Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

BioShock 2 Interviews and Early Looks 105

Posted by Soulskill
from the hello-big-daddy dept.
Parz writes with word that new information is emerging about the much-anticipated BioShock 2. Eurogamer has a detailed write-up about the game, saying that it raises curiosity and exhibits plot-depth in a manner similar to the first game. Gamespot has a video interview with some of the developers, in which they talk about some of the new environments and how they're able to do more with the story in a sequel by not having to explain the fundamental characteristics of the setting. In an interview with Gameplayer, Lead Level Architect Hogarth de la Plante said, "You'll see locations in BioShock 2 that are completely flooded interior structures that you can walk through out in the ocean." A gameplay trailer was recently released, and screenshots are available as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BioShock 2 Interviews and Early Looks

Comments Filter:
  • by aztektum (170569) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @12:37PM (#27676671)

    So you walk around and can either save/kill+harvest the lil girls and there is someone talking to you over the radio, this time with a drill on your hand! This is a sequel? Sounds more like an expansion pack.

    • Their only hope really is to get the game banned somewhere for promoting child abuse. The sales in the places it wasn't banned and online should more than cover the lost sales. I always thought they were going for this with Bioshock but these days people are so inured to this sort of thing it is very hard to provoke them.

      Meh, I bought Bioshock and I played it right to the end. Graphically it was excellent, and the story was hokey but quite enjoyable. I'll probably buy the next one. The only reason I'm cynic

  • Same but better... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spiffydudex (1458363) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @12:38PM (#27676685)

    The original, but better story and gameplay. Just like a sequal should be.

    Unlike some other titles... *cough*FEAR2*cough*

    • by Dyinobal (1427207)
      I thought they called those remakes. IE go back with a game that was good but not great. Fix a few plot holes and fix a bit of game play issues.
    • by Jurily (900488)

      I actually laughed out loud at the "plot-depth" part. Then again, I was just playing Baldur's Gate 2.

      Go for the eyes, Boo!

    • What did you have against FEAR2? It was a fun game, that was thoroughly in touch with the original's universe and was a lot more fun to play with a lot less repetitive environments and several additional plot points.

    • by arkhan_jg (618674)

      I don't give a damn how good it turns out to be (or not), there's absolutely no way I'm getting suckered twice. If it has the same securom DRM with install limits and online activation as Bioshock 1, there's no way in hell I'm buying it.

  • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @12:41PM (#27676719)
    I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews. I'm a long time PC gamer though, all these multiplatform reviews seem to skew things a bit. Beyond nice looking water I can't really think of anything that made me interested in the game. Maybe it's the steampunk novelty that everyone digs.
    • by Fallingcow (213461) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @01:45PM (#27677387) Homepage

      I was surprised it even got good reviews

      The story was very good, by FPS standards. Not Deus Ex good, but good. A couple levels were well done. Good atmosphere throughout. The gameplay was average or a bit below average.

      If any of that strikes you as being a reason to give the game a good review, then that's probably why. I would say it's one of those shooters you don't really play for the shooting, if that makes any sense.

      I do think that the gaming press in general is prone to praise anything that doesn't completely suck, and often pushes games that are OK at best as if they were truly great. I also think it's gotten worse since console gaming took off, for whatever reason.

    • by SparkleMotion88 (1013083) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @01:50PM (#27677437)

      I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews.

      The art direction in Bioshock was possibly the best I've seen in a video game. The visual design combined with the voice acting and soundtrack created an outstanding and coherent setting for the story of the game. In addition, Andrew Ryan is one of the most interesting and memorable video game characters of all time. The gameplay was also fairly creative.

      That being said, the story (once you get past the terrific setting) was forgettable, and the gameplay got somewhat repetitive once you got used to it. I also wasn't impressed by the "morality" aspect of the game (though I never am impressed by morality elements in games). So the game was generally enjoyable to play, but there are much more "fun" games out there.

      The art direction alone is enough to make this game significant, and it should be appreciated for its achievements in this area, if for no other reason.

      • by Burning1 (204959)

        I also wasn't impressed by the "morality" aspect of the game (though I never am impressed by morality elements in games).

        Out of curiosity, did you play through Fallout 2?

      • by AP31R0N (723649)

        Armin Shimerman's voice acting was... incredible. The voice work in general blew me away.

    • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @01:57PM (#27677503)

      I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews. I'm a long time PC gamer though, all these multiplatform reviews seem to skew things a bit. Beyond nice looking water I can't really think of anything that made me interested in the game. Maybe it's the steampunk novelty that everyone digs.

      The big deal, I think, was the atmosphere/setting/storyline/whatever.

      The game mechanics were fairly unimpressive. Run around, shoot guys, maybe do the occasional 'hacking' mini-game... Nothing special.

      The atmosphere though, was pretty impressive.

      Very nice, very novel visuals. Impressive architecture slowly giving way to the sea... Constant presence of water... The sensation that tons of pressure were bearing down on you... Constant dripping, groaning, creaking...

      There were a few good characters, too. Andrew Ryan was one of the more interesting villains in recent history.

      • by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @08:09PM (#27681807)

        There were a few good characters, too. Andrew Ryan was one of the more interesting villains in recent history.

        This was one of the few things that Bioshock did right, the departure from the Hollywood requirement to have a clear hero/villain. Well until after you meet and kill Ryan, then it becomes horribly formulaic.

        Besides, The story was just a rehashing of System Shock 2 in a steampunk setting. Altas/Fontain was a direct analogue to Polito/Shodan. Ryan was an analogue to the Many\Diego, whilst they succeed in making the player question weather Ryan was truly a villain they did it in the exact same way as they made the player ask if the Many were truly evil. To me the story of Bioshock was a cut down version of System Shock 2 with less interesting characters in a leaky 1950's setting.

        Now the gameplay was where they really dropped the ball, Firstly the combat mechanic wasn't too bad but it lacked variety so each encounter was almost exactly the same. In SS2 there were clear differences in the weapon you used where as in Bioshock you just equipped something and shot it, it didnt matter what approach you took you'd just end up shooting the enemy. In SS2 the environment was a bit more usable then in Bioshock, you could hack turrets which could be quite effective against opponents in SS2 but in Bioshock you had to end up shooting them yourself as a turret would take half an hour to kill the weakest enemy.

        But the worst parts were the ones that were taken out or dumbed down for the console audience, firstly the RPG style skill system used in SS2 was gone and replaced with a somewhat weaker "enhancement" system which had little real bearing on you ability to operate any weapon. Any kind of real management of money (nanites in SS2) was gone, and there was no inventory management to speak of, in SS2 you had to make choices of what you would carry in Bioshock you could grab anything not nailed down, you were every weapon in the game and the plasmids were more useless then most of the psionic powers in SS2 plus they were interchangeable so you never had to actually decide on what kind of character you were going to have, not that it mattered in Bioshock as every character had to focus on the gun combat.

        Not that it really mattered if you completely sucked at Bioshock because you could never die, as soon as you were killed you would reincarnate at the nearest glowing re-incarnation station with all your equipment and no penalty for dying what so ever and of course this only worked on you.. I know System Shock had a reincarnation system but there was a penalty for using it (cost) and it had to be activated so there was a real chance the player could die (lose progress) before activating the reincarnation system. This mechanic alone made the game pointless to play on any higher difficulty level.

        • by gullevek (174152)

          "me too".

          As much as I like playing Bioshock, it was never as exciting as playing SS/SS2. Systemshock was just amazing. Especially the the first one.

          I still love this game and whenever I play a game nowadays I just think they are all pretty much dumbed down and simple. More "Mass" appealing. Not bad per se, but just not as exciting as they were 10 years ago.

          I would love to see a SS3 in the same way SS1/SS2 were ...

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mjwx (966435)

            I would love to see a SS3 in the same way SS1/SS2 were ...

            Me Too.

            But unfortunately EA own the rights to System Shock (most games developed by Looking Glass IIRC), even if Levine and the other original Dev's were reunited under EA's flag there is no way in hell that EA could stop themselves from interfering in the dev process to make the game "more accessible" and have "greater mainstream appeal", which is marketdroid speak for dumb it down so far that a one handed heroin addict with down syndrome could

            • by gullevek (174152)

              On the other hand, when I played those games I was in school. I had tons of time to waste just for the games. Nowadays, if I play more then 5 hours a month I do already a lot of gaming ...

              It is just the faint memories of those amazing games I remember. I am not sure if I would be willing to spend so much time on them again.

              • by mjwx (966435)

                On the other hand, when I played those games I was in school. I had tons of time to waste just for the games. Nowadays, if I play more then 5 hours a month I do already a lot of gaming ...

                It's the quality we're missing these days, not quantity. Take Portal for example, it was at best 3 hours but it was 3 hours of pure gold. Any idiot of a dev can throw in side missions and add repetition up the wazoo but all it does is drag 2 hours of entertainment out over 20 hours, you don't get more entertainment, you

    • by Gizzmonic (412910)

      It's not "steampunk," it's Art Deco/Art Noveau with some Modern thrown in. Steampunk has already been done to death in video games, particularly Final Fantasy.

      • by lgw (121541)

        Is FInal Fantasy really a vidoe game though? I always thought of it as more of a "choose your own adventure" movie. ;)

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @02:30PM (#27677879) Homepage

      I think-- and admittedly, this is just my guess-- that part of the hype was due to younger console players who'd never played games like System Shock or Fallout, and maybe haven't really played many FPS outside of Halo.

      If you've been playing computer FPSs and RPGs for the past decade or two, Bioshock doesn't seem like it's all that Interesting. Portal, for example, was much more interesting and innovative (short as it was). But I think I might have been wowed by the aesthetic and some of the gameplay if I hadn't played the games that Bioshock is rehashing.

      • by Aklyon (1398879)

        younger console players who haven't really played many FPS outside of Halo.

        or any other kind of game that doesn't involve fighting/a guitar. most people i know have no idea what i'm talking about if i talk about any other kind of game. :(

      • by Polumna (1141165) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @05:01PM (#27680009)
        I'm 27. I played the Fallouts (less Tactics) religiously, and both System Shocks before Bioshock. I still think Bioshock deserved the vast majority of the hype it got. (Some of the nonsense about the story being the best thing since sliced bread, I felt, was a little misplaced or over-exaggerated, but other than that...)

        Why can't it just be good in its own right? Virtually everything is a rehash. You can't possibly expect every game to be Portal, and I don't think you can reasonably expect people to only get excited once every ten years when a Portal-class game comes out. Bioshock wasn't terribly original. It was beautiful, fun and engrossing. Better yet, it gave me another game to play in a similar environment to its aforementioned predecessors.

        I'd rather studios continue to make good games rehashing those ideas than just let those environments and feelings die. I don't want to have to play Fallout YET AGAIN in a dos emulator on Linux 3.432.2 in thirty years to get that same feeling. So when a derivative comes out, and it's good, I'll continue to get almost as excited as when those old games I'm reminded of did... I can know the roots of the games I like without being shackled by them.
        • by enderjsv (1128541)
          Wish I had mod points. I'd mod you up. Innovation is great, but it's not the sole qualifying element as to whether a game is good or not, and I'm a little tired of the gaming population's fixation on it. I've loved several games that weren't particularly innovative, and I'm tired of the argument "this game isn't good, such-and-such game already did that X many years ago." So what? I've seen a dozen movies about underdog sports teams winning the big game. Doesn't mean I'm not going to enjoy another one
        • I wasn't saying that Bioshock was a bad game. I bought it, I played it, and I enjoyed it. But whether it deserved all the hype it got was another issue. It was a well-designed and solid FPS, and the design was respectably fun and pretty. I just think it was overhyped as though it was more than that.
      • by Gulthek (12570)

        Your guess is incorrect, at least in my case. Gamer since '79.

        I haven't seen a game so effectively turn the role of the gamer (to mindlessly follow the commands given by the NPCs) on its head.

        "Would you kindly?"

      • by kklein (900361)

        That may be it. Basically, every FPS I've played since Deus Ex 1 (2 was horrid) has just left me cold. But if I hadn't played games like that, I might think Bioshock was pretty amazing.

        Basically, though, it felt like System Shock 2 under water--and I never quite understood all the love for System Shock 2.

      • I think-- and admittedly, this is just my guess-- that part of the hype was due to younger console players who'd never played games like System Shock or Fallout, and maybe haven't really played many FPS outside of Halo.

        Encyclopedia Dramatica has a funny list of reasons why Halo is THE BEST GAME EVER! that includes things like "THE FIRST GAME WHERE U COULD SHOOT ALIENS! THE FIRST GAME WITH ZOMBIES" and so on.

  • Sign me up! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by its_schwim (1247278)
    I found the first Bioshock to be fantastic. Even if it is a rehashed storyline, It'll end up on my PC. The first was a refreshing change to the standard alien invasion FPS.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Seriously. I loved Bioshock simply because I did not see a single alien or anything from WWII.

  • Just give me the ability to play as Mr Bubbles and I'll be happy.
  • Bioshock 2: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flitty (981864) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @12:47PM (#27676787)
    I have a sinking feeling this is the game that everyone will point to in the future to show what exactly is wrong with sequels. No matter how technically competent the game is, exploring the same environment, same philisophical questions, and (from what i've seen) fighting the same splicer enemies is not a sequel. It's an expansion pack. Ctrl-X "Big Daddy" Ctrl-V "Big Sister".

    Personally, I would have loved to have seen a real prequel, where you see an Ayn Randian utopia slowly fall apart, where you help businessmen reach their highest potential, which eventually leads to the collapse of rapture. That's an interesting story to tell, and leads right into Bioshock. But no, the game will start with the first crazy splicer you have to kill, and it will be a splicer run and gun.

    I hope I'm wrong about this, but from what i've seen, I doubt I am.
    • by Kattspya (994189)
      Bioshock itself is a simplified and prettied up sequel to the the sequel of the original (System Shock).

      Oh god how I wished Bioshock was more like systemshock 2.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ephemeriis (315124)

        Oh god how I wished Bioshock was more like systemshock 2.

        Agreed.

        SystemShock 2 was a superior game in just about every way. I still play through it at least once a year. Very good stuff.

        When they were first talking about BioShock it was supposed to be SystemShock 3 - but in some kind of WWII bunker with genetic manipulation instead of cybernetics. Sounded great to me.

        Then they tweaked it a bit... SystemShock 3 in a flooding underwater city with genetic manipulation. Still sounded great.

        But the end result really isn't terribly SystemShock-y. There's very litt

        • They touted the element of "choice" as being central and relevant to the outcome. I can't even call that an exaggeration. It was an outright lie.

          I also agree that the enemies were not very threatening. When I first read about the game, I got the impression that there would be battles with normals, which would be easy, battles with "splicers," which would have the same calibre and variety of genetic powers that you have, and battles with Big Daddies, which would make you weep for mercy. Nothing of the so

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Ephemeriis (315124)

            They touted the element of "choice" as being central and relevant to the outcome. I can't even call that an exaggeration. It was an outright lie.

            The only choice you actually had, at any point in the game, was whether you'd kill the little sisters or not. And that choice was completely irrelevant. You got rewards either way. It did not significantly impact the gameplay or storyline. All it did is change the ending. Nothing more.

            I also agree that the enemies were not very threatening. When I first read about the game, I got the impression that there would be battles with normals, which would be easy, battles with "splicers," which would have the same calibre and variety of genetic powers that you have, and battles with Big Daddies, which would make you weep for mercy. Nothing of the sort.

            For the most part, there was no challenge to any of the enemies. Enemies are supposed to be an obstacle to be overcome. They're supposed to create conflict of some kind. They were too easy. Even the big daddies could

        • Yes. Thank EA for the change of concept. They sit on the -- I hate to say that dirty word -- IP, and do nothing. Which probably is the best they can do. Imagine EA raping the name System Shock.

          I think it went like the typical way every product goes down the toilet:
          - Business guy: We want all people in our target group. This is too hard on them. Make it simpler.
          - Development guy: But then it will suck.
          - Cash guy (boss): Well, you wanna keep your job, do you?

          Problem is, that the boss got too greedy, and forgo

          • by Aklyon (1398879)

            Business guy: We want all people in our target group. This is too hard on them. Make it simpler.

            i wonder if we'd get better games if the business guy was shut up...

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Ephemeriis (315124)

            Business guy: We want all people in our target group. This is too hard on them. Make it simpler.

            This is the big problem. They always want to appeal to the widest market, to sell the most copies, rather than produce a high-quality product.

            Imagine baking the most kickass chocolate cake. Everyone raves about what a great chocolate cake it is. You get tons of chocoholics declaring that it's a must-have cake. They go out of their way to buy your cake. You get a few folks who whine that they don't like chocolate.

            So you go to make a new cake, and the business guy points out that not everyone likes choco

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by msormune (808119)
      Your prequel's plot description is too much like the world we are living in now :)
    • I have a sinking feeling this is the game that everyone will point to in the future to show what exactly is wrong with sequels. No matter how technically competent the game is, exploring the same environment, same philisophical questions, and (from what i've seen) fighting the same splicer enemies is not a sequel. It's an expansion pack. Ctrl-X "Big Daddy" Ctrl-V "Big Sister".

      These days it seems like the only difference between a sequel and an expansion pack is whether you need to buy the first one or not.

      Personally, I would have loved to have seen a real prequel, where you see an Ayn Randian utopia slowly fall apart, where you help businessmen reach their highest potential, which eventually leads to the collapse of rapture. That's an interesting story to tell, and leads right into Bioshock.

      Personally, I don't think that would be a terribly interesting game.

      To start with, it sounds more like some kind of SIM-business game than the FPS-y thing that BioShock was. And I'm not a big fan of SIM-business games.

      There'd really not be a whole lot of plot tension either, since you know how it is going to turn out. And not in vague terms either... You know exactly what ha

    • It's stunningly amazing, how you are able to pull all this out of your nose, after reading 3 paragraphs, and seeing a trailer...

      How about first playing it, and then judging it?

      I, for one, have full confidence in them hitting the right creepy spot that they did hit since System Shock 1. Of course, they had to dumb it down, for all the retards out there, or just because their marketing/sales division or their money source thinks we all are retards. But I tend to look at the feeling this games give me. You kno

      • by lgw (121541)

        Where can you get a copy of System Shock 1 and 2 these days? I've never played either. Are they abandonware, or still sold somewhere?

    • It doesn't seem like the graphics engine was updated. The original bioshock engine was really cool and produced some good looking water effects and I kinda wanted the developers to push the envelop some more. Maybe this is a side effect of having to develop for the xbox as well, thereby holding the potential back?

    • While such a story could be interesting, I'm thinking such a thing would be more at home in a novel than a game.
  • by JoeLinux (20366) <joelinux&gmail,com> on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @12:52PM (#27676845) Homepage

    Bioshock 2 is not going to be as good a sequel as System Shock 2 was to System Shock.

    Virtually no RPG elements, and a tired re-tread of Bioshock with vaguely new elements (I.E. taking the one "protect the little sister" element from the first one and repeat it several times in this game). It's going to be, at most, a "meh" experience.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Burnhard (1031106)
      I don't know about this. I thought artistically and aesthetically Bioshock was a great game. Sure it's not ground-breaking, but the scenes in the theatre (for example) where you're attacked by splicers with the Blue Danube playing in the background I thought showed genuinely good production values.

      When you look at games like Half-Life 2 and the way they've moved the story on through Episode 1 and 2, with only a few gameplay innovations, you can see how it's possible to provide a fun gaming experience t
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by JoeLinux (20366)

        Seee...that's part of the suck-fest. In this one, you play a prototype Big Daddy (only done so they can explain how you can upgrade your gun/drill/use plasmids), who has to protect the little sisters from a little sister who grew up, returned to Rapture, and spliced herself into an ultra-agile big-daddy style suit (think "ninja" big-daddy).

        Lame-sauce.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lisandro (799651)

      In all fairness, BioShock is to System Shock what Deus Ex 2 is to Deus Ex. It's ok, looks spiffy, but after the novelity wears off it's just another FPS with amazing presentation but shallow story and gameplay.

  • will it work? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @01:08PM (#27676997) Homepage

    Will this work with Vista 64? Bioshock is the only game I have that just plain fails on Vista64. I never got to finish it. I kinda want my money back. How could a game publisher overlook such a widely-deployed platform?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Amranu (1392677)
      I dunno what you're talking about, Bioshock works fine on Vista 64 for me
    • Re:will it work? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cythrawl (941686) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @02:02PM (#27677563)
      Remove the Pen Tablet features in the add remove windows components and you will find that it works just fine after that
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Are you serious? I hope that's a joke...
        Why the fsck should Pen Tablet features prevent you from playing a video game?

        I'm a graphic designer by trade (bet you can't figure out my OS of choice...), so I use a pen tablet almost exclusively between 9 and 5, but I also enjoy playing video games in my off time...am I to believe that I need to make a choice between my profession and my hobby because Microsoft allows a PEN TABLET DRIVER to prevent an app from running properly?

        Sure, the game should have been teste

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Lord Ender (156273)

          He's serious. I found this on some Bioshock support forum. Apparently it fixes some Vista64 problem, but it didn't fix mine.

          I even filed a support ticket with 2k, including the dxdiag output (as their ticket system requested). Their support personnel got back to me and said "please include the dxdiag output." That's when I gave up and bought a different game. I suspect this is their standard "go away, we already have your money" response to ticket, and that they never actually read the support tickets.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Cythrawl (941686)
          No joke, See here: http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?s=49a5273d84c63b82e5a1c76662b85940&p=300859&postcount=4 [2kgames.com]
          I actually have a Wacom tablet and to be honest the optional TabletPC functions in Vista are not needed to use the Wacom. The driver and everything else still works fine. I can still use my pens in Photoshop and Zbrush and on the desktop. You just lose all the handwriting recognition, Penflicks that kind of (IMO Useless anyway) stuff.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Anecdotal I know, but I finally got round to completing the game a month or so back under the 64-bit beta version of Windows 7. Given that they're pretty much the same product under the hood, I'd be tempted to see whether you have a driver issue.

  • Yawnfest (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, if this is "staying true" to the plot-depth of Bioshock does that mean if you play 20 minutes of the game, you've basically seen/done just about everything the game has to offer? Oh but this time you get to escort one of those bloodthirsty little buggers around while they shout "tear him to little shreds!" at someone else this time.

    Honestly, Bioshock had lots of promise but if you read about the development cycle you'll understand why it was so bland...they chucked the original idea and basically desig

    • You forgot the glaring technical problems like mouse sensitivity and acceleration changing randomly everytime the game loads something (new level, reload a save, etc).

      That and that bioshock seems to follow the console FPS graphical theme of having one nifty shader or effect and having the rest of the game look like UT99.

  • DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490)

    This is probably a tired point, but I'd like to know what they are doing with DRM in BioShock. BioShock is the kind of game I'd love to play, but I am not buying an XBOX to play it, nor will I tolerate their DRM.

    I know I'm in the .000001% minority, so I doubt I had any effect on their sales. But I'm still hopeful for a non-DRM (or less draconian) version.

  • by Junks Jerzey (54586) on Wednesday April 22, 2009 @02:30PM (#27677881)

    Atmosphere, art direction, and writing were all spot on. But none of them made any sense in what amounted to a generic shooter.

    As much as I like action games, I got very annoyed with how the gameplay got in the way of the overall experience. It should have been an adventure game or something else with a slower pace, not hyper action shooter part 50.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'd like to say I played all the way through BioShock--oh wait, no I wouldn't. But I couldn't anyway due to the fact that the 360 version didn't allow control configuration. After a day of frustratingly shooting the floor and ceiling, it went up on craigslist. How hard is it to include an option to swap joysticks?

    Also, I never quite figured out why there were a thousand clones of the same four zombies inhabiting an underwater city... "The environment was awesome." Yeah, which clearly left them zero tim

  • Escort Mission (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mrdoogee (1179081)

    Can't really see myself enjoying this one, even though I was pretty happy with Bioshock. Mostly I'm sure it will be a tedious chore of a multi-hour escort mission, one of the cardinal sins of game design. I absolutely hate the "Keep incompetent person X alive" section of most games. I can only imagine that most of the game will be like the stage in Bioshock where you have to keep the little sister safe so she can open the doors with the tiny holes in them.

  • is a less linear environment, and choices in play style. Some real choices would be nice... choices that effect the game as i play it rather than the cut scene at the end.

    By play style i mean, i'd like to be able to choose several ways of getting through a problem. i like playing stealthy types, let me sneak past the splicers, or gank them or snipe them or find or access panel that goes around them. Some folks just wanna carry a giant gun and blast away.

    Let me choose the order in which i clear out sectio

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...