gollumsluvslave
Member
With all the hoopla and hype surrounding Bioshock Infinite, I thought it would be interesting to see what people's take's on the original Bioshock and it's much-maligned sequel are now that they have a much better idea of how where Irrational are going with Infinite.
I've just finished a complete replay through Bioshock (all achievements finally!) and Bioshock 2 and am currently about halfway through Minerva's Den, so everything about the games are very fresh in my mind.
Firstly, for me the most important thing to note is that both games are fantastic - 2 of the most enjoyable experiences I've had in gaming this generation, and probably ever.
I'd like to touch on the franchise's heritage - being the spiritual successor to System Shock in particular, and Looking Glass Studio's sensiblities in general has actually given the games a bit of a problem in that there are so many people (espcially hard-core oldschool gamers that actually played the original System Shock) that will see the newer games as being dumbed down.
Havingcome straight from a replay both games and having played SS2 only a few months back I would state that on the whole I don't see the games as being dumbed down - they are worthy succesors to most of the things that people loved about System Shock and Looking Glass Studios back in the day.
Sure, there are plenty of elements that were in SS1/SS2 that were either omitted from BS1/BS2 or changed in some way; but there were a large number of things in BS1/BS2 that weren't in SS1/SS2; I don't see these as dumbin down or streamlining, just stylistic preferences.
I'm not going to go over every point here, but I will note a few and Kieron Gillen's article here covers more or less everything:-
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bioshock-a-defence-article
Of course, hacking in Bioshock 2 is vastly improved, and is actually really cool - the Remote Hack Darts and Auto-Hack Darts really added to the hacking mechanics and allowed more strategies.
BS1 is a lot like SS2 both in terms of plot, pacing and narrative. Of course, thematically there was a large number of differences, and Rapture is a very different place to the Von Braun. Bioshock 2 on the other hand is a very different story and narrative and is quite different to either games - it told quite a different story; one which a lot of people seem to think is weaker (I don't, the more personal story in BS2 resonates more to me but it's very subjective).
The other main criticism levelled at both Bioshock games is that they are too easy / accessible. This is a perfectly valid criticism, and the thing that is directly responsible for it is the Vita-Chamber mechanism; for me it's the biggest fundamental flaw in both games; however it's easy to switch it off as an option. Disable the Vita-Chambers and both games are every bit as challenging as anything else out there, if not more so. Both Brass Ball achievements are tough, and demand the player to invest in the options available and really force thought and invention. I think that Vita-Chambers were a mistake from a gameplay point of view, and they caused some of the biggest story/setting plot-holes as well. Ken and Irrational if you anyone reads this, please nothing like Vita-Chambers in Infinite (or at least give us the option to disable it!)
Both Bioshock games give you a wide set of tools and options in how you want to play through the game (much more so in BS2), and I'd have to say more than in SS2; (I mean who really followed the PSI path in SS2? The options in SS2 were quite limited and unbalanced) - even better within Bioshock are Gene Banks which allow you to change how you want to play at any point (assuming you have the plasmid and tonics to do so) - there is nothing in SS2 like the Drill Specialist tonic in Bioshcok 2 for example; it's an option that makes the game and combat play much differently because it limits your choices but crucially not permanently; combine this with some other Drill tonics and you can really focus on a completely different play experience.
So now obviously I'm starting to touch on some of the great things in Bioshock 2, a fantastic game that is better than it's immediate precessor in nearly every objective way and also in a few subjective ways as well.
I think Bioshock 2 was initially viewed as either a cheap 2K cash-in (especially when it came out that Levine and Irrational were not in charge), or even more simply unnecessary. At least in my view it's neither of these things, and it's got a huge amount to say about both Rapture and relationships/family.
First of all one of the biggest criticism's levelled at BS1 was that it's combat/gun play simply wasn't very good for a shooter at the mechanical level (something also noted about SS2); some of these criticsims are valid but Bioshock 2 really addressed the combat area; it's gun play and combat are much better than Bioshock's; mostly this is due to being able to use both plasmid's and weapons simultaneously, but there is more weight as well.
The list of additions in BS2 is quite extensive and all of these have real gameplay impact to what was already a wide toolset in BS1:-
There's a lot more, especially when you look at each plasmid and weapon. Of course, there was the removal of U-Vent, which is probably the only negative critiscism I'd level at BS2 in terms of options; however it was an area of the original that was criticised and I didn't miss it that much; it's removal seemed more incongruous than anything else.
The main thing Bioshock 2 suffers from is simply the fact that it is the follower and not the leader. Rapture was familiar, and we all know familiarity breeds contempt; some people seemed to be done with Rapture and this their perogative; of course Bioshock 2 was never going to have the same impact.
That said there are moments/threads in Bioshock 2 that are some of the best in Rapture:-
Additionally, there is a real sense of impact depending on whether you Harvest or Rescue Little Sisters; not just in terms of the ending, but in terms of how your actions in the game shape Eleanor; probably the single biggest improvement in Bioshock 2 over the original. I had a much harder time in Harvesting in Bioshock than I ever did in the original.
Level design is another area where Bioshcok 2 is on the whole more cohesive and less linear than the original; Siren Alley in particular being one of my favourite levels ever.
Narrative pacing in the sequel is much better as well; most people tend to agree that Bioshock struggled to recover after Would You Kindly? and that the whole 3rd act was a bit of a let down compared to what came before. After my recent playthrough I'd have to say it's not as bad as some say, but compared to Bioshock 2 it's notably inferior.
That said, BS2 suffers in the beginning as it does feel like a bit of a retread; almost like it's trying to find it's own identity; it's not really until Pauper's Drop that it really starts to become it's own game and at that point both from a narrative sense and an overall game view, it builds and builds to a great fantastic conclusion, and never drops the ball.
BS2 doesn't really have the large scale bombast that the original has in terms of the whole overarching Andrew Ryan view, and it's undeniable that unless you are willing to invest in the narrative, the lack of Andrew Ryan / Fontaine undermines Sophia Lamb as the main protagonist to a degree. However this is unavoidable, and the audio logs do a great job of communicating Lamb's philosophy, and I feel that Lamb is actually a more cohesive and stronger protagonist than the Ryan/Fontaine combination, as there is no watering down or loss of focus; it's a really interesting counter-point to the main story in Bioshock; Ryan and Fontaine were not that far apart in terms of ideals (execution very different of course); whereas Lamb is almost the polar opposite, and the whole Greater Good view is the most frightening ideal presented in the series so far, especially during the suffocating sequence. For me that was true horror, even though I do not count either Bioshock games as horror games at all.
On the whole, both Bioshock games are amazing experiences, some of the best I've ever had; the original is a flawed masterpiece but the flaws are some of the exact ideas that Levine and his team were trying to experiment with, in terms of challenging video-game tropes.
Although I can't decide yet whether it was the better experience (it does not have the luxury of that 1st time in Rapture), Bioshock 2 is to me the better game in nearly every department, a fantastic game in it's own right; if the order of the games were reversed in terms of release I think it would be clear to everyone that the original would be a big step backwards.
Halfway through Minerva's Den and it's every bit as good - so far I'm having a blast, and am fully engaged in the story; it's a great example of DLC done right. Unlike others I love Rapture as a setting, and even after Minerva's Den I would still be interested in more Rapture stories and experiences.
However, I'm obviously hugely interested to see where Levine and Irrational take things with Infinite; Columbia seems like a great setting, totally different to Rapture and totally fresh. Booker and Elizabeth seem interesting (though I do have reservations about Elizabeth) and Song Bird looks awesome. Will it be a large epic bombastic story like Bioshock, or something more personal like Bioshock 2? It looks to me like it has lofty ambitions to try and do BOTH, and I'm just happy there are people like Irrational and 2K Marin making these kind of games with depth and player choice, and ambition.
As Kieron Gillen summed up perfectly, Bioshock for me is all about what you put in to the game:-
This is equally true for Bioshock 2 and I fully expect it to apply to Infinite too. I think that many of the people who disliked either Bioshock or Bioshock 2 simply weren't willing to invest in the game; their loss, but the existence of these games is certainly this gamers gain.
I've just finished a complete replay through Bioshock (all achievements finally!) and Bioshock 2 and am currently about halfway through Minerva's Den, so everything about the games are very fresh in my mind.
Firstly, for me the most important thing to note is that both games are fantastic - 2 of the most enjoyable experiences I've had in gaming this generation, and probably ever.
I'd like to touch on the franchise's heritage - being the spiritual successor to System Shock in particular, and Looking Glass Studio's sensiblities in general has actually given the games a bit of a problem in that there are so many people (espcially hard-core oldschool gamers that actually played the original System Shock) that will see the newer games as being dumbed down.
Havingcome straight from a replay both games and having played SS2 only a few months back I would state that on the whole I don't see the games as being dumbed down - they are worthy succesors to most of the things that people loved about System Shock and Looking Glass Studios back in the day.
Sure, there are plenty of elements that were in SS1/SS2 that were either omitted from BS1/BS2 or changed in some way; but there were a large number of things in BS1/BS2 that weren't in SS1/SS2; I don't see these as dumbin down or streamlining, just stylistic preferences.
I'm not going to go over every point here, but I will note a few and Kieron Gillen's article here covers more or less everything:-
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bioshock-a-defence-article
Of course, hacking in Bioshock 2 is vastly improved, and is actually really cool - the Remote Hack Darts and Auto-Hack Darts really added to the hacking mechanics and allowed more strategies.
BS1 is a lot like SS2 both in terms of plot, pacing and narrative. Of course, thematically there was a large number of differences, and Rapture is a very different place to the Von Braun. Bioshock 2 on the other hand is a very different story and narrative and is quite different to either games - it told quite a different story; one which a lot of people seem to think is weaker (I don't, the more personal story in BS2 resonates more to me but it's very subjective).
The other main criticism levelled at both Bioshock games is that they are too easy / accessible. This is a perfectly valid criticism, and the thing that is directly responsible for it is the Vita-Chamber mechanism; for me it's the biggest fundamental flaw in both games; however it's easy to switch it off as an option. Disable the Vita-Chambers and both games are every bit as challenging as anything else out there, if not more so. Both Brass Ball achievements are tough, and demand the player to invest in the options available and really force thought and invention. I think that Vita-Chambers were a mistake from a gameplay point of view, and they caused some of the biggest story/setting plot-holes as well. Ken and Irrational if you anyone reads this, please nothing like Vita-Chambers in Infinite (or at least give us the option to disable it!)
Both Bioshock games give you a wide set of tools and options in how you want to play through the game (much more so in BS2), and I'd have to say more than in SS2; (I mean who really followed the PSI path in SS2? The options in SS2 were quite limited and unbalanced) - even better within Bioshock are Gene Banks which allow you to change how you want to play at any point (assuming you have the plasmid and tonics to do so) - there is nothing in SS2 like the Drill Specialist tonic in Bioshcok 2 for example; it's an option that makes the game and combat play much differently because it limits your choices but crucially not permanently; combine this with some other Drill tonics and you can really focus on a completely different play experience.
So now obviously I'm starting to touch on some of the great things in Bioshock 2, a fantastic game that is better than it's immediate precessor in nearly every objective way and also in a few subjective ways as well.
I think Bioshock 2 was initially viewed as either a cheap 2K cash-in (especially when it came out that Levine and Irrational were not in charge), or even more simply unnecessary. At least in my view it's neither of these things, and it's got a huge amount to say about both Rapture and relationships/family.
First of all one of the biggest criticism's levelled at BS1 was that it's combat/gun play simply wasn't very good for a shooter at the mechanical level (something also noted about SS2); some of these criticsims are valid but Bioshock 2 really addressed the combat area; it's gun play and combat are much better than Bioshock's; mostly this is due to being able to use both plasmid's and weapons simultaneously, but there is more weight as well.
The list of additions in BS2 is quite extensive and all of these have real gameplay impact to what was already a wide toolset in BS1:-
- Mini-Turrets
- Big Sisters - really different type of fight compared to Big Daddies.
- Enhanced Plasmids - charging, much better upgrades (especially Cyclone Trap)
- Adam Gathering
- Hypnotise upgrades 2 & 3 - awesome being able to control Splicers (not just Big Daddies)
- Remote Hacking, improved hacking minigame
- Drill Specialist tonic
There's a lot more, especially when you look at each plasmid and weapon. Of course, there was the removal of U-Vent, which is probably the only negative critiscism I'd level at BS2 in terms of options; however it was an area of the original that was criticised and I didn't miss it that much; it's removal seemed more incongruous than anything else.
The main thing Bioshock 2 suffers from is simply the fact that it is the follower and not the leader. Rapture was familiar, and we all know familiarity breeds contempt; some people seemed to be done with Rapture and this their perogative; of course Bioshock 2 was never going to have the same impact.
That said there are moments/threads in Bioshock 2 that are some of the best in Rapture:-
- Mark Meltzer's story
- Through the eye's of the Little Sister
- Alex the Great
- Fontaine's audio log where he becomes Atlas
- Lamb suffocating Eleanor
- 9 Irony
Additionally, there is a real sense of impact depending on whether you Harvest or Rescue Little Sisters; not just in terms of the ending, but in terms of how your actions in the game shape Eleanor; probably the single biggest improvement in Bioshock 2 over the original. I had a much harder time in Harvesting in Bioshock than I ever did in the original.
Level design is another area where Bioshcok 2 is on the whole more cohesive and less linear than the original; Siren Alley in particular being one of my favourite levels ever.
Narrative pacing in the sequel is much better as well; most people tend to agree that Bioshock struggled to recover after Would You Kindly? and that the whole 3rd act was a bit of a let down compared to what came before. After my recent playthrough I'd have to say it's not as bad as some say, but compared to Bioshock 2 it's notably inferior.
That said, BS2 suffers in the beginning as it does feel like a bit of a retread; almost like it's trying to find it's own identity; it's not really until Pauper's Drop that it really starts to become it's own game and at that point both from a narrative sense and an overall game view, it builds and builds to a great fantastic conclusion, and never drops the ball.
BS2 doesn't really have the large scale bombast that the original has in terms of the whole overarching Andrew Ryan view, and it's undeniable that unless you are willing to invest in the narrative, the lack of Andrew Ryan / Fontaine undermines Sophia Lamb as the main protagonist to a degree. However this is unavoidable, and the audio logs do a great job of communicating Lamb's philosophy, and I feel that Lamb is actually a more cohesive and stronger protagonist than the Ryan/Fontaine combination, as there is no watering down or loss of focus; it's a really interesting counter-point to the main story in Bioshock; Ryan and Fontaine were not that far apart in terms of ideals (execution very different of course); whereas Lamb is almost the polar opposite, and the whole Greater Good view is the most frightening ideal presented in the series so far, especially during the suffocating sequence. For me that was true horror, even though I do not count either Bioshock games as horror games at all.
On the whole, both Bioshock games are amazing experiences, some of the best I've ever had; the original is a flawed masterpiece but the flaws are some of the exact ideas that Levine and his team were trying to experiment with, in terms of challenging video-game tropes.
Although I can't decide yet whether it was the better experience (it does not have the luxury of that 1st time in Rapture), Bioshock 2 is to me the better game in nearly every department, a fantastic game in it's own right; if the order of the games were reversed in terms of release I think it would be clear to everyone that the original would be a big step backwards.
Halfway through Minerva's Den and it's every bit as good - so far I'm having a blast, and am fully engaged in the story; it's a great example of DLC done right. Unlike others I love Rapture as a setting, and even after Minerva's Den I would still be interested in more Rapture stories and experiences.
However, I'm obviously hugely interested to see where Levine and Irrational take things with Infinite; Columbia seems like a great setting, totally different to Rapture and totally fresh. Booker and Elizabeth seem interesting (though I do have reservations about Elizabeth) and Song Bird looks awesome. Will it be a large epic bombastic story like Bioshock, or something more personal like Bioshock 2? It looks to me like it has lofty ambitions to try and do BOTH, and I'm just happy there are people like Irrational and 2K Marin making these kind of games with depth and player choice, and ambition.
As Kieron Gillen summed up perfectly, Bioshock for me is all about what you put in to the game:-
This is equally true for Bioshock 2 and I fully expect it to apply to Infinite too. I think that many of the people who disliked either Bioshock or Bioshock 2 simply weren't willing to invest in the game; their loss, but the existence of these games is certainly this gamers gain.
