Bioshock 2 - The better game

[Azahul]

Before I begin, I should point out that the following post will have spoilers for both Bioshock and Bioshock 2. Consider yourself warned.

Now, I know I'm rather late to the party with all of this. Regardless, I was replaying the Bioshock games recently, and I wanted to put down my thoughts on why I think the sequel was the better game.

The first Bioshock was a brilliant game. It had a fantastic setting, a truly charismatic antagonist in the form of Andrew Ryan, an extremely well-executed twist and a good story in general. The gameplay was a bit clunky, but it was still a great game overall. Its sequel, Bioshock 2, was generally given good reviews, but most people I talk to tend to consider it rather lacklustre in comparison to the original.

I can certainly understand the reasoning behind this. While the gameplay was certainly improved, I myself didn?t find myself drawn into Bioshock 2?s story at first. In fact, looking back on it, I have to admit that the basics of the story that you experience are pitifully straightforward. For most of the game, you?re just trekking across the city in search for Eleanor. There is no real shock twist, Sophia Lamb, while interesting, is not as fascinating an individual as Andrew Ryan, and of course Rapture is no longer a new and brilliant setting. Despite these facts, Bioshock 2?s story struck home in a way that no videogame, ever, has managed to do for me.

Now, when I first got my hands on Bioshock, I played it twice. Once through harvesting the Little Sisters as I went, the second time rescuing them. In both cases, I didn?t really care for them one way or another. I was just trying to experience both endings. When Bioshock 2 came out, I decided before I even sat down to play it that on my first play through I would rescue the Little Sisters, and then harvest them on the second. At the time of writing I?m on about my third attempt, and I am yet to harvest a single Little Sister. This is a seriously big deal for me, as I?ve never had an issue separating myself from a game emotionally. In fact, in most games with a moral choice system, I tend towards the evil options on my first file.

As I see it, there are several reasons for my change of heart. The first is the character design. The original Little Sisters appeared to be demon children at first glance, while those in Bioshock 2 seemed closer to sick little girls. They are considerably easier to empathise towards.

When it comes to the other moral choices in the game, whether to kill or spare the Grace, Stanley, and Gil, I have to admit that I was impressed. Since my first play through was intended to be the good one, I spared Grace and Stanley as they were the obviously ?good? things to do. However, when it came to Gil I was completely thrown. I honestly could not tell which was the right action to take. Eventually, I let him live, pretty much solely because he promised to go outside and because I liked the mental image of letting a giant, deformed squish-thing loose in the ocean. Still, the fact that the game presented me with a situation where no clear course of action was the right one impressed me. That was something that the first Bioshock most definitely lacked.

However, it is the last few levels from when you find Eleanor onwards that truly changed the game for me. Until then, I was beginning to become rather bored with the story. Then, all of a sudden, the game changed. I realised that the actions I?d been taking up until this point hadn?t just been for my own sake. They?d been guiding the development of Eleanor. The moral choices weren?t just me arbitrarily deciding to be good or evil, they were also serving as lessons for my character?s daughter.

I?ve cared for characters in games before, usually because that had quirky personalities or were funny or badass or because some aspect about them appealed to me. Despite this, when it was called for (say, if I?d made the decision to do an evil play through), I?d always still be able to kill them off, safe in the knowledge that they?re nothing more than a bunch of files on a computer that will still be there in my next run. Eleanor in Bioshock 2 was different, and I?m not sure I can make it clear why.

Now, yes, Bioshock had a brilliant story, a fantastic setting. Objectively, I have to say it probably had the better story in terms of structure and pacing, where Bioshock 2?s dragged on to some extent. But what Bioshock 2 had was an emotional connection. Before and since, I have never played a game that triggered such an emotional response in me. This is a game where I just can?t bring myself to choose the evil options, because to do so actually seems morally wrong. I?m not sure I can properly explain why I feel that way. The best analogy I can think of is that a professional killer might have no qualms about shooting a man dead, but he would find it impossible to kill the same man if he had to do it in front of his own daughter.

That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Bioshock 2 is the only game I?ve ever played where I?ve felt genuine emotion for the characters. The bittersweet good ending is masterfully executed, the music that plays throughout emphasises the mournful aspect of it to a heartbreaking extent. Right through the final stages of the game, you can see the impact your choices have made on Eleanor. Some games show the impact of your decisions on the world, but Bioshock 2 shows you how your actions leave a legacy. It blows me away every time. Bioshock was a good game, I?ve said this already. It was intriguing, mysterious, though-provoking, but it never hit a true emotion. Bioshock 2 did.

I don?t expect everyone to agree with me on this. My enjoyment of Bioshock 2 was entirely personal. I enjoyed playing the actual game, but its true efforts were bringing out emotions that I never expected a game to be able to reach. Bioshock has been cited many times as evidence that videogames are art, but Bioshock 2 I believe is the better example. In my mind, Bioshock is a brilliant intellectual work, while Bioshock 2 brings across emotion.

While Eleanor is really what the whole Bioshock 2 experience revolves around (knowing that my daughter is watching is what has made it so hard for me to do anything evil since my first file), I have to say that I preferred a number of characters in Bioshock 2 to their Bioshock counterparts. Augustus Sinclair vs Atlas, for example. They?re the two characters that present the ?darker? options for the story, yet Sinclair manages to come across as a good guy despite it. While I still love the big revelation in the original Bioshock, the moment Atlas told me to rip open a little girl for a bit of extra power I knew he was going to turn out evil. When Sinclair first came into the story, I presumed that he?d turn out to be evil in one way or another. However, it was actually Sinclair presenting the exact same option, that of harvesting the Little Sisters, that had me cast doubt on that assumption. He leaves the decision up to you, presents it as a regrettable but possibly necessary choice, where Atlas felt like he was egging me on (and even congratulates you on Harvesting your first Little Sister). Really, Sinclair proved to be a far more likeable character.

Anyway, this is getting rather long so I?ll cut things off here. These are basically my thoughts on why I preferred Bioshock 2?s story. Of course, given the emotional basis of the preference however, I don?t expect people to agree, but hopefully I?ve given some people something to think about.

 

[Netrigan]

I thought Bioshock 2 had better game mechanics and a much more emotional story... but the game environment really had a been there, done that feel about it. But the whole Communist rantings in the background really didn't add anything to the experience. I even like the whole Little Sister ADAM farming aspect, which you can safely ignore once you have your favorite powers maxed out.

First game was totally fresh and had a pretty cool twist. And it really didn't leave any room for a sequel.

 

[kane.malakos]

Before I begin, I should point out that the following post will have spoilers for both Bioshock and Bioshock 2. Consider yourself warned.

Now, I know I'm rather late to the party with all of this. Regardless, I was replaying the Bioshock games recently, and I wanted to put down my thoughts on why I think the sequel was the better game.
The first Bioshock was a brilliant game. It had a fantastic setting, a truly charismatic antagonist in the form of Andrew Ryan, an extremely well-executed twist and a good story in general. The gameplay was a bit clunky, but it was still a great game overall. Its sequel, Bioshock 2, was generally given good reviews, but most people I talk to tend to consider it rather lacklustre in comparison to the original.
I can certainly understand the reasoning behind this. While the gameplay was certainly improved, I myself didn?t find myself drawn into Bioshock 2?s story at first. In fact, looking back on it, I have to admit that the basics of the story that you experience are pitifully straightforward. For most of the game, you?re just trekking across the city in search for Eleanor. There is no real shock twist, Sophia Lamb, while interesting, is not as fascinating an individual as Andrew Ryan, and of course Rapture is no longer a new and brilliant setting. Despite these facts, Bioshock 2?s story struck home in a way that no videogame, ever, has managed to do for me.
Now, when I first got my hands on Bioshock, I played it twice. Once through harvesting the Little Sisters as I went, the second time rescuing them. In both cases, I didn?t really care for them one way or another. I was just trying to experience both endings. When Bioshock 2 came out, I decided before I even sat down to play it that on my first play through I would rescue the Little Sisters, and then harvest them on the second. At the time of writing I?m on about my third attempt, and I am yet to harvest a single Little Sister. This is a seriously big deal for me, as I?ve never had an issue separating myself from a game emotionally. In fact, in most games with a moral choice system, I tend towards the evil options on my first file.
As I see it, there are several reasons for my change of heart. The first is the character design. The original Little Sisters appeared to be demon children at first glance, while those in Bioshock 2 seemed closer to sick little girls. They are considerably easier to empathise towards.
When it comes to the other moral choices in the game, whether to kill or spare the Grace, Stanley, and Gil, I have to admit that I was impressed. Since my first play through was intended to be the good one, I spared Grace and Stanley as they were the obviously ?good? things to do. However, when it came to Gil I was completely thrown. I honestly could not tell which was the right action to take. Eventually, I let him live, pretty much solely because he promised to go outside and because I liked the mental image of letting a giant, deformed squish-thing loose in the ocean. Still, the fact that the game presented me with a situation where no clear course of action was the right one impressed me. That was something that the first Bioshock most definitely lacked.
However, it is the last few levels, from when you find Eleanor and onwards, that truly changed the game for me. Until then, I was beginning to become rather bored with the story. Then, all of a sudden, the game changed. I realised that the actions I?d been taking up until this point hadn?t just been for my own sake. They?d been guiding the development of Eleanor. The moral choices weren?t just me arbitrarily deciding to be good or evil, they were also serving as lessons for my character?s daughter. The game suddenly hit me in a way the first Bioshock game, or indeed, any other videogame that I can care to name, failed to do.
Now, y Before I begin, I should point out that the following post will have spoilers for both Bioshock and Bioshock 2. Consider yourself warned.

Now, I know I'm rather late to the party with all of this. Regardless, I was replaying the Bioshock games recently, and I wanted to put down my thoughts on why I think the sequel was the better game.
The first Bioshock was a brilliant game. It had a fantastic setting, a truly charismatic antagonist in the form of Andrew Ryan, an extremely well-executed twist and a good story in general. The gameplay was a bit clunky, but it was still a great game overall. Its sequel, Bioshock 2, was generally given good reviews, but most people I talk to tend to consider it rather lacklustre in comparison to the original.
I can certainly understand the reasoning behind this. While the gameplay was certainly improved, I myself didn?t find myself drawn into Bioshock 2?s story at first. In fact, looking back on it, I have to admit that the basics of the story that you experience are pitifully straightforward. For most of the game, you?re just trekking across the city in search for Eleanor. There is no real shock twist, Sophia Lamb, while interesting, is not as fascinating an individual as Andrew Ryan, and of course Rapture is no longer a new and brilliant setting. Despite these facts, Bioshock 2?s story struck home in a way that no videogame, ever, has managed to do for me.
Now, when I first got my hands on Bioshock, I played it twice. Once through harvesting the Little Sisters as I went, the second time rescuing them. In both cases, I didn?t really care for them one way or another. I was just trying to experience both endings. When Bioshock 2 came out, I decided before I even sat down to play it that on my first play through I would rescue the Little Sisters, and then harvest them on the second. At the time of writing I?m on about my third attempt, and I am yet to harvest a single Little Sister. This is a seriously big deal for me, as I?ve never had an issue separating myself from a game emotionally. In fact, in most games with a moral choice system, I tend towards the evil options on my first file.
As I see it, there are several reasons for my change of heart. The first is the character design. The original Little Sisters appeared to be demon children at first glance, while those in Bioshock 2 seemed closer to sick little girls. They are considerably easier to empathise towards.
When it comes to the other moral choices in the game, whether to kill or spare the Grace, Stanley, and Gil, I have to admit that I was impressed. Since my first play through was intended to be the good one, I spared Grace and Stanley as they were the obviously ?good? things to do. However, when it came to Gil I was completely thrown. I honestly could not tell which was the right action to take. Eventually, I let him live, pretty much solely because he promised to go outside and because I liked the mental image of letting a giant, deformed squish-thing loose in the ocean. Still, the fact that the game presented me with a situation where no clear course of action was the right one impressed me. That was something that the first Bioshock most definitely lacked.
However, it is the last few levels from when you find Eleanor onwards that truly changed the game for me. Until then, I was beginning to become rather bored with the story. Then, all of a sudden, the game changed. I realised that the actions I?d been taking up until this point hadn?t just been for my own sake. They?d been guiding the development of Eleanor. The moral choices weren?t just me arbitrarily deciding to be good or evil, they were also serving as lessons for my character?s daughter.
I?ve cared for characters in games before, usually because that had quirky personalities or were funny or badass or because some aspect about them appealed to me. Despite this, when it was called for (say, if I?d made the decision to do an evil play through), I?d always still be able to kill them off, safe in the knowledge that they?re nothing more than a bunch of files on a computer that will still be there in my next run. Eleanor in Bioshock 2 was different, and I?m not sure I can make it clear why.
Now, yes, Bioshock had a brilliant story, a fantastic setting. Objectively, I have to say it probably had the better story in terms of structure and pacing, where Bioshock 2?s dragged on to some extent. But what Bioshock 2 had was an emotional connection. Before and since, I have never played a game that triggered such an emotional response in me. This is a game where I just can?t bring myself to choose the evil options, because to do so actually seems morally wrong. I?m not sure I can properly explain why I feel that way. The best analogy I can think of is that a professional killer might have no qualms about shooting a man dead, but he would find it impossible to kill the same man if he had to do it in front of his own daughter.
That, I think, is the crux of the matter. Bioshock 2 is the only game I?ve ever played where I?ve felt genuine emotion for the characters. The bittersweet good ending is masterfully executed, the music that plays throughout emphasises the mournful aspect of it to a heartbreaking extent. Right through the final stages of the game, you can see the impact your choices have made on Eleanor. Some games show the impact of your decisions on the world, but Bioshock 2 shows you how your actions leave a legacy. It blows me away every time. Bioshock was a good game, I?ve said this already. It was intriguing, mysterious, though-provoking, but it never hit a true emotion. Bioshock 2 did.
I don?t expect everyone to agree with me on this. My enjoyment of Bioshock 2 was entirely personal. I enjoyed playing the actual game, but its true efforts were bringing out emotions that I never expected a game to be able to reach. Bioshock has been cited many times as evidence that videogames are art, but Bioshock 2 I believe is the better example. In my mind, Bioshock is a brilliant intellectual work, while Bioshock 2 brings across emotion.
While Eleanor is really what the whole Bioshock 2 experience revolves around (knowing that my daughter is watching is what has made it so hard for me to do anything evil since my first file), I have to say that I preferred a number of characters in Bioshock 2 to their Bioshock counterparts. Augustus Sinclair vs Atlas, for example. They?re the two characters that present the ?darker? options for the story, yet Sinclair manages to come across as a good guy despite it. While I still love the big revelation in the original Bioshock, the moment Atlas told me to rip open a little girl for a bit of extra power I knew he was going to turn out evil. When Sinclair first came into the story, I presumed that he?d turn out to be evil in one way or another. However, it was actually Sinclair presenting the exact same option, that of harvesting the Little Sisters, that had me cast doubt on that assumption. He leaves the decision up to you, presents it as a regrettable but possibly necessary choice, where Atlas felt like he was egging me on (and even congratulates you on Harvesting your first Little Sister). Really, Sinclair proved to be a far more likeable character.
Anyway, this is getting rather long so I?ll cut things off here. These are basically my thoughts on why I preferred Bioshock 2?s story. Of course, given the emotional basis of the preference however, I don?t expect people to agree, but hopefully I?ve given some people something to think about.

I agree with you on a lot of points. I was much more emotionally invested in Bioshock 2. I cared more about Sinclair and Eleanor than I did about Tannenbaum or any of the characters from the first game. It lost some of the unique flavor of Rapture, but overall I thought it did many things better than the first game.

 

[Azahul]

@Netrigan
Really? It was the same city, sure, but the settings were still (mostly) new. The first game took place in the high and mighty parts of the city, the scientific districts, the places of art and business, while the second one took place in the slums of the city. It really fitted the communist philosophies being tossed around the place, as it all took place in a much more working class environment. In fact, I have to say that I loved that about the second game. With such an emphasis on the survival of the fittest, the first Bioshock never really delved into the fate of those in Rapture who failed, the ones who didn't manage to climb the ladder to success. The sequel showed another side, the lower class. I actually found it a very different environment as a result, with its own character.
And yes, while the first game didn't leave much room for a sequel, Bioshock 2 managed to generally avoid tredding on the toes of its predecessor. It made its own room.

 

[New Troll]

Hope I feel the same. Just bought 2 new for $15 today. Hoping to get a chance to beat it before 3 comes out! Hadn't gotten around to it mainly cause it looks so much like the first and I'm not that big into shooters, but the trailer for the third installment looks AWESOME!

 

[Netrigan]

New locations, but they generally didn't feel different enough for me to really feel like I was seeing something new.

The whole Objectivist/Communists rants in the background were never really a big draw for me. The little human dramas found in the audio logs were always much more interesting that the big political rants. Ojbectivism gets a slight edge because you don't typically hear them anywhere, whereas Communists are a pretty old cliche... just finished Just Cause 2, where one of the faction leaders is constantly spouting them off.

Lots of people have a problem with the Prototype being more powerful than the finished Big Daddy. I didn't have that problem because sometimes prototypes are more powerful, but too unstable or dangerous to use; which was the explanation in Bioshock 2. As for the rest, I almost consider it an alternate timeline, because I'm not sure the two stories can really fit together. Both seem to have all but destroyed Rapture, although maybe I'm completely mis-remembering it.

 

[Azahul]

Rapture got beaten up a bit in the first game, but I was under the impression that the self-destruct machine was turned off. Certainly though, the place is a good deal more run down in the sequel.
In the second, the only place that is destroyed is Persephone (and the occasional room that gets flooded).
Anyway, I actually found the human element of Bioshock 2 a lot more prevalent. The Communist (and strictly speaking, we're talking Communism taken to an even greater extreme) ideas are there, but Sophia Lamb and her subordinates (Grace Holloway, for example), are a good deal more than just the sum of their ideas. Personally, I found plenty of human dramas around the place (even in the Multiplayer, which I thoroughly enjoyed in large part for the story elements that popped up during the loading screens).

 

[Macheteswordgun]

Holy crap thats a lot of text @.@ plz paragraphs. But i do agree with quite a bit of your post to say the least. It kinda "boring" till the end then it picked up its true but i still find 1 to be better

Cap was temper dprnrs

 

[Azahul]

It was in paragraphs, but I've spaced it out for you

 

[jakefongloo]

Bioshock 1 had such a twist that blew my mind. I also have a soft spot for the con-man.
The glory of rapture along with the leading causes to it's downfall found in those tapes made me grab for the internet to make sure I got them all.

bioshock 2 mehed me badly. I wanted to enjoy another fantastical setting with some slight horrer elements. Rapture looks very much the same to me and the only part that made me hesitate slightly was when you chase down that teleporting plasmid and it transports you to that dark room with a single light in the middle. Gameplay was imporoved but, halo made me care more about Master Chief and his efforts than this game made me care about Elenor and the big daddy.

Worse games are out there, but I don't put bioshock in to enjoy gameplay. I do that for a round of Call of duty 4 or for Ninja Gaiden

If I want a story that feels like it just slapped me in the face when I wasn't looking I'll play some bioshock or...ummmmm A too recent game to mention.

 

[Zhukov]

Heh. Funny thing.

I agree with most of your points. Bioshock 2 had better gameplay. Better moral choices. Better endings... mostly. And I felt rather attached to Eleanor.

But I still think Bioshock 1 was better. That story was just too good.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I'm not sure I can argue much on this particular point, I have no idea what made you become emotionally affected but I started playing Bioshock 2 and simply stopped because in the 5 minutes I played it had ripped off Bioshock 1 quite a bit. I can't remember specifically what happened (nor do I want to) but it's like every thing that happened was just redoing what happened in Bioshock 1, and for this reason I CANNOT accept Bioshock 2 as being superior.

 

[BoredDragon]

idk, nothing can top the Bioshock's story and that includes its sequel. I wasn't really surprised when I found out that the girl was taking notes of what I did since she was obsessed with me. In short, at least to me, it was pretty predictable and I had the same mentality towards the little sisters from the first game: harvest and get more atom, or cure and get less atom but sometimes get extra benefits. I also tended to save the little sisters in both games for the same reason that I felt bad for killing a little girl. However, I do see what you're saying about the little sisters after a quick google image search:
Bioshock

Bioshock 2

On the other hand, I kind of think that this is because of the improved graphics. It allowed them to be more detailed with the Little Sisters and make them look a little more human in the second game.

I know I'm going to replay Bioshock soon because this thread is putting me in a nostalgic mood, but I just don't think you can top Bioshock's twist and that's probably why I love it so much.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

To begin, this is a very well-written review (though more paragraph breaks would help immensely).

That said, it highlights a few of the problems I had with both Bioshock games (and virtually any games with morality systems). In reality, when you are confronted with a choice, you attempt to find an optimal solution. Typically, this will take into account your own ethical values. When you are confronted with such a choice in a game, you attempt to discern which is the good or evil choice. You only attempt to find an optimal solution insofar as you are attempting to find the optimal solution that would be followed by a good or evil character as defined by the game.

True moral ambiguity in games is exceedingly rare not because your choices aren't always clear, but because games are replayable and because we know we're playing games. In real life, you rarely get to find out if you made the "good choice" because you only get to see one outcome. But in a game, you see multiple outcomes and it's generally clear which outcome was the "good" and which was the "evil". Reality is not so conveniently labelled. In fact, creating the bifurcation necessary to make a moral choice system means that there will essentially always be a good and an evil outcome, so your only means of adding ambiguity is to obfuscate the decision. Unfortunately, because it's a game, this usually leads to frustration when the player is given an ambiguous choice that ends up resulting in clear good and evil outcomes (the choice was essentially an unfair gameplay mechanic - the moral equivalent of an invisible block over a pit in Mario).

It would seem then that the only way to make a choice morally ambiguous in a game is to make the outcomes morally equivalent, in which case the whole point of the moral ambiguity is lost because it becomes a question of taste rather than a question of optimizing your decision (since the outcomes are equally optimal from a moral standpoint). Further, you lose the one benefit of a moral choice system - you can no longer characterise the player's character as good or evil since choices are morally arbitrary.

More OT: Bioshock 1 definitely wins on plotting - I don't really think that's debatable. That said, Bioshock 2 had much improved gameplay. The deciding factor for me though was the player character. In Bioshock 1 I felt like I was right there with him, having crashed into this mysterious place that I knew virtually nothing about. The feeling was very alien. In Bioshock 2, the setting was already more familiar to me, but that wasn't what made it feel less interesting. What made it less interesting was the fact that the character I was playing was a part of the setting. I didn't get that feeling of alienation that made the first game so atmospheric.

 

[Mastercylinder]

I totally agree. I remember playing through a second time, wanting to try the evil decisions, and just not wanting to. Same thing happened to me!

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Tdc2182]

Disclaimer. I understand this is all your opinion.

Now, when I first got my hands on Bioshock, I played it twice. Once through harvesting the Little Sisters as I went, the second time rescuing them. In both cases, I didn?t really care for them one way or another. I was just trying to experience both endings. When Bioshock 2 came out, I decided before I even sat down to play it that on my first play through I would rescue the Little Sisters, and then harvest them on the second. At the time of writing I?m on about my third attempt, and I am yet to harvest a single Little Sister. This is a seriously big deal for me, as I?ve never had an issue separating myself from a game emotionally. In fact, in most games with a moral choice system, I tend towards the evil options on my first file.

First problem here. Why? I thought that Bioshock 1 did an infinitely better job at giving you a reason to give one god damn about the Little sisters.

As I see it, there are several reasons for my change of heart. The first is the character design. The original Little Sisters appeared to be demon children at first glance, while those in Bioshock 2 seemed closer to sick little girls. They are considerably easier to empathise towards.

I honestly don't think there was any change in character design besides the animations for harvesting. I could be wrong, but I never noticed the difference.

EDIT: Oh yeah. I see now.

When it comes to the other moral choices in the game, whether to kill or spare the Grace, Stanley, and Gil, I have to admit that I was impressed. Since my first play through was intended to be the good one, I spared Grace and Stanley as they were the obviously ?good? things to do. However, when it came to Gil I was completely thrown. I honestly could not tell which was the right action to take. Eventually, I let him live, pretty much solely because he promised to go outside and because I liked the mental image of letting a giant, deformed squish-thing loose in the ocean. Still, the fact that the game presented me with a situation where no clear course of action was the right one impressed me. That was something that the first Bioshock most definitely lacked.

I'll give you that one, though the black and white moral choice system is, to put it simply, kind of dumb. It's never really giving you a choice, just double checking which ending you want.

And I think that no matter what, killing Gil would have been a dark choice. Yeah, he was much more of a dick about everything than anyone else, but that never really made any difference on which was the "good" and "bad" choice. Vengeance is never considered morally good by anyone

However, it is the last few levels from when you find Eleanor onwards that truly changed the game for me. Until then, I was beginning to become rather bored with the story. Then, all of a sudden, the game changed. I realised that the actions I?d been taking up until this point hadn?t just been for my own sake. They?d been guiding the development of Eleanor. The moral choices weren?t just me arbitrarily deciding to be good or evil, they were also serving as lessons for my character?s daughter.

I'll also almost give you that one, but the way they executed that was so damn tacky and simple that it contrastively drew me out of the story.

I?ve cared for characters in games before, usually because that had quirky personalities or were funny or badass or because some aspect about them appealed to me. Despite this, when it was called for (say, if I?d made the decision to do an evil play through), I?d always still be able to kill them off, safe in the knowledge that they?re nothing more than a bunch of files on a computer that will still be there in my next run. Eleanor in Bioshock 2 was different, and I?m not sure I can make it clear why.

I'm gonna stop right here and make it clear why I appreciated games like this and Call of Duty (minus Black Ops). The decision to play a faceless mute character is a kind of confusing one, but in doing so it redirects attention to the actual important characters and makes it much easier to tell their stories. This is an area where Cinema very rarely touches upon

 

[Drakmorg]

Personally I might have made a more emotional connection with the Little Sisters in Bioshock 2 if the game didn't force me to play through the worst part of Bioshock 1 every time I wanted to save them.

I don't think of myself as a horrible person, but if you think I want to have to fight off a small army of insane mutants to save a little girl's life while she's committing unspeakable atrocities just so I can get a few more upgrades you have got another thing coming.

Although I do admit that seeing what my actions had caused Eleanor to become did give me some pause for thought.
I cracked open every one of those little girls to get my hands on that delicious power, but after seeing what Eleanor acted like after that, I can't say for certain that I'd do it again.

 

[Azahul]

Well, I did say it was entirely my opinion. Although, Jaime_Wolf, the interesting thing about the moral choices was that Gil Alexander's fate is about as morally grey as you can get. The man has both begged you to kill him, and begged you to spare him.

Regardless, with all the points about Bioshock having the better story and the fantastic twist, it may be purely because, as I mentioned, I already anticipated Atlas turning out to be evil. It's a brilliant twist, and I'll confess I didn't see the mind control thing coming until it was revealed, but I don't hold it in the reverence that some seem to. And while the story of the first game certainly had much better pacing than that of the second, the final act of Bioshock 2 is the best ending sequence of any game that I've ever played. My opinion entirely, of course, and I pretty much said why in the first post.

@bushwhacker2k, while I can understand thinking that the game rips off the original Bioshock, it is a sequel. The gameplay is the same, the setting is the same (a bit more broken, a bit more desperate, perhaps), and a good chunk of the first part of the game will bring back a strong feeling of the original game. I do think you're doing yourself a disservice, however, if you skip the game entirely due to its similarities to a game that you praise.

Anyway, this thread isn't so much intended as a review of Bioshock 2. I just wanted to work out the reasons behind my feeling that the sequel was a better game to the original, which seem to be rather against the norm. The absence of a massive plot twist might be considered a bad thing, but I reckon Bioshock 2 makes up for it in other ways.

EDIT: missed a bunch of posts while typing this. I'll work on some replies to them as well.

 

[samaugsch]

I had a hard time harvesting any little sisters, too. Eventually, I was able to build up my courage (if that's the right word) and harvest the last 8. Also, I spared Gracie (to acquire her security bots and care package), killed Stanley (if you spare him, he doesn't do a damn thing for you and if you kill him, you can at least get some money off of him ), and killed Gil (because I have no respect for splicers and don't even consider them human beings worthy of respect, with the possible exceptions of Steinman and Sander Cohen). There's no reason to do otherwise unless you can't ignore your conscience (I use reasoning to shut mine out ) because saving all the little sisters only gets you a half decent ending and two tonics that are completely useless outside of gathers.

 

[Azahul]

Disclaimer. I understand this is all your opinion.

Now, when I first got my hands on Bioshock, I played it twice. Once through harvesting the Little Sisters as I went, the second time rescuing them. In both cases, I didn?t really care for them one way or another. I was just trying to experience both endings. When Bioshock 2 came out, I decided before I even sat down to play it that on my first play through I would rescue the Little Sisters, and then harvest them on the second. At the time of writing I?m on about my third attempt, and I am yet to harvest a single Little Sister. This is a seriously big deal for me, as I?ve never had an issue separating myself from a game emotionally. In fact, in most games with a moral choice system, I tend towards the evil options on my first file.

First problem here. Why? I thought that Bioshock 1 did an infinitely better job at giving you a reason to give one god damn about the Little sisters.

Hmmmm... the first time I played through Bioshock 2, there wasn't a huge difference. The new character design for the Little Sisters made me lean in favour of rescuing them over harvesting, and so I did that the first time through. On subsequent play throughs, the knowledge that I Eleanor looking over my shoulder and learning from my every action curtailed any attempt to be evil. I'd get to the first Little Sister, having resolved to finally harvest her, only to find myself unable to hit the button. The first game, by contrast, never really managed to get me to care about the Little Sisters all that much. I mean, sure, they were still little girls, but the first game didn't have the whole emotional tie that was actively stopping me from making evil actions in the second. The reasoning behind it ties directly into why I think the sequel was the better game.

When it comes to the other moral choices in the game, whether to kill or spare the Grace, Stanley, and Gil, I have to admit that I was impressed. Since my first play through was intended to be the good one, I spared Grace and Stanley as they were the obviously ?good? things to do. However, when it came to Gil I was completely thrown. I honestly could not tell which was the right action to take. Eventually, I let him live, pretty much solely because he promised to go outside and because I liked the mental image of letting a giant, deformed squish-thing loose in the ocean. Still, the fact that the game presented me with a situation where no clear course of action was the right one impressed me. That was something that the first Bioshock most definitely lacked.

I'll give you that one, though the black and white moral choice system is, to put it simply, kind of dumb. It's never really giving you a choice, just double checking which ending you want.

And I think that no matter what, killing Gil would have been a dark choice. Yeah, he was much more of a dick about everything than anyone else, but that never really made any difference on which was the "good" and "bad" choice. Vengeance is never considered morally good by anyone

I was thinking less about vengeance and more that he'd begged you to kill him while he was still sane. It taps dangerously close to the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia, an issue that I feel pretty strongly about (but I won't go into it here). It's like someone wanting to die before they lose their capacity to think clearly, so they can die still knowing who they are. Admittedly, you're a bit too late in the game, and its possible to think of insane Gil as a whole new person. But that's exactly what makes it such a brilliant moral dilemma, there are many different ways of looking at and it's entirely up to interpretation.

However, it is the last few levels from when you find Eleanor onwards that truly changed the game for me. Until then, I was beginning to become rather bored with the story. Then, all of a sudden, the game changed. I realised that the actions I?d been taking up until this point hadn?t just been for my own sake. They?d been guiding the development of Eleanor. The moral choices weren?t just me arbitrarily deciding to be good or evil, they were also serving as lessons for my character?s daughter.

I'll also almost give you that one, but the way they executed that was so damn tacky and simple that it contrastively drew me out of the story.

May I ask what you found tacky? Having Eleanor basically act according to the way she'd seen her father behave came across as a pretty accurate example of how parents help shape our moral compass, in my mind.

I?ve cared for characters in games before, usually because that had quirky personalities or were funny or badass or because some aspect about them appealed to me. Despite this, when it was called for (say, if I?d made the decision to do an evil play through), I?d always still be able to kill them off, safe in the knowledge that they?re nothing more than a bunch of files on a computer that will still be there in my next run. Eleanor in Bioshock 2 was different, and I?m not sure I can make it clear why.

I'm gonna stop right here and make it clear why I appreciated games like this and Call of Duty (minus Black Ops). The decision to play a faceless mute character is a kind of confusing one, but in doing so it redirects attention to the actual important characters and makes it much easier to tell their stories. This is an area where Cinema very rarely touches upon

It's certainly an interesting design decision. Delta, despite being faceless and mute, became a character that I actually cared about. But yes, without a doubt Eleanor is the most important character in the story.
Although, thinking about it, it was an odd decision to make in the first game. Andrew Ryan is certainly a big character that you wouldn't want to take away from, but following his death there wasn't really a character to take his place. Jack is still mute and faceless, Fontaine isn't a hugely interesting character, Tenenbaum acts as more of an instructor. The latter part of Bioshock does suffer in my view as a result, where Bioshock 2 conversely strengthens towards the end of the story as Eleanor's presence increases.


And it probably helps that I wasn't too annoyed by the "Defend the Little Sister" segments. In fact, I often found them rather fun. Setting up traps to see if I could get through one without firing a shot or being hurt in turn was certainly a good little diversion.