Bioshock 2?

[Jenvas1306]

bioshock 1 is sure the strongest of the three titles, but if you liked it you just get more bioshock with bioshock 2. Its got some improvements and I find it more fun gameplay wise. If you like any bioshock-title, you will like the others too.

 

[auron200004]

While I agree with the sentiment that Bioshock 2 is a good game worthy of discussion, I disagree that Pauper's Drop and the "poor areas" couldn't exist. Fontaine didn't state that there was nobody to clean the toilets, he said that regardless of how the city was built up, those people would still exist. After all, you get to see the interesting dichotomy of the extravagant, huge apartments in Olympus Heights followed by Apollo Square where the cast-offs were left and Fontaine's Home for the Poor was built in the first game.

In Ryan's ideal city, they wouldn't have existed, but Fontaine knew that that was horseshit and couldn't be avoided (many of them were brought to Rapture to be facilitate the maintenance of the city as well as Fontaine's dockworkers/smugglers, and Ryan couldn't just leave them out since they would spread the word of the city's existence).

So it's not an oversight.

As for the ACTUAL topic at hand.

Story (in my opinion): Bioshock Infinite, Bioshock, Bioshock 2 - note that ALL of the games are above average stories at least, breathtaking at most.

Gameplay: Bioshock 2, Bioshock Infinite, Bioshock - and, yet again, none of them had BAD gameplay by any means. Bioshock 2's was just more refined and they took some of that away (largely for the setting and linearity, I get it) in Infinite.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

It's unnecessary and out of place. Honestly I think bioshock kind of plays like ass, especially the first one. Bioshock 2 isn't much better and the narrative is well... I don't know that I would say bad but rather that it's forced. Bioshock 1 pretty thoroughly builds the world of rapture and tells a compelling narrative in that setting that works perfectly fine without anything else. Bioshock 2 is a pretty solid attempt at nailing an akward appendage onto something that doesn't need one but it just feels like it has no reason to exist.

 

[Piorn]

The gameplay is a bit better than 1 in my opinion. It's more of the same, with some cool enhancements and refinements.
Unfortunately, the plot can't stand on it's own. It feels like an add-on for part 1, there's shoehorning and expanding everywhere, and is clearly aimed at people who played 1.
It has some cool moments, but I couldn't recommend it as a standalone.
If you ever got the chance to get both 1 and 2, though, go for it.

 

[teh_Canape]

1)Gameplay is still good ol' Bioshock, 2)if not somewhat confusing due to the fact that you're supposed to be a Big Daddy but you're about as fragile as Jack or Booker.

1) I'd say gameplay is less bioshock and more clive barker's undying, but that's from the gunplay standpoint
2) well, the reason why you're so fragile is kinda lampshaded when the audiologs mention that splicers were getting way better at killing big daddies, when you remember the current big daddies are "final versions of you", that the rumbler is supposed to be even better than the current ones, and the big sisters are just better than big daddies by default
but you could just headcanon that alpha has to wear an armor made of cardboard because the little sisters made him one and they'll cry if he doesn't wear it =P

OT: yes, Bioshock 2 is a great game
I think the game itself is pretty self conscious and that the devs knew they wouldn't improve the story over the first one, so they didn't try to do it and focused on the gameplay and a story of its own
which I think goes pretty well and overall fits within itself, especially due to the final part not being a boss fight but instead an objective based survival round, what with Alpha not having any actual enemies or anything

 

[hazabaza1]

1)Gameplay is still good ol' Bioshock, 2)if not somewhat confusing due to the fact that you're supposed to be a Big Daddy but you're about as fragile as Jack or Booker.

1) I'd say gameplay is less bioshock and more clive barker's undying, but that's from the gunplay standpoint
2) well, the reason why you're so fragile is kinda lampshaded when the audiologs mention that splicers were getting way better at killing big daddies, when you remember the current big daddies are "final versions of you", that the rumbler is supposed to be even better than the current ones, and the big sisters are just better than big daddies by default
but you could just headcanon that alpha has to wear an armor made of cardboard because the little sisters made him one and they'll cry if he doesn't wear it =P

OT: yes, Bioshock 2 is a great game
I think the game itself is pretty self conscious and that the devs knew they wouldn't improve the story over the first one, so they didn't try to do it and focused on the gameplay and a story of its own
which I think goes pretty well and overall fits within itself, especially due to the final part not being a boss fight but instead an objective based survival round, what with Alpha not having any actual enemies or anything

First off he's Subject Delta

But yeah it's been so long since I played I forgot any explanations for anything.

 

[teh_Canape]

First off he's Subject Delta

yeah, I got his name and his series all mixed up

OT: that reminds me (for some reason)
if you get Bioshock 2, make sure to get Minerva's Den
from what I heard, it's the Lair of the Shadow Broker of Bioshock 2
haven't played it though, Microsoft just doesn't want me to get it, what with all the damn loopholes I need to jump to buy the fucking thing on PC
fuck you GFWL

 

[ABLb0y]

All three games are excellent, so yes, I'd recommend it. In fact, I think 2's better than the original because it doesn't go to shit at the end.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Well the combat was better in Bioshock 2 compared to Bioshock apart from that the game felt really short, the story was underwhelming and the sense of deva je vu of revisiting Rapture weighs the game down in my book.