth of the earlier games and the very linear nature of the gameplay (compare to, say, Deus Ex, which almost always offered multiple paths around obstacles that catered to the various specializations) it feels like things were made to be more palatable to this sort of gamer.
One final nit to pick. Not having to make permanent decisions really hampers the game and the ability for each player to make it their own. In past games you had to make real, final decisions. If you wanted to raise up your hacking skill you'd have to neglect something. You wouldn't be able to wield, let alone carry, all of the weapons and you'd probably have a meager, at best, collection of psi-powers. In Bioshock you start out being able to use every single weapon at a very high level of effectiveness. Yeah, you can get some tonics to improve things, but it's a world of difference between "I can't equip this" and "I get 10% extra damage with this". The same goes for plasmids and for being able to do more than barely hack the simpler vending machines. There is quite simply little reason other than time or boredom to not manually hack just about every hackable machine you come across. At most the penalty is usually just a mild shock that you can walk off after a trip through the Vita-Chamber rather than destruction of the machine or the raising of an alarm. Even when you do make decisions there's no need to commit to a pathway (or end up being merely adequate at a bunch of things) because you can always just run back to the Gene Bank and change your tonics and plasmids around to reinvent your character whenever you want. So, while you have some choice (mainly which plasmids and tonics to buy) you're still mainly just lightly customizing your character rather than actually defining them.
Parent
They need a new review system (Score:4, Insightful)
I think gaming is finally starting to suffer from the same thing. To the typical new gamer Bioshock may seem like a wonderful, revolutionary game, but to be honest other than the graphics there is nothing in the game that I haven't in a dozen games over the last 15 years I've been playing then on the PC. It's not a bad game, but it's no 10 out of 10, at least not from where I'm sitting.
P
My small beefs 4/5 (Score:5, Insightful)
AI
Non existent the see you they chase you, you are behind them or over a certain distance they have no idea you are there.
Plasmids
At this time there is no reason to really ever use anything other then the electrical plasmid and sometimes the telekinesis plasmid. This system should have been genre changing see level and monster design for more info. The telekinesis plasmid should be as great and as effective as the physics gun in HL II but ends up being a poor imitation. If I pick up a table or a metal object why is it not an effective bullet shield?
Level Design
You would think that the level design would force and encourage the use of other plasmids some levels the ice or fire would be more effective, then just using the electrical one. This would have been a great way to encourage the use of other plasmids. Physics puzzles for bonuses anyone? HLII used physics puzzles effectively, and so far no one has done it. Bioshock has the mechanic to do it but strangely did not.
Monster Design
For the most part there are 5 monster types in the game that just gain more power or a few abilities to make them more difficult. This would have been the easiest way to make the plasmid system way more effective some monsters have different resists. Why are there only 2 variants of Big Daddies? There is no technique or skill needed to kill them they are just damage tanks, put enough damage into them and they die. Why do they not have different weaknesses on different levels? Why does level design not encourage anything more then a run and gun to kill them?
What was done right
Great looking game, with a great story arch. The game feels very non-linear (while it is.) Sound and VO is excellent. The over all art direction is unparalleled in FPS's. Oh and a blast to play! Which is the most important. Do not get me wrong Bioshock is a great game, but they set out to change the way FPS's are done with the plasmid system and just did not fully realize the implications of this feature set.
Should have waited for the bargain bin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version (Score:5, Informative)
And to this point, I'd recommend that if you DO play the 360 version, DO NOT LOOK AT THE ACHIEVEMENT LIST. There are tons of plot spoilers, all the "secret" ones are like, "Shock a guy while he's in water".
Parent
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version (Score:5, Funny)
"Who is Bill Gates?"
- Microsoft Shrugged
Parent
Re:I'd only recommend the 360 version (Score:4, Informative)
I have finished the game on my PC without a single crash of any kind. The only bug I experienced is that the game dis not restore the color settings when it exits, so I had to go into the NVidia control panel and fix them (or reboot) I did get rid of SecuROM and the unskippable crap when the game starts, but that's it.
I liked the game, but I was definitely underwhelmed by the graphics (16x12, all settings on maximum) The models look a bit too simple, and while some twitching bodies add a lot to the mood, sometimes the physics engine makes a foot or hand wave for much too long after the enemy has died.
I consider the money well spent... I think System Shock I had a better atmosphere, Far Cry better graphics, and Deus Ex a better story, but I am sure that some people will disagree. It's very subjective. I truly enjoyed the ending movie. I felt quite sad for the Big Daddies, the little sisters' parents, and Rapture itself. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I really liked the game.
Was it easy? Yes. Too easy? Maybe, but I am about to replay it without using any Adam unless it is required for to progress (I do not think it is, but I may be wrong)
The only things I really hated about the game is SecuROM, and after AVG raised Hell about it, it took less that 15mn to get rid of the damn piece of shit.
Parent
It's important to do something meaningful (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:my wife plays it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you serious? The Big Daddies were a joke. Sure they had lots of hit points, but their fighting technique was easy to figure out and exploit. Once you get the freezing plasmid, you can keep Big Daddies frozen indefinitely while you shoot at them or hack away at them with your wrench.
Even though the game was easy, like walk in the park easy, it was still really fun and I'm glad I bought the PC version. The story is awesome and it's one of the