Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Heavy Rain, BioShock 2 Delayed 61

Posted by Soulskill
from the pulling-a-duke dept.
Quantic Dream has announced that their much-anticipated thriller Heavy Rain is being pushed back to 2010. Co-CEO Guillaume de Fondaumiere said that the game is on-time and on-budget, but also that they don't want it to come out at the same time as many other high-profile games. "Most publishers today realize that it's not ideal to release a new IP or a new genre just before Christmas. It's a very crowded place to be, and certain games need more space to live their life. Everybody at working on the project, both at Quantic and Sony, believe this is the right time." Meanwhile, Take-Two announced that BioShock 2 would be delayed as well, backing off from their October 30th EU release date and saying it will come out during the "first half of calendar 2010."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Heavy Rain, BioShock 2 Delayed

Comments Filter:
  • Will get over it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mjwx (966435) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:27AM (#28687809)
    Bioshock was not that good of a game. It removed the best parts of System Shock, consolised the gameplay and removed any challenge to the player.

    Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending. There was no need to ever alter your style of play as you could carry every weapon and every power in the game at once and there were two or three over powered attacks which made it pointless to use anything else, not that it mattered as you simply just couldn't die no matter what you did. 2K completely removed any RPG elements and dumbed down the FPS elements in order to make the game accessable to consoles. If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.
    • Re:Will get over it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by alienunknown (1279178) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:18AM (#28688089)

      Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending.

      Thats not true. The game has three endings that are determined by if you rescue the little sisters or harvest them.

      Overall, I think it was a good game but we all have different tastes.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mushdot (943219)

        I thought it was ok but fairly over hyped and I really don't understand all the 'controversy' over the little sisters thing.

        As for three different endings, could you be bothered to finish it three times? I couldn't, the game started to drag towards the end the first time round.

        But like you say, people have different tastes.

        • by wjousts (1529427)
          The flip side of that was that the game was so damn short it really wasn't that hard to finish it three times.
      • The game has three endings that are determined by if you rescue the little sisters or harvest them.

        Technically, it only has two endings, considering that two of the endings have the same cutscene and voiceover, but that the tone of voice sounds disappointed in one (harvest some but not all of the little sisters) and angry in the other (harvest all of them)

      • Re:Will get over it. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by FourthAge (1377519) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:17AM (#28689045) Journal

        Those are just different videos, though. No impact on actual gameplay. I was deeply disappointed when I discovered this, as I had hoped for a major difference in the later stages of the game. For example:

        1. You rescue all the little sisters. The German doctor helps you defeat the bad guy. You are the good guy. Your altruistic actions demonstrate that Ayn Rand^W^W Andrew Ryan's hypothesis was wrong - altruism is not, in fact, the root of all evil, because it saves the city and the lives of the remaining survivors.

        2. You harvest all the little sisters. The bad guy helps you defeat the German doctor. You are a puppet of the bad guy. Your self-serving actions demonstrate that Objectivism is a flawed political philosophy, because greed will always lead to tyranny.

        3. You harvest some and rescue others. You escape the city, but only by condemning the remaining survivors to certain death. You are the morally ambiguous guy. You embody Objectivism; you have rejected altruism and acted to maximise your own benefit.

        That's how you do three endings! That's the sort of conclusion that the game's beginning implied, because Bioshock does start off very well. And yet, nothing. Just a shitty sub comic-book battle with a cyborg gangster, followed by a selection of three different videos depending on decisions that are otherwise irrelevant.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ascagnel (826800)
          In one interview, 2K Boston (the developers) said they didn't like their ending and it was more a matter of not enough time than about really putting and ending on it.
        • by AP31R0N (723649)

          For me it was about the journey. Playing tens of hours for the purpose of watching a video i could find on youtube seems like a horrible waste of time.

    • by wild_quinine (998562) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:24AM (#28688125) Homepage

      If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

      Well, you might as well hold your breath anyway. It's not like you'll die or anything. The worst that will happen is that you'll respawn six seconds away from your current position.

    • by johannesg (664142) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:26AM (#28688145)

      Bioshock was not that good of a game. It removed the best parts of System Shock, consolised the gameplay and removed any challenge to the player.

      Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending. There was no need to ever alter your style of play as you could carry every weapon and every power in the game at once and there were two or three over powered attacks which made it pointless to use anything else, not that it mattered as you simply just couldn't die no matter what you did. 2K completely removed any RPG elements and dumbed down the FPS elements in order to make the game accessable to consoles. If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

      I have to agree with that. Choices in a game can be meaningful if they impact the game, somehow. But ending movies? Do they really think I'm going to play through the entire game again just to see a different 30 seconds of badly rendered movie?

      Meaningful choices could include keeping one weapon and dropping another, but as you say, you can carry everything with you all the time. Replay value could also have been increased by experimenting with different powers, but again, you can already do that on your first playthrough so why bother?

      Ultimately Bioshock was not a bad game, but it was not a successor to System Shock in any way. Instead it was a highly polished, very pretty Doom-clone. And since I've had enough of those by now, I won't be shelling out for part 2.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Sockatume (732728)

        I dunno, any game that ends in 30 seconds of badly rendered movie sounds like a spiritual successor SS2 to me.

      • by 222 (551054)
        I thought the movies were fairly well rendered.
      • by AP31R0N (723649)

        You could have saved yourself tens of hours and $50 by doing a YouTube search for the end game videos. If that's what you value in a game i suspect many games will disappoint.

        i played for the journey. i found it a joy to play. Just moving around in the space, the fighting, using the powers, hacking stuff, setting traps, the voice acting.... Other meaningful choices would have helped re-playability. But while i was playing it, i looked forward to getting home from work so i could get back to Rapture.

        On

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by John Titor (880577)
      I agree, but the same can be said for most modern games. You can't fail, there is no real death or setback. Most games have a low difficulty factor and even if you do die there is no real penalty. As a result the modern games play out like animated movies. In an effort to reduce a players frustration the big game houses have produced games that offer no challenge and therefore no feeling of accomplishment / reward for completing the game. Ever complete Ghosts n Goblins ? that made you feel good, not every
    • by RogueyWon (735973) * on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:06AM (#28688337) Journal

      Bioshock was a competent game. It's biggest problem was that it had been massively over-sold. On the gameplay front, it was supposed to be the spiritual successor to System Shock 2, which, as you and others have noted, it wasn't. On the story front, it was supposed to set new standards for depth and intelligence in game story-telling. In truth, it wasn't anything like as clever as it thought it was, failing to rise above the level of pseudo-sophistication I'd expect from an overconfident political sciences undergraduate. The element of moral choice was so black and white as to be ludicrous; you could either be an angel or a demon, with nothing in between. If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to Fallout 3, not to Bioshock.

      The gameplay was effectively a run and gun shooter with a few irritating-but-easy puzzle minigames and a bit of spellcasting thrown in. I don't actually blame console-ification for this; you can actually have some excellent, deep gameplay on the consoles. I think it was related more to lazy design and a serious underestimation of the capabilities of the target audience.

      Of course, it was still a reasonable game, considered on its own terms. The combat was moderately fun, though it suffered from some balance issues that generally encouraged players to be very conservative in their combat tactics, ignoring the more creative ways of using the environment and the plasmids. Visually it was pretty nice, with the art deco theme being generally well realised.

      So yes, not actively bad, but if they want to get me excited about a sequel, they need to make clear that they're going to be much more ambitious this time around.

      • by RogueyWon (735973) *

        And yes, I do realise the irony in making post claiming a game wasn't as smart as it thought, while writing "it's" for "its" in the first line.

      • by wjousts (1529427)

        If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to Fallout 3, not to Bioshock.

        I agree with everything you said except this part ^.

        Fallout 3 wasn't much better in terms on moral choices. If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to The Witcher.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by RogueyWon (735973) *

          Fallout 3 is a mixed bag, perhaps. It has a few choices that are a bit too start "nuke Megaton or save it", but it also has some which are far more complex.

          I think the best of these comes in the second downloadable content pack, "The Pitt". I'm about to spoiler this massively, so those who haven't yet played this, but think they might do so, look away now.

          Yes, now.

          Right now.

          Here be spoilers.

          Ok, for those who are still reading, here's the basic synopsis of The Pitt.

          The Lone Wanderer picks up a distress call,

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by wjousts (1529427)

            I think the best of these comes in the second downloadable content pack, "The Pitt". I'm about to spoiler this massively, so those who haven't yet played this, but think they might do so, look away now.

            Okay, you might be right. I haven't played "The Pitt" because I've been waiting for the chance to buy it without dealing with Microsoft Points. And I didn't read the rest of you message because of the spoiler warning!

          • The interesting thing is that the big moral dilemma makes no practical difference to the game.

            If you side with Werhner then you get to appoint yourself Lord of the Pitt in Ashur's place. Werhner doesn't mind, he even volunteers to keep the slaves in line so you don't need to worry about the day-to-day running of the place. You get the same perk either way, and the same benefits.

            The only difference is in what the two say. Ashur tells you how in a generation there'll be no more slaves, but for now the sl

          • by ruemere (1148095)

            Sigh. Another game which tries to turn a false/wrong choice into a meaningful story twist.
            Disclaimer: I have not played The Pitt, so I am basing this solely on your account of the game story.

            1. World of FALLOUT is pretty big. And empty. There is no reason to stay in Pittsburgh. And for a guy who was able to build a slave state, moving to another location should not be much an issue.

            2. Given scarcity of supplies, the easiest way to quell a revolt is to deny the slaves access to things like water, food and so

            • by RogueyWon (735973) *

              On 1., while the world of Fallout is indeed pretty big (in theory, we know that the entire North American contintent at the very least is wasteland, probably the rest of the world as well - though you could argue this is left ambiguous), it is also pretty much entirely ruined. Pittsburg is, it is made clear, the biggest city left which is actually intact, in the physical sense. It has housing, factories, power, utilities, the lot, just waiting to be switched back on. Other settlements are usually clumps of

              • by ruemere (1148095)

                First of all, I'd like to emphasize that I am not familiar with Fallout 3, merely with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Secondly, my approach may be considered unfair since it is based more on flexibility available in RPGs, not their computer surrogates.

                Having said this, the problem I have with F3 is that it is forcing you to make choice between extremes. It's not something I am fond of - there are plenty of different *good* cRPGs where important choices are given in less heavyhanded way. Or, like in F1 and F2, yo

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lemming Mark (849014)

        SPOILERS ahead - if anyone cares.

        Re the good vs bad choice ...

        They had a crack at introducing moral ambiguity into that when you meet the first little sister - Atlas warns you that there are lives at stake and that the little sister isn't a real child, so you ought to kill her (a monster) so you can survive yourself and save his family. It's not presented as black-and-white which is the best choice in that first decision. Beyond that they didn't make you think about it so much and there was very little pe

    • Re:Will get over it. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Thyamine (531612) <(moc.snogardfo) (ta) (enimayht)> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:10AM (#28688663) Homepage Journal
      I disagree and agree. Every FPS basically does what your complaints are. Some (like Call of Duty or Halo for example) might limit how much you can carry, but they're all artificial limits. You can only carry two pistols, or one pistol and a rifle, how are those equivalent spacewise? What I loved about Bioshock was the environment and letting myself become immersed in it. I expected a FPS, and got a FPS, but thoroughly enjoyed the art deco style, the fear they build in when you come around corners and here someone singing, seeing shadows around the bend, the environment they clearly spent time putting together.

      And if you want to die more, you can turn off the Vita-Chambers (I think that's their name) so that you don't respawn. That's just a toggle setting.
      • by mjwx (966435)

        I disagree and agree. Every FPS basically does what your complaints are.

        Correction, every console FPS. If we look at FPS's designed for the PC market such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (or Deus Ex/System Shock back in the day) Where there is an open inventory system where one had to choose what to carry. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s weight based system was excellent, not only did it limit how much you carried had an effect on your character. Carrying close to the weight limit slowed you down while only carrying half of the weigh

    • It was a good looking game, and not having played system shock I didn't miss anything. The story line was quite cool, the maps were interesting and expansive. Yes it was short, but I appreciated that it didn't have a lot of the bugs and quirks I'm used to seeing in games. So I think your lack of ignorance is getting in the way of you forming an objective opinion about this game without comparing to others like it. Does every game have to build on and improve other games, or can it just be good on its ow

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @04:27AM (#28687811)

    All this anticipation must be hard on a company. What with so many people wanting to buy the product, it's a tough business trying to keep them at bay until the time is right. No sense in releasing on time. It's much better to release later so that people have already spent their Christmas money. After all, if those customers are playing other games and have less money, it means that they are more likely to buy this much anticipated game.

    Nothing like giving your competitors a chance to gain a foothold. Nosiree. On time and on budget! Delaying release to maximize customer demand. The logic is foolproof!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rogerborg (306625)

      Look, it's not all about maximising profit. When you've got a game that's going to be so much better than the competition that it would simply blow them out of the market and take all the available money, you have to ask yourself: is this really what I want to do? Is that the sort of person I want to be?

      These publishers might have to buy slightly smaller yachts, but at least some other guys will get to order little yachts as well. There's no point in having the biggest yacht at the club if there's nobo

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spire3661 (1038968)
      Movie industry has been doing this for decades. This is not a new technique at all and is smart business.
      • Unless (until) someone leaks a copy of the finished game that's just hanging around for a few more months just waiting.

    • It's a well-established and much storied fact that any game, no matter how good, can get totally fucked by the Christmas rush. Pick up a back issue of MCV or Edge and you'll find plenty of rueful developers and publishers discussing how their hundred-million-dollar project simply did not sell because the top three slots were occupied by that year's EA Sports titles and a new GTA. Essentially, the game has to sell within a three month window, and if that window is occupied by six must-haves already, then eve

      • The long tail for games is doing just fine, thanks. Digital distribution has cracked open the vaults, and tons of awesome games are available cheaply for your nostalgic pleasure.

        Check out GOG.com [gog.com], for example. Many great games at lot prices with no DRM foolishness. (Yup. I'm an affiliate.) It's a great time to game on the long tail.

        • by Sockatume (732728)

          Digital distribution accounts for the cube root of bugger all as far as these sorts of big-budget projects are concerned, though. For them, retail accounts for most of their humongous revenue, and that revenue will all arrive in a lump over about a fortnight because of retail's aversion to carrying a back catalogue. This isn't to understate how online distribution has led to a sales rebirth for pretty much every game that anyone cares to put up for sale, and how it can keep a title in the public mind long a

  • Good news (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Maybe Quantic Dream will find some time to put some actual gameplay into Heavy Rain now. From what they've shown so far it's Dragon's Lair without the skill or excitement.

    Honestly, folks, if I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. And it probably won't have excruciatingly bad actors that you have to prod every few seconds to make them say their next line. Well, unless Keanu Reeves is in it.

  • by MrMista_B (891430) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @05:00AM (#28687993)

    A rushed game will be bad forever.

    Take the time to get it right, and it will /suck less/.

    Please, before all the bitching and moaning, remember - what would you prefer? A good game, or a rushed game?

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or would you prefer a Duke Nukem Forever?
    • by anss123 (985305)

      A good game, or a rushed game?

      I'm not sure. Sequels are often "polished originals" (Doom 2, DKC 2, Sonic 2, ... 2) but I almost always prefer the originals.

    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      Please, before all the bitching and moaning, remember - what would you prefer? A good game, or a rushed game?

      Hmmm, you work at Blizzard, right?

      Please, please release D3 in the first half of this century. I try to keep a healthy life but I don't know how many decades I've still got in me.

    • I'd prefer not to get screwed like I did with Left 4 Dead. That game is insanely fun but every time I tried to play my fun was ruined by a horrible matchmaking system and gobs of bugs. Lame. I'd have rather waited a year and gotten a game that was playable. :(
    • by skeeto (1138903)
      As long as the hero yells "Gotcha, Suckas!" at the end, I will be happy.
  • by Toreo asesino (951231) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @06:30AM (#28688465) Journal

    I thought it was a decent game; good graphics, excellent atmosphere and really well choreographed scenes & story telling. I've not played System Shock 2, but you can't deny it was good fun. Playing it the 2nd time round is worth doing too; noticing stuff that's explained later on is good fun too - a bit like watching The Matrix the 2nd time round; suddenly everything's much clearer.

    • by johannesg (664142) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @07:32AM (#28688775)

      Because it was just a first person shooter! It was advertized as so much more... In SS2 you have freedom of movement (Bioshock is on rails), you get to make some real choices about how to approach the game (and it matters greatly for gameplay), and it has some fantastic storytelling (of which Bioshock is a pale ripoff).

      I've not played System Shock 2

      Well, that's your problem right there. Shame it is so hard to find, it is well worth playing, even today.

      • I haven't played SS2 and only played a bit of BioShock until I got bored of it but if this was anything like Deus Ex and Deus Ex 2 then I would be disappointed as well.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by $1uck (710826)
        Bioshock is most certainly not on rails. Unless you mean there is really just one course through the game (which isn't true either). When you say something like "on rails" those words have a specific meaning don't ruin the meaning by applying the term when you mean something else.
  • They have delayed BioShock 2 so they can actually put some interactive parts in this time. The first game was so much on rails it wasn't even funny.

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller

Working...