Bioshock: Anyone think it's overrated
- Thread starter Todd33
- Start date
scooby_dooby
Legend
Hmm, I don't really agree with most of these points.
I liked the variety of Ammo types and Plasmids as the game allowed you to experiment and try different aproaches.
While it's true you didn't 'need' anything other than a shotgun with electric buck, I feel sorry for people who didn't experiment with the plasmids such as enrage, telekenisis, active cammo, wrench lurker, cyclone trap etc, all these are very fun and can be extremely effective if used properly. For example, cyclone trap 3 literally launches people like 120feet into the air...now that's just good times!
It does get a little repetitive, but again if you're having fu experimenting with different approaches and plasmids, this doesn't really get old. I like the fact that the big daddies could be easily dispatched with the right technique, it made you feel very powerful near the end of the game. And there is tons of challenge with these guys in the beginning, especially on hard.
The plasmid vita-chamber effect didn't bother me at all either. When you say there's no penalty for dying, that's not really the case. If you don't mind wasting your time backtracking, and potentially letting a little sister slip away, and thus wastimg more time waiting for he to re-appear, then this is true.
Personally, it makes the game no easier than other games which use a quick save feature. And this is primarily what I used in Bioshock, I almost never used the chambers, I'd simply quicksave and then reload if I died. I hate backtracking, and don't like to waste resources, so I'd just rather do it right the first time. By including a quick-save feature, the designers allowed you the freedom to not use the vita-chamber system, if you didn't take advantage of that freedom, is this the games fault??
The arrow I turned off 30 seconds into the game. Again, this game gives you options to increase your enjoyment, if you don't use them, don't blame the game.
I guess the major fault with Bioshock is that it never forces you to think ouytside the box, therefore many people go through the whole game using 1 or 2 different techniques, and it obviously gets repetitive. But if you experiment I find the gameplay exceeds almost anything else in the genre.
I never had problems with Money, and never really had to backtrack for any cash (excpent in the rare cases where there was a couple hundred bucks somewhere, I'd go back and get it), but I tend to be pretty stingy in games, and didn't buy-out many hacks either. The hacking mini-game did get repetetive, but 90% of the time it was unnecessary.
- Turrets and Camers can simply be destroyed
- Vending machines offer only a 20% discount
- You can invent auto-hack tools to aid in Safes, the only object which really needs to be hacked.
Some of my favourite moments in the game where just causing chaos, and then walking around photographing everyone going nuts, while they attack my security decoy
To me that's that sort of thing is the definition of innovative gameplay in the genre.I did find some faults with the game, and would've definately like more NPC's in the game to give it more life, the fetch quests do get a little old, but this is a case where the positive dwarf the negatives, and I would definately rate it a 95%+ (read: one of the best games ever made)
True dat. I had some really sick levels of satisfaction setting booby traps and then luring NPC into them.Some of my favourite moments in the game where just causing chaos, and then walking around photographing everyone going nuts, while they attack my security decoy
You know, Bioshock's plasmids reminded me a lot of Dark Messiah. I said that in some other thread on here. Electricity conducts in water, things burn, there's the ice dealie. Both games are actually quite similar in their design, IMO. Two paths, etc. I may have had more fun with DM's combat. It wasn't perfect, but the melee was a lot of fun.
DM has more RPG aspects though. You can't do everything as one char.
DM has more RPG aspects though. You can't do everything as one char.
I never thought about having NPC's to interact with,but now that it's mentioned I think that could have added something to the game. Having the odd friendly or not completely nut's neutral splicer wandering around in the game world would make things more interesting.
Also I would liked to have been able to dual wield plasmid and weapons like in Undying.
Other than that I thoroughly enjoy it.
Also I would liked to have been able to dual wield plasmid and weapons like in Undying.
Other than that I thoroughly enjoy it.
I've mentioned Dark Messiah in Bioshock threads before, but no one has played it (besides us two). It was a fun game, I enjoyed it until the end. I was a mage with some sneaking ability. I bought it after the big patch, so I didn't have to put up with any bugs. I think it's a $10 game at GoGamer now, great deal.
I bought Dark Messiah when it was new and played it through. Really enjoyed it as it did ambience and melee combat really well. I didn't like the more gimmicky boss encounters like that frakking worm down in the Orc/Goblin area.
Been meaning to work through it again on the hardest setting as a melee only guy...
Been meaning to work through it again on the hardest setting as a melee only guy...
8.5-9.
Too many problems to be perfect. Crapped WS, DRM issues, clipping problems, and repetitive gameplay to name a few. Commenting on the PC version however, didnt see any clipping on the 360 demo I tried, and the DRM issue doesnt matter tot he 360 either. But hey, I dont care. 360 version loses at least a point for making me play with a controller.
Too many problems to be perfect. Crapped WS, DRM issues, clipping problems, and repetitive gameplay to name a few. Commenting on the PC version however, didnt see any clipping on the 360 demo I tried, and the DRM issue doesnt matter tot he 360 either. But hey, I dont care. 360 version loses at least a point for making me play with a controller.
That's a pretty good score, very close to mine.
Bioshock is a great game, fresh and original and also technically impressive. In my view it's a the strongest candidate for the coveted game of the year award on the X360 since it well deserves some of the scores we've seen (not the 10s).
Halo 3 is also a candidate but other than the Theater Mode -which should become a standard in games from now on, imo-, it doesn't bring nothing new to the table. CoD4 seems to be a strong candidate, too.
Last edited by a moderator:
31% of the reviews are 10/10, with an average of 9.5. That is quite a leap from a 8.9. I was wondering how the reviews of real players aligned with the professionals. And no 8 is above average, which Bioshock definitely is.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/931329.asp
The game doesn't deserve a 10, that's for sure but it doesn't deserve to be scored in the 85-88 range. It deserves a bloody high end 8.
Because the game would have to have a decent replayability and MP, that's people only complaint.
Agree with pretty much everything. Also, I think the variety of enemies is too low as well and generic. I'm also not very fond of the plasmids and special abilities. Think it would've been far more enjoyable for me personally if it was more like Condemned combat/weapons-wise.
It's a good game for sure, but not anywhere near deserving the accolades it's been getting IMHO. I'd give it max an 8.5.
I think the game is a 8.5, still it's probably the best FPS in years.
Here are the things that I don't like
Here are the things that I don't like
- The game is very, very linear. You play level after level, no backtracking, no discovering, just a shooter on rails *sigh*. I can't believe how little game developers (esp. on the PC side) have learned after all this years. (BTW, Metroid Prime is a good example how to avoid this and still be accessible.)
- Combat balancing is bad (Hard mode).
- Economy is bad. It's almost impossible to run out of cash in later levels.
- Plasmid variety is bad, many plasmids are simply weapons. A little bit more imagination would have been nice.
- Story is ok, but nothing to write home about. What Bioshock lacks are living and vivid characters. Someone to get emotionally attached to or someone you really want to defeat.
- In later levels splicers get more powerful but still look the same as in the earlier levels. Why? The game should provide some visual guidelines to their strength. Level 1 splicers should look a bit different from level 2,3,... splicers.
- As with most games you have a bunch of weapons but you end up using only 2 or 3, because many weapons are not powerful enough or even useless and you have plenty of ammo for all weapons anyway.
- Things like hacking and inventing are just add-ons instead of being required to survive.
- When you are half way through you have pretty much discovered anything there is to discover, gameplay-wise. From there on, things get pretty repetive.
- Apart from the Little Sister/Big Daddy relationship it add's nothing (gameplay-wise) compared to its spiritual predecessor System Shock which debuted in 1994. However, it's still better than most most FPS who seem unable to reach the level of a 13-year-old game. *cough*
A good example of how people's rating diverge. Its like comparing Edge to OXM. When the "best FPS in years" is an 8.5, it gives you some context. But then to argue (not that n00b did) that all the reviewers overrated it avoids the issue of individual game rankings, and the who point of a consensus like GR or Metacritic which arrive at a general critical consensus relative to their view of the market.
Simply, saying, "I would give the game a 8.8" doesn't validate the arguement that the game is overrated. Metroid Prime is an amazing game... but bored me personally to tears and I never bothered to even finish it (I found it flawed and tedious, much way I find turn based RPGs and spawn in field shooters). On my personal like scale it isn't very high, on quality gaming it is very high and would appeal to many consumers who enjoy that sort of game. So is my low personal review mean it is overrated? No.
Btw, linking to the Lair thread is absolutely bad form...
Good point. If you haven't played many FPS, you will probably rate Bioshock (way) higher than somebody who has played plenty of FPS. Personally I play computer games since 24 years (VC-20!). I suffer a bit from the "been there, done that" syndrome. Obviously I compare it to anything I have played before and I find the ratings a bit high. (Still I'm glad that Irrational get the much deserved attention)
Thanks for summing up my thoughts so nicely
I disliked (despised more like) the linearity immensly and never got sucked in. Graphics are so-so, I'd rate it lower than D³ (what happened to the idea of unified lighting and shadowing?)
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you on almost every point. I wouldn't give it an 8.5 or claim it was the best FPS in years though. It was a very been-there-done-that affair for me. Extreme linearity, the standard weapons basically, hordes of respawning bad guys (uhg). I would've preferred less violence and more exploration. Have fewer bad guy encounters and make them more significant, unique, and challenging.
It is a lot like System Shock 2, but very simplified, and that wasn't entirely a good thing. I felt that the designers wanted to remove the learning curve that perhaps frightened a lot of people away from Shock 2. I missed the more complex RPG elements, on one hand, but also liked being able to do everything in one play through. Shock 2 is very linear as well, and replaying it just to create a different character is only so entertaining. The inventory of Shock 2 almost made it fit into a different genre altogether, IMO, but Bioshock works more like a pure FPS.
Bioshock does have some characters to hate and some to care about. The intrigue created by those characters and the environmental immersion is what kept me interested in continuing with the game. Combat was interesting, but it wasn't the best in an FPS by any stretch of the imagination. I found some of the plasmids to be barely useful/effective, and the same can be said for some of the more unique weapons. I too ended up preferring just a few weapons, and they were the more traditional FPS guns. I like the ammo choices, btw. More Shock 2 traits.
I also found the end game to be really very obvious and easy to beat. I don't like boss battles all that much, but this one was at least very fitting to the premise of the game.
It's a good game, but it's definitely not revolutionary. IMO it is a very obvious evolution of Shock 2. It has high production values for sure, and does offer an entertaining story. The combat is decent, and really may greatly entertain those who are thrilled with the potential to create goofy ways to kill endless bad guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
