BioShock 2 Interviews and Early Looks 105
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.
Consider me unimpressed (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Same but better... (Score:3, Insightful)
The original, but better story and gameplay. Just like a sequal should be.
Unlike some other titles... *cough*FEAR2*cough*
What's the big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bioshock 2: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I'm calling it now... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yawnfest (Score:1, Insightful)
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 designed it by the reactions of a bunch of clueless playtesters they "harvested" off the streets. I mean honestly, did anyone find the stupid "Splicers" a convincing threat at all? Just a bunch of drug-addled idiots in masks. Even the spider splicers were crap...I was thinking to myself "Finally, some real mutants! It's called Bioshock for a reason right?" Instead we get more of the same...idiots in masks, somehow crawling across the ceilings with fish hooks. Am I afraid yet?
The Big Daddies in the original were just a tiring boss battle designed to drain you of your ammo (no they weren't hard to kill, it just took all your ammo to do it). Can't say playing one interests me in the slightest. Why am I picturing Lemmings underwater with an annoying little brat instead of a fraggle-looking creature?
And for all you System Shockers out there...just give it up. Stop comparing this game to SS because it will never, EVER come close. Stop whining about it because it's not going to change a thing. Just be glad that EA has buried the System Shock franchise and hasn't turned it into some godawful console mess.
Re:What's the big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bioshock 2: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sign me up! (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously. I loved Bioshock simply because I did not see a single alien or anything from WWII.
DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's the big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm calling it now... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's the big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
BioShock shouldn't have been a shooter (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bioshock 2: (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that's exactly the sense in which it's daring.
It's a video game. How many potential buyers expect it to include any kind of analysis of philosophical systems at all? The target market for video games isn't exactly known for having in-depth discussions regarding the differences between the epistemology of Hume and Descartes. So, regardless of which philosophy is under analysis, whether a pro or con stance is taken, what the outcome is, et cetera, the framework of exploring a philosophy via a video game is itself somewhat daring.
Re:will it work? (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 tested more on Vista64- hell, it probably was...on a system WITHOUT a pen tablet- but the fact that such an obscure issue could still exist (from one of the oldest and most successful companies in the biz no less) in 2009 just baffles me.
Re:What's the big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.